What did the "enlightenment" achieve besides laying the foundations of mass nihilism?
What did the "enlightenment" achieve besides laying the foundations of mass nihilism?
What did the "enlightenment" achieve besides laying the foundations of mass nihilism?
> All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, goods, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what did the enlightenment ever done for us?
The Romans and Greeks somehow managed to do it better centuries before the French homos.
The enlightenment was merely the rediscovery of Roman and Greek learning
>the medievals had the equivalent of modern medicine, or even ancient Mediterranean medicine
>the medievals had access to the same educational resources as 18th century philosophes
Top jej, lay off the little boy wiener a bit homosexual papists
Technology c. AD 1500 was better than technology c. AD 0
>>the medievals had access to the same educational resources as 18th century philosophes
Who gives a frick. "Muh education" is just an excuse to turn the entire collective body into busybodies incapable of living authentic human experiences through compartmentalization (i.e. "fields of study)
>enlightenment was merely the rediscovery of Roman and Greek learning
You are referring to the renaissance. Which was actually new interpretations of the classics rather than a ‘rediscovery’ of what they already had. The enlightenment was a complete break with the ancients.
Enlightening. Nice to put the brainlets in their place!
>The enlightenment was a complete break with the ancients.
Explain?
reddit take. all the comforts mean nothing if we wallow in moral filth away from God
>>>/x/
already seen this crap
Literally your argument is "I'll kill you," but instead of I you use technology and instead of kill you use medical death
>eternal, excruciating, vicious punishment for finite transgression.
Most early Christians were universalists
>"I'll kill you,"
That's not the argument. You should appreciate the benefits of the modern world.
>You should appreciate the benefits of the modern world
Or else!!!!!
Disagree
cope, you wouldnt last five minutes without those comforts in fact you wouldnt even exist
>you wouldnt last five minutes without those comforts
We've grown that weak as a species and we should count this as a victory for the enlightenment?
Anon, your problem is that you're just too weak to acknowledge your limitations. That's why you shitpost here. That's why you hate the world - you project your shortcomings, and escape into these ridiculous fantasies about the good old times. You might be able to find the strength and really work with what you have, but you probably don't have it in you, and it will only get worse.
The world right now is indeed decaying, but you still have many opportunities to find something meaningful. But you'll have to be honest with yourself and really work for it. Often enough it will work out.
But don't get me wrong, I don't sympathize with you at all. I'm just sick of the ubiquitous orgy of stupidity and weakness that now engulfed lit.
Didn't really refute his post, just effeminate passive aggression.
>refute his post
If you consider his post more than birdshit on this thread, and that somehow I was trying to refute him,
applies to you too. And if you consider every dumb post worthy of refutation, you must be low hierarchically.
>effeminate passive aggression
If you think my contempt for the moron above was somehow indirect because I didn't call him a homosexual, you're a dumb c**t (making sure you understand this time).
You write like a homosexual, homosexual.
>homosexual
>no you
Mate, that's not how you do it. If I call you a homosexual, you don't have to respond like an actual homosexual.
Here's how you do it:
If that's your idea of insult, whatever you were doing that brought you to this point in life was a waste. I've heard better insults from ten-year-olds, you fricking witless virgin.
homosexual.
>homosexual
Kek. Did you type it with tears in your eyes?
>Muh morals!
>Muh God!
Your God was perfectly fine with animal sacrifice, slavery and genocide in His Name and eternal, excruciating, vicious punishment for finite transgression.
Shut the frick up about "muh morals"
>Your God was perfectly fine with animal sacrifice, slavery and genocide in His Name and eternal, excruciating, vicious punishment for finite transgression.
By what moral standard are you judging God lol
Can't judge something that doesnt exist
By the basic moral intuitions he supossedly endowed me with. Also, if God has essentially no moral limits (as your reply implies), then how can you be sure that He will keep the promises He made in the Bible? What's stopping God from outright sending everyone who has ever lived to Hell, regardless of whether they believed in him or not, if He is in no way obliged to follow any of our expectations of what an omnibenevolent being is supossed do?
>uh duh what if god just did a bunch of bad stuff lol
Are you a moron? Do you know anything about this topic? Why would a being who is by his very nature omnibenevolent do something evil? Get the frick off my board moron
>Why would a being who is by his very nature omnibenevolent do something evil?
Are you fricking stupid? The other anon just said that we have no moral standards to judge any of God's actions? How does what I said not logically follow from what he said?
It can be true that you lack a moral standard to critique God's actions and further that critiquing God's actions would be incoherent as God is Goodness itself. Further, it would be incoherent for God to contradict himself as that would contradict God's omnibenevolent nature.
>Lying to humans would contradict God's omnibenevolent nature?
And genocide and ordering his followers to kill babies wouldn't (as he does in the Old Testament)?
It's the old testament. He already absolved Himselves from those sins.
God is omnibenevolent yet He had sinned
Firstly, you don't need to be religious to believe in God. Secondly, you've found yourself back at where you started, by what standard are those things wrong? How vain are you to say that Goodness Itself is wrong and my own subjective moral feelings are right? God's omniscience and omnibenevolence inherently justifies any actions he takes as just and good.
The same "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" kind of shit he supposedly retconned himself to you fricking schizoid homosexual
genociding pedophiles isn't a bad thing
It kinda is if you kill the children too like they do in the Bible
No its not, those are future pedophiles, they all have to go and God said so you fricking homosexual. israelites die.
Everyone my religion doesn’t like is a pedophile
Except He promotes them to the highest levels of His church
Clearly you know nothing of the Catholic church
this. even if God is a lie, living without a purpose is devastating.
A problem only for those incapable of finding a purpose for themselves. What sympathy do the incapable deserve? What sympathy do they deserve when purpose must be forced upon them?
You sound like a slave begging for a master.
You don't have to beg. Just submit to the Lord.
>you are completely correct but it was LE BASED!
Actual reddit response.
All these things existed before the enlightenment.
>the Enlightenment is so strong that it even goes back in time prior to its existence
How did it do it, bros?
Redditors think everyone died at the age of 3 and bathed in cow shit before trannies
People didn't have an immune system either
couldn't have said it better
This was the industrial revolution's doing not the enlightenment
>sanitation, the medicine, education, goods, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health
This all existed 300BC what the frick?!?!
doesn't even exist anymore. think about the US occupation of Afghanistan and the difference between what Afghanistan needed, and what we provided
>we're a poor shithole, we don't electricity, we don't have mines, we don't even have irrigation, can you build us some?
>no, but we CAN undermine Islam, the only thing stopping you people from being goatfricking pedophiles, and we'll try to educate you to become an epic feminist cosmopolitan democracy to boot
>$1 trillion dollars later
>wtf why didn't our shit work?
we're just that fricking stupid today. forget about whether liberal democracy is good or not. we don't even try to be rational about building liberal democracies as a series of careful progressive steps. we're a fundamentally unserious civilization who long ago threw away the blueprint responsible for our success, teetering on the brink of collapse if one critical artery is severed.
All of these things existed for thousands of years and never stopped being worked on at any point. There was no shift. 'The Enlightenment' is a self-aggrandising lie. In many ways intellectually regressive. Certainly they fricked up the study of history for hundreds of years with their tendency to lie and their lack of humility. The fact that you made this post is proof enough of that.
We can't go back to the middle ages but we can reverse the social malaise onset by liberalism.
None of these things are the result of the "enlightenment"
So this is the power of enlightenment wewuzzery...
Does it matter though if the western way of life is so mind numbingly boring? Grounds hog day over and over again. Especially in the middle class.
That is life in any age
all of these things would've existed without the philosophical moronation that came with the "enlightenment".
Violins are pretty cool.
>The guy who forced the enlightenment onto european society wasn't even one of it's thinkers.
Only a strongman like Napoleon is able to impose a worldview onto a whole continent. The guys who chatter and theorize all day at most did some terrorism to make an impact.
Ok I will now follow your laws.
Let me explain it in simple term, you are standing in front of a court of law, do you want them to treat you fairly, or do you want the judge to abuse their power?
You have a young child, do you want them protected against exploitation, yes or no.
Critics of the enlightenment just repeat abstract terms they dont understand.
>You have a young child, do you want them protected against exploitation, yes or no.
Child labour was common after enlightenment and now children are pushed to hrt if they pick the wrong toy
>
The law existed before the enlightenment, and biased/abusive judges existed after. Pre enlightenment law was actually often better imo, it let people handle their own disputes more.
>
Child exploitation got WORSE after the enlightenment.
Meh, many people were under manorial law, which could be entirely bereft of appeal to higher courts subject to status of the person. I’m mainly speaking of England right now (I’m not that familiar with other areas of Europe), but if you weren’t a freehold then disputes could just terminate at the manorial court. There are cases where the lord of the manor clearly has a pretty capricious attitude towards his tenants, because the result of a case where two guys got into a fight would be him saying something like “no more drinking after 6pm” for everyone in the village. The more value given to “personal freedom” by the modern law seems at least have some benefits in that sense, even though it has its downsides that many people clearly feel right now (being all the people who want gun restrictions in the US while the gun supporters basically wield a personal freedom doctrine that gun violence isn’t their fault, and the gun control supporters effectively hold that even if it isn’t their fault, personal freedom is too much of a liability here and prohibition would be preferable).
But I do think people don’t really understand the pre-modern system of law at all and tend to just think it was mayhem or something.
Also, I really don’t think people appreciate how the broad philosophical or ideological changes represented by “the enlightenment” don’t have much to do with economic development of modernity. I think that is also part of why liberal writers seemed so disturbed for a while that “authoritarian” states could have powerful development engines. They assume the whole liberal philosophy underwrites economic development. But really it is mostly about individual control and alienability of real property. Throughout the pre-modern or medieval era, the rules governing title to real property could be very convoluted or detached from principles recognizable and simple to us today. Many people simply had the equivalent of life estates in property, there were questions of what property interest heirs had and in what circumstances an heir may actually bring the current possessor into court over mismanagement that brought damages to the heir. This stifled the ability to develop property, and the most free owners of property (the lords) often didn’t have the direct right to untangle these relationships and so found it expedient to simply extract revenue in other ways through rights currently granted to them. The tenants and lords basically fought to keep or expand the rights they had against each other, which kept the situation generally in a stable deadlock for generations at a time. But over generations the rules governing these relationships gradually changed.
You may be able to see how the broad concepts of liberal freedom really have little to do directly with wide alienability of real property. The king of England relented in abolishing the old incidents of tenure that gave him his revenues, but in return Parliament gave him some rights to sales taxes and trade duties and such. The replacement of traditional feudal revenues for the crown was just direct taxes, and as far as any sovereign is concerned they can have “authoritarian” or illiberal control of the state while also seeing a benefit in creating a “liberal” property regime that increases tax revenue. It’s all a long historical question of who owns what how and where they get their money.
You're in love with the idealized dream of the system. 1:1 analogous with the dream of religion. The reality is expansion of power and the petty rule of tyrants.
>do you want them to treat you fairly, or do you want the judge to abuse their power?
The right of appeal was invented in 480BC in Rome, as far as the West is concerned.
hold up while I make a post-modern version with wojaks
Um well actually this isn't the post-modern position this is the realist position which is congruent with the enlightenment, so really the enlightenment was onions and gay all along
it doesn't matter, it's the current contemporary era
Delooze tried to save us from dominion of science but we refused to listen
you combined modern and postmodern
it's postmodern for a reason
I don't think it was science itself, but companies and people using science to profit from and as a tool to enable and propagate ideologies, on top of people parading science as an irrefutable religion.
It doesn’t help that the modern sciences can only give approximations of the truth, which anyone can interpret however he desires.
what do you mean by modern sciences? psychology, science politics, etc?
those aren't sciences, they earned that label as a consequence of the previously mentioned entities, just like how a banana tapped on a wall can be called art
it was profitable for institutions to give them such label and to rewrite previously established definitions
Ah yes, how could I be so foolish, that a voltage difference across a wire creating a current is merely my interpretation of the result and not actually happening
modern times
>you shouldn't do X
>why?
>because the science says so
>t. expert
idk what the political version would be, except probably an even dumber politician. probably a faceless, tasteless bureaucrat pretending to be an epic statesman like Fauci.
it's one long downslide from prophets --> philosophers --> scientists. dunno what the next state would be, but by then society probably collapses, unable to bear the weight of its sheer complacency-enabled stupidity
Political version
>you shouldnt do X
>why?
>because the experts says so
>why?
>because the science says so
>t.world "leader"
It has made christcucks seethe for 300 years (and counting)
You mean Catholics?
Protestants too. You have trans lesbian pastors sure, but you're still worshipping some psychotic Sky "Daddy". Can't wait for your ilk to die out.
I used to mock christgays for being anti-Enlightenment but after reading Schmitt and Scheler I've come to believe they were right all along. There's some good in Rousseau but otherwise the entire project has been a disaster for the human race
Ok ill bite I'm a man of God but Rousseau had valuable insights.
Look at that shitty autogynephilic smirk, God what a homosexual.
>>The Age of Enlightenment was a ploy to relentlessly attack Christianity with impunity.
How do you like your secular society?
Frog philosophers are fricking boring
Voltaire got it right. Enlightened Monarchies,opposition to democracy & universal sufferage,strenghtening of science & arts and opposing Christianity are noble goals.
Rousseau got it wrong. Universal sufferage &democracy,spoiling your kids,moralism and saccharine vision of "nature" is all fake,gay and greately destructive for Europe (vide-the French fricking Revolution)
you have to go back
Why? Because I form a genuine opinion based on the books I've read and reflections I've had as an thinking individual? Is this against the rules of this board? Does it lower the quality of discussion? And where Am I supposed to go back? There are no other forums for literary/philosophical discussions,so I'm forced to be here.
you clearly haven't suffered enough to realize why Voltaire is a contemptible midwit whose spirit was foisted by its own petard. go back until you realize your folly.
Voltaire, the subversive homosexual he was, was just as responsible for the French Revolution as much as all the atheist intellectuals of the Enlightenment.
He thought that the masses should never rise to power,because everything would turn to shit,and befriended almost every European king who ruled at that time including Frederick the Great and Catherine II. He favoured enlightened tyranny,not any revolution. Jesuits were the most left wing organization of His time,and He fought against them with every fibre of his soul (read what they did in Paraguay-basically established a communist society)
Also he wrote Candid,which is one of the best novels of all time imao
>He thought
It doesn't matter what he thought when him and the likes of Rousseau fueled the Anglo-French enlightenment geist that lead to something like the French Revolution from happening in the first place. You said it yourself that Voltaire was okay with wrecking established institutions.
Voltaire was the irresponsible classical liberal side of the French Revolution, Rousseau was the unchained human spirit, proto-fascist side of the French Revolution.
>Voltaire was the irresponsible classical liberal side of the French Revolution, Rousseau was the unchained human spirit, proto-fascist side of the French Revolution.
Clueless
seethe brainlet, I'm right
Substantiate it,then. How is Rousseau a proto-fascist and how Voltaire has anything to do with the French Revolution in an ideological sense?
I'm fash and I love Rousseau. completely agree with him. history is a series of accidents until we became conscious, then things began going downhill. we could go downhill forever into salon nihilism as illustrated in the 1st and 2nd discourses if we don't stop fricking around. the social contract is an attempt to fix that, seize the bull by the horns so to speak. body politic = corpus politic = corporatism united behind the supreme lawgiver.
And what do you think of Voltaire,on the other hand?
One of the more interesting aspects of Voltaire is how many people attempting to follow his world-view brought themselves to ruin, literally cursed.
Examples?
The French Third Republic practically built itself on the words of Voltaire and it didn't end very well for them.
Most of the people who spoon praises on Voltaire really just don't understand him; Victor Hugo is a prime example, maybe if he spent more time reading Voltaire instead of jerking off over him his life wouldn't have been misery towards the end.
he's stupid homosexual with zero sense of long-term perspective. I sympathize with him trying to move beyond a decadent order, but he was too impatient. didn't realize what forces he'd unleash. also was too ungrateful for the intellectual pedigree that the Church provided people like him.
>It doesn't matter what he thought
Well,He argued it
> him and the likes of Rousseau fueled the Anglo-French enlightenment geist that lead to something like the French Revolution from happening in the first place
It's would sound as if they cooperated in some form of a scheme or conspiracy to create a revolution,which is obvious bullshit and I think you know that
>You said it yourself that Voltaire was okay with wrecking established institutions
No,He wasn't even anti-religious per se,He recognized the importance of religion in keeping the masses under control (sounds revolutionary,doesn't it?). What i said,and what is accurate,is that He supported ancien regime and generally the idea of an enlightened Monarch. The only feuds He had with the establishment figures were purely personal,not systemic. Volatire was in no sense,a political revolutionary intending on destorying the Old Order of Europe. He thought that organizations such as Jesuits were subversive,which is obviously true.
>(read what they did in Paraguay-basically established a communist society)
and it was completely fricking based beyond belief dude. the Spanish government shut down the Jesuits because their successful integralist policies were going to rip the colonies straight from under their noses. the Jesuits singlehandedly built the Paraguayan nation, which would then go on to nearly take on all of South America at once a century later. if we had old school Jesuits (not the new hippy homosexuals from the 19th century onwards), liberal democracy would be over.
Rousseau said the complete opposite of that. In fact he hated the fable La Cigale et la Fourmi because he thought kids would be lured by the Cigale playing and singing. I dislike Rousseau but strawmanning is moronic.
Didn't He wrote Emil?
>sufferage
suffer and rage?
It ruined literature forever by promoting it to the common man.
Basically, the technology you see around you not being called devil's magic and burnt with their inventors on the spot by an angry mob.
I'm literally just noticing the Voltairegay in this thread types exactly like the Pinkergay in the other thread.
Voltaire wasn’t THAT bad compared to other enlightenment homosexuals. Candide and History of Charles XII are comfy
Why can't there be one fricking enlightenment thread that doesn't have a bunch of people who have no clue what they're talking about shit up the thread? I just want a comfy enlightenment thread for once
If the opening post starts with a meme or inflammatory picture then the thread is doomed to low effort posts and bait. The quality of the OP image dictates the quality of the thread
>no, you fricking /misc/tards, don't you get it that I am ENTITLED to a hugbox?
That's not even the problem. Every other space on the internet is already their hugbox. But for some reason they have to have this one too. They can't tolerate that there's even a single place left that hasn't totally capitulated to their feelings.
Reddit still welcomes you. Enjoy it.
Not what I said at all you disingenuous moron
It enlightened
a lot of things, before the stupid israelites took over and ruined everything that is
>"You should do it because I said so."
Don't blame the Enlightenment for christer morality, unless you are blaming it for spreading that morality globally
that image is missing burning people alive on the left
some other things belong on the left side as well, e.g. dirtiness
Redditoids actually think burnings were common
I tell you I would have been successful and happy in every way if was born hundreds of years ago
More likely you'd be an illiterate serf toiling the fields.
still comfier than wagoid existence.
Yeah I was being sarcastic. Always funny when someone like a neet blames current society and wishes he could go back in time. If you can’t get off your ass now, you would never make it toiling in the fields. Frick, you could do that or at least something similar nowadays if that’s what you wanted
>Yeah I was being sarcastic.
Sadly, you can never underestimate the stupidity of some people, so sarcasm becomes hard to detect in this format. I bet some on this thread would unironically agree with you.
Only if I get to bring a shotgun, a chainsaw, a car, and a grimoire