The Enlightenment led to good foundational ideas of EA, but it was also full of philosophers who conceptualized humans as individualistic rational actors, excluded pretty much everybody except for white men from the moral circle, and advocated for constant growth with no regard for sustainability (e.g. Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Adam Smith).
I do think historical aesthetics are great (see my other comment on this post), but I think we should stick to historical art that isn’t so closely tied to questionable philosophy.
EDIT: I see how this came across differently than I intended! I do not mean that we should cancel the Enlightenment. Please see child comments for explanation.
The Enlightenment led to good foundational ideas of EA, but it was also full of philosophers who … excluded pretty much everybody except for white men from the moral circle, and advocated for constant growth with no regard for sustainability (e.g. Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Adam Smith).
I think this is pretty unfair. In general I think we should judge historical figures by the ways they were unusual for their period, not the ways they were typical, but in this case we don’t even need to make this distinction. Here is Adam Smith on slavery for example:
By this we may see what a miserable life the slaves must have led; their life and their property intirely at the mercy of another, and their liberty, if they could be said to have any, at his disposall also. (link)
Smith was clearly not a big fan of slavery, and did not exclude african chattel slaves from the moral circle, though he was pessimistic about the prospects for abolition. He and other enlightenment-inspired economists were trenchant critics of the peculiar institution. Indeed their belief in fundamental human equality was what lead their pro-slavery critics to dub it the dismal science.
And since the global economy has grown by over 10,000% since he published The Wealth Of Nations I think it is hard to criticise him for being insufficiently Malthusian. Typically people who claim that we cannot safely grow the economy are not envisaging an upper limit 250 years in the future and thousands of percent higher.
Yes, these are great reasons to take inspiration from the Enlightenment!
The point I most want to get across is that, by using Enlightenment aesthetics, EAs could needlessly open themselves up to negative perception.
If EAs use Enlightenment aesthetics more, then EA will be associated with the Enlightenment more.
Regardless of their positive qualities, Enlightenment philosophers racked up plenty of negative qualities among them. Maybe there were 10x as many purely virtuous ones as problematic ones; maybe every problematic one made contributions that vastly outweighed their issues; nonetheless, there are some problems.
People who would otherwise engage with EA might have heard of enough problems that they’d be put off by Enlightenment associations entirely. (I suspect many of my social-justice-y friends would have this reaction.)
Here’s the more nebulous point. I hinted in my original comment that I take issue with the “rational individualistic actor” view. This alone puts me off Enlightenment aesthetics, because I think that particular view is especially dangerous considering how innocent it looks. But that’s a whole big discussion, and I respect the other side! The relevant part here is just that, anecdotally, at least one EA isn’t a huge Enlightenment fan.
I personally agree with you and am skeptical of the value of “classical” aesthetics, but maybe not for the same reasons.
I guess it was downvoted because “enlightenment” is what people wanted.
I didn’t downvote or upvote the post because it is not clear to me what you are saying, what are enlightenment issues? You could give concrete examples to help.
EDIT: Oh, I read the parent comment, it was downvoted because you brought in race and stuff unnecessarily. I think this is bad and suggests an underlying ideology that I personally don’t like because I think it produces misguided perspectives, and discussing this is unpromising.
I have a mental write up about this with a vision that makes the points:
Classical/neoclassical has been done forever, has been associated with authoritarianism.
Romanticism and other modern aesthetics have value.
The best scenario is for EA to build its own aesthetic entirely, literally, driving a new age of thought, energy and initiative
Aesthetics has instrumental value as a device to approach key populations EA has to look into the future for—in contrast, appealing to philosophers and it’s existing group is sort of exactly the opposite, unnecessary and leaves most value on the table.
Aesthetics gives an immense vehicle for change and correction, even more powerful/deeper than the post suggests.
It’s not at all like a “theme” for the forum or web pages or just a style of writing.
All aesthetics have to be remixing to some degree IMO, there’s no such thing as a fully new aesthetic that isn’t classical/retro/etc. in some sense. But otherwise yeah I agree with most of your points (except that classical really isn’t inherently tied to authoritarianism; it’s at least as much linked to liberalism and democracy!)
except that classical really isn’t inherently tied to authoritarianism; it’s at least as much linked to liberalism and democracy
Yes, classical is not inherently authoritarian, it’s more like people (read: hacks) used a lot of columns and other aesthetics from this, because they basically lack creativity.
This historical pattern makes this aesthetic less desirable and stale, in an abundant environment of talent and creativity when EA could do anything, so the bar is high.
Fascist styles often resemble that of ancient Rome, but can extend to modern aesthetics as well. Fascist-era buildings are frequently constructed with particular concern given to symmetry and simplicity.
Both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler utilised new styles of architecture (variations of Rationalism, and Stripped Classicism respectively) as one of many attempts to unify the citizens of their states, mark a new era of nationalist culture, and exhibit the absolute rule of the state.
Socialist realism is a style of idealized realistic art that was developed in the Soviet Union and was the official style in that country between 1932 and 1988, as well as in other socialist countries after World War II...
Despite its name, the figures in the style are very often highly idealized, especially in sculpture, where it often leans heavily on the conventions of classical sculpture.
Adding more not to defend myself, but to keep the conversation going:
I think that many Enlightenment ideas are great and valid regardless of their creators’ typical-for-their-time ideas.
Education increasingly includes rather radical components of critical race theory. Students are taught that if someone is racist, then all of their political and philosophical views are tainted. By extension, many people learn that the Enlightenment itself is tainted. Like Charles, I think that this “produces misguided perspectives”.
I’m—apparently badly—trying to communicate the following. These students, who have been taught that the Enlightenment is tainted by association with racism, who (reasonably!) haven’t bothered to thoroughly research this particular historical movement to come to their own conclusions, who may totally make great EAs, would initially be turned off.
It’s quite plausible that it shouldn’t be the case that Enlightenment aesthetics might turn people off. But I think this is the case, and I argue that it’s likely more important to make a good first impression than to take a stand in favor of a particular historical movement.
Short version: if we can avoid it, let’s not filter potential EAs by the warmth of their feelings toward a specific group of historical figures (especially because history education is inevitably biased)
I’m curious what example you’re thinking of in Descartes’s writings related to your listed complaints. I guess Kant and Smith made racist remarks but not in any characteristically “Enlightenment” way.
Yeah, the magnitude of the problem depends on the empirical question of how many people associate the Enlightenment with racism and such.
Descartes’ moral circle issue is that he believed animals have no moral standing whatsoever, so he enthusiastically practiced vivisection (dissecting animals while they were still alive).
Yes, and how many people we project will have this association in the future. I think it’s reasonably likely that this view will pick up steam among vaguely activisty people on college campuses in the next five years. That’s an important demographic for growing EA.
We’d need to be really careful.
The Enlightenment led to good foundational ideas of EA, but it was also full of philosophers who conceptualized humans as individualistic rational actors, excluded pretty much everybody except for white men from the moral circle, and advocated for constant growth with no regard for sustainability (e.g. Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Adam Smith).
I do think historical aesthetics are great (see my other comment on this post), but I think we should stick to historical art that isn’t so closely tied to questionable philosophy.
EDIT: I see how this came across differently than I intended! I do not mean that we should cancel the Enlightenment. Please see child comments for explanation.
I think this is pretty unfair. In general I think we should judge historical figures by the ways they were unusual for their period, not the ways they were typical, but in this case we don’t even need to make this distinction. Here is Adam Smith on slavery for example:
Smith was clearly not a big fan of slavery, and did not exclude african chattel slaves from the moral circle, though he was pessimistic about the prospects for abolition. He and other enlightenment-inspired economists were trenchant critics of the peculiar institution. Indeed their belief in fundamental human equality was what lead their pro-slavery critics to dub it the dismal science.
And since the global economy has grown by over 10,000% since he published The Wealth Of Nations I think it is hard to criticise him for being insufficiently Malthusian. Typically people who claim that we cannot safely grow the economy are not envisaging an upper limit 250 years in the future and thousands of percent higher.
Yes, these are great reasons to take inspiration from the Enlightenment!
The point I most want to get across is that, by using Enlightenment aesthetics, EAs could needlessly open themselves up to negative perception.
If EAs use Enlightenment aesthetics more, then EA will be associated with the Enlightenment more.
Regardless of their positive qualities, Enlightenment philosophers racked up plenty of negative qualities among them. Maybe there were 10x as many purely virtuous ones as problematic ones; maybe every problematic one made contributions that vastly outweighed their issues; nonetheless, there are some problems.
People who would otherwise engage with EA might have heard of enough problems that they’d be put off by Enlightenment associations entirely. (I suspect many of my social-justice-y friends would have this reaction.)
Here’s the more nebulous point. I hinted in my original comment that I take issue with the “rational individualistic actor” view. This alone puts me off Enlightenment aesthetics, because I think that particular view is especially dangerous considering how innocent it looks. But that’s a whole big discussion, and I respect the other side! The relevant part here is just that, anecdotally, at least one EA isn’t a huge Enlightenment fan.
Could someone who downvoted please explain which of these premises you disagree with?
I personally agree with you and am skeptical of the value of “classical” aesthetics, but maybe not for the same reasons.
I guess it was downvoted because “enlightenment” is what people wanted.
I didn’t downvote or upvote the post because it is not clear to me what you are saying, what are enlightenment issues? You could give concrete examples to help.
EDIT: Oh, I read the parent comment, it was downvoted because you brought in race and stuff unnecessarily. I think this is bad and suggests an underlying ideology that I personally don’t like because I think it produces misguided perspectives, and discussing this is unpromising.
I have a mental write up about this with a vision that makes the points:
Classical/neoclassical has been done forever, has been associated with authoritarianism.
Romanticism and other modern aesthetics have value.
The best scenario is for EA to build its own aesthetic entirely, literally, driving a new age of thought, energy and initiative
Aesthetics has instrumental value as a device to approach key populations EA has to look into the future for—in contrast, appealing to philosophers and it’s existing group is sort of exactly the opposite, unnecessary and leaves most value on the table.
Aesthetics gives an immense vehicle for change and correction, even more powerful/deeper than the post suggests.
It’s not at all like a “theme” for the forum or web pages or just a style of writing.
All aesthetics have to be remixing to some degree IMO, there’s no such thing as a fully new aesthetic that isn’t classical/retro/etc. in some sense. But otherwise yeah I agree with most of your points (except that classical really isn’t inherently tied to authoritarianism; it’s at least as much linked to liberalism and democracy!)
Yes, classical is not inherently authoritarian, it’s more like people (read: hacks) used a lot of columns and other aesthetics from this, because they basically lack creativity.
This historical pattern makes this aesthetic less desirable and stale, in an abundant environment of talent and creativity when EA could do anything, so the bar is high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism
Thanks very much, that helps!
Adding more not to defend myself, but to keep the conversation going:
I think that many Enlightenment ideas are great and valid regardless of their creators’ typical-for-their-time ideas.
Education increasingly includes rather radical components of critical race theory. Students are taught that if someone is racist, then all of their political and philosophical views are tainted. By extension, many people learn that the Enlightenment itself is tainted. Like Charles, I think that this “produces misguided perspectives”.
I’m—apparently badly—trying to communicate the following. These students, who have been taught that the Enlightenment is tainted by association with racism, who (reasonably!) haven’t bothered to thoroughly research this particular historical movement to come to their own conclusions, who may totally make great EAs, would initially be turned off.
It’s quite plausible that it shouldn’t be the case that Enlightenment aesthetics might turn people off. But I think this is the case, and I argue that it’s likely more important to make a good first impression than to take a stand in favor of a particular historical movement.
Hope that makes sense!
Short version: if we can avoid it, let’s not filter potential EAs by the warmth of their feelings toward a specific group of historical figures (especially because history education is inevitably biased)
I don’t associate the Enlightenment with racism.
I’m curious what example you’re thinking of in Descartes’s writings related to your listed complaints. I guess Kant and Smith made racist remarks but not in any characteristically “Enlightenment” way.
Yeah, the magnitude of the problem depends on the empirical question of how many people associate the Enlightenment with racism and such.
Descartes’ moral circle issue is that he believed animals have no moral standing whatsoever, so he enthusiastically practiced vivisection (dissecting animals while they were still alive).
Yes, and how many people we project will have this association in the future. I think it’s reasonably likely that this view will pick up steam among vaguely activisty people on college campuses in the next five years. That’s an important demographic for growing EA.