Postmodernity, a return to the beginning and the current
09
Aug
The author (Anthony Giddens) we are reading, does exactly in the chapter of “trust” na
approach to nihilism by criticizing Nietszche and Heidegger, with which we disagree, but it does not fail to emphasize the importance of both,
The first to have broken with the Enlightenment, and the second (although he does not say directly) that the “new perspective” (which of the Enlightenment ??) surpassed the “tradition of dogma” the author says that “postmodernism has been associated not only with the end of acceptance of foundations as the ‘end of history'” (p. 60) which is true, but a brief distinction must be made between post-Modernity and postmodernism, the first is the phenomenon that since Nietszche is pointing, but developed with Husserl, Heidegger and Gadamer, the second is the idea that the phenomenon itself is already a new stage of humanity.
It calls for the exercise of trying to approximate the issue of consciousness history (name I consider more correct for historicity, see Truth and Method of Gadamer) of “futurology” and will call “undoing” this idea that after mapping the past can be
Presupposes “a future orientation of this kind” (p.61), then it resumes the “elucidation of modern thought”, but it does not fail to make conventional discourse; “This process as a process of globalization, a term that must have a key position in the lexicon of the social sciences” (p.62), which is still a discourse that “disengages” with tradition, to use
The author’s own argument, one must revise the Enlightenment without appealing to it.
The discourse and here we find contradictions in its model of trust, the “reflective appropriation of knowledge” that tries to deny the progress of the Enlightenment period by saying: “displaced social life from the fixity of tradition,” which he calls “symbolic fixes and systems Dangers “that in fact involve trust is placed in a systemic model because it sees it as distinct from the model of” belief based on weak inductive knowledge “, it is also a belief, the problem is precisely putting it in dialogue with tradition to emerge the new.
It sees knowledge with a “differential power” with some individuals or groups more apt to acquire them, but the process of globalization of knowledge is not the inverse?
Do we agree with the power of values and the impact of unintended consequences, according to their concept that “to social life transcends the intentions of those who apply it for transformative purposes,” is not this the question of historical consciousness?
Its double hermeneutics, which sees it as “the circulation of social knowledge” that must be applied “reflexively” would alter the original circumstances, is pure romanticism.
It will allude to its key category, which is globalization, with some different approaches from other authors, but within the closed view of those who follow the system model, it does not coincidentally begin with considerations about McLuhann.
Without considering the paradox of the neo-positivist Kurt Gödel, who asserted that the system already has its internal contradictions and can only be proved as true by an external assertion, in the case of postmodernity that is already external, we must dialogue with the tradition for That its key concepts: liberalism, capitalism, state, logic, legality, among many others, are made not only in a double hermeneutic but in an open hermeneutics where the preconceptions of any “closed” hermeneutics can be overcome.
