Age of Dis-Enlightenment
The Age of Dis-Enlightenment
“It takes an ignorant man to lead an ignorant throng,”
w/ deepest apologies to Woody, the Kingston Trio et al.
Dumb — yeah but, they are the epitome of dis-enlightenmenters. Dissers here, there, everywhere back during The Age of Enlightenment. But, then was 200-350 years ago when it was new and different. Vive l’ignorance!
Opposition forever! To the knowledgeable scientists, professors, scholars, all who are into using knowledge, facts, and their intelligence to reason; develop opinions — to rationalism. Especially when the results threaten beliefs, livelihoods, or social order (in both senses)*. Even if the threat is only to ignorance itself, to change itself.
The Age of enlightenment was ‘to change the world, change the way people think’ in buckets. Changed philosophy, science, politics, … . Gave the world: modern democracies; a range of new political ideas; the scientific method which is at the heart, at the root, of all the great scientific advances of the past five centuries. Saw the need for the secular state. Brought the world from the age of belief into the Age of Reason, from non-thinking to thinking. Admonished us to think. We are so indebted. How could anyone let alone so many oppose enlightenment?
On Beliefs: In 17th century Europe, where the church and aristocracy were the state, and the masses were impoverished and illiterate; belief was, and had been for ages, the prime mechanism for maintaining social order (in both its meanings/senses)*. The need to fend off chaos and disorder; to maintain social order, extends back to the first social units. The use of belief to fulfill the need was likely a precursor of religion.
Light of reason said that there was no such thing as divine right; that, instead, everyone had inalienable rights. That laws based on reason could replace morals and beliefs; could maintain order. That societies could and should be governed on the basis of laws, not beliefs. That humans could figure things out for themselves.
*Social order
A set of rules that everyone has to abide by — something necessary for people to live together in groups — else chaos and disorder — is the first sense/meaning of social order. Maintaining this sense of social order is something both societies and livelihoods depend upon.
The second sense of social order refers to the social statuses, social ordering, within a society. Such ordering could be along lines of wealth, political or professional status, etc. Some livelihoods within such orderings are specifically dependent on the ordering.
Belief systems and political models may prescribe either sense. Some economic models may affect one or both.
On Livelihoods: The advent of the Age of Enlightenment was the beginning of the end for monarchies, nobilities, and the Holy Roman Empire; threatened the livelihoods of the rich and powerful. Today, enlightenment threatens the livelihoods of authoritarians and oligarchs; megachurch and right-wing conspiracy mongering podcaster grifters; and sleazebag politicians. Threatens the greedy.
On Ignorance: People can become attached to ignorance — that thing about thinking that this is how things are supposed to be. Oftimes, members of a society are deliberately kept ignorant to insure cheap labor; a form of servitude. Some of our most despicable politicians’ careers are dependent on ignorance.
Cruelty and ignorance
We sometimes see cruelty associated with ignorance; ignorant people who enjoy seeing pain and suffering inflicted on others. Of late, we see the prince of ignorance throwing red meat to some of his most ardent supporters in the form of arrests, deportations, attacks on journalists and universities, denying aid to the sick, the starving, etc, etc.
On Change: Then as now, there are people who, for whatever reason, are opposed to change. Believing that, ‘This is how it should be.’ Not asking, ‘How should it be?’ Believing vs thinking (thinking is too hard).
We cannot change and stay the same; ‘twas change that brought us this far. Where would we be without it? Without the Enlightenment?
As Defense: Today, enlightenment is a threat to and a defense against wannabe authoritarians, their ability to loot the treasury; the grifting of the megachurch and right-wing conspiracy mongering podcaster industries; sleazebag politicians.
Enlightenment is the best defense against and the biggest threat to the influence of propaganda outlets like Fox News. The best defense against and the biggest threat to all threats to democracy. It is the best defense against and the biggest threat to threats of all sorts.
As a Model: The principles of the Enlightenment are well suited to developing governmental and economic models capable of dealing with Climate Change, transitioning into the Digital Age, and beyond.
When and if we can round up a few good minds; an upgrade of the Enlightenment is due. Better an upgrade than regression.
Fortunately, the Enlightenment was our nation’s birthright. Unfortunately, so was slavery and other antiquated (pre-enlightenment, dis-enlightened) notions about knowledge, reason, belief, social order, economics, etc.
More unfortunately, some of these dis-enlightened notions didn’t go away; but rather have lain smoldering all these generations. On June 16, 2015, a bloviating despicable wanna-be-dictator rode down an escalator and began blowing those embers to flame. To a threat to the Enlightenment itself.
Whether as run up to a raging civil war or as smoldering embers; the dissing of enlightenment has been a part of America from the beginning. For much of the time, the dirty laundry was hung up out back of the house, or even behind the barn. All the while, we, the world, pretended not to see. On August 11 to 12, 2017 in Charlottesville VA and on January 6th, 21, in the Capitol; Trump and the MAGATS hung out our unwashed dirty laundry in front of the Whitehouse (so to speak). Of late, Trump has sent emissaries Vance, Hegseth and Rubio out lest there be any doubt. From Nixon’s southern strategy, to Reagan and Gingrich, to Bush II, to Trump and the MAGATS.
The young girl’s handwritten protest sign said,
Make
America
Smart
Again
Down with the tyranny of ignorance! Long live the Enlightenment, knowledge, and reason!
Ken,
Perhaps some day there will be an age of enlightenment, but it has not happened yet. What we have seen in the past is no more than “The King is dead, long live the King.” John Locke planted the seeds of our contemporary liberal enlightenment, but it seems to have been Thomas Hobbes that was more correct in the long run. In any case, our quasi-enlightened reality was about placing the crown of elitism on different heads, those independent of bloodline and religious dogma, but anointed simply by material success in economic prosperity governed by the rules of private ownership; not that Karl Marx’s vision would have produced a substantially more just or effective elite managerial state.
There is more than a little dark irony reflected in the ideological literary works “Liberalism and Its Discontents” by Francis Fukuyama and “Why Liberalism Failed” by Patrick Deneen; taking these ideological points of view as contemporary proxies for Locke and Hobbes, respectively.
@Ron,
WRT the Deneen book:
“I can also see that his work is sloppy in its causal attributions, overweening and lopsided in its analysis of current affairs, and dogmatic about the future of constitutional democracy. As a work of scholarship, Deneen’s 2018 book is a disappointment. It contains clumsy interpretations of major philosophical thinkers and eras — and sometimes his political arguments do not rise to the level that I would expect from good students. Why Liberalism Failed was published by an academic press, but for me it was just one big troll.”
I see why you like it.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/revisiting-why-liberalism-failed-part-1-the-intellectual-and-political-stakes/
Joel,
I did not say that I liked Deneen’s book, but rather he is a contemporary proxy for the POV expressed by Hobbes who I despised. Fukuyama is certainly preferable, but also misses the mark relative to the far more obscure Anarcho-Syndicalism form of Federalist socioeconomic model. The critical principle was notably attributed to Lord Acton:
“…Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means…”
The critique of Western Civilization subordinate to the major thesis of Carl Jung regarding development of neurotic behavior by the competition of the pecking order and overtly self-conscious peer pressure and the critique of Margaret Meade underlying the familial deterioration of adolescence into neuroses of middle class Californians relative to “Coming of Age in Samoa” serve as material support to Acton. Consider the mental state of Nietzsche and how we elevate his intellect as a model. It is little wonder that mankind is its own greatest existential threat.
Locke and Hobbes were not defining how mankind could develop an egalitarian society, but rather which social class should hold the reigns of power.
@weakley,
Thanks for the clarification.
“It is little wonder that mankind is its own greatest existential threat.”
Humans are overclocked apes with thermonuclear warheads.
Eh, GHGs may yet beat nukes to the punch.
@Ron,
Not mutually exclusive. Global warming is already driving resource wars. Once they involve attacks on nuclear powers, the heat will really be on.
@Ron,
WRT the Fukuyama book:
“Fukuyama shows that liberalism’s great advantage over rival ideologies in the modern era has been its ability to create the political conditions that allow for the coexistence of an array of hallowed but often contradictory values: liberty, equality, individualism, and community.”
I certainly agree. YMMV.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/liberalism-and-its-discontents