America was not founded....

[Chris]

You are surely correct: Today's liberals (not to be confused with the earlier believers in liberal democracy) are much more about feelings than thought processes: If one does not attitudinize in the politically correct way, well, then one is to be dismissed--even scorned.

As for the Enlightenment philosophers that you have cited, I never cared for Rousseau. Hegel, in some ways, is a bit more complicated; but Wikipedia says of him, that "Maurice Merleau-Ponty [a French philosopher] wrote that 'all the great philosophical ideals of the past century--[including] the philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche...had their beginnings in Hegel.'"

'Nuff said.

Anyway, I much prefer the philosophies of John Locke (on whom this country was founded) and Thomas Hobbes.

Rouseau and Hegel were counter- Enlightrment.

[Chris]

Rouseau and Hegel were counter- Enlightrment.

This is probably of interest to only a few members but it, the history of ideas, has always fascinated me.

Locke was probably the epitome of Enlightened thought, though Galileo and Newton are equally important. The Enlightenment established objectivity, reason, truth as foundations that any individual was capable of and thus by right should exercise.

Kant and Hume countered by demonstrating objectivity was not possible. You could not by mere observation prove any universal truth--the problem of induction and black swans and all that.

Rouseau and Hegel countered against reason and truth. It is interesting that the movements in philosophy to counter the enlightenment were aimed at both restoring faith against reason and collectivism againt individualism. But you can't turn back time, you can't go home again, and what they created was a monster called the modern state that their successors--Marx, Mussolini, Hilter, FDR--tried to implement, and towards which we still march behind postmodern thought.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Locke was probably the epitome of Enlightened thought, though Galileo and Newton are equally important. The Enlightenment established objectivity, reason, truth as foundations that any individual was capable of and thus by right should exercise.

The prophet Locke established it just as the prophet Moses established the 10 Commandments, the Prophet Muhammed did the Koran, and the Prophet L. Ron Hubbard did Dianetics, yes.

Kant and Hume countered by demonstrating objectivity was not possible. You could not by mere observation prove any universal truth--the problem of induction and black swans and all that.

That seems to be close to the mark.

Rouseau and Hegel countered against reason and truth.

Given that reason and truth are often antithetical, one can't counter against both simultaneously.

It is interesting that the movements in philosophy to counter the enlightenment were aimed at both restoring faith against reason

If not faith in reason or its pedagogues, then faith in what?

Faith in one set of pedagogues over another, both of whom would've claimed their faith was 'rational', whether by appealing to "god" or to "science" - whichever language was more marketable to popular sentiments of the time.

and collectivism againt individualism.

Reason itself affirms collectivism, much as modern science has demonstrated that the "individual" is a construct, and that what one person calls an "individual" human body, another calls a collective of cells.

Affirming "individualism" is therefore, merely another exercise in faith, as said faith in the myth of individualism continues to be held even when it comes into conflict with reason and biological realities.

But you can't turn back time, you can't go home again, and what they created was a monster called the modern state that their successors--Marx, Mussolini, Hilter, FDR--tried to implement, and towards which we still march behind postmodern thought.

Hitler and Mussolini could not have implemented their 'postmodern' ideas were it not for the Enlightenment - if one credits the Enlightenment for the industrial revolution, then Hitler certainly couldn't have implemented his gas chambers, nor Stalin his gulags, without its compliance.

Postmodernism is merely the $#@! child of modernism.

[Chris]

The prophet Locke established it just as the prophet Moses established the 10 Commandments, the Prophet Muhammed did the Koran, and the Prophet L. Ron Hubbard did Dianetics, yes.

That seems to be close to the mark.

Given that reason and truth are often antithetical, one can't counter against both simultaneously.


If not faith in reason or its pedagogues, then faith in what?

Faith in one set of pedagogues over another, both of whom would've claimed their faith was 'rational', whether by appealing to "god" or to "science" - whichever language was more marketable to popular sentiments of the time.

Reason itself affirms collectivism, much as modern science has demonstrated that the "individual" is a construct, and that what one person calls an "individual" human body, another calls a collective of cells.

Affirming "individualism" is therefore, merely another exercise in faith, as said faith in the myth of individualism continues to be held even when it comes into conflict with reason and biological realities.

Hitler and Mussolini could not have implemented their 'postmodern' ideas were it not for the Enlightenment - if one credits the Enlightenment for the industrial revolution, then Hitler certainly couldn't have implemented his gas chambers, nor Stalin his gulags, without its compliance.

Postmodernism is merely the $#@! child of modernism.

The prophet Locke established it just as the prophet Moses...

Locke was a philosopher. The Enlightenment elevated reason over religion. So no relation to Moses. The remainder of your postmodern fantasy world ignored. For example Hilter and Mussolinin were not postmoderns but part of the counter-Enlightenment. Postmodernism came about after WWI as socialist realized socialism was failing and capitalism prospering based on overwhelming facts and data. Faced with failure they had a choice, accept it or deny the foundations of reason. Your posts are unfactual and unreasonable in the extreme.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Locke was a philosopher.

Philosophers are prophets and mystics by another name, much like economists who claim to be able to predict the future.

The Enlightenment elevated reason over religion.

The Enlightenment was merely a new religion to supplant the previous ones, the architects of the Catholic Church believed their institution was "rational" as well. The only difference is that the word "God" was replaced with the word "reason", the ideas themselves didn't change.

The Enlightenment today is the Catholic Church of yore, an establishment blindly adhered to not by "reason", but by faith of the masses in the dogma of allegedly "rational" beings, much like ancient religions had in their prophets of choice.

Today, a person can simply claim to be a "scientist" and be viewed the same by masses as a priest would have been.

1. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur Clarke

So no relation to Moses. The remainder of your postmodern fantasy world ignored. For example Hilter and Mussolinin were not postmoderns but part of the counter-Enlightenment. Postmodernism came about after WWI as socialist realized socialism was failing and capitalism prospering based on overwhelming facts and data. Faced with failure they had a choice, accept it or deny the foundations of reason. Your posts are unfactual and unreasonable in the extreme.

Hitler, Mussolini, could've fantasized about genocide as much as they want to - they'd never have had the tools to carry it out were it not for the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

People today don't venerate the "Enlightenment" because of "reason", they venerate it because it's the status quo, and the de facto "civil religion" of the West, much like people venerated the Catholic Church when it was the status quo.

Enlightenment demagogues are just the same as religious apologists who defend the status quo, they aren't radicals like the men who created the Enlightenment, anymore than televangelists are radicals like Jesus.

A problem is that there is a myth that "religion" and "government" are even inherently different to begin with, when actually, they're not - they're social institutions which serve the same means and ends, some people just prefer language that evokes mythology.

So no, "faith" or "religion" wasn't supplanted with "reason", faith in one status quo was merely changed for another. Most statistically "religious" people have no deep conviction or introspection anyway, they're merely following their status quo like everyone else.

[Chris]

Philosophers are prophets and mystics by another name, much like economists who claim to be able to predict the future.


The Enlightenment was merely a new religion to supplant the previous ones, the architects of the Catholic Church believed their institution was "rational" as well. The only difference is that the word "God" was replaced with the word "reason", the ideas themselves didn't change.

The Enlightenment today is the Catholic Church of yore, an establishment blindly adhered to not by "reason", but by faith of the masses in the dogma of allegedly "rational" beings, much like ancient religions had in their prophets of choice.

Today, a person can simply claim to be a "scientist" and be viewed the same by masses as a priest would have been.

1. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur Clarke

Hitler, Mussolini, could've fantasized about genocide as much as they want to - they'd never have had the tools to carry it out were it not for the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

Another mishmash of pure nonsense.

One comment. God was replaced by the counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau and Hegel with the State. Start with historical facts, not fantasy.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Another mishmash of pure nonsense.

One comment. God was replaced by the counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau and Hegel with the State. Start with historical facts, not fantasy.

"God" wasn't replaced, one state (the Catholic Church) was merely replaced with a new state. The Catholic Church was primarily an institution of government, appealing to "god" was merely a means of claiming legitimacy, much as those who appeal "science" do now and have done historically, like Hitler and Marx, no matter the actual content of their "scientific" ideas.

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.
Joseph Goebbel

Basically, it became more popular to appeal to the authority of "reason" or "nature" to claim legitimacy, rather than the authority of "god", even when it's questionable that there's even any effective difference other than the words used, as they're both just forms of claiming authority from a "higher" source than one's self.

[Chris]

"God" wasn't replaced, one state (the Catholic Church) was merely replaced with a new state. The Catholic Church was primarily an institution of government, appealing to "god" was merely a means of claiming legitimacy, much as those who appeal "science" do now and have done historically, like Hitler and Marx, no matter the actual content of their "scientific" ideas.

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.
Joseph Goebbel

Basically, it became more popular to appeal to the authority of "reason" or "nature" to claim legitimacy, rather than the authority of "god", even when it's questionable that there's even any effective difference other than the words used, as they're both just forms of claiming authority from a "higher" source than one's self.

Do you sometimes feel exploited?

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Do you sometimes feel exploited?

Me, not personally, I just see through myths that people en masse take for granted. The closest to a state religion or ideology of the West even if not outright stated as such is "Enlightenment liberalism", so no, "church and state" never became separate to begin with, one church was just exchanged for another, and people were fed the myth that they magically became more "Enlightened" and traded "faith" for "reason", when all they did was trade their "faith" in one status quo for another.

(One which, ironically, has easily surpassed the atrocities of the former, as everything from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and other inventions of the Industrial revolution have proven).