Is The Enlightenment At Fault For Our Lack Of Social Cohesion Today?

The enlightenment was a time when reason and rationality began to be used in all aspects of human lives. Science had progressed, observations and theories were used to explain nature and in a similar way such techniques were carried into human nature, to explain how we should behave amongst other things (hence we get the emergence of thinkers such as Kant and Hume).

Over the course of this module (It Shouldn’t Be Allowed) I have been swayed to believe that tradition i.e. rituals, inherited values etc is what binds individuals together, a common ground which helps to unite people. Often these traditions are to do with the supernatural though, the unexplainable (such as following and praising God in Christianity – there is no proof that God exists but the traditions, values and faith passed down through religion help unite individuals).

The enlightenment was the time for individuality; Kant in particular was a strong advocate for liberalist views. Also during this period supernatural theories were refuted, they were not rationally explainable so the theories and traditions linked with the supernatural were untrustworthy.

My argument is that consequently people turned away from the values they once held dear in search of rational explanations and laws. Of course though one cannot observe a single human being and generalise their values and characteristics to all others, we are all different. So we have lost the traditions that once united us and there are no grounds on which differing individuals can bond. By regarding ourselves as the highest beings possible (rejecting a supernatural leader) we create conflict between each other by each striving to be the supreme being with values over riding all others. Conflict becomes common and in a sense we are desensitised to conflict, it becomes acceptable and ordinary.

Would we relinquish our rationality, our ability to question everything though in order to blindly follow traditions linked to the supernatural to gain social cohesion? I think that the majority of us would not. Ironically the argument is similar to the predicament in the story of Adam and Eve. Would we choose a state of utter happy, blissful ignorance over our knowledge and ability to question all even with all the good and bad feelings this state entails? Perhaps the violence and hatred are by products of a gift (reason) we all have as human beings. Maybe conflict is something we are just going to have to deal with.