Reddit reviews Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
We found 33 Reddit comments about Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I donno if this us the book but "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker goes into why things aren't as bad as they seem. In tons of ways its the best its ever been and that trend continues.
Read better books. Stop watching the local news and definitely don’t believe what Mormons say about “the world”.
Read this
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
Nobody is coming to save us. But what would they save us from? You see, on the whole, we’re doing a pretty good job of making our lives better. Objectively speaking. At the individual level a person feeling terrified when they actually live in a very safe environment and are extremely well protected ... well that to me sounds like something the individual needs to understand and deal with.
> We pretty much all feel like something's fucked, we just don't know how to fix it.
What boggles me about this feeling is that human beings have never had it so good. Evidence that "something's fucked" is shockingly thin, unless it's evidence that what's fucked is people's expectations, and the whatever-it-is-we're-doing to give them those expectations. There is definitely suffering out there, there are winners and losers, and it is difficult to hear that "the world is better than ever" when you're the one whose ship never seems to come in (so to speak). But ideologies built on the idea of impending apocalypse are at least as ancient as Christianity, and they historically appeal to society's worst-off for precisely this reason--this feeling that "something's fucked."
I call that feeling "the human condition." It's okay to want to make the world better. And we should definitely do that where we can. Following that feeling is how we built the amazing world we live in today.
The trick is to also be grateful for the amazing world we live in today, too. It's possible to do that and still want to make things better. It's that gratitude, I think, that staves off a tumble into nihilism--which I suspect is a much better name than "socialism" for what the teenagers calling themselves "socialists" today are feeling.
I listened to an audio book called Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. the author wrote the book for this very reason. its empirical evidence of how the world is getting better in several ways. I was feeling really pessimistic about the state of the world until this book gave me some perspective. Top 3 best books of my 2018.
​
https://www.amazon.ca/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
Would you rather have your landlord be able to send you off to die in war and be both judge and jury if you got accused of a crime, or do you like a volunteer military and having 12 peers be your jury? To anyone who legitimately thinks things are no better than during the middle ages, try reading Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress https://www.amazon.com/dp/0525427570/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_e-5WBbC8QTWX0
I guess the definition of centralization needs to be discussed as well. A lord would be your military leader, judge, legislature, essentially your whole government. Is that decentralized just because his geographic span of control is small?
A regular perusal of the news can falsely lead one to believe that the world is going to shit. In reality, it's getting better. Media outlets much prefer to report negative happenings and glance over most of the positives. The fact that the news is dominated by 'bad' stories should tell one that 'good' or 'neutral' events are the norm, and not the other way around.
​
On the Late Late Show last night there were three guests talking about the 'homelessness crisis' in the country. It was pretty much all negativity. While I'm not ignoring the fact that there are people struggling in this country in many ways, compare the situation now to 100 or fewer years ago. Read about the Tenements in Dublin before the 1960s, for example.
​
Quality of life is increasing pretty much all over the world. This is a good book for anybody interested in learning more about that fact. I'm not surprised by the sarcastic comments here: people really take for granted just how lucky they are to live in a Western European country in the 21st century, and Ireland is a great country to live in. If only we had time machines that could transport people back 200, 150 or 100 years ago so they could see how much life has improved and how lucky they are.
My best friend got me this book for my birthday because he said I'm too pessimistic. It's a really good read that reflects that letter.
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
Time enjoyed is time invested
Either you’re enjoying yourself or working on yourself. Now that you’ve noticed its your choice; go take a run, read a book (bill gates yesterday recommended Enlightenment now by Steven Pinker ), don’t regret the past, rather plan your future.
Good vibes
Totally. I am reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker which makes exactly this point.
Estou lendo o livro mencionado logo no início do artigo, do Steven Pinker, e não fiquei nem um pouco surpreso ao encontrá-lo nesse texto. Digo isso pois vejo um contraste muito grande entre o artigo e os textos do Pinker.
Não sei se é por conta da minha ignorância no assunto (extremamente provável), ou se está relacionado à forma como abordo discussões sobre a condição humana, mas tenho bastante dificuldade em levar a sério um texto desse tipo. As quatro qualidades do ego quieto e a tal da escala proposta são tão arbitrárias e subjetivas que, a meu ver, tiram toda a credibilidade de se tentar encaixar essa teoria como algo suficientemente distinto dos conceitos amplos relacionados à filosofia humanista.
Dito isso, acho que o problema está em mim mesmo. Se parasse para ler tudo que foi mencionado e apreciar o trabalho que deve ter sido empregado por trás do artigo, provavelmente teria uma opinião diferente. Vindo de um campo técnico, minha visão certamente está muito enviesada a favor de argumentos objetivos e pautados em dados, e, voltando ao início do comentário, é justamente isso que me atrai ao trabalho do Steven Pinker.
While it is no doubt true that people of means have more influence of the democratic system than regular joes, it seems to me borderline conspiratorial to say the laws are set by them and solely for their own benefits, considering the fact that if that to be the case, we would have a flat tax system, rather than the progressive tax system that is adopted throughout the western world , including the US, where The top 1 percent paid a greater share of tax than the bottom 90 percent combined. (I am sure the situation is even more extreme in France.) There are various reasons of income inequality, but the undeniable fact is the vast majority of people today have a better living standard than people even 30 years ago, ( souce: enlightenment now) thanks to the system of capitalism where people getting rewarded for satisfying the needs and wants of others, rather than a socialist system wheres some angry people on reddit( or god forbidden, politicians and bureaucrats) decide, arbitrarily whose labour is worth how much. Steve Jobs became a billionaire, not because he worked 1 million times harder than a struggling artist, but because it is 1 million times more "useful", reflected by the great willingness of consumers to buy his product. It is certainly not perfect, and there are various ways the market can be distorted, including the tragedy of commons etc. but I would rather making pragmatic adjustments to a system that has proved astonishingly efficient at satisfying want rather than a hypothetical ones which accords with your sweeping and moralistic declaration that the existence of billionaire is a policy failure, which presumably means, that one would rather live in a world where people continue dying of cancer rather than a world where some drug companies become filthy rich for providing drugs that successfully cure cancer, which they no doubt will have to invest heavily and take on considerable financial risk to develop?
​
I also don't agree with the implication that tax dodging( minimization) is a flaw of character. I usually judge people based on what I would have done in their shoes, and if I were a billionaire, I would no doubt also try to minimize my tax obligation as much as possible, as I believe most people would too, including I suspect, you. Isn't it rather strange to cast aspersion on someones' character for things that you are doing and would have done? It is up to the politicians to set up a system of taxation that they believe is fair and just and efficient, is it not? Besides, France is the most heavily taxed country on earth(10 percent more than Germany or Canada) , followed closely by Italy, and consider both countries are mired in high unemployment and economic stagnation, it seems to me empirically that a country that spends more energy and time trying to figure out ways to take money from someone and give it to someone else is not exactly an ideal place to live, even for ordinary people. ( I have a lot of french friends here in Montreal looking for jobs, thanks to the dismal job market in France) Canada is also a quite progressive country, but it seems to me that here people think tax as a way to pay for this or that programs that deems beneficial to the society as a whole, while in France, the mood seem to be tax as a way of punishment, to punish people who dare to be successful. I honestly don't begrudge smart and successful people for wanting to emigrate from France.
Also, a side note. I admit I don't know much about the situation in France, but at least in Canada, where I have an acquaintance who works as a firefighter, the fire fighters are extremely well compensated(especially comparing to their education background) and only works alternative days. I could be wrong of course, with regards to the situation of France, but since it is a country that is world famous for its public sector union, I doubt it would be much different. So I am not convinced any of the hypothetical 2.5 Billions. would somehow go to the firefighters, rather than another costly and inefficient government programs that serve more to win applauds for politicians and give cushy jobs to the politically connected than actually helping people in needs.
So you want /u/UtilitarianOutcomes to somehow summarise the hopes and dreams of the likely several billion people who could broadly be categorised as "optimists"?
Honestly what fucking answer do you expect?
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519168924&sr=8-1&keywords=steven+pinker
Another great optimistic outlook is Steven Pinker's new book, [Enlightenment Now](https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570)
> I would actually rather have more “nones” than “cultural” Christians. It does more harm than anything to have self-identified Christians who likely aren’t actually saved and are “Christians” either just because they’re parents were or because it’s “the American belief.”
Growing up, my parents always emphasized to me & my brothers the importance of having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” We stopped attending church when I was relatively young (church politics), but my parents retained a zeal for Christianity. They were PRO-Christian, ANTI-Christian culture.
I’ve watched my parents beliefs turn around, over the years. Today, they like being involved in Christian culture, (i.e. church) but they certainly aren’t the evangelical Christians they used to be. My Mom likes Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity and complains that she can no longer relate to her more “fundamentalist” Christian friends. My Dad told me that reading Steven Pinker convinced him that Christianity isn’t even a spectacular force for good in the world. His twin brother, who remains an evangelical Christian, now thinks that my Dad is going to Hell. My Dad now thinks it’s ludicrous; people claiming to know what (if anything) happens after we die.
A good friend of mine works for the Christian church, and he tells me that he struggles with the fact that he sees no good reason to believe in the existence of God.
Why is it so hard to accept that real Christians might change their mind about Christianity?
Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress
By Steven Pinker and recommended by Bill Gates.
(I'm mostly just suggesting books on my "to read" list at this point.)
I think that there is a lot of exploration going on of the ideas that the author, Harari, explores in this book. We are at a crossroads as a species I believe and we really do have some major issues to sort out such as overpopulation, income disparity between the haves and have nots, providing a greater standard of living for more of the world's population, and the ever-present climate change.
For my part, I do not think we are approaching the end of days, and in fact I believe that there are many good things about our lives today (for example, BABYMETAL). On the other hand, many perils surround us (for example, triple baconator hamburgers at Wendy's, a plot if ever there was one, put upon us by some unknown force of evil).
The author Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now offers a very upbeat outlook.
Thanks for the reference to the book. I now have two new books to read.
The author released a book just this year called Enlightenment Now if you want an updated take.
>Also, it bugs me when people point out stuff like a global decline in violence without acknowledging that the global trend can be good while the American trend is bad.
Violence in America has decreased too.
Also I don't think that waning power in thr US will necessarily lead to more global violence, because the factors that maintain broad peace (interconnected economies, nuclear weapons, etc) still remain.
The book in question appears to be Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
Yeah i wasn't being snarky. just dorkily name-dropping. (cause im uncool like dat)
In fact, as somebody who almost seriously went to graduate school for linguistics and/or cognitive science, I can attest that though Pinker is an old hero of mine, when he started getting all positive about the world i wasn't all in at first..
But he is persuasive.
.
For those playing "life sucks but i want to believe it is getting better" along at home here's a start:
​
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1539983039&sr=8-2&keywords=books+by+steven+pinker
​
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539983039&sr=8-1&keywords=books+by+steven+pinker
​
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1487001681/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i11
​
​
Try to keep in mind that popular media rarely presents a proportionately balanced view of the world. Due to fundamental incentives, media tends to be biased toward particular kinds of attention-grabbing sensationalism and pessimism.
Wanting to accurately perceive the state of the overall world beyond our personal experiences is admirable, so good for you. Investing the time to increase understanding helps us react rationally and responsibly.
A useful starting place is this brief TED talk by the amazing statistician Hans Rosling. Good books include Pinker's "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" and Ridley's "The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves".
If you held a press conference and rolled-out a functioning teleporter - people would complain about the loss of community in airports, and the missing "me-time" found on the fucking bus.
Not to mention that the ability to travel anywhere, do anything, or become virtually anyone - makes them, you know, depressed.
People, you are running out of excuses for being a loser.
I was born in the late-60's and saw Star Wars in a theater, watched Jaws uncut on HBO when my parents were sleeping and was amazed the first time I saw images from the World Wide Web as a twentysomething on my 9600 baud modem.
Not to mention the proliferation of smart phones - which is literally Star Trek technology come to life. Instantaneous global communication at a throw-away cost - absolutely astonishing. Oh yeah, and global, free, video communication to a billion people from your living room. CHECK.
We live in an incredible time, in fact, we're experiencing a new Golden Age (as Scott Adams would say). The entire world has never been healthier, safer or more productive - not to mention we are closer to actual WORLD PEACE than we ever have been as a civilization. (OMG - A BOOK!)
Remember this the next time there's a power failure - that's how your Great-Great-Grandparents, and thousands of generations before them lived. In fucking darkness. Often dying - of diarrhea.
If you can't get your shit together now, the problem isn't The World - it's YOU.
\> But the data take a clear side in that debate. In his controversial bestseller Enlightenment Now, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker notes a steep decline in racism.
Pinker also noted a steep decline in murder. That doesn't mean we don't push for even fewer murders.
I think you've got more than enough good responses I just want to STRONGLY recommend that you read "Enlightenment Now" by Steven Pinker. It just came out last month. I love it. The entire book is a very well reasoned and well researched and quantitatively substantiated argument for why our civilization has made things better and not worse and why we should continue down the road we're headed (with some minor improvements) rather than blowing it up and calling it a failed experiment. Part of his argument does touch on animal welfare. I'm convinced, given what you wrote in the OP that it could be a life changing read for you.
William Barr would benefit from checking out Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek’s recent work. They're real utilitarians, not pretend ones. That might also help him better understand that leading secular moralists are not relativists or subjectivists and that their morality is about making the world a better place. Barr would also benefit from reading about the moral progress we Homo sapiens have made by reading Steven Pinker’s two recent works: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/utilitarianism-a-very-short-introduction-9780198728795?cc=au&lang=en& https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
I don't know. I think certain parts of a society need to be pulled into modern ethical norms.
I know this is anti-libertarian but I think the state needs to implement certain laws to help society behave more ethically.
I say this based on the data found in Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now. I highly recommend it and he does a far superior job articulating the importance of the state.
I don't want this to expand into a slippery slope argument. I think there need to be strong limits on government power.
Edit: Added Link
I'd suggest you to read the book
Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective by T. E. Huff, on which he demonstrates that during the Renaissance of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the extraordinary fusion of Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian theology gave Europe a new and powerful civilizational coherence. This was the basis of the modern science: a combination of both greco-roman and judeo-christian principles, not only the later.
Also, you can read Enlightenment Now, for a more statistical-based notion of this topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
Steven Pinker shares this article that challenges some of Peterson's assumptions.
An excerpt:
​
>
>
>Dostoevsky Distraction — Abandon Judeo-Christianity at your peril:
>
>“Crime and Punishment is the best investigation, I know, of what happens if you take the notion that there’s nothing divine about the individual seriously.”
>
>Deconstruction #1 — Jordan repeatedly cites the character Raskolnikov as being the poster child for what happens when a person gives up a belief in the divinity of other humans; or, as he and Dostoevsky define it, an atheist. Except, and as a psychologist, he knows that someone who determines other people have no intrinsic value “is the psychopath’s viewpoint.” That he conflates atheism with psychopathy is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and professionally irresponsible.
>
>Deconstruction #2 — Like Jordan, Dostoevsky was a committed Christian who viewed the abandonment of Judeo-Christian values as an ill omen, and sounded the warning. However, Jordan omitted the inconvenient truth that his literary hero was an avowed Christian socialist who proclaimed: “If everyone were actively Christian, not a single social question would come up.”
Moral Atheist Mystification — If you act in a moral way, you’re acting out religious values:
>“As I said at the beginning, the atheist types act out a religious structure.”
Deconstruction #1 — As pointed out in the Deuteronomistic Paradigm, moral values preceded their codification in religious texts, and in the Dostoevsky Distraction, that Jordan has his own, unique, definition of what atheist means, it is irresponsible for Jordan to fuel the flawed perception that atheists are immoral.
Deconstruction #2 — Despite Jordan’s ominous warnings that leaving religion behind is bad for society, there is a clear correlation between countries with increasingly secular tendencies and the happiness of its citizens.
Deconstruction #3 — Again, also despite Jordan’s warning of putting the Judeo-Christian traditions out to pasture, is the idea that atheists are calling for anarchy and immoral behaviour. In conjunction with this perspective, is Jordan’s wholesale ignoring of the immoral acts listed in the Bible (drowning the planet, Abraham’s willingness to murder his child, the Passover slaughter of innocent Egyptians to make a point, Job, etc.); and the fact that most parishioners do not read these stories metaphorically, as Jordan claims religious passages should be understood — not literally, but figuratively — for the morals of the story.
Deconstruction #4 — Jordan’s obsession with the nihilism of Nietzsche is unwarranted, and, indeed, bordering on Chicken Little; especially in light of the facts of deconstruction #2.
It appears contradictory, to me anyway, that if the values contained within the Judeo-Christian tradition preceded the tradition (part 4), then why should Jordan be worried if people are simply abandoning the vehicle which, successfully, conveyed the values? The values are the important factor, the ones that emerged from the unconscious, not the transmission mechanism. “Adamant anti-religious thinkers” are not advocating that we abandon morality, or “our immersement in the underlying dream,” so the values themselves will remain intact. Another Canadian psychologist, Steven Pinker, makes this point in Enlightenment Now:
>“If the positive contributions of religious institutions come from their role as humanistic associations in civil society, then we would expect those benefits not to be tied to theistic belief, and that is indeed the case.”
Steven, as the subtitle of the book alludes, made “The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” that society is not in any danger — contrary to Jordan’s dire warnings — from increasing secularization:
>“Evolution helps explain another foundation of secular morality: our capacity for sympathy (or, as the Enlightenment writers variously referred to it, benevolence, pity, imagination, or commiseration). Even if a rational agent deduces that it’s in everyone’s long-term interests to be moral, it’s hard to imagine him sticking his neck out to make a sacrifice for another’s benefit unless something gives him a nudge. The nudge needn’t come from an angel on one shoulder; evolutionary psychology explains how it comes from the emotions that make us social animals…Evolution thus selects for the moral sentiments: sympathy, trust, gratitude, guilt, shame, forgiveness, and righteous anger. With sympathy installed in our psychological makeup, it can be expanded by reason and experience to encompass all sentient beings…
>
>A viable moral philosophy for a cosmopolitan world cannot be constructed from layers of intricate argumentation or rest on deep metaphysical or religious convictions. It must draw on simple, transparent principles that everyone can understand and agree upon. The ideal of human flourishing — that it’s good for people to lead long, healthy, happy, rich, and stimulating lives — is just such a principle, since it’s based on nothing more (and nothing less) than our common humanity.
>
>History confirms that when diverse cultures have to find common ground, they converge toward humanism.”
> My friend from Hunnan province told me that he would never support China being a democracy since then 80% of the country would vote for an extremist hawk-party that would send nukes on America first chance they got.
This is exactly why I can understand some of the party's tight control on media.
Anyway,
Been reading this optimistic book:
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
thought i'd share to a self proclaimed pessimist :D
Also recently read more deeply into China's more recent leaders like jian zemin (disgusting, corrupt as fuck) and hu jintao (pretty amazing). I was very surprised at Hu's contributions, people dont' really seem to talk about him.
In Hu’s words, "A Harmonious Socialist Society should feature democracy." Such a society, he says, will give full scope to people's talent and creativity, enable all the people to share the social wealth brought by reform and development, and forge an ever-closer relationship between the people and government.
Seems he also greatly increased transparency between the party and the public.
Who knows what xi and the future brings. Xi's father has an interesting background, Dali Lama met him and fondly recalled him as "very friendly, comparatively open-minded, very nice.". He was also responsible for the economic liberalisation in Guangdong, so I'm somewhat hopeful that his son, is comparatively (putin/erdogan) more considerate about his own people than profiting from exploitation.
> Well how would you scientifically evaluate the statement that “murder is wrong”? One might say “ok, it reduces overall happiness in the world, which maybe we can measure.”
If you're interested in stuff like this but bored with the same old arguments from pragmatist ethics, I'd strongly recommend checking out Pinker's Enlightenment Now. Quantitative reasoning is not the only thing, but it's pretty much always a good thing
I would highly recommend you read or listen to Stephen Pinker's new book on this subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
We tend to focus on the problems because large parts of American sociology is currently focused on changing the world. I highly recommend reading/listening to this book to temper some of the doom and gloom - https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-s/dp/0061452068
It's not perfect, but it focuses on the positive aspects of how society has evolved over time.
I've also heard good things about Enlightment Now - but I haven't had the time to read it yet https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570