. I suspect that the recent and enduring cult of authenticity and hipster artisanal products is another expression of this impulse. As was Transcendentalism in the 19th century. — Tom Storm

Now that's a strange comparison. The world of the 19th century was still in relative good shape Though you would probably call it still underdeveloped. It's this development ideal and the the haughtiness of the western world to call itself the first world which caused the trouble in the so-called third world, whose inhabitants were perfectly able to live a worthy life, but are thrown back in arid despair because of the introduction of the western way. Now they've lost their ways we apologize for our bad behavior in the past and we have to face "reality", which means letting them partake in the western way on equal footing. After the damage done.

Nietzsche said that all philosophy is autobiography. I think that is true of politics and religion as well.
I’m wondering if there is something in your biography that may be making you inclined to project your personal issues onto an abstraction , the so-called ‘global situation’.
What is your relationship with your neighbors in your local community? Do you relate to their outlooks or are you as alienated from them as you are from the modern world as a whole? If you are happily ensconced within your own little corner of the world , why should it matter to your peace of mind what happens in places far from you? And if you are not happy in your own community , do you mean to tell me that you cannot think of anyplace in the entire world where you could find common ground with others on the basis of your religious, political or ethical values?
If you can’t run far enough to escape a world of suffering and pain, perhaps it is becuase you’re trying to run away from yourself.

Before Nietzsche, there was Kierkegaard, a deeper thinker. His famous slogan "truth is subjectivity" doesn't undermine the objective angle with which we can examine truth or see how it's shared between people. Truth is experienced individually and reinforced collectively. We can definitely disagree on the qualitative nature of objectivity and for me personally, l think we should not understand spiritual-social-political-economic problems with a scientific lens ONLY to the exclusion of other methods

I can't tell if you are trying to psychoanalyze me to see why I'm so butthurt over civilization but l can convince you, my worldview actually takes its foundation in a book followed by 1.6 billion people, not a small number by any means. This number obviously doesn't imply it's the truth but I'm not alone or isolated in my worldview. I'm sure many Christians and Jews (orthodox) also share my perspective with their own twist. Btw l don't follow anarcho-primitivism. I believe we can fix the world, civilization is neccessary but it can definitely be improved by halting the advance of scientific-technological development and by reinforcing the importance of the sacred, by clinging to a transcedental truth ( morality ). We need to change the paradigm of modern western civilization from progress to morality.

Here l will quote the words of God,

"And there is no city but that We will destroy it before the Day of Resurrection or punish (chastise) it with a severe punishment (chastisement) . That has ever been in the book inscribed" (17:58)

Science and mathematics are not ethically neutral universal achievements. They are utterly inextricable from the social-political-economic history of the West, and as contemporary science and mathematics have been embraced by non-Western countries, those countries have assimilated major elements of Western ethico-political thought into their indigenous culture.

This is up to debate and l haven't reached a conclusion on this topic. We know the role of the Moors in triggering the enlightenment and historians have challenged the narrative that early 16 century scientific revolution had no precedent in history in terms of method and content. Other civilization could have developed a very different world if the scientific revolution took in their midst.

Can a non-western civilization adopt scientific thinking and not borrow the ideological content which is glued to it, ie the rejection of supernatural-otherworldly revelation, transcendental truths etc. If this is the case, then the other world is better off in its rejection of science-technology but if this is not the case, then they can separate the hard ideologically empty content of science from the value laden social sciences-cum-humanities of western civilization.

I am inclined towards the latter point of view.

And fierce resisting. — Hillary

Disagreeing does not constitute "fiercely resisting."

Everybody who doesn't see the nightmare-like character of western civilization has or been brainwashed to sufficient extent, or paid well enough to shut up. — Hillary

This is not an argument.

(A)nd those who've spent too little time wandering through old villages and dusty towns in non-secular, under-developed countries / failed-states. — 180 Proof

I don't think it's fair to judge what under-developed countries might have been based on how they are now, after 400 years of imperialism.

Perhaps the Enlightenment wasn’t necessarily a mistake altogether but there were some thinkers who ideas were mistakes and these became popular. For example, Hobbes hated religion and believed government was supposed to control people. Other thinkers like Kant and Locke argued for the necessity for God and religion without straying from the innate ability to reason in man. Burke would be more into organized religion, a devout Anglican, but was nevertheless of the opinion that all religions have some good in them and should likewise also be self critical; he saw the various religions of India and China, notably Hinduism and Confucianism (perhaps Daoism as well), as sources of an objective moral system. He saw Islam as lacking a separation between church and state and this of course needs to be rectified. In today’s world many Muslim’s are attempting to revive the works of many philosophers from the Islamic Golden Age like Avicenna, Averroes, Omar Khayyam (was not a Muslim but wrote extensively on Islam), and various followers of Sufism (like Ibn Arabi and Jelauddin Rumi).

Romanticism has been dubbed the Counter-Enlightenment by people like Isaiah Berlin as it is an attempt to revive the spiritual and metaphysical in the world. The work of William Blake, Johann Goethe, and even people like Soren Kierkegaard and Fyodor Dostoyevsky (who I don’t think count as Romantic era writers but nevertheless mimic the themes found in Romanticism) all point to mans search for meaning. If we treat life like its a math equation and take a positivist view, life becomes boring and nihilism seems to run rampant. There needs to be a healthy balance between faith and reason.

Romanticism has been dubbed the Counter-Enlightenment — Dermot Griffin

I think the enlightenment was a truly ramantic period, freeing the plebs from the irrational cruelties performed in the name of an equally irrational superbeing. The promise to bring the light of a new reality in the darkness spread over Earth by biblical visions of punishment, salvation, armageddon, and a life in hell (of which many had the privilige to experience it long before their actual entering in purgatory) is a romantic promise.

Thing is, the once warm light has become a blinding and hot search light, relentlessly enlightening every corner that should stay in the dark, and occasionally burning what it looks for because of it's intensity.

You are by no means alone. Here is club you can join.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/friends-of-wisdom/what-went-wrong#blu

"If it is important to acquire knowledge of natural phenomena to better the lot of mankind", as Francis Bacon had insisted, then (so they thought) "it must be even more important to acquire knowledge of social phenomena."

The question, which we, being rational philosophers, of course is if this is true. So, is this true or an irrational opinion?

You know, I'm beginning to think you don't really want to be a shepherd. It could limit your surveillance, though, as well as your exposure to the horrors of our civilization, so you may want to pursue that option nonetheless once you have the courage of your convictions. I suppose that being a shepherd would make it difficult for those third parties you mentioned to keep you informed of those watching you, however. Life is full of difficult choices.

:chin:

You are by no means alone. Here is club you can join.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/friends-of-wisdom/what-went-wrong#blu — unenlightened

The founder of the club, Nicholas Maxwell , manages to misread much of the philosophy of the past 100 years. He seems to advocate for a kind of bastardized Hegelianism. It’s hard to mount a clear critique of the modern-postmodern world if you can’t even interpret its founders effectively.

Disagreeing does not constitute "fiercely resisting." — T Clark

That's unarguably true. But after reading the comments they left an impression than can better be described by resistance (maybe not fiercely) than disagreement.

Everybody who doesn't see the nightmare-like character of western civilization has or been brainwashed to sufficient extent, or paid well enough to shut up.
— Hillary

This is not an argument — T Clark

Agreed. It's an observation.

The founder of the club, Nicholas Maxwell , manages to misread much of the philosophy of the past 100 years. — Joshs

You may well be right. But he is a legitimate, well published academic, based at UCL a fairly good university. A crank, maybe, but not one to be dismissed quite that quickly.

You may well be right. But he is a legitimate, well published academic, based at UCL a fairly good university. — unenlightened

I’m reading his book , From Knowledge to Wisdom right now. It’s published by Pentire Press, whose only book is this one. Many of his other works are also self-published. One publisher , Paragon Press, is controlled by the Unification Church( remember that one?).

There needs to be a healthy balance between faith and reason. — Dermot Griffin

What does bringing that about look like?

The Enlightenment was motivated, in part, by the desire to not be told what to think by the powers that be. Is the better civilization reached by 'freedom' from the influence of reason or by reestablishing the control that lives of faith often live under?

The latter option is easy to imagine because it has been done many times in the past. The former option has been expressed as a communitarian right to live separately from others to preserve belief but is rarely depicted as the ruling principle of a civilization.

I am afraid you are confusing the intellectual and philosophical movement that fuels our methods of epistemology and wisdom to this day with the catastrophic pseudo philosophical systems of politics and economics. Those are two different things.

What distinguishes those two things? Or, asked another way, when did the fake stuff emerge?

When humans were forced to form large social groups, find ways to organize them and allow their ideas to coexist.
How can we distinguish Knowledge and wisdom from economics and politics? ITs easy. Our philosophy and its frameworks should serve humans...not the other way around.

That puts the date pretty far back.

Your idea suggests we knew ourselves as sovereign individuals long ago but lost that knowledge through unfortunate political formations. It is a mythological thought current through many cultures. An interesting article of faith against the backdrop of the epistemology you seemed to have affirmed.

No. That was not my point. I pointed out that Humans have being trying to understand their world and organize their societies from day one. There are good ways and bad ways to do both.
Our current way to produce epistemology(science, skepticism, rational) is the fruit of Enlightenment.
Our current ways to organize our societies are 2500+ years old pseudo philosophical "solutions".

It seems unlikely to me that the different lines of production you point to can be separated so sharply.

I just pointed historical facts. Aristotle's ideas on Logic enabled the scientific revolution and run away success of our epistemology.
Politics and economics are solutions that were conceived 2500+ years ago and still used in the form of Philosophical ideologies.
Why is this difficult for you?

Your last question is boring. I will leave you to your own devices.

My last question was directed to your statement "It seems unlikely to me that...."
Obviously you are experiencing a difficult acknowledging basic historical facts.
I find this question really interesting and revealing.