Sorry if we have colonised your thread, but as us 'gentlemen' have contributed 15 of the 17 postings - that kinda means that it belongs to us.
On Jan 17, 9:01 pm, 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.
