Why are there so many anti-Enlightenment posters around here? I'd like to know why you're against it and why you believe that we were better off before it.
>>373813
I'm a christian. I like Paine's writing style, though.
living in a really orderly and spiritual society really appeals to me, in some ways i beleive thats how humans are supposed to live
>>373813
>Why are there so many anti-Enlightenment posters around here?
There aren't really many places for that kind of thought, let alone forums to express them. So a free forum like /pol/ is a good spot to talk about it.
>I'd like to know why you're against it...
It started something of a Cult of Rationality that has gone awry. Despite Free-Thought being a very Enlightenment ideal, the fact of the matter is that Enlightenment assumptions routinely go unquestioned and any questions raised are quickly squelched.
For example, the idea of inevitable progress. There is no reason to figure that we are on a march of progress, that things get better and better forever onwards. You can see this in response to environmental concerns where people will simply say we will "figure it out" somehow, magically technology and rational thought will save us all.
Or the assumption that reason trumps all, and the idea of the enlightened individual. The dispelling of olden myths has brought us spiritual and existential crises. Irrationality is automatically scorned, but because there is no objective rational basis for anything really any discovered irrationalities are either quickly dispelled to the detriment of anything dependent on them or rationalized by any means necessary.
The fact that Western Civilization is still very strictly within the bounds of Enlightenment ideals makes it incredibly difficult to see any contradictions to them as sheer madness. Perhaps it is madness, but it is a madness we cannot hope to understand yet it is a madness with us and it runs unchecked. I think it is past time that we dismantle the Enlightenment project and stop pretending we are perfectly rational creatures when not only we aren't, but we cannot be.
>...and why you believe that we were better off before it
I don't, never bought into the whole neo-feudalism thing. Trying to go back in time is a mistake, I'd rather work past the Enlightenment than refute it entirely.
>>373823
This got me thinking about the French Revolution. Who were some of the counter-revolutionary factions involved? I know there were several governments that came and went during the Revolution and that some groups wanted to reinstate the monarchy.
>>373918
I sympathize with your complaint about the so-called rationalists and their progress. How do you think we can work past the Enlightenment?
Nietzsche's model of an ideal person is simply a modern, educated, rational, scientific person who has discarded the savage and primitive superstitions of the past. The new man (and woman) is a master of the earth, a free thinker who subjects all morality and religion to the higher authority of his own human reason. He is entirely free of the slave morality of Aeons of religious indoctrination.
>>373813
Traditionalism in a way goes hand in hand with interest in history.
>>373918
Have you ever read any of John Gray's works? Straw Dogs debunks the myth of progress in a very interesting and informative way.
>>373813
people here are for an aristocratically enforced caste system because they think they'd naturally all be part of the master caste/race if such a system were to be installed today
>>373988
I would still be a pariah. That I have no delusions about.
However, I would be more at ease knowing that the world is a better place.
The whole concept that all the sovereignity of the nation must be represented inside one building with just a few representatives, and during the entire 19th century if you thought that towns and provinces should be able to make their own laws to fit their customs you were considered a barbarian. In the 20th century it started to roll back little by little by descentralizing government, but 18th century enlightment was totalitarian as fuck.
>>373823
Source?
As Kant said, live in an enlightened age, but we do live in an age of enlightenment.
People who are causing all the misery in the world today are not the enlightened ones.
>>373951
>How do you think we can work past the Enlightenment?
Not sure, it's an ongoing problem as far as I'm concerned.
I'm tempted to start with Romanticism, but that makes me just as backwards looking as those who posit Feudalism.
Been trying to think of societies in "functional" terms where "what" the society consists of matters less than the functions provided to members, such that instead of refuting the Enlightenment we attempt to assess where it has failed us and how those failures might be rectified (which may or may not include rolling back some Enlightenment ideas). Unfortunately it's just a vague idea I have at this point, and it'd be a pretty vast project (What qualifies as a function? What functions are required? What functions are provided by society? What functions can be provided? What can be done to provide missing functions? Now translate all of that into real institutions). And even then I'm not sure if that would be a valid method of analysis or not (especially if I'm complaining about over-rationalization, then I'm going to try and rationally analyse the problem!)
A knee-jerk reaction to go revive Romantic ideals (or even Feudal ideals) would be a lot easier, but it's also wrong. At least I'd ask for a knee-jerk reaction towards something contemporary, but I suppose that isn't very reactionary. So the best I have for now is trying to suss out how a "healthy" society functions versus what it is (pretty dodgy there already) and looking to the past for inspiration but not solutions.
To that end, I've been studying history piecemeal from the Thirty Years War (as the start of Westphalian diplomacy) to the conclusion of WWI (as a marked change in the direction of Western civilization). Not so sure that I'd propose a society from the 19th century as a solution, but I figure seeing how thing were versus how things changed and the various complaints of society at the time may provide insight.
>>373980
No I haven't, I'll have to check that out. Thanks.
I thought Enlightenment thought was dumped with the advent of post-modernism
>>373918
especially with this progress talk
it was all questioned after WWI
>>373988
i seriously wouldn't give a shit if i was a peasent
simple life
>>374059
you only think that because you're directionless
if you were given your 'direction' at birth you'd be chafing at what-ifs every day
>>374067
probably.
Although i really do want to go like in alaska by my self and just not be bothered, idk if thats just me being an autist. But i feel like every human has a very primal urge to live a simple life bound by spiritual rules and free of worry. It just feels like western nihilism is very unnatrual
>>373813
Because people are retarded and think that the enlightenment let them down. Usually they'll point to the atom bomb or world war II was where the enlightenment went so wrong.
They see it as black and white rather than a spectrum.
>oh no reason allowed for some bad things to happen
>but we'll ignore all the other advances made by reason just because a few bad things happened.
>>374051
Post-Modernism* did set out to be anti-Enlightenment, but frankly it failed in its task.
One, in that it has hardly displaced the narrative it was set against.
Two, in that in a great many ways it embodied core Enlightenment tenants of individuality. Insitutions, Societies, Civilization, Values, et cetera are all under fire. But implicit in Post-Modernist thought is the ability of the individual to navigate these things for themselves, that a person could transcend these problems for themselves and perhaps those around them even if societies themselves are incorrigable. This is a very Enlightenment way of thinking.
Three, it is almost exclusively critical to the point I'm tempted to call Post-Modernism a fulfillment of Enlightnment ideals towards a destructive end.
*Keep in mind that "Post-Modernism" is hardly a definitive category. The Post-Modernism I'm speaking of is something of a caricature out of necessity, so I'm making this post knowing full well there is some exception to what I say which is somehow considered "Post-Modern". At a glance it might be said that Foucault's (someone I really ought to read in depth) analysis of power might supersede the individual (in that we will act according to power dynamics and the rest is so much as window dressing).
>>374032
I see what you're getting at. I like the idea of an "organic" society in which all levels of social division are in equilibrium through cooperation (and to an extent, competition). Each group acts as a component of the society as a whole and manages what it does best, i.e., farming peasants managing farmlands or merchant guilds organizing marketplaces. I'm not good at coming up with examples, so I hope you understand what I mean.
It's a much better system where everyone has a better-defined purpose than in today's democratic template societies where the best you have to work off of is a vague idea of political efficacy. Perhaps that's why people seem so unspirited and lacking in ideals these days.
I just don't know how society could adopt such a system. Slowly introducing more polycentric law? I don't know.
>>373823
>the left-right political spectrum
Another waste product of the Enlightenment
>>374175
What's wrong with the left-right spectrum?
>>374180
left-right politics is pleb tier to dynastic politics
>>374180
Don't fall for the bait man.
>>374195
I'm actually curious to hear a criticism of the left-right paradigm though.
>>374124
What you're talking about sounds more towards the Anarchistic ideal, where each person acts as a rational actor for the betterment of all and no longer requires a gov't to keep them in line.
What I'm talking about with "functions" (really a placeholder term here) is a truly objective assessment of what we all do at societal levels, seeing what is essential for a society that is "functional", then leaving implementation to whatever happens to work (allowing it organically? Democracy? Dictatorship? That's beyond my immediate concern though I personally prefer the organic angle, even if I wouldn't hold my breath on it).
For example, is murder a necessary function? I mean, we all agree that it's a pretty bad thing but that doesn't seem to eliminate it. Maybe killing provides for a basic human need, and attempts to suppress it only results in concentrated bursts of murder? Or maybe it isn't and we just haven't resolved it yet. I dunno but the point is within the context of Enlightenment thought that question is borderline unthinkable, we've all been cultured to consider it automatically wrong (to the point where murder we must justify somehow goes by euphemisms like "self-defense", "execution", "war", "suicide", "abortion", take your pick).
That's where the neo-Feudalist angle comes in, I think. People who subscribe to it either think they would be kingz 'n' shit, or they accept that the pains of such a society are a necessary and even desirable condition (which is decidedly anti-Enlightenment, though in a reactionary way).
As for adopting a system which could allow a more, adjustable, society... at this particular moment in the context of the US I'm tempted to go thumb through the Anti-Federalist Papers and revive some arguments. The US is just too big for the federal gov't to guide something this nuanced, a one-size fits all ideal for 300 million citizens is almost guaranteed to generate lethargy. Smaller societies within a genuine Federation would help.
>>374180
It subsumes all identifiers into the logic of capital, or commodities. The left has historically had many of its more radical ideas recuperated by the status quo, while the "right" only serves to reinforce it. I want to break free from the chains of production, be they capitalist or communist. Even so-called anarchists still see production as an inevitability, and their validation of workerist ideals only serves to reinforce that notion.
>>373988
This reflects a severe failure to understand the mindset, worldview, sentiment, and motivations of people who support traditionalism and social hierarchies. I have never, not once, met a traditionalist who thought they would be in the upper class, let alone who wanted to be. Most want to be humble cogs in the machine, I think the fantasy for most traditionalists isn't ruling over their demesne in a castle, it's milking cows in the village living the simple life. More than most political denominations, I think traditionalists are repulsed by power.
>>374210
I'm pretty far from Anarchism. I'd like a fairly rigid structure in society that determines division of labor, social hierarchy, roles in society, et cetera.
I see what you mean now too, and I agree with you more. Which functions would your society prioritize?
>>374211
Once we break free from the chains of production, then what?
>>374032
I like the idea of function in that it assumes a variety of goals and necessities in a society. Thus a division in spiritual function, governance function, food/goods production function, the educational function, the commercial function, the legal function, etc.
A problem in modern/post-Enlightenment society is that all functions are brought together in the state, separating the multiple wheels of a machine with the multiple cogs of a great wheel
The friction we see in society today is the push of globalization in ideas, culture, economy, politics, and communication, which puts pressure on the state-wheels in the global machine. Hence the prevalence of transnationalism: the EU, the UN, the global market/corporations, internet, etc.
Individuals, incidentally the base unit of society in modernity (in contrast to the family/community/clan), is in fact minimized in importance by the scale of life and society
Perhaps a partial return to old functions but with new, modern forms? Some of the 'anarchist' ideas in this>>374124
remind me of syndicalism - a well overlooked idea thanks to the primacy of its anarchist form, and the degeneration into authoritarian corporatism of syndicalist movements like in Fascist Italy
>>374210
I should check those papers too, the current US system is definitely too bloated. The Articles of Confederation deserved a second look these days
>>374213
>Most want to be humble cogs in the machine
i dont fucking get this line of thought
Half the population of the united states would shit their pants if they were cogs in a machine piloted by Barack Obama in perpetuum let alone eight years and the other half would shit their pants if it was piloted by Don Trump
You cant escape politics unless you're okay with pledging your life to your king to the bitter end no matter how badly he shits the bed
Im pretty sure dissatisfaction with that idea was one of the things that sparked the enlightenment to begin with
>>374210
Monarchism =/= Feudalism
>>374285
>You cant escape politics unless you're okay with
hanging the bosses with the guts of the politicians.
>>373828
I don't mean to be rude, but that's stupid.
>>374296
It's not. Humans are hierarchical by nature, and it's proven to be my re beneficial that way. Get teams of people together to do a task and the ones with leaders will do better.
>>374234
>Which functions would your society prioritize?
Dunno, haven't gotten that far yet.
But my idea would be to observe societies past and present, looking for commonalities and trying to derive by observation (rather than idealism) a common set of necessary functions if such a thing could be derived. Then use that as a checklist for a "functional society" while leaving the methods up to the societies themselves.
Like I said earlier though, that'd be a pretty big project. Apart from the footwork of observing a sufficient variety of societies (assuming a sufficient sample size is available, but something's better than nothing!) I'd also have to satisfactorily define what I'm observing and the functions within each society.
Currently I'm only at the stage of positing hypothetical functions, in the sense that a societies institutions are there for a reason and those reasons are "functions". For example: in the US we've legalized homosexual marriage and it does not seem to be particularly problematic for us to do so, so then when homosexuality was illegal what function did that serve and how did that function cease to be served by outlawing homosexuality, and what serves that function now?
The theory is that if we can figure out those functions, we can have societies which function while differing in form. No more need to proselytize Democracy to the world, to bring Freedom to every doorstep, or pine for Kings to rule us all, or look for the rule of Enlightenment Rationality, or whatever. Does a society fulfill the functions checklist? If so it's methods may be to it's peoples rational judgment or irrational whims or whatever.
If it sounds incredibly idealistic, that's because it is. This is the ideal on paper, which will always come about as naive. The other trick is to figure how the ideal is to survive the crucible of reality.
>>374306
Humans evolved in small communities, so to a point your correct, they work well in groups. Its when the hierarchy of the pyramid comes into play,dispensing "divine orders" and oppressing that leadership becomes bad.
>>374288
While that's true, post-feudal monarchies aren't terribly anti-Enlightenment.
Frederick the Great, for example, is practically the poster boy for an Enlightenment/Platonic Philosopher-King.
>>374316
>divine order
Or natural order :^]
>>374308
Glad to see someone doing research on this subject
As for homosex, I think the function of its ban was to promote reproduction (via heterosex relationships), which is essential for a society to continue
Various moral reason were tacked on after to appeal to the masses: in Ancient Greek, homosex was fine as long as you were reproducing at the end of the day. Though they weren't open as social conformity rejects anything so abjectly different
The function of reproduction is actually dysfunctioning (new words senpai), as seen in the decline in birthrates. This is for a variety of reasons, but I wonder if modern society needs a high birthrate, particularly as automation/immigration can easily fulfill the function of labour
Enlightenment is strange. Started of with a devout Catholic proving god exists and someone turned into Atheism
>>374285
Eh, I think you're average medieval peasant lived an almost entirely apolitical life. Maybe they'd sometimes get called up to fight a battle, a tax here and there, that's about it.
>>374344
Life in general pre-second industrial revolution and the actual emergence of an important middle class was pretty high-births focused, and whether this was a deliberate ideal, or just a byproduct of a largely agrarian lifestyle, is up for debate. I personally think that a very compelling example in the study of agrarianism/religion and birthrates is in mid-20th century French Canada. There's a wealth of literature on the subject, and it's all extremely interesting.
>>374344
As much as I hate modernity, I welcomely accept the advent of automation. It lowers the labor cost of industrialization and allows nations to produce and provide without needing a hyper-birth rate. It makes sense when considering population growth rate models. If the growth rate exceeds the maximum sustainable rate, it will start to fall over time. It's nature.
>>373971
Nietzsche's ideal man is highly spiritual and passionate though. That's what the Dionysian side is all about.
>>374183
What's the advantage of dynastic politics?
>>374357
This, government involvement in the everyday life of the average peasant was small. Beyond conscription and taxation I can't think of anything.
>>374359
High birthrates were an ideal because of higher mortality rates/lower birthrates (thanks medicine)
A large labour force was beneficial to the state since it could feed into a high production capacity
Today, in the developed world; production requires less manpower, the cost of living/providing for a child's life is high enough to discourage reproduction, and we're aware of how high the global population is (thus less space to push surplus population, i.e. colonial settlement)
>>374284
>Some of the 'anarchist' ideas in this>>374124
>remind me of syndicalism - a well overlooked idea thanks to the primacy of its anarchist form, and the degeneration into authoritarian corporatism of syndicalist movements like in Fascist Italy
I briefly got a bit into syndicalism and that's what I was thinking of too when I read that post, but as I put it earlier it has to survive the crucible of reality and I'm not sure it's up to the task. Sounds amazing though, that's for sure. However in all fairness the same could be said for my ideas and the crucible of reality.
Realistically speaking, if something could be done to deflate the universal ideals of the Enlightenment and allow for genuine diversity (rather than trying to build the biggest melting pots ever and treat everyone as a tabula rasa) I'd be pretty happy about that. Small victories and all that.
>>374344
>Glad to see someone doing research on this subject
Don't be too satisfied though, I'm literally nothing more than a guy with some books and an internet connection. The best I can do is write something worthwhile and hope someone else takes the ball and runs with it, I've got zero influence beyond whatever I say or write.
Regarding homosexuality, reproduction is the surface reason but I don't think it completely satisfies our attitudes (at least Western attitudes in the 19th/20th century) so I wonder what auxiliary functions such attitudes may have provided (appeal to masses & morality? In what way do such appeals provide a function?). I do agree with the "dysfunction" of reproduction as you put it, it's clearly less essential than it was (which raises the question of if reproduction is a function itself, or provides towards a more general function of population).
Anywho, here I'm just a circle of questions. Which is natural, the problem is bigger than me and I just hope I get something workable out of chasing an impossible goal.
>>374398
>appeal to masses & morality? In what way do such appeals provide a function?
Keeping the masses happy by having a society that reflects their morality
An orderly, content society is a functioning, productive society
There's uproar about it today even though attitudes have changed (legalizing could be an appeal to the ideal of acceptance and progress but clearly those are not truly mass ideals), but imagine legalizing homosexuality in 19th century Britain: it would provoke riots
>if reproduction is a function itself, or provides towards a more general function of population
It's both in a way. Maybe there's a hierarchy of functions, in which the function of reproduction feeds into the function of population
> here I'm just a circle of questions
Not a bad thing to be since it results in discussion
This idea really has me thinking
I don't think there's any way to argue that we were better off before the Enlightenment unless you invoke romantic nonsense. There's been huge progress in terms of science, technology, health, agriculture, individual rights, societal order, etc. People are healthier, freer, more educated, and less violent. "Less violent" especially needs to be stressed, somehow there's this notion that we live in a violent age, when pretty much all forms of violence are down significantly (at least in the west).
People who want to be peasants are just daydreaming and have no idea how good they have it. They wouldn't last a week. And no, there's no evidence that being a peasant would somehow be more "satisfying" than whatever you're doing now. The idea that the past was somehow more honest/noble/fulfilling/etc is a myth born from rose-tinted goggles. A myth that history-lovers unfortunately indulge in far too often.
>>374541
We still live in a relatively violent age, violence being a needless habit and cultural phenomena in a true progressive society, we are violent to each other even in the smallest things when communicating and interacting with one another.
>>373813
>anti-Enlightenment
Depends what you mean by it.
Is it anti-Enlightenment to acknowledge that we are equal in *value* as humans, but not in ability?
If so, I guess I am anti-Enlightenment.
>>374861
>We still live in a relatively violent age
Relative to what?
if you're against the enlightenment it doesn't mean you're pro-monarchy or whatever. if this is the extent of pro-enlightenment logic then i'm not going to waste my time here
>>374874
to a true progressive society where people are conscious enough to themselves, other people, and external environment to understand how to communicate or interact without being violent.
>>374894
>it doesn't mean you're pro-monarchy or whatever
It usually does though. Either monarchy, or some form of heritable aristocracy.
>>374896
>to a true progressive society
Why do you consider this a feasible goal to work towards?
Where did you get the idea of a truly progressive society?
>>374904
oh don't get me wrong I'm sure it's not feasible, humanity is far too stupid for that to happen, humanity will destroy itself or build a dystopian society in the next 60 years.
but if you want to see how a truly progressive society would look like, check out the Venus Project
>>374927
>if you want to see how a truly progressive society would look like, check out the Venus Project
And it's the perfect utopia project for Venus, I hear there's no people there.
>>374935
I don't understand your anecdote
>>374946
The Venus Project is completely unrealistic. It's so idealistic that it's plain silly, may as well actually build it on Venus since the only way it'll work is if there's nobody to live in that utopia.
>>374957
I agree, like I said humanity is far too stupid for something like the Venus Project to be a reality.
>>374971
It's not a matter of stupidity. We're plenty smart enough to see how something like the Venus Project could work and what violence has wrought.
It's just that we don't want utopia.
If we wanted only nice things we would have only nice things, the problem is we want terrible things too. Which leads into the anti-Enlightenment thing, it's not very Enlightened to say we can't just have peace and happiness through reason alone because *of course* no reasonable people would want anything else (besides all of the perfectly reasonable people who do, of course).
>>373813
>Why are there so many anti-Enlightenment posters around here?
/his/ - Christianity & Anti-Atheism.
Go back to reddit, infidel. Holy war when?
>>375003
Humanity doesn't want terrible things, they are conditioned by the environment they grew up in to either: enjoy the petty feeling of power that comes with violence, or identify themselves with ideas (nationalistic, religious, racist) that divide humanity and drives them to act in a disharmonious way, no one in his right mind doesn't want wealth, security and abundance of resources that comes from an efficient social economy.
Enlightenment was pretty good, I just object to the idea that it invented reason.
In reality it was just a continuation of the Gothic Era, with "Renaissance" obscurantism separating the two.
>>375065
>no one in his right mind doesn't want wealth, security and abundance of resources that comes from an efficient social economy
Of course not. They just also want the petty feeling of power that comes with violence and to identify themselves with ideals that divide humanity and drives them to act in a disharmonious way.
It's not that humanity is stupid but that mere wealth, security, and abundance of resources isn't good enough. That covers the base of Maslow's heirarchy, but that's it.
Also in all of that Enlightenment learning you forgot that we're animals. Pretty smart animals and reasonable when we want to be sure, but still fucking vicious animals. When we can have all of that wealth and security and resources, plus act out our base tendencies in the fulfillment of some higher ideal... *then* we're pretty happy.
>>375221
People would need to create a new kind of culture, one that's based on loving and trusting each other truly without ego and they would spend their time exploring reality and enjoying it, as it should be, spirituality and an emphasis on our understanding of the subjective experience of being human(human consciousness) as a part of the natural world would be taught in "schools" and our life would be more complete than ever before, maybe we would even finally have the time and resources to start indulging in the wonders of space travel and exploration. What's so bad about that? What's missing?
I think reactionaries are a joke but they can ger pretty amusing sometimes, if you start comparing the pros and cons of liberalism and reublicanism (not the retarded /pol/ definition of it) against monarchism or traditionalism's and you go deep enough, you'll find that 100% of the time the bedrock of their belief is some kind of religious ideology. Not a fedora, I try to respect everyone's position, I'm just pointint out that fact.
>>375330
>What's so bad about that? What's missing?
Truck loads of soma to keep the populace docile enough?
I mean, it sounds great and all. But then someone takes something they shouldn't just because they can, or hurts someone out of indifference, or maybe someone gets angry enough to be violent, and so on. We aren't tabula rasas, we're animals who have animalistic tendencies and happen to also reason. Your hippie utopia fails as soon as someone tells another to go fuck themself.
People aren't nice, yourself and myself included. Everyone gets nasty sometimes, at the bare minimum. Some people even revel in it. One bad actor fucks it all up, you can try to program people all you want but unless you're going to drug them you will simply have people who won't get with the program. What do you do with them?
>>374180
It's pretty much lost all meaning and is only useful for demagoguery.
>>373813
Radical egalitarianism being used as a cause murder countless people and browbeat the higher European institutions like the Church and Monarchy into submission. Materialism and Industrialisation reducing the value of a human being to a financial figure and replacing spirituality with nihilism. Democracy replacing Monarch and Aristocracy meaning politics becomes a gigantic marketing show with demagogues getting elected who make hollow promises but are incapable of solving the West's spiritual/existential crisis. All these things coupled with a progressive view of human history has given birth to the the bloodiest, most cruel and meaningless place and time in history.
>>375381
lol
What didn't you understand by educating people from the moment they are born not to hate, and not to be violent, it would be unthinkable to bluntly and violently tell someone to go fuck himself and even if someone would do that how hard is it to understand he's goimg through something or has a particular problem and let him deal with it, hurting other people and killing them is just not possible for people who understand the meaning and weight behind such actions, we may be animals but that doesn't mean we automatically have to kill each other.
>>375465
Sooner or later you'd get somebody who, through lack of empathy or stubbornness or sheer stupidity, went ahead and used force regardless of your teachings. At which point your precious utopia falls apart.
>>375482
this is where we don't agree, I don't see how it's possible for someone to use force if all the way from his basic cognitive associations and instincts to formulated logic and words he knows it's wrong and he lives not to let such a thing happen.
the cultural human grasp of life on earth would be totally different from today, it would be a point in which humanity understood in the deepest way that we can live differently and that's how it would be a new and better society.
