[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I don't want to dismiss your other points by only addressing this one, but this is the crux of it. Everything I've said so far stems from me wanting universal admission too. The Enlightenment subject probably was originally conceived as a white European male, but I see nothing in actual Enlightenment theories of the subject to think he has to remain so. The core values aren't perfect by any means but I've still yet to find an alternative to them that I think will bring us closer to the kind of real universal admission I think we both want.

no, it’s okay, you got the point i was trying to make. and yes. we see eye to eye there. i think we’re good so far.

the thing though is that the original concept is not just an abstraction— it’s a historical praxis. you don’t change it just by declaring the concept changed. it’s embedded in traditions, in the logic of institutions, in all sorts of social constructions.

so in our current situation i see 2 possible kinds of admission, and they are in conflict

#1 says “everyone become a white european male!” aka “kill the indian, save the man” as it was practiced in the indian boarding schools of america. (needless to say, it was a hugely traumatizing experience for its victims.)

#2, would be to expand the concept of the enlightenment subject to incorporate multiple histories, ethnicities, genders, religions, etc. etc.

#1 is what “conservatives” demand. it is the ultimate colonization and it is highly repugnant to me. a kind of... maoism of the right. when everyone is the same everyone will have equal rights. no no no no thanks.

#2 is FUCKING DIFFICULT! it’s never been done! we don’t have a model to imitate. greek democracy was limited, they had slaves. the romans extended citizenship to the conquered, but it took conquest. america goes through cyclical spams in its assimilation and rejection of immigrants and subjugated peoples, and the expansion of civil rights is being resisted at every fucking step by those who want to hoard power.

so, to achieve this sort of liberal utopia (a bit of a contradiction, that) a lot is going to have to be fought for, and negotiated, and yes, the enterprise is a perilous one. but it’s the only enlightenment worth having! we cannot go back to the old one. the cat is out of the bag. mcluhan predicted a return to tribalism and the global village and he was right. now we’re gonna have to negotiate, negotiate, and negotiate. the only way forward.

i understand and to a minor extent embody the grievances of those left out (not really, not that much, i am after all male, well educated, etc,), so i am willing to tolerate the chaos of the current debate for the sake of progress.

i think reason will survive. if it doesn’t, then it wasn’t going to survive in the first place, just like ancient athens went to shit and rome collapsed.

i mean. help me out here. i’m trying to figure a way forward, not a way back. i don’t see identity politics necessarily as an abandonment of rational ideas. i see it as a demand for redress of longstanding historical injustices. i think that once the dialectic is worked out and we define a new enlightenment subject *in practical, actual, cultural terms*, we will all be better for it.

then again maybe all devolves into a fucked up racial or religious war. in that case i’ll fight for the future alliance of federated agnostic mongrels in which everyone is cousins and don’t importune each other with religious proselytizing.