Pre-Modernism, Modernism, Post-Modernism

In the west, there was a succession.

The mysticism, superstition and original sin of Pre-Modernism gave way to the rationality, individuality and justice of Modernism, which is now struggling with the beast of its own creation — the nihilism and irrationality of Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism simultaneously denies truth and knowledge yet makes positive statements about the world, usually rehashing economic Marxism as cultural Marxism.

In Ukraine, they all exist simultaneously.

There is still very much mysticism and superstition. Ukraine only caught glimpses of the Enlightenment. Of course, the spread of commerce has brought with it an appreciation of rationality and even justice. Now, in an effort to be more western, intellectuals idiotically imitate the self-destructive opinions and policies of post-modernists.

Here, it’s all scrunched together, five hundred years of philosophical ideas all rubbing elbows.

1 Comment

  1. Ed K

    Special posting for Elmer!!!
    ——————————– // —————-

    Ukraine – center of corruption
    Just look at number for countries
    touching Ukraine:

    Corruption Index
    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results

    1 Denmark

    1 Finland

    1 New Zealand

    19 United States

    41 Poland

    62 Slovakia

    94 Moldova

    123 Belarus

    133 Russia

    144 Ukraine

    —————–// —————

    Addendum of right and wrong:

    Moral Clarity by Bryan Chenshaw

    We want to protect the environment but meet
    needs of industry. There is conflict in needs for
    public services and exercising responsibility in
    taxation.

    When we move to the personal level we find the
    same type of conflict. Every day we are called
    upon to make choices about the moral issues of
    life, about right and wrong. How do we make
    such choices?

    Of course we have the classic guidelines — the
    Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount,
    the Golden Rule. But even with these we sometimes
    find ourselves confused as we deal with gray areas,
    and have difficulty in decision making.

    Let me suggest a series of questions which might
    be helpful as we seek to make decisions about
    right and wrong.

    Ask first, “Does it have to be concealed?” Evil loves
    darkness, goodness loves light. When something is
    wrong it likes to slip around in dark corners. When
    something is good it can stand the scrutiny of broad
    daylight.

    A second question: “Where does it lead?” The
    person who chooses a path also chooses where
    that path comes out. Therefore, one needs to think
    not only about a specific act but the direction in
    which that act leads. If the direction is wrong the
    destination can never be right.

    Young people should be especially sensitive in this
    area. So many wrongs are lightly accepted by
    society, and it is easy to drift into situations which
    bring disaster.

    A third question: “How does this affect other people?”
    We like to think we live alone and what we do is our
    business and no one else’s. This is simply not true.
    Almost everything we do has an effect on many other
    people.

    Each of us can recall many instances where one
    person’s wrongdoing has brought disastrous
    consequences upon others — effect which could
    have been easily foreseen if the person had
    stopped to think.

    The next question: “Would it be all right, and would
    the world be just as happy and well off if everyone
    did this; or am I trying to give myself special privilege?”

    We remember Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative
    which asked, “What would be the result if everyone
    did as I do?” And Paul’s admonition, “love does not
    purse selfish advantage.”

    To be aware of these questions is not enough. For
    them to be effective there needs to be three additional
    things.

    First, a moral sensitivity which remembers to ask the
    right questions at the right time.°

    Second, a moral decisiveness, to know what is good is
    not enough. There is a difference between waking up
    and getting up. There must be specific decision for the
    right.

    Finally, there needs to be a moral stamina. To be
    sensitive and aware is good. To make proper decisions
    is better. To be aware of economic truths is not enough.

    There has to be a willingness to state the truth in the face
    of disbelief and derision. There must be specific decision
    for the right. To be sensitive and aware is good. To make
    proper decisions is better. The way of victory is to maintain
    a moral stamina which continues.

    Reply

Leave a Reply