《现代性及其不满》读后感精选( 十 ) modernity|modern|debate|book|M

So, to conclude, Smith’s book failed in three aspects: first, he does not conjoin the arguments from different authors; second, he does not present the scene of the debate and the two sides of the debate in a clear way; third, he does not analyze the cause of the debate. These three shortcomings can be overcome if the story is written by other method paying attention to the context, like the method applied by Cambridge school. What would a story of modernity from Cambridge school be and what is the potential benefit？ There would three possible advantages.
First, by putting the argument back to its historical context, we can better understand its origins. As Smith wrote in the introduction part, the debate about modern was initially from the ancient-modern quarrel, a literary debate about whether the rules of aesthetics and literary composition since Aristotle should still be obeyed. The spread of the debate to religion, science, morality and politics happened in certain context. By rebuilding the historical environment, the quarrel may not be “absurd”[3] to us. And we can see clearer how the basic belief of modernity is established, how it is novel from the previous thought. It also applies to author’s analysis on Machiavelli. The author compares Machiavelli to the ancient Roman, but this kind of comparison cannot show the novelty of Machiavelli correctly since the latter are so far away from Machiavelli. As a man of Renaissance, Machiavelli was immersed in the environment of Renaissance humanism and his contemporaries also committed themselves to the revival of classic legacy. To understand Machiavelli stands out from his contemporaries and contribute to the creation of the modern morality we should put him back to his context with his contemporaries.
Second, the context provides the arena for the debate so that we can see the key points of the debate. In presenting Rousseau’s argument on sciences and arts, Smith has mentioned the Encyclopédistes and the Republic of Letters, who actually held opposite opinion to Rousseau, but he did not develop his discussion. It is not enough to just describe the situation and the influence of the Republic of Letters, but how exactly they reshape the taste and the morality of the public and what their arguments are. If we had the perception about the opinion of the role of the arts at that times, we could better understand the standpoint of Rousseau. But Smith did not do so. Instead, he provides a comparison of Rousseau to Plato, a comparison aimed at showing the similarities and the divergence of the ancient and the modern. We can see the difference between Rousseau and Plato in this way, but this difference is not the issue of the debate and comes like a castle in the air with no foundation. If the object of comparison is the Republic of Letters, we can see what points are Rousseau against because the Republic of Letters is the so-called modern.
Third, by rebuilding the context of arguments, we can see clearly the development of the debate and the dialectic of modernity. Modernity is not a building built in a day and consistent at all times, it developed in the historical process and had its discrepancy. Smith provided pieces of the building and took pictures of the architecture at different times, but it is different from showing the process of construction and a documentary of modernity. Modernity as a project is achieved through generations of thinkers, the central issues of modernity emerged from certain historical context. The theme of modernity transits with the time passed. The opponents of modernity also faded in in certain context. Argument of modernity is always the argument of some aspects of modernity, disembedding the arguments from to their context and we will lose the whole story. On the contrary, putting the argument back will help us to recognize the picture. If modernity can be described with certain adjectives like individuality, toleration, progress, etc., by rebuilding the context of arguments we can figure out how these features of modernity come out. It also contributes to the understanding of the counter-enlightenment. How religious critique aimed at secularization met its antithesis of rationalization and “disenchantment”, individuality meaning self-liberation turned to the rhetoric of alienation, and democracy gave its way to democratic despotism, can be understood if we put the issue back to its historical context.