Modernity is Incomplete

            Modernity is a finicky subject to talk about as the definition of "modernity" and "modern" has been muddled and thrown about to suit the needs of a particular group of people. In fact the word "modern" should be used to distinguish the present from the pass, from the Latin root "modernus". We would like to be able to differentiate ourselves in the present from the past and although we may reference the past in a positive manner we acknowledge our ever-expanding progress that does not impede in our appreciation of the past and the present. For this purpose I believe that it's important for us to never concede regarding the progress of our our knowledge. To be held back the past is something that humans in the past have done but have never been able to fully control without taking certain characteristics of how the past handled that specific situation and try to mold it to fit into the current times. We should look towards the past in looking to adapt preemptive measures against those mistakes that were made, then. The application of those measures distinguish ourselves from the past and thus used the word "modern" since the early 12th century.

            Taking these main points into account I must stress the importance of the "exhalation of the present" in which we accelerate our own present time in this manner. Living in the present can be a more practical application of what it means to be modern. Otherwise, looking towards the future we may not be so cautious of what is happening right now. But modernity itself does not seem to be a misapplication of the things which make others seem avant-garde, rather it's something solely unique. Sometimes in order to progress in other areas of science you must revolt against the normality of the times in which becoming more modern as one might think. The essence of modernity in this case could be the progress that was achieved and afterwards they might not necessarily be modern anymore. Whenever the people of the current times advance past their own understanding of modernity into something more we might allow ourselves to call that post-modernity. I don't think that we are ever in a post-modern period of science, but that doesn't mean that certain aspects of our lives can be post-modern and others modern.

            We seem to be constantly trying to evolve beyond our definitions of modern and post-modern while simultaneously trying to erase those aspects that make up our culture. That is not to say that which makes up our culture is the sole result of modernity in action. Accepting the modernity while completing our goals of constant innovation and revolution is the necessary ingredient to our long lasting culture. Due to our consistencies with the aspects of modernity we can know exactly how much it takes for modern things to bloom. And as such we are careful of where we are extending our vast modern thinking towards, and rightfully so for if we put forth these ideals and concrete things forwards without much to speak for we cannot say that the project of modernity is anywhere near completion.

Where the savage ones are...

     Today, we continued our discussion about Rousseau’s philosophy on the origins of man.  While the conversation got a little heated towards the end, it was very stimulating and thought-provoking! I began to imagine a parallel universe in which we all lived in a small commune in the middle of nowhere during the 18th century.  At first, this thought seemed like a very scary thing; how could the 16 of us survive in a confined space? Who would be assigned which role? And most importantly, how would 16 people with completely different personalities live as one, cohesive unit? However, in retrospect, I do not think it would be the end of the world if that were to happen.

     According to Rousseau, humans are capable of evolving at a rapid pace; this means that humans have an ability to adapt to their surroundings.  This implies that if some apocalyptic, natural disaster type of event were to happen to us, we would be able to figure out a way to adapt—without our precious smart phones.  In his first discourse, Rousseau introduces the notion of a savage person compared to a civil person, and uses this comparison to justify his claim that civil society corrupts humankind.  The savage human predates the beginnings of civil society; there are no conflicts for this individual as all of their needs are met by nature.  The savage human only exhibits base emotions, and it it through these emotions that reason is developed.  Because the savage human leads a simplistic life, there are no complications that could make life difficult.  Rousseau argues that the savage human derives more pleasure out of life compared to the civilized person.  Since the civilized person possesses the ability to perfect their life, they become too preoccupied.  For Rousseau, perfectibility leads to misery in the lives of the civilized person.  
    
    I agree with Rousseau; modernity definitely has an impact on the quality of life one leads today.  While Rousseau isn't advocating for the return to the "natural" way of life, he still thinks that people have an obligation to correct the corruptness from within our modern life.  However, this is problematic because I'm afraid it's too late to save humanity from the corruption that we've created for ourselves.  In our generation, people are too greedy, selfish, and oblivious to their own privilege.  We live in an age when smart phones are handed out like candy--people have become too reliant on technology.   

    In my humble opinion, I find technology to be exhausting... I don't like how I have this need to have my smart phone with me all the time.  It's just one more thing I need to worry about.  Although to be frank, the majority of the time, I use my iPhone just to listen to music (you might as well glue my headphones into my ears).  I am not as concerned with checking Twitter or Facebook because those aspects of social media are extremely fake.  While they pretend to connect people, they actually push people away from each other because they create the illusion that you can "collect" people as your friends without having an legitimate conversation with them, let alone know what their favorite color is.

    It's just ridiculous; people are too busy consuming than living life. 

Descartes and the Metaphysical of the Mind and Body

Descartes is considered by many to be the father of modern philosophy and as such his works deals with the aspects of the modernity of life. As I read an excerpt from his thoughts on the metaphysical and the dualism of the mind and body as they exist within the physical and ephemeral realms there were many times where I had to stop and think about how I view the metaphysical. For example: “... I have opportunely feed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions]...”, this is a description of being free through the use of your mind by your own free will which is something that I have done many times before. The reading is entirely observations about our everyday life and what we perceive within our consciousness and unconsciousness. I do agree with Descartes, that the state of being free is first and foremost in your mind and only that person which wishes to be free from the constraints of worry and passion can do so if and only if they choose to perceive it that way.

Not only is the state of freedom discussed within the very first point in the reading, just four paragraphs down Descartes takes the idea of our very body into question. That is, how do you know that you aren't dreaming right now? You could be in front of this text reading it with your own two eyes, but you may just be falling victim to your own imagination that convinces you that this reality is your own reality. There must have been some time when you were “deceived” by the illusions that your dreams presented to you, at that point it’s quite possible that you could convince yourself that you are dreaming that this reality is not your reality. These questions which Descartes posed are indeed a forbearance of the nature of the human mind. We only know the world as it is, the metaphysical is out of your reach until you see yourself as not being in the world but of the world.

(Descartes' Illustration of Dualism)

Asking these questions by themselves result in a sufficient excuse to ask more deeply profound questions. He continues these questions by going the next step and questions the existence of a “God” and even his senses, Descartes says: “...suppose that I possess no senses; I believe that body, figure, extension, motion, and place are merely fictions of my mind. What is there, then, that can be esteemed true...  there is absolutely nothing certain”. There is nothing absolute in the metaphysical world, it is what we interpret though our perception of the world around us that makes our reality. Descartes expresses with these words that:  “Perception is another attribute of the soul; but perception to is impossible without the body ”, which lies the foundation for the dualism of the mind and body. While the mind perceives the world according to the person, the body exists separately from the mind and as such acts accordingly to your perceptions. Its bring to mind that everyone experiences reality and the metaphysical in different ways. How do you experience reality, and how can you be sure that what you see is the truth?

Walking in the City- Michel de Certeau

Michel de Certeau begins his essay “Walking in the City” by depicting the view of Manhattan as seen from the top of the World Trade Center. Through the use of visual imagery, Certeau describes what one sees from an aerial view: skyscrapers; or in Certeau’s words “a wave of verticals.” However, this clump of skyscrapers takes on much more of a meaning that just architecture. It symbolizes an environment in which many organisms contradict each other; such as the differences of opinion, race and architecture. New York is juxtaposed to Rome and how as a newer city does not have quite the same level of experience in handling these organisms. Therefore, New York’s mass of skyscrapers can be seen as a metaphor for the surplus of time, energy, resources, etc that are present in our everyday lives.

This idea of seeing New York from above is continued by Certeau to illustrate the differences between being a part of the mass and merely being an observer. By being a part of the mass, one is trapped in the chaos of the city and blends into the mesh of society. However, when one ascends to the top of the World Trade center or in other words removes themselves from this mass of conformity, they are able to see the world more clearly. Certeau states that “It’s hard to be down when you’re up.” Painters, city planners and cartographers have the opportunity to depict and see life from above however the rest of us are stuck below as walkers of the city or in Certeau’s words “ordinary practitioners of the city.” These walkers construct the city through their movements through space and time in which they themselves are oblivious to the fact that they are creating. Do you feel like you are an “ordinary practitioner of the city?” And do you agree with Certeau’s statement that “It’s hard to be down when you’re up?” Sometimes one can feel like they are blending into a monotonous routine in life however I think that we should aspire to be like these city planners and painters who viewed the world from above. We should try to separate ourselves from the conformity of the world and be aware and conscious of who we are in order to create our own identity in life. We should not be ordinary practitioners but unique practitioners of the city. We are able to determine our own movements in the mass of the city and can choose to create our own paths.

Certeau’s next idea is how this “migrational city” becomes a “planned and readable city.” This is dependent upon being forward thinking as well as having the right outlook, or having a “perspective vision and prospective vision.” It is through the methodology of combining these two visions that a city can be formed. One must have the idea for the city as well as be able to carry out these ideas in order to make a fully functional environment.

Certeau’s next theory is that a city should have three things: it should be able to control all the different types of “pollution,” it should have an unrestricted perspective of time and it should be all-inclusive of the properties that construct it. He goes into depth on how a city must go through destruction so that it can eventually reach its desired state.

Certeau’s assumption is that a city is “a place of transformation and appropriations, the object of various kinds of interferences but also a subject that is constantly enriched by new attributes, it is simultaneously the machinery and the hero of modernity.” Like Baudelaire states in “The Painter of Modern Life,” the idea of modernity plays a major role in how we view urbanism and its connection to individuals from a socioeconomic perspective. I agree with Certeau that a city can be characterized by the ebb and flows of events throughout time as well as a place for both individualism, in attitudes and perspective of its citizens, and equality among the inhabitants that construct this mass.  What is your perspective on Certeau’s assumption on modernity?