{"id":130483,"date":"2019-07-09T05:09:07","date_gmt":"2019-07-09T05:09:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=130483"},"modified":"2019-07-09T05:09:08","modified_gmt":"2019-07-09T05:09:08","slug":"has-modernity-failed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=130483","title":{"rendered":"Has Modernity Failed?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Spahic Omer<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernity\nis a universal term. It is at once a historical period, worldview and ideology.\nAs such, its got much in common with modernism, which signifies the character\nor quality of being, thought, beliefs and ideas associated with modernity as an\nongoing chapter in history. The two concepts are often used interchangeably. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With its virtually global currency and endless ramifications, modernity was perhaps the most impactful phenomenon that has happened to mankind. To be modern, to live a modern lifestyle, and to get modernised – that is, to realise mans instinctive and total wellbeing here and now – was on everyones lips. Ideas and experiences materialised and unfolded at all levels of existence: individually and collectively, unofficially and at the level of institutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nas the especially 19th<\/sup> and early 20th<\/sup> century modernity\neuphoria started to subside, it became increasingly clear that modernity was\nnot what it initially was meant and expected to be. Modernity was envisaged to\nbecome a generator, as well as personification, of ultimate truth and freedom,\nleading, in turn, to the creation of new and significantly better societies.\nThe whole world was expected to be made an exceptionally better and more\npromising place. At the core of this philosophy stood the belief in the\nperfectibility of humankind adorned with truth, equality, freedom and\nerudition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The philosophical and civilisational paradigms of modernity denoted a synthesis of a theoretical utopianism, intellectual arrogance, and scientific along with technological overindulgence, which were permeated and sustained with the spirit of the notions of scepticism, humanism, nihilism and hedonism. Due to the extraordinary nature and scope of modernity, its escalating drawbacks led the world to a crossroads. The very existence of human species and delicate earthly ecosystems appears today to be at stake. If any turnaround in fortune is to be made anytime soon, some tough ontological together with matter-of-fact questions will need to be honestly asked and as honestly answered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article discusses the two-sidedness of modernity, emphasising the consequences of its separation from and setting itself on a collision course with the spiritual and traditional realms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conceptualising Modernity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The word\nmodernity is derived from the Late Latin adjective \u0153modernus\u009d, which means\n\u0153modern\u009d. The former is further a derivation from the Latin adverb \u0153modo\u009d,\nwhich means \u0153just now, presently, at the moment\u009d. Modern, it follows, is what\nis prevailing in our time.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernity\nis an aggregate of particular socio-cultural beliefs, standards, outlooks and\npractices that began in Western Europe in the wake of the 16th<\/sup> and\n17th<\/sup> century Renaissance and the 18th<\/sup> century\nEnlightenment. It is a comprehensive worldview and philosophy framed by a\ndistinct historical epoch that witnessed a series of profound socio-structural\nand intellectual transformations. As a cultural project, modernity achieved its\nmaturity with the fruition of Enlightenment, and as a socially accomplished\nform of life with the growth of individual (capitalist, and later also\ncommunist) society.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To Hilde Heynen, modernity \u0153constitutes that element that mediates between a process of socioeconomic development known as modernisation, and subjective responses to it in the form of modernist discourses and movements.\u009d That means that modernity is a phenomenon with an objective and subjective aspect. The former is linked to socioeconomic processes, and the latter is connected with personal experiences, artistic activities and theoretical reflections. Some people tend to separate the two domains, while others keep them together.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was arguably during and in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution (1789-1799) when monarchy as a system of government and the Catholic Church were dealt a heavy blow, triggering, as a consequence, the rapid rise of nationalism and boosting of citizens fundamental rights that revolved around freedom, liberty and equality – that modernity as a concept and life pattern got into full swing. Such was a time when the modern public was brought into being; when the notion of \u02dcman as an essentialist, transcendental subject developed; and in the wake of which Hegel, the first philosopher to experience modernity as a problem, \u0153evolved a comprehensive legitimising system to reassure modernity about itself\u009d.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, in historiography the late 16th<\/sup> and entire 17th<\/sup> and 18th<\/sup> centuries are described as early modern, while the 19th<\/sup> century with some of its prolonged periods of matchless technological advance and economic growth – albeit coupled with a wave of political revolutions – is regarded as modern history proper. However, the late 19th<\/sup> and the first half of the 20th<\/sup> century – the latter having been forever darkened by the devastating and demoralising World Wars – were a time when some serious doubts started to creep into the phenomenon and project of modernity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, modernitys faith in absolute reason began to dwindle. It was maintained that below the surface of rationality lie impulses, instincts and drives that constitute a deeper reality.[5]<\/a> The beliefs in linear progress, absolute truths, ideal social orders and the regularisation and control of epistemology were shaken to their core as well. The world was ever more torn between the experience of modernity as progressive and the experience of modernity as chaotic. Whereas modernity while at its peak felt that it had the whole world at its feet, the global events of the first half of the 20th<\/sup> century changed everything. The ubiquitous Western buoyancy that modern humanity would generate a just, unprejudiced, peaceful and thriving new age was thus unsettled forever.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The doubts and questionings culminated in gradual departing from modernity and modernism and their tendencies, and embarking on the idea, phenomenon and historical period of post-modernity and post-modernism. The latters historical framework is generally perceived as the middle and late 20th<\/sup> century. It connotes the latest phase in human intellectual and cultural evolution. By and large, post-modernism is a reaction against the intellectual and, to a lesser extent, social and cultural assumptions, beliefs and values of modernity. Post-modernism is characterised \u0153by broad scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.\u009d[7]<\/a> The common thread in both modernity and post-modernity is a bitter conflict with religion as a rival source of epistemology and morality, accentuating the value and agency of human beings, affirming that without religion and the interference of Heaven people are capable of leading ethical lives of personal fulfilment, and preferring rationalism and empiricism over the revelation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As an outgrowth from Renaissance humanism and Enlightenments age of reason, modernity featured dominantly in effectively all aspects of Western culture and civilization. Its hallmarks cantered on the questioning or the outright rejecting of traditional and religious doctrines and values; giving precedence to individualism, liberty, freedom, equality and scepticism; replacing \u0153the religious understanding of nature with the new \u02dcmechanical philosophy, which not only claimed to be a science of nature but also to be the only legitimate science of the natural world\u009d, ensuring thereby \u0153the triumph of a purely quantitative understating of the order of nature over the religious and qualitative one\u009d[8]<\/a>; harbouring an unwavering faith in ultimate social, scientific and technological progress; the emergence of the capitalism system, the market economy, industrialisation, urbanisation, secularisation, nation-state and democracy.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rejection of\nTradition and Religion <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernity stemmed\nfrom a rather rebellious mood that coveted to regenerate the way people\nperceived and experienced life, politics, society, science and art. The status\nquo dictated by religious (Christian) traditions and political authorities was\ndeemed too lethargic, corrupt, unfulfilling and ailing to continue unopposed.[10]<\/a>\nReligious dogmas, values and moral principles were questioned, or rejected\ncompletely, because of their arbitrariness, futile formalism, opacity and\nexertion of control over human feelings, yet total human existence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On account of the novel scientific and technological dynamics and their constant advancements and discoveries, the proponents of modernity felt a sense of perennial anticipation and hope. They found it unwise and counterproductive to commit themselves and their potentials to any existing system of thought and life and thereby curtail the most prized commodities: creativity, resourcefulness and prospects. Their flames needed to be cherished and nurtured, rather than controlled or, worse yet, extinguished. To be modern and think as such was an exhilarating thing. The impending age of modernity and its modern world were meant to be the most exciting existential contexts to live in and to participate in whatever way in their bettering. In other words, modernity generated an aura of worldly paradise. On his path to an intellectual self-actualisation and moral perfection, modern man felt invincible and unstoppable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, having successfully undermined and forever shunned the religious dogmas and authority of the Church, modern man unconsciously created a myriad of new religious cults that pertained to science and technology. If he stopped obeying and worshipping God, he in effect ended up deifying himself and his achievements as well as aspirations. Furthermore, if he desacralised the world and religious institutions through science and technology, he once more ended up creating and sacralising his own artificial world. That world was constructed and sustained by modern mans newly established systems and institutions, which were invested with a halo of \u0153modernist sanctity\u009d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Christian\nreligious authority, admittedly, was to be largely blamed for the scenario. Its\nlegitimacy and power, and the legitimacy and power of its Bible, were shaken\nand compromised, firstly, by the split of European Christianity, and secondly,\nby the uneasy relationship between faith and the emerging modern empirical\nscience. Certain religious beliefs were proven empirically flawed or, at best,\nseriously questionable. Christians often found themselves \u0153on the back foot\u009d,\nas they attempted to respond to such alarming developments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generally, the\nChurch was slow and reluctant to respond to the rising modernity trends and the\nundercurrents they produced. One wonders if that was a sign of weakness or\nadmission of irreconcilability. Hence, left in the lurch, people were unsure as\nto which branch of Christianity represented orthodoxy, and which one did\notherwise. Disagreements, and even conflicts, were numerous, inexhaustible and,\nabove all, fundamental. Nobody was utterly certain whose interpretation of\nScripture was most authoritative and why. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, this\ncaused many philosophers and scientists to embark on journeys of discovery of\ntheir own, in quest of new grounds for certainty and offering the truth-seeking\npersons new alternatives. Perhaps most emblematic of this ethos was Rene\nDescartes (d. 1650), a French philosopher, scientist and mathematician, who set\nout on his mission of radical doubt that led to his celebrated maxim, \u0153I think,\ntherefore I am\u009d. The process possibly marked the commencement of the European\nEnlightenment, with its faith in individual human – rather than religious –\nenquiry.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case of Francis Bacon (d. 1626), an English philosopher and politician with a passionate interest in science, is also worth mentioning. He repudiated dependence on ancient authorities, including medieval Scholasticism, which was based on Aristotelian logic and the works of the early Christian founders, and gave emphasis to tradition and creed. He advocated arriving at scientific conclusions through inductive reasoning as a precursor to the empirical method. The knowledge thus gained, Francis Bacon argued, was practical and useful, contrasted with medieval Scholasticism which he criticised as too theoretical and impractical. As a result of the applicability of the former knowledge in commerce and industry, human lives will generally improve, as they will attain greater power and control over their environment.[12]<\/a> To Francis Bacon and his Scientific Revolution counterparts, therefore, knowledge was power and the most important asset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the\nauthority of the Church and Bible was undermined from within when Enlightenment\nand modernity criticism \u0153entered the theological academy and investigated the\nBible without the presumption that it was Gods holy words, but rather on the\nbasis that it was an ancient text (or collection of texts) like any other\u009d.[13]<\/a>\nAll of a sudden, Christianitys core texts were made by historical-critical\ninvestigations to be the object of human rather than the revealed knowledge.\nThat lent credence to the conviction of modernists that society should be\nridden of superstition and ignorance in the name of religion, and that a\nrationalist and scientific mind-set should be propagated instead for the\npursuit of a source of knowledge and morals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, at the heart of the cluster of reasons as to why religion (Christianity) lost the cosmos in the West to modern science, and why the Christian view of the order of nature was eclipsed by science during the Scientific Revolution, lies the following: \u0153the weakening of the sapiential dimension (having or providing wisdom), with its emphasis upon the symbolic significance of the cosmos within Christianity; the rise of a rationalism already embedded to some extent in the Thomistic synthesis; the dominance of nominalism in the late Middle Ages; the eclipse and marginalisation of Christian philosophy during the period, which marks the incubation and formation of modern science; and the all-important rise of humanism in the Renaissance\u009d.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the corruptions\nof religious and political authorities were cleansed by reason and open-minded\nthinking, the path to truth was clearly shown. Facilitating the arrival at\ntruth and teaching it was the task of education. Education was recognised as a\nvehicle for nourishing and further promoting the newly found truth and its\ninfinite socio-cultural manifestations and ways. It was aimed at enlightening\nthe masses and making them better citizens and better people. Educated\nenlightened people will form the foundations of the new free and integrated\nsociety, a society which they will create through their own efforts.[15]<\/a>\nIf God created the universe, earth and people, He was not needed afterwards for\nrunning and managing the human lives on earth. God could be accepted as\ncreator, but not as a guide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The End of Modernity?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the\nworldview and ideals of modernity soon proved to be significantly untrue and\nunnatural, having no basis in the reality of human condition. Riddled with\ndoubts concerning the continued feasibility and sustainability of material\nprogress, human liberty, freedom and equality, the edifice of modernity fast\nstarted to fracture. It in the end degenerated into a corrupt and oppressive\nsystem of thought, attitudes and practices. It at long last might have become\nas fraudulent and unjust as the religious and political systems it sought to\noverthrow and replace. Especially its philosophical underpinnings were\nperceived as a synthesis of all heresies that threatened to destroy all\nreligions.[16]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was as early as\nin the 16th<\/sup> century that Martin Luther, a seminal figure in the\nProtestant Reformation, warned: \u0153Reason is the greatest enemy that\nfaith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but \u201d more frequently\nthan not \u201d struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that\nemanates from God.\u009d Martin Luther also said: \u0153Reason is the devils\nhandmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonour all that God says or\ndoes.\u009d[17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The modernist ideology deteriorated to the point where its fundamental notions of truth, freedom, liberty, education, justice and equality were transformed by many Western governments and other institutions into self-serving excuses for invasion, subjugation, conversion and exploitation. Christopher Witcombe writes that \u0153to the dismay of progressive intellectuals, the ideology of modernism has also become the means by which the values and worldview of the West have been promoted and imposed around the world either through imperial colonialism and economic globalisation, or through the \u02dcconditionalities attached to loans granted by the International Monetary Fund, and policies serving Western interests that are forced on developing countries by the World Bank. With proselytising zeal, local cultures, customs, economies, and ways of life in Third World and developing countries have been swept aside in the name of \u02dcmodernisation the benefits of which have been measured primarily in Western terms. Modernism has been the Wests most effective and influential export and in fact has been willingly embraced by many non\u201cWestern cultures for commercial, economic, or political reasons, or as a demonstration of support of Western ideals.\u009d[18]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is now widely held\nthat the period defined and dictated by the modernist philosophy and principles\nhas ended. Now is a phase of transition into a new phase of human history\ncalled post-modernity or post-modernism. The term generally implies a broad\nspectrum of anti-modern penchants, on the one hand, and such as call for the\nrevision of modernist fundamental assertions and ideas, on the other. It stands\nto reason that modernity failed in the sense that it has abruptly ended, and in\nthe sense that it achieved little of what it had intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernity was guilty of\nna\u00c3\u00afve realism where the truth about the supposed objective natural reality,\nindependent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving it, has been\nmanipulated and attempted to be imposed on everyone globally. The pursued\nobjective truth was regarded as independent of human beings and all of their\nintellectual and socio-cultural influences. It was also believed that the\ndescriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians could, in\nprinciple, be objectively true or false.[19]<\/a>\nThis doctrine accorded science and scientists all the leverage they needed to\nascribe a sense of functional sanctity to themselves and what they were doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proponents of modernity and modernism were likewise way off the mark when they affirmed that through the use of reason and logic<\/a>, and with the more specialised tools provided by science<\/a> and technology<\/a>, human beings were likely to change themselves and their societies for the better. It was reasonable to expect that future societies will be more humane, more just, more enlightened<\/a>, and more prosperous than they were before.[20]<\/a> It was proven time and again \u201c and it is still being the case \u201c that the misguided pursuit of scientific and technological knowledge leads to the development of technologies for destruction, oppression, subjugation and exploitation. It was owing to that verity that to a majority of researchers, the most advanced 20th<\/sup> century was at the same time the bloodiest in human history, as it was fraught with wars, genocides and famines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another problem with modern man was that he gained a new – albeit faulty – conception of himself as a being endowed with reason and technological power, totally independent of Heaven and its revealed knowledge and guidance, \u0153and ready to conquer Earth, both its non-European humanity and the order of nature.\u009d[21]<\/a> Modern man further viewed himself \u201c again entirely predicated upon humanism, naturalism, rationalism, individualism and scepticism as the cornerstones of the modernist worldview – as a being whose solitary goal was bodily pleasure rooted in the stimuli of greed, self-centredness, pride and vanity. Consequently, modern man became a prisoner of his senses and desires, which he had to seek to constantly satiate without limit. He showed no interest whatsoever in the potential significance of both his body and the surrounding natural world in the religious, metaphysical and cosmological sense.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relentless scientific\ndiscoveries and technological dynamics, fed with the unrestricted innovation\nand creativity spirit, created a sense of perpetual expectation, hope and\ninsatiability. People wanted more of everything, and that those things be\nalways better, faster and brighter. There was so much in life to be\nexperimented and enjoyed by everybody. Opportunities were limitless and life\nwas not to be wasted on lethargy, traditionalism and conformity. It was to be\nlived to the fullest. It could be asserted, therefore, that the pinnacle of\nmodernity and modernism signified the birth of popular culture as a concept and\nsocial phenomenon with mass accessibility and appeal, personifying the most\nbroadly shared meanings of a social system.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Consequences of\nModern Mans Nihilism and Hedonism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dire consequences of such a modernist philosophy and such a set of modernist behavioural patterns could be anticipated. And they were as pervasive and universal as the philosophy and lifestyles that instigated them. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr puts it: \u0153Modern man has burned his hands in the fire which he himself kindled when he allowed himself to forget who he is. The problem of the devastation brought upon the environment by technology, the ecological crisis and the like, all issue from the malady of amnesia or forgetfulness from which modern as well as postmodern man suffer.\u009d[24]<\/a> Modern man has simply forgotten who he is and how he is relatable to the spiritual realm and the realm of his Creator and the Creator of the whole universe. Living on the periphery of his own circle of existence, Modern man \u0153has been able to gain a qualitatively superficial but quantitatively staggering knowledge of the world. He has projected the externalised and superficial image of himself upon the world. And then, having come to know the world in such externalised terms, he has sought to reconstruct an image of himself based upon this external knowledge.\u009d[25]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the greatest\ncrimes of modernity was the undue exaltation of mans freedom. Such happened to\nthe extent that it was held that man was so talented and capable that he could\nact independently of any other agent in the universe, while harbouring the idea\nof a new world and indefinite material progress therein, which was set to be\nidentifiable with the attainment of mans inclusive welfare and happiness. It\nwas additionally believed that only free man could change and form the world. On\naccount of his newly acquired qualities \u201c on top of which stood absolute\nfreedom \u201c man could do so \u0153as he willed irrespective of any cosmic laws or even\nof the Divine Will.\u009d[26]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus armed with his\nrebellious and defiant tendencies against Heaven and the metaphysical world,\nselfish and avaricious personality, disoriented mind and character that lacked\nany genuine moral compass, modern man was set to cause in the long run more\ndamage than benefit for himself, humankind and the natural world. He proved\nthereby that his modernity project was more of a mirage than an authentic and\ndefinite achievement. The global spiritual, moral and environmental crises that\nhave been brought about by modern man and his science and its applications in\nthe sphere of technology, have been unprecedented both in scope and intensity.\nSo critical and so omnipresent are the crises that they could yet prove a cause\nof the ultimate demise of man as a species.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having fully forgotten who he is, where he belongs and what his life purpose and mission are, artificial modern man has created artificial environments for himself and his operations. Concrete jungles, calling to mind the worst and most unpleasant aspects of modern predominant urban life, have become the rule of the day for modern urbanised man. From those artificial environments, nature, human natural disposition and, of course, elements of spirituality, have been excluded to the greatest possible extent. Nature has become desacralised for modern man. It has come to be regarded as something to be used, exploited and profited from to the fullest extent possible without any sense of obligation and responsibility towards it.[27]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the talk nowadays about sustainable development and peaceful coexistence with nature is not due to modern and postmodern mans sudden change in attitude towards nature, life and himself. Rather, it is due to mans realisation that the natural resources of the world are dwindling at an alarming rate. As such, he will soon become unable to rampantly use and enjoy nature for his greedy and selfish ends, as he did in the past. As attractive as they seem, the notions of sustainability and preservation of nature aim only to prolong mans raping and exploitation of the natural world as a means as well as object of his physical pleasure-seeking. Hence, the issue is never about nature, but about man; nor is it about the inherent interests of nature, but about the artificial and extravagant interests of man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The harmony between man and his self, and between man and nature, has been damaged by modernity beyond repair. That is a fact everyone seems to be ready to admit. But not everyone realises that this disequilibrium, with its internal and external manifestations in man and his existential contexts, \u0153is due to the destruction of the harmony between man and God.\u009d[28]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lastly, as an illustration of the scale of the problems faced by man today, according to the findings from a United Nations-backed panel called the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)<\/a>, up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, because of human activities. Without \u0153transformative changes\u009d to the worlds economic, social and political systems to address this crisis, the IPBES panel projects that major biodiversity losses will continue to 2050 and beyond. \u0153We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide,\u009d says IPBES chair Robert Watson. ***[29]<\/a>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Leszek Kolakowski, Modernity on Endless Trial<\/em>, (Chicago: The\nUniversity of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 6. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Richard Sheppard, Modernism-Dada-Postmodernism<\/em>,\n(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1999), p. 8. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>\nHilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity<\/em>, (Cambridge: Massachusetts\nInstitute of Technology, 1999), p. 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Richard Sheppard, Modernism-Dada-Postmodernism<\/em>,\np. 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a>\nMarvin Perry, Joseph Peden and Theodore Von Laue, Sources of the Western\nTradition<\/em> (Volume II: from the Renaissance to the Present), (Boston:\nHoughton Mifflin Company, 1999), p. 264.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Richard Sheppard, Modernism-Dada-Postmodernism<\/em>,\np. 8-9. Jon Newton, The Revelation Worldview: Apocalyptic Thinking in a\nPostmodern World<\/em>, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015), p. 21. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Brian Duignan, Postmodernism<\/em>, (Encyclopaedia\nBritannica, www.britannica.com\/topic\/postmodernism-philosophy<\/a>, 2018, accessed on June, 10 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Religion and the Order of\nNature<\/em>, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 137-138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a>\nMarshall Berman, All That is Solid Melts into Air, the Experience of\nModernity<\/em>, (London: Verso, 1982), pp. 90-120.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity<\/em>, p. 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Jon Newton, The Revelation Worldview:\nApocalyptic Thinking in a Postmodern World<\/em>, p. 22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Richard Sullivan, Dennis Sherman and John Harrison, A\nShort History of Western Civilization<\/em>, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), p.\n462.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Ibid., pp. 22-23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Religion and the Order of\nNature<\/em>, p. 130.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Christopher Witcombe, The Roots of Modernism<\/em>,\n(Art History Resources, http:\/\/arthistoryresources.net\/modernism\/roots.html<\/a>, accessed on June, 11 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Daniel Donovan, Church and Theology in the\nModernist Crisis<\/em>, (San Francisco: Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual\nConvention of the Catholic Theological Society of America \u201c June 5-8, 1985,\n2013), pp. 145-159. Marshall Berman, All That is Solid Melts into Air, the\nExperience of Modernity<\/em>, pp. 120-129.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Paulos Huang, Dialogue and Critique: The 16th<\/sup>\nCentury Religious Reformation and Modernity<\/em>, inside: \u0153Yearbook of Chinese\nTheology 2017\u009d, edited by Paulos Huang, (Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. vii-xxiii.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Christopher Witcombe, Modernism and Postmodernism<\/em>,\n(Art History Resources, http:\/\/arthistoryresources.net\/modernism\/modpostmod.html,\naccessed on June, 11 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Brian Duignan, Postmodernism<\/em>, (Encyclopaedia\nBritannica, www.britannica.com\/topic\/postmodernism-philosophy<\/a>, 2018, accessed on June, 10 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Religion and the\nOrder of Nature<\/em>, p. 170.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Ibid., pp. 171-172.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Raymond Betts, A History of Popular Culture<\/em>,\n(New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2004), pp. 9-11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islam and the Plight of Modern\nMan<\/em>, (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 2002), pp. 4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Ibid., p. 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Religion and the\nOrder of Nature<\/em>, p. 173.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature, the\nSpiritual Crisis of Modern Man<\/em>, (Chicago: ABC International Group, 1997),\np. 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Ibid., p. 20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Jeff Tollefson, Humans are Driving One Million\nSpecies to Extinction<\/em>, (https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/d41586-019-01448-4<\/a>, 2019, accessed on June, 10 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Spahic Omer Modernity is a universal term. It is at once a historical period, worldview and ideology. As such, its got much in common… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":130654,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8,20],"tags":[],"nelio_content":{"isAutoShareEnabled":true,"autoShareEndMode":"never","automationSources":{"useCustomSentences":false,"customSentences":[]},"followers":[111,12,124,5],"suggestedReferences":[],"efiUrl":"","efiAlt":"","highlights":[],"permalinkQueryArgs":[]},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/modernity_ralf.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130483"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=130483"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":130655,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130483\/revisions\/130655"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/130654"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=130483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=130483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=130483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}