This is the second piece of yours that I've read and it's great to know somebody else is thinking about this stuff here at Substack. It has come to my attention that you are a genuine participant in the serious activity of mind, and I appreciate that. I hadn't thought of modernity going all the way back to the pre-socratics, but if you do take it that far back (or further), might you run the risk of obliterating the distinction between modernity and antiquity altogether? While we ought to admit a degree of arbitrary discretion when selecting an epoch that differentiates 'then' from 'now' I think there are adequate distinctions between the 'modern' and 'ancient' mind that we can work from in order to trust said selections. This comment section is far to small for me to carry on, but I too have a Substack thing where some of my arguments and ideas are posted in the form of essays. While I acknowledge there were previous factors and trends that lead up to the Enlightenment, my latest essay, 'Distinctions Denied and Connections Compromised' address the subject in question and centers on those 'illumined' modern minds of the late 16th and early 17th century (I'll forgo a litany since I know you know their names). I'd be delighted for you to read it (and my first essay, Reclaiming Common Sense) and provide feedback, if you're interested. In the meantime, I'll check out some of your other work and maybe drop some more comments...
One of the more interesting explanations of modernity can be found in Henrich's recent book "The WEIRDEST people in the World". It is compatible with your list beginning with the protestant revolution, but starts earlier and adds much more detail than I have seen anywhere else. What is your take on Henrich?
Dear Mr. Atkins,
This is the second piece of yours that I've read and it's great to know somebody else is thinking about this stuff here at Substack. It has come to my attention that you are a genuine participant in the serious activity of mind, and I appreciate that. I hadn't thought of modernity going all the way back to the pre-socratics, but if you do take it that far back (or further), might you run the risk of obliterating the distinction between modernity and antiquity altogether? While we ought to admit a degree of arbitrary discretion when selecting an epoch that differentiates 'then' from 'now' I think there are adequate distinctions between the 'modern' and 'ancient' mind that we can work from in order to trust said selections. This comment section is far to small for me to carry on, but I too have a Substack thing where some of my arguments and ideas are posted in the form of essays. While I acknowledge there were previous factors and trends that lead up to the Enlightenment, my latest essay, 'Distinctions Denied and Connections Compromised' address the subject in question and centers on those 'illumined' modern minds of the late 16th and early 17th century (I'll forgo a litany since I know you know their names). I'd be delighted for you to read it (and my first essay, Reclaiming Common Sense) and provide feedback, if you're interested. In the meantime, I'll check out some of your other work and maybe drop some more comments...
Best regards and keep up the good work,
A. Ty Kun
https://tyndall.substack.com
Modernity is the moment you are living in; it is always more modern than the past.
One of the more interesting explanations of modernity can be found in Henrich's recent book "The WEIRDEST people in the World". It is compatible with your list beginning with the protestant revolution, but starts earlier and adds much more detail than I have seen anywhere else. What is your take on Henrich?