Talk:Modernity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Modernity, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article may overlap with the one at Modern world. --Joy [shallot] 18:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but I believe this term is better suited for an encyclopedia. I've started a discussion about a merge at Talk:Modern Times (history).

Peter ^Isotalo 15:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, leave it. Modernity is a philosophical concept, as well, and renaming it "Modern Times" would take away from the usefulness of the article.

I left the link to Talk:Modern Times (history) to keep the discussion together. Please make your post there.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In my discipline (Geograpy) modernity is often looked on independant of any time period. Perhaps this article should cover the project of modernity instead of a particular time period, while the other article focuses on the historical meaning. -Halidecyphon 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; 'Modernity' is a philosophical concept, and not necessarily the same as Modern Times, Modernism or Modern. --Yanemiro 04:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i dont think the pages should be merged. and although modernity is an ideological concept, it still must be placed in a context of time as ideologies rise and fall depending on socio economic factors. an explanation of modernity/ modernism without placing it in a certain time and place removes the ability of the article to explain which factors contributed to the rise of any movement. jojoman 5/6/06

modernity and modern times should not be merged, particuarly as sociologists regard modernity as a concept separate to modern times. by merging the two, essentially the philosophical component of modernity (particuarly relating to the changes involved in the Great Transformations of the enlightenment period and the revolutions) is overpowered by the actual events themselves. Modern times also implies todays era, whereas sociologists make a distinction between modernity (17th/18th century to roughly late 20th century) and now (postmodernity).

For the third time, please refer to the joint discussion at Talk:Modern Times (history). Split discussions will lead to fewer people reading your posts.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Modern Times" should not merge with "modernity". I believe it will cause more confusion than already exists. Modern Times refers to a specific time period that historians refer to. Modern Times is not generally thought of as including the time in which we live now (2006). Contrastingly, modernity is a broad concept that has completely different connotations, such as fashion, architecture, modern technology, etc.

It should not be merged, transition is history and politics should not be confused with history labeling. imper 19/09/2006

Some might argue the Modernity is an ELEMENT of Modern Times. While there is overlap between the two concepts, these articles should be separate for the same reasons that "White House" is separate from "The President of the United States"

thank you, peter, for linking to the other discussion. the only problem is that the "discuss" link on the Modernity site about its merging with Modern Times leads to this discussion. That could help ensure people don't end up here and stay here if they want to talk about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.15.67 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 8 November 2006.

Well, I'll try to sum this up, removing the merge-tag. --Flammingo^Parliament 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modernity and "Modern Times"

What is the rather strict separation of modernity and the modern period based on? Does this reflect the consensus among historians at the moment?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] modern, post modern?

Doesn't "modern" mean simply generally 'what is around today', i.e. 'up to date'? ...'what is around today'. That is not implying in any way that "modern" is better or worse. How can something be post that? VeriGGlater 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)