Why do people still say "modern day" instead of saying "post-modern day" or "contemporary day"?
Modern being used to describe the present day makes sense. It's terms like "post-modern" that don't (at least without an external reference to what period or movement they are actually refering to).
I would say everything after 1900 classifies as modern.
>>451133
Most history textbooks use colonialism or the industrial revolution as the starting point, others use the Enlightenment
because it's 2015
>>451188
2015 isn't modern, it's either postmodern or contemporary
>>451114
(1/2)
There is a difference between "modern" and "Modern". The latter refers to a movement with varying
periodization depending on whose account you are reading. The former is:
>modern (n.)
1580s, "person of the present time" (contrasted to ancient, from modern (adj.). From 1897 as "one who is up to date."
>modern (adj.)
c. 1500, "now existing;" 1580s, "of or pertaining to present or recent times;" from Middle French moderne (15c.) and
directly from Late Latin modernus "modern" (Priscian, Cassiodorus), from Latin modo "just now, in a (certain) manner,"
from modo (adv.) "to the measure," ablative of modus "manner, measure" (see mode (n.1)). Extended form modern-day
attested from 1909.
>In Shakespeare, often with a sense of "every-day, ordinary, commonplace." Slang abbreviation mod first attested 1960.
Modern art is from 1807 (by contrast to ancient); modern dance first attested 1912; first record of modern jazz is from 1954.
Modern conveniences first recorded 1926.
Along the same lines, Modernity is the period (again without consensus on its beginning and end) of the hegemony of the
above mentioned cultural paradigm (it is not just about art. art follows as well as leads trends contemporary to said art's
practice), namely, the one termed as "the fever for the new" (it is a generalization, I know).
Post-modernity is the period that the paradigm started to shift towards a critique of Modernity in its whole, but without
necessarily having to produce "solutions". A stance, that is, that didn't take Modernity's naturalized assumptions for
granted.
Anyway, as you can probably see, modern is what exists now and from a point of view from the present. In the future,
and in historiographic terminology, what we now call modern will belong due to periodization to whatever period the
historians are going to give to the current predicaments.
>>451114
>>452424
(2/2)
For example, Fredric Jameson, sums up the names given to the current period in the triptych
"Late Capitalism and/or globalization and/or Post-modernity".
This indecisiveness in naming the current period, probably signifies a turning point in History and
the Humanities, in the sense that a great number of current events/habits/zeitgeist have an internal
logic that differentiates them ever so slightly (or not so slightly) from what was going on some years
ago (say 2001-2003), that it makes sense to classify as something else entirely. Thus a different period,
in historiographic terms, and a different paradigm in general.
>>451133
>1900
>modern
>>452475
Well that's not wrong
>>452475
But it is, faglord
>>452466
I agree with everything you say except your example stating today's differences with 2001-2003. The separation between Modern and Post-Modern probably occurs in the mid-twentieth century as the Atlantic World is hyper-globalized and Atlantic power structures are institutionalized with NATO, UN, GATT, IMF, etc. The 1960s world wide culture revolution is another indicator of an epochal shift.
>>453813
We don't disagree even in that anon. What I meant there, and maybe
it is not clear, is that 2001-2003 may be a separation not between Modernity
and Post-modernity, but of Post-modernity with something else that has
not been named yet.
Yes, post-modernity does have its beginning somewhere in the second half of the 20th.
For some, it's the decade after WW2 and the ideological divide of the CW. For
others it's the 60' and the cultural revolution and all the anti-colonialism
movements/revolutions around the world, as you say. Or for others yet, the oil crisis of
the early 70'.
The thing is, they all qualify in one way or another. We don't need a definite date, cause
the separation as you say was gradual; fueled by multiple and not a singular event.
Similarly, I can talk about a separation occurring in 2001-2003, but the elements of such
a process would have their roots one or two decades earlier, probably even more (in a
Benjaminian sense it could be one or two hundred years back) and they might not get ripe
for one or two decades in the future (again, even much more than that).
Ripe for what you may ask. Ripe for a new separation.
p.s. according to all that, F.Fukuyama is either a moron or terrifyingly naive.
>>452475
Uh... is that shooped or something? what the fuck is up with her eye
its Hillary-ous tho
>>452475
Technically, the Modern era can be dated all the way back to the Renaissance.
>>454968
Yeah but is it still going on? Or have we moved to the contemporary or to postmodernity?
