origin of "modern philosophy"

Agreed. I've been very frustrated with the on-going discussion of the end of modernism and the very ambiguous notion of post-modernism. I suspect that it will just grind to a halt someday, without resolution--or contribution. I vaguely think of modernism and post-modernism as different facets of the revolt against traditionalism, a cultural dimension rooted deeply in the era of Christianity. The end of traditionalism was heralded by, among other phenomena (like the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment) Nietzsche's pronouncement of the "death of God", i.e., the end of absolutism (both in terms of political authority and Truth).

Yes, it's usually cited with either Descartes or Immanuel Kant with the beginning of the "critical" era of metaphysics/epistemology.

For all we know people 200 years from now would put the end of the dark ages sometime in our future.

I've always been under the impression that the name of an age is decided when that age has become history.

It's the same as when people ask me what genre of music I play. I have no answer, and the question should be directed at music critics, not musicians. Similarly, these names should be applied by historians, not the people writing history.

Are you using the terms "historian" or "writing" in an unconventional way here? A historian is someone who writes about history.

Perhaps I am.

What I mean to say is that the names of the era's should be applied by historians, not by the people doing what historians will write about.

Yes, I think the closest one can get to a definition of modernism is that it is the belief that "being modern"--that is, being in the present--is something that one should aspire to. Not that this is a terribly profound statement. One of the problems with the concept of modernism is that it is called on to encompass such a wide array of trends that any definition that tries to be more specific than that is bound to exclude something.

Not that this has bothered many historians. Ask a literary, art or music historian what the "modernist" canon is, and then ask them what the academic canon is (or was, for most of the 20th century), and they are sure to line up. Figures who don't fit into the former have often been excluded from the latter.

That said, if the academic definition is taken to be the default definition of modernism, then I'm one of those who believe that postmodernism is more a continuation of, rather than a reaction to, modernism. As you mentioned, modernists and postmodernists often respond to the same sorts of crises of modernity--pluralism, the obsession with technical innovation and the loss of tradition. Postmodernists just do it with a little more humor.

This is true, though one of the fascinating things about the 19th and 20th centuries is the belief, first in Germany and then in every place wishing to compete with Germany, that great figures are those who consciously insinuate themselves into history--those who act and perform "to" the historians. The belief that history has a definite trajectory, and that it is the duty of the great figure (often the great man) to further that trajectory, turned out to be an incredibly persuasive and decisive one. It led to quite a lot of bloodshed, that's for sure.

It's funny that all this should come up... last night I was reading some essays by Arnold Schoenberg and came across this statement which neatly summarizes all of this when applied to art:

"While composing for me had been a pleasure, now it became a duty. I knew I had to fulfil a task: I had to express what was necessary to be expressed and I knew I had the duty of developing my ideas for the sake of progress in music, whether I liked it or not..." [Arnold Schoenberg, "Heart and Brain in Music" (1937)].

Even before these last few hundred years this has been a common practice. Many times historians traveled with a conquering lord or king, but to get the truth of all sides of an historic moment is not possible until afterwards.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done how.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done now.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done now.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done how.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done now.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done how.

In art (esp. painting) we distinguish between "modern" and "contemporary" art. Modern art is often said to have ended with pop-art and contemporary art is what is being done now.

How did THAT happen? A terrible attack of perseveration.

The usage of these words becomes especially confusing because they tend to vary according to application. As has already been mentioned, "modern" thought is said to start around the time of Descartes. However, there is a specific modernist movement in literature and the arts that took place around the time of World War I, so there are two meanings to just saying "modern."

Regarding the distinction between Modern and Post-Modern -- The Modern intellectual tradition developed out of the Enlightenment with the belief that Reason could reshape a new society that could be run intelligently. Post-Modernism is a movement that began after World War II against this belief in certain progress through reason. It was during this time that people such as Derrida developed theories like Deconstructionism that invalidated the belief in an absolute truth.

All right already, JLNobody, you made your point. No need to repeat yourself like a broken record.

Thank you, Tlalion. The distinction between modernism's rationalism and post-modernism's anti-rationalism (the first derived from the Enlightenment and the latter from Nietzsche and Freud) is well taken. Modernism is the effort toward disenchantment; post-modernism is the effort toward a "new" enchantment, one free of the Enlightenment's disenchantments (a kind of rational mystification) and the mystification of traditionalism's theological underpinnings.

This can all be very confusing at times.

Thoughts may be hard enough to keep on a string without adding thoughts about thoughts to the stew.