The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state. — wikipedia

Are those Romantic values? I don't think so.

There, did I make that as clear as the water in a mud hole? — Athena

You were very clear, but I don't think the only two choices are Romanticism and technocracy.

My two cents on Romanticism as I am pondering it now...
The Enlightenment of the 17-18th centuries sought out to understand the world using what they referred to as "Reason". This idea, borrowed from the Stoics but changed slightly to mean empirical reasoning and not necessarily some "Universal Reason" (though there was some of this too with Deism). It was simply the notion brought about from the New Science being explored by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Huygens, Descartes, Boyle, et al.

However, the scientific worldview seemed to constantly focus on the empirical and even with that, Political Science was the main focus. The individual human condition was given short-shrift. The 19th century can be seen as a sort of backlash.. Existentialism started the trend of "the individual" and the existential questions of life. What does it mean to be a human consciousness, from the interior perspective, not just the empirical one. These types of human struggles are captured more in art, literature, feelings, personal observations and experiences, etc.. The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.It was from late 1700s-early 1800s and often turned politics into identity-politics.. Rousseau and his general "General Will", Herder, or Schelling and Fichte's emphasis on ethnic politics helped push movements that divided Europe less on Imperial or Universal lines and more on common cultural and historical ties. It was not universal in the Enlightenment sense of only worrying about the individual's rights and securities, but about cultural identity. Individualistic, but at the level of culture, not the person. That would be more emphasized with the Existentialists. — schopenhauer1

Oh my God, I love you! The difference between "empirical reasoning" as opposed to "Universal Reason" is a wonderful thing to contemplate! Oh dear, I am so excited my brain shut down. I need to do some breathing to calm down. What is the difference?

Cicero thought with reason we could come to agreements on what is so and what should be and how to get from what is to what should be. He thought with would be universal. Socrates was most concerned with expanding our consciousness which is right in line with Cicero's belief that we can progress with reason. "There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil.“ — Marcus Tullius Cicero, book De Legibus Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1931662-marcus-tullius-cicero-there-is-a-true-law-a-right-reason-conformable-t

Yeoza! "The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc." I could be wrong but I think Kierkegaard and Nietzche had serious mental problems that could have been genetic. I just don't trust a man who does not find happiness with family. Raising children is an important part of growing up. Especially if one wants to be an authority on human nature. Like without family aren't we missing an important human experience?

"The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc. It was from late 1700s-early 1800s and often turned politics into identity-politics." How delicious! What was happening during this period of history? We were entering the industrial age and migration from rural life to city life. I was shocked when I moved from LA, California to a rural and primitive community in Oregon and shocked again when I moved back into a city with all its rules and regulations! It is such different consciousnesses and different experiences of life and who we are. Just this month a reporter gave us a woman in the contested region of Ukraine, who said she wants nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine, but just wants to be left alone. She cared nothing about politics. When I was raising my family in a rural area I wasn't politically aware, because what was on my mind was my family, the dogs, chickens, garden, and the small-town community events like the quaint fair where we showed off our produce and domestic skills and talents.

Eventually what captured my mind were the Greek gods and especially the goddesses and learning to become my own hero. :lol: I was definitely romantic and knew nothing about what oil has to do with the economy and war and military-industrial complex. I am so political now. Thank you for awakening my memory of my past. What we think we know of human nature should not be based exclusively on the limits of our own lives and a small group of associates who are just like us.

Well, empiricism is the legacy of Epicurus, — Garrett Travers

How is that so?

How is that so? — Athena

He was the first to formalize it into a moral code and sort of traditionalize it, as it were, as opposed to the Platonic and Aristotelian models, which were more focused on forms, and logic.

He was the first to formalize it into a moral code — Garrett Travers

Is empiricism a moral code?

Is empiricism a moral code? — EugeneW

To Epicurus it was. And it was the expansion of his societies, who lived by his code, that established the tradition as a consistent culture throughout the Hellensitic era. They lasted 500 years and numbered in the hundreds of thousands of small communities that challenged Skepticism, Stoicism, Judaism, and Christianity.

But what has your knowledge source to do with good and bad? What morals you refer to? How to find knowledge?

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
— wikipedia

Are those Romantic values? I don't think so.

There, did I make that as clear as the water in a mud hole?
— Athena

You were very clear, but I don't think the only two choices are Romanticism and technocracy. — T Clark

Why do you not agree with the Wikipedia definition of the Enlightenment? Thomas Jefferson plagiarized John Locke when he wrote the US Declaration of Independence, except instead of the right to land as Locke mentioned, Jefferson said a right to pursue happiness. Considering how important land is to our survival I kind of regret Jefferson replacing that with the right to pursue happiness, however, we should understand that interest in pursuing happiness is an idea coming from Aristotle and Cicero.

In Aristotelian texts, the happiness was interpreted in the light of one
of crucial concepts of his philosophical system, completion (enthelechy).
It indicated the motion of every righte-ous thing to its genuine end which
was thought to be identical with the universal order led by Natural (or
Divine) Law. In social life, the completion was combined with the
happiness of communities and human beings reached through high
intellectual and moral virtues and relevant habits. The role of outstanding
legislators and statesmen was appreciated by Aris-totle as key condition
for social progress.

In Cicero’s texts, the concept of happiness was also linked with the
Natural Law: “[...] the ultimate good of man is life in accordance with
Nature”. The author proceeded from the Stoic theory, viewing in the
Universe a republic (consisting of stars, planets, animals, men) led by
Logos. Men are held as the main object of Logos emanation, and it is
present in their soul as the reasonable part. As a result, virtues; spring
from reason, the most divine element in man”. In communal life, the
connection with Logos was brought about by outstanding statesmen, who,
after death, dwelt in “a high place full of stars, shining and
splendid”. They turn into the heavenly patrons of Rome personifying its
basic virtues – virtus, gravitas, dignitas, fides, clementia. Felicitas
(happiness) was assessed as a balance of them. According to Cicero, the
best state form capable to secure the happiness of citizen was the republic
with mixed government system uniting the elements of monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy — Albert Stepanyan and Lilit Minasyan

The enlightenment was based on that reasoning. Something we might better appreciate if compared to the Christian dark age of beings cursed and thrown out of Eden and in need to being saved by a supernatural power. All religions tending to be conservative and hold back human progress, leaving people with no books and no way of knowing anything but what religious leaders tell them and a few survival skills and totally dependent on authority above them. In such conditions what kind of happiness could a human hope to have? Unless they feared a god, what would make them virtuous?

But what has your knowledge source to do with good and bad? What morals you refer to? How to find knowledge? — EugeneW

The way I see it, all of your behavior is predicated on the knowledge that your brain assimilates through sensory observation. Meaning, your primary means of successfully navigating the world in behavior, is an empirical analysis of reality, as opposed to mysticism, or spirits. Also, Epicurus believed that fear was an evil, and our ignorance of nature left us afraid of the Gods. That to dispel that fear, one should empirically investigate nature to uncover its secrets and natural processes. Keep in mind, this guy produced the most peacful societies that I know of in history. He's quite literally the best of the Greeks.

Are those Romantic values? I don't think so. — T Clark

Specifically, yes. As in, these are specifically what Romanticism highlights. Haven't you ever read Les Miserables?

He was the first to formalize it into a moral code and sort of traditionalize it, as it were, as opposed to the Platonic and Aristotelian models, which were more focused on forms, and logic. — Garrett Travers

Okay, you are saying he is an empiricist because he is a materialist? That is he believes the cosmos consists only of atoms and voids, and it is the mothing and quantitative qualities of atoms that gave form to everything in the cosmos, and furthermore, that true knowledge is provable by both observation and logic.

It would be fun if we could replay history and have the Church base scholasticism on Epicurus instead of Aristotle. Oh my, you have made this discussion much more exciting than I expected! I am going to take a break and contemplate the possibility. Scholasticism replied on Plato and his perfect forms supporting the Christian notion of God and perfection, and also Aristotle with his logic for knowing truth. But as we know, there was a huge backlash to Artistotle and the Church's claim to truth. Bacon gave us inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning depends on materialism versus spiritualism in that it is something that can be observed. God and his spiritual realm is not something we can observe. Do others see where materialism is important or am I off track? To be an empiricist is to be a materialist and this opposes superstition. Christianity does not oppose superstition because it depends on believing the supernatural is more real than what we experience as real and it does not follow the rules of nature but rather depends on pleasing a God who is not limited by the laws of nature/logos, right? I think the backlash against Aristotle was also a backlash against the Church and essential to the enlightenment and our liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

Athena — Athena

All of this, yes! I'd give anything to have these societies back and people behaving like them. You need to see this history, man. Epicurus is the real deal. I regard him as THE single most important, and influential philosopher in history:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm

Raising children is an important part of growing up. Especially if one wants to be an authority on human nature. Like without family aren't we missing an important human experience? — Athena

Well, you should know my stance on procreation by now, Athena.

That being said, taking my usual antinatalism off the table, and being more of a "existential psychologist", using Maslow's Hierarchy as a model of some sort of needs of the individual...

What do you think of society's way of relating with others? You talk about a sort of pseudo-homesteading that you did in Oregon. If we are not talking about a cultish-commune type society, I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. EVEN in just these very "typical" circumstances, people can have a hard time in almost every one of those processes.... everything from sustaining a good job, finding a partner, and living some ideal life of perfect harmony where one has a clockwork routine of baking pies and making furniture, while the kids are helping churn the butter, and helping cultivate the garden.. Ya know it's just like the Hobbits or something, right? It all works out, and everyone's needs are met in perfect harmony :roll:. That image indeed is its own romanticism.. It is the pull for Tolkien's world, for fantasy idealism.

Why do you not agree with the Wikipedia definition of the Enlightenment? — Athena

Where did I say I don't agree with it? I'm confused by your whole post. All I said is that Enlightenment values are not Romantic values.

The way I see it, all of your behavior is predicated on the knowledge that your brain assimilates through sensory observation. — Garrett Travers

Already in the womb we gather information. We are not blank born. Who says we aren't born with an inate sense of God which is wiped away when we grow up?

Meaning, your primary means of successfully navigating the world in behavior, is an empirical analysis of reality, as opposed to mysticism, or spirits — Garrett Travers

Why not asking the spirits for advice in successfully navigating the world instead of empirical analysis of reality. The empirical analysis has brought the world in a shape it's never been in before. Pretty bad, that is.

Also, Epicurus believed that fear was an evil, and our ignorance of nature left us afraid of the Gods — Garrett Travers

So if we have knowledge of nature, we shouldn't fear God? Why should we fear God in the first place?

. That to dispel that fear, one should empirically investigate nature to uncover its secrets and natural processes. — Garrett Travers

If we have uncovered these secrets, maybe fear increases. Maybe it turns out that they can actually intervene, causing fear to those who think they will punìsh. But why should God punish. You can better amend your gods image and not fear them. Maybe they just created the universe without further ado. Maybe they just leave us alone.

Keep in mind, this guy produced the most peacful societies that I know of in history. He's quite literally the best of the Greeks. — Garrett Travers

There are a lot of these societies. Or better, were. Based on magic and myth. No atom bombs, no high-tec, respect for nature. They don't exist anymore. The west introduced analytical problem solving, already obligatory taught to the young at our schools.

It's not romanticism leading to pain and war. It's the means modern wars are waged with that leads to pain in wars. Excessive pain that is. Just look in the catalogue of modern weaponry that rolls from the production lines. There are more kinds of weapons than there are people on the planet. The surface of the Earth can be wiped away 10 times. And a bomb exploding far away does you no harm. War has become impersonal, between abstract entities, like countries. "This week only: ten GPS guided drones with laser guided small ATG rockets for free", Weapon industries like war.

I think I might be one of those people :gasp: so I really have to ponder that difference because I value liberty but hate the ugliness that results from the liberties some people take. I hope others have more to say about this. — Athena

If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs, then besides behaving reasonably, having good judgment, and having reasonableness in the way you see the world, you don't have to do anything else because the ordering of the ugly side of liberty will happen. This phenomenon has been observed in the natural world-- when groups have become unsustainable, whether by toxicity, overcrowding, and unrest, they naturally break apart into smaller groups somewhere else.

As far as romanticism, @Gnomon had got a handle on it -- his post provides a brief description of what romanticism is.

Where did I say I don't agree with it? I'm confused by your whole post. All I said is that Enlightenment values are not Romantic values. — T Clark

I think that's the correct running order - rationalism then romanticism, after that, the hula-hoop followed by where we are now: the yo-yo.

All of this, yes! I'd give anything to have these societies back and people behaving like them. You need to see this history, man. Epicurus is the real deal. I regard him as THE single most important, and influential philosopher in history:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm — Garrett Travers

Oh, yes you have my attention. :grin:

"The teachings of the Lyceum did not sit well with Epicurus, who quickly moved on to study the atomistic system of Democritus under Nausiphanes of Teos." That is from your link and I am enjoying it. While reading of Epicurus education I was uneasy because I knew Socrates was opposed to contemplating smaller and smaller things (atoms) and Plato who learned from Socrates went on to teach philosophy to Aristotle. So how did Epicurus get into atoms? Your link explains that and that delights me. :heart:

The turmoil of his years is interesting. It sure was not homeostatic! Today, Epicurus is nowhere near as well known as Aristotle and Plato who were advanced by the Church and scholasticism. The Bible does not give us the math and science that was available in its day. We were given a mythology of creation, and of deities and demons, that is contrary to science and what some of us believe is truth, but appears to be based on Sumerian stories of the gods, that were plagiarized by those we know as Jews today. How different history might have been if Epicurus's philosophy had become the winning philosophy! Aristotle is very important but if he had been adopted along with Epicurus and the atomic system, might history have gone very differently, and might we know a different world today, with a totally different understanding of "human nature"?

I am really stoked!. :grin: :heart:

This phenomenon has been observed in the natural world-- when groups have become unsustainable, whether by toxicity, overcrowding, and unrest, they naturally break apart into smaller groups somewhere else. — L'éléphant

I am confused. What you said is true and doesn't that make our disregard for nature, the problem? But we are smart enough to develop the science that should become the right reason of which Cicero speaks.

"If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs" My faith is in science, not human stupidy and the religions that maintain it.

Where did I say I don't agree with it? I'm confused by your whole post. All I said is that Enlightenment values are not Romantic values. — T Clark

How are Enlightenment values not Romantic values?

Well, you should know my stance on procreation by now, Athena. — schopenhauer1

Please, don't expect me to remember anything. I have not been diagnosed with Alzheimer's yet, but I am struggling to just live in the present. :lol: I hope I remember to get back to you. I have to leave for work right now. :lol: Perhaps I should do better notes so I can keep everyone straight and remember what I intend to do when I have the time.

"If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs" My faith is in science, not human stupidy and the religions that maintain it. — Athena

Science is part of the state of affairs.

Is Romanticism the cause of world wars and dreams of Utopia leading to mass murder and tyranny? — Athena

You romanticize the reason for war. War is over gold. Look deep enough, and its over something.

What do you think of society's way of relating with others? You talk about a sort of pseudo-homesteading that you did in Oregon. If we are not talking about a cultish-commune type society, I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. EVEN in just these very "typical" circumstances, people can have a hard time in almost every one of those processes.... everything from sustaining a good job, finding a partner, and living some ideal life of perfect harmony where one has a clockwork routine of baking pies and making furniture, while the kids are helping churn the butter, and helping cultivate the garden.. Ya know it's just like the Hobbits or something, right? It all works out, and everyone's needs are met in perfect harmony :roll:. That image indeed is its own romanticism.. It is the pull for Tolkien's world, for fantasy idealism. — schopenhauer1

I have 1950 values. Ideally, until the children are old enough, women do not work outside of the home but make an important economic contribution to the family with their domestic skills. I am not sure that is just romanticism. In fact, it is very much about duty, not just to the family, but to the whole community. This is very much about defending our democracy and not becoming reliant on the state.

Personally, I am not so much patriotic as I identify myself with women around the world. All mothers share a lot in common and we need to stand united. I lived for my children and Demeter was my archetype until my children grew up and I shifted to an Athena archetype, identified with Athens and Roman, not exactly the US. I suppose there is a lot of romanticism in my thinking and feelings, but also a lot of philosophy and study of human nature from the point of view of many disciplines, from anthropology and zoology to geology and economics. And I am thinking about all this as I write, wondering what I think about what I think, and what thought might come up next?

I brought up the question about Romanticism because of the youtube I watched and the question of if it is behind dreams of utopia that turn into nightmares. I still am not sure what I think but I think unless a person is insane we all act on good intentions and the best way to avoid trouble is to be as aware as we can be about the world we live in and why we think what we think. :chin: Socrates was not right about all things, but for sure, the more we know, the more we know we do not know.

Science is part of the state of affairs. — L'éléphant

Yes, but how many of us think scientifically? Scientific thinking is empirical and religious thinking is not empirical. Understanding human values is not empirical thinking and our opinions are not empirical thinking. Even those who do think empirically do so only once in a while because it is very energy-consuming and we are running on automatic most of the time and rarely really think about anything. This is a problem for democracy and education can resolve but it is not. In fact, some states have laws preventing thinking.

So I'd like to propose some food for thought that might seem "out of left field".
1. We are always thrown into a "baked-in" social reality. In some circles, this is referred to as "situatedness". That is to say, I cannot escape the historical forces that preceded my existence. For example, despite my desire for a different world set-up, I am generally bound to trying to change the (for all practical purposes) immovable one I have now.. There are the several choices society has set for us, or we can choose to die of starvation, homelessness, isolation, and suicide if we don't like them.

2. What I was asking previously was about how life does not always fulfill people's (supposed) needs equally. There is someone like yourself, let's say, who was able to find an economic way to raise your children, to find a partner that loves and supports you, to live a pseudo-homesteading lifestyle. But you see, not every individual will have any of those pieces work out in that way. Someone might not have a very fulfilling job, or find a romantic partner, or have the skills or wherewithal, or contingent circumstances to have this pseudo-homesteading lifestyle. There is no defined path to get any of this either, or at least, no defined path that always leads to optimal or desired outcomes.

In other words, in all known worlds, it is only the case that some people will have basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy met, while others simply will not. Those contingent circumstances make life itself an unequal, and thus possibly morally problematic thing to create for someone else. Thus, even though you are talking about utopian visions of dictators, your own vision is very "romanticized" it seems. It may not lead to "horrors" of genocide and war, but simply the everyday disappointments of the everyday human. It might not be as dramatic, but it is still tragic.

My romantic involvement with the ladies has led to a lot of pain and war. Restricted sexuality though can give birth to worlds of terror.

We are always thrown into a "baked-in" social reality. In some circles, this is referred to as "situatedness". — schopenhauer1

That's what the ruling powers tell you.

That's what the ruling powers tell you. — EugeneW

As I've quoted before from Dylan, "Masters make the rules for the wise men and the fools". You are no exception.