@ Willhelm...

I may have a slightly different reading of this argument than you seem to have...

In talking about Romanticism and idealism, I am talking about the pursuit of beauty as an ideal in its own right. This is what I feel Eagleton links so compellingly with the phenomenona of divinity and humanity in his description of Romanticism.

I am using the term Post-modernism in the strict sense, referring to the prevalence of Deconstructivism in our modern interpretation of these ideas, leading us to view beauty as merely a social construction, a metanarrative created to justify certain socio-political agendas. (A view too cynical to be realistic, in my opinion...)

Thus, rather than seein...

@ Willhelm...

I may have a slightly different reading of this argument than you seem to have...

In talking about Romanticism and idealism, I am talking about the pursuit of beauty as an ideal in its own right. This is what I feel Eagleton links so compellingly with the phenomenona of divinity and humanity in his description of Romanticism.

I am using the term Post-modernism in the strict sense, referring to the prevalence of Deconstructivism in our modern interpretation of these ideas, leading us to view beauty as merely a social construction, a metanarrative created to justify certain socio-political agendas. (A view too cynical to be realistic, in my opinion...)

Thus, rather than seeing Eagleton as reinforcing the cynical political (and soulless) view of aesthetics common today, he seems to me to be arguing for something more fundamental in the nature of "beauty."

Although postmodernism has its place, it certainly isn't a pancea, and I think that it has been seriously over-applied. My hope is that we will enter less cynical times where we will cautiously begin to believe again, rather than automatically dissect and reject, realizing that mere intellect is not the font of all wisdom.

To answer your question: The revival of idealism in the face of apathetic cynicism is the specific aspect I am referring to. Although secualar, and humanistic, the Romanticism that Eagleton describes is certainly not postmodern. Indeed, humanism and postmodernism are fundamentally incompatible paradigms.

Although we are awash in cynicism, I cautiously hope that we are headed for more humane times.

@Tabsey:

I also differ from your view on this. Eagleton is describing Romanticism, the 19th Century movment in art, literature, and bohemian lifestyle. Far from condemning science, they embraced it. They certainly weren't religious in a conventional sense of the word. Byron lived in the ruins of a monastery where he held bachanalian orgies and drank wine from the skull of a monk, so comparing the romantics to the inquisition seems a little misplaced.

Their religion was a religious awe and reverence for life and beauty. A visceral, naturalistic religion that if anything embraced the scientific scrutiny of our marvelous world.

So perhaps I have read this selection differently from you. I s...

@Tabsey:

I also differ from your view on this. Eagleton is describing Romanticism, the 19th Century movment in art, literature, and bohemian lifestyle. Far from condemning science, they embraced it. They certainly weren't religious in a conventional sense of the word. Byron lived in the ruins of a monastery where he held bachanalian orgies and drank wine from the skull of a monk, so comparing the romantics to the inquisition seems a little misplaced.

Their religion was a religious awe and reverence for life and beauty. A visceral, naturalistic religion that if anything embraced the scientific scrutiny of our marvelous world.

So perhaps I have read this selection differently from you. I see it as describing beauty as an inherent divinity. This is different from how you seem to be interpreting it, along more traditional medieval lines where dvinity is the source of beauty.

I would not link it with the Christian ideals of the dark ages, but instead with the Sufi conception of God.

I had a Sufi friend once who explained it to me as such:

"You ask me: What is God? Do you see the tree? It grows to the sky. From small to large, then falls and it is small again. Why does it grow? Because that is its disposition. And that disposition is God."

Actually it does not seem we dis agree all that much.

I said:

We are entering a post-modern age where ideology and asthetics are
intertwined.

Aesthetics is no longer the pursuit of beauty. It is the pursuit of division and group niches.

You said:

I am using the term Post-modernism in the strict sense, referring to
the prevalence of Deconstructivism in our modern interpretation of
these ideas, leading us to view beauty as merely a social construction,
a metanarrative created to justify certain socio-political agendas. (A
view too cynical to be realistic, in my opinion...)

However cynical...It is true.

Regarding humanism and postmodernism as b...

Actually it does not seem we dis agree all that much.

I said:

We are entering a post-modern age where ideology and asthetics are
intertwined.

Aesthetics is no longer the pursuit of beauty. It is the pursuit of division and group niches.

You said:

I am using the term Post-modernism in the strict sense, referring to
the prevalence of Deconstructivism in our modern interpretation of
these ideas, leading us to view beauty as merely a social construction,
a metanarrative created to justify certain socio-political agendas. (A
view too cynical to be realistic, in my opinion...)

However cynical...It is true.

Regarding humanism and postmodernism as being incompatible paradigms, I believe that is beyond me, because I do not see how.

They are certainly bedfellows.

@ Willhelm... (regarding cynicism)

Although a healthy dose of cynicism can do a lot of good, I think we have taken it too far. I see many people who are too impressed with their own intelligence, and thus presume to be cynical about everything.

There is, of course, a difference between cynicism and skepticism.

But cynicism implies comprehension, and therefore derision of others and their inferior comprehension. It is a condescension towards conventional wisdom by one who has found the Truth.

When it comes to beauty, although I try, I ultimately cannot fathom it. Although I certainly have my moments of arrogance, I'm not arrogant enough to presume I can explain away beauty, so I cannot y...

@ Willhelm... (regarding cynicism)

Although a healthy dose of cynicism can do a lot of good, I think we have taken it too far. I see many people who are too impressed with their own intelligence, and thus presume to be cynical about everything.

There is, of course, a difference between cynicism and skepticism.

But cynicism implies comprehension, and therefore derision of others and their inferior comprehension. It is a condescension towards conventional wisdom by one who has found the Truth.

When it comes to beauty, although I try, I ultimately cannot fathom it. Although I certainly have my moments of arrogance, I'm not arrogant enough to presume I can explain away beauty, so I cannot yet afford to be cynical about it.

I think many post modernists, and other universal cynics, are not so much enlightened but glib. They simply presume that they have found the answers, often because they assume any answer they think up is obviously correct.

Thus, I find myself in sympathy with the romantics, for whom the world still contains some mystery, and I can't help but feel the pull of these enigmas. Stronger than any conventional faith is the inexplicable and fascinating phenomenon of life.

@ Willhelm... (regarding Post-Modernism)

On this we may be struggling with a difference of perspectives, which I actually find very interesting. Imagine we divide philosophy (arbitrarily, I admit) into three periods, or perhaps, movements: Classicism, Modernism, and Post-Modernism.

Especially being as all three schools of thought are represented on this clip in the comments.

You, being conservative and religious, strike me as a pretty "classical" guy. For you, (I speculate) the rejection of faith and traditional social institutions by subsequent schools of thought represents a degeneration of our society. Fortunately, your religion provides a solution to this problem, in the form of the a...

@ Willhelm... (regarding Post-Modernism)

On this we may be struggling with a difference of perspectives, which I actually find very interesting. Imagine we divide philosophy (arbitrarily, I admit) into three periods, or perhaps, movements: Classicism, Modernism, and Post-Modernism.

Especially being as all three schools of thought are represented on this clip in the comments.

You, being conservative and religious, strike me as a pretty "classical" guy. For you, (I speculate) the rejection of faith and traditional social institutions by subsequent schools of thought represents a degeneration of our society. Fortunately, your religion provides a solution to this problem, in the form of the apocolypse, where in God returns us to a time of classical virtue.

From my original comment, I placed myself in the camp of the romantics, who would be "modernists" (although that's not necessarily the absolute description of my ideas). Modernists, beginning with the European Enlightenment, rejected the abstract and supernatural in favor of the natural. Modernists were focused on this world, not the next, but still revered their institutions, giving rise to cults of poetry, art, and also Imperialism and Liberalism.

Finally, Tabsey's original comment strikes me as typical of postmodernism, disillusioned with the ideals of modernism, and seeing them as motivated by manipulative social authorities. In fact, as I see it, Post Modernism is not so much a condemnation of Classicism as it is a reaction against Modernism.

Instead of accepting the rosy idealism of humanism, they attribute to these ideals sinister subtexts by means of deconstruction. Humanistic values such as democracy, beauty, humanity, empire and progress were all deconstructed, and identified with powers of oppression.

In truth, we are complex people with mixed perspectives not nearly so simple. But on the other hand, as ideologies go, I see no way it is possible to place Humanism and Post-Modernism in the same bed.

Well, there is the hypothetical world and then there is reality. When one chooses the hypothetical, then the real world is elusive.
For those enamored with their own intelligence, wink, wink, perhaps you are misled. Maybe they do not know or think they know what the answers are, rather they have a pretty good idea what the answers are not and when people are looking for answers in the wrong place (Why hate Gore comes to mind).

Regarding cynicism and skepticism you, Ouyangwulong, are way off (This is quite surprising to me since I have an almost awe-like respect for your open-mindedness and intellect). It is skepticsim that requires understanding because skepticism is built on asking quest...

Well, there is the hypothetical world and then there is reality. When one chooses the hypothetical, then the real world is elusive.
For those enamored with their own intelligence, wink, wink, perhaps you are misled. Maybe they do not know or think they know what the answers are, rather they have a pretty good idea what the answers are not and when people are looking for answers in the wrong place (Why hate Gore comes to mind).

Regarding cynicism and skepticism you, Ouyangwulong, are way off (This is quite surprising to me since I have an almost awe-like respect for your open-mindedness and intellect). It is skepticsim that requires understanding because skepticism is built on asking questions and acquiring knowledge without acquiesence. Cynicism does not necessarily imply comprehension. It merely requires disdain.

I think many post modernists, and other universal cynics, are not so
much enlightened but glib. They simply presume that they have found the
answers, often because they assume any answer they think up is
obviously correct.

Perhaps true, There is not truth after all, for many postmoderns so why be held to that bar?

When it comes to beauty, although I try, I ultimately cannot fathom it.
Although I certainly have my moments of arrogance, I'm not arrogant
enough to presume I can explain away beauty, so I cannot yet afford to
be cynical about it.

I am not cynical about aesthetics. I am "cynical" about the Post-modern version and purpose of it. It is almost as if aesthetics nowadays is not about beauty at all rather a divisive pursuit of group niches.

Thus, I find myself in sympathy with the romantics, for whom the world
still contains some mystery, and I can't help but feel the pull of
these enigmas. Stronger than any conventional faith is the inexplicable
and fascinating phenomenon of life.

Do not fall into the trap of bigoted sterotypes. (I did not call you a bigot). I share these ideas. For me it is

@ Willhelm...

1. Enamored with their own intelligence...

Actually, I was speaking almost specifically of Michel Foucault, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx. All of whom deconstructed the world, and presumed that their own analysis was (of course) the only right answer.

The kind of cynicism you are talking about is what I would call "healthy cynicism" as opposed to "pathological cynicism" that seems to pervade among pop culture demagogues.

I'm completely with you on skepticism, which I see as in many ways totally different from cynicism. Perhaps the distinction between the two would be a fruitful philosophical investigation. (Something to clip later.)

Further more, I share your cynicism for ...

@ Willhelm...

1. Enamored with their own intelligence...

Actually, I was speaking almost specifically of Michel Foucault, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx. All of whom deconstructed the world, and presumed that their own analysis was (of course) the only right answer.

The kind of cynicism you are talking about is what I would call "healthy cynicism" as opposed to "pathological cynicism" that seems to pervade among pop culture demagogues.

I'm completely with you on skepticism, which I see as in many ways totally different from cynicism. Perhaps the distinction between the two would be a fruitful philosophical investigation. (Something to clip later.)

Further more, I share your cynicism for post-modernism.

"doesn't require understanding... only disdain." Good way to put it. I'll consider that more deeply, because I think disdain still implies a conception of oneself as having superior insight or comprehension. (Which, of course, is some times perfectly warranted.)

@ Willhelm...

Don't worry that I'm going to start (continue?) sterotyping people (more than is inescapable, because to a certain degree, I think knowledge relies on stereotypes)

I fully expect that you and I agree on a number of these things. The disconnect between theory and reality is the main reason I'm interested in discussing these theories.

Most of them are the conventional ones found in college text books, but they were often developed in a cordial but homogeneous intellectual environment. This means that they fail to appreciate the diversity of forces acting within the intellect of each individual.

What I would say is that in this continuum of the three, although we all can be su...

@ Willhelm...

Don't worry that I'm going to start (continue?) sterotyping people (more than is inescapable, because to a certain degree, I think knowledge relies on stereotypes)

I fully expect that you and I agree on a number of these things. The disconnect between theory and reality is the main reason I'm interested in discussing these theories.

Most of them are the conventional ones found in college text books, but they were often developed in a cordial but homogeneous intellectual environment. This means that they fail to appreciate the diversity of forces acting within the intellect of each individual.

What I would say is that in this continuum of the three, although we all can be superficially categorized it overlooks one thing: we live in 2008. These are theories about paradigms from the 1770s, 1870s and 1970s.

It is human nature that we break whatever molds we create, but as abailart pointed out, these molds come from ourselves, and our own self observations.

I propose that what we are seeing is not so much that we are poor examples of postmodernism modernism and classicism, (although surely we are!) It is that we are actually in the process of creating a new paradigm probably most directly influenced by societal advances in communications and research technologies.

Now we just need to come up with a name for it!

because to a certain degree, I think knowledge relies on stereotypes)

Yes, and on generalizations. It is troubling the ease at which many are so dismissive of these.

I fully expect that you and I agree on a number of these things. The
disconnect between theory and reality is the main reason I'm interested
in discussing these theories.

I think that is true in our idealism perhaps. However, I find the hypothetical world difficult to hold on to. To me it is meaningless to try. Too many people, in my view, are trapped by their idealism in a way that is damaging. Isn't Clipmarks a perfect case study?

I propose that what we are seeing is not so much that we...

read more»

because to a certain degree, I think knowledge relies on stereotypes)

Yes, and on generalizations. It is troubling the ease at which many are so dismissive of these.

I fully expect that you and I agree on a number of these things. The
disconnect between theory and reality is the main reason I'm interested
in discussing these theories.

I think that is true in our idealism perhaps. However, I find the hypothetical world difficult to hold on to. To me it is meaningless to try. Too many people, in my view, are trapped by their idealism in a way that is damaging. Isn't Clipmarks a perfect case study?

I propose that what we are seeing is not so much that we are poor
examples of postmodernism modernism and classicism, (although surely we
are!) It is that we are actually in the process of creating a new
paradigm probably most directly influenced by societal advances in
communications and research technologies.

Now we just need to come up with a name for it!

I recently considered that post-modernism has run it's course. If I may put it that way. But I am not so sure "societal advances in
communications and research technologies." as well as art, politics, architecture, cultural movemenst (such as neoconservatism, neo-liberalism, progressivism) are not only products of post-modernism but the settling-in of post-modernism.
Are the glimpses of a new paradigm among us? That is interesting to consider. It seems to me, however, that whatever paradigm we enter it will in some way be largely influenced and even consist of post-modern elements.
The reason I think that is because, to me, Postmodernism is the age we will not step through to the next. It is the age we will carry with us to the next because of the ease at which Post-modernism absorbs the elements of everything else. But, I'm a novice at this philosophical and cultural theorizing. What do I know?