Christianity vs Earth, the right vs the left (the Nietzsche reading club)

[Henk]

The influence of western ideas will persist, but they are waning in influence and will continue to wane.  Enlightenment ideas are in dire need of a refresh, or replacement, to remain as relevant as many people in the west want.

I don't see it as waning, but as a good development. Other countries are rediscovering themselves. That's needed badly. It's against entropy, it's hopefully a neganthropic diversification of the world (Stiegler, Hui). An Enlightenment. Hui writes about an 'individuation between East and West' in his book 'Post-Europe'.

[Henk]

You believe it to be true because you want it to be true, thus demonstrating the underlying similarity between Enlightenment thinking and religious traditions.  What you assert requires faith because it cannot be empirically proven.

Well, for me it's obvious that when for example I read Nietzsche, he's capable of thinking for himself. To be able to do research with the help of a toolbox for thinking, is to think for oneself.

[Henk]

You believe it to be true because you want it to be true, thus demonstrating the underlying similarity between Enlightenment thinking and religious traditions.  What you assert requires faith because it cannot be empirically proven.

In addition: insight in our dumbness and irrationalities is itself a becoming awareness of our humanity, an increase in our knowledge and so progress, also because new lessons can be derived from it.

[Todd]

I don't see it as waning, but as a good development. Other countries are rediscovering themselves. That's needed badly. It's against entropy, it's hopefully a neganthropic diversification of the world (Stiegler, Hui). An Enlightenment. Hui writes about an 'individuation between East and West' in his book 'Post-Europe'.

Your first sentence is contradicted by the second.  Other countries "rediscovering" themselves necessarily means that they will begin throwing off impractical or socially offensive aspects of the Enlightenment that were forced upon them - they already have - which necessarily means in practical terms that the west and its ideas are waning.  It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is.

Well, for me it's obvious that when for example I read Nietzsche, he's capable of thinking for himself. To be able to do research with the help of a toolbox for thinking, is to think for oneself.

These two sentences continue to display the same Eurocentric outlook as before.  There is no universal truth underlying the assertions, and no empirical evidence is provided.  The broader point is that there are belief systems other than those that emerged from the Enlightenment.  There is nothing universal about western intellectual constructs.

[Henk]

These two sentences continue to display the same Eurocentric outlook as before.  There is no universal truth underlying the assertions, and no empirical evidence is provided.  The broader point is that there are belief systems other than those that emerged from the Enlightenment.  There is nothing universal about western intellectual constructs.

I don't say it's universal, I argue against universality, that's the Christian outlook. I say moreover Enlightenment is a movement of a minority and I argue that each culture has it's intellectual heroes.

[Henk]

Your first sentence is contradicted by the second.  Other countries "rediscovering" themselves necessarily means that they will begin throwing off impractical or socially offensive aspects of the Enlightenment that were forced upon them - they already have - which necessarily means in practical terms that the west and its ideas are waning.  It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is.

We disagree about the consequences. You misunderstand me. I argue that it's a new Enlightenment, now coming from other regions, intrinsically as well, especially because they start to domesticate European technology. We just don't know who is right. It's interesting however.

[Todd]

I don't say it's universal, I argue against universality, that's the Christian outlook. I say moreover Enlightenment is a movement of a minority and I argue that each culture has it's intellectual heroes.

Universalism is not uniquely Christian.  The Enlightenment, separate from your personal outlook on it, is universalist in nature.  So is Islam.  So is Buddhism.  So is communism.  Transhumanism strives to be.

We disagree about the consequences. You misunderstand me. I argue that it's a new Enlightenment, now coming from other regions, intrinsically as well, especially because they start to domesticate European technology. We just don't know who is right. It's interesting however.

There is no new, global Enlightenment underway.  There is no evidence for that.  Also, it is unclear what is meant by domesticating technology.  Perhaps you mean non-western countries are adopting certain western technologies, though that has happened for centuries.  Indeed, some technologies westerners claim pride in did not originate in western countries.  Current evidence is that some countries in East Asia, most prominently Japan and China, have taken the lead in some areas and have had the lead for decades in some instances.  Your viewpoint is quite Eurocentric.

[Henk]

Universalism is not uniquely Christian.  The Enlightenment, separate from your personal outlook on it, is universalist in nature.  So is Islam.  So is Buddhism.  So is communism.  Transhumanism strives to be.


There is no new, global Enlightenment underway.  There is no evidence for that.  Also, it is unclear what is meant by domesticating technology.  Perhaps you mean non-western countries are adopting certain western technologies, though that has happened for centuries.  Indeed, some technologies westerners claim pride in did not originate in western countries.  Current evidence is that some countries in East Asia, most prominently Japan and China, have taken the lead in some areas and have had the lead for decades in some instances.  Your viewpoint is quite Eurocentric.

I see the development of high-tech as coming from Europe, it probably began with the steam engine, later telecommunication. That was all thanks to European science and Western industries. Quantum-mechanics, creating today's world, is a European discovery.

By domestication of European technology I mean that first other cultures were losing their own identities and philosophies because they were overwhelmed by all the tech. Following was an economic boom by mass-production of tech and now we might be in a situation in which tech is domesticated. That means for example addressing the negative effects of it, embedding technology in economic structures and society instead of being it massmedia.

And for this thinking is needed about technology, overcoming the hubris and shocks associated with it.

And this thinking can be, must be in fact, an 'individuation' and this gives rise to mutual understanding, valuation and cocreation of different cultures.

[Todd]

I see the development of high-tech as coming from Europe

You are the only one.  Early industrial technologies have their roots in Europe, but Europe lags behind the US, China, Japan, and even India today (compare the Indian and European space programs, for instance).  Europe has been a technology laggard for decades.  EU and national policymakers in Europe know this and are adopting incremental policies to try to address the shortcoming.  Some countries in Europe are currently seeing industrial decline, at least per Eurostat.

By domestication of European technology I mean that first other cultures were losing their own identities and philosophies because they were overwhelmed by all the tech.

They were overwhelmed by imperialism.  Imperialism was rationalized by Enlightenment ideas.

Following was an economic boom by mass-production of tech and now we might be in a situation in which tech is domesticated.

Japan began rapid industrialization in the late 19th Century, before some European countries.  South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong began industrializing rapidly in the 50s and 60s, and China began industrializing after Deng's reforms.  Your assessment is ahistorical and ignores objective evidence reported by international organizations.  I'm not sure what "cocreation" even means, but it appears to be rooted in a belief that western ideas are crucial to the future development of other economies based on technological innovations, but that does not appear to be the case, based on published data.

[Henk]

You are the only one.  Early industrial technologies have their roots in Europe, but Europe lags behind the US, China, Japan, and even India today (compare the Indian and European space programs, for instance).  Europe has been a technology laggard for decades.  EU and national policymakers in Europe know this and are adopting incremental policies to try to address the shortcoming.  Some countries in Europe are currently seeing industrial decline, at least per Eurostat.


They were overwhelmed by imperialism.  Imperialism was rationalized by Enlightenment ideas.


Japan began rapid industrialization in the late 19th Century, before some European countries.  South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong began industrializing rapidly in the 50s and 60s, and China began industrializing after Deng's reforms.  Your assessment is ahistorical and ignores objective evidence reported by international organizations.  I'm not sure what "cocreation" even means, but it appears to be rooted in a belief that western ideas are crucial to the future development of other economies based on technological innovations, but that does not appear to be the case, based on published data.

I think you argue with data and I argue with narrative. I think there's value in both. Data doesn't equal truth.

[Todd]

I think you argue with data and I argue with narrative. I think there's value in both. Data doesn't equal truth.

Data are facts.  Narratives are stories, not truth.  Any narrative that is ahistorical and afactual is inherently inaccurate.

[Henk]

Data are facts.  Narratives are stories, not truth.  Any narrative that is ahistorical and afactual is inherently inaccurate.

When one misses a lot of facts data is unreliable. Data can be interpretated and framed falsely.

I don't consider the narrative I presented as wholly ahistorical and afactual. I agree it's a story. We need stories to make sense of our world. And that story can always be adjusted and improved with new insight and new facts.

[Todd]

When one misses a lot of facts data is unreliable. Data can be interpretated and framed falsely.

The history cited regarding industrialization is irrefutable fact accepted all over the world, and data from Eurostat comes from European sources directly, so that implies that the very font of knowledge you refer to, European culture, is unreliable.  Generalized, afactual, and contrahistorical narratives are wrong by their nature.

I don't consider the narrative I presented as wholly ahistorical and afactual. I agree it's a story. We need stories to make sense of our world. And that story can always be adjusted and improved with new insight.

Your denial of the Enlightenment's universalist nature and exclusion of other universalist religions and ideologies renders a core - the core - of your argument untenable.  The exclusion of history and facts as they exist weakens it further.  The narrative offered does not describe the world.

[Henk]

Your denial of the Enlightenment's universalist nature and exclusion of other universalist religions and ideologies renders a core - the core - of your argument untenable.  The exclusion of history and facts as they exist weakens it further.  The narrative offered does not describe the world.

One can consider it as a menu. The options are beliefs and worldviews (including an aesthetics and or ethics) that inspire to be universal (so to be available to potentially everyone), some more dogmatic than others, and one can choose. I think Enlightenment is different because it's not tradition, it's rather about freedom (I refer to Foucault's reinterpretation of Kant's text 'What is Enlightenment?').

Christianity doesn't present itself as an option but as the only option. I think the Enlightenment was satisfied with having influence on world affairs. Yes, they write about cosmopolitianism, Pagden wrote a book about that, I need to read it, but that's not forbidden.

Regarding your previous argument. I think the narrative I provided can be presented in such a way as to be more in accordance with the facts. Facts don't present the whole picture, it can cover questions and answers which are actually illuminated by the narrative.

And btw gathering and using data is not prohibited by Enlightenment, it's a scientific means.

[Todd]

I think Enlightenment is different because it's not tradition, it's rather about freedom (I refer to Foucault's reinterpretation of Kant's text 'What is Enlightenment?').

The Enlightenment dates to the 17th Century.  It is most decidedly traditional in the 21st Century.  As to it being about freedom, it is about freedom within western tradition and ideas.  That's not necessarily the same thing as freedom more broadly.

Facts don't present the whole picture, it can cover questions and answers which are actually illuminated by the narrative.

Facts do a far better job at describing reality than narratives.  Narratives are often merely retrospective intellectual overlays that rationalize historical events and behaviors. 

[Henk]

The Enlightenment dates to the 17th Century.  It is most decidedly traditional in the 21st Century.  As to it being about freedom, it is about freedom within western tradition and ideas.  That's not necessarily the same thing as freedom more broadly.


Facts do a far better job at describing reality than narratives.  Narratives are often merely retrospective intellectual overlays that rationalize historical events and behaviors.

I understand your position and it affects me. However, I don't think we can do without the heritage of the Enlightenment and I think it continues to live on. Nietzsche writes:

'If, in considering these details, we have taken into account the fact that many good things were said and investigated, and that many things have since then been more fairly judged than on any previous occasion, there yet remains to be said of the whole that it was a general danger, and one by no means small, to set knowledge altogether below feeling under the appearance of an entire and definitive acquaintance with the past—and, to use that expression of Kant, who thus defined his own particular task—"To make way again for belief by fixing the limits of knowledge." Let us once more breathe freely, the hour of this danger is past! And yet, strange to say, the very spirits which these Germans conjured up with such eloquence have at length become the most dangerous for the intentions of those who did conjure them up: history, the comprehension of origin and development, sympathy with the past, the new passion for feeling and knowledge, after they had been for a long time at the service of this obscure exalted and retrograde spirit, have once more assumed another nature, and are now soaring with outstretched wings above the heads of those who once upon a time conjured them forth, as new and stronger genii of that very enlightenment to combat which they had been resuscitated. It is this enlightenment which we have now to carry forward,—caring nothing for the fact that there has been and still is "a great revolution," and again a great "reaction" against it: these are but playful crests of foam when compared with the truly great current on which we float, and want to float.' (Dawn)

[Henk]

Facts do a far better job at describing reality than narratives.  Narratives are often merely retrospective intellectual overlays that rationalize historical events and behaviors.

Data and information rationalizes, stories do the opposite, stories inspire, with stories we create our world.

Data without narrative is empty, narrative without data is blind.

[Todd]

Data and information rationalizes, stories do the opposite, stories inspire, with stories we create our world.

No, that is backward.  History is filled with narratives being used to rationalize events.  Hobbes, Keynes, etc.  Data is data.  Facts are facts.  How narratives use, misuse, and exclude data and facts is where rationalization and distortion are introduced.

[Henk]

No, that is backward.  History is filled with narratives being used to rationalize events.  Hobbes, Keynes, etc.  Data is data.  Facts are facts.  How narratives use, misuse, and exclude data and facts is where rationalization and distortion are introduced.

'There are no facts, there's only interpretation.' (Nietzsche)

'End fact, try fiction.' (Ezra Pound)

Btw, your argument can be regarded an example of Enlightenment reasoning.

[Todd]

'There are no facts, there's only interpretation.' (Nietzsche)

'End facts, try fiction. (Ezra Pound)

Those are two of the worst possible people to quote on this topic.