My guess.... we're creating it right now. No one seems to understand exactly how powerful the internet really is. The collected knowlege of humanity, at our fingertips. I could in minutes have quotes from every philosopher or historian mentioned thus far in this thread. In an hour I could show how their opinions reflect within the era they came from. In two I could have a pretty detailed (if not terribly clean) comparative essay between all of them.
Um...hold on. Knowledge, serious knowledge, is not something you can get from two hours visiting websites and reading theories. You can have fast food, express coffee, bullet trains and e-mails, but not quick knowledge. With a brief internet essay you get superficial knowledge, enough to actually look like you know what you are speaking about, but it can't be compared at all with actually reading the authors. Plus, the internet is a great dump, not the "collected knowlege of humanity". It dosen't only have the full works of Nietzsche, it also features Emo kid livejournals and porn. What I mean is that it's not that effective, try to, for example, research information on Marx. I can guarantee you will find a lot of lies, coming from both the anti-marxists and the so called marxists. And not only Marx- wich is my favourite example, since he is one of the most relevant thinkers in recent history- but also many others, such as Plato: for example, I read an article from a journalist that used Plato to justify voting Bush. The vulgarity, ignorance and poser pedantry of that article certainly topped the ranking of philosophical idiocies.

But more than that- we have the ability to communicate with almost every other member of our species. I've seen people here draw inspiration from Marx and Aristotle.... SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is Plato's dream incarnate. A self-questioning, self-improving, self-judging, self-correcting and truly self-aware humanity.
You are clearly more optimistic than I am. I do not deny communications have gotten better, but also more casual, many times less deep. The self-aware humanity you speak of seems to me, for now, something far away from the current state of things. I can see a lot of debates and all, but I can also see a lot of alienation. Because the current times are making alienation easier. Individualism and narcissist self-alienation are confused too many times, as is confused the being informed with the being confused over too much data, or being alive with living.

I admire your optimism, but I can't see things that way. For me, the current culture is the slayer of spiritualism. And spiritualism is the rebellion against self-alienation.

On that note I suspect the internet will (And indeed already is) make a significant contribution to the erosion of the concept of nations as valid delinations of people.
That's a very good point. It is interesting how the cultural changes in the concept of nationality could be brought up by the internet. Of course, it's also a concept of globalization, but after all, the internet is quite an avatar of globalization.

when I think Enlightenment, I think Locke. Just because Locke and Kant were both part of "The Enlightenment" doesn't mean that they had similar views.
No, they did not share views, and neither did Voltaire and Rousseau, but they were both on the same movement. "Enlightenment" is a very broad term, yes, and includes most modern philosophers.

Plato lead to Kant which led to Neitzsche, whereas Aristotle lead to Locke and many of the 17-18th century American thinkers.
Despite the Greek influence on every philosopher, keep in mind modern philosophy started with Descartes.

Most of the modernist thinkers you listed devalued reason and the individual, which goes directly against the premises behind the Enlightenment (reason and the value of the individual)
Asides from Spinoza and maybe the mature Hegel- and I am not sure because I have not read Hegel, only studied him superficially- none of the mentioned authors devalued the individual. And most didn't devalue reason either, they just judged under a critical perspective. But no, not all the modern philosophers come from Enlightenment. Nietzsche is certainly not one of the best friends of Enlightenment.

1) Nietzsche was not nihilist. The very crux of his philosophy is the overcoming of nihilism: the nihilistic "will to nothingness" is the antithesis of his idea of the "will to power".
Who said he was? I said Nietzsche talked about nihilism, not that he was a nihilist. Well, he was at certain points, but it's not the conclusion of his philosophy.

2) Putting Nietzsche in the that sentence with Marx and Kant (especially Kant) means that you deserve to be smacked. He valued individualism above all else.
But the three are modern philosophers. Nietzsche died in 1900, he is considered in the period of modern philosophy, despite he was against the established thought of the time.