why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?

[Wizzer]

Why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?
I have 3 reasons:

1. They don't reflect the 'natural law.'

2. They claim to be egalitarian but 'republican leaders' are anything but.

3. Look at the history of the ''age of enlightment'' republics. So much more bloody and opressive than the great monarchies of old ( and yet people still believe in the theory)

What do you guys think?

[trish]

Though the classical Greeks invented mathematics, philosophy and science, those intellectual ideals took a backseat during the Roman age of empire and the Roman Catholic age of religious rule. (I always find it odd that one of the most virulent Middle Eastern desert religions is regarded by conservative Americans as the basis of their government.) The western world wasn’t reintroduced to the classical Greek values until the renaissance. The Enlightenment values are in large part (though not exclusively) the values of mathematics, philosophy, science and art; i.e. intellectual integrity (for which freedom of expression is requisite), curiosity (which includes the freedom to question and test authority as well as nature) and the pursuit of excellence (including the freedom to pursue individual goals as well as those of the state).

I think there’s been more bloodshed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries generally, not just in those nations that embody Enlightenment ideals. One reason for this is there are just more people to kill. Poor Alexander never had a chance to kill more people than Hitler. I would be curious to know, however, if there were any pre-modern political conflicts which induced losses proportional to the losses accrued by modern conflicts.

Still, modern technology, and in particular modern weapons technology is only possible through the sciences that owe their existence to Enlightenment ideals. It’s not that Enlightenment ideals don’t reflect nature, but rather we owe our excellence at killing to the fact that Enlightenment sciences reflect nature all too well. We've become just too damn good at what we do, and unfortunately one of the things human beings do is kill other human beings.

You would perhaps like to argue that science itself is unnatural. I’m of the opinion, however, that nothing in the universe is unnatural. If it exists in nature, it is natural. Our technology was born of this Earth’s biosphere as surely as a beaver’s dam or swallow’s nest.

Your second objection that “republican leaders” claim to be egalitarian but aren’t is not an argument against Enlightenment values but rather an argument against pretenders to those values.

As I already mentioned, I not prepared to accept that Enlightenment civilizations are proportionately bloodier than others. I think human beings are not any different today than they were in the past. Whatever they believe is just a gossamer garment that does very little to restrict their human impulses. I happen to like the Enlightenment ideals; at least the ones that I’ve mentioned above.

[muhmuh]

Still, modern technology, and in particular modern weapons technology is only possible through the sciences that owe their existence to Enlightenment ideals.

i wonder what emmanuelle's cunt would have to say about what we did to and with the ideals of his time

[hippifried]

Nah! That's all a bunch of revisionist hype. The "enlightenment" was merely the return to hereditary despotic rule following the "dark ages". The "dark ages" was just that period after the implosion & collapse of the Roman Empire, when nobody was really in charge. We hear about how terrible a time it was, but who wrote the history? The Church of course. Reality is that the "dark ages" was probably the most peaceful time in recorded eurocentric history. No kings = no wars. The renaissance was just the church taking over & scientists were burned as heretics. Scientific & philosophical thought build over time. The idea that they just sprung up all of a sudden makes no sense. Something was happening during the period of anarchy. Would we have progressed as far as we have without the "enlightenment"? We'll never know because the church took over, wrote the history, & took credit for modernity.

All that said: I have no idea what the hell a 20th century "age of enlightenment" republic is. As far as I'm concerned, the real age of enlightenment is now with the realization that people don't really need to be ruled.

[InHouston]

This post is fabricated. Wizzer is really Trish.

Wizzer, is a brand new rookie member who had one post recorded at 12:45 am, and then along comes Trish at 2:54 am with her in-depth analysis she cut and pasted from Google somewhere.

Trish fabricated this post in a childish attempt to foist herself upon the forum as an expert on any and all subject matters. She wants people to sit back and think, "Wow, she knows everything." Why the hell would some new member of a tranny forum, jump straight into the political section and post such a poll while not familiar with the dynamics of the people that frequent the forum? It's obvious, it's Trish and the subject matter of the poll is clearly her style.

And besides Trish. A good deal of mathematics and science originated from Middle Eastern countries of the era too. You've cut and pasted the Western version of the history of math and science.

T-o-o-o-shay bitch. Busted!

[trish]

[Oli]

This post is fabricated. Wizzer is really Trish.

Wizzer, is a brand new rookie member who had one post recorded at 12:45 am, and then along comes Trish at 2:54 am with her in-depth analysis she cut and pasted from Google somewhere.

Trish fabricated this post in a childish attempt to foist herself upon the forum as an expert on any and all subject matters. She wants people to sit back and think, "Wow, she knows everything." Why the hell would some new member of a tranny forum, jump straight into the political section and post such a poll while not familiar with the dynamics of the people that frequent the forum? It's obvious, it's Trish and the subject matter of the poll is clearly her style.

And besides Trish. A good deal of mathematics and science originated from Middle Eastern countries of the era too. You've cut and pasted the Western version of the history of math and science.

T-o-o-o-shay bitch. Busted!

Isn't there a home invasion you should be fabricating?

[Wizzer]

trish wrote :

Though the classical Greeks invented mathematics, philosophy and science, those intellectual ideals took a backseat during the Roman age of empire and the Roman Catholic age of religious rule.

It wasn't just the classical Greeks that pioneered advanced mathematics, philosophy and science, the ancient Chinese did this as well. Besides many christian monks in dark age and medieval europe translated the ancient greek texts based on mathematics, philosophy and science and went into further investigation of the science. One medieval monk discovered the properties of visible light centuries before Sir Isaac Newton.

trish wrote :

(I always find it odd that one of the most virulent Middle Eastern desert religions is regarded by conservative Americans as the basis of their government.)

Well actually they're only half right. The bases of the American Government and many Islamic governments are the same:
"age of enlightenment" philosophies, but I will explain it all later.

trish wrote :

The Enlightenment values are in large part (though not exclusively) the values of mathematics, philosophy, science and art; i.e. intellectual integrity (for which freedom of expression is requisite), curiosity (which includes the freedom to question and test authority as well as nature) and the pursuit of excellence (including the freedom to pursue individual goals as well as those of the state).

these values existed before the ''age of enlightenment'', but it's rarely taught in schools, let alone to everyday people. Besides the ''age of enlightenment'' philosophies go far beyond mathematics, science and art.

trish wrote :

I think there’s been more bloodshed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries generally, not just in those nations that embody Enlightenment ideals.

the prerequisite for many of the 20th century dictators has been the ''age of enlightenment'' theories and counter theories. Again I shall explain soon enough. The 20th century dictators oppression and bloodlust made 99% of the monarchs of old look like a box of kittens.

trish wrote :

One reason for this is there are just more people to kill.

Another reason is because of modern day weapons. I don't see how can anyone compare a sword to an aircraft bomber.

trish wrote :

Poor Alexander never had a chance to kill more people than Hitler.

that's due to the level of technology. Please don't compare Alexander the Great to Hitler. They may have conquered peoples and other states but Alexander was respectful of other peoples and cultures, never forced anybody to join his army and was actually a wise ruler. As for hitler, nuff said.

trish wrote :

Still, modern technology, and in particular modern weapons technology is only possible through the sciences that owe their existence to Enlightenment ideals. It’s not that Enlightenment ideals don’t reflect nature, but rather we owe our excellence at killing to the fact that Enlightenment sciences reflect nature all too well. We've become just too damn good at what we do, and unfortunately one of the things human beings do is kill other human beings.

That is true to a certain extent. I'm not going to deny humans are good at killing eachother but there are other ''age of enlightenment'' theories and counter theories that are responsible 20th century death tolls as well.

trish wrote :

You would perhaps like to argue that science itself is unnatural. I’m of the opinion, however, that nothing in the universe is unnatural. If it exists in nature, it is natural. Our technology was born of this Earth’s biosphere as surely as a beaver’s dam or swallow’s nest.

This is a misleading quote. Sure man has used science and logic for god knows how long, but it doesn't mean the things we make are natural. Beavers may build dams but concrete is man made, hence concrete dams are not natural. What about nylon?

trish wrote :

Your second objection that “republican leaders” claim to be egalitarian but aren’t is not an argument against Enlightenment values but rather an argument against pretenders to those values.

Again as I said the prerequisite for many of the 20th century dictators has been the ''age of enlightenment'' theories and counter theories. Again I shall explain soon enough. (btw nearly all of them were republican leaders.) Egaliterianism is also one of the values of the ''Age of enlightenment.''

trish wrote :

As I already mentioned, I not prepared to accept that Enlightenment civilizations are proportionately bloodier than others.

That's fine but 19th and 20th Century history proves you wrong

trish wrote :

I think human beings are not any different today than they were in the past.

Physically and genetically, no we are not. Technologically and mentality wise, we are quite different. Imagine telling a viking warrior that we have mastered flight, we know what make us what we are (DNA) and we have weapons of such power that it can destroy entire cities in an instant and the aftermath of that weapon can cause sicknesses that even we don't fully understand. The viking warrior would call us 'gods' we'll just say it's progress.

trish wrote :

I happen to like the Enlightenment ideals; at least the ones that I’ve mentioned above.

As I have said there's more to the ''age of enlightenment'' than those ideals. It also consists of other theories and counter theories.

[trish]

First I’d like to confess I haven’t voted in your poll yet, wizzer, because I’m not decided on which, if any of the choices was or is bloodier and more oppressive. For one thing, I’m not quite sure what would be the proper measure of the bloodshed and the oppression exercised. Whatever the proper measure, it would have to factor in the proportion of the fallen warriors and fallen citizens relative to the weapons technology available at the time. [Something like (number of deaths)/(population x destructive power of the technology)].

Second, I did not want to give the impression that the Western world is entirely responsible for the invention science, mathematics and philosophy. Rather (since the context of the thread, broadly speaking, is Enlightenment philosophy) I was speaking within the context of Western philosophy, empires, nations and regimes. I do believe at least once I hinted at that context when I said “The western world wasn’t reintroduced to classical Greek values until the renaissance.” I grant that Europeans contributed to the sciences and especially mathematics during the so called “Dark Ages.” But those contributions pale in volume and quality to those of Thales, Archimedies, Euclid and others of the classical Greek age. The larger volume great Medeaval contributions c[a]me [from] the Middle East.

Like I said, I haven’t voted yet. But let’s say that we can agree on a measure and by that measure it turns out “age of enlightenment” republics are bloodier and more oppressive. It would still remain to ascertain why. Note one cannot have the reason first and use it to establish the alleged fact. I take it, however, that you already have a set of reasons in mind and that one of those reasons is that human technology is unnatural. Strictly speaking, nylon IS natural and so is everything else that is contained within the cosmos. A philosopher would be hard pressed to demarcate the distinction between artificial/natural or supernatural/natural and any other such dichotomy. You[r] take may however, be simpler. You may have something more historical in mind, a relative notion of natural rather than an absolute one. It is true that advanced technology has made killing not only easier to perform, but easier for the performer to deal with emotionally. Today you can sit at a computer terminal in Nevada and shoot missiles at a military camp from a drone flying over Iraq. Personally, I wouldn’t characterize that technology as unnatural, but it IS powerful and efficient technology.

[Wizzer]

Sorry 'Trish' I shall explain what a ''Age of enlightenment'' republic is.
An ''Age of enlightenment'' republic is on of the main philosophies of the ''age of enlightenment'' (mid 17th century - mid 18th century).
basically it is the perception that all hereditary heads of state/rulers (monarchs) and hereditary peers (nobles/aristocracy) are oppressive and obsolete and 'the people' will rise up and overthrow their oppressors and 'the people' will democratically choose a new rulers (obviously non-hereditary) based on merit and 'the will of the people.' (Sounds like 2 revolutions, this is not a coincidence!!!!!!!)
What a noble theory....... but
'The path of hell is pathed with noble intentions.'

Most the stuff that you read about ' The French Revolution ' is rubbish. HRM King Louie XVI (I think it was XVI I can't remember) was no tyrant, he was too foolish to be a tyrant. The revolution was not a ''spur of a moment type'' thing but planned and critically executed.
Just over 1 million people died during 'The French Revolution', their economy was in tatters, it became much more of a police state with 'hebeus corpus' non existant, but that's not the worst part. during the corrupt and petty sqabblings of the men in charge (some of which were not voted, irony huh?) guess who took over France? Napoleon I (he declared himself emperor) which started the whole continental war.

So what my point?

My point is that a monarch is much more than a supreme commander of their armed forces. They are seen or should be seen as fathers of their people. They were taught not only military strategums but also politics, diplomacy and how to interact and take care of their people from a very young age. Have you ever noticed that Republican leaders say 'the people' but Monarchs say 'my people'.
the problem with the ''Age of enlightenment'' republic theory is who replaces the monarch. Some say let ''the people'' choose their ruler and combined with the 'rule of law' the ruler can't oppress 'the people.'
This is very much wrong because there is no such thing as ''the people.'' ''The people'' are not one single entity but lots of different people with different ideas and opinions, so how can any ruler truly know what 'the people' want. Also what is the law. well it's simple really what ever the ruler and government say we can or cannot do. So the ''Rule of Law'' theory is washed up. Some say there should be no ruler. They are not worth dignifying with an answer apart from this, so long as humans are a social animal we will always band together. This banding together will make a group. Every single group no matter how headstrong, they will need a leader and with that there has to be followers. So rulers are inevitable. Also what happens if someone usurps the leadership of a country what then!! constitutions are useless then now that they taken over the country, what the usurper says, goes.
This has happened many times to monarchies over the 19th and 20th centuries. some good monarchs and some bad monarchs getting usurped by even more corrupt and tyrannical republcian dictators.
Can anyone honestly say that HIM Kaiser Wilhelm II and HIM The Last Emperor of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were as bad as Hitler. That HIM Emperor Nikolas II was as bad as all the commy dictators of the USSR. That the HIM the last Shah of Iran was as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs.
Yet many people today still believe in that theory, when it has been disproved so many times (with the blood of so many people) epsecially the yanks.
(if you've haven't guessed I'm a monarchist)
So many of the revolutions were based on ''The French Revolution.'' If people think that the dark and the middle ages were bad then what does that make the communist states of the 20th century. The sad truth is that the foundations for the 20th century republican dictators are still with us today which could make the 21st century just as bloody and oppressive.

Here are some of the other crap philosophies that the '' Age of Enlightenment '' have given us :
- The Left/Right political spectrum
- Fascism
- Communism
- Capitalism
- Libertarianism
- Liberalism
- Feminism
- Neo-conservatism
- Socialism
- Nation-States and Nationalism
- Democracy
- and much much more crap to come

I'll explain about these horrible '' Age of Enlightenment '' philosophies another time. see ya Trish.
Also check out this website to learn more of what they won't teach you in schools

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/royalcello