The rationalism of the Enlightenment was an overcorrection of the overcorrection of the Reformation, which opposed faith to reason. Reason can understand even things which are irrational — but the Enlightenment demanded (impossibly) that those things themselves BE rationalized.
The Left is always asking the question "What plan should be imposed to achieve social justice?"

That's the wrong question in TWO ways: you shouldn't be trying to *plan* society and such things shouldn't be *imposed*.
Humanity cannot be rationalized.

We are indeed the animal with the logos, but although essentially constituted by reason, we are not reasonable creatures for that.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Our current crisis of morality is bound up with the Enlightenment's attempt to rationalize everything, in two stages:
1. The Enlightenment rejected the Classical teachings about morality in order to re-found them on a firmly rational basis

2. The above having failed utterly, we now descend into total moral skepticism, because we are *not* reasonable
The reasonable syllogism is

1 The Enlightenment's attempt to found morality on rationality alone was a failure
2 The project was doomed from the start, and we should return to what the Enlightenment rejected
But the one that won is:

1 The Enlightenment attempt to found morality on rationality alone was a failure
2 So we should give up on morality because even though the Enlightenment was totally wrong about what it could do, it was totally right in rejecting Classical ideas
That is, BECAUSE we cannot have what the Enlightenment demanded we have, we conclude that there just is nothing to be had.

But the Enlightenment's failure is not the failure of Classical thought. In fact, the Enlightenment begins by rejecting it.
"If I can't have a totally rational morality, I'll have none!"

I bet he gets none.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

14 Jan
The dogma of "representation" undermines all merit-based institutions.

It is merely code for "let in those who are not qualified."
It isn't even clear what "representation" means here. It doesn't mean it in the way a lawyer represents a client, or an elected representation represents his constituents.

It appears to be ICONIC: "He is black. Therefore, in his LOOK of being black, he 'represents' all blacks."
This of course depends on the idea that "every member of a race is an icon of that race."

An odd idea, to say the least.
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Earlier today I was told "Superman is inherently progressive."

Is that even a coherent claim? Is anyone or anything "inherently" progressive? Not as far as I can see.

Our most avowedly progressive president, Woodrow Wilson was also the most virulent racist to hold the office.
It seems very obvious that history doesn't have any kind of INHERENT moral arc.

I simply can't fathom the people who think it DOES.

All of human history teaches us that MORAL DEGENERATION in peoples and cultures is not only possible, but likely unavoidable.
"We today are morally superior to all those who have ever lived before us" seems to be equally absurd and too obviously false to be seriously believed by anyone.
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Of course, it's a steep uphill battle to morally defend the killing of children.
There are really only two ways to do it:

1 Try to claim that the human beings you want to justify killing aren't REALLY human beings — which puts you in some really shady company, along with e.g. Nazis and other racists, or
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Let P be any proposition.

You can be in one of three states regarding P:

1 you can believe P is true
2 you can neither believe nor disbelieve
3 you can believe that P is false.

To LIE is to assert P in such a way that is CONTRARY to your belief state.
Most lies have the form of asserting something as true which you believe to be false. But one can lie by asserting as false something believed true, or by asserting something as true or false than one just doesn't know.
A crucial thing to understand is this:

A person is NOT LYING when they assert something they believe to be true AS true — even if it should be, in fact, false.
Read 12 tweets
6 Jan
What happened on Jan 6?
A mostly peaceful protest which saw some rioting

What was the protest about?
The 2020 presidential election

Why were people angry?
The thought the election was stolen

Did they have any reason to think so?

Was the election stolen?
We don’t know
Why don't we know?
The Democrat party made sure we never found out

Was there an insurrection on Jan 6?

Did anyone commit treason on Jan 6?

Was there an attempt to overthrow democracy on Jan 6?

Was there some trespassing and disorderly conduct?
Is anyone calling Jan 6 an "insurrection" lying to you?

Did a minority of the protestors engage in a riot?

Were the illegal events of Jan 6 pre-planned?

So a riot just broke out, as riots do?

Has anyone been charged with/convicted of treason or insurrection?
Read 6 tweets
6 Jan
This madness is a witches’ brew of

1 Rousseau’s radical anti-conventualism and anti-naturalism
2 Kant’s idea that our “true” self is a noumenal autonomy over and above our body
3 Nietzsche’s idea of poetically, authentically creating one’s own self/values/meaning
What we have is a bare, abstract, embodied-but-over-and-above-the-body autonomous self (Kant), but no longer defined by reason, but by will and desire, and creative spontaneity (Nietzsche) for which both Nature and society are oppressive chains to be broken (Rousseau).
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!