A tree is known by its fruits - The Enlightenment was a mistake
How l view historical progress of western thought in a roundabout manner
Enlightenment --> Romanticism --> Realism --> Modernism --> Here
- It set a false dichotomy between faith and reason, cast religious authority and the sacred in negative light. The negative experience of Europe with the church led enlightenment thinkers to universalize the redundant function of religion in state function. The state effectively replaced the sovereignty of God in veneration and scope of power, giving birth to modern discipline based highly legalistic bureau-Technocratic-surveillance nation state ( a terrible nightmare )
The Romantic movement secularized religious content (metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics mostly ) which led to the birth of humanism and various social sciences. The progress of science had its impact on industrialization and life was improved significantly as far as material needs are concerned ( even if it wasn't available to everyone, it was made possible), the rebellion of romantic age thinkers-artists seemed immature. Realist attacked the escapist tendencies of the Romanticism and the rigid thinking of enlightenment era. They sought to show the world as it is with all its ugliness and beauty, truth and lies. But this movement lost its flavor, as any one dimensional movement
It's clear that as history unfolded, every movement tried to contend for itself as the foundation (intellectual, artistic, philosophical etc ) and there was a constant tug of war. Here, the Modernist comes along. He is displeased to see how every movement tries to establish a secure foundation to only see a rival force demolish it. The Modernist cure is the absence of a foundation, which ironically serves as a foundation when one studies and examines the emerging paradigm. For some of you, this has the flavor of post modernism but l want to group the meaning-free relativistic dizzying "post modernism" and modernism (early 20 century) in one group as its still an ongoing dialectic
Enough with abstraction, let's see where we stand. In our present age, l can easily list the main problems faced by people in the first world and the whole world eventually with the takeover of globalism
- Destruction of the natural habitat ( include global warming ) and a false sense of security that the society ( government and corporations ) responsible for its destruction will also find a cure
- Fragmentation of the self and the increased rate of depression, anxiety, angst. The alienation of the self and the lack of upward social-economic mobility due to the monopoly big multinational corporations over resources and government ( esp in developing countries, made really apparent during Covid ). This has led to a drop in birth rates as people don't want to put their child through this mess we have created.
- Radicalization of society into polar extremes along the vertical and horizontal axis. The sense of harmony required for a "healthy" society is disappearing, people live in conflict and prefer to engage in vitriolic argumentations in place of civil discussion .
- Included in radicalization is the emergence of 3-5 th wave of feminism and its counter reaction, Men's rights movement in the manosphere. Can a society function well if both genders are taught to resent and distrust each other ? Various studies have shown a disproportionate number of men not receiving their share of sexual intimacy, not to mention the imminent collapse of traditional masculine values. Women on the other hand feel less satisfied in the pursuit of non-traditional career oriented lifestyle but don't have a way out to balance the need of women to have a family.
I can go on and on but l feel the enlightenment movement has created a monster 400 years later. This Judeo-Christian western civilization isn't my inheritance, perhaps this gives rise to my bias but l have tried my very best to remain impartial. I can only dream of an alternative history, the Andalusian culture surviving the onslaught of reconquista or the legacy of the Abbasids surviving history. However, I can't be charged with nostalgia as l don't see any ancient civilization giving birth to an alternative world order in the foreseeable future. The only way left for me is to reject this civilization in its totality and embrace the life of a shepherd in a countryside, away from all the trouble and in peace with myself. However, many of you don't think this is the way to go, but do you see the light at the end of the tunnel ?
Enlightenment --> Romanticism --> Realism --> Modernism --> Here
- It set a false dichotomy between faith and reason, cast religious authority and the sacred in negative light. The negative experience of Europe with the church led enlightenment thinkers to universalize the redundant function of religion in state function. The state effectively replaced the sovereignty of God in veneration and scope of power, giving birth to modern discipline based highly legalistic bureau-Technocratic-surveillance nation state ( a terrible nightmare )
The Romantic movement secularized religious content (metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics mostly ) which led to the birth of humanism and various social sciences. The progress of science had its impact on industrialization and life was improved significantly as far as material needs are concerned ( even if it wasn't available to everyone, it was made possible), the rebellion of romantic age thinkers-artists seemed immature. Realist attacked the escapist tendencies of the Romanticism and the rigid thinking of enlightenment era. They sought to show the world as it is with all its ugliness and beauty, truth and lies. But this movement lost its flavor, as any one dimensional movement
It's clear that as history unfolded, every movement tried to contend for itself as the foundation (intellectual, artistic, philosophical etc ) and there was a constant tug of war. Here, the Modernist comes along. He is displeased to see how every movement tries to establish a secure foundation to only see a rival force demolish it. The Modernist cure is the absence of a foundation, which ironically serves as a foundation when one studies and examines the emerging paradigm. For some of you, this has the flavor of post modernism but l want to group the meaning-free relativistic dizzying "post modernism" and modernism (early 20 century) in one group as its still an ongoing dialectic
Enough with abstraction, let's see where we stand. In our present age, l can easily list the main problems faced by people in the first world and the whole world eventually with the takeover of globalism
- Destruction of the natural habitat ( include global warming ) and a false sense of security that the society ( government and corporations ) responsible for its destruction will also find a cure
- Fragmentation of the self and the increased rate of depression, anxiety, angst. The alienation of the self and the lack of upward social-economic mobility due to the monopoly big multinational corporations over resources and government ( esp in developing countries, made really apparent during Covid ). This has led to a drop in birth rates as people don't want to put their child through this mess we have created.
- Radicalization of society into polar extremes along the vertical and horizontal axis. The sense of harmony required for a "healthy" society is disappearing, people live in conflict and prefer to engage in vitriolic argumentations in place of civil discussion .
- Included in radicalization is the emergence of 3-5 th wave of feminism and its counter reaction, Men's rights movement in the manosphere. Can a society function well if both genders are taught to resent and distrust each other ? Various studies have shown a disproportionate number of men not receiving their share of sexual intimacy, not to mention the imminent collapse of traditional masculine values. Women on the other hand feel less satisfied in the pursuit of non-traditional career oriented lifestyle but don't have a way out to balance the need of women to have a family.
I can go on and on but l feel the enlightenment movement has created a monster 400 years later. This Judeo-Christian western civilization isn't my inheritance, perhaps this gives rise to my bias but l have tried my very best to remain impartial. I can only dream of an alternative history, the Andalusian culture surviving the onslaught of reconquista or the legacy of the Abbasids surviving history. However, I can't be charged with nostalgia as l don't see any ancient civilization giving birth to an alternative world order in the foreseeable future. The only way left for me is to reject this civilization in its totality and embrace the life of a shepherd in a countryside, away from all the trouble and in peace with myself. However, many of you don't think this is the way to go, but do you see the light at the end of the tunnel ?
Comments (55)
Quoting Eskander
It seems to me that you under-appreciate the extent to which you embody modern Western thinking, regardless of the fact that you are from a non-Western culture, and that you feel alienated from the contemporary world.
Your alienation is a quintessentially modern alienation, and can even be argued to be part of the very definition of modernity. So embracing the life of a shepherd in the countryside would be not so much an escape from modern thinking but rather a particular expression of it. You are a kindred spirit of Thoreau, Gauguin and Rousseau. Any solution would have to come
from within the resources of modernity itself rather than in an imagined rejection of it, which is only an opposition within the frame of modernity.
Then be a shepherd.
The shepherd features prominently in Christianity. I have a feeling that the OP meant that figuratively. If not, sorry for intrusion.
I've heard people make this and similar arguments for decades - I can't imagine anyone but a modern person, who is bathed in sentimental understanding of the past and a particularly slanted representation of the present, make it. It's the old 'back to Eden' trope. There was a book called Humanism The Wreck of Western Culture by sociologist John Carroll that provided a similar academic version of this thesis.
Prosperous modern people have often moved to the country or joined communes, or decided to live off the grid as a 'remedy' for the present era. I understand the power of this idea and acknowledge that it might provide some peace, if not boredom. I suspect that the recent and enduring cult of authenticity and hipster artisanal products is another expression of this impulse. As was Transcendentalism in the 19th century.
Quoting Tom Storm
Made me think of the Eagles song, Last Resort:
She came from Providence
One in Rhode Island
Where the old world shadows hang
Heavy in the air
She packed her hopes and dreams
Like a refugee
Just as her father came across the sea
She heard about a place
People were smilin'
They spoke about the red man's way
And how they loved the land
And they came from everywhere
To the Great Divide
Seeking a place to stand
Or a place to hide
Down in the crowded bars
Out for a good time
Can't wait to tell you all
What it's like up there
And they called it paradise
I don't know why
Somebody laid the mountains low
While the town got high
Then the chilly winds blew down
Across the desert
Through the canyons of the coast
To the Malibu
Where the pretty people play
Hungry for power
To light their neon way
Give them things to do
Some rich men came and raped the land
Nobody caught 'em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes
And Jesus people bought 'em
And they called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun
Sinking in the sea
You can leave it all behind
Sail to Lahaina
Just like the missionaries did
So many years ago
They even brought a neon sign
"Jesus is coming"
Brought the white man's burden down
Brought the white man's reign
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
We satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
And you can see them there
On Sunday morning
Stand up and sing about
What it's like up there
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye
I suppose he can be a Christian shepard, then. Or a lamb, an agnus dei.
I want to group premodern with postmodern. That would be wild! :starstruck:
old timeless wisdom which doesn't go out of scope :smile:
What we are witnessing is social and moral degradation.
Quoting SpaceDweller
“I'm a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. So, hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon” (Colin Firth, Kingsman)
I'm definitely not the first person to take this stance and l won't be the last one. I use the tools/understanding developed by western civilization to criticize itself as it's more accessible and understandable. However, this doesn't undermine my criticism as many people have criticized western civilization from an alien point of view ( in the perspective of westerners ) and reached a similar conclusion .l can go down that line easily as l am familiar with my own civilization but it will create resentment, tribalistic opposition... as it often happens. You can nevertheless take my criticism as a product of postmodern or post post modernism etc
My solution ( anarcho primitivism or whatever they will call it ) isn't THE solution in demand though it can offer temporary relief, it's more of a cry. We will never go back to Eden and that's not the real source of discomfort. The present world order is a nightmare from every perspective, surely we can do better. For westerners, l would advise them to reconstruct a new historical vision from pre-enlightenment era to the present before it's too late. The Confucian civilization and the Islamic civilization should not bow down before the world order, they should revive their past in the present and construct a new world order to provide a way out of the present mess and humanity as a whole can work together to see which works best.
I can't predict the future but humanity will destroy itself and its not a matter of "if" but of "when". The present nightmare will seem like a beautiful vision compared to the future. You can't turn a blind eye to deep social-political-spiritual problems, they will multiply, deeply entrench themselves in society and destroy the social fabric eventually
PS : I think both of you have a similar perspective, you can correct me if l am mistaken
I should walk the talk but l won't be surprised to see myself crucified. I am under surveillance already ( confirmed by third parties). I am apparently the radical
F*** those who want to ruin the world and who don't even have the balls to tolerate dissenting opinion. They can go to hell.
Quoting Joshs
:smirk:
The present world order is terrible, unjust, and insane but I will take it over the Hundreds of Years of religious wars and the slavery of subsistence living.
Oh wait, we are still doing all of that. But not so much. And not being convinced that there was a Golden Age of simplicity lets me appreciate the benefits and freedom of movement denied to previous generations, at least to the point where I am not burned for being a heretic. The process that made that less likely surely owes a lot to the Enlightenment. It is as if a certain group of people got together and wondered how to constrain the power of these simple people so assured of their own righteousness.
This is a western, science-based forum, my friend... Accurate as your panopticon vision is, it will be met with fierce resistance, as the above comments show. Two of the comments pointed to the Eden story. Which in a modern interpretation could be viewed as a paradise that got lost after biting the apple of scientific knowledge. A knowledge compared to which the knowledge of good and bad shrinks into insignificance.
Don't forget: I'm on your side!
I think we can agree to the fact that people face the greatest danger (physical and psychological) in a war. World War 1 changed the historical narrative people had of war, it's barbarism destroyed the notion of heroism, honor in war. It was the deadliest war in history until WW2. I think the nukes are the perfect cure and when they will be used, people will wake up and see if the present world order is really safe and conducive to civilization. All we need is a WW3, to wake the world up. The philistines can warn people of the dangers of nukes and try to sign a million nuclear non proliferation treaties to keep the world safe, it will come to pass one day.
As for slavery and poverty, the economic system of western civilization has pushed more people into poverty , to working in sweatshops than slave owners could ever dream of in the past. Modern slavery doesn't require chains, you can trap countries in debt traps and sanction them to death. What a wonderful world, so much better.
What makes you think we don't have heretics these days? The heretics who fight neo-imperialism .Have you forgotten Abu Gharib or the Guantanamo Bay, the US gov so effortlessly runs with impunity. We still have witch hunts with drones and what's even better is you can kill innocent people in collateral damage. Great improvement !!!
I would give everything l have to live in the Abbasid era or in Andalusia during its peak. I guess we have different taste but don't tell me it's better today
Well, at least now one can get good coffee.
@Eskander might decide to be a shepherd. In the good old days, he would have had no such choice but to do as his dad did. Rejecting the enlightenment is a foible for the disgruntled comfortable middle class.
I hope people never conflate my criticism of modern western civilization with the hatred of westerners. Everyone who shares a similar viewpoint as me, he's my brother, a friend, my own kind in this terrible world. The color of the skin, the language doesn't matter. I haven't lost hope in the goodwill of people living in the west or east.
Btw, science and mathematics (esp) is a shared heritage of mankind. Every civilization has a played a decisive role in its advancement and STEM will take care of itself. I'm more concerned with the ethical- social-political-economic side of the equation.
I think the light on the end of the tunnel is mostly another train, if the tunnel is a western one.
Living a sober life, without too much attention fo
product and commerce, and not participating in a scheme set up by the possessing class, using scientific knowledge not just for knowledge's sake, but to reform the natural into mathematically predictable schematics, or to rule from the miserable hearts of control, and beat the masses into submission, giving them just enough to eat, TV games to distract, or hope of winning lottery money, while constructions on land, sea, and even space are constantly monitoring the so highly valued material possessions, is a respectable goal!
I figured that referencing Ecclesiastes would indicate that I was not claiming some fantastic advance for mankind as such.
Technology has made it increasingly easy to kill people but your proposal that 'barbarism' of the sort that does not recognize 'honor', did not occur before WW1 is fantasy. People have been wiping out other people for time out of mind.
Yes - the anti-enlightenment dodge delivers us fluffy bearded baristas called Bryce...
Quoting Eskander
Science and mathematics are not ethically neutral universal achievements. They are utterly inextricable from the social-political-economic history of the West, and as contemporary science and mathematics have been embraced by non-Western countries, those countries have assimilated major elements of Western ethico-political thought into their indigenous culture.
Nietzsche said that all philosophy is autobiography. I think that is true of politics and religion as well.
I’m wondering if there is something in your biography that may be making you inclined to project your personal issues onto an abstraction , the so-called ‘global situation’.
What is your relationship with your neighbors in your local community? Do you relate to their outlooks or are you as alienated from them as you are from the modern world as a whole? If you are happily ensconced within your own little corner of the world , why should it matter to your peace of mind what happens in places far from you? And if you are not happy in your own community , do you mean to tell me that you cannot think of anyplace in the entire world where you could find common ground with others on the basis of your religious, political or ethical values?
If you can’t run far enough to escape a world of suffering and pain, perhaps it is becuase you’re trying to run away from yourself.
Sez you. We don't all see it that way. If this is the intellectual foundation of your position, you have not established it's stability by merely listing things you don't like about the way things are.
The "above comments" you are referring to are generally respectful and responsive. Reasoned disagreement is not "fierce resistance." You are just reinforcing Eskander's fantasies of martyrdom. Trying to ride on his moral, moralistic coattails.
Including followers of Confucius and Mohammad. Eastern history is as blood-drenched as western.
Where do I deny that? They are responsive, as are all comments. They are respectful. And fierce resisting. Which is understandable, as most respondents probably owe the system for their well-being, which isn't everybody's measure of well-being.
Oh, come on! Everybody who doesn't see the nightmare-like character of western civilization has or been brainwashed to sufficient extent, or paid well enough to shut up.
(A)nd those who've spent too little time wandering through old villages and dusty towns in non-secular, under-developed countries / failed-states.
Quoting Ciceronianus
"He who would follow me, let him forsake his internet connection and his philosophy forum"
-Mathew 16:24
Now that's a strange comparison. The world of the 19th century was still in relative good shape Though you would probably call it still underdeveloped. It's this development ideal and the the haughtiness of the western world to call itself the first world which caused the trouble in the so-called third world, whose inhabitants were perfectly able to live a worthy life, but are thrown back in arid despair because of the introduction of the western way. Now they've lost their ways we apologize for our bad behavior in the past and we have to face "reality", which means letting them partake in the western way on equal footing. After the damage done.
Before Nietzsche, there was Kierkegaard, a deeper thinker. His famous slogan "truth is subjectivity" doesn't undermine the objective angle with which we can examine truth or see how it's shared between people. Truth is experienced individually and reinforced collectively. We can definitely disagree on the qualitative nature of objectivity and for me personally, l think we should not understand spiritual-social-political-economic problems with a scientific lens ONLY to the exclusion of other methods
I can't tell if you are trying to psychoanalyze me to see why I'm so butthurt over civilization but l can convince you, my worldview actually takes its foundation in a book followed by 1.6 billion people, not a small number by any means. This number obviously doesn't imply it's the truth but I'm not alone or isolated in my worldview. I'm sure many Christians and Jews (orthodox) also share my perspective with their own twist. Btw l don't follow anarcho-primitivism. I believe we can fix the world, civilization is neccessary but it can definitely be improved by halting the advance of scientific-technological development and by reinforcing the importance of the sacred, by clinging to a transcedental truth ( morality ). We need to change the paradigm of modern western civilization from progress to morality.
Here l will quote the words of God,
"And there is no city but that We will destroy it before the Day of Resurrection or punish (chastise) it with a severe punishment (chastisement) . That has ever been in the book inscribed" (17:58)
This is up to debate and l haven't reached a conclusion on this topic. We know the role of the Moors in triggering the enlightenment and historians have challenged the narrative that early 16 century scientific revolution had no precedent in history in terms of method and content. Other civilization could have developed a very different world if the scientific revolution took in their midst.
Can a non-western civilization adopt scientific thinking and not borrow the ideological content which is glued to it, ie the rejection of supernatural-otherworldly revelation, transcendental truths etc. If this is the case, then the other world is better off in its rejection of science-technology but if this is not the case, then they can separate the hard ideologically empty content of science from the value laden social sciences-cum-humanities of western civilization.
I am inclined towards the latter point of view.
Disagreeing does not constitute "fiercely resisting."
Quoting Hillary
This is not an argument.
I don't think it's fair to judge what under-developed countries might have been based on how they are now, after 400 years of imperialism.
Romanticism has been dubbed the Counter-Enlightenment by people like Isaiah Berlin as it is an attempt to revive the spiritual and metaphysical in the world. The work of William Blake, Johann Goethe, and even people like Soren Kierkegaard and Fyodor Dostoyevsky (who I don’t think count as Romantic era writers but nevertheless mimic the themes found in Romanticism) all point to mans search for meaning. If we treat life like its a math equation and take a positivist view, life becomes boring and nihilism seems to run rampant. There needs to be a healthy balance between faith and reason.
I think the enlightenment was a truly ramantic period, freeing the plebs from the irrational cruelties performed in the name of an equally irrational superbeing. The promise to bring the light of a new reality in the darkness spread over Earth by biblical visions of punishment, salvation, armageddon, and a life in hell (of which many had the privilige to experience it long before their actual entering in purgatory) is a romantic promise.
Thing is, the once warm light has become a blinding and hot search light, relentlessly enlightening every corner that should stay in the dark, and occasionally burning what it looks for because of it's intensity.
You are by no means alone. Here is club you can join.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/friends-of-wisdom/what-went-wrong#blu
The question, which we, being rational philosophers, of course is if this is true. So, is this true or an irrational opinion?
You know, I'm beginning to think you don't really want to be a shepherd. It could limit your surveillance, though, as well as your exposure to the horrors of our civilization, so you may want to pursue that option nonetheless once you have the courage of your convictions. I suppose that being a shepherd would make it difficult for those third parties you mentioned to keep you informed of those watching you, however. Life is full of difficult choices.
The founder of the club, Nicholas Maxwell , manages to misread much of the philosophy of the past 100 years. He seems to advocate for a kind of bastardized Hegelianism. It’s hard to mount a clear critique of the modern-postmodern world if you can’t even interpret its founders effectively.
That's unarguably true. But after reading the comments they left an impression than can better be described by resistance (maybe not fiercely) than disagreement.
Quoting T Clark
Agreed. It's an observation.
You may well be right. But he is a legitimate, well published academic, based at UCL a fairly good university. A crank, maybe, but not one to be dismissed quite that quickly.
I’m reading his book , From Knowledge to Wisdom right now. It’s published by Pentire Press, whose only book is this one. Many of his other works are also self-published. One publisher , Paragon Press, is controlled by the Unification Church( remember that one?).
What does bringing that about look like?
The Enlightenment was motivated, in part, by the desire to not be told what to think by the powers that be. Is the better civilization reached by 'freedom' from the influence of reason or by reestablishing the control that lives of faith often live under?
The latter option is easy to imagine because it has been done many times in the past. The former option has been expressed as a communitarian right to live separately from others to preserve belief but is rarely depicted as the ruling principle of a civilization.
What distinguishes those two things? Or, asked another way, when did the fake stuff emerge?
How can we distinguish Knowledge and wisdom from economics and politics? ITs easy. Our philosophy and its frameworks should serve humans...not the other way around.
That puts the date pretty far back.
Your idea suggests we knew ourselves as sovereign individuals long ago but lost that knowledge through unfortunate political formations. It is a mythological thought current through many cultures. An interesting article of faith against the backdrop of the epistemology you seemed to have affirmed.
Our current way to produce epistemology(science, skepticism, rational) is the fruit of Enlightenment.
Our current ways to organize our societies are 2500+ years old pseudo philosophical "solutions".
It seems unlikely to me that the different lines of production you point to can be separated so sharply.
Politics and economics are solutions that were conceived 2500+ years ago and still used in the form of Philosophical ideologies.
Why is this difficult for you?
Obviously you are experiencing a difficult acknowledging basic historical facts.
I find this question really interesting and revealing.