Live data from Hacker News

What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

web.archive.org

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#12
post #8

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 un…

Fascinating quote. Definitely need to read more Jung! And so, instead of asking here for the source I pinged the esteemed GPT: “The passage you provided is indeed from Carl Jung. It is from his work "Psychological Aspects of the Modern Archetype" which is found in Volume 10 of his collected works, titled "Civilization in Transition." This work was published in 1964, after his death, and is a compilation of various essays and lectures by Jung.”

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#13
post #8

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 un…

Proven, IMHO, by the ease with which many atheists have fallen into alternative faith-based belief systems. 21st century America is increasingly atheist, but no less religious.

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#14
"Nature, then, has carefully cultivated the seed within the hard core--namely the urge for and the vocation of free thought."

Kant may be referring to the liberation of political nonage. The illusion of open discourse with the necessity to obey is the mark of a slighted man in the sovereign. So he urges us: "Caesar has no power over grammarians."

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#16
For a long time I've seen Kant as someone who deeply misunderstood the Enlightenment. It was specifically meant to free people of this endless bickering over some scripture or other abstract issue, and told them see for themselves. But science has long descended back into "rationalism" (what an unfortunate term), and is no better than what the enlightenment fought against.

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#17
"Criticism is no longer going to be practiced in the search for formal structures with universal value, but rather as a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we are doing, thinking, saying. In that sense, this criticism is not transcendental, and its goal is not that of making a metaphysics possible: it is genealogical in its design and archaeological in its method. Archaeological -- and not transcendental -- in the sense that it will not seek to identify the universal structures of all knowledge or of all possible moral action, but will seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate what we think, say, and do as so many historical events. And this critique will be genealogical in the sense that it will not deduce from the form of what we are what it is impossible for us to do and to know; but it will separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think. It is not seeking to make possible a metaphysics that has finally become a science; it is seeking to give new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom."

It's worth reading Foucault's entire discussion of Kant's essay, published on the second centenary of the original:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/bmclean/hermeneutics/foucault_...

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#18
post #8

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 un…

Fascinating quote. Definitely need to read more Jung! And so, instead of asking here for the source I pinged the esteemed GPT: “The passage you provided is indeed from Carl Jung. It is from his work "Psychological Aspects of the Modern Archetype" which is found in Volume 10 of his collected works, titled "Civilization in Transition." This work was published in 1964, after his death, and is a compilation of various es…

> instead of asking here for the source I pinged the esteemed GPT

Which gave you a wrong answer, as it is found in Volume 6, Psychological Types (pp. 268-267) published in 1971 (not sure about that date, maybe it's just the edition I found - looks like it might be 1921 which adds another layer of wrong to ChatGPT's answer).

I really don't understand why people would ask ChatGPT for this kind of thing.

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#19

For a long time I've seen Kant as someone who deeply misunderstood the Enlightenment. It was specifically meant to free people of this endless bickering over some scripture or other abstract issue, and told them see for themselves. But science has long descended back into "rationalism" (what an unfortunate term), and is no better than what the enlightenment fought against.

How so? What is "rationalism" and how do you apply it to scientists, as opposed to, say, Jesuits?

Re: What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

#20
post #13
post #8

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 un…

Proven, IMHO, by the ease with which many atheists have fallen into alternative faith-based belief systems. 21st century America is increasingly atheist, but no less religious.

That happened in Europe from the 60's. A lot of people replaced Christianism with Horoscopes, which is a similar irrational bullshit to feel yourself better. Or buying lottery tickets depending on where they bought it, as if the place were magical or so.
Post reply on HN