The blog has been neglected for quite a long time. I’ve been at home over winter break without much in the way of momentum, and before I knew it I was about to welcome the New Year in a state of neglect—that won’t do at all. No matter what, I should at least make an effort to update it a bit. Let me first write down some scattered bits and pieces I’d accumulated earlier but never got around to writing.
Winter Break Essay No. 1: What Is Modernity?
Back when the science-and-metaphysics discussion group was meeting, there was a classmate who rather arrogantly criticized everyone for talking at length about modernity without first making its definition clear. According to him, to get a clear definition of modernity you had to read Weber, and then modernity was rationalization and so on. Of course, there are benefits to reading a bit of Weber, but I certainly don’t believe one has to read him to that extent, and still less do I believe that the power to define the concept of modernity lies in Weber’s hands or in those of that classmate.
I have always opposed the deliberate technicalization of everyday concepts—still less the idea that one cannot speak unless one invokes the definitions of great figures. Of course, many concepts are specialized; when you mention such a concept, it must be linked to a certain philosopher. For example, if you say “monad,” it is assumed by default that you mean Leibniz’s term, because that word does not exist in ordinary language; since you are using it, you are naturally using it in a specialized sense. But when we discuss our own views, we should try as far as possible to avoid using unfamiliar terms that derive their authority from others, and instead use words that can evoke meaning within our own lifeworld. That has always been my position. In any case, “modern” and even “modernity” are words used widely in everyday life and academic discussion; no one can claim authority as the definitive interpreter of this term.
Opposing an authoritarian attitude toward terminology does not mean opposing the deep clarification of concepts. After all, the basic work of philosophy is to clarify concepts. I am only saying that clarifying concepts absolutely does not consist in simply introducing authoritative definitions; rather, one must acknowledge the historicity of concepts. In addition to objectively analyzing semantics, one must also examine etymology and usage.
Here I am merely repeating my long-held understanding of modernity: modernity involves many, many meanings—rationalization, secularization, industrialization, urbanization… But within the semantic network of each word there are always several pivotal or core meanings. In my view, the basic meaning of modernity is a temporal sense of rupture between past and present. This temporal sense cuts off the past from the future; the past truly becomes the past, something that has already left us, and the various manifestations of modernity are all related to this rupture. For example, because things of the past have already passed, the standards of thought, ethical norms, purposes of action, and so on can no longer be obtained from “the past.” Thus the “modern” is bound to be anti-authority, anti-tradition, anti-classic, because all of these are merely “the past.” Since there is no strength from the past to serve as a foundation, one can only rely on one’s own strength; thus reason itself becomes the provider of standards, and things in reality (utility and efficiency) become the measure of standards, because nowhere else can they be found. The separation of future from past produces the suspended, weightless condition of modern people: the past is already gone, the future has not yet arrived, and the present becomes a point of emptiness. Before modernity, by contrast, when “the modern” had not yet been perceived so abruptly, the future was not severed from the past. This distinctive time-sense of “a line and a point” is the core meaning of modernity.
Latest Comments
- unic
2010-02-21 01:52:53 Anonymous 210.77.59.5
A small portion of my network is working again. Popping up to pay my belated New Year’s respects. I’m glad to see that you’re writing, and that it’s not just papers and流水账 and the like. I copied it down to read slowly later.
Now that this semester is over, the issue of the modernity perspective has gradually begun to appear more and more before my eyes.
More and more, I feel that modern and contemporary China is being dominated by instrumentalism and by moods of nationalism and militarism. Under many so-called ideologies, these currents of thought are actually what is in command. And these thoughts are themselves products of certain important forms of modernity.
I have an urgent interest in this.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply