Hello jonbenn A good post of you here, thank you.
The word enlightenment is may be the point here I somehow distrust the expression, as like hearing Talibans or sort of sacred radicals who own the ultimate Truth. Enlightenment and Truth in capitals are related to intolerance, in the end to narcissism. The of love of the self. To hear about enlightenment is as well to hear about narcissism. Schopenhauer should tell us a lot about this. Also Descartes, for whom the "I" part of the cogito is of no doubt, I'm not a religious person, much on the contrary I'm not a science follower as well :-) My fellow countryman J.L. Borges, an atheist, said: God really knows about alchemy, He transformed dust into gold. I dont believe in God, but even if there is no light in there, no enlightenment, I can see the statement is true, how can that be Carlos On 19 jan, 00:57, jonbenn <[email protected]> wrote: > I though this link may add a little light to the > subject.http://www.scrye.com/~station/dissertation.html > > There was a definite change in the world view, in the outlook of the > West, starting with Kant, of course. This was picked up and amplified > in different ways but to the same general effect by Hegel, and the > other German Idealists, and Schopenhauer. > > So its pretty clear that one general trend of thought, effecting the > whole of western culture, was replaced by another with the Kantian > revolution. There was a progression of world views from the 17th > century forward from Christian Theism, to Deism, to every kind of > atheism, and pagan, or naturalistic religions. Quite simple there was > a deification of nature that occurred with the rise and fall of the > Enl. > > While the Enl grew out of Christian theism, and its belief in > revealed truth, over and above reason, this changed with Locke who saw > reason as primary. The modern world then came into being on the cusp > of two ages. And each age, and its metaphyscial outlook and its > epistemological stance, grew directly out of its theology-on it > understanding of God, even when God was denied. > > This is especiall apparent when you look at Hegel and the other > Idealists, who were all trained theologians and intentionally set out > to define a new relationship between the infinite and the finite, the > Creator and the creation. Every thing else that has come since, has > been the result of this new orientation in philosophy which was > founded on a new undertstanding of theology, and the relationship of > the Creator to the creation. > > Derrida, Focault, Godel, the pragmatists, you name em. They all issued > from this great historical re-alignment from a dualistic world view > based on Judea-Christian thought, to a monistic world view based on > Greek neo-paganism, neo-platonists, and from Schopenhauer to > Nietzsche, and even Heidegger, a world view based on Hinduism, eastern > thought, the Vedas and the Upanishads. > > But the point is that the Enlightenment, the basis for it was > origially the Bible. Hegel thought he was rationalizing, or > demytholigizing, the Bible. Rendering its content and insight, and > revelation in rational terms. And this is where we see the transition > from Christian theism, and a Biblically based metaphysics, (which was > dualistic), to an pagan/eastern/naturalistic metaphisics which was > monistic. And this later eastern view deified nature, and obscured the > boundaries between the Creator and the creation, and all the other > categories of thought on which it depended. > > Here's another link that may be of interest for future > discussions.http://www.gaiamind.com/Tarnas.html > > Jon > > On Jan 17, 11:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Here's some pure Klingon on the subject: > > This chapter is concerned with some implications of how time, space, > > and social change have been powerfully retheorized under the impetus > > of poststructuralism. Social science has steadily jettisoned long- > > standing teleological conceptions of social structure and change that > > pervaded Marxist and Weberian accounts. Inspired by structuration > > theory and philosophical realism, disciplines such as geography and > > sociology have increasingly come to emphasize the contingent nature of > > social reality, that is, the manner in which it could be different. As > > part of this transformation, poststructural theorizations have focused > > on the rejection of simplistic dichotomies such as individual/society, > > culture/economy, nature/society, objective/subjective, global/local, > > and time/space, all of which thwart their effective integration. > > I assert that the theorization of social and spatial life necessarily > > involves the rejection of an additional dichotomy, that between the > > real and the imaginary, the actual and the possible, the ontological > > and the epistemological. If what is defined as the “real” is not > > simply equated with the observed, the definition of “reality” broadens > > to include not only what is, but what might be, and the lines between > > the real and the possible become blurred in productive and imaginative > > ways. Poststructuralism elevates unmaterialized possibilities to the > > level of ontology. In other words, what is taken to be real is not > > simply what is observable or actual but forms one outcome secreted > > from a broader universe of possibilities. Social reality includes > > events that never happened in fact, but could have happened plausibly > > as defined by theory. Thus, the distinction between what did happen > > and what could happen is not obvious or unproblematic. History and > > geography are the understanding of not only why things happen, but why > > they do not. > > > Barney Warf > > Email: [email protected] > > > On 18 Jan, 02:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > They do point out Ari didn't do experiment. Some of the presenter's > > > dissections are as messy as mine, which lent him some cred to me. On > > > a slightly different tack, there is stuff on animal learning. I > > > always remember Imo - some monkey that started to wash her food in the > > > sea, with the others soon catching on. In another area, I had to read > > > mounds on management strategies, and couldn't conclude much other than > > > they were all retrospective 'successes'. The general standard is > > > incompetence, which we rarely investigate. In all history, there is a > > > tendency to create existential heroes who don't stand real scrutiny. > > > > On 17 Jan, 22:55, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > mais »
-- 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.
