4 ms·
The fallacy I can't help but point out here is that thinking because of our science we are better off and have somehow been "enlightened" when all evidence poin
by alharith 7y ago
The fallacy I can't help but point out here is that thinking because of our science we are better off and have somehow been "enlightened" when all evidence points to the contrary, at least not to the things that truly matter: the human condition, life, love, family, relationships: can't say our science and techology has made these things better on a whole, but at least we can binge watch Netflix and play Minecraft together I guess.
Sure, we can crunch numbers and test hypotheses faster, but they were doing that with far more primitive instruments, in most cases even without writing and simply using their minds, for centuries well before the so called Enlightenment period. It seems the more "enlightened" we become the worse off the condition of the human soul becomes, and the more we favor vices and all the things our fathers and mothers tried to warn us against for centuries. Our Science, which in of itself has become a religion, in my view has lead us all to cultures of indulgence, where utilitarianism is the only value to be regarded. I wish you could say at least we aren't slaughtering ourselves anymore in the name of Religion, but sure enough, human slaughtering has increased by entire factors these past two centuries, than the previous 100 combined, "Enlightenment" or not.
The notion of man gaining reason and "growing out of" religion during this period is in of itself such a hilariously cliche, Western-centric viewpoint of history but this is another issue of itself.
- throwaway47699 7y agoSorry if it's a little glib, but the first thing that came to my mind after reading this post was: "But apart from medicine, effective sanitation, drastically higher chances of living a long life, material welfare, peace and declining violence, and a near end to famines and legal slavery, what has the Enlightenment ever done for us?" Sure, WWII claimed 3% of the world population, but Tamerlane got 5% and Genghis Khan 10%.
- D-Coder 7y agoThank you for this. I hear lots of people complain about how bad things are. So I ask them if they know the difference between typhus and typhoid. They never do, because at least in developed countries we never see either of those. As backup, I ask them how many people they know who have died of starvation, religious pogroms, or smallpox.
- driverdan 7y agoTell that to your grandparents who had to live through polio, small pox, and other terrible diseases that have been eliminated or significantly reduced to near nil. While you're at it, ask them what it was like trying to keep in contact with someone far away before the internet. Maybe ask them about birth complications and childhood death rates. People who pine for the past are ignoring the facts in their face. Life has never been better.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- alharith 7y agoGreat, so we are living longer, less full lives. Yes every time this point is brought up, medical technology is always pointed to as the big "gotcha!." Let's concede that medical technology indeed has done us all a great service, and set that aside. Now what? Social media has made keeping in contact easier? That's all you got? Really? > People who pine for the past are ignoring the facts in their face. Life has never been better. For the very temporary moment. There's many hypothesizing that our mostly sterile lives we've lived in the past 50 years was not a good idea, that your immune system needs practice, and that when the next superbug comes along, not only will we not be able to handle it, we won't have effective antibiotics to combat them, but I digress.