Sunday, May 04, 2008

[the enlightenment] time honoured tradition of missing the point


I've never much bothered to raise the intellectual tone of this blog, preferring that type of poor man's intellectualism which obscures itself behind a sea of diverse comments of all shapes and sizes.

But this post by Deogolwulf, in which I largely agree with his thrust and yet feel he is missing the main underpinning, demanded reply. Deogolwulf wrote, in his comments section:

There is no necessity from liberty of thought to pluralism, for pluralism is an idea about the desirability of plurality, and if there really is liberty of thought, then I am free to come up with other ideas, even ones that might seek to reduce the liberty of thought in my rivals, ideas that are explicitly anti-pluralistic, Indeed, given the urge to dominate that we find amongst humans, that wouldn't be a surprise to find -- indeed as we do find.

As I put in footnote [5]: "As a mere matter of consequences, let us also acknowledge that from the fact of a plurality of views, derived from the call for the equal right of every man to express his own, it does not follow that any one of those views itself will have as its object, let alone its effect, a plurality of views, that is to say, that any view will itself be in favour of pluralism."


But this is rather by-the-by as far as the post is concerned; for, as said therein, right from the beginning of the radical current of the Enlightenment, liberty was conceived, in a very odd way, as being based on equality and tied to the general will.

Pluralism wasn't on their minds - nor on the minds of all those universal systemisers which you seem to have overlooked.
My argument isn't that the Enlightenment had no good ideas conducive to liberty of thought; only that it had some very bad ones -- which is just as one would expect when you have liberality of thought.

That's as maybe, Deogolwulf and yet it misses the main purpose of the Enlightenment, as espoused by an as yet non-existent school of ersatz philosophical thought for which it might well be time to find a coffee house therein to promote it. I humbly reply:

"It is therefore neither an exaggeration nor a weary old canard to say that some projects of the Enlightenment were themselves totalitarian in character or that they were an inspiration to subsequent regimes."

In temporal terms, a truism indeed but the ultimate black joke is the metaphysical underpinning of the essential purpose of the wonderfully misnamed Enlightenment [I refer to it as the Darkening] which led man down hopeful country lanes only to be caught in the quagmire beyond.


This is the sum total of philosophic thinking which takes not into account the metaphysical aspects of life. In short, it was a superb con, appealing to the Babel-like egotistical presumption of the capacity of man to out-G-d G-d but without the perceptive capacity to achieve this end.


Like a dog chasing its tail.

So paying its dues to its powerful antecedents in such movements as the French Revolution and long before e'en to 1688 and earlier, which in turn paid its dues to the inevitably inept godless morality and subsequently spawning delusion in the form of otherwise sentient thinkers such as François-Marie Arouet, who under the guise of "freedom of religion" actually set up the mechanism for its suppression, religion being merely the moniker applied by those who would have spiritual connection of humans deflected, then the Darkening was on a hiding to nothing.


And even today with the Grayling delusion couched in professional philosopher approved intellectual tones, the myth is perpetuated that the explanation for humankind can exclude consideration of the spiritual aspects which make possible the eventual understanding, given the initial spirit of enquiry and intellectual equipment to be able to discern and differentiate the wheat from the chaff and posturing from imposture.

In short, it's the most natural and logical thing in the world that totalitarianism should sprout from the fertile bed of Enlightenment manure, itself patiently laid by the most perniciously cynical demagogue of all.

Callest ye this claptrap? So be it.

12 comments:

  1. If a Test pilot tells you something that's so bloody complicated you can't understand it, then its all Balls ". R.J Mitchell ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. James who in your view are the philosophers of the enlightenment?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's a question as good as, "Is this a good question?" to which a fine reply would be, "If this is a fair answer."

    Tiberius - you have thrown me a curved ball, to mix metaphors as is my wont. He he - let me reflect before replying.

    The most immediate question of course is whether we mean the early years or even the spirit of the Darkening today. If you'll allow a certain breadth, you could squeeze in Mill.

    You could also make a case against Voltaire.

    Allow me to reflect on it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Voltaire opened a debate on tolerance which we could do worse then look at again. I don't think you can blame the Enlightenment or the Fr Rev for what came afterwards, James!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Me- throw a curved ball, never?

    I'll be interested in your response James- tie this to particular philosophers and we can have a discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, you know, Rousseau was counter,Berkeley's attempt to rationalize the metaphysical was always going to be doomed so could he be called an Enlightenment philosopher?

    As you know, Tiberius, in Italian it is Illuminismo or secularism and in this is all you need to know.

    The so-called "religious war" era was not religious in the least - this was a case of mere epithets applied to cynical stirring and the idea was to soften up society, making people sick to death of "religious" animosity and willing to turn to any reasonable alternative.

    It was a complete set up and the church, already riddled with corruption up to the top, made no attempt to expose the subterfuge.

    This is also the case today as we head towards the new enlightenment towards the end of the next feudalism. The script has never altered.

    From the Ormus Rose to the Alumbrados, the die is cast.

    Any of the philosophes you'd need to include in your list. D'Holbach of course, Kant I've posted on later today, Hume is debatable.

    Mill's outside the time frame but espouses the same fallacy which I addressed in the later post.

    Just a few of dozens of names of course.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good answer James.

    But lets not forget that freedom requires control to some degree in order to function.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And may I add a 'self' in front of 'control'. :)

    Which brings me to add the aspect 'language-(mis)use'.

    As for Deogowulf's post, which inspired you to write your's, James: Being one of its first readers (there had not been any comment, then), I thought 'it will be interesting to read Mr. Grayling's response, which will definitively come. And the essence of his defence will be: YOU ARE WRONG.' :)
    And voilà, what was the essence of Mr. Grayling's defence? 'You are wrong'.
    Which made me smile, the more when imagining Voltaire stating: Doubt is not a pleasant state, Mr. Grayling, but certainty is a ridiculous one.

    One last thought for now, in order to 'control' my logorrhea:
    It would be interesting to compare Voltaire's correspondence with Frederic II. and his correspondence with let's say Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, Mikhail Gorbatschov and Vladimir Putin.

    Conclusion. Very thought-provoking post. As jmb would perhaps say: I shall retreat under my rock and contemplate on what has stirred up my grey matter. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "That's as maybe, Deogolwulf and yet it misses the main purpose of the Enlightenment."

    You mean: my writing, which was not addressing "the main purpose of the Enlightenment", whatever that may be, misses "the main purpose of the Enlightenment"? I am not surprised. Nobody told me that I was meant to be addressing it. Indeed, I thought I was free to address points of my own choosing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Indeed you are, sir, indeed. It was issue focussed, not on your good self. Fine answer to the Grayling.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.