Starts good. The idea that enlightenment is constructed later doesn't even surprise me too much. Cohesive political movements usually have some sort of geopolitical motivation behind them. And that element seems to be missing from the enlightenment. It seems weird to label long period of time just because there happened to be individual smart people thinking great ideas relatively separately. Socrates, Buddha and Confucius we're alive at the same time, yet we don't call that "age of philosophy".
>"unbearable whiteness of the Enlightenment"
This is weird. If you wish to strip history from it's later constructs, it's really weird you label something "too white". Smells like political agenda more than truth seeking. Colonialism and enlightenment happened at the same time. Was that really news to anybody?
This get's bit off topic. I'm ashamed to say, but I really don't understand this "accomplishment is too white" sentiment. If I try I get two alternatives:
A) Somebody is envious.
B) Somebody thinks pride is a sin, and the master race should purify itself from sin. To show the barbarians how much better the master race is. (Unconsciously of course but anyhow.)
>"unbearable whiteness of the Enlightenment"
This is weird. If you wish to strip history from it's later constructs, it's really weird you label something "too white". Smells like political agenda more than truth seeking. Colonialism and enlightenment happened at the same time. Was that really news to anybody?
This get's bit off topic. I'm ashamed to say, but I really don't understand this "accomplishment is too white" sentiment. If I try I get two alternatives:
A) Somebody is envious.
B) Somebody thinks pride is a sin, and the master race should purify itself from sin. To show the barbarians how much better the master race is. (Unconsciously of course but anyhow.)