What Makes Modern Philosophy 'Modern'?

[Moody]

Schopenhauer [in his Parerga and Paralipomena, for example], says that Modern Philosophy can be distinguished by the following trait;

It teaches men to use their OWN BRAINS, rather than rely on "the Bible, on the one hand, and Aristotle, on the other".
[ib., 1]

Do you agree?

What other characteristics typify Modern Philosophy?

[Taras Bulba]

What other characteristics typify Modern Philosophy?

Individualism, disregard for tradition, cosmopolitanism, blind worship of technology and "progress"(code word for implementing Marxist social programs).

[cosmocreator]

I'd say one that was written within the last generation or later.

[Taras Bulba]

I'd say one that was written within the last generation or later.

Well yeah, but I think Moody's asking for the main components of modern philosophy.

[cosmocreator]

Well yeah, but I think Moody's asking for the main components of modern philosophy.

I don't think there is such a thing. Changes from time to time.

[Jack]

Schopenhauer [in his Parerga and Parilipomena, for example], says that Modern Philosophy can be distinguished by the following trait;

It teaches men to use their OWN BRAINS, rather than rely on "the Bible, on the one hand, and Aristotle, on the other".
[ib., 1]

Do you agree?

What other characteristics typify Modern Philosophy?

What do you mean by 'Modern'? If you meant 'postmodern' I'd say being convinced of uncertainty, even though that sounds like an oxymoron.

[Moody]

I mean Modern in comparison to Ancient.

I am thinking of those areas of thought where a man of today, if he were to travel back in time [to the Middle Ages, say, or to the days of the Roman Empire etc.,], would find himself completely at odds with, and misunderstood by, those of times past. And vice versa.

A distinction must be made at the start between ModernISM [those things which Pushkin refers to] and Modern as such - i.e., that which makes the past five centuries or so different from all that preceded them [where one draws the line is not hard and fast].

Surely the main difference is indicated by Schopenhauer [and here I disagree with Cosmocreator]; Moderns no longer adhere blindly to the Bible and to Aristotle.
"God is dead" as far as the first is concerned, and modern scientific discoveries and methods have rendered old Aristotle obsolete.

In a nut-shell I'd say that we Moderns have far fewer illusions than the ancients.
Honesty.
We may be poorer for that; we may be more 'naked' because of that; we may have less friends because of that; we may be unhappier because of that. But once the baggage of God and Aristotle has been cast aside, it cannot be picked up again - else one looks like a clown or a valet.

So to recast the question, on what areas would a Modern and an Ancient find themselves mutually incomprehensible?

What in the 'Modern' world of thought could the Ancients have never predicted?

Is 'the Modern' a point of no return?

If the past is another country, are we moderns the sons and daughters of immigrants who could never get back to our roots?
Is that past country a lost island like Atlantis?

Is Modern man truly a wanderer on the Earth?

[Taras Bulba]

Is 'the Modern' a point of no return?

If the past is another country, are we moderns the sons and daughters of immigrants who could never get back to our roots?
Is that past country a lost island like Atlantis?

Is Modern man truly a wanderer on the Earth?

No. I think we can return to our roots. Theres an alternative Modern you know.

[Moody]

No. I think we can return to our roots. Theres an alternative Modern you know.

Is a 'return to roots' "modern"?
Surely a REVALUATION of our roots is Modern!

What can be more foolish than an unquestioning return to a SUPPOSED past?
After all, the nature of the past is a matter of opinion.

And so my question remains; would the ancients even recognise those here who claim to return to those roots?
Probably not; it would be like the fancy dress parade which draws only derision.

A rejection of the Modern is so ... Modern.

Who today can believe in the Bible or Aristotle in the way that the ancients did?
Impossible.

[Schweitzer]

In my opinion, Immanuel Kant was the first truly modern philosopher. In his Critique on Pure Reason, he created a synthesis in two traditionally irreconcilable doctrines - that of the rationalists and that of the empiricists. It is essentially those who believe they can understand the world through pure reason and those who believe the world, and indeed, anything, can only be known through "Schaung" - it must be experienced through the senses. The debate still continues ofcourse, but Kant was "modern" in his approach.