In his book enlightenment now, does Steven Pinker have a rigorous conception of enlightenment philosophy, or does he use the term ‘enlightenment’ primarily in its looser, more general context?

Tagged:

There are two definitions of ‘enlightenment’. There’s the spiritual variety and the historical one.

The spiritual concept was invented by the Buddhists and has filtered out across the alternative spirituality landscape to influence just about everyone in that space.

The historical concept peaked in the 18th century and was marked by a distancing of public discourse away from religiously dominated themes.

Pinker concerns himself with the latter. I will refrain from further analysis because I haven’t actually read the book and probably don’t plan to.

I don’t need convincing in order to believe his opening statement, that the world has only gotten better over time, and I’m uninterested in his rationale as to why. It kinda reminds me of the early 2000s, where everyone was tripping over themselves to explain the crime dip of the mid nineties with something that suited their political beliefs.

Yes, everything is better, no, I’m unconvinced that “Enlightenment ideals” are the reason why.