{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026336791699920193, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031923383878691143, 'mean_word_length': 4.805555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hypermodernism as Deceleration, Re-stabilisation and Reconciliation

In view of the claims of some thinkers that we can speak about “the end of the postmodern”2 or that postmodernity “is over”,3 it is reasonable to ask about the dominant indicators of today’s times and to ask whether it is accurate to describe them using concepts and labels developed to define the last decades of the 20th century. Such reflection is an element of a broader consideration of the human situation. It is important from the point of view of such questions as: how do we live and think, where do we go, who are we. From this perspective, reflection on the situation of individuals and societies has great philosophical significance. In this article I will try to address the main diagnoses and concepts concerning our times provided by thinkers referring to notions such as “postmodernism”, “the postmodern”, “after modernity” or “liquid modernity”. I will show that, at least today, they are insufficient and inadequate. I will also try to point to present attitudes which should be taken into account in any description of our times and to offer a proper name for them. Finally, I will briefly sketch how it is combined with the philosophical questions mentioned above.