There's a lot of work prior to Kant. Thomasius is a good example, amongst those seeking to retain more religion than I like. He was influenced by several of his predecessors, notably, in Germany, Grotius and Pufendorf and, in England, Hobbes and Locke, and he appropriated those aspects of their theories that he found conducive to his overall aim: the spread of the Enlightenment ethos, understood here as the project of ensuring a healthy reason, one that can discover truth, that can lay open contradictions and fight prejudices. I can put up with some godswank amongst his empiricism. What mattered to Thomasius is the enlightenment optimism that truth is possible and, moreover, accessible to everyone. Even the Scottish E includes too many figures to mention - Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid and Adam Ferguson,Gershom Carmichael, George Turnbull, George Campbell, James Beattie, Alexander Gerard, Henry Home (Lord Kames) and Dugald Stewart. Many Jews were involved. Maimon (known only to me as a critic of Kant) entered the circles of the Haskala (the Jewish Enlightenment movement) in Berlin. Maimon shared with this circle the idea that there is a need to propagate the enlightenment and scientific education among traditional Jews but he had a very different understanding of what E is. While for the Berlin Haskala, ‘E’ was primarily the attempt to acculturate the Jewish masses in order to allow their acceptance into modern German society, Maimon's idea of Enlightenment was that of propagating science and philosophy. Critical theory treats E as explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation. Human beings are producers of their own historical form of life, and the practical goal that of identifying and overcoming all the circumstances that limit human freedom, the explanatory goal could be furthered only through interdisciplinary research that includes psychological, cultural, and social dimensions, as well as institutional forms of domination. The aim is to transform contemporary capitalism into a consensual form of social life, by becoming more democratic, to make it such that “all conditions of social life that are controllable by human beings depend on real consensus” in a rational society. The transformation of capitalism into a “real democracy” in which such control could be exercised. There are striking similarities between Critical Theory and American pragmatism.
We could go on and on. Richard Rorty has it that truth is not part of any of this and we wouldn't know what it is if it came with a wet fish to slap us in the face with. I suspect the term whoever is using it. On 17 Jan, 21:57, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > There's a guy doing Aristotle on BBC4 at the moment Chaz. It was > quite interesting with a guy doing dissection as Aristotle did. > Wittering about the soul now (zzz) but back on track again with some > attempt to get into the eternalist view and how A missed fossils and > thinking without the next 23 centuries. Good to see a great mind > being treated in a 'getting it wrong' context and how evidence, even > from detailed examinations can lead us the wrong way. > > Georges - round the corner, a set of nerds are behaving in a very > unenlightened manner towards an Asian family. My grandson is being > bullied because he plays with their kids. There is no need for your > tone. > > On 17 Jan, 21:01, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Would you kindly, gentlemen, fuck off from this thread, as you don't > > twig the slightest of it, and kindly change the "subject" under which > > you dump your drivel. > > Respectfully > > Georges. > > > --- On Sun, 1/17/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: chazwin <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [epistemology 11193] Re: Second Enlightenment (S1,S2) > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 7:34 PM > > > > The question of the Enlightenment is not so much how do we > > > know but > > > what the hell do we think it is. > > > > On Jan 17, 4:07 am, jonbenn <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > I haven' responded to this list in years, it got to > > > hostile. And I > > > > haven't followed the recent posts, but thought I might > > > just dive in > > > > here and as the obvious epistemological question-how > > > do you know? How > > > > do you know anything at all? Once you answer that > > > question then you > > > > can as whether or not there was such a thin as the > > > enlightenment, and > > > > other questions. First, how do you know. > > > > > The fact that there was once believed to be an > > > enlightenment, and the > > > > fact that it is questioned today, is because we have > > > changed our > > > > epistemology, as well as our metaphysics. But the very > > > fact that we > > > > now question the existence of the enlightenment, or of > > > any age, or > > > > absolute knowledge of any fact, is a direct result > > > from the > > > > epistemology that was ushered in by the > > > enlightenment. > > > > Err, well - nope! Diderot was consciously unmasking 1200 > > > years of > > > darkness, to a time when > > > he considered that restriction on thinking was much less. > > > Whatever the > > > E is, it did not usher in anything new. > > > What E is usually caricatured as is part of a revolution of > > > Science, > > > this was Baconian, Newtonian, but also Epicurean and > > > Stoical. > > > But that is only true oif you have a 50 year old conception > > > of the E. > > > The real difficulty is that the E is now so many things > > > that it has > > > lost coherence. > > > There is a Christian E now, and even an English one; its a > > > period of > > > time, its a process, its an event, its a set of values ad > > > nauseum. > > > I'm trying to put 5000 words together and I've opened up a > > > can of > > > worms. > > > > > Jon > > > > > Jan 6, 7:07 am, chazwin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > It's all very interesting but was there any such > > > thing as a first > > > > > enlightenment? > > > > > > On Dec 30 2009, 6:21 pm, Georges Metanomski > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > ========== > > > > > > Reminder: > > > > > > > The present thread is destined to discuss > > > the rationality of the > > > > >> Second Enlightenment as well as to inquire > > > into the sources of > > > > > > the irrational manipulation of masses and to > > > look for remediation. > > > > > > Its basic structure is: > > > > > > > X1. Scientific Revolution > > > > > > X2. Ontology > > > > > > X3. Ideology > > > > > > X4. Social awareness > > > > > > X5. Establishment > > > > > > > with X=F/S respectively for the first/second > > > enlightenment. > > > > > > We start by the first enlightenment as > > > guidance to the formulation > > > > > > of the second and warning of errors to be > > > avoided. > > > > > > ============ = > > > > > > Originally the thread was meant as a chain > > > of posts, but proved much > > > > > > too voluminous and I upload it progressively > > > to my site. > > > > > > The so far uploaded sections are: > > > > > > F1.Scientific Revolution and F2.Ontology of > > > the first enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F1_F... > > > > > > F3.Ideology of the first enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F3.html > > > > > > F4.Social awareness and F5.Establishment of > > > the first enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F4_F... > > > > > > S1.Scientific Revolution and S2.Ontology of > > > the second enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S... > > > > > > > Georges.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
