What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

404. The irony isn't lost on me.

The submitted link works for me, but maybe it’s a regional issue. Here’s an archive.org link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329042339/https://www.colum...

And Jung refined it, 150 years later: “our age has a blindness without parallel. We think we have only to declare an acknowledged form of faith to be incorrect or invalid, to become psychologically free of all the traditional effects of the Christian or Judaic religion. We believe in enlightenment, as if an intellectual change of opinion had somehow a deeper influence on our emotional processes, or indeed upon the unconscious! We entirely forget that the religion of the last two thousand years is a psychological attitude, a definite form of adaptation to inner and outer experience, which moulds a definite form of civilization; it has thereby created an atmosphere which remains wholly uninfluenced by any intellectual disavowal. The intellectual change is, of course, symptomatically important as a hint of coming possibilities, but the deeper levels of the psyche continue for a long time to operate in the former attitude, in according with psychic inertia. In this way the unconscious has preserved paganism alive. The ease with which the classic spirit springs again into life can be observed in the Renaissance. The readiness with which the older primitive spirit reappears can be seen in our own time, even better perhaps than in any other historically known epoch.”

Jung's fault is well betrayed by his use of '«we»': well, get out of the pond and climb.

His idea ignores that clean eyes affect both the «intellectual» side and the «unconscious» one.