Enlightenment

[Scejntjynahl]

Nowhere is the postmodern challenge to modernity more unsettling that enlightenment-the premise and the backbone of modernity-is delusory or impossible. Modernity's intimate connection with the Enlightenment (which is its very alias) is now widely thought to be its fundamental handicap. If human beings need the warmth and moral meaning offered by community, the Enlightenment effort to reveal to them their fundamental individuality can only make them anxious, immoral, or miserable. And if human beings are nothing but a web of prejudices, or socially-constructed beliefs and habits, the Enlightenment's attempt to strip them away can only reveal a hollow core underneath. Thus, it is no surprise that modernity is populated by increasingly aimless, alienated, chameleon-like denizens who cannot "connect" to their spouses, friends, commnunity, or God (gods, etc). By revealing the misleading or destination-free character of "Enlightement," postmodernism hopes to free us from the bogus metaphysics and empty neutrality that it has engendered.










Richard S Rederman

[Sharkyland]

Reading it for the first time, I was already lost after reading the first sentence. So I read it again... bunch of stuff is all I can say. x.x

[Solstis]

Postermodernism, unfortunately, suffers from a great lack of any moral backbone. Postmodernists seek to strip away layers, fabrics, whatever metaphor you choose. In doing so, quite a bit of backlash is to be expected.

The answer to this is, and should be, "so?"

On another note, pomos tend to get a bit caught up with their crusades (see: a lot of my posts). Either that, or to appear caught up; intentionally or not.

On yet another note... considering postmodernism's general lack of substance (other than being a counter to modernism), it would be easy to say that postmodernism is fundametnally aimless. Though I believe that postmodern thought is absolutely necessary, and perhaps the best thing since, say, englightenment, it will undoubtedly cause its own destruction. What movement will begin then?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2006-02-02 16:29 ]</font>

[Daikarin]

On 2006-02-02 14:39, Scejntjynahl wrote:
Nowhere is the postmodern challenge to modernity more unsettling that enlightenment-the premise and the backbone of modernity-is delusory or impossible.


First off, impossible is the impossible. Like the example of "never say never".



If human beings need the warmth and moral meaning offered by community, the Enlightenment effort to reveal to them their fundamental individuality can only make them anxious, immoral, or miserable.


We can't find the ultimate truth by ourselves, neither we can't find the ultimate truth solely in others. There must be a balance. That's why hermits will only go as far as exaggerated socialists. For one side, we have someone who only thinks inward. And then we've got someone who majorly thinks outward.

By the way, Enlightenment needs external help for it to be achieved: How can a man feel in an ultimate state of peace in the world if he denies contact with others, as social beings that we are? Or if he denies outer knowledge, instead of using it to reassure his own? One can tell the definition of good by studying the definition of evil, for example. Let's assume I am correct about this: I see Enlightenment as that ultimate state when you feel as one with everything, where everything makes sense. And if Enlightenment makes someone feel miserable, anxious or immoral, it's because that person has a soft core. And if he/she has a soft core, better work on it, because there's nothing society can do to shape up the template of your thoughts. Only you can tell yourself what to believe in. So don't accept everything before seeing it through your own eyes.

In school, a kid student is told that 1 + 1 = 2. Assuming this is exactly true, if nobody told him why in a proper manner, you could tell him that 1 + 1 = 3 that the kid would keep believing it. But the kid should question it by himself. And if he doesn't do it, he should be advised to do so. Because most students nowadays go by the works of important scholars without seeing it from their own perspective: The mistake of thinking "Well, he's got a diploma, that's good enough for me. I'll buy it" when they learn something.

Nothing is constant. A steady logos truth today can be considered false tomorrow, due to the steady evolution of criticism. That is why imagination is more important than knowledge. A good aspect of Post-modernism, is to question everything. Unfortunately, easily rejecting something as unfundamental/inconclusive due to the community way of thinking, can be unfundamental/inconclusive by itself. Which is good in some ways, but bad in some other. It's not easy to identify when society has a point about something, or when something has a point about society.



And if human beings are nothing but a web of prejudices, or socially-constructed beliefs and habits, the Enlightenment's attempt to strip them away can only reveal a hollow core underneath. Thus, it is no surprise that modernity is populated by increasingly aimless, alienated, chameleon-like denizens who cannot "connect" to their spouses, friends, commnunity, or God (gods, etc).


The human being shouldn't be built on socially constructed beliefs. It should be built on things that he questions, analyzes, and only believes if he wants or feels like it. To believe everything society says is to become a mindless pawn.

Some centuries ago, top scientists proved that travelling by train would be impossible, as passengers would choke at high speeds. Until someone, stripped out of common social thinking, thought for himself "Why?", and proved them wrong. Of course people like this often got sent to burn in the town square, but that's another issue.

A hollow core underneath? Did Einstein had a hollow core when he devised the Theory of Relativity? Because his "Society" never built that, only himself.

So what if we aren't all divine and holy? If there are alienated, aimless people alive, it's because of the social behaviour aiming to look materialistic, objective and normal. Should most people be true to themselves in terms of what they believe in, instead of clinging on to what others state that is rational/logic/irrefutable, then we could actually progress faster.



By revealing the misleading or destination-free character of "Enlightement," postmodernism hopes to free us from the bogus metaphysics and empty neutrality that it has engendered.


Some post-modernists find it rational to question/deny/criticize everything non-material. They make spiritual striving look foolish, when science can't even define neither time, nor space, nor a "soul" for that matter. If they grew up in some kind of Buddhist or Muslim temple, I'm sure they would think differently. But no, I'm guessing most of them grew in urban cities or advanced nations.

Also, making good/evil/ethics/morality/common sense look relative is a kind of messy shit I grow tired of. See? I said "shit"; Did I do that in a good or a bad way? Don't relativize, you know the damn answer. "Shit" is a bad word. And not because society tells you, because you only use it when thinking "shitty thoughts". Think about your own perspective and society's perspective too, don't just dwell on either one or another.

But don't believe anything of what other people say. Believe in yourself, in what your instinct tells you. One thing's for sure, I'm not gonna assume that I know nothing or everything. I know what I strived for, not what society tells me, which isn't always the same.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Daikarin on 2006-02-02 17:33 ]</font>

[Scejntjynahl]

Good debate so far, very interesting points all of you have brought to this topic. At first I was more leaning towards the cliche saying of "your damned if you, damned if you don't". Took me some time to think about what that paragraph was entailing. Considering there are so many of us through our recorded history (and perhaps further than that) that have seeked enlightenment. The quest of perfection I believe, when we defy to accept things as they are, the hope that there must be more. I guess anything, belief, idea, emotion, to an exxagerated fanatical quest is ultimately self-desctructive.

"The crucial step in freeing ourselves from Enlightenment's hegemony is said to be learning not take our "selves" so seriously."

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

Would one know when they are in such an enlightened state?

When do you feel this?

After your Master's Degree is done? No wait, there's doctorate's, then PH.D.

Learning never ends, so enlightenment isn't a goal you achieve and know right away, correct?

Is it after all your blood sweat and tears have given way to a fulfilled life and you're sitting back on the porch sipping some lemonade reminising about the past achievements?

In your quest to become enlightened, you may have brushed aside(or done worse) to many people and certainly have helped a great deal of people on their respective paths to enlightenment.

Is there a definitive balance? Can you measure this?

Some live solely for others and some live solely for themselves.

Questing for perfection can mean many things to many people. Years spent on one activity may mean nil to another person. When someone has that drive and that achievement they're striving for, they've been known to have found their "calling in life" so to speak and thus are more along the path than another?

Hmm, such questioning topics bring out too many possibilities and thought patterns.