Sup Forums is full of retarded foreigners

Pic Related.
If you don't understand the Enlightenment and it's thinkers, you're a fucking moron and don't deserve to be on this board.

ew no

The French Revolution and therefore the Enlightenment was a mistake

Voltaire never said that, was a satanist and a cunt overall. Much like every "Lumières" in the 18th century.

>Voltaire
Free speech serves to make dissent obvious. That's its only structural merit, and the only reason we have it.
>Rousseau
While direct democracy has now been proven to be more efficient, the social contract can only work if you're not born into one, which unfortunately everybody today is. Funny that.
>Diderot
Didn't actually contribute to the contents of the debate
>Wollstonecraft
By far the most destructive thinker in all of human history. Women's suffrage is responsible for every problem we have in the west today, from immigration and the failure of social programs to the destruction of public debate by injecting feels into everything.
Total cunt, would rape her corpse.
>Montesquieu
Separation of powers doesn't take in account the (((clandestine puppet master))) that tells one to do the others a favour or else.

Enlightenment thinking is ridiculously outdated.

>retards

>burger who claps about his "freedom" all time thinks we should go back to when 99% slaved for the 1%(ers)
This is how you spot a retard

Is there no one that can debunk the enlightenment?

Burke had it right. The worst thing that ever happened in teaching the masses to "reason". The Enlightenment is a failure. The masses aren't capable of using reason properly, as they are ill-informed and too busy working prole jobs to become experts in anything. Only the gentry should have the right to enter government. The masses still practice folk-wisdom, and folk-law, except they think that schooling means education.

The Enlightnment proves that whitey don't need any Jews for subversion and self-destruction.

>Wollstonecraft

It's always the feminist Anglos who ruin everything...

Considering you're making us waste our time when your only retort is
No. I've done my bit.

>burger who claps about his "freedom" all time
But I don't lmao
>thinks we should go back to when 99% slaved for the 1%
You mean like now, except the 1% are a bunch of rootless kikes rather than people with a vested interest in making sure the nation doesn't go to total shit?

Good trips, good post.

Asiatic authoritarianism or Muslim fundamentalism will do the debunking for you.

Anyone who seriously believes human problems can be solved by REASON lives in a virtual reality.
That was the common thread.

Voltaire never said this. This is a common mistake.

>it's
>calling other people morans

>No. I've done my bit.
Not sure if you've noticed, but actually making an argument kills the threads.
Sup Forums is full of retards that cannot debate, so I'm just getting people talking about the age of enlightenment

>dude what if people are rational
>and...like, what if they'll get smart if we educate them
>whoa man that would change everything
It wasn't even that they were living in a fantasy world so much as that their shit was actually novel.

Unfortunately decades of institutionalized education has shown that, despite the greatest efforts of the state, most people are naturally stupid, bovine, and lazy.

>Unfortunately decades of institutionalized education has shown that, despite the greatest efforts of the state, most people are naturally stupid, bovine, and lazy.
Implying that the state didn't take over educational responsibilities, use those responsibilities to indoctrinate people, and abandon the duty of a full rounded education.
It's 1984 lite.

Rousseau is based

Most importantly Locke & Liberty bro

Enlightenment is trash. French Revolution ruined Europe for all time.

Like being a factory worker in south Asia. Dirt poor, barely able to feed yourself and pretty much a slave in all but name. Enjoy!

>writes a book about how children should be raised
>abandons his own kids
Rousseau was a piece of shit.

>post says "your a fucking ___"
>promotes lazy hippies from even before the 60s

OP is from current year 2015. Join the future with us bro

You can blame those same kikes for that.
Just like you can blame them for letting you into Sweden.

Presumably if the state were using schools as active indoctrination centers and not just passively allowing them to be pozzed by the teachers, they would turn out zealous defenders of the status quo (like colleges do) rather than uneducated, unintellectual louts.

...

The French Revolution ended up like the Bolshevik Revolution. Both were left-wing revolutions, both brought about horrors for their populace. So yes, it was a mistake.
>no Locke

>user:
>>post says "your a fucking ___"
>op:
>>you're a fucking moron and don't deserve to be on this board.
>>you're
..?

I think it would be much more efficient, in our society, to not allow the state to educate at all, and revert back to property ownership as a defining characteristic of voter eligibility.

>Attacking the person
Fucking leftist.

Stopped reading at no Immanuel Kant
Go read a book, faggot OP

Why do women need to be educated amongst men?
Why do women need to be trained for sophisticated jobs?

Also, said louts do "believe" in the status quo as much as they're able, they just don't understand it beyond blind moralistic faith. Actually defending the status quo is reserved for those with slightly higher IQs.

Property ownership, military service, or being married with children. Also, being male.
Alternately we could abolish suffrage altogether and just have an autocrat.

>This is my most popular thread of the day
>it's poorly written and OP pic is 1/2 second from google that I didn't/still haven't even read.
this is why this board is shit during the summer

>Also, being male.
user, you really didn't have to go further than this.

Took the words out of my mouth

>Debunking the Enlightenment
That isn't really a thing, because that implies the Enlightenment was monolithic with very clear stances on individual issues. In reality this isn't the case.
>will of the majority
Even the philosophes knew this was stupid because most of the peasantry were idiots whose only political stance was "Monarch good as long as I get at least 1 meal a day". Today we are different, but given that half of the American population is entirely politcally illiterate; the current form of Republican Democracy isn't the best system
>consent to govern derived from the people
This is true
>Laissez faire is the best economic system
This is true with some caveats
>Goal of gov't is material well-being and social
justice
Clarify this, most of the Enlightenment thinkers did support some equality of opportunity, just define what you consider to be social justice.
>to protect natural rights
This is true, but there is more that gov't should do
>People have the right to overthrow the gov't
They CAN overthrow the gov't.
>absolute power or limited power
Most of those arguing for absolute power were arguing it for places like Russia or Prussia. Most of their arguments tended to revolve around "Russia is big and Prussia is separated; therefor, we need fast action by an Enlightened Monarch with absolute power." This wasn't really a debate in most countries.
>Separation of Powers
This really wasn't some major Enlightenment talking point. As was mentioned before, there were a lot of Enlightenment thinkers that thought separation of powers couldn't work in countries like Prussia or Russia

OP all of these are platitudes that have been accepted by the majority, even most of pol agrees somewhat with it. Nor can you really debunk a platitude. If your argument is that an Enlightened Democracy is the best system, I have to disagree completely. That pic is textbook/10.

>Today we are different, but given that half of the American population is entirely politcally illiterate; the current form of Republican Democracy isn't the best system
To be fair to the originally implied system, none of the founders could have imagined how large the US is today - population and geographically.
Nor could they have imagined the expanse of technology or the means of government control associated with it. So the obvious question to me is, how do you apply the original thinking to account for those changes?
>Clarify this, most of the Enlightenment thinkers did support some equality of opportunity, just define what you consider to be social justice.
What the founders called social justice ( defined just as justice in todays standards) and what libtards are calling for are very different.
>>to protect natural rights
>This is true, but there is more that gov't should do
Why and to what extent?
>>People have the right to overthrow the gov't
>They CAN overthrow the gov't.
That's not something easily imagined today. Govt has insane reach now.
>>Separation of Powers
>This really wasn't some major Enlightenment talking point.
>Montesquieu
I disagree.
>Enlightened Democracy is the best system, I have to disagree completely.
I have no argument. Just getting some real conversation in here, and to do that, you have to provoke people with the most obscene shit, like calling an entire group of people morons.

>To be fair to the originally implied system, none of the founders could have imagined how large the US is today - population and geographically. Nor could they have imagined the expanse of technology or the means of government control associated with it. So the obvious question to me is, how do you apply the original thinking to account for those changes?
I genuinely believe the original Enlightenment thinkers were smart enough to understand that the entire world would evolve. You maintain the ideas of empiricism and reason, which genuinely was the crux of the Enlightenment.
>What the founders called social justice ( defined just as justice in todays standards) and what libtards are calling for are very different.
Okay good, some like to pull the whole "Enlightenment means equality therefor they supported forcing you to pay for having my dog's dick cut off because he sexually identifies as a woman"
>Why and to what extent?
For one, securing stable food and water for its people. Mainly because when people don't get this, they tend to riot. Preserving culture and the nation, because without it people lose a sense of identity. When this happens society degenerates and people tend to support extremism. (granted this is just conjecture on my part, most of my evidence is just based on anecdotes and generalizations)
>That's not something easily imagined today. Govt has insane reach now.
I said they CAN because I don't truly believe that the people have an innate right to destroy their gov't. This tends to inflict incredible suffering upon the average person. This doesn't mean I believe that gov't shouldn't be overthrown if it is shit. Also overthrowing the gov't is still possible, the average person is just too apathetic to care.
>Montesquieu
>I disagree.
I would primarily point to the Russian Enlightenment thinkers and the concept of an Enlightened Despot. I don't believe this was entirely agreed upon and often was scrapped to appeal to tsars and monarchs