On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu>
>
> > As much as I agree with your values, we have to admit that our standards
> > of reasoning are neither sufficient nor necessary preconditions
> > for the survival and stability of human societies (humans
> > thrived for hundreds of thousands of years without
> > the Enlightenment!).
>
> Cave man 1: Is there a tiger near our cave?
> Cave man 2 (having a little fun at the expense of his dim friend): There
> both is and is not a tiger near our cave.
> Cave man 1: OK.
>
> Cave man 1 didn't live long enough to reproduce.
>
> -- Luke
Are you serious arguing that all of the characteristics of Enlightenment thinking and values can be explained by just-so stories like this? If so, how do you explain the fact that many human societies do not value or heavily rely on Enlightenment style thinking? (Read some of Sternberg's stuff on cultural differences in the definition of intelligence, for instance.)
And if the Enlightenment just reflects how people think, why do historians make a fuss about it? Nothing really changed?
(--Once again, old whisker's dead on: people treat the products of social relations as something that must preexist social relations!)
Miles