Abstract

Uvodno, vremenski i sadržajno pokušavamo odrediti pojam Moderne u odnosu na suvremene pokušaje postuliranja postmodernizma. Kako je središnja pozicija rada problem »univerzalizma«, ovdje naglašavamo kako kritika te modernističke osnove nije isključivo jedna postmoderna metoda, drži se da je ta kritika naprosto logički unutarmoderni razlog. Objedinjujuća komponenta svih elemenata koja se kreće oko »napada« na novovjekovnu Descartesovu paradigmu svijeta i života nije nastala tek u vidu eventualnog postmodernizma, prije se može reći da se ona, kao i neke druge komponente poput sinkretizma, eklekticizma ili brisanja granica između elitne i pop kulture, pojavila već znatno ranije . Središnji dio rada problematizira ideju navodnoga modernog reda; pred-novovjekovno mišljenje građanskoga u-ređenja temelji se na stavu da je prirodno stanje kaotično i/li nesigurno pa se ono mora napustiti i prevladati. To se u slučaju društvenoga ugovora čini metodičkim predloškom koji počiva na principima uma. Pokazat će se da konzekvencije takvoga umskog uređenja nisu univerzalni čovjek, njegovo prosvjetljenje i kulturno oblikovanje prirode, već zapadanje u barbarstvo , nadzirano reproduciranje bilo zatečenoga sustava ili disciplinarno održavanje bio-moći koji su temeljna počela moderne suvremenosti. Kritikom liberalističkoga pluralizma i bio-političke proizvodnje pokušat ćemo ponuditi argumente koji bi učvrstili pretpostavljene teze.In introduction we are trying to define the term Modernity both in time and subject notion in relation with contemporary attempts of postulating postmodernism. Since the problem of »universalism« is the central position of the work, we are stressing here that critique of that modern fundament is not exclusively one postmodern method, we are assuming that that critique is simply logical inner-modern reason. The combining component of all elements which is revolving around »attack« at modern Descartes’ world and life paradigm didn’t arise as a part of eventual postmodernism, we can rather say that it has appeared even earlier as some other components like syncretism, eclecticism or removing the border between elite and pop culture have .The central part of the text deals with an idea of so called modern order; the pre-modern thought of civil in-order is based on attitude that natural state is chaotic and/or insecure so it should be abandoned and overcame. In the case of social contract that can be done by methodical recipe which is based on mind principles. It will be shown that consequences of that mind order are not universal human being, his enlightenment and cultural nature modelling, but falling in barbarity , controlled reproduction of present system or discipline bio-power maintenance which are all together basic elements of modern contemporaneous. We are trying to propose arguments for strengthening presumed theses by critique of liberal pluralism and bio-political production