I am a member of Western Civilization and I am a Subject in a country that is part of the West.
Western Civilization is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity and the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment has given us evidence and inductive reasoning, as well as giving us freedom and equality.
The Enlightenment has also given us modern medicine, modern economics, liberal democracy, science and technology.
In particular the Enlightement abolished institutional slavery for the first time in history in the House of Commons in 1833.
And under the Enlightenment, women gained their emancipation for the first time in history in Austalia and New Zealand in 1900.
And in Ireland in 2009 and in Australia in 2014, independent Judicial Enquiries have exposed the extent of institutional child sexual abuse for the first time in history.
So the Enlightenment has the runs on the board.
And at a more abstract level, the Enlightenment gave us a habit of mind called counter-intuitive.
And I am fortunate to have been born a Subject in a country based on the Scottish and English Enlightenment.
Pretty descriptions are not explanation.
How did the enlightenment produce those things? If your response can be called an explanation, it is an explanation that hides the key to the knowledge you allegedly profess (as you provide no recourse to any substantiation).
I'm not averse to you making claims that the enlightenment gave us certain things... but you must be able to explain the philosophical means by which it operates; OR again I say: how can anyone truly know you have any real understanding beneath the banner of "Enlightenment" you proclaim for yourself.
Anyone can use pretty words, but if you can't share your understanding, how can you be so sure you are not acting out of ignorance (covered over by the vanity of relying on pretty sounding words like "Enlightenment").
I am prepared to leave this point of discussion, as you have repeatedly ignored this point of contention, not even talking on it in your responses, and I'd rather not continue to harp on this issue any longer when you seem unable to distinguish between explanation and description.
There is an important distinction to be understood about description and actual explanation:
Description presupposes I have already bought into your model of thought to some extent, or that I at least wish to sample the nature of the fruit from your model's construction, because when reading descriptions I'm learning the terminology and perspective on things
according to the system of that specific model. Description does not prove your system of belief is superior or that it should be preferred; only explanation can allow you to compare schema's. In short, describing your system in terms of how it HAS operated, does not explain to me why it should be preferred; you do actually need tell me how it currently operates:- tell how it will work in my mind in the
now (you'll realize this excludes attempts to appeal to any external loci of understanding)!
You have made every effort to describe 'the Enlightenment', and no effort to explain its philosophy. A historical account is not explanation, in philosophy it can be said to equivalate to appealing to the authority of a report; and I will not accept you moving away from the authority of reasoned explanation. Because without reasoned explanation as a basis of preferring tenants and premises (which every system is predicated on [which requires a way of appraising
a priori]), dishonest reliance on outside authority will be used to supplement the fact that individuals are kept from actual understanding for him/herself.
So far, I feel your explanation is currently in the following state:
The Enlightenment model of thought did lots of morally good/right things the world could never have managed to accomplish without the Enlightenment.
Without recourse to how the Enlightenment is understood through reasoning from the ground up:
We should all just be devotees of the Enlightenment.
Consequently if people want to make deductive arguments, we should tell them about what the Enlightenment has accomplished so they might stop being so deductive and become fellow devotees of the Enlightenment.
I was not the person who first brought up the point on intellectual exploitation... but I have good sense of where it fits into this discussion.