So the enlightenment was widely regarded as a good thing for humanity. However, it is immediately obvious upon further inspection that it caused many more problems than are acknowledged such as literally all the wars of the 20th century and wars over nationalism. These ultimately caused the mess of the world we live in. Is my analysis of the Enlightenment correct?
So the enlightenment was widely regarded as a good thing for humanity
Pretty much yes.
Three hundred years ago, during the Age of Enlightenment, the coffee house became the center of innovation.
Back then, most people went from drinking beer to consuming coffee (i.e. from being tipsy to being wired) and ideas started exploding.
The details of this story are important (and fun) one for anyone passionate about innovation.
Would the world be better under some sort of feudal monarchy as before? Often Enlightenment is credited with bringing capitalism which basically drove modern innovation.
This is hard to tell, there was a reason for Enlightenment to happen, one could consider it a God's punishment for sins of the people of the Church, but at the same time it was very wrong reaction to a problem, that generated a lot of its own, even worse problems. We lacked a few Saints that could heal the soul of Europe like it has been happening before. They didn't appear, maybe we were not worth it already. The history of humanity is the history of overreaction. People of the Church were sinning, monarchs were sinning, but the proper answer was not to completely reject the Church, and to completely reject the monarchy. They rejected the best ideas of humanity, because of the few jerks that didn't implement them properly, ignoring thousands years of the history that supported them.
I don't see how you can blame the enlightenment period for what is essentially a Jewish insurgency that has corrupted society for the past 200 years. It was a very famous Jew who bought English banking stocks for pennies after his agents reported Napoleon had won at Waterloo.
And regarding capitalism, rejection of capitalism by nobles was also their sin and horrible political mistake as history proved, however it doesn't mean that it had to end like this. Catholic scholastics were researching theory of capitalism for some time already and it could be adopted earlier and more peacefully with some more effort. Look up en.wikipedia.org
Yes. The enlightenment was actually the start of the decline of the west. not the 1960s lol
Death is always, enlightenment improved everyones lives.
why would nobles go for capitalism though
They wouldn't go straight into capitalism, but it could happen gradually, if they would got convinced that it brings in wealth to their realms, then they would increase liberties gradually. I can certainly see this, but the knowledge of economy was very poor then. Equally poor actually between those who were against feudalism and those who were defending it.
It seems quite improbable since they were already comfortable with their uncontested power until they could no longer hold it and it exploded in their faces during the French Revolution
Not it is completely wrong
You have no education at all
Good, you're on the path to take the final redpill and join the Reaction.
Wars egzisted all the time
Feudalism wasn't all about power, they had much less power than the modern states have over their citizens. They actually had very strong desire for their realms to be wealthy because it was considered their property to some degree, I mean by that that even if they were actually quite limited in power, they were gaining external power and personal wealth directly from development of their realm. This was the perfect relation - limited by thousand of years of traditions monarch, who success is directly related to the success of people in his realm. The science of economy spread too late to utilize that. I'm going sleep because it's late here but think about it, and read up because it's a fascinating topic.
There weren't wars before? Instead of nationalism, it was imperial wars and religion and the vast majority of people in the West lived in poverty and died early. You can idolize the past, but you have to admit you'd be living an absolutely terrible life.
Fuck off Peter
literally sucking off muh diversity at all costs and ignoring the third world's biological limitations in intelligence
What a moronic fucking statement. Something can't be in decline as its creating its biggest achievements. What decline? The creation of modern science? Conquest of most of the globe?
Probably not, it didn't drive innovation as much. We'd be better off if there was a monarch who had power but deferred to the elected leader, and the house of commons. The monarch and nobility (through houses of lords, which would be mostly nobles and technocrats) would keep the country stable and not allow change until there was a large majority for it. Tyranny of the majority (51% voters) is a very real problem and is becoming worse every day.
insinuating there would have not have been exponentially more battles and wars otherwise
I am beginning to feel that I am growing old; soon, I shall have to eat mush like children. I shall no longer be able to speak, which will be a rather great advantage for others and but a small inconvenience for myself. ... The time in which I count in years is gone; that in which I count in days is here. ... I had thought that the fibers of the heart would grow callous with age, it's not at all the case. I am not sure that my sensitivity hasn't increased; everything moves me, affects me. ... To fade out between a man feeling your pulse and another bothering your head; not to know where one comes from, why one came, where one is going ...
imperialism ramped up way harder after nationalism led to expansionism after the enlightenment.
Why not? There wouldve been fewer things to fight about. It literally gave rise to nationalism and republicanism which are just muh nation and muh freedoms causing revolutions literally everywhere. It all culminated with ww2.
implying that tribe differences, with no unifying principals would perhaps create a more enlightened state
Seems like common causes seem to enhance civility regardless of the catalysts (nationalism, religion, race, subdivide to infinity) without unifying principals or severe authoritian practices, all factions are at odds.
There would have been more things to fight about as national umbrellas provided commanility that leads to cooperation toward common goals. Without the larger groupings, conflict would have (and actually did for ages) been smaller scale, but much more frequent. Or is there another piece to the puzzle?