It is no secret, especially here in America, that we live in a post-Enlightenment age in which rationality, science, evidence, logical argument and debate have lost the battle in many sectors, and perhaps even in society generally, to superstition, faith, opinion and orthodoxy. While we continue to make giant technological advances, we may be the first generation to have turned back the epochal clock — to have gone backward intellectually from advanced modes of thinking into old modes of belief. But post-Enlightenment and post-idea, while related, are not exactly the same. ... Post-Enlightenment refers to a style of thinking that no longer deploys the techniques of rational thought. Post-idea refers to thinking that is no longer done, regardless of the style.UPDATE: Do read gentle reader and history buff Lumpy's comment below too.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Quote of the Day: Undoing the Enlightenment?
Hmmm?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
When I saw this was in the NYT, I had to laugh.
Why Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Keynes, Dawkins, etc.? Why not Adam Smith, Hayek, etc.? But, that's partly beside the point.
The problem with most of the big ideas is that they ignore a great deal of evidence. This is the problem with the grand theories of history as well; they fall apart under closer, more empirical examination. In addition, these big ideas can do a lot of damage (Marx, Freud, Keynes, Comte, eugenics, etc.) when societies accept and follow them.
Another problem has been the professionalization of thought itself. During the Enlightenment, there were no professional philosophers, no professional historians, no professional scientists. If you were educated and had the financial means to apply yourself to a field, you could be any or all of these things. Marx wasn't trained to be a professional historian, philosopher, or economist, for example.
When these fields became professionalized - and they all did during the 19th and early 20th centuries - the professionals took over and the untrained (i.e., unindoctrinated and unapproved by accepted professionals) man was no longer allowed to do these things except for fun. And, such amateurs were not to be taken seriously in any case. Additionally, the professionals started writing for each other instead of for popular audiences, so the general public had ever-dwindling opportunities to be exposed to these fields, and an ever-dwindling capability to understand these fields when they were exposed to them.
There's a lot more to say, but I don't have time to write on all that right now. I'll just finish with the observation that, from the Enlightenment to today, a great many of those who want to be seen as champions of rationality, science, evidence, and logical argument spend their time using those words as ad hominem clubs to batter their opponents with rather than actually engaging with the ideas those words represent in any meaningful way.
In addition, let me conclude with a general, emphatic BAH HUMBUG!
But of course!
To briefly pick up where I left off last night, what these people want is a technocracy - a state ruled by accepted experts in which the common man may vote, but only among a set of technocrats chosen by a progressive elite.
Since they define themselves using the words 'scientific (especially), rational, logical, and evidence-based,' when anyone opposes them or their policies, they immediately declare that 'anyone' to be against science, against rational thought, against logic, and opposed to evidence. To the contrary, those opponents are decried as putting faith and ideology (i.e., unthinking orthodoxy or dogmatism) above science, reason, and evidence.
Which has all been nonsense. Read Comte, Marx, Spencer, Tyndall, etc., etc., and you can see that, while they are good writers and make coherent arguments, they conveniently leave out a great deal of evidence and in fact make their arguments based in large part on a redefinition of terms.
For example, under the influence of Comte (and others), they defined science and religion as eternal opponents. It was a very coherent, powerful argument, but it didn't arise from the evidence. Rather, the theory came first, then history was rewritten to conform to their definitions of science and religion as enemies. Since it was written using those definitions, of course their evidence (all of history!) 'proved' their theory; how could it not? (Would throwing in the word 'tautology' be redundant here?)
Anyway, there is more to write, of course, but no more time this morning.
Cheers!
Post a Comment