November 28, 2005

• 

  
  

  Socrates Cafe ® Topic Post

  
  

  Topic #13: What is enlightenment, and is it easier or more difficult to attain in modern times?

  
  

  
  It might be argued that we are living in the “second age of enlightenment”. In the 18th century, philosophers were thought to be “enlightened” if they could surpass their irrational and immature baser instincts, and overlook the fundamental and repressive religious beliefs of the Dark Ages, in order to find a rational and “reasonable” code of ethics for society and mankind. A follower of Eastern religions might proclaim that all of humankind has the ability to become enlightened, after advancing through a set pattern of planes of existence, until one reaches a higher cosmic status. In both cases, the idea is that the mind surpasses the “baser instincts” and immature unreasonableness of mankind in order to attain enlightenment. Conventional Christian, or “Western” religious thought is that enlightenment is attained after salvation, and can be aspired to by practicing an ethical and moral code while existing in the present lifetime.
  To the cultured intelligentsia during the 1700s, science and philosophy were replacing a raging torrent of religious warfare which lasted nearly two centuries. The term is not necessarily “religious” by definition, but even during the “Age of Enlightenment” there were deeply religious scholars as well as purely scientific ones. In contrast to the ragged rift of “intelligent design” versus “evolution” rampant in American society today, the philosophers of the 18th Century coexisted in a more “reasonable” atmosphere.
  Now, in the 21st Century, with instant access to information, philosophy, and knowledge, the concept of “intelligence” is almost moot. True, one has to navigate the many sections of the cyberlibraries with care, but most “knowledge” is now available with a few mouse clicks, so it is far more easier now than ever before for the same information to be available, and widely discussed and debated among many, be they scholars or plebians.
  Man was thought to be naturally lazy and complacent, and therefore it was more difficult to attain a sense of enlightenment. One needed to utilize his own intellect, without dependance upon other sources, in order to gain enlightenment. A truly enlightened person cares (or “dares” in Kantian philosophy) to know more. Others cannot “force” the enlightenment on any person. One has to become enlightened only on his own, and through his own methods.
  I believe that the advent of the “age of information” makes it easier for most people to aspire to an enlightened state, even though they might not know it. The reasoning behind this is simple. The internet and computing are supplanting libraries and schools. More people are learning to navigate these seas of information on their own, and I believe they only get better at determining the unreasonableness of misinformation the more they inquire. Search engines are “rational” servers, which when used correctly, open thousands of doors heretofore closed to most of society.
  Enlightenment is self actualizing. Even in religious thought, the road to salvation lies in good works. Mankind can easily lose himself in the “immature pleasures” of computing, but by the same token he can use the medium to better his knowledge, and to attain a more reasonable understanding of his existence. In that way, mankind becomes more enlightened than ever before.

  
  

  
  Topic #14: What is happiness? Is it the result of circumstances or a state of being? What is the difference between happiness and love?

  
  

  I would have to argue that happiness is a natural occurrence in humankind, and that “circumstances”, like winning the lottery, only serve to create a happy state for an indeterminate time, and do not really dictate the state of happiness. If one is happy, then one can be so whether or not he is rich as Midas or living in the poorhouse.
  When I was living with Pat, she used to ask me endlessly, “Are you happy?” Now, I had to lie, because when I was with her I was actually the least happy in life as I have ever been. But I always answered in the affirmative, and usually to the effect that we “had” everything money could buy. For many, monetary gain (winning that lottery) spells the most happiness. But does money buy happiness? Probably it does, but only for the moment that the money can do the buying. When it’s gone, the “happiness” it buys disappears as well.
  A truly happy person, or an opitimistic person, can smile through all the tears because they know what pure bliss is, and they embrace this bliss even in times of the worst disasters. Happiness is natural, but sometimes blighted, and circumstances can then foil the feeling, and remove this happiness for a time. Again, the naturally happy individual will be able to brave the negative circumstances, and not worry or get upset at what ill any circumstances may bring to pass.
  Happiness and love are not the same thing, and shouldn’t be compared. Happiness can exist without the need for human presence, not to mention coupling. Love is the ultimate connection mankind has to the Universal, the thread that attempts to tie  us together. A bond. Happiness is a state of pleasant bliss, and can be experienced whether or not one is with another person. Happiness can be individual and selfish. Love is a bond between humans.

  
  

  
  

  ---

  
  

   I have borrowed Mia’s (Mia) format which I found to be quite ‘reasonable’ in presenting her answers to the questions posed in the discussion. I don’t know if anyone who ‘asked’ will read the answers, but I have attempted to get most of them from the 30+ comments I received. It’s taken a while to sort through and  answer the “enlightenment” questions, but since I originally asked the topic question, I am concentrating on it today. I got a few “happiness” questions, but the bulk of them were directed at my essay on enlightenment. Here in, the order I wanted to answer them, are the “socratic questions”, credited to the writers, and my enlightened attempts to answer. MFN

  
  

  “(I) don’t think you clearly identified enlightenment, only identified how others identified it. Perhaps that is my failure to understand you … do you think you’re enlightened?” (orcofdoom)
  Hmmmm. I say my credentials are as a philosopher, not a prophet. At least not yet. I sometimes believe I am a bit more enlightened than a lot of humanity, however this might sound somewhat conceited and hypocritical, so I will answer that one in the negative. I’m getting there. As to how I would define enlightenment on a personal level, it would be the byproduct of years of observation and knowledge, coupled with the wisdom one receives  from the aging process itself. I don’t want to preach Universal Mind Theory here. I have a complete blog for that subject, and perhaps that’s why I stuck with the proper “historical” definitions from religion and science. This is my question for the Socrate’s Cafe after all. I believe that life is a “test” of enlightenment, and from each of the “episodes” which make up life we can glean “realizations” which help further our understanding of our place in the cosmic puzzle. We are granted epiphanies, from which we can gain enlightenment. If we search for enlightenment we might just find it is there all along. 

  
  

  
  Some people have a thrist for knowledge, does this help in gaining enlight(en)ment? Does the more you know get you closer to enlight(en)ment? (Chavela351) How much does education and knowledge really have to do with enlightenment?. (The Lion’s Tongue)
  Education and knowledge are vital tools for a complete understanding of historical implications and societal aspirations. We cannot gain enlightenment without knowledge. However it is the use of that knowledge which bears the fruit of enlightenment. Pure “facts” don’t constitute understanding. One has to be able to read the signs.

  
  

  
  Another question…is it possible that with so many competeing ideas for some to be overwhelmed and simply retreat into what is comfortable? (Miashineon)
  Of course. This is Kant’s hypothesis in the first place. Men are “naturally lazy” and tend to find the comfortable. That’s why most of humankind are simply not enlightened. Enlightenment is attained upon entering the phase of the “Final Realization” when we die, and all of “life’s mysteries” are unveiled, but most of the thinkers in the Age of Enlightenment were striving for understanding and reasonableness in the corporeal plane.

  
  

  
  Do you think due to this ease of information that we are obtaining a false enlightenment? (RmBow SPOT)
  Again, the search for enlightenment “uses” the “information” in order to gain understanding, which enhances our perceptions of reason. We can always follow the wrong path. We have to be able to read the signs, as I mentioned earlier, in order to gain enlightenment.

  
  

  
  Is it really possible to reach this state, as monks have devoted their whole lives to? Is it attainable in out lifetimes? (soonaquitter)
  Who knows? We’re still debating the topic, so most reasonable men would probably admit that aspiration is the key that hardly ever opens the lock of attaining true enlightenment. In the Hindu religion, each soul is given a chance to live again and again until enlightenment is attained. Let’s say there are signs and “realizations” that occur throughout our lives. If we understand these “tests” and “epiphanies” then we are closer to an enlightened state. If we don’t understand or are able to read them, then we have a “do over” until Nirvana is right around the corner. The monk would probably tell you he is in a constant state of aspiring to be enlightened. From a purely ethical standpoint, one could say that Christ was enlightened. Mohammad was enlightened. Buddah was enlightened. But if you were to ask them if they were enlightened they would probalby not agree, because true enlightenment is a superseding of the human condition, and we cannot really attain this in our “lifetimes”.

  
  

  
  Are people any more likely to search in modern times as in old? Is it really making all that much difference if they arent looking?? What would make them look? (Mia)
  An individual has to be involved and interested. We can be “lazy” or we can be “proactive”. As I wrote, “One has to become enlightened only on his own, and through his own methods.” If one is not conducting the search, then one is not going to find the treasure.

  
  

  Do you also see a divide between the Eastern and Western ideas of enlightenment? Do you think it’s possible or desirable to reconcile the two? (Simone de Beauvoir)
  In the Universal, the ideas that are branded Eastern and Western do not matter in and of themselves. All enlightenment is good. I pointed out the “differences” because the “Western” ideas, in the 18th century, were more scientific and rational, whereas the “Eastern” ideas, mainly wrought from Buddhism and Hinduism, which are religions and not secular philosophical practices, have roots in meditation and belief. One might argue that the “Eastern” form of enlightenment is internal (from Self)  and external (from God). Philosophy even had inherent in the secular discussions a great many religious scholars who did try to reconcile the two. From my perspective, we as humankind have to be able to 1. Process information. 2. Be able to read the signposts and epiphanies life puts on our “road of life” 3. Search for personal truths and knowledge, and 4 gain wisdom in order to aspire to any form of enlightenment. However, upon our deathbeds, when passing from the corporeal to the Universal, we gain the final realization “no matter what” and instantly gain enlightenment. (My beliefs also encompass reincarnation, so sometimes we do have the opportunity to pass through the corporeal again. )

  
  

  With the availability of so much information, how do we decide what information is really valid? Is validity the same for all people? Do you think that most people even question whether something is valid? Is knowledge the same as understanding? What about the person who can recite facts but cannnot manipulate them or use them? Is that person enlightened? For that matter, is that person intelligent? Are knowledge and intelligence really closely related? (Nance 1)
  Knowledge is having the tool in hand. Understanding is being able to use the tool to accomplish the task. Knowledge is the book. Intelligence is being able to read the book. Enlightenment, which is the ulitmate goal, is being able to understand what the book means. Somebody who “recites facts” is merely an idiot savant. I don’t think most people even care about enlightenment. They are the “lazy” or Kant’s “immatures”.

  
  

  
  I agree with you and others that enlightenment has to happen for each person on his/her own, but can it really happen without challenge from without? Maybe a determined person seeking enlightenment will challenge themselves, but I wonder, are there folks out there who will never learn how to do that? (Gaudy Night)
  Yes, as stated immediately above, the mass of humanity will never attain enlightenment. However, if one aspires to enlightenment, the “knowledge” exists, and being able to use it in a reasonable manner is a first step in the process.

  
  

  Who are these purely scientific scholars? (a philosophress)
  The statement differentiates between the secular philosophers of the 18th century (which is called the “Age of Enlightenment”) and the religious scholars. Each “camp” had their own “ideas” about the nature of enlightenment. Hence my statement about Christians gaining salvation prior to the Enlightened state.

  
  

  In Relief wrote: “The enlightenment, for many was a straight out attack on religion, and an unreasonable one at that..”
  I agree. I didn’t claim that anyone became enlightened. The question is always “aspiration” vs “attaining”. I don’t think any of the “enlightened” philosophers actually became even close to being enlightened. As you say, and as I stated in the early part of the essay, the “Age of Enlightenment” was an “answer” to 200 years of the Dark Ages, in which the Catholic Church caused many hardships and failures for society. 

  
  

  I still conclude:
  “Mankind can easily lose himself in the “immature pleasures” of computing, but by the same token he can use the medium to better his knowledge, and to attain a more reasonable understanding of his existence. In that way, mankind becomes more enlightened than ever before.”
  Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
  

  • 10:02 pm
  • 34 Comments