/lit/ - Literature

Both. But ultimately I'm happy it happened because I doubt I would be literate if it didn't, and reading is the objective meaning of life.

>>6122818
How could it be worse? Challenging the way we think is how we grow, that's always a good thing.

>>6122818
some would say it's a dialectic

>>6122832
Growth doesn't come 100% good. Going from childhood to adolescence, you gain and lose. Going from adolescence to adulthood, you gain and lose. And I'm not just talking about more responsibility, I mean you lose what once held meaning for you. When you become an adolescent, you can never really enjoy action figures or Santa anymore, and when you become an adult you can never really enjoy video games or comics anymore. It's part of growth, but it's also an aspect of life you can never get back.

>>6122845
>when you become an adult you can never really enjoy video games or comics anymore

>tfw everyone is a cynical cunt these days and no one believes with in reason and progress with sincere optimism

>>6122845
>>6122856
If fucking only.

Back then it was a force for better, now it's degenerated into a force for the worse.

>>6122818
>Was the Enlightenment a force for better or for worse?
It is a disaster. The scientific knowledge is good, but then what ?

On the daily life, the Enlightenment brings better hedonism, sure. However, on the political level, we are not at all better than the Greeks. Who can think beyond the moral values of the liberalism ?

The atheism is fairly exacerbated, to the point of becoming another religion where we praise the scientific method (exasperatingly without any reason) and we belittle the other religions. God is dead as many said (before N) and with this, the man as well; because the human identity is no longer defined. And three centuries later, we are left with a universal notion of freedom and of a reasonable subject. But we have no idea what to do with those and worse, nobody put them into question.

>>6122818
It was only a force for good when it was an opposition in a monarchial enviroment.

>>6123081
how so?

>>6122856
NEETs aren't adults.

>>6122818
> The glorious story of evolution: you are the apex of a 3.6 billion year unbroken chain of non-virgins.


B R A V O
R
A
V
O

>>6122826
Korea was trying to have literate plebs in the 1400's, in the long run it's just more efficient for the government.

>>6122832
Change would had happened ne way or another. The Enlightenment had a weird focus on reason while not so much on science. There were more than a hundred years when doctors didn't wash their hands because superior beings with reason can't be contaminated by external pollutants and silly hit like that.

I'm sure there were competing ideas at the time, I hope some anon knows some potential revolutions we didn't have.

>>6123100
>on the political level, we are not at all better than the Greeks.
what?
first, our political system has nothing to do with original democracy. we don't have requirements to vote, we don't have direct political pressence, not even forum destined to that. Greeks never had to deal with corporate lobbying and maximization of profits.

>atheism with the same issues than religion
well, yeah, just because there was a boom of justifying shit with your head instead of your soul doesn't mean people are born without magical thinking.

>>6123141
that's deep man

Well I liked the improvements to sanitation, medicine, education, and the general opening up of Western Society to the lower classes. But I fear that we may have gotten very immature since then. The Enlightenment thinkers loved to discuss progress and reason, which obviously everyone can get behind and did get behind, and I don't wanna linger on the whole Chesterton paradox of absolutely devoting oneself to reason. I don't see the believers of progress being any more tolerant, or able to handle disagreement, than the sorcerers and magicians of the "dark ages" they so often say they're fighting against. It's eye rolling to hear talking heads tremble about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 years war, and the conquest of the New World. But even though these brutes worked over hundreds of years, these casualties were far, far lower than the social upheaval of the 19th/early 20th centuries; and their resulting wars against other nations and against counter-revolutionaries at home during the same time. Fair enough to blame technological advancement in wartime for these atrocities, but how much advancement was made in military tactics of line infantry or in the musket and sword from the late 17th century when "spooks" ruled the world, until the mid/late-19th century after revolutions had already left cities in disrepair and the counter-revolutionary countrysides in ruins? It's scary hearing social progressives condemn blood-stained Holy Warriors for trying to kill their way to a better world, but get irritated when they're notified of the fact that they have often used the same tactics to a much worse degree.

But this doesn't diminish the atrocities of religious fanatics, just as the enlightenment doesn't diminish scientific advancement made by the Church. And again it may not be fair to condemn either the church or enlightenment thinkers; both these groups may have been exactly what was needed in their times of decentralized pastoral societies, and massive urban growth, respectively. Human beings don't choose to live in the "dark ages", it was just the world they were thrown in by chance. Just as we didn't choose to be intelligent, we just happened to live in a time of growing technology and access to other people's ideas, yet still considered ourselves brighter than our ancestors for not having our privileges.

So I'd say it was neutral/lean good, but that means we shouldn't get cocky about it.

>>6123150
>Greeks never had to deal with corporate lobbying and maximization of profits.
What makes you think they didn't? Do you think the Greeks practised politics without self-interest? Do you think allegiances weren't made? Do you think there weren't people trying to abuse the system?

>>6123173
You can't compare the proportion. When every citizen is in government their interests occupy a bigger proportion than allegiances, and even those had a general particular interest from each member. Lobbying is someone from outside the system working it to get a result that will benefit them first, second the system and at no point the citizens (which wasn't a possibility when the system meant the same as citizens). At the same time we would probably be either slaves or sub human who haven't gone to war, so we wouldn't be citizens and get no help at any point, pic related.

>>6122912
>tfw everyone is a cynical cunt these days and no one believes in Jesus Christ and His salvation with sincere faith

>>6123163
>I don't see the believers of progress being any more tolerant, or able to handle disagreement, than the sorcerers and magicians of the "dark ages" they so often say they're fighting against.

The modern advocates of reason and the sorcerers of the dark ages are the same people. They both think they can perfect the world through the powers of human intelligence.

>>6123160
I am a deep thinker.

>>6122912
>tfw opmistic about the fruits that reason will bear but cynical that society will pursue it

Enlightenment was a great movement btw. It set Europe apart from the rest of the world

>>6123322
It did not destruct the dichotomy finitude/infinitude. I cannot see how this is good.

>>6123163
>I don't see the believers of progress being any more tolerant, or able to handle disagreement, than the sorcerers and magicians of the "dark ages" they so often say they're fighting against.
They are easily more tolerant than people ages ago. Even if you hate the SJW I'm not sure how you can honestly believe this. Back in the day they would have just killed you or imprisoned you for some indefinite time.

Here is a short article that explores the history of free speech in America so you can see how bad things were http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=727903

>>6123376
I'm not reading your homework, anon.

>Back in the day they would have just killed you or imprisoned you for some indefinite time.
Only back in the day?

>>6123407
>I'm not reading your homework, anon
What is that supposed to mean?

>>6122818
It was a double edged sword.

It made me, and many others, better persons.
I will always be grateful for what I was gifted with.

The fact some took their teachings as an excuse for their own purposes, and ruined the public perception of the knowledge they produced, doesn't deny their contributions, nor the intent they had in mind when doing them.

>>6123409
What the fuck? This is exclusively limited to post-enlightenment society. And it's just one guys spin on how freedom of speech developed in the US. And it's definitely brief since he jumps from 1781 to 1909 in the space of 2-3 pages. Then he jumps back to the mid-19th century after talking about the Union movements to talk about how immigrants were persecuted and persecuted each other in the 1830's. Then it still goes back to how the Federalist party tried to subvert the Constitution, like I'm talking to Ron Paul on ritalin. And as usual there's the laughable nostalgia for the era when Unions had power before "tyrant" Woodrow Wilson cracked down on them, as if they disappeared from life since then. And finishes off with a warning of witch hunts and McCarthyism.

What the fuck are you talking about? This was the laziest attempt at "sourcing" a lazy view with a political paper discussing human-rights violations in the US long after the enlightenment began. Are you fucking high?

>>6123409
Hahah holy shit, there's even more worship of the "anarchist movement" at the turn of the century. And even how anti-war spokesmen felt they were being silenced by Roosevelt's administration for having isolationist views. It just keeps getting worse. It's like this is the closest thing you've read to this thread, and it's still like I'm talking to a base-head

>>6122818
It was the product of the development of the material conditions at the time. They made many mistakes and advances, and are necessarily pushed behind of the material conditions they allowed for after them.

>>6123409
>Important ACLU court cases

>>6122818
Worse, ignorance is bliss. The Enlightenment just allowed a larger portion of the population to see what we really are, rotting meat on disintegrating bones parading about with most forcing others to do the same after themselves.

>>6123456

>the development of the material conditions at the time
>are necessarily pushed behind of the material conditions they allowed for after them

>>6123463

>>6123442
Alright here is a much better article from the Duke Law journal that is less political, more legal, has more discussion about thinkers like Mill, the flaws of government attempts to increase free speech, etc. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=dlj

>>6123376

>tfw idk what's worse, the virus I got from downloading this or the eye cancer I got from reading it

>>6123478
The last one was enough fun for one day anon, I'm pooped thank you.

>>6123491
:^)

>>6122818
Worse. Out of the Englightenment came the seeds of what is sprouting now. Complete distrust in western society. People in the Enlightenment started looking back in history. They painted the picture of the Renaissance as laying the foundations for their movement and that everything before that was full of darkness and barbaric existance.

This is a view of history not that things are built on top of each other but that things suddenly start in a vacuum. As if one idea comes out of no where and suddenly grows. In actual fact things are developed over time. Of course some ideas rapidly increase development. But things are built on top of other people. Of the past.

The problem with this narrative of history is that, in my opinion, it began a long process of infecting our society with this intense moral guilt at what had proceeded us. As if the Enlightenment helped turn on a switch in the darkness. Nowadays people look back in the past and with no context declare how barbaric we were.

President Obama defended Islam by saying what about the Crusades! Even though Europe had been assaulted by Muslims for centuries. Historians nowadays present it as a horrible act of genocide committed by Christians. They ignore siege warfare and they ignore the history of Islamic conquests and take things out of context.

Now people might say that more modern day groups are responsibile for this. That the 1960s counterculture is responsible. But for me it began in the Enlightenment. When they looked back at the developments they began to see things like the Renaissance and themselves as being "others" in society. As if they are apart from it. Despite the fact that they existed in society and rightly or wrongly took different things from that.

tl;dr To me the major criticisms of society began with them. It has infected us with this moral guilt.

>>6123499
I think your explanation over reaches. Its hard to imagine how "imperialism is okay if it civilizes barbarians" Mill lead to "complete distrust in western society".

OP just look at the French Republic. Never before has a nation so ardently followed the enlightenment ideals of fraternité égalité & liberté. Now they're a bunch of snobbish prisses who have to go to Britain if they want to make sure that the kid they're raising is their own.

>>6123516
So emphasing individualism, attacking the Catholic Church, portraying the Middle Ages as being barbaric and cruel did not lead to planting the future seeds of the distrust in our society? I didn't say it instantly caused it, I said it helped on us this path, it laid the seeds.

By attacking large institutions and the framework of our society they would lead to later problems.

>>6123516
Enlightenment lead to Marxism which lead to a rejection and condemnation of imperialism. Cmon man can't you see the connections? This entire board is fake! CAAAAROOOOL CAAAAAAAROOOOOOOOOOL

>>6123537
Eh it is more that the Enlightenment lead to a distrust and belief that science and religion were some how mortal enemies. Often when it came to distrust between the Church and certain scientists (e.g. Galileo) it was more about politics and other scientists.

But when we reach the Enlightenment there is a complete rejection of many ideas and this idea that these large instituitions that had built the West were somehow all backwards and barbaric when without the Church many important texts would have been lost.

This whole science vs religion debate exists to this day. When you present large instituitions present in society as being corrupt and evil you reach where we are today. People completely distrust all forms of government and others. Now you might say: they have good reason to distrust people. But distrusting people does not help improve things, it dramatically declines our sense of society and community until we have no identity left.

>>6123548
Are you an identitarian?

>>6123551
>identitarian
No.

>>6123528
>So emphasizing individualism, attacking the Catholic Church, portraying the Middle Ages as being barbaric and cruel did not lead to planting the future seeds of the distrust in our society?
No. It does not fit with any of the enlightenment authors I've read which is why it feels like you are just forcing your theory on history.

>>6123558
You obviously haven't read many people. Of course there were attacks on religion.

The Enlightenment was not some uniform thing.

>>6123562
Attacking religion isn't the same as "creating wide spread distrust of western society". Some extolled despots, some wanted a certain class or type of people to rule, some thought only a select few were capable of "reason", some despised the masses, etc.

>When the uneducated English workmen are released from the bonds of iron discipline in which they have been restrained by their employers in England, and are treated with the urbanity and friendly feeling which the more educated workmen on the Continent expect and receive from their employers, they, the English workmen, completely lose their balance: they do not understand their position, and after a certain time become totally unmanageable and useless.” This result of observation is borne out by experience in England itself. As soon as any idea of equality enters the mind of an uneducated English working man, his head is turned by it. When he ceases to be servile, he becomes insolent.

>>6123568
Dark enlightenment fags
B T F O

>>6123562
Also some of current thinkers that wrap themselves in the enlightenment grab extoll the superiority of the west like Dawkins who has pissed many PC type people off in the past just like Sam "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim" Harris.

>>6123119
The bourgeois overthrew the feudal aristocracy, but in turn they became the industrial aristocracy. They came up with stupid bullshit like "economic freedom" and they wouldn't carry their project to it's conclusion.

The problem with the concept of liberty is that nobody highlights the responsibility it comes with (The borureois did know, and still know how to sell the ideology.).

>>6123207
You're fucking ignorant. I suggest you read some of Cicero's speeches (against Verres, for example).

>>6123463
maybe they can stop doing so once they become self-aware

Another thread where we pretend turning our back on the church has been the downfall of society.

>>6122856
Its true, but no real loss. So that other anon is retarded too.

You lose health and gain responsibility growing up.
If you are smart you will do your best to keep both under control.
Otherwise getting older is amazing.

>>6123548
this pic is perfect

>>6122856
>when you become an adult
read: when you lose at life and are forced to waste your time doing retarded bullshit for money

>>6123986
>Otherwise getting older is amazing.

[citation needed]

>>6124011
I feel genuine pity for people who have to work forty hour weeks, and have so lost their grasp on the joy and wonder of all things childlike and imaginitive, that they must convince themselves that it is the only proper way to live.

VOLTAIRE
O
L
T
A
I
R
E

>>6124023
okay but comics and video games are literally for retards with mental development issues.

>>6124041
And why is that, mr patrician?

>>6124051
No depth.

>>6124057
define your usage of depth

>>6124057
not that guy, /co/ here
there are some great european comics that do not involve capes and gamma radiation and relate to philosophical and social questions.
dont tar all with the same brush.

>>6124090
wow. pop philosophy (read: whiteboy navalgazing 'existentialism') and trenchant social criticism. so deep

>>6124092

>>6122818
>Was the Enlightenment a force for better or for worse?

THE IMPOSITION OF MORAL JUDGEMENT UPON HISTORICAL MOVEMENTS IS FALLACIOUS, BESIDE BEING ABSURD; "THE ENLIGHTENMENT" AS A HISTORICAL MOVEMENT WAS NEITHER FOR THE BETTER, NOR FOR THE WORSE; IT WAS NECESSARY; ID EST: INEVITABLE.

>>6124092
>avoiding responding to my post just to hit an easier target so you can pretend you've vanquished all opposition

Neither really. It simply replaced Christianity with the state.

DESPOTIC
E
S
P
O
T
I
C

>>6124541
It was for the best, I can`t see how humans could live in pre-hobbes world.

>>6124092

>it hurts to look inside because the first thing i see is how pathetic i am.

This is the literal translation of any argument that appeals to "so deep hurr durr"

>>6124557

It wasn't for better or worse. The benefits ofpost enlightnment now are weighted against the mass slaughter that states can commit with relative ease. A single nation can destroy the world as it see's fit. Not only that, but the state's omnipotence coupled with the fact that more laws are made than overturned virtually guarantees that we will all be slaves at sometime in the future and that unique culture will be eradicated. There's nothing for humanity except enslavement at the hands of the most destructive poltergeist imaginable, and a plastic world. You can already see it happening, humans aren't humans nowadays, they're tools to create profit. The common man excepts this complete domination of his flesh and turns inward to the realm of thought. He degrades his body to earn paper tokens that grant him access to entertainment, which lets him free himself from the pain of the modern world, if only for a few hours, before he drags himself to bed ready for another of doing some meaningless task so his boss can buy another car.

Objective moral good doesn't exist, your question is shit.

I could list a thousand different benefits and curses it brought upon our society, but in the end, the weight of each one is completely subjective.

Unrelated, but today I sucked a dick.

I recommend John Ralston Saul - Voltaire's Bastards on that topic.

>>6124580

Bleak as fuck but true about both present and future.

>>6123499
>It has infected us with this moral guilt.

Isnt that the foundation of Christianity?

>>6123548
>>6124002

>>6124541

>implying the enlightenment had anything to do with the emergence of the state

>>6124736
Nice unsourced claim.

>>6124789

I said "replaced", not "created". Religion and state are virtually inseperable however, and I would go as far as to say the same thing. They're both ghosts that possess humans in order to "live".

>>6124814

I said "emergence", not "creation."

>>6124798
just like the original pic

>>6124835

The state was already heavily influential before that, I didn't mean to imply the state emerged because of the enlightenment, merely that it lead to religion being replaced with state.

>>6124851

Fair enough, that's something I can generally agree with. I didn't take

>The state was already heavily influential before that

from your first post

>>6123207
I don't think more than third of Athens were slaves, they weren't Sparta where the slaves vastly outnumbered the free men. And Cleisthenes gave citizenship to all free men living in Attica, so as adult males of Attica, the "chances" are we'd be citizens.

There were certainly shills in democracy working against the common interests, their efforts culminated in actually establishing oligarchy with Spartan support, although democracy was later fixed because it had the backing of the soldiers. During the Peloponesian War, shilling was rampant in all city states, with populist democratic parties generally getting Athenian support, and aristocrats getting Spartan support.

>>6124736
Wait, wouldn't Christianity then be responsible for destroying, preserving, destroying, and preserving ancient texts in this instance? If you didn't think the ERE was the most religious state in the world at that time you're kidding yourself.

>>6125492
>The Imperial Library would have vanished if the ERE didn't turn Christian

>>6125492
The Imperial Library was built by a pagan emperor. Are you contending that it wouldn't have been maintained if the ERE weren't Christian?

>>6125502
No, I'm accidentally displaying my ignorance, dipshit.

>>6124033
CANDIDE
A
N
D
I
D
E

Neoreactonary /pol/tards please go.

Its strange how people put so much importance on the Enlightenment yet at the "public" level people didn't seem that interested in spreading its ideas at all. My school in the south didn't talk much about it. From what I've read on my own about school back in the day they didn't seem to focus or care about the current of thoughts within it. I remember reading about some humanists who thought public education would further their goals but 30-40 years after they said that they said they were gravely mistaken and public school seemed to have no intention of expanding minds and generally sucked shit.

>>6123499
>Historians nowadays present it as a horrible act of genocide committed by Christians

what class did you take and with what professor/teacher? what school? who are these historians? are they in fact historians or psuedos? i've never come across any historian in person or through text that has expressed that judgment.

>>6124098
kek

>>6124023
>I feel genuine pity for people who have to work forty hour weeks, and have so lost their grasp on the joy and wonder of all things childlike and imaginitive, that they must convince themselves that it is the only proper way to live.
DO not take this stance. The protestantism manage to conciliate the two. But more importantly, most people are here to make things work, to develop the society and assure the it will be there tomorrow. It is a tedious task even though the middle class is not here for something else, and actually it is not guaranteed that this class can do something else. Far too many people would be lost at sea without a daily job.

>>6124593
Better call saul