The Beginning of Modernity [Philosophy]

The transition from the period of Antiquity and the Medieval Era to the Modern Period was a gradual shift with the change from Scholasticism and the "arid theorizing of Aristotelianism" to Modern philosophy occurring through the effects of the Scientific Revolution [The Age of Reason/Age of Rationalism] and the great empiricists and rationalists of Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the scientific historiography of Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu and the other philosophes of the Age of Enlightenment culminating in the attempted synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism and the amelioration of the mind-body dichotomy by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. However, if the transition from the Ancient and Medieval worlds to the Modern Era could be embodied by the work and philosophical treatises of a single philosopher, which philosopher would represent the nascent shift from the Ancient and Medieval worlds to the period of Modernity? The four listed philosophers are those that have been mentioned quite frequently in discussions that I have maintained with experts and scholars in the field of philosophy and other developing or budding philosophers.

The problems of Modernity include the disassociation from nature, existential angst and despair, atrabiliousness, social disconnection and the superficiality of contemporary society. It can be said that with Rene Descartes' Meditations on the First Philosophy and his mathematics that man has generally lost his intimate connection with nature and has placed an overwhelming reliance on mathematical constructs as opposed to adhering to an organic and intimate approach to nature. For Rene Descartes, everything in existence can be doubted except for mathematics. For this rationalist, mathematics was universalizable or applicable to every conceivable situation. The truths or principles of mathematics were innate and were not based on sensory knowledge or external stimuli. While all other things and objects can be doubted through his systematic process of doubt, Descartes viewed the core principles of mathematics as things that were not illusory and that which could not be doubted out of existence. Many individuals have labeled Rene Descartes and his rationalistic approach to philosophical concerns as setting in motion the beginning of the period of Modernity. However, the problems of Rationalism [In Rationalism, knowledge is innate and is derived through reason, rationality and logical principles] and Empiricism [In Empiricism, knowledge is derived from sensory knowledge and experience] were debated and discussed by the philosophers Philo of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon in Classical Antiquity.

My choice for the philosopher that ushered in the period of Modernity would be the Florentine humanist, historian, political philosopher and military theorist Niccolo Machiavelli. Niccolo Machiavelli's philosophy shattered the two main pillars of European philosophy: Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, and Christian theology. Unlike Plato, Thomas More and Desiderius Erasmus, Niccolo Machiavelli sought to provide practical points on how a princeps should acquire power and on how a princeps should maintain his political sovereignty amidst political upheaval and tension as opposed to theoretical constructs while his amoral political philosophy went contrary to the concept of a chivalrous Christian ethos. As Thucydides did for the Ancients, Niccolo Machiavelli accomplished the same for Renaissance Europe: placing humans and human motives, desires and fears at the center or core of social and political transformations and disruptions as opposed to the influence of firmament or Nature. For Machiavelli, the ideal state of Plato and the commonwealth of Cicero were chimerical and had no basis in reality. Instead, his purpose was to reveal historical truth and the actual nature of human individuals which was as morally vulgar and selfish beings driven by hubris and desire instead of reason or rationality.

Could I get a rephrase of the question?

That is, are we answering who we think most likely to have ushered in the modern age of philosophy. Or, to whom we most credit the modern age of philosophy to? Or something else entirely?

While I disagree with Niccolo Machiavelli's denouncement of Plato's "The Republic" amongst other fameous philosophers and their ideal, or utopian states, I would credit him with the modern philosopher status.

~John

I would say Conrad. He is far more superior to Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke.

As I expressed earlier, I believe Machiavelli is not even close to the answer. I do not consider the Renaissance as Modern Day. I am sure Skirata will mention Karl Marx, but in reality had did create a whole vision for Earth, perhaps sparking a new age of thought. Communism rapidly spread and died. But I wouldn't say he began a more modern way of thought. I do not have a name to give you, but I do not believe any of the ones you list are correct. I am only familiar with philsophers before the Modern Era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Dylan

Communism rapidly spread and died.

---

communism is dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *jdm*

communism is dead?

---

Communism was never alive.
It's a utopian concept that has not really been put into practice, yet.
I'll keep my eye out for the birth of Communism, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Dylan

Communism rapidly spread and died.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rota

Communism was never alive.

---

What do you call China, Loas, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba's governments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

What do you call China, Loas, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba's governments?

---

The opposite of Communist. A Communist government would have a withering of the state such that a central government would be hardly detectable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

What do you call China, Loas, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba's governments?

---

he means the true version of communism,which hasnt been achieved yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

What do you call China, Loas, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba's governments?

---

None of those are communist countries. They use the teachings of communist philosophy. They tell their citizens that they are Communists. But, the veil of Communism is just a lie to control the citizenry. They fail to mention that true communism has no governing body. There is nobody "in charge" to tell the people what to do. The very fact that those countries have a hierarchical structure of government officials is proof that they are not Communist countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

The opposite of Communist. A Communist government would have a withering of the state such that a central government would be hardly detectable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rota

None of those are communist countries. They use the teachings of communist philosophy. They tell their citizens that they are Communists. But, the veil of Communism is just a lie to control the citizenry.

---

They have communism just not have Pure Communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

They have communism just not have Pure Communism.

---

No, they had Marxist So******m. No Marxist So******t government achieved Communism. The distinction between the two stages is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

What do you call China, Loas, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba's governments?

---

*Laos

North Korea has turned into a dictatorship. Also, It's also become so poor that free enterprise in the markets have been tolerated...

In China, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba there are millionaires and people who live with no money = not equal = not communist. They're slowly transitioning into democracies. Trade Unions are legalized....we're getting there. It will be a matter of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

They have communism just not have Pure Communism.

---

The have government controlled dispersal of goods... that is not Communism.

Communism is a utopian dream, which is why it is used as a fairy tale to tell the populace. The government is tricking the mundanes into believing they are supplicating their power to a communist ideal. In fact, it's an oligarchy, or aristocracy, or dictatorship, or whatever. They are countries where a group of government officials decide which citizens get what goods. That is not even close to Communism.

I can tell you I'm a flying spaghetti monster.
I may say it so much, and so often, and so compellingly that you finally believe me. That does not make it true.

Do you really believe those countries are Communists just because they say they are? Actions prove them wrong. The may talk the talk of Communism, but they do not walk the walk... therefore, they are not Communists.

Cuba's is the government with the best health care in North America. But that's neither here nor there; it's not truly communist. China is drifting into a quasi-captalist oligarchical social-ism (and it seems to work well for them) and NK is a military dictatorship.

But none of that has anything to do with the Moderns, especially as relates to the period of Antiquity. Marx did not create the industrial framework; he lived in it and observed it. To deny this is to deny Marx.

Of those listed, I would have to say Descartes, with Locke a close second. Temporally this may not make sense; history, however, is only ever linear within a single cultural context, especially as relates to philosophy.

Of all philosophers... Robert Boyle. Natural Philosophy diverging and generating science is the true beginning of the modern day, and Boyle's work gave the R.S. and the Institut the necessary impetus to create the framework which permits science to drive modern society and thought -- and which, incidentally, puts Plato into the back seat, whether justly or no.

Of course, Science is merely our modern myth representing Truth, as Religion was first and Philosophy thereafter. I'm curious what will replace it in turn.

=========================

Added later:
I knew it was a mistake; you were all shouting at one another; looked like a fine discussion. And here I had to come and interrupt with my views on Rene Descartes. Frankly, I expected more of a response, even with all the sore throats from yelling... I should have known not to put Descartes before the hoarse.