Modernity: An Analysis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- What makes you modern? We know that modernity means technology, industry, cities. But is there a modern attitude? A modern psychology?
What sets apart from pre-moderns? Can we even imagine what a traditional attitude might feel like?
Traditional life was circular. We were tied to the land day after day, month after month - the idea of improvement, or of relationships with a wider world, were largely non-existent.
The philosophers of the Enlightenment - Kant, Marx, Mill, Francis Bacon, and - were motivated by a powerful idea. That we could rationally understand the world, and use the world to shape history. They were all, in varying ways, about ordering the world, putting things in their place, making it predictable, usable.
So what makes up this modern attitude? I try to answer this question through Anthony Giddens' 'The Consequences of Modernity'.
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenandnow
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Subscribe to the podcast:
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2i...
Sources:
Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity
Anthony Giddens, Runaway World
Dennis Smith, Zygmunt Bauman, Prophet of Postmodernity
Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodernity’s DIscontents
David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity
Credits:
Anthony Giddens Photo, Szusi, CC BY-SA 3.0 ,creativecommons.org/licenses/b..., via Wikimedia Commons
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 3 Day 3 // DFM vs PRX | DRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/il3Twexat3A/mqdefault.jpg)
The way you TIMED that plane flying by to speak about aviation.... brilliance! Loving the production on this one and of course, the content itself is always top notch.
And when he paused the tv right at the part that he then used for the next section… excellent transition!
Then & Now is my favorite TH-cam channel on philosophy. It is a channel that consistently releases videos.
I have learned about so many different topics and subjects that I never would have come upon on my own.
I have yet to ever Patreon a creator, but I will change that this weekend.
I hope you know just how good you are at what you do, and how much of an impact your work has had on me.
Comments like this make my day, thank you!
Your use of old footage always brings a great vibe, i remember old public television documentaries i watched as a child. The best use of old footage i ever saw was in Adam Curtis’ "All watched over by machines of loving grace", that atmosphere was more captivating then most movies. I hope you’ll eventually master the art of editing to beat the BBC’s dedicated teams. You’re not far 🤘
I'm getting strong James Burke "Connections" "Connections II" and "The Day the Universe Changed" energy from this.
I’ve noticed that you have an affinity for making content which covers the various facets of modernism. I think a possibly interesting avenue for further videos would be a focus on the ‘philosophy’ of TedK/Unabomber. It goes without saying his crimes were abhorrent, but his works are of genuine value, if only to understand our world through a pretty niche lease. His critique of the modern technological system is integral to any sort of thorough conception of the modern world in my humble opinion.
Primitivism makes no sense in practice. Billions would die of starvation if modern agricultural practices were ended. Not to mention the enormous ecological catastrophe that would result first if 7 billion human beings suddenly had to hunt and forage for food.
Also, how would technology be suppressed? How could you possibly prevent people from inventing and innovating without some kind of totalitarian government monitoring everyone like the type Ted claims he wants to avoid?
Furthermore, his argument is unclear. Exactly what time period does Ted believe humanity should return to (and what possible evidence does he have)?He opens his manifesto claiming that industrial civilization is responsible for mankind’s unhappiness. Then he moves on to claim that people are unhappy because all of the necessities for life (food, clothing, shelter) are guaranteed through division of labor, and thus people are allowed too much down time causing existential crises. If that’s true, then people must be made completely self-reliant as they were before the agricultural revolution. So which is it? Pre-industrial or pre-agricultural?
Ted was a brilliant man who grew deranged and by the time he wrote his manifesto he was already more deranged than he was brilliant, unfortunately
I totally agree. When u search Unabomber you get these dumb videos about the hunt on the "unabomber". Entertainment for simple folks. Ive read Industrial Society and Its Future and it blew me away. Everytime I begin to speak to people about Ted they think im a crazy terrorist too. Such a shame.
Ahh, I enjoy how much the quality of your videos has increased in recent months ! It is seldom I experience like there is something new, some new mode of thinking, some new way of conceptualising, associate and bridge concepts - but this video invoked me this feeling ! Great video !
This is phenomenal. Great work. I always get a new perspective from your vids…
All your videos are incredible quality and your channel is criminally underrated, keep up the great work!
this could be shown in any sociology lecture - very good summary
I show this and your Postmodern video to my Aesthetics class every year. This is the perfect distillation of these complex topics to introduce them to the difference. I appreciate you making these.
I've always liked your video's but you're on a whole other level lately!
Another fascinating video. Just carry on with what you've been doing mate. Thank You...
Why does he look like Paul Bettany to me? Great vid.
I really enjoyed your video, and I feel like you’ve really cleared up for me the concept of modern/postmodernism. Thanks!
Your videos are so logic but so eye opening. Like you say things I already knew within myself but I didn't have awareness of them. Thank you for making these videos, they improve my life.
thank you for the video, everyone talks about it and all those definitions are so complicated. The video helps allot.
I saw the post-modern follow up video coming from the start of this one ;) Maybe after the next video, it would be a fun idea to explore meta-modernism/post-postmodernism, which tries to reconcile the uncertainty and irony of post-modernism with our need for certainty and sincerity. (At least this is how I understand it)
Yeah I wanna know what that's about
Great idea!
Said it before and will say it again this one of the best channels !!!!!!
outstanding work, as always!
Amazing work
This video is sublime! Thank you.
this channel is criminaly underrated
That clock going off sounded too similar to my alarm, gave me a good shock lol
Would love to see you do an overview on the development of the immanence v. transcendence debate. Starting with Spinoza v. Kant to Latour v. Luhmann through process philosophy and 'the speculative turn'. Your output is already basically leading up to it from a social theory perspective. Yes, that includes the Peterson commentary. If there's anyone who could do it concise and in a way "contrarian laypeople" could understand, it's you!
Very insightful, thanks
My man I know this is a bit of an older video but I gotta have the soundtrack for the music in this video. Absolutely beautiful synergy between the topics, and the soundtrack . A True Essay of a scholar
Funny you say that because the music in this video made me think of Sneaker Pimps -6 Underground which I just downloaded now. Haven't heard that song for so long. Not sure what the tune in this video was tho, sorry.
We Have Never Been Modern
- Bruno Latour
We will be though
I'll be watching soon once I have an opening at work, this looks good.
In Georg Simmel's 'The Philosophy of Money' modernity seems to be described as a fundamental shift in our relationship with money from a supplement to our daily lives dominated by our group identities. Where we once signaled our commitment to our roles through signals like our clothing, we now buy and change fashion regularly to express our individual preferences. Where money once traded hands only for transactions between communities that lacked the shared language of ritual, we now seek money as individuals allowing us to specialize ourselves and have relationships with individual strangers defined by money.
From the breakdown of generalist economic activity into atomized specialization of labor, money and our pursuit of it could be at the heart of modernity. And from the rationalization required to navigate a market dominated by money transactions by individuals, we start to apply that mindset to everything else - science, religion, and ideology. Soon we needed reasons for everything we thought or did, where once we never questioned why we prayed the way we do, or dressed the way we do.
These videos are brill.
Excellent content. Appreciating your approach to avoid jargon and present everything simply. Would have been better if Reinforced Concrete had found a place in this production as a mega facet of modernity.
Hmm, modernity and trust.... Seems fruitful, very interesting. Loved the Flaubert quote
So good
Thank you .
wow, amazing, thx
beyond your beilliant explainşng and your endless information the edit of this video is mak me watch it again
Yeah, idk about all this. I understand trying to quantify modernity and including clock as the social tool that facilitated certain behaviors that reciprocate to influence other behaviors within a linear or retroactive modality, but growing up in southern states in the states, you spend a shit ton of time in the woods fucking around, going off doing whatever because time isn't as big of a deal. I think the people who are concerned with modernity are probably just more enculturalized to a suburban or urban lifestyle that isn't always specifically absolute, even if erratic.
tldr urbanites dictate the concept of modernity at the present moment
one of the best articulation of modern . and I'm so sure If I were a girl I would instantly fall in love with your attitude.thank you for your hardworking.
I am now addicted to this channel
Well done man my partner and I loved this one
Excellent content. I took notes. Living in post-modern times, seems to have more definition than what should be inferred to exist, modern, or modernity. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. Like Enlightenment when to Romanticism then some kind of philosophical jumble to now, defined post-modernity. It had to exist, capital M Modern times and philosophy. A lot of commentary seems to focus on the aesthetic of the time, it's art and architecture.
22:31 "Trusting the news" - Hahahah, very funny, good one lolololol
I've heard stories from my gramps, how trust dramatically lower the cost of business but as I see it were moving towards a future where trust is no longer required but it will cost us
I really appreciate this chanel. Matei Calinescu - „Five faces of modernity” is a great book for this topic.
I'm not gonna say much. Just love your vids. That's it.
i learned so much from you
4:19 This should be around Nürnberg in Bavaria, Germany
10:42 well coordinated
Hey there,
Big fan of your videos. I was wondering what your educational background is (if any). I'm currently completing an Honours degree in Genetics and am getting a bit disillusioned at the prospect of science as a career. I studied philisophy (as well as science) in my undergrad and have been thinking more and more recently about doing more philosophy after I finish this Honours degree, so I guess I'm curious about the path people who do philosophy as a career (in any sense of the word career) take. Cheers
AWESOMESAUCE! I've wondered about this, ok wondered not got off my ass to dive into the rabbit hole and find out for myself but yeah, that itch be scratched yo
i like the video. your audio levels are all over the place though
Great work! Now I'll watch the next video on postmodernism.
Well done. Your discussion of trust is great -- it's central to pretty much everything in the world today. We have to trust or the wheels come off.
Also, I think it helps to realize most people are experts in something (you can do something better than others). If you're not, you are at the mercy of everybody else.
About the only thing I didn't like was the comment that modernism promised to give a better life etc. That's anthropomorphizing cultural evolution.
Thanks again, looking forward to watching more of your content which obviously took a great deal of effort to make.
Time + Space: A Giddens
Nice video. I agree with a lot of this, but I think I detect more anxiety than trust. Gretchen is the trust in Faust, remember, and tradition extends to trust looking back (Kosselick's idea of wisdom). In the heart of darkness, Marlow, for all his administration and cartography, begins to doubt European civilization. Kafka's point is about the loss of rules and understandings, and Freud is concerned how memories can't be formed - that the world is all about outside stimulus. The problem with trust is it revolves around 'thinking.' Do we think? Phenomenology is concerned with how we live with 'unthinking' practical consciousness. Anxiety is not the flip-side to trust - I don't need to "trust" my bus is waiting; I don't have existential dread about the financial markets. Anxiety is perhaps the sense of my sense of self not fulfilling the linguistic brief of my role (lacan), or the lack of authenticity more generally (eg. from surrealism, to futurism, to expressionism).
Didn’t ancient civilizations also have time tools? Sumerians, Chinese, etc…?
Love your content. Not a fan of the on location stuff, unless the audio is figured out.
Mircea Eliade's book "Cosmos and History" is a great treatise on 'circular' time in ancient culture.
Anyone got the link for the performance of Gymnopedie at 2:00?
One of our biggest current problems is that in this modern world we have to trust in many others, who are taking advantage in that trust we are very reliant on, and most are not being held to account, which is why they are doing it.
Does anyone now the name of the song playing in the background from around 21:32 ?
It smoothes so perfect with the imagery and the voice sample, love it!!
Would be great if someone could help
And great Video, love all of your work and you keep getting better! :)
0:55 Its also not natural, agricultural revolution was also a HUGE change for humans, the industrial world is only its logical evolution.
The planners want to plan everything so they can alleviate suffering at the cost of others. Modernity is ultimately about inversion and fixity. The desire for things to remain permanent across time while inverting everyone’s common sense.
Rationalised orderliness of Enlightenment
where can i read about author/creator?
Anyone know what the map at 5:05 is?
17:46 apart from money under the mattress, it was at this point I realised I don’t trust anything
Your videos are criminally under-viewed. Your video essays rival any of the big names like Shaun or Contrapoints
Anyone know what the song is at 2:00 minutes??
Best thumbnail yet 👍
Reembedding in expert systems.
trust and reliance are two different things. anyone wanting your money should not be trusted. strangers cannot be trusted. everyone is competing to take what you want and for what you have.
This is the weather report suite by the grateful dead put into video form
Is ontological security an idea of R.D. Laing's originally? I remember reading about this in relation to schizophrenia in a course I took.
Ahhh Giddens, sorry LORD Giddens, that should say enough about the guy and his "revolutionary" thinking. After all you don't become Director of the London School of Economics because of your challenging views of society. Don't get me wrong, this is no ad-hominem, but his views on historical materialism are just off. In that sense I really appreciate your little critic of value (in the money section) and the possibility of the "postmodern" something Giddens would definitely not appreciate :) Thanks for the video!
When you got to the bit about existentialism, it occurred to me that existential anxiety's usually been put down to the death of God - and _not_ to the kind of huge social change you'd spent the video describing. Could we go back to the unified time and space of feudalism without God, and without high anxiety? Maybe.
The great descrip;tor of how an ordered mega-society affects us that I know of is Freud's 'Civilisation and its Discontents' - which I've seem summarised as: civilisation simultaneously demands both aggression and its suppression. Similarly, modernity in so many ways seeks to alleviate our anxiety, yet simultaneously, in practice, increases it.
10:43 meta as hell
Who is Giddens, and why is he cited, and where?
I think the role of Epicurean ideas and general mumbo jumbo coming from the Epicurean tradition, is an important and overlooked aspect of modernity. Today, we can't move for ideas linked to it. It's all over the public policy process, like a male feminist on an abuse victim.
It's mod form has been about, like a bad smell, for about 300 years - eggy fart ethics!. Time we went back to ideas like Pauline Christianity or, better still, Stoic values.
Nietzsche’s second essay in On the Genealogy of Morals.
I still remember my college textbooks backin 2000 making distinctions between "pre-modern", "modern", "post-modern" and "contemporary" periods.
I prefer to think of our current historical period as "post-contemporary" -- which is oxymoronic when you think about it: "after-happening-right-now".
welcome to the singularity?
It’s interesting to think of Giddens in relation to climate change. As the idea of being modern is somehow in opposition to being post-modern, justified by the fragmenting of structuralist theories through the post-modern lens. The result is a post-structuralist order, which is more difficult to justify but it’s related to the popularity of relativism. th-cam.com/video/IFUBJlGAiq8/w-d-xo.html This clip from LSE kind of touches on it, in relation to the “performance of ordinariness” of the elite classes. In my opinion, this is not about being post-modern, it’s something else, it rest on the post-modern ontology which as rearranged the structures of society. I think Climate change is doing the same to Giddens’ expert systems.
Expert systems: airlines. Made of clocks, spedometers, $, other disembedments.
I think that long-term planning has been in human behavior for a very long time. It’s just now we can plan more efficiently and we can plan for the very long term future, like say 10 years down the line. We can plan our entire lives if we wanted to haha. Although entropy always has a way of showing its ugly head, when we get too carried away. That’s why we must learn to roll with the punches 😁
Omitted (or perhaps emergent) from the technologies- formalized scientific method.
One of the hallmarks of the scientific method- testability and reproducibility.
If your society fails at either of these, is it really modern (or is this a further abstracted "the magic fairy pretend god is dissatisfied with my insufficient offering")?
It's fun when social scientists tell on themselves: "We no longer know or help our neighbors" Uh... I think that's just you man.
Hello, my name is Andrés Jiménez and I am a Political Science student (I live in Bogotá - Colombia).
1. This message is to ask you what academic works can allow me to understand which factors explain the famines in the Soviet Union and Mao's China and why these experiments led to autocratic power hierarchies. In other words: Are these phenomena the result of the "inherent" relationship of socialism-communism with authoritarianism and the "impossibility" of economic planning? (As the opposite ideological spectrum would say). Or on the contrary: Did these phenomena have causes that have never been explained in the dominant discourse? (external sabotage, isolationism etc ...?)
2. I would also like to understand if there is evidence to link capitalism with the practices of imperialism and interventionism (in Latin America as in the Middle East, the phenomenon of military intervention by the United States and the United Kingdom is clear)
On the one hand, these issues interest me because I want to have the ability to analyze history without ideological dogmatism (but always from a critical perspective that is not submissive to the hegemonic political, cultural and economic order, since I consider myself a person on the political spectrum of the left) without giving more strength to the politicians with whom I do not agree (right-wing libertarians, new right , new conservatism , neoliberalism , austrians economics or practically anyone who says that capitalism and liberal democracy are the end of history)
3. Since I began to study and be interested in politics, philosophy, economics etc, I have been told that communism only means hunger, death, authoritarianism and misery. All the political discourse is centered on the fact that there is nothing beyond capitalism and that everything that tries to be different will result in the elements mentioned above. However, I see that Capitalism being the global system is leading us to an unprecedented ecological crisis, where phenomena of scarcity, conflicts and even authoritarianism begin to manifest
(of course, in the IPCC or United Nations reports the problem is reduced to the technical aspect of greenhouse gas emissions, but nobody mentions the production and consumption patterns, growth and accumulation dynamics etc)
4. I understand that the concept of progress and development is transversal to capitalism and the "really existing socialisms" so that Latin America has made proposals beyond development. An example of people who question this are the Colombian anthropologist Arturo Ecobar and his text "The invention of the third world" and "The invention of development" or the analysis of ecological economy proposed by Joan Martinez Alier, the analysis of Eduardo Gudynas on the " Buen Vivir "and post-extractive economies or the works of the various decolonial perspectives that deal a lot with the issue of colonialism, capitalism and dependency (political, economic and cultural) in the Latin American region (Rita Laura Segato, Anibla Quijano, Enrique Dussel , Walter Mignolo, Maria Lugones, Santigo Castro Gomez, Ramon Grosfoguel, Bolivar Echeverría).
Hey Andres, no soy el del canal pero para lo del imperialismo y capital te recomiendo busques los documentos de a CIA sobre la Operación Condor. El libro de Vargas Llosa "Tiempos Recios" es una crónica del imperialismo en Guatemala y su conexión con el capital, America Central se conocía como "Banana Republic" porque servían básicamente como plantas de producción para la United Fruit Company. Por lo demás quizá el mejor analista del imperialismo es Noam Chomsky pero te recomiendo ver textos de teoría postcolonial también (Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Ariella Azoullay, Edouard Glissant, etc.) Suerte!
@@MG-gl7gx Lo tendré en cuenta , muchas gracias.
@@MG-gl7gx 100% esta genial todo lo recomendado, agregaría ademas una mirada feminista en autores como Silvia Federici (Caliban and the Witch) y toda la serie de documentos descalificados por la CIA de la operacion Track 2 (conocida tb como FUBELT).
Este video tambien te va a interesar. Saludos!
th-cam.com/video/RJLA2_Ho7X0/w-d-xo.html
Colombia have never been really under a liberal free market system Is a kleptocracy along with Latin America, the only one that used to be like that was argentina (No wonder why used to be a first world country) and Chile since the fall of pinochet (but recent progress is being undone by the lefties coup)
Capitalism and comunism are NOT an economy , they are just MODELS (derive it by imagination of economics of how an ecoomy work or should work in the case of laizees faire capitalism and comunism - read human action by ludwing Mises.
Modern economics use econometrics but most of those models are based on the old ones with faulty foundations so it's garbage in, garage out.
As of today the best economics research is done thanks to the development of computerized modelling and simulation and system science that allow to actually study such Complex system)
Now as a rule of thumb if the nation's system is based on personal liberties, trade liberties (low taxes and regulation), private property, rule of law, cultural burgouse ("lazzines is a sin, working hard and being conservative is the only way to go"... ) and government primary internal functions is provide security for individuals, processes and institutions and primary external functions is open markets to increase trade like say it by some british pm on the time of the empire (that from where the capitalistic imperialist thing came from) the
The nation will prosper and eventually become a first world country because the only instution that creates wealth are private enterprises compose of course y individuals if they are free to create wealth then the country will be richier if the government obstructs them too much then most of they wealth they create will end up abroad and individual would create enterprises in foreign countries with better conditions (thanks globalism)
Now imperialism is just the will of th people and government to conquer new nations to expand land (the old way, remember pre industrial revolution the most important economic sector was the primary/agricultural for obvious reasons, so the more land) or to expand their markets (post industrial revolution the more people buying stuff your corporations offer the richer the country is/only private enterprises can create wealth). Of course you could have disfuctional empires with a socialist system like Germany 1933-1945 or the Soviet union but they are simple too disfuctional to actually work in the modern world (read 20th century Austrian economic authors of you are really interested, check out recomeded books in the Mises institute website)
I would recommend Robert C. Allen's Farm to factory, a revisionist book which tries to reinterpret the soviet industrial revolution. In the book Allen tries to contextualize soviet industrial performance in a world historical context, and shows that the soviets actually did much better than countries like Britain or France. His argument on the famines is quite nuanced, and for him it was a product of many things - the great industrial debate, rapid need for capital expansion, regional inequalities and lastly an ideological war against Middle class peasants. For me, however, the problem of famine was a product of a kind of primitive accumulation which was hastened by soviet policy. We all know that the "worker" has to be created for the industry, for he is not a natural entity. And this process which was spanned over centuries in western Europe (destruction of commons, etc) was concentrated in a few decades in the soviet.
Developmental Anthropology lecture 101
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been
0:59 "How did we get from this [farmland] to this [city]?" - l think that it was just an unintentional video clip just about farmland without ulterior motives, but at the same time it is clearly a Modern farmland - wast areas of same monoculture without weeds, probably controlled with pesticides. Just picking a random thing, nothing special.
Neoluddites might have a word or two with you about your very classical interpretations of 'clock time. Certainly EP Thompson & Jacques Ellul would say "time-work-discipline" isn't that simple:
th-cam.com/video/urbVB0u9tmc/w-d-xo.html
Were Mill and Marx really "Enlightenment" era? Kant feels like the end of the Enlightenment.
It's a bit of a misstep playing fast and loose with faith and trust...and willy-nilly swapping them in/out. While the dictionary asserts they may function as synonyms, they do so via decidedly different niches. As such, it's a mistake to not recognize that trust typically makes use of proven, established reliability. Faith pooh-poohs that as a nonfactor. They each have degrees/spectrums, of course. But the hard delineation between the two manifests when faith suggests (demands even) that moving forward is warranted even in spite of anything that might be deemed reasonable. In fact, the most ubiquitous use of faith is of the religious kind. In that respect, faith is praised as a valid approach even when trustworthy sources exist in full opposition to the manner being pursued by the faithful. The faith of such people is nothing like the trust someone might develop about say, traveling by plane. Hundreds of thousands of daily flights all across the world and yet only a few minor disasters each year...and only a handful of major ones. That kind of track record is highly compelling from a trust standpoint.
You know you need a better microphone right? Bits where you talk to the camera are way quieter than the rest of the video.
Modernity as envisioned by Enlightenment philosophers up to Karl Marx was very different from modernity as we realize it. Everything changed when cutting-edge science and industrial mass production were put at the service of the production of mechanized armaments that transformed war into a phenomenon qualitatively different from the one that existed before tanks, fighters, bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers, long-range missiles and nuclear bombs. In the past the purpose of war was to gain political advantage. In this day and age, a nuclear war will destroy winners and losers alike. And everyone who survives the cataclysmic event will be immediately returned to a pre-barbarian era. No philosopher of the Enlightenment (not even Marx) would have been able to imagine this paradoxical modernity that carries in its rotten womb the conditions of possibility of total destruction on a planetary scale. And unfortunately we cannot turn back the clock of time to recover that modernity they imagined and move towards a new future. In fact, we consider everything (from Kant's eternal peace, to Rousseau's general will) extremely outdated. The fear of nuclear war is a lucrative business that drives the manufacture of more and more weapons; the will of the population can be modeled, moderated and deformed by algorithms. Everything that could be modernity became bullshit. And bullshit should be the name of our modernity.
you need to normalise your audio better between the camera audio clips and the voiceovers.
Years ago I had a conversation with a man who told me he "loved cars". He carried an Automobile Magazine around with him that he was in the process of reading. Further conversation demonstrated to me that he did not know a cam shaft from a crank shaft. He did not understand the thing he "loved".
Was he modern or stupid?
I fixed computers and other electronics. Cars do not even qualify as interesting. But you don't hear economists talking about Planned Obsolescence. Do you Trust economists?
Is modern really just stupid?
Wearing ties
Beard. Lumberjack shirt. Asexual. Post Modern. No clocks.
only my left ear heard the announcer at 6:57
This was extremely disappointing and unpleasant :(
I need evidence before I trust.