Now that the dust has settled can we agree the """Enlightenment"""

>>3330361

Yes. Hobbes was right about everything.

>>3330361
it was the biggest mistake in history, if it didn't happen then there wouldn't be a platform for the stupidest, most self absorbed people on earth to express their invaluable opinions
sage

Yes. The "Enlightenment" was directly responsible for the horrors of the French Revolution and indirectly responsible for literally everything bad about modernity today. Nazism, Communism, and SJWism would have never existed without it.

>>3330361
No

>>3330371
>>3330371
>>3330639
>>3330639
>>3330647
Wow, I didnt expect a reactionary opinion from /his/, considering that the board is full of angloboos and frenchboos

Nice to see it.

>>3330361
Catholicism held Europe back for nearly its entire duration until Enlightenment.

>>3330956
Catholicism was the only reason there was a Europe

>>3331091
>what is the Roman Empire uniting most of Europe for hundreds of years before catholicism

File: 1503047025012.jpg (80KB, 745x564px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 745x564px

Basically analogous to modern day cultural marxism/post modernism

in other words Jews ruined the second enlightenemt

>>3331091
Arab rule would have been better for Europe than Cath*lic rule

>>3331131
t. adolf hitler

>>3331133
t. Bavarian schwienhund

>>3330361
Nah, I'm a big fan of modern medicine.

>>3330956
How did it Catholicism held back Europe?
The Middle Ages as epoch was characterized by constant growth, with a good part of it having its origins in the Catholic Church or in initiatives supported by it

I'm basing my views according at books such as The Birth of Europe (Jacques Le Goff) and Feudal Society (Marc Bloch)

What are your sources?

>no internet
>your ass can be fucked literally by the royals at any moment, being the puny serf you are

>>3330361
>I want a daddy king to protect my puny ass

Cuck.

>>3331148
Because the links of church and monarchy ("divine rule") was tyranny

>>3330647
>muh grande terreur

People did shit like that way before the french revolition. Look up all the shit that had been done during the European wars of religion, particularly the 30 years war (some provinces of Germany lost 50+ percent of their population due to killings and looting). Outside of Europe, look at the horrors of the Muslin conquest of India or the slave-cultivated plantations in the Americas.

The only reason the French revolutionary terror was such a shock was because now royals and aristocrats were tartargetl as well. But common people suffered similar treatment long before and nobody gave a shit.

>>3330945
>Wow, I didn't expect a bunch of NEET autists to read Moldbug
Your mistake really

>>3331148
Constant growth where? Technology was largely at a standstill other than some siege innovations by the Byzantines (which ultimately proved futile). Greek and Republican philosophy had been replaced by dogma and autocratic rule. Most labor was subverted for the purpose of feeding armies, building forts, attacking forts, and defending forts.

Compare that to the progress seen under the Abbasid Caliphate around the same time, ended only by the Mongols.

>>3331157
>tyranny

Church and monarchy worked together to secure the rights of the peasants and freemen against the nobility, to secure their own power and position

If anything, church and monarchies fought together against tyranny

>>3331181
>Church and monarchy worked together to secure the rights of the peasants and freemen against the nobility, to secure their own power and position
>If anything, church and monarchies fought together against tyranny
Name two instances where religious leaders rallied together against tyrants of the same religion, in the name of the rights of the people.

>>3331181
Bur a "divine right" could have you killed for following the wrong religion, a constitutional enlightenment era monarch has checks and balances (parliament, law courts)

>>3331177
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
The re-emplacement of greek and republican philosophy happened during roman times, a few centuries before the Middle Ages. It came back during the Middle Ages, just take a look to Italy or the spanish cortes. Meanwhile in the ERE the dogmatic and the autocracy were kept

>>3331182
They fought against tyranny, not because of the peasants, but to keep and acquire more power. In order to get power they had to defend peasants. No ideology defends the people for the sake of defending the people, leaders defend the people in order to acquire power. Helping the people was not the goal, but the means.

As example of this you can observe the relations in the north italian cities, where the Pope backed them against the emperor

>>3331184
>a constitutional enlightenment era monarch has checks and balances (parliament, law courts)
Great Britain is not the rest of Europe (Look at the french, spanish or russian absolutists monarchy) and the enlightenment was developed after that ''divine right'' had already neutralized the destabilizing potential of religious minorities
When others religion where dangerous to the powerful they were killed, when they were no (centuries later) they were given rights. During the Enlightenment, would they have been given rights if thy were dangerous or would they be suppressed?

File: Quaterionenadler_David_de_Negker.jpg (3MB, 3586x2792px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3586x2792px

>>3330361
Elective monarchism is literally the best form of monarchism.
It only takes one Commodus to undermine the authority of the state/crown for several generations, an elective system makes such a situation much less likely.

Really the only problem is ensuring that the elective power is in the hands of the right people.

>>3330945
>Wow, I didnt expect a reactionary opinion from /his/
There are quite a number of posters that could be considered rather reactionary on /his/.
Whether it is a thread on the Roman Empire or Imperial Germany, you will almost always find people posting about how much they would like to see the restoration of such a system.

I think the (rightfully) hostile reaction against /pol/ shit tends to colour ones perceptions of the overall ideological position of this board far more to the left then it really is.

File: western roman empire.jpg (10KB, 216x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 216x250px

>>3330361
Could it really have been avoided?

Education was becoming more and more commonplace, and decisions of government were becoming easier and easier to hear about - wasn't it inevitable that the masses would eventually demand a part in the legislative and political processes?

(pessimism aside, answer to OP's question is 'yes')

>>3330361
I understand now it is fun to meme about muh monarchy and muh catholicism, but please understand, without enlightenment, European countries would be still like Saudi Arabia or North Korea today

>>3331131
How to spot a Protestant lmao

ITT Autists that stopped reading A Confederacy of Duces because it hit a little to close to home

>>3330361
>progression of humanity
>bad

>>3331157
Fuck off.

>>3332768
>implying that's a bad thing

>>3332816
Feel free to move to Saudia Arabia.
You can start a new life as a foreign worker and experience all the perks of pre-enlightenment era

>>3332768
Christian version of Saudi Arabia would be the closest thing to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Liberasts and enlightards should hang.

>>3332832
Wouldn't be authentic. Saudi Arabia has a different culture and religion.

>>3332836
>>3332838
ok, so you are just baiting

>>3332845
>everything I don't like is bait
The most brainlet tier argument on /his/.

>>3331160
>muh 5 million percent

Go away Hans

>>3332845
>he has a different opinion then I do so must be baiting

>>3332768
Make an argument for that with full citations.
Or is this just baseless speculation

>>3330945
What the fuck are you on about? Being a monarchist on /his/ is a staple.

>>3331177
>technology
>growth
>philosophy
>growth
Idiot

>>3331184
>checks and balances are good becuz somebody sed it
so this is the power of free thinking...

>>3333020
Checks and balances are good because they prevent unjust actions from being taken, if the king is divine, and he orders someone to be murdered (directly in opposition to the will of god) why should he have that power?

>>3330945
/his/ - monarchism
/pol/ - fascism
/k/ - libertarianism
/lit/ - communism

>>3333022
>unjust
According to?
Fucking liberals don't even know how to form a valid argument. They just hurr durr shit all over the keyboard and insert all sorts of forced memes into the mix and hope that they're speaking to another liberal tool.

>>3330371
Hobbes was Enlightenment mate, so was absolutism.

>>3331125
A mediteranean empire including north africa, anatolia and the levent

>>3333024
/lit/ - communism
Not really other than some reddit invaders. The board is mostly neoreactionary, pretty close to /his/

>>3333049
The board is mostly christian than anything else. It's where the whole christ spam began.

>>3333032
Not an argument.

>>3330945
>reactionary

Why be reactionary is a bad thing?

>>3330361
> without the Enlightenment you would be able to make such an assertion
Anon, you're question just proved by contradiction it was a great thing