Prince Charles vs. Enlightenment

The thing about this article that disturbs me most is that he's out in the open about it. And how many of the commenters there agree with him.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7013764.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=1515793

The Prince of Wales has never been a man to suffer from a lack of enemies, from modern architecture to intensive farming. Yesterday, however, he declared war on a new — but also ancient — adversary: the Enlightenment.

Even by the Prince’s standards, his opposition to the system of beliefs that came to dominate thinking in the 18th century and has held sway ever since is an ambitious one, if a little tardy.

Long regarded as the foundation of contemporary political and intellectual culture, by way of influences ranging from the American Declaration of Independence to the scientific method as embraced from Isaac Newton on, the Enlightenment was based on the belief that all society’s ills could be vanquished by the application of reason.

Its seminal figures included the likes of Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Voltaire and Rousseau. To Prince Charles, however, it is old hat. “I was accused once of being the enemy of the Enlightenment,” he told a conference at St James’s Palace. “I felt proud of that.”
...
“We cannot go on like this, just imagining that the principles of the Enlightenment still apply now. I don’t believe they do. But if you challenge people who hold the Enlightenment as the ultimate answer to everything, you do really upset them.”

rea⋅son
  /ˈrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ree-zuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy.
a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.

–verb (used with object)
11. to think through logically, as a problem (often fol. by out).
12. to conclude or infer.
13. to convince, persuade, etc., by reasoning.
14. to support with reasons.



You know what happens when you stop using reason? You behave irrationally, insanely, without good sense. You become illogical, unable to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

You can no longer support your beliefs or actions with facts, so you are left with emotion and blind faith.

And when you can't convince or persuade people by reason, you resort to manipulation---through guilt, shame, or intimidation. And when you can't push someone's buttons, you resort to use of force.

Dictators love this.

The opposite of enlightenment is bewilderment, confusion, ignorance.

The Enlightenment was about building, edifying, establishing order. Declaring war on it will bring destruction and chaos.

Wacky fun!