In a world influenced by the enlightenment's way of thinking, namely that the every-man should be primarily rational and secondarily human, does this give rise to the need for philosophy or religion? Indeed is this its primary utility? If we live in the acknowledgement that there lies somewhere an objective truth which can be discerned by science, is not the logical conclusion nihilism if not for spiritual fulfilment?
Discuss how you think the endeavours of science have failed us in many ways, even if it is mostly good.
I dont agree with you that that was the enlightenment's goal, I think that's what someone who has bought the post-modernists version of the enlightenment would think though, or perhaps someone who has tried to adapt Nietzsche's ideas about christianity and civilisation and apply them equally to science and reason.
Nihilism would be the conclusion reached by someone who believed that there was no objective truth, to be discerned by science or anything else, hence the whole point of nihilism.
There's some existentialists or french philosophers who think that there is no objective truth, to be discerned by science or anything else, Camus or Sartre, that's an affirmation of nihilism not as a response to anything but just an objective reality.
Camus saw philosophy as a consolation, life was absurd, meaningless but you'd be a douche to go with that, his philosophy was hedonism with a small h and probably a lot of altruism too when you read his novels, the upbeat ones, or his book about suicide and that guy from myth pushing the rock up a hill for eternity.
Sartre was a little different, and I think a douche, but some of his followers or respondents, like in his book on existentialism and humanism, thought that the conclusions he'd reached meant you would either embrace religion or philosophy as a consolation. That IS a utilitarian approach.
I think a lot of that's a lot of half-educated bullshit, as is post-modernism and most of the reaction to the enlightenment, as I understand it the enlightenment was about discoverable truth within a tradition challenged by renewed skepticism, and not an outright rejection of tradition in favour of a modernist project or modernity. The skepticism came from discoveries like refraction of light, if you cant trust your own eyes what can you trust? The discoverable truth about finding more reliable or evidence based conclusions than had served to date.
It had some blindspots and in the course of over turning prejudices it left some intact or reinforced others, though to err is human, the reactions against it as villainy or utopianism is over done, its all intellectual cantor and half baked, the hard sciences laugh at the drivel produced by the post-modernists in the social science theatre, there's a couple of great books on that. There's also some not so great books from the social science scene and their eventual conclusions about something called critical realism which I think is the post- post- post- modernism.
For me the enlightenment is not the end of history, its not something to react against perpetually, its not the end or beginning of philosophy or religion either, they serve the purposes they always have and they always will, its not purely utilitarian, its not as a consolation because consolation isnt required, whether the cosmos is meaningless or not and whether that meaningless is brought into sharp focus by the enlightenment or the enlightenments failure (ie post-modern criticism).