I am pretty amazed by the amount of "no"s in this thread so let me throw put some reasoning - this will be from a western perspective since that’s what I am.
Most adults have completed a secondary education and are both fluent and literate - if you graduated from high school you’ve learned about the scientific method and participated in rhetorical discussions using the Aristotle methods. The amount of people exposed to these teaching methods a hundred years ago were vanishingly few (and pretty exclusively white men).
There is a very good chance you’ve interacted at least casually with philosophy of action or the meaning of life - there’s a significant portion of us that actively chose some sort of philosophical course in college. It’s almost impossible to grow to adulthood without crossing paths with philosophy in some form (I just played the Talos Principal 2 which delves deep into existentialism - Black Mirror frequently features arguments about determinism and free will - your favorite weeb content probably even has a lot to say about philosophy: Jojo, Attack on Titan, Cowboy Bebop, even fucking Trigun goes hard into the identity of self and free will).
We’re not exposed to complex philosophical concepts we’re fucking drowning in them - Scifi as a genre (excluding pure action Scifi) is defined by the focus on philosophical questions… seriously, Battlestar Galactica is just a series of unanswerable interesting questions.
If twenty random modern humans were sent back to Aristotle’s Lycaeum Aristotle would assume they were all practiced rhetoristicians even if they did have a lot of dumb ideas.
It’s astonishingly easy to pull up a philosophy youtuber and go hog wild for a week so you can walk away with interesting questions.
Does that mean everyone is the platonic ideal of a philosopher king? Fuck no, humanity is diverse and idiots are just as present as ever… but while the idiots are loud the vast majority of people use logic and reason in their day to day.
What about 50 years ago?
I think we’re still ahead - the internet has provided a lot of new learning opportunities. When I was a kid in the 90s I explored Encyclopedia Encarta - if I’d had access to Wikipedia it’d have been many times richer.
Considering that knowledge and technology accumulate I think it’d be hard to find a time where enlightenment has decreased at a global level - local examples are depressingly common though… Afghanistan in the 60s and 70s was far more enlightened than it is today. If you’re unfamiliar with what’s happened to the country please feel free to enjoy an extremely depressing afternoon of enlightenment courtesy of the internet - you could also watch The Kite Runner.
Afghanistan is an interesting point. I will watch Kite Runner.
I wonder if America is on the verge of its own “Afghanistan.”
America is fucking boned politically but thankfully it’s not nearly at the level of being turned into an active war zone by the USSR and the CIA - America won that war by the way… the Taliban was America’s government of choice because communism bad.
Nah, America is full of smart people - a whole lot of idiots too - but a lot of smart people and plenty of money. Personally, I emigrated to Canada, but I think it’s not yet time to sound the doom bells… be fucking careful though because it’d be really easy to get truly fucked.
it’s also key to point out that a lot of smart people or people with a lot of money to hire smart people. Are weaponizing alot but still small amount and a loud group of dumb people for decades and what you’re seeing is all that come to a head.
Read up on the National Association of Manufacturers and James William Fifield Jr. It will make your skin crawl and this was back in the 40’s as a response to FDR.
Define enlightened. I think people might be more informed in certain cases, but not more enlightened.
Not the definition but an historical definition.
A philosophical movement of the 1700s that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms.
Then the answer is absolutely not.
I disagree. We’ve had many political revolutions overthrowing leaders, religion has been on a heavy decline, and most people accept that science or basic logic is the most important element in an argument, not authority.
We just see so many people NOT doing that, and we hate it. We live in a world where the person doing the stupidest thing that day makes the front page, and we’re enlightened enough to critique it.
Stupid people will always exist. The idea that we hear about them more now and we hate them for it actually proves we’ve become more enlightened.
Counterpoint: Trump was president.
Of America, not of the world. Believe it or not, there are so many other people in the world outside of America.
Also, look at the presidents of the past. America has had many pro-slavery Presidents. Trump was awful, but he wasn’t even the worst President. The fact that so many people felt he was awful also shows that America has progressed.
But back to my first point, you’re looking at a country of 350m out of 8 billion people in the world. The world has moved on from so many of the things that the US continues to struggle with. As a people, we’ve advanced much further than we’ve been in the past.
Edit: wrote a “k” not an “m” for America’s population.
The fact that you don’t think Trump was the worst president makes me doubt your knowledge of US history.
“Other people were worse” has never been a good argument, much leas for presidents.
350k?
The far right is on the rise all across the world, not just the US.
He was voted in by the people, ergo, the majority is not enlightened.
Not the majority.
Counterpoints:
- china, Russia and the whole clusterfuck that is Middle East are a thing;
- The far right is on the rise throughout all of Europe.;
- Polarisation of public discourse is now the norm;
100 years ago, the only one of those that was better was possibly the Middle East, depending on where. The Chinese and Russian populations are significantly less oppressed and more educated than they were 100 years ago, which doesn’t minimize what they’re currently going through, but 1924 was not a good year for Russia or China
who lost the poplar vote
What about the oak vote?
Yes, but the internet makes it easier to see all the idiocy.
I know I am. I wasn’t even born 100 years ago.
See, I didn’t even know that about you. I’m more enlightened than I was 10 seconds ago!
Looking at widespread corruption and material worship, I’d say they are about the same.
No they’re obese.
3 comedy points.
things are way better for women and minorities than they ever were… which is saying something as things are still comparatively bad
People have access to more information, but less access to tough life lessons, and therefore less experience (ranging from survival skills, to applied political science, etc.).
Is being “enlightened” mean you have more (possibly fake) information, or does it mean having more life experience? You decide…
I feel like answering this would give different answers for pretty much every category you could define.
No no no no no no no. I can’t say no enough.
Religions were created for many reasons, but one of them was dealing with constant war and conflict. And humans are still fighting and in conflict. We’re not more enlightened than any other point in recorded history.
Well, we may know how to kill each other more effectively.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. The question was about enlightenment. One doesn’t necessarily need religion to walk towards it.
Also religion is a terrible way to deal with war. It’s simply a form of groupism that just brews more conflict. But that’s a separate discussion and off topic to the question I feel.
I interpreted your question as are we more morally advanced than 100 years ago. Moral advancement is enlightenment. Many religions are about moral advancement. We’ve had religion for thousands of years. And one reason was to mitigate wars in some cases (the ones I listed). But we still have war. So, we have not advanced morally, we’re not enlightened, anymore than we were thousands of years ago, let alone 100.
Ok. I understand what you mean now, but I disagree on the correlation.
If someone is not religious, they could still be morally advanced. In the modern world people are tending to prefer reason over faith. I would even argue it is way better now that people are directly discussing philosophies rather than following the constructs of religion around it.
If someone is religious in the true sense, their way of life following faith in God also advances them morally. How this works depends on the religion of course. But as I mentioned earlier this tends to create a form of groupism.
So a person being religious or not doesn’t directly mean they are morally advanced or not. I’d say lack of moral advancements are due to other factors, like the evolution of society on top of technology.
In general, probably.
Locally, depends on the locality
Never underestimate the number of dumb as bricks idiots out there - but even the most dedicated luddite would probably recognize the name Nietzsche from some goth phase in middle school.
They are educated more. The opposite of enlightenment.
Why the downvoting?
People of today know a lot about everything. Yet we still have wars, pointless diseases born out of ignorance, discrimination beyond belief, causing people to even want to undergo surgery to escape, so much hate.
We know so many things, and we ignore it all. The opposite of enlightenment. We live in ignorance. And we celebrate ignorance.
Healthy at any weight, right? Fuck evidence to the contrary.
define enlightened using your own words not via a google search
Me, I’m specifically referring to the enlightenment. Now I would say that some of their ideas haven’t aged well but that is kind of a hat on a hat. The following summarizes it better then my dopey ass ever could:
Use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and to bring about humanitarian reforms
in regards to that definition then: yeah, I’d say people are, on the whole, more enlightened than they were a century ago. the scientific method is more thoroughly accepted/baked in at a societal level, and the mass adoption of digital communication facilitates a greater sense of community… though the resulting communities are often at odds with each other.
I doubt it.
The fact we all interact with cyberspace, using more high level functions to navigate rather than interacting with the physical world, means we are less integrated and present than before.
