Marie89, Habermas

After reading Habermas, I was perplexed as to how to how many definitions of modernism there were. For example, is may be known as “the infinite progress of knowledge and in the infinite advance towards social and moral betterment” (99). Or it may be known to “make an abstract opposition between tradition and the present” (99). It is maybe even “characterized by attitudes which find a common focus in a changed consciousness of time” (99). Another excerpt from Habermas claims that “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative” (Habermas 100). The many definitions did, however, get me thinking about how I define the term modern and the idea of modernism. In reality, doesn’t reality rely on past experience? Although modernity generally known to connote newness and uniqueness, I would think that it builds upon previous knowledge and tradition. It is not a new entity at all, but rather a new way of interpreting what has already been founded. And how, then, does one define postmodernity? If modern is new, then what is postmodern? Postmodernity and modernity both utilize previously founded knowledge in order to base new ideas upon. In no way are they completely new ideas, but rather ideas that have built upon and modified over the years. If this is the case then, isn’t everything both modern and postmodern? I find it interesting that both of these terms seem so basic to the English language yet they connote different things to different time periods as well as people of the same time period. They are obviously more complex than many may think as they are the basis of many theoretical works. These ideas are obviously not set in stone either, as there are many interpretations of these words and phrases that would suggest they are ambiguous ideas in our culture.