Globalism and interconnectedness are the basis of modernity. Multiculturalism is it’s source. The individual’s role is to share their experiences, and, more importantly, to listen to those of others. Individuals who strive to achieve broader world views, and to share their learnings with their communities are the basis of modernity. They share what they can of the world, spreading modernity through the ability to empathise with and acknowledge others’ ideas. True modernity, in my opinion, is the recognition that there is no singular truth, if I might borrow a bit from Jay, but a multitude of truths that are all equally valid and important to understanding the world around us. I feel neither history nor religion are sources of modernity, but the present beliefs and cultures of the communities of the world. While it is important to acknowledge the history and religion that shaped these cultures, the ultimate goal is to be able to respect others’ views without necessarily understanding them. The modern individual is capable of drawing on the experiences of many to decide for themselves how an action or entity or concept should be labeled. The authority of the individual to draw their own path is part of the process of learning. Each person must make a conscious effort to exist as a modern individual, in this increasingly modern world.
The Teachings of Modernity | Iran, Islam, and the Last Great Revolution Fall 2018
While I agree that modernity can be seen through the lens of multiculturalism, and that globalization plays a significant role in many definitions of “modernity,” I find it very difficult to dissociate modernity as starkly from history and religion as you do. Regardless of culture, we are nothing but a product of our past experiences, both individually and collectively. The world map itself, a reference point upon which cultures have been developed and differentiated, was drawn by the events of history? After all, what would Italian culture be without the Risorgimento? Without the Ottoman collapse and the ensuing British mandate, “Iraqi culture” as we know it would not even exist. Furthermore, it is the belief systems of our predecessors that forms the foundation upon which our belief systems of today are built. Thus I see history and religion as the most fundamental sources of modernity, a viewpoint which I believe fits well with your statements about globalism and inter-connectedness.
Honestly, that’s probably just my extremely opinionated personality shining through. In hindsight, it probably wasn’t great writing on my part to end my post that way, but I was struggling. I’m not really great with conclusions. I feel, I was more just trying to assert, that in my opinion, people should try to be more understanding of other’s perspectives in a world where they are being exposed more regularly to a broader array of people. The mentality of “I’m right and everyone else is just stupid” just shouldn’t cut it. I’m more of fan of “I still think I’m right but I can see how you arrived at the belief you hold and I can respect it so long as it isn’t inherently violent or discriminatory.”
I hereby grant you my Blessing to “borrow a bit from” me.
I think that you hold a very valid definition of modernity and that you are right in saying that modernity does not come from religion or history, because both of these, from many perspectives, have at least the tendency to point towards a particular Truth (either transcendentally or humanistically). I do have a question that could be interpreted as criticism: Why did your argument become normative at the end? Why did you end with the argument that “Each person must make a conscious effort to exist as a modern individual, in this increasingly modern world?” If “each person” ought to try to be modern, then is that not appealing to some higher purpose for all humanity, which in itself defies your own definition of modernism? Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it struck me as odd. Please correct me if I am wrong. God bless you and your spirit as you go, Liv Behrens.