Felsefeliyorum
@Felsefeliyorum
📚🔔 Tatil zili çaldı!
Bir yıl boyunca verilen emeklerin ardından şimdi dinlenme, keşfetme ve yeni maceralara atılma zamanı. 🌞
Bu yaz bol kahkahalı, bol anılı ve elbette bol kitaplı geçsin. Tüm öğrencilere keyifli tatiller diliyoruz! 💙📖
...yanılmayı kabul etmenin, hepten imkansız olmasa bile, psikolojik olarak çok güç olduğu paradigmatik vakalar vardır.
The emancipation of man via forms of government promoting the “general good” and life in a free society that accords protection to all on an equal basis, argued d’Holbach in 1770, is not an impossible dream: “if error and ignorance have forged the chains which bind peoples in oppression, if it is prejudice which perpetuates those chains, science, reason and truth will one day be able to break them”. A noble and beautiful thought, no doubt, but was he right? That perhaps, is the question of our time.
Even the two opposed enlightenments’ respective conceptions of “reason” were distinct and, before long, fiercely competing ideas. For the moderate mainstream, reason is immaterial and inherent in God, a divinely given gift to man, and one that raises him above the rest. In radical thought, by contrast, man is merely an animal among others with no specially privileged status in the universe while “la raison,” as one radical text expressed it in 1774, far from being something beyond and above matter, is nothing but “la nature modifie´e par l’expe ´rience.”
Many “atheists” and thoroughgoing skeptics—including Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Julien Offroy de La Mettrie (1709–1751), Hume, and the marquis de Sade (1740–1814)—were not at all “radical,” in the sense the term is employed here, since they did not base morality on reason alone, or on the principle of equality, or link their conception of progress to equity and democracy.