21–30 of 56 posts
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…
Nietzche said that before.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Of course seeing Enlightenment as anti-Judeochristian in principle is a misunderstanding: Kant was one of the last great philosophers to sort-of rescue monotheism in his system. Most of 'philosophes' were Deists, Rousseau trolled them by being a Calvinist. What counts for Enlightenment is justification, not genealogical provenance of the idea. Later German post-Enlightenment philosophers were much happier to be godless.
I think the main problem with Enlightenment is how it has been abandoned, and the main reason is that it is easier to organize and dominate people with a faith-based doctrine (be it a traditional religion, or mass ideology).[1] The main thing that Enlightenment has going for it is that eases the access to material truth and fruits of free inquiry and inventiveness.
Can't say what will win, in the long term. It's an interesting question about human society folding into itself vis-a-vis physical world. I think you can be forgiven for thinking that Enlightenment is now in a path to being extinguished, but on the other hand, people are still aware of it. Seeing abuses of fundamentalists in power, they have where to turn to. I myself went through that transformation from oh-so clever "seeing the limits of reason wow" youth in the neoliberal era.
[1] Auguste Comte's positivism was an... amusing? attempt at creating an rational-scientific religion. There were of course others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Side note, but horoscopes aren't fully to be thrown away[0]. IIRC the main idea was that the month of birth is/was related to seasonal human activities, or illnesses seasonality, which would have a tendency to affect newborns/newborns-to-be strongly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? What is "rationalism" and how do you apply it to scientists, as opposed to, say, Jesuits?
Rationalism is the rejection of the idea that knowledge needs to be gathered, rather than intuited. A rationalist, in practice, necessarily derives his worldview either starting from some gut instict (that something just has to be a certain way, because it feels that way), or from preexisting texts, be it a religious scripture, or a scientific theory that is treated as inviolable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's deeper than that: the vast majority of people believe in science in the exact same way as the used to believe in Christianism. Try asking around for bulletproof proofs of the Earth's roundness. Or communicating the idea that time and space aren't really distinct entities. Side note, but horoscopes aren't fully to be thrown away[0]. IIRC the main idea was that the month of birth is/was related to seasonal human a…
I'm not so sure. The common person definitely cannot give scientific explanations for most things, but between modern medicine, computers and all else, society is drowning in very hard proof that science is an effective and worthwhile endeavour, in a way that i don't think most religion is. Though admittedly that does not seem to completely stop people form breaking away from science the same way as they break away from religion (see flat earthers).