Posted on 01/01/2020 12:12:14 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
Modern science, medicine, political freedom, the market economy—all of them, we’re told, are the result of a sort of miracle that took place 250 years ago. That miracle is called the Enlightenment, a moment in history when philosophers suddenly overthrew religious dogma and tradition and replaced it with human reason. Harvard professor Steven Pinker puts it this way: “Progress is a gift of the ideals of the Enlightenment.”
There’s just one problem with this claim. It isn’t really true.
Consider the U.S. Constitution, which is frequently said to be a product of Enlightenment thought. But you only need to read about English common law—which Alexander Hamilton and James Madison certainly did—to see that this isn’t so. Already in the 15th-century, the English jurist John Fortescue elaborated the theory of “checks and balances,” due process, and the role of private property in securing individual freedom and economic prosperity. Similarly, the U.S. Bill of Rights has its sources in English common law of the 1600s.
(snip)
The truth is that statesmen and philosophers, especially in England and the Netherlands, articulated the principles of free government centuries before America was founded.
(snip
The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason.
In contrast, most of the progress we’ve made comes from conservative traditions openly skeptical of human reason. The Enlightenment’s critics, including John Selden, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, emphasized the unreliability of “abstract reasoning” and urged us to stick close to custom, history, and experience in all things.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at prageru.com ...
Immanuel Kant committed the intellectual error of imagining a categorical difference between science and religion with respect to language. People believed him. The deep state endorsed the plan.
The winner of the protestant reformation as of today was not Luther or Calvin but rather Cervetus byo his protege Descartes. It was Descartes who created the tree of knowledge and universities disciplines mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and on to the social sciences. The trunk of Descartes tree of knowledge is philosophy. The roots of the tree of knowledge were metaphysics. Theology was packed into a subbranch with witchcraft.
All the great universities of the west have shown their philosophy students Descartes tree of knowledge for 300 years —and screwed them up.. Sadly, theology never belonged in the tree of knowledge because theology is God centered. Philosophy is man centered. Theology begins in God and is top down. Philosophy begins in man and is bottoms up. In theology —God is the measure of all things. In philosophy man is the measure of all thing.
btw Cervetus believed in the low view of Christ. He was burned at the stake by John Calvin. Likely Calvin knew his Catholic history and knew that followers of the Arian heresy tended to side with the Muslims. As such, they represented not just a theological threat to christianity but an existential threat to the west.
This was important because only two decades before— the Muslim Turks had laid siege to Vienna.
You might be right - but not if this Pope has his way . . .
Realizing that the democrat party is pure evil
Happens daily for thousands
Get rid of your apostate fallible popey.
Tell priests that raping boys is a sin. (Apparently this escapes Catholics).
Oh and Mary is not a saint worthy of
worship.
And sin cannot be forgiven by paying off the local Catholic church.
Fix your churches before you judge
another.
The modern Left believes the Enlightenment was Euro-centric cultural imperialism.
Descartes is the Father of modern philosophy. If anything he provided a basis for healthy skpeticism.
I’ve thought a bit about the word “cynicism.” And I have been dissatisfied with the definitions I’ve seen, and I backed into a definition which I like better:”the conceit that negativity is objectivity.”The funny thing about cynicism is that if you are cynical about “A,” and if “B” is the opposite of “A,” then it is logically incoherent to be cynical about “B” as well as “A.” Rather, if you are cynical about “A” you can only be coherent if you are naive about “B.”Point being that cynicism and naiveté, while nominally opposites, both denote certainty.
That is germane to political debate. “Liberals” (socialists) love to conflate “society” with government. That was going on all the way back in 1776:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.To the extent that “society” and “government” are opposites, it is logical for anyone who is naive about government is to be cynical about society - and conversely. Whichever comes first, the other logically follows. And that combination seems to me to be a more general definition of “socialism” than “government ownership of the means of production,” which I view as a specific detail.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . .the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)It seems logical to the socialist that the opposite of socialism must be “naiveté about society" (especially its leaders, such as businessmen and clergy) “and cynicism about government. In fact, AFAIK that would be how Karl Marx could have defined the word he coined, “capitalism.” But if that be the definition of “capitalist,” then you and I are not capitalists. Thoughtful people reject socialism and “capitalism” (as I understand Marx’s meaning of the latter). Because thoughtful people eschew naiveté. And both socialism and Marx’s “capitalism” denote naiveté - albeit about opposite things.
Skepticism is what motivates separation of powers in government. Skepticism motivates the rejection of Establishment of religion.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Another great post/thread. Thanks c_I_c. BUMP!
Some very interesting thoughts here in many different articles from a multitude of individuals...
Enjoy
WAITING FOR “THE FINAL PLAGUE”
A Talk with Nathan Wolfe [1.30.09]
From the above link.
It was the idea that humans and society are infinitely malleable or “perfectible”. And the people in charge should go about achieving this perfection...by force if necessary (perfection is worth it right? we just haven’t gotten there yet. Maybe the next Five Year Plan).
1440, Johannes Gutenberg began building and producing the printing press.
This event was followed some decades later by The Reformation.
In 1517, German Monk Martin Luther protested the tenets of the Catholic Church.
okey dokey. My post was over a year ago. And it took you this long to respond?
I was busy ‘being Enlightened’.
So you decided to throw the first stone?
Isn’t the largest protestant denomination, the Southern Baptists, dealing with a major sex scandal right now?
There weren’t any protestants before Luther, only Catholics until 1054 and then Catholic and Orthodox.
Like the Southern Baptists?
We’d have been much better off without John Locke.
I guess I missed this thread 4 years ago.
The Enlightenment was good in that it gave us classical liberalism but bad in that it gave us socialism. A true double edged sword, as is often the case in this imperfect world of ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.