Being fully rational requires taking stock of the whole. To focus exclusively on good (or bad) is to make a partial judgment. To deny the Enlightenment's responsibility for anything bad after, say, 1750 while giving it credit for everything good thereafter is a double standard.
-
-
Replying to @Plato4Now @disitinerant and
One of the good things about the Enlightenment was the process that began where we test things and recognise the bad as bad and weed it out. We'll never get things perfect but this is the only way to get better.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Plato4Now and
And who tried to negate that? It's just that it's very important to keep a strong moral sense, and there are scientists that believe too much that science can do that by itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheDissenterYT @Plato4Now and
Well, lots of people negate it, obv. They focus on the fact that bad things happened during and following the Enlightenment & argue that it was a bad development. They ignore fact that it's a project of self-correction and improvement.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Plato4Now and
Yes, but the problem is that, if we are to follow predicaments like the ones espoused by Sam Harris and others, that we can depend completely on science to inform our moral values, then it will simply don't work. We need more than that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We need a premise, yes. He set the one about focusing on the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Then there are facts to be known about how to improve this & decrease suffering. If your morality isn't predicated on the wellbeing of others, this is irrelevant.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.