The Enlightenment

[Mole]

The Enlightenment replaced Astrology with Astronomy; and the Enlightenment replaced MBTI with Psychometrics.

The Enlightenment replaced mysticism with evidence and reason; and the Enlightenment replaced slavery and discrimination with freedom and equality.

So Astrology and MBTI come from the heart of darkness while the Enlightenment enables us to see.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Was Freud part of the Enlightenment?

Many of his ideas have now been discredited by research, but I would say that Freudianism was certainly part of the Enlightenment, and important in its day.

Truth be told, I don't find MBTI that useful (but this was something I figured out for myself as I learned more about people). But seeing as how it is an attempt to quantify aspects of the human mind, I would say it is definitely part of the Enlightenment, regardless of how right or wrong it might actually be.

 

[Kullervo]

The Enlightenment replaced Astrology with Astronomy; and the Enlightenment replaced MBTI with Psychometrics.

The Enlightenment replaced mysticism with evidence and reason; and the Enlightenment replaced slavery and discrimination with freedom and equality.

So Astrology and MBTI come from the heart of darkness while the Enlightenment enables us to see.

I vehemently disagree with Enlightenment worship.

Mass democracy and relatively consistent in decline in quality of government are a direct result of the Enlightenment. So is the third world invasion. Positives such as capitalism and technological and territorial advancement I would argue were more due to the Industrial Revolution, which came somewhat later.

Democracy I would argue stands in the way of true freedom; 51% of the population can override the views of 49% regardless of their ignorance. That anyone over a certain age is allowed to vote regardless of anything else is a crime in itself, and leads to easy exploitation.

The damage left by that ideological legacy has recently been masked by technology and artificial means of raising people's standard of living. These are, however, temporary fixes, and it is time to reconsider how we organise ourselves before it is too late.

 

[Kullervo]

For the record, this (along with a few other reasons which are irrelevant here) is why I consider myself a neoreactionary and not a conservative.

Conservatives like the Tea Party want to the original values of America, but these inevitably led to the problems we have today throughout the West. It is something that irks me about SJ type anti leftists - they would effectively just turn the clock back instead of finding an alternative. Here are some examples of our differences:

Me	SJ Conservative type (Tea Party, anti establishment Repub)
Complete rejection of egalitarianism, and acceptance of human genetic diversity	Rejects only gender and class egalitarianism
Believes there is no single best political system. Different ethnic groups organise differently and are suited to different forms of government.	Democracy is the best political system.
Atheist	Fundie
Wants to use science to improve peoples standard of living	Rejects many scientific advances on religious grounds
Accepts evolution	Denies evolution
Against any immigration from the third world	Only against illegal immigration, regardless of race

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I vehemently disagree with Enlightenment worship.

Mass democracy and relatively consistent in decline in quality of government are a direct result of the Enlightenment. So is the third world invasion. Positives such as capitalism and technological and territorial advancement I would argue were more due to the Industrial Revolution, which came somewhat later.

Do you notice a common feature among the countries at the top of this list? There are only two exceptions to that rule among the top 30 that I am aware of, Singapore and the UAE.

If democracy is so bad, why do people who live in those countries do better than the ones who don't? (Well, there's psychological indicators, but that's a new concept that probably isn't measured much.) You don't seem to have accounted for that.

List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Of course, US policymakers make the mistake of assuming that other countries who adopt democracy will adopt policies we like.)

Finally, a rejection of the enlightenment seems to imply support for a resurgence of religion, yet you state this is not what you desire.

An advantage of democracy that you may want to consider is that it holds people in check, and usually means that you can't just get locked away for having unpopular ideas.

 

[Kullervo]

Do you notice a common feature among the countries at the top of this list? There are only two exceptions to that rule among the top 30 that I am aware of, Singapore and the UAE.

If democracy is so bad, why do people who live in those countries do better than the ones who don't? (Well, there's psychological indicators, but that's a new concept that probably isn't measured much.) You don't seem to have accounted for that.

List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Of course, US policymakers make the mistake of assuming that other countries who adopt democracy will adopt policies we like.)

Finally, a rejection of the enlightenment seems to imply support for a resurgence of religion, yet you state this is not what you desire.

An advantage of democracy that you may want to consider is that it holds people in check, and usually means that you can't just get locked away for having unpopular ideas.

That is not due to democracy, merely that the people who live in democratic countries are those who the system was designed by and for. It has almost universally failed outside of Europe and the former colonies, which are also dominated by Europeans.

You have failed to mention that most of the countries in the world nominally have, at least in principle, a form of common or civil law and a Western system of government. So they are technically democracies, but we would not consider them to be such because reality tells a different story. Therefore the system is not intrinsically the best. The countries whose people it is best adapted to have succeeded to an extent. But the inherent weaknesses of the system are coming back to bite, and that is why I call for us to reassess.

By a rejection of the Enlightenment, i mean its core ideological tenants of equality and liberalism, which are directly to blame for the West's current societal instability.

I do not suggest a return to absolute monarchies and religious power, but some form of national socialism.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That is not due to democracy, merely that the people who live in democratic countries are those who the system was designed by and for. It has almost universally failed outside of Europe and the former colonies, which are also dominated by Europeans.

You have failed to mention that most of the countries in the world nominally have, at least in principle, a form of common or civil law and a Western system of government. So they are technically democracies, but we would not consider them to be such because reality tells a different story.

I'm not interested in technicalities. I'm interested in what actually exists.

Therefore the system is not intrinsically the best. The countries whose people it is best adapted to have succeeded to an extent.

I'm not super-knowledgeable about political theory, but this seems a facile analysis at best. There is great deal of literature out there on why democracies fail, and people spend a lot of time thinking about this.

I do know of a few historical examples of emerging democracies that were essentially squashed by the major players during the Cold War. Iran, Chile, Czechslovakia and the Congo are a few examples I can think of.

By a rejection of the Enlightenment, i mean its core ideological tenants of equality and liberalism, which are directly to blame for the West's current societal instability.

And also, the aspirations for reason over mysticism. Without which the Industrial Revolution would never have happened. You need people figuring out new scientific principles to develop new technology. You can't do that if knowledge becomes the exclusive political purview of the state. Sure, totalitarian nations of the 20th century. I would say that innovation tends to suffer under absolute totalitarianism.

I do not suggest a return to absolute monarchies and religious power, but some form of national socialism.

Meh, that's pretty much the same thing under a more insane scale.

Under a totalitarian state, there's also nothing protecting you from being executed for promulgating ideas that are disruptive to the current government. Ultimately, a government, once it gains power, wants to stay in power. If the government has absolute power, there is nothing stopping it from doing whatever possible to do that. Typically, in revolutions of either the right or left, this can include the more ardent and passionate supporters of the revolution.

 

[Mole]

Democracy I would argue stands in the way of true freedom;

Know your enemy we are told. And so we know you are an enemy of liberal democracy.

 

[Mole]

51% of the population can override the views of 49% regardless of their ignorance.

This would only be true if we didn't subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects the rights of the individual and the rights of minorities.

 

[Kullervo]

I'm not interested in technicalities. I'm interested in what actually exists.

As am I.

I'm not super-knowledgeable about political theory, but this seems a facile analysis at best. There is great deal of literature out there on why democracies fail, and people spend a lot of time thinking about this.

I do know of a few historical examples of emerging democracies that were essentially squashed by the major players during the Cold War. Iran, Chile, Czechslovakia and the Congo are a few examples I can think of.

Science began and flourished in the preceding Age of Reason. This occurred, like the Enlightenment, in a period of absolutism politically, more so than I would ever suggest (at least outside Britain and America). At the time of the Enlightenment itself there were no mass democracies as this form of government was not invented until after WWI. What I am trying to say is the ideas that led to it as a consequence of Enlightenment thinking, and that the period in European history where we had the most power and the most progress was made, from 1814 to 1914, was not democratic. Instead it had some degree of balance between the monarchy and landed gentry, and parliament. Where that balance lay depended from country to country. Voting rights were much more exclusive than they are now as well, which I think is a good rather than a bad thing.

And also, the aspirations for reason over mysticism. Without which the Industrial Revolution would never have happened. You need people figuring out new scientific principles to develop new technology. You can't do that if knowledge becomes the exclusive political purview of the state. Sure, totalitarian nations of the 20th century. I would say that innovation tends to suffer under absolute totalitarianism.

But as I just mentioned above, science was becoming increasingly accepted by the 18th century anyway - we had had Boyle, Newton and Leibniz by then - and the churches were in a downward spiral.

Meh, that's pretty much the same thing under a more insane scale.

Under a totalitarian state, there's also nothing protecting you from being executed for promulgating ideas that are disruptive to the current government. Ultimately, a government, once it gains power, wants to stay in power. If the government has absolute power, there is nothing stopping it from doing whatever possible to do that. Typically, in revolutions of either the right or left, this can include the more ardent and passionate supporters of the revolution.

Unlike in the absolute monarchies of the past, what i am suggesting is elected dictatorship. Basically someone, or a small group of people, invested with a large amount of power but who have a fixed period of time with which they have it. This prevents some of the problems you are suggesting, while giving the opportunity for someone to make a big contribution to the country. There are historical precedents with similar systems that have been effective, such as the late Roman Republic and Venice.

And as people should be aware, I am quite in favour of civilians having access to firearms.

 

[Kullervo]

This would only be true if we didn't subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects the rights of the individual and the rights of minorities.

If so why are there hate speech laws and CCTV everywhere?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As am I.



Science began and flourished in the preceding Age of Reason. This occurred, like the Enlightenment, in a period of absolutism politically, more so than I would ever suggest (at least outside Britain and America).

The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are seen as synonymous, usually. You are the first person I have ever encountered who separated the two.

At the time of the Enlightenment itself there were no mass democracies as this form of government was not invented until after WWI. What I am trying to say is the ideas that led to it as a consequence of Enlightenment thinking, and that the period in European history where we had the most power and the most progress was made, from 1814 to 1914, was not democratic.

It was more democratic than the preceding period.

Instead it had some degree of balance between the monarchy and landed gentry, and parliament. Where that balance lay depended from country to country. Voting rights were much more exclusive than they are now as well, which I think is a good rather than a bad thing.

But the fact that they existed and had an increasing influence is a product of the enlightenment.

But as I just mentioned above, science was becoming increasingly accepted by the 18th century anyway - we had had Boyle, Newton and Leibniz by then - and the churches were in a downward spiral.

The printing press helped play a role in all of that. (Noooo, don't bring McLuhan into this... you know who you are.) You're also separating something that usually isn't separated from the Age of Reason.

Unlike in the absolute monarchies of the past, what i am suggesting is elected dictatorship. Basically someone, or a small group of people, invested with a large amount of power but who have a fixed period of time with which they have it. This prevents some of the problems you are suggesting, while giving the opportunity for someone to make a big contribution to the country.

A strong executive with a weak legislature? But the thing is this, true dictatorships do not have term limits. Your system is more democratic and infected by the Enlightenment than you realize. Sounds Hobbesian. But Hobbes himself was a product of the Enlightenment, as I define it.

 

[Kullervo]

The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are seen as synonymous, usually. You are the first person I have ever encountered who separated the two.

The Age of Reason was directly followed by the Age of Enlightenment.

17th-century philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was more democratic than the preceding period.

The political atmosphere before the French Revolution was very absolutist outside the Anglosphere. it is true that the rulers at that time took more interest in granting their subjects some rights, but for the mst part they didn't encourage the Enlightenment thinkers, for obvious reasons.

But the fact that they existed and hand an increasing influence is a product of the enlightenment.

Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights?

A strong executive with a weak legislature? But the thing is this, true dictatorships do not have term limits. Your system is more democratic and infected by the Enlightenment than you realize. Sounds Hobbesian. But Hobbes himself was a product of the Enlightenment, as I define it.

Hobbes died before the Enlightenment started.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are seen as synonymous, usually. You are the first person I have ever encountered who separated the two.

The Age of Reason was directly followed by the Age of Enlightenment.

17th-century philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The political atmosphere before the French Revolution was very absolutist outside the Anglosphere. it is true that the rulers at that time took more interest in granting their subjects some rights, but for the mst part they didn't encourage the Enlightenment thinkers, for obvious reasons.



Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights?



Hobbes died before the Enlightenment started.

Let's get down to the point, rather than definitions of what constitutes the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason.

How do you feel about individual rights? Should they be done away with? Should they be kept?

 

[Kullervo]

Let's get down to the point, rather than definitions of what constitutes the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason.

How do you feel about individual rights? Should they be done away with? Should they be kept?

I think some individual rights are very important, such as the right to own property, speak freely and form political associations, have a fair trial and have your privacy respected.

I do not view voting as a right. I do not view healthcare and social welfare as rights.

My main gripe with you people is likely to be voting; that anyone over a certain age can vote, regardless of anything else, is an abomination.

I like this blogpost (and Occam's Razor blog in general) Human BioDiversity and the Dark Enlightenment | Occam's Razor. It summarizes the views I have very well.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think some individual rights are very important, such as the right to own property, speak freely and form political associations, have a fair trial and have your privacy respected.

I do not view voting as a right. I do not view healthcare and social welfare as rights.

My main gripe with you people is likely to be voting; that anyone over a certain age can vote, regardless of anything else, is an abomination.

It still seems like you have retained certain Enlightment principles, if not others. Even if we treat the enlightenment separate to the age of reason, some of what you are in favor of includes enlightenment ideas.

BTW, universal sufferage did not exist in the late-18th century U.S. or France.

 

[Kullervo]

It still seems like you have retained certain Enlightment principles, if not others. Even if we treat the enlightenment separate to the age of reason, some of what you are in favor of includes enlightenment ideas.

BTW, universal sufferage did not exist in the late-18th century U.S. or France.

My point is that these developments are a consequence of the way Enlightenment thinking inevitably would be interpreted.

The 18th century claim that "all men are equal" really referred to white, middle class men wanting to be equal with the nobility. However, the aforementioned phrase has been interpreted by later individuals to mean something much different: that all people are the same and there should be no distinctions between them.

No Enlightenment philosophes believed this BS but its their intellectual legacy and is responsible for most of the issues I complain about on the forum.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My point is that these developments are a consequence of the way Enlightenment thinking inevitably would be interpreted.

The 18th century claim that "all men are equal" really referred to white, middle class men wanting to be equal with the nobility. However, the aforementioned phrase has been interpreted by later individuals to mean something much different: that all people are the same and there should be no distinctions between them.

No Enlightenment philosophes believed this BS but its their intellectual legacy and is responsible for most of the issues I complain about on the forum.

Hmmm... so it seems you are backtracking on your hatred of the enlightenment. You seem to be saying "actually, I love enlightenment ideas, but I hate the the interpretations of them that came about in the 19th and 20th centuries."

I'm guessing you would not be in favor of restrictions based on being a land-holder, but argue for restrictions based on other criteria. Do you think that those restrictions are unfair, and should be divided up more equally? So much for believing in the inequality of humans.

 

[Mole]

Comparisons are instructive.

So which nations reject the Enlightenment values of evidence and reason, freedom and equality?

Well the 57 nations of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Co-operation) have publicly and openly rejected Enlightement values in favour of Sharia.

Sharia opposes Enlightenment values with blind belief, submission, discrimination, backed by Jihad.

The comparison of the newly created Caliphate, called the Islamic State (IS), out of Iraq and Syria, with the Australian State (Oz), out of the Scottish and English Enlightenment, is instructive.