Comments on: Christendom, Modernity, Postmodernity, and What Comes Next, Part 1 http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/04/05/christendom-modernity-postmodernity-and-what-comes-next-part-1/ Historical and missiological reflections on modernity, postmodernity, and what comes next Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:19:58 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: David Wm. Scott http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/04/05/christendom-modernity-postmodernity-and-what-comes-next-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-25 David Wm. Scott Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:43:02 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/?p=72#comment-25 Maybe you're right that according to a Kuhnian approach, what's happening now won't matter in the next iteration. But it still matters now. I'm still thinking about your second point. My first reactions are these: I think your portrayal might depict the process in more deliberative terms than I might ("Communally, we've decided", and "the community wills it"). Second, even if it is self-fulfilling, that doesn't mean that communal knowledge isn't the future or we don't have to think about how to respond to such a world. Maybe you’re right that according to a Kuhnian approach, what’s happening now won’t matter in the next iteration. But it still matters now.

I’m still thinking about your second point. My first reactions are these: I think your portrayal might depict the process in more deliberative terms than I might (“Communally, we’ve decided”, and “the community wills it”). Second, even if it is self-fulfilling, that doesn’t mean that communal knowledge isn’t the future or we don’t have to think about how to respond to such a world.

]]> By: Tom http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/04/05/christendom-modernity-postmodernity-and-what-comes-next-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Tom Fri, 08 Apr 2011 03:53:35 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/?p=72#comment-24 True, but if you take a Kuhnian approach, isn't whatever is happening now not going to matter much in the next iteration of how and what we think? Also, I want to just note the circularity of part of your argument - perhaps a strength which gives it cohesion, but a circularity none the less. Communally, we've decided that communal knowledge, either by a communal pool of individuals meting out truth to the masses (wikipedia) or a communal belief that if we really want something to be true it will be (the birthers), is the future. If the community wills it, and we agree that communities are the future, isn't this to some degree self-fulfilling? True, but if you take a Kuhnian approach, isn’t whatever is happening now not going to matter much in the next iteration of how and what we think?

Also, I want to just note the circularity of part of your argument – perhaps a strength which gives it cohesion, but a circularity none the less. Communally, we’ve decided that communal knowledge, either by a communal pool of individuals meting out truth to the masses (wikipedia) or a communal belief that if we really want something to be true it will be (the birthers), is the future. If the community wills it, and we agree that communities are the future, isn’t this to some degree self-fulfilling?

]]> By: David Wm. Scott http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/04/05/christendom-modernity-postmodernity-and-what-comes-next-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-23 David Wm. Scott Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:32:00 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/?p=72#comment-23 That's an interesting suggesting. I certainly think that to an extent you're right that subsequent historical eras solve the flaws of previous ones. Certainly, historical eras form in reaction to previous ones, and part of that reaction is a reaction against what are perceived as the flaws of the previous eras. But I think it's overly optimistic to say that this must happen, especially with our active participation in it. We are the future, so if the future is to address the flaws of our society, that will be because we can (using our historical and cultural senses) recognize these flaws and work to address them. And on a deeper, more philosophical sense, if you take a Kuhnian approach to history, then subsequent eras don't necessarily solve the problems of previous eras. Instead, they just discover new problems that replace the old ones. In this sense, what subsequent eras consider the flaws of previous eras that need to be reacted against may not be what were considered the biggest problems by those eras themselves. Furthermore, these problems may never actually be answered, but rather abandoned in favor of what become more pressing questions for a new way of looking at things. That’s an interesting suggesting. I certainly think that to an extent you’re right that subsequent historical eras solve the flaws of previous ones. Certainly, historical eras form in reaction to previous ones, and part of that reaction is a reaction against what are perceived as the flaws of the previous eras.
But I think it’s overly optimistic to say that this must happen, especially with our active participation in it. We are the future, so if the future is to address the flaws of our society, that will be because we can (using our historical and cultural senses) recognize these flaws and work to address them.
And on a deeper, more philosophical sense, if you take a Kuhnian approach to history, then subsequent eras don’t necessarily solve the problems of previous eras. Instead, they just discover new problems that replace the old ones. In this sense, what subsequent eras consider the flaws of previous eras that need to be reacted against may not be what were considered the biggest problems by those eras themselves. Furthermore, these problems may never actually be answered, but rather abandoned in favor of what become more pressing questions for a new way of looking at things.

]]> By: Tom http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/04/05/christendom-modernity-postmodernity-and-what-comes-next-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Tom Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:50:46 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/?p=72#comment-22 I'm just curious if you can trace the flaws of the conceptual frameworks of Christendom and Modernity and see how they were addressed by Modernity and Post-Modernity respectively? Instead of plotting out trends within our own society and projecting them forward, shouldn't we see what our society lacks and assume that the future will address them. I’m just curious if you can trace the flaws of the conceptual frameworks of Christendom and Modernity and see how they were addressed by Modernity and Post-Modernity respectively? Instead of plotting out trends within our own society and projecting them forward, shouldn’t we see what our society lacks and assume that the future will address them.

]]>