Phil Forum : Enlightenment & Modern Society

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440511

an enlightened mindset — Enrique

Unless you are the Buddha, philosophical Enlightenment is a process, not a sudden revelation. The light-bulb insight is only the beginning of an ongoing learning procedure, following the light of reason (the mindset). Human culture began its evolution toward enlightenment eons ago, but we haven't yet reached the mountaintop.

[Gnomon]

I believe the potential reality of the New Age, a time of peace and high tech, and the end of tyranny. A future so different from our past, those in the New Age will not be able to relate to the past. It is that change in consciousness that truly makes it a New Age. — Athena

The term "Age of Enlightenment" is usually applied by historians to an era in 17th & 18th centuries, that was sparked by the re-discovery of Greek Rationalism, and spread by the new technology of the printing press. Its early stages were marked by a formalization of the empirical scientific method, and later by the emergence of Individualism & Humanism, as a philosophical reaction to the intellectual suffocation imposed by the Collectivism and Spiritualism of the dominant Christian Church of the Dark Ages.

But a "New Age of Enlightenment" emerged in the 19th & 20th centuries as a reaction to the dominance of Modern Scientism and Secularism. The New Age movement was a return to Collectivism (communes) and Spiritualism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Theosophy). It also expressed a distaste for Rationalism & Empiricism & Objectivism & Modernism. Unfortunately, like the return of Christ, the prophesied Age of Aquarius (peace & love) never occurred, and many old hippies became pot-smoking suburbanites.

These different interpretations of "Enlightenment" seem to be recurring examples of Hegel's historical Dialectic, in which a once dominant worldview is challenged, and sometimes replaced, by a new opposing paradigm. Yet eventually, some of the key ideas of the previous "enlightenment" are retained in the subsequent "synthetic" worldview. Many people now claim to be "spiritual but not religious", and even "back to nature" types have made accommodations for the technological fruits of Modern Science. So, you could say that the world of human culture is progressing by erratic (zig-zag) stages of enlightenment toward a more flourishing and moral future.

However, at this moment in time, there is a new burgeoning movement called the "Enlightenment Project", which is a counter-attack on the anti-Science and anti-Reason worldviews, not so much of old hippies, but of old Republicans. And so it goes, on & on. Enlightenment is not a specific age or sudden inspiration, but the evolving learning process of humanity.

Enlightenment : education or awareness that brings change; consciousness raising

Hegel's Dialectic : Thesis >>> Antithesis >>> Synthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Historical Progression : see Age of the Sage link
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philoso ... story.html

Dark Side of Enlightenment : https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dark-s ... 1523050206

[Gnomon]

But ‘enlightenment’ in the Buddhist sense - bodhi - has nothing to do with European ‘enlightenment values’ which are very much the product of the unique historical circumstances which prevailed in the Europe of the day. — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm currently reading Robert Wright's latest book, Why Buddhism Is True, in which he gives a secular psychological analysis of the Eastern version of Awakening from our illusions. The primary difference seems to be that Buddhist "enlightenment" was directed inwardly, toward understanding & control of the subjective self (e.g. Psychology), while the European "enlightenment" was focused outwardly, toward knowledge & control of the objective natural world (e.g. Physics). Eventually though, the West began to apply its objective methods to the subjective Mind in the so-called "soft-sciences". Wright's book suggests a blend of eastern & western approaches to shining light in the darkness (e.g. Neuroscience & Meditation).

Apparently, the OP was referring to the European secular revolution, as was Steven Pinker in his book, Enlightenment Now! Pinker's book was provoked primarily by the religious & political Right, which tend to denigrate the authority of secular Science. Such concerns are in the air these days. There is another Enlightened Worldview Project, asking "Can science bring peace to our world and to our lives?" Humanity-in-general seems to be dependent upon, and loathe to live without, our comforting illusions of attainable absolute Truth. But, is Scientism also based on an illusion of omniscience? Are our current "historical circumstances" begging for a Revival of Inner & Outer Enlightenment??


Enlightened Worldview Project : "This leads us to the realization that inner peace (that we seek within our own consciousness) and outer peace (that we seek with the outside world) are deeply interdependent".
https://medium.com/@brandon_29259

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. --Wiki

[Gnomon]

↪Wayfarer
[2] Man is the highest of beings known to science, and his power and convenience should be promoted at all costs. [3] Spiritual and magical forces cannot influence events, and life after death may be disregarded, because it is unproven by scientific methods.

Item [2] was indeed a common belief prior to the European "enlightenment". and during the following centuries, until the advent of Darwinism. But, I suspect that most scientists in the 21st century would not subscribe to that human-centric belief. Some even entertain the notion that flesh & blood humans will be superseded by more highly-evolved mechanical & digital ubermensch. Yet, as illustrated in the movie, The Matrix, those ego-less super-intelligent machines may still view themselves as the pinnacle of evolution. Personally, I won't even try to predict the future of non-human-nature.

Item [3] is still the opinion of most scientists, since "spiritual and magical" forces are completely subjective, and not amenable to empirical verification. Like gods & ghosts, they are "true" to the extent that you believe in them.

[Gnomon]

We are experiencing a very different reality and I will stand on the idea that is a New Age and we are just beginning to adjust to the ability to feed everyone, educate everyone, provide medical care for everyone. — Athena

The New Age you refer to seems to be what we now call "Market Socialism".

Market Socialism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

[Gnomon]

They might say that, but by holding everything to the standards of 'what can be proven by science' they're still operating under anthopocentrism, albeit a concealed form of it. Why? Because the 'scientific thinker' believes that the scientific picture is completely devoid of the subject, or subjectivity, that it is a picture of what is 'truly there' independent of any perceiver. — Wayfarer

Science is practiced by Humans, so it is naturally Anthropocentric. And it is practiced by Subjects, so it is inherently subjective. But the Scientific Method is motivated by the ideal goal of Objective Truth. Would you prefer that "scientific thinkers" adopt the perspective of Crows or Bonobos or Aliens? Is there a viable alternative to the imperfect objectivity of self-critical Science --- such as divine revelation? Perhaps meditation practices could improve on biased worldviews by offering a "view from nowhere"?

Do you know of some arrogant scientists who claim to be "devoid of subjectivity"? The detrimental effects of subjective bias on scientific theories prompted Karl Popper to turn the focus from "proof" of concept to "falsifiability". Since, unlike religious "truths", scientific "facts must be corroborated by skeptical experts before being accepted as provisional true, errant subjectivity is supposed to be cancelled-out by the critical objectivity of peers. Of course, some prejudices, such as Atheism, may be common among practicing scientists, but that merely rules-out unfalsifiable miracles. Do you know of some Alternative Science that is devoid of subjective bias, or the perspective of human perception ?

The Buddha offered his own method of gaining useful knowledge : i.e. subjective Self-Knowledge. But the post-enlightenment Scientific Method was primarily concerned with objective knowledge of the outside world. A combination of the two might allow us to construct a worldview with reliable knowledge of both inside and outside "truths". That is, in fact, the idealistic goal of the Enformationism thesis, and the BothAnd philosophy.



Scientific Objectivity : The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its value and its attainability. . . . The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, . . .
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

BothAnd : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

[Gnomon]

Not personally! And no, it's not something that is usually spelled out - it's more of an implicit assumption. — Wayfarer

Yes. It's like Implicit Racism, subconscious biases are common among humans-in-general, not just scientists. That's the point of our various attempts at consciousness raising over the centuries since the Enlightenment revealed some of our explicit biases.

However the way it became interpreted in science in the modern period relegates much of what is otherwise philosophically significant to the role of the subjective. — Wayfarer

Many scientists are not concerned with what is "philosophically significant", because their job is to dissect the world into easily comprehensible, mathematically rigorous, and objectively factual chunks. "Alternative" scientists (pseudo-scientists) tend to accept more holistic evidence (e.g. subjective, anecdotal; common beliefs) from which to draw inferences. That may be acceptable to philosophical Theologists, but not to pragmatic Psychologists.

Implicit Racism : . . . includes unconscious biases, expectations, or tendencies that exist within an individual, regardless of ill-will or any self-aware prejudices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism

[Gnomon]

The bottom line is simply that methodological naturalism is a perfectly sound methodological principle, but when it becomes a metaphysical stance it becomes problematical. — Wayfarer

Yes. It was their "implicit prejudice" against non-empirical Metaphysics, not Race, that I was implicitly referring to. For quantitative empirical scientists, it's a useful stance. But for qualitative theoretical scientists & philosophers, those unstated beliefs may be obstacles to their search for fair & balanced truth.

Everybody has "presumptions" that serve as shorthand values to allow for quicker judgments of true/false & good/bad questions. Only when they analyze their own sub-conscious feelings do they realize that they their belief systems have been unfairly slanted toward certain classes of Epistemology, Ontology & Humanity. That's one reason for my late-in-life hobby of philosophy : to clean-up some misunderstandings that have affected my reasoning in the past. :halo:


A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James.