Difference between revisions of "Modernism"
(Stub) |
(→Overview) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | + | Modernism under that name began as an artistic movement, a rebellion against tradition. As such, it is not recognized as a philosophical tradition.<ref>https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_modernism.html</ref> This official terminology is, however, somewhat misleading because when modernism is considered as a worldview, the artistic movement has corresponding philosophical movements which are simply known by other names. Indeed, that modernism pretends not to be a movement while in reality holding a very rigid doctrine, is so characteristic that Pope Pius X of the [[Roman Catholicism|Roman Catholics]] called it out in his condemnation of modernism: | |
| + | |||
| + | :It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.<br/>—Pius X, <em>Pascendi Dominici Gregis</em>.<ref>1907. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3146</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rapid changes in society, technology, and science particularly in the early 20th Century created a conception of the new being better than the old.<ref>https://www.mdc.edu/wolfson/academic/artsletters/art_philosophy/humanities/history_of_modernism.htm</ref> The nihilism of philosophers such as Nietzsche was only one form of it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Reader [[Vladimir Moss]] summarizes what he calls the modern secular-scientific world-view with these eight points:<ref>Vladimir Moss, [https://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/888/why-modern-world-view-must-be-wrong/ Why the modern world-view must be wrong]</ref> | ||
#The universe came into being spontaneously from nothing. | #The universe came into being spontaneously from nothing. | ||
#The development of the universe by chance, after coming into existence. | #The development of the universe by chance, after coming into existence. | ||
| − | #Abiogenesis—the becoming alive of non-living matter—by chance.<ref>In arguing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics counters the claims made on this point, | + | #Abiogenesis—the becoming alive of non-living matter—by chance.<ref>In arguing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics counters the claims made on this point, Rdr. Moss inaccurately states that the law causes information to be lost. As it was stated by Susskind & Hrabovsky, “what is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all physical laws [is] <em>the conservation of information</em>.” (Emphasis in original.) The counterpoint is reasonable despite incorrect use of technical language. Leonard Susskind & George Hbrabovsky, ''The Theoretical Minimum'', 2013. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-07568-3. p. 9.</ref> |
#Evolution of complex life from simple life by the combined action of chance mutation and natural selection. | #Evolution of complex life from simple life by the combined action of chance mutation and natural selection. | ||
#Evolution of man from apes by the same process. | #Evolution of man from apes by the same process. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 20: | ||
The first of these relates specifically to the Big Bang Hypothesis. The second unequivocally asserts accidentalism, a position also implied in the other points. Points three through five are [[Darwinist]], and lead by implication to fatalism, moral indifferentism, and will to power, as the seventh point also does. Points six and eight assert a weak form of materialism/physicalism. The eighth point summarizes the incoherent philosophy of [[scientism]]. | The first of these relates specifically to the Big Bang Hypothesis. The second unequivocally asserts accidentalism, a position also implied in the other points. Points three through five are [[Darwinist]], and lead by implication to fatalism, moral indifferentism, and will to power, as the seventh point also does. Points six and eight assert a weak form of materialism/physicalism. The eighth point summarizes the incoherent philosophy of [[scientism]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In hindsight, we may assert that this secular-scientific worldview was the undercurrent in 19th and early 20th Century philosophy. We may also say that it was partly a consequence of, or at least part of the same tradition, as the revolutions going back to the 18th Century. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:27, 10 November 2024
Modernism is a chiliastic heresy, in fact an entire world-view, predicated on the idea of progress. Being an all-encompassing world-view, modernism not only deals with matters of doctrine but also extends to philosophy, social mores, the arts, and how the scientific method is applied and interpreted.
- This article or section is a stub. If you wish to help True Orthodox Wiki you may expand it. Request an account if you do not already have one.
Overview
Modernism under that name began as an artistic movement, a rebellion against tradition. As such, it is not recognized as a philosophical tradition.[1] This official terminology is, however, somewhat misleading because when modernism is considered as a worldview, the artistic movement has corresponding philosophical movements which are simply known by other names. Indeed, that modernism pretends not to be a movement while in reality holding a very rigid doctrine, is so characteristic that Pope Pius X of the Roman Catholics called it out in his condemnation of modernism:
- It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.
—Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.[2]
Rapid changes in society, technology, and science particularly in the early 20th Century created a conception of the new being better than the old.[3] The nihilism of philosophers such as Nietzsche was only one form of it.
Reader Vladimir Moss summarizes what he calls the modern secular-scientific world-view with these eight points:[4]
- The universe came into being spontaneously from nothing.
- The development of the universe by chance, after coming into existence.
- Abiogenesis—the becoming alive of non-living matter—by chance.[5]
- Evolution of complex life from simple life by the combined action of chance mutation and natural selection.
- Evolution of man from apes by the same process.
- The nonexistence of free will, nor of an immortal soul of man.
- That all the achievements of man are a consequence only of these matters of chance.
- That miracles beyond the scope of scientific investigation and explanation, do not exist.
The first of these relates specifically to the Big Bang Hypothesis. The second unequivocally asserts accidentalism, a position also implied in the other points. Points three through five are Darwinist, and lead by implication to fatalism, moral indifferentism, and will to power, as the seventh point also does. Points six and eight assert a weak form of materialism/physicalism. The eighth point summarizes the incoherent philosophy of scientism.
In hindsight, we may assert that this secular-scientific worldview was the undercurrent in 19th and early 20th Century philosophy. We may also say that it was partly a consequence of, or at least part of the same tradition, as the revolutions going back to the 18th Century.
References
- ↑ https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_modernism.html
- ↑ 1907. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3146
- ↑ https://www.mdc.edu/wolfson/academic/artsletters/art_philosophy/humanities/history_of_modernism.htm
- ↑ Vladimir Moss, Why the modern world-view must be wrong
- ↑ In arguing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics counters the claims made on this point, Rdr. Moss inaccurately states that the law causes information to be lost. As it was stated by Susskind & Hrabovsky, “what is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all physical laws [is] the conservation of information.” (Emphasis in original.) The counterpoint is reasonable despite incorrect use of technical language. Leonard Susskind & George Hbrabovsky, The Theoretical Minimum, 2013. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-07568-3. p. 9.
