The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future • Hacker News Board

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#11

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

vlehto wrote: post #2

Starts good. The idea that enlightenment is constructed later doesn't even surprise me too much. Cohesive political movements usually have some sort of geopolitical motivation behind them. And that element seems to be missing from the enlightenment. It seems weird to label long period of time just because there happened to be individual smart people thinking great ideas relatively separately. Socrates, Buddha and Con…

> Somebody thinks pride is a sin...

OK.

> ... and the master race should purify itself from sin. To show the barbarians how much better the master race is. (Unconsciously of course but anyhow.)

That sounds a lot like pride in action...

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#12

Post by s_baby » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

nemo wrote: post #9

JanezStupar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you and the others presenting this argument conveniently forget that not all white men were free and privileged - and that these progressive thinkers of the day, naturally strived to free and uplift those that were closest to them and mostly visible to them. Also you forget that not all people of colour were slaves and that not all slaves were of colour. You also ignore the fact that most slaves were bought and p…

Enlightenment ideals of liberty were not universally applied, but only to a limited in-group deemed worthy. That in-group was primarily wealthy white men and not all (hence the American States originally granting the vote to male property owners as well as adding race requirements), but that doesn't really change anything about the point of the article or the point of the person you're replying to, but rather illustr…

If you gave every 18th century American a vote there would be an official church in every state along with all the marginalization/oppression that brings along. Not extending the vote was part of the checks and balances negotiated as a result. Right or wrong it was a valid existential problem for a young democracy.

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#13

Post by javajosh » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

It's amusing to me that works of criticism like this are jam-packed with the same questionable labels that it seeks to debunk. German Jews, white Americans, Trancendentalists, Cold War liberalism, Anti-Communists, Marxists...

Who are these people? Why are these labels any less problematic that the label of "Enlightenment" assigned to a certain group of philosophers in the 18th century Europe?

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#14

Post by knagra » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #13

It's amusing to me that works of criticism like this are jam-packed with the same questionable labels that it seeks to debunk. German Jews, white Americans, Trancendentalists, Cold War liberalism, Anti-Communists, Marxists... Who are these people? Why are these labels any less problematic that the label of "Enlightenment" assigned to a certain group of philosophers in the 18th century Europe?

Those labels are less problematic because they are much better defined (e.g., "German Jews" == persons who practice(s|d) Judaism in Germany), self-applied labels (e.g., anti-Communist), or a combination of both (Cold War liberalism).

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#15

Post by javajosh » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

knagra wrote: post #14

javajosh wrote: post #13

It's amusing to me that works of criticism like this are jam-packed with the same questionable labels that it seeks to debunk. German Jews, white Americans, Trancendentalists, Cold War liberalism, Anti-Communists, Marxists... Who are these people? Why are these labels any less problematic that the label of "Enlightenment" assigned to a certain group of philosophers in the 18th century Europe?

Those labels are less problematic because they are much better defined (e.g., "German Jews" == persons who practice(s|d) Judaism in Germany), self-applied labels (e.g., anti-Communist), or a combination of both (Cold War liberalism).

The question of what counts as "Jewish" is, itself, incredibly complex. As for self-applied labels, what does that even mean? If you call yourself something once, are you that thing forever? Do you even know what it implies to call yourself "Anti-Communist"?

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#16

Post by vlehto » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 11:47 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #11

vlehto wrote: post #2

Starts good. The idea that enlightenment is constructed later doesn't even surprise me too much. Cohesive political movements usually have some sort of geopolitical motivation behind them. And that element seems to be missing from the enlightenment. It seems weird to label long period of time just because there happened to be individual smart people thinking great ideas relatively separately. Socrates, Buddha and Con…

> Somebody thinks pride is a sin... OK. > ... and the master race should purify itself from sin. To show the barbarians how much better the master race is. (Unconsciously of course but anyhow.) That sounds a lot like pride in action...

Unconscious thought is not very good at being logical.

Re: The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future

#17

Post by vlehto » Mon, Nov 02, 2015, 11:28 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #7

vlehto wrote: post #2

Starts good. The idea that enlightenment is constructed later doesn't even surprise me too much. Cohesive political movements usually have some sort of geopolitical motivation behind them. And that element seems to be missing from the enlightenment. It seems weird to label long period of time just because there happened to be individual smart people thinking great ideas relatively separately. Socrates, Buddha and Con…

Colonialism and enlightenment happened at the same time. Was that really news to anybody? Only if you stop and think about it for a second: the use of "enlightenment" to refer to a set of ideas about freedom and liberty which were in practice only extended to white men. The only way to reconcile the "we the people" of the US constitution with the actual historical facts is to assume that the drafters meant that peopl…

>You've substituted "accomplishment" for "enlightenment", which isn't the same thing.

No I haven't. I don't think enlightenment exists. I was also very aware that original U.S. constitution didn't regard Indians as human.

And I still think the author doesn't really present a good case.

He could have shown as why we currently need the concept of "enlightenment" for our current view of history. (Like why was GB able to beat china in first opium war with superior tech that all originated in China?) Then break that down, show what really happened and why. Then just point out that "hey, there is nothing inherently white about it." And that it's not really scripted course of action, but bunch of lucky accidents combined with favorable economic, political and cultural climate.

Instead we get: "this is too white. Enlightenment is fussy thing that none of you understands and I don't care to explain. But we should remember Haitian revolution!" What did anybody outside Haiti actually gain from Haitian revolution? What does that explain?

I think he has good hunch on what might be a big white lie. But goes nowhere with it.

PS. Politicians have always been able to twist history to justify their power-boners. If historians start to modify history to prevent this, then we have nothing trustworthy left.