Opinion Do you ever wonder if the Enlightenment was a mistake?

650lb Sumo

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
6,922
Reaction score
16,010
Five Points

I've tried to keep the OP as brief and simple as possible. I don't have time to write a dissertation on each point.

enlightenment-icons.png.webp



(1) I would prefer not to have a dictator/absolute monarch. But what if only a dictator can prevent the situation we have now? Which is so bad we're not even allowed to talk about it openly. People will then say, ah but what about when a bad person inevitably, eventually takes power? That is a weakness of that system. Then you have a serious problem. However, we have very serious problems under the current regime.

(2) Keeping things brief, my comment on (1) covers this.

(3) As unpalatable as Postmodern Man may find this, I'm not sure this is the best way to run your society. It goes against human nature. People have caste. Here's a chart of the Old Russian / East Slavic Caste system from this page (it's in Russian).

tipy_ljudej.png


AI can read pictures but in case it helps here's the text with basic translations. These words are not easy to translate exactly and I haven't made a great effort.

ас - In this context, a kind of god
человек - person
людина - person but with a rustic tinge perhaps (It's also 'person' in Ukrainian.)
жить - life
нежить - evil, animated things without souls, like zombies or vampires
нелюдь - non-person or person of very low quality
бес - demon
кащей - a kind of central, supernatural, evil antagonist like Satan or Loki, but less powerful

An old image I have saved:

image.png


(4) Obviously people aren't equal in ability and I suspect that giving them equal rights, to the extent that we do, scuppers society.

(5) This could easily develop into a huge tangent, with people posting white knuckle rants about Pol Pot and the Killing Fields. I would prefer that not to happen. Still there can't be many people who believe in minimum government intervention into the free market nowadays.


Prompt for Thread


From 11 - 16 my maths teacher was called Mr Pointing. Once, when we were about 12, we were on an irrelevant tangent and Mr Pointing explained that when you are driving and the traffic lights go red in front of you, the most sensible thing to do is to slow right down and time your approach so that you get to the lights as they go green. The more experience you have of that road and lights the better you can time it.

When I started driving I have always done this. I mean I would have figured it out without Mr Pointing anyway. However, I know that not everyone is the same, and that people behind you often get agitated when you do this. This evening I could see the lights maybe 125 yards away turn red. I know this road well. I took the car out of gear until it slowed to a crawl, then crept foward on idle in first. Sure enough, the two cars behind me started flashing their headlights and giving long beeps on their horns, and accelerated harshly past me, only to brake quite hard and stop at the still-red lights. I caught up and stopped, then after a couple of seconds the lights changed.

Also, every time I go to the gym, out of morbid curiosity I look in the bins. They look something like this:

ucl_recycle_bins.jpg


They are colour coded.
There are text descriptions of what goes in each bin.
There are pictures of what goes in each bin.

Without fail things are piled up in the wrong bins. I could give more examples of course. It makes me wonder, are the creatures who do this 'people'? Would a 'person' do that? Is a 'person' incapable of understanding the above cues? Should these 'people' have votes? Should they have the same rights as someone who understands what to do in the above situations? Should they be subordinated to people like me in some manner?


Uncomfortable Questions, Unpalatable Choices

Did society work better when women were subordinate to men? How about people, for instance, who have an IQ of 85 and are the third generation of living their whole lives on benefits, in government-subsidised housing, committing petty crime? That kind of person is the only category of ethnic Briton who is having children above replacement rate by the way.

I realise this thread is quite un PC and might go to the Wasteland or get deleted but I wanted to raise these conundrums. I would like it if everyone could be free and equal and everything but the Enlightenment paradigm doesn't seem to be working out for us. Like, most people wouldn't want LGBT people to be imprisoned, as they used to be (or executed, as they were before that). However most people also don't want mass trans kids, drag queen story hour, transexual admirals and generals in dog masks etc. What if Enlightenment principles don't work, and you had to choose between the two?

What if the only way to stop moral degeneracy was bringing Christianity back?

What if the only way to stop OnlyFans/chad harems/incels was banning divorce, birth control and single mother benefits?

What if the only way to reduce/stop/reverse the gigantic Third World immigration to western countries was some kind of Fascism, with hundreds of thousands of troops on the streets?

What if the only way to stop the economy ending up in NeoFeudalism, where 0.1% own everything and we are all in eternal debt and reduced to a slavelike existence, was mass-imprisonment and expropriation of the super rich?
 
I definitely think some of it was a mistake. I don't think the abolishment of the monarchy was particularly smart. It's obviously hard to argue with the quality of life and technology (ect) that people will inevitably bring up but it's our default form of governance since...... basically forever.

We wouldn't be nearly as gridlocked as we are today and democracy is government by the stupid for the stupid. We don't elect the best leaders, we elect the most popular, that's not okay. Monarchs are born and bred for the job. There have been terrible monarchs no doubt but there is relative stability under them as well. There can be a clear, singular vision that society follows and not this malignant outgrowth of what ever 4 year term a new elected official produces in his/her time.

The individual as the sacrosanct political unit is also another mistake because what is the individual without the whole? Nothing. Family/community > the individual.

enlightenment brought alot of great shit but we are essentially a bunch of children trying to lead a society into the future and I don't think this project will stand the test of time.

I'm not really religious myself and have a general disdain for all Abrahamic faiths but the alternative truly frightens me.
 
Every man made system is flawed and will inevitably produce chaos and suffering. This is due to human nature. Every system is subject to the moral character of those running the system and those living in it. That's what's ultimately going to determine its success or failure.

The alternatives you reference can help fix some of the problems we have now but they will also produce new problems along the way.
 
I think the fact that there are still monarchists in the world in 2024 arguing for landed nobility, the divine right of kings and a caste system is more of a social failure than people that either can't or won't dispose of their waste in the correct colour coded bin and people that don't crawl up to red lights.
 
The actual enlightment actually supported monarchy because the monarch was someone above being corrupted. If they were going to be awful it would be of their own individual volition.

Not that I'm a monarchist I am not I can see why people in a time before socialism saw the existence of an uncorruptable figure as a check on capital.
 
The actual enlightment actually supported monarchy because the monarch was someone above being corrupted. If they were going to be awful it would be of their own individual volition.

Not that I'm a monarchist I am not I can see why people in a time before socialism saw the existence of an uncorruptable figure as a check on capital.

Rousseau and Locke disagreed.
 
I'm not a theoryhead I won't dispute that.

I mean they were quite explicit about their opposition to absolute Monarchy and their idea of the social contract is pretty foundational to the enlightenment and it's influence on liberal democracy. Presumably what the OP and the diagram are referring to in terms of the enlightenment and modern western society.
 
this thread requires a great deal more thought than I can put into it in less than a years time honestly.... so many factors to consider. I count the ts's take on what is wrong and how to fix it to be a complete failure of the enlightenment and a testament to the terrible thinking prevalent today honestly.

however the enlightenment does not run deep enough in our veins to keep us from going astray and no system or leader could ever possibly keep us from derailing. we are either on a trajectory of healing and spiritual awakening where we can be governed by fallible guardrails or we are not....

either way ONLY spiritual growth can free us and it is either going to be all of humanity or only some of them that become free and I have no idea which that is.
 
Hobbes and Hegel didn't.
Hegel argued for constitutional, not absolute, monarchy (as did Locke for that matter) and Hobbes argued for absolute Monarchy, but still as a product of a social contract and tempered by a framework of natural law and the equality of man in nature.
Even so, I would say Locke and Rousseau's ideas are closer or more influential to liberal democracy.
 
Back
Top