The folly of the Enlightenment cult

[Devil'sAdvocate]

While I won't discount that some good side effects occurred from the Enlightenment era, the primary falsehood of the era was the central mythos of "reason" being an authoritative source of knowledge.

The problem is that reason is an inferior faculty when it comes to understanding reality and existence, and nothing of any permanence can be known through reason as the external world constantly changes (reason being a less-evolved part of the human psyche shared with apes, which exists primarily for survivalistic reasons).

Reason can potentially lead us out of falsehood (just as reason is the source of all falsehood), but on its own it is worthless and has no inherent meaning or necessity.

Meaningful and inherent truth of existence can only be known through our more-evolved intuitive faculties (which relate to our understanding of the aesthetic and mathematical); interestingly women seem more naturally attune to this than men are and better capable of understanding real truth; given that the Enlightenment cult was dominated primarily by males (including many psychopaths).

The folly of the Enlightenment in part seems to be what proceeded forms of barbarism within the Industrial revolution and two World Wars; however given that the digital age and the birth of the internet, hopefully falsehood of the Enlightenment will be undermined given the "post-truth" nature of the area of social media, and the democratization of knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

[Ethereal]

I admit I am bit puzzled by this. First of all, I don't see reason and intuition as mutually exclusive concepts. Secondly, I don't understand why you exclude reason from our understanding of the mathematical. I'm pretty sure that reason played a big role in most of the major mathematical theories and laws, although I wouldn't discount the contribution of intuition either. It's also worth noting that the idea of reason being an "authoritative" source of knowledge is not something unique to the age of enlightenment. Just as one example, Thomas Aquinas emphasized the importance of reason in discovering truths.

[Kacper]

"given the "post-truth" nature of the area of social media, and the democratization of knowledge" amuses me. Knowledge has not been democratized by the internet. People can't process the information. It is a cut and paste my bias world.

[Chris]

I admit I am bit puzzled by this. First of all, I don't see reason and intuition as mutually exclusive concepts. Secondly, I don't understand why you exclude reason from our understanding of the mathematical. I'm pretty sure that reason played a big role in most of the major mathematical theories and laws, although I wouldn't discount the contribution of intuition either. It's also worth noting that the idea of reason being an "authoritative" source of knowledge is not something unique to the age of enlightenment. Just as one example, Thomas Aquinas emphasized the importance of reason in discovering truths.

He's a postmodern. There is no reason, logic, truth.

And, no, the Enlightenment did not exclude intuition for reason. If you read Poincare on science and mathematics you find he argues ideas there come from intuition and then comes the hard work of experiment in science and proofs in mathematics.

What the Enlightenment did was reject authoritarianism in science, politics, economics.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

He's a postmodern. There is no reason, logic, truth.

That would be incorrect, my assertion is that there is only truth, which never changes. Reason which deals with the external, changing world, therefore has no ability to define any truth. It's useful for solving problems, but is otherwise meaningless.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

I admit I am bit puzzled by this. First of all, I don't see reason and intuition as mutually exclusive concepts. Secondly, I don't understand why you exclude reason from our understanding of the mathematical. I'm pretty sure that reason played a big role in most of the major mathematical theories and laws, although I wouldn't discount the contribution of intuition either. It's also worth noting that the idea of reason being an "authoritative" source of knowledge is not something unique to the age of enlightenment. Just as one example, Thomas Aquinas emphasized the importance of reason in discovering truths.

You seem like you know a lot about the subjects, I might be off on some of the details, I would say the premise of my argument is that since the external world and our understanding of it constantly changes, one can't derive at any objective truth simply from studying it, truth would only be able to come from the formal laws of the universe which never change (such as mathematical truths).

[Chris]

That would be incorrect, my assertion is that there is only truth, which never changes. Reason which deals with the external, changing world, therefore has no ability to define any truth. It's useful for solving problems, but is otherwise meaningless.

Postmoderns accept their own truths, albeit contradictorily.

Postmodernism had its beginnings in rejecting objectivity. Once you reject that the rest--reason, truth--follow.

Oddly, while you reject reason, you accept the laws of mathematics and science which are based on reason--you don't remember geometrical proofs?

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Postmoderns accept their own truths, albeit contradictorily.

Postmodernism had its beginnings in rejecting objectivity. Once you reject that the rest--reason, truth--follow.

Postmodernism is simply the practice of reason and it's natural conclusion, not a rejection. When one merely turns reason on itself and undermines the notion of "faith" in the primacy of reason.

Oddly, while you reject reason, you accept the laws of mathematics and science which are based on reason--you don't remember geometrical proofs?

The "laws of natural science" constantly change, what's true one decade becomes obsolete another. Most people are not scientists themselves either, and their blind acceptance thereof is not therefore based on their own reason or observation, rather blind faith in the authority of scientists.

Objectivity therefore cannot come from attempting to understand the external, constantly changing world, only from formal laws of the universe which are independent of any instance of observation.

(One could accept that the universe is governed by objective, universal laws, however all human attempts to define them such as via science constantly change and update).

[Common Sense]

This pseudo intellectualism gets more and more inane with every new thread.

A mixture of fetal alchol syndrome and a thesaurus is not a recipe for a compelling argument.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

This pseudo intellectualism gets more and more inane with every new thread.

A mixture of fetal alchol syndrome and a thesaurus is not a recipe for a compelling argument.

It's a matter of you not having the grey matter needed to grasp things.