Re: Enlightenment

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Boris Stremlin wrote:

> The counterposing of Enlightenment and "tradition" misses the point.  In
> places where the cultural and spiritual ground were not completely 
> plowed over by absolutist claims, science, democracy and socialism found
> fruitful accomodation that allowed both tradition and modernity to
> prosper.  In places where the two confronted each other as opposites, the
> results were generally disasterous.  Not coincidentally, the former
> generally obtained in the core, while the latter predominated in the
> (semi) peripheries, where traditions proved more vulnerable; this is also
> why we generally don't speak of an English Enlightenment.  The same is
> true, incidentally, of earlier cultural movements like Christianity and
> Buddhism - they worked best where they did not aim to eliminate earlier
> cultures.
> 
> This is why task at hand is to produce order of out chaos, and not to
> engage in single-minded iconoclasm in the name of Enlightenment
> rationality.  And sorry, to read _Hold the Tiller Firm_ as a manifesto of
> unapologetic rationalism is to seriously misinterpret what it's trying to
> say.

        I agree that rationalism and tradition can co-exist peacefully,
but only when the rationalists really respect human rights, such as
freedom of conscience, and only when the traditionalists resist the
temptation to evangelize vigorously and eradicate dissent, which is hard
for most of them (above all Christians and Muslims).  My use of the
expression "hold the tiller firm" was intended as a humorous rhetorical
flourish, not a serious reading of the essay by Wallerstein.

        Warren