- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
How much do you think the Atheism or at least anti-Christian thread of Enlightenment thought was due to the influence of the classics versus reasoned thought?It is my impression that the Philosophes were anti-Christian more for political reasons than out of belief. They saw resistance to the Church as partly defining them. I also think that there espousing of so-called rational vales was in part to justify their amoral desires. If there were no God then Christian morals did not apply and they were therefore free to define their own morality. Their defining morality was a direct threat to both the church and the crown because if there is no God then where does that leave the Divine Right of kings and the moral authority of the church?
I'll agree that these philosophies were heavily rooted in political/empirical reasons. I think that with any entrenched religion that is coupled with political regimes there are going to be critics and skeptics of religion and the state. I also think that the Protestant Reformation provided the precedent for later anti-Christian philosophies to develop; rebelling against the Church turned into rebelling against religion. I am not sure the extent to which Enlightenment thinkers did all this to consciously justify their own moral codes that reflected their own personal desires. I say this because a number of them developed philosophies to support the existence of God, though one which was a deist "clockmaker" who simply set things into motion without being actively involved in the universe's progress through time. Also, I think that Enlightenment thinkers tried to justify moral codes which were rather similar to prevailing moral codes at the time (though I would have to double check on this). So I don't know that Enlightenment thinkers were themselves terribly immoral people...unless you have some examples in mind that I'm unaware of.
Deism was a sop propagated by the Philosophes to distract and confuse those that wanted to attack them. It was no more than a way for them to disguise their atheism. I will probably be exploring the Enlightenment much more over the next few months as I am taking a class on it starting next month. The Enlightenment actually bores me to tears. I have very little patience for navel gazers in general and the enlightenment thinkers strike me as being about as intellectually exciting as our present post-modernists. I would rather read Nietzche or Hegel to be honest, although I find I can enjoy reading Kant perhaps because he was Prussian.
Whoa, so I guess you're not a fan! I actually do enjoy reading about Enlightenment thinkers, though I can see how you'd think they were pompous. It's a time of philosophy when people were coming up with creative ideas to address problems, but before the time when ideas were getting so complex it was excessively hard to get a grasp on things. For me, reading Hegel and Kant is like drinking sawdust.
I just find the French philosophers difficult to read. First, I don?t think there ideas make a lot of sense and second, I think they deliberately employ an obfuscatory style. I think the French thinkers are entirely too self absorbed and pompous.
Isn't Kant very difficult?
I guess Kant could be considered difficult, I just find him refreshing along with many of the other German philosophers.I dislike Enlightenment thought in General. i especially dislike the recent trend that either blames the Enlightenment for all the Western world's present ills or praises it for bringin about the establishment of Liberal democracies. I think both views are incorrect and too doctrinaire and the reality is much more nuanced. I definitely dont believe there is a straight line progression from the Enlightenment to the establishment of liberal democracies.
