Re: Re: Re: Is it naive...
AEON said:
Is it possible that something "new" can emerge that doesn't fit into modernistic or post-modernistic schools of thinking?
No. Not with how historicist our society is.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, everything, so far, is progressing exactly according to how postmodernist theorists predicted upon the death of postmodernism: a short-term resumption of modernism, followed by a return to 19th century romanticism and realism. I see absolutely nothing, so far, to contradict this prediction.
Modernism, could, theoretically, last longer than predicted, assuming that we still had imagination. However, there's a question of "diminishing returns" in terms of technological progression. I find the rather sluggish pace of progress, along with rather disappointing performance lately, to be quite telling of this. We may just be hitting a point where our imaginations are moving faster than science can keep up.
In terms of romanticism and realism, I have started to see it on the horizon. American conservatives have done a great job of applying revisionist definitions to otherwise concrete concepts of equality, freedom, and ideology. When you can "successfully" argue that Hitler was really a leftist, we're in trouble. This isn't limited solely to American conservatives, though. Former Iranian President Khatami essentially argued that reason shouldn't offend religious beliefs, which is contrary to the spirit of reason in itself; and now we have Pope Benedict XVI digging up psychobabble from the 15th century.
To repeal postmodernism and modernism is to react against all the progress of the last 150 years, and I feel that there are many elements of today's society that have romanticized the past so much that they are willing to try and recreate that fictional past that's in their head. American conservatives want to go back to a cross between "Leave It to Beaver" and "Little House on the Prairie" in the days before minority rights, while Al-Qaeda wants to recreate the Caliphate that existed over 1000 years ago. These may be very different aims for very different people, but the philosophical basis is quite the same.
Also, we are not likely to ever be able to do away with fanaticism and conflict - there will always be humans willing to volunteer for the job. It has been around since the dawn of civilization.
No, we will never get rid of it completely, but we can marginalize it. We can't marginalize fanaticism through unilateral intimidation and grandiose language taken out of the Middle Ages.
This is where I mentioned the importance of decisiveness tempered with inherent uncertainty. No, we are never ever going to get groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah to go down without a fight, but with enough diplomatic discipline, hard work, and time, we could do the work to develop enough global support to end popular support and marginalize the extremists, while still enacting military action where necessary. Unfortunately, for all the hard talk and military action, Bush has done absolutely nothing to develop a global consensus beyond Western nations, and his rather intense unpopularity around the world is likely to ensure that it will not change while he is still our president.
But that's for another discussion.
Melon