Talk:Hypermodernity

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Arts Arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Wouldn't this be considered a combination of both postmodernism and remodernism?

• Not as Virilio speaks of it. Perhaps an interesting model would be the computer: as the personal computer is to Postmodernism - the supercomputer is to Hypermodernism (its links with an intensified rationality and the Military Industrial Complex. This all changes when you start to think of the supercomputer in the context of distributed computing projects (BOINC et al.) --Damonzucconi (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error, Coco

'Postmodernity is meant to describe a condition of total emergence from Modernity and its faith in progress and improvement in empowering the individual.' None of the best known theorists of postmodernity (Lyotard, Derrida, Baudrillard, Jameson etc.) have described it as a break with modernity, but rather as a critical supplement to it. Far from describing an emergence (with its association of shedding something), postmodernity is inextricably bound up with the conditions of modernity.81.144.199.142 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Would it be an idea to provide a section detailing criticisms of this theory? I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to do it myself, but was hoping to find one as they commonly appear in similar articles. (139.222.202.198 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

"attributes"

will someone who knows what they're talking about add a one-sentence gloss on the word "attribute" to the entry in the specific structural definition as it's to be understood here? thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eetthhaann (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

The article is opaque and almost ridiculous. Should we translate the French one? 2804:D59:89DB:3B00:61CD:906A:979A:9A9D (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, it’s not almost ridiculous, it’s completely ridiculous. One question is whether it’s a candidate for deletion due to being complete gibberish. It’s probably worth an entry though since the term “hypermodern” is used for chess and has been used by a French writer, Gilles Lipovetsky I think, in some effort to define whatever comes after post-postmodernism. Sych (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]