Is the principle of the Enlightenment bastardized? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15109517
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.


As in we attempt to be free thinkers but are bumbling idiots who generalize a little knowledge beyond its validity.
Or we repeat the mistakes of old problems already solved like resorting to empirical scepticism ie flat earthers.
Can the average person be a person of adequate ideas and think for themselves in modern conditions or is it possible only for some?
#15109534
Wellsy wrote:Can the average person be a person of adequate ideas and think for themselves in modern conditions or is it possible only for some?


It's only possible for some to become enlightened.

One of the key things required to meet this definition of enlightenment is introspection. Further, not only do you need to introspect, it is something that needs to happen on a regular basis for your entire life. Most people can't even introspect once in their entire lives. Modern conditions have made it even harder. It's easy to get distracted by things that are external to your brain. Politics, Sports, movies, video games, cat videos, celebrity bullshit, etc. etc. It's easier than ever to be distracted.

To introspect, you have block out that other shit, and then you have to really start to think about your personal beliefs. You have to ask yourself questions like, why do I believe this? Why do I behave like this? What makes me happy? What makes me unhappy? What qualities of other people do I like? etc. etc. etc.

YOu have to do this consistently, really, daily, and you have explore everything about yourself. I mean everything. Even shit like "why do I like THIS type of music?" or "Why do I worry so much about little things?". Fucking everything.

Enlightenment is achieved when you really understand yourself. Then you can actually free think, and express those thoughts that are truly coming from within you.

I think only very few people are capable of doing this.


Boom, I just schooled ya'll.
#15109537
Wellsy wrote:http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html


As in we attempt to be free thinkers but are bumbling idiots who generalize a little knowledge beyond its validity.
Or we repeat the mistakes of old problems already solved like resorting to empirical scepticism ie flat earthers.
Can the average person be a person of adequate ideas and think for themselves in modern conditions or is it possible only for some?


It is, but are people willing to exert the effort required to do that? You do need a very particular sort of personality to be interested in something like constant introspection, questioning your assumptions, improving your reasoning and becoming better at arguing/debating.

The hope is that people will do that in public instances, including online ones, but how many actually do?
#15109547
Is the principle of the Enlightenment bastardised?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: The average person doesn't know why they believe what they do, they don't have to know, and it's probably best that they don't know, because if they really thought independently, they would most likely not be happy or productive workers. This does not mean, however, that the proscriptions of the enlightenment were wrong. They were entirely necessary to lift everyone out of feudalism and the mindset that education and wealth should be restricted only to a small elite. Nothing, save an acceleration of societal progress, can come from everyone having an equal ability to flourish, and it is a great thing that people have been working towards this.
#15109573
Local Localist wrote:Is the principle of the Enlightenment bastardised?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: The average person doesn't know why they believe what they do, they don't have to know, and it's probably best that they don't know, because if they really thought independently, they would most likely not be happy or productive workers. This does not mean, however, that the proscriptions of the enlightenment were wrong. They were entirely necessary to lift everyone out of feudalism and the mindset that education and wealth should be restricted only to a small elite. Nothing, save an acceleration of societal progress, can come from everyone having an equal ability to flourish, and it is a great thing that people have been working towards this.


Interesting, so you are saying society is better of that we have the vast majority of people not really thinking for themselves and/or distracted by other things in life.

Perhaps, perhaps.

Atlantis wrote:In the Buddhist sense, enlightenment means to be free of delusions. In the historical sense of the European enlightenment, it means replacing the delusions of institutional religion with the delusions of institutional science.


More fundamentally it's replacement with the institution of reason/logic, which gives raise to science. Even if just a delusion I'd argue striving for reason/logic is better than religious indoctrination.

Then again, it has created the technology that prevents people from becoming enlightened. Then again, according to Local localist, that's a good thing. :)
#15109634
Rancid wrote:More fundamentally it's replacement with the institution of reason/logic, which gives raise to science. Even if just a delusion I'd argue striving for reason/logic is better than religious indoctrination.


There is no reason why human logic should produce a truthful representation of reality. Perhaps religious intuition results in a better representation of reality.

Categorizing the natural world according to human logic is more or less arbitrary. It's an artificial system set up by humans for our convenience. These categories are not inherent in nature, and our definition of natural laws changes over time. We can use math, physics, etc. to build bridges and all kinds of useful things, but science doesn't give any answers to the ultimate questions.

Ultimately, even advancing scientific knowledge requires intuition that is not too different from religious intuition. The understanding of matter in quantum physics is more akin to the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness than to classical physics.
#15109637
Atlantis wrote:
There is no reason why human logic should produce a truthful representation of reality. Perhaps religious intuition results in a better representation of reality.

Categorizing the natural world according to human logic is more or less arbitrary. It's an artificial system set up by humans for our convenience. These categories are not inherent in nature, and our definition of natural laws changes over time. We can use math, physics, etc. to build bridges and all kinds of useful things, but science doesn't give any answers to the ultimate questions.

Ultimately, even advancing scientific knowledge requires intuition that is not too different from religious intuition. The understanding of matter in quantum physics is more akin to the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness than to classical physics.


Ultimately, yes, logic/reason at best can only produce an approximation of what humans perceive to be reality. Which of course, an approximation of a perception may be totally wrong. I would argue that under these circumstances, that it's impossible for religious intuition to be any better than scientific discourse. Religion is also based on a perception of reality that is likely just as wrong.

Also, the mechanics of quantum physics is pretty well understood. I'm also not sure of anyone that claims science will answer the ultimate questions. Religion most certainly won't either.
Last edited by Rancid on 24 Jul 2020 19:50, edited 2 times in total.
#15109642
I don't think "dare to know!" translates to everybody becoming an expert in everything. It means reason should trump prejudice. It's an attitude.

Atlantis wrote:Ultimately, even advancing scientific knowledge requires intuition that is not too different from religious intuition. The understanding of matter in quantum physics is more akin to the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness than to classical physics.


A nonsensical comparison. It was observation that advanced quantum physics. I doubt anyone finds it intuitive when first confronted with it.

Nowadays there's apparently lots of unproductive theorizing akin to religion (i.e. string theory, according to some), but that's simply because it's not driven by observation.
#15109728
Rugoz wrote:A nonsensical comparison. It was observation that advanced quantum physics. I doubt anyone finds it intuitive when first confronted with it.


Most if not all scientific discoveries are based on intuition. In some cases, as in Heisenberg's discovery of the principle's of quantum mechanics, it is well known because the scientist reflected on how he came to his discovery. In many cases, the scientist is not aware of this process.

Scientists are not biologically different from other humans; thus, intuition, be it religious, scientific, artistic, or everyday, is rooted in the same source.

Rational thinking just serves to underpin the intuition by constructing a rigid or dogmatic construct that is gradually drained of life as it becomes a hollow shell devoid of the original intuition as in religious dogma or in Ptolemaic's system of the universe, which scientists had to elaborate on with fancy orbits until it was replaced by Copernicus.
#15109733
Rugoz wrote:Nowadays there's apparently lots of unproductive theorizing akin to religion (i.e. string theory, according to some), but that's simply because it's not driven by observation.

My knowledge of software development is greater than my knowledge of physics, but it seems to me we need individuals and groups to bash away on seemingly fruitless, even demented paths of exploration. Most will prove to be dead ends, but the few which do prove useful are of such benefit, that they outweigh the failures.
Last edited by Rich on 25 Jul 2020 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
#15109753
Rancid wrote:Interesting, so you are saying society is better of that we have the vast majority of people not really thinking for themselves and/or distracted by other things in life.


I hope he doesn't, and I have an interpretation that could mean he doesn't, but it's a bit hard to explain. Nevertheless I'll try.

What I think is that absolute pursuit of productivity creates a force that goes against the direction of universal enlightenment, and if a lot of people suddenly "wake", i.e. become enlightened without being able to make the changes they find necessary, all sorts of problems or even violence will arise.

IMHO moving towards a wider enlightenment (if universal enlightenment isn't possible that is) in a managed manner should be the way to go.

Two questions remain:

1. How to do it?
2. How far could / should we go?
#15109779
Rancid wrote:Interesting, so you are saying society is better of that we have the vast majority of people not really thinking for themselves and/or distracted by other things in life.

Perhaps, perhaps.


More that this is the natural order. In my opinion, the great majority of people have never thought independently and critically, and I think we have evolved this way. Hence, our social structures naturally take into account that only a minority of people will be visionary, so the majority will follow this minority. Think if there were an entire society of people that didn't follow trends. Surely, this would be a very different one than any in which we now live. I strongly support universal education, universal healthcare and such because I want everyone to be able to realise their potential, but I don't think there's any use trying to act like most people are rational agents if they just aren't.
#15109782
Patrickov wrote:I hope he doesn't, and I have an interpretation that could mean he doesn't, but it's a bit hard to explain. Nevertheless I'll try.

What I think is that absolute pursuit of productivity creates a force that goes against the direction of universal enlightenment, and if a lot of people suddenly "wake", i.e. become enlightened without being able to make the changes they find necessary, all sorts of problems or even violence will arise.



You mean like Vladimir Lenin? :excited:
#15109796
Local Localist wrote:To me it seemed like you were literally describing the lead-up to a communist revolution lol


It can also be the other way round, e.g. when Communists are the ones in power.
#15109801
Rich wrote:My knowledge of software development is greater than my knowledge of physics, but it seems to me we need individuals and groups to bash away on seemingly fruitless, even demented paths of exploration. Most will prove to be dead ends, but the few which dod prove useful are of such benefit, that they outweigh the failures.


Theorizing without the possiblity to empirically verify the theory is pointless. I would argue science today is held back by the lack of data, and not by the lack of theories. In that sense, you can probably contribute more to science as an engineer than as a scientist (the two can be difficult to separate).
#15126463
I think this captures my attitude towards this attitude of the enlightenment.
[url]rickroderick.org/304-marcuse-and-one-dimensional-man-1993/[/url]
The attempt to demystify the world, the attempt to make the world, as it were, transparent to reason carried with it a strange dark side, always. And you may notice this when you watch television now. The more we, as it were, cleared the fields of the traditional religious views, the more that we became convinced that science – and one term for that Marcuse uses is “Instrumental reason”; reason used as an instrument for changing nature and human beings – the more that the enlightenment project progressed, it simply turned out not to be the case that we became less afraid in the face of the unknown. No, the unknown appeared more terrifying than ever, and it wasn’t the case that we became less dogmatic, as a matter of fact, the sciences have now branched out into so many areas that the only way anyone could believe in any of them is dogmatically since none of us could study them because we don’t have world enough or time.


The average person today is no more enlightened in the sense Kant describes in the OP than they were in the past.

This is concerning in that it seems to me an important part for communist politics to create conditions in which people better realize Kants idea.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/school-learn.pdf
Theoretically, such a position is incompetent; morally, it is vile, because it is extremely antidemocratic. Nor is it in accord with the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the problem of “thinking,” or with the communist attitude to man. In terms of natural endowment we are all equal—in the sense that 99 percent of people enter life in this world with a biologically normal brain capable in principle—with a little less or a little more difficulty—of master- ing all of the “abilities” developed by their predecessors. And it ill behooves us to dump onto nature the sins of society, which until now has been less just and democratic than nature in distributing its “gifts.” It is necessary to open up each person’s access to the conditions of human development, including the conditions for the development of the ability to “think independently” as one of the chief components of human culture. And the school is obliged to do this. Intelligence is not a “natural” gift. It is society’s gift to a person. It is, incidentally, a gift that he will later repay a hundredfold—from the point of view of a developed society, the most “profitable” of “capital investments.” An intelligently organized—that is, a communist—society can be constituted only by intelligent people. And never for a minute must we forget that it is precisely the people of the communist future who are sitting behind school desks today.

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]