Talk:Counter-Enlightenment

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political / Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Philosophy of religion History C‑class Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mchen2019.

Above undated message substituted from

This article can be improved. Please prep however with Dictionary of the History of Ideas: "The Counter-Enlightenment" before adding to this report of a movement in the

This link is currently invalid --Mchen2019 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Wayback' archive of the link in question is available: Dictionary of the History of Ideas: "The Counter-Enlightenment" —Blanchette (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the origin of the counter-enlightenment was suggested earlier than in 2003 with Garrard, viz. in The American Political Science Review, Vol 90, No. 2 (June 1996) by Arthur M. Melzer. The article is called 'The Origin of the Counter-Enlightenment: Rousseau and the New Religion of Sincerity'. Because of the earlier date I have given Melzer prominence over Garrard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.192.177 (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Garrard suggests in his book, Rousseau's Counter-Enlightemnet, that William R. Everdell was the first to place Rousseau as origin of the Counter-Enlightenment in his book Christian Apologetics in France, 1730-1790: The Roots of Romantic Religion (1987). Added this info about Oversell's contributions.Tmnh07 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Tmnh07[reply]

There is a situation at [[Franco Lopez]] (recently created by an anon, no sources cited) where someone claimed the article is a fake (indeed, it was deleted). I restored it, since the name existed as a red link in this article since its creation, adding the {{

• It's a hoax, I've deleted it. DS 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if it is a hoax. Although the deleted "Franco Lopez" article was a hoax, this name had been up for over 21 months (since the creation of the article). Perhaps Lopez is referenced in Berlin's book? --67.175.171.92, 21:26 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"The locus classicus of this view is Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1947), which traces the degeneration of enlightenment from ancient Greece (epitomised by the cunning 'bourgeois' hero Odysseus) to twentieth century fascism. (Tellingly, they say nothing about communism, which is, for many liberal critics of the Enlightenment like Berlin and Jacob Talmon, directly descended from the rationalism of the philosophes)."

This is not entirely correct - at least Adorno included communist totalitarism into his critique of enlightenment in his later texts. I am not sure about the Dialectic of Enlightenment, but as far as I remember the Soviet Union was referenced in it too. I am sorry, I don't have my (german) copy of the book with me - could someone check this? I didn't want to change it since I don't have access to my library currently, so I can't source. Sorry if I made a mistake in formating, I am not used to Wikipedia. —The preceding

Yeah, that didn't sound right to me, but I don't have a copy either to check. 81.106.196.126 00:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here?70.20.106.127 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, it's mentioned far down in the article, my bad.70.20.106.127 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there are any academic merits in the polemical phrase "counter-enlightenment" which implies an opposition to enlightenment. --Arebenti (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? The bibliography in this article documenting the existence in the academic world of this concept is pretty extensive, and several important works could be added. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this lack-of-academic-merit flag by pinpointing that there's no definition (as far as I can see) in the article. Surely, if one political philosopher coined the term, then it has a coherent definition somewhere? What is the theorized Counter-Enlightenment reaction reacting against? Using the intellect? Or against perceived flaws in the Enlightenment such as a perceived atheism? (The list "relativist, anti-rationalist, vitalist and organic" might serve as a starting ground of a definition, maybe, but it doesn't correlate to the Enlightenment itself.) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "enemy of the Enlightenment" is so loaded and negative. I don't believe in Enlightenment valuse but I'm not "enemy" of Enlightenment. Enlightenment is something that some people believe in. And I have different beliefs.

I think this article is being written by Enlightenment fanboys. So "the others" are "enemies." Such a shame...--95.10.95.52 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These thinkers are being presented prejudicially as monsters of unholy criminality and nastiness instead of the highly cultured, highly educated and often acutely reasonable people they were -

De Bonald, de Maistre and many of the individuals presented even used Enlightenment logic to very incisively contend the Enlightenment ideology itself, such was their rationality, even Baudelaire said de Maistre was a master of rationalistic argumentation...

Any objective historians around these parts...? Or just interested parties of Marxian bent intent on labeling all who do not fit into their theories as "unprogressive fascistic" etc. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the article. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The first known use of the term in English was in 1908" "Although the term 'the Counter-Enlightenment' was first used in English (in passing) by William Barrett in a 1949 article" Lewis Goudy (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation is muddled in terms of whether it is an article about the thinkers of the counter-Enlightment proper or the 20th century exegeses of the former. Naturally it should cover both, but with more forethought in the arrangement of claims. Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]