> The general thrust of “mainstream” thinking on “enlightened” thinkers of the past is that they offer a framework for freedom and justice, however I’m perfectl

> The general thrust of “mainstream” thinking on “enlightened” thinkers of the past is that they offer a framework for freedom and justice, however I’m perfectly framed, and in spite of them falling short of living up to the ideals they espoused. OK, that's fair. Is the claim that such a framework did not exist before? Or is it that this new framework was somehow "fairer" and closer to our modern ideals of justice than the ones that existed before? Because neither of these claims seems defensible. > To deny the concept of human rights, and the validity of science because some foundational thinkers fell short is ridiculous. But where did I (or anyone else for that matter) deny the concept of human rights or the validity of science?