History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

romanticism is not enough we must understand dialectical modernity…//Enlightenment rationality is not enough: we need a new Romanticism | Aeon Ideas

April 18th, 2018 · No Comments

This would seem a splendid idea but it is important to consider whether the issue is not ‘enlightenment’ rationality but a pale imitation of that: we need to carefully define what rationality is, the history of the idea and its larger context, and in fact ‘enlightenment’ which most ironically collides with the english translation of indic terms for ‘enlightened consciousness’. In a broader context the same definitional demand for ‘romanticism’ could easily derail into misdefinition. More generally the study of the eonic effect suggests a still larger context, what we call the modern transition: this includes the dialectical balance of a holistic spectrum of modernity:religious reformation.scientific reason, voltairean reason, kantian reason, hegelian reason, democratic revolution (and socialist counterpoint), the enlightenment as such: french, german, english, scottish, dutch, the strains of romanticism, its dialectical riddle, sturm und drang, the artistic aspect of the early modern, the rise of modern clasical music, the romantic poets, etc… It clearly becomes obvious that to reseed romaticism won’t work because it is beyond our powers: we must operate on the scale of the eonic effect and answer the question, what generated modernity, the enlightenment, and the romantic movement? is it chance that mozart, beethoven, to say nothing of the obvious cases like keats, etc, appear dead center in the romantic era, and/or the late enlightenment/couterenlightenment? We are not preaching despair, study of the romantic movement has a dozen splendid if limited versions that can help. Pinker’s wrong definition and emphasis on reason and the enlightenment simply reproves a ‘romantic reaction’. Thus the dialectical ambiguity of such concepts reminds us that we can’t really as yet understand the past, the relatively recent modern transition, or define our realization of modernity,

secularism,etc…But we aren’t so far off either and can and must proceed with whatever attempts we can muster.
But we can further see crucially that unless we can generate aesthetic movements and reproduce the generation of, say, classical/romantic music, romantic poets and romantic genius, we will do the same to romnaticism that the pinkers do the ‘enlightenment reason’.
Again, a simple philosophic review of romanticism might be enough to start, and could well produce at least some of the balance behind the emergence of modernism. But we have already seen in the question of the ‘dialectic of the enlightenment’ by the marxist movement the way that critiquing the ‘enlightenment’ can backfire. The critique of instrumental reason was both cogent and too limited in its scope and muddled the whole question. By the time the fans of romanticism are done we may be even more confused.
The use of the term ‘enlightenment’ by new agers also compounds the whole question. Do you really want archaic indic gurus redefining ‘modernity’, reason, and crypto-romanticism with a new definition of enlightenment (the study of indic religion was however an aspect of the modern transition by such as schopenhauer, etc).

Source: Enlightenment rationality is not enough: we need a new Romanticism | Aeon Ideas

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment