modernism - rationalism or humanism?

Sorry, as always I'm in doubt if I posted at the right subforum of Philosophy. I think it was a wrong decision to tear former "Philosophy & Religion" into smaller parts, because I think it's wrong to categorize philosophical thinking in categories... It's the same as to accepting rationalism (and its scientifical method: quantitatism), before reflecting over common philosophical issues about if it's basically right or wrong?...

Nevermind... Conditions are conditions, and all in all I think it's interesting to move within given frames, somehow, cuz it's sound sometimes to have your perspective locked...

Nevermind - to the thing:



One thing that anoy me…

Me (my name is Sune) and my friend Brian both believe in marxism, so we often discuss the origins of modernism that must be expected as the mother of Marxism & all following Marxist thinking.

Despite both of us agree that socialism must be end & solution, still we’re always ending up in bitter, non-constructive argues.
One reason could be that we’re both very independent thinking creatures by nature & maybe a little bit too proud…

But recently I have been thinking about if the real source of our conflict is caused by a simple misunderstanding of what the term “modernism” actually mean…

Brian is for modernism – being a true Marxism, and I’m for modernism, also Marxist thinking – believing in Modernism as a historical developmental phase defined out of how Man turn Nature into Culture – a fully rational process.

I can’t reject Modernism, cuz as a socialist progress-thinking man, I can’t choose Feudalism, Merchantilism, or Colonialism as alternatives to Modernism.

Only since the entering of the breakthrough of Modernism, the Human Being felt so well as we do today, afterall… Or do we..?

No.
Don’t believe slavery has been abolished, just because Modernism has disguised it into a new manifestation.
I’m working with adult people who are mental disabled – (2-5 year physchological stage) – I tell you somehing:
Despite it’s somehow tough – emotional as well as physical – to work with these adult people, typically at a stage of 2-3-year olds, it’s SO FUCKIN’ MORE TOUGH to fight with the local county about money for next years budgets, because the same taxpayers that stare at u like morans, when I’m at town with one of my clients. don’t wanna pay a dime, despite they think it’s just ALRIGHT! to place themselves in a circle around my clients, and simply glare, glare, glare… L
Maybe mental disabled people have got some policital rights, but what does it all matter, as they stil got so low priority in our society!
What does it all matter as they still are being observed as somebody you are socially aloud just to… stare at… without feeling shame??

Sorry – I’m drifting away…
My whole point about this thread was to wonder, how me & my friend could disagree that much, since we’re both socialists & since we both agree that if modernism would be rejected, we would have feudalism?

What’s the thing we don’t agree about?
I can only come to the conclusion that Modernism itself is not a objective, define subject, but is rather a subject containing inner dualist opposite poles, which one both are represented by me & Brian, and that is the basic reason we’re fighting, despite none of us are rejecting modernism as a historical necessary flow.

Modernism is not an absolute ontological historical state. Any historical phase derive cracks of pasts conflicts into Now, and therefore I think the main problem of Modernism has roots in the unsolved antagonistic poles Humanism vs. Rationalism.

I represent Humanism, my friend Brian represent Rationalism. Modernism can’t be rejected, unless the Human Being wanna roll back to Feudalism, so therefore – I think - the only way out is to synthesize humanism & rationalism.
If we're not able to dissolve the dualism of Modernism into a new philosophy of "modern monism" we'll all be swallowed of the machine someday soon...

love,
-wolf-