Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 19th and 20th centuries were the centuries of ideology and -isms. What does that mean exactly? It means an allegiance to abstract principles, an allegiance that can be switched based upon a change in opinion.
This was the fruit of the Enlightenment, and constituted the Modern age. Naturally, enlightened discourse requires the ability to change opinion, and allegiance. Put into action the Enlightenment spawned a menagerie of ideologies.
Ideology was good because you could change ideologies simply by changing your mind. However ideology was bad because they frequently arrived at unworkable solutions.
Now we are in the post-Modern age, a shift brought about by the failure of most ideologies. We have retained the freedom of choice of the Modern age, and have not reverted to the pre-Modern idea of fixed allegiance by birth. However, the menu of options has narrowed as the failures have racked up.
I like to think we are reverting to the pre-Modern notion of natural law, or what Popper would call verisimilitude. We are on the verge of an avalanche of data that will negate and block a lot of ideological paths. We are already seeing the death throes of ideology through the collapse and blurring of the left-right distinction.
This will be a painful transition for many. I can see a big threat to the left: genetic data proving exactly how all people are not created equal. And I can see a big threat to the right: psychological and neuroscientific data proving that liberty and free will are far more circumscribed than they want to admit, maybe even illusory.
What do you think this change will entail? Broadly I believe politics will become more sensible and humane yet less inspiring.
It might take a long time, but I think you're right that the data will prevail and overwhelm most unsupported beliefs and the ideologies they spawn. Is the term "post-modernism" really used in this sense though? Can you cite examples?
It might take a long time, but I think you're right that the data will prevail and overwhelm most unsupported beliefs and the ideologies they spawn. Is the term "post-modernism" really used in this sense though? Can you cite examples?
I am using the term "post-Modernism" to mean "what comes after Modernism", not to mean post-truthism, although there are some overlaps such as the loss of belief in political idealism.
Post-Modernism as post-truthism was an attempt by the left to salvage some of their ideals, namely equality, in the face of mounting failures. It came to a head in the American academy in the early 90s, when post-truthists challenged the validity of the scientific method. This was rebuffed and post-truthism has been on the wane since.
Deng Xiaoping's quote about fording the river by feeling the stones is a better encapsulation of post-Modernism in my view.
Can we really hope that people like this will abandon their beliefs because the data says they should?
The data will not convince them. There will likely be wars, economic and military, to sort this out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
