4 ms·

"Oh actually the Enlightenment was bad" is very on-trend for academic historians in 2023. The book isn't out yet, but the synopsis here seems like the author i

"Oh actually the Enlightenment was bad" is very on-trend for academic historians in 2023. The book isn't out yet, but the synopsis here seems like the author is projecting his bias onto history (claiming "the pursuit of happiness" is just about consuming luxury goods is moronic). Arguing that the decline of religion lead to a rise in nationalism might be true, but that doesn't mean the previous religious structures didn't deserve to be corrected.

zozbot234 3y ago
> "Oh actually the Enlightenment was bad" is very on-trend for academic historians in 2023. It's been on-trend for a very long time: this review even mentions that the author's critique is based on his "Carlyle Lectures". So it seems that we're supposed to take our criticisms of the Enlightenment from Thomas Carlyle, a well-known racist and a supporter of slavery who famously decried economics as "the dismal science" merely because it advocated for the moral equality of all human beings as a basis for policy. And academia is now endorsing these perspectives? Come on, even Curtis Yarvin is not nearly as bad as this.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Good/Bad is too simplistic. It seemed like the book was trying to bring back some nuance, that 'reason' didn't solve everything like the thinkers of the time thought it would. So it is valuable to look back and see how the rise of 'reason' still leaves some gaps that humans can't seem to get over. And is pretty relevant to todays rise of nationalism and corporate wars (US government supporting dictators for business gains, is not unlike British Colonies draining resources). Like, we are repeating some history here, so lets go back and see how that worked out.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    The English and Scottish attitude to the Enlightenment was never based on abstract "reason" alone, this is just a canard and a common strawman historically among anti-Enlightenment thinkers (if perhaps understandable when talking about the quite separate reception of Enlightenment ideas in continental Europe). There was always an emotional component too, and it wasn't the nationalism and chauvinism that OP goes on about.

zozbot234 3y ago

> "Oh actually the Enlightenment was bad" is very on-trend for academic historians in 2023. It's been on-trend for a very long time: this review even mentions that the author's critique is based on his "Carlyle Lectures". So it seems that we're supposed to take our criticisms of the Enlightenment from Thomas Carlyle, a well-known racist and a supporter of slavery who famously decried economics as "the dismal science" merely because it advocated for the moral equality of all human beings as a basis for policy. And academia is now endorsing these perspectives? Come on, even Curtis Yarvin is not nearly as bad as this.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Good/Bad is too simplistic. It seemed like the book was trying to bring back some nuance, that 'reason' didn't solve everything like the thinkers of the time thought it would. So it is valuable to look back and see how the rise of 'reason' still leaves some gaps that humans can't seem to get over. And is pretty relevant to todays rise of nationalism and corporate wars (US government supporting dictators for business gains, is not unlike British Colonies draining resources). Like, we are repeating some history here, so lets go back and see how that worked out.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  The English and Scottish attitude to the Enlightenment was never based on abstract "reason" alone, this is just a canard and a common strawman historically among anti-Enlightenment thinkers (if perhaps understandable when talking about the quite separate reception of Enlightenment ideas in continental Europe). There was always an emotional component too, and it wasn't the nationalism and chauvinism that OP goes on about.