Talk:Counter-Enlightenment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mchen2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This article can be improved. Please prep however with Dictionary of the History of Ideas: "The Counter-Enlightenment" before adding to this report of a movement in the history of ideas and keep to the subject. This is not an occasion for essay paragraphs justifying a Christian approach to rationalism. --Wetman 06:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This link is currently invalid --Mchen2019 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Wayback' archive of the link in question is available: Dictionary of the History of Ideas: "The Counter-Enlightenment" —Blanchette (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rousseau as the source of Counter-Enlightenment
The notion of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the origin of the counter-enlightenment was suggested earlier than in 2003 with Garrard, viz. in The American Political Science Review, Vol 90, No. 2 (June 1996) by Arthur M. Melzer. The article is called 'The Origin of the Counter-Enlightenment: Rousseau and the New Religion of Sincerity'. Because of the earlier date I have given Melzer prominence over Garrard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.192.177 (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Graeme Garrard suggests in his book, Rousseau's Counter-Enlightemnet, that William R. Everdell was the first to place Rousseau as origin of the Counter-Enlightenment in his book Christian Apologetics in France, 1730-1790: The Roots of Romantic Religion (1987). Added this info about Oversell's contributions.Tmnh07 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Tmnh07

Franco Lopez?
There is a situation at Franco Lopez (recently created by an anon, no sources cited) where someone claimed the article is a fake (indeed, it was deleted). I restored it, since the name existed as a red link in this article since its creation, adding the &#123;&#123;unsourced&#125;&#125; tag and a note about the situation on Talk:Franco Lopez. I did not find a reference to Lopez in the online sources for this article. Can someone take an interest in the situation? We did have a user recently who created some hoax articles, not all of which have been found yet. Demi T/C 23:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a hoax, I've deleted it. DS 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if it is a hoax. Although the deleted "Franco Lopez" article was a hoax, this name had been up for over 21 months (since the creation of the article). Perhaps Lopez is referenced in Berlin's book? --67.175.171.92, 21:26 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Horkheimer/Adorno
"The locus classicus of this view is Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1947), which traces the degeneration of enlightenment from ancient Greece (epitomised by the cunning 'bourgeois' hero Odysseus) to twentieth century fascism. (Tellingly, they say nothing about communism, which is, for many liberal critics of the Enlightenment like Berlin and Jacob Talmon, directly descended from the rationalism of the philosophes)."

This is not entirely correct - at least Adorno included communist totalitarism into his critique of enlightenment in his later texts. I am not sure about the Dialectic of Enlightenment, but as far as I remember the Soviet Union was referenced in it too. I am sorry, I don't have my (german) copy of the book with me - could someone check this? I didn't want to change it since I don't have access to my library currently, so I can't source. Sorry if I made a mistake in formating, I am not used to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.16.100 (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that didn't sound right to me, but I don't have a copy either to check. 81.106.196.126 00:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters"
Why is this here?70.20.106.127 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, it's mentioned far down in the article, my bad.70.20.106.127 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Enlightenment
I doubt that there are any academic merits in the polemical phrase "counter-enlightenment" which implies an opposition to enlightenment. --Arebenti (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? The bibliography in this article documenting the existence in the academic world of this concept is pretty extensive, and several important works could be added. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take up this lack-of-academic-merit flag by pinpointing that there's no definition (as far as I can see) in the article. Surely, if one political philosopher coined the term, then it has a coherent definition somewhere? What is the theorized Counter-Enlightenment reaction reacting against? Using the intellect? Or against perceived flaws in the Enlightenment such as a perceived atheism? (The list "relativist, anti-rationalist, vitalist and organic" might serve as a starting ground of a definition, maybe, but it doesn't correlate to the Enlightenment itself.) Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Enemy of the Enlightenment
The phrase "enemy of the Enlightenment" is so loaded and negative. I don't believe in Enlightenment valuse but I'm not "enemy" of Enlightenment. Enlightenment is something that some people believe in. And I have different beliefs.

I think this article is being written by Enlightenment fanboys. So "the others" are "enemies." Such a shame...--95.10.95.52 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Silly
These thinkers are being presented prejudicially as monsters of unholy criminality and nastiness instead of the highly cultured, highly educated and often acutely reasonable people they were -

De Bonald, de Maistre and many of the individuals presented even used Enlightenment logic to very incisively contend the Enlightenment ideology itself, such was their rationality, even Baudelaire said de Maistre was a master of rationalistic argumentation...

Any objective historians around these parts...? Or just interested parties of Marxian bent intent on labeling all who do not fit into their theories as "unprogressive fascistic" etc. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that in the article. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory Claims
"The first known use of the term in English was in 1908" "Although the term 'the Counter-Enlightenment' was first used in English (in passing) by William Barrett in a 1949 article" Lewis Goudy (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Maladroit
The presentation is muddled in terms of whether it is an article about the thinkers of the counter-Enlightment proper or the 20th century exegeses of the former. Naturally it should cover both, but with more forethought in the arrangement of claims. Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)