3 ms·

No ? The law that the government that is generally identified with the enlightenment movement was my object of study for almost a year. Half of it matches canon

by waps 13y ago

No ? The law that the government that is generally identified with the enlightenment movement was my object of study for almost a year. Half of it matches canon law article-by-article, word-for-word. Right down to the freaking wording, and let me tell you, word-by-word latin-to-french translation does not exactly make for clear reading. If you don't realize the reason for no female priests, knowing that priests are supposed to be missionaries, including deep in "enemy" territory. If that doesn't clarify matters, I don't think you will ever realize why that won't happen any time soon. The enlightenment law (well, it's direct offshoot, napoleonistic law, to be pedantic) is by far the most-used law system worldwide. Hell, it's the law in Mecca (outside of "family" disputes, and even then), Paris, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, and pretty much everything in between. The "other" law system, English Common Law, is merely a slightly earlier offshoot of the same biblical law (and frankly, common law is much more medieval, local "rulers" have much more power under common law than they have under napoleonistic law), which applies in Delhi, West Africa and Washington. Which of these would you call the enlightenment values ? Because either version is definitely based directly on the Bible. In other words, the enlightenment values (the actual ones, used in courts today) 30-40% of them, are sentence-by-sentence copies of a Vatican bible interpretation manual (ie. "canon law"). The rest are copies "in spirit". It is not the case that enlightenment itself is still in force. You wouldn't want that either, there are plenty of enlightenment values (meaning values of the enlightenment government) that are no longer practiced. This is a very good thing, Google "Robespierre" and start reading. I guarantee that your respect for the enlightenment will drop 50% before you get through half the wikipedia page and you'll be forever thankful that the enlightenment itself ended as quickly as it did.

tinco 13y ago
As long as there are still people who derive their 'wisdom' from religious texts that they do not test or criticise, the enlightenment will continue. You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented. Even now countries that claim to be enlightened, like the U.S., tolerate openly Christian leaders. That's a sign the enlightenment is far from done. And proof that any enlightenment government is not likely to actually exhibit full congruence with enlightened philosophy. An enlightenment value is one that has been tested to reason, regardless if it has been inspired from a bible. After all, the values of the bible once sprang from a reasoning human too didn't they?
- waps 13y ago
  > You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented. I think you need to go back to the history books. That's pretty much what happened during the French revolution. Religion wasn't the only factor, of course, there was nobility + state versus poor + merchants class warfare involved. But religion was seen, in France, to be solidly on the wrong side, with "laicite" as the result. Problem is that they proceeded to place lots of people with no affection whatsoever to the religion, or the nation, or anything outside of themselves really, in control of the state. They literally threw out the existing people (usually after separating head and body of the individuals concerned), and replaced them near-wholesale. The result, as we all should know, but don't, was a monstrous, valueless, cruel and unlivable state, very quickly resulting in another revolution (generally referred to as "stage 2" or "stage 3" of the french revolution itself), which brought Napoleon to power, who was very much part of the wrong side in the previous stage of the revolution. People were clamoring for religion, values and the like because the valueless, morale-less bureaucrats behavior. I think the enlightenment, if you look at actual history is very much a lesson in both how a religious based society doesn't work, and a religion-less society doesn't work either. Not that these lessons apply directly today, but I do think it's fair to say that France demonstrated very clearly to everyone that you can't live dominated by a religion, but you can't live without religion either. You probably think that this "anti-religion" movement is something new, but I think once you study history, you'll find yourself to be on the very moderate anti-religious side of this argument (compared to the beginning of the 19th century). I think you'll also read about what happened when policies like the ones you're suggesting are actually implemented, and I think you'll agree that "enlightened" is certainly not universally better than what you'd probably call "stuck in the middle ages". Read about the rash of revolutions in Europe, how religion was involved, and what happened.

by waps 13y ago

tinco 13y ago

As long as there are still people who derive their 'wisdom' from religious texts that they do not test or criticise, the enlightenment will continue. You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented. Even now countries that claim to be enlightened, like the U.S., tolerate openly Christian leaders. That's a sign the enlightenment is far from done. And proof that any enlightenment government is not likely to actually exhibit full congruence with enlightened philosophy. An enlightenment value is one that has been tested to reason, regardless if it has been inspired from a bible. After all, the values of the bible once sprang from a reasoning human too didn't they?

waps 13y ago
> You say "enlightenment values as values of enlightenment government" but what you mean is the values of government in the period of the start of the enlightenment movement. But as we all know, the process of replacing faith with reason was not something that was decided upon and implemented. I think you need to go back to the history books. That's pretty much what happened during the French revolution. Religion wasn't the only factor, of course, there was nobility + state versus poor + merchants class warfare involved. But religion was seen, in France, to be solidly on the wrong side, with "laicite" as the result. Problem is that they proceeded to place lots of people with no affection whatsoever to the religion, or the nation, or anything outside of themselves really, in control of the state. They literally threw out the existing people (usually after separating head and body of the individuals concerned), and replaced them near-wholesale. The result, as we all should know, but don't, was a monstrous, valueless, cruel and unlivable state, very quickly resulting in another revolution (generally referred to as "stage 2" or "stage 3" of the french revolution itself), which brought Napoleon to power, who was very much part of the wrong side in the previous stage of the revolution. People were clamoring for religion, values and the like because the valueless, morale-less bureaucrats behavior. I think the enlightenment, if you look at actual history is very much a lesson in both how a religious based society doesn't work, and a religion-less society doesn't work either. Not that these lessons apply directly today, but I do think it's fair to say that France demonstrated very clearly to everyone that you can't live dominated by a religion, but you can't live without religion either. You probably think that this "anti-religion" movement is something new, but I think once you study history, you'll find yourself to be on the very moderate anti-religious side of this argument (compared to the beginning of the 19th century). I think you'll also read about what happened when policies like the ones you're suggesting are actually implemented, and I think you'll agree that "enlightened" is certainly not universally better than what you'd probably call "stuck in the middle ages". Read about the rash of revolutions in Europe, how religion was involved, and what happened.