The Enlightenment is not about history, but it is also about history.
The Enlightenment was strictly, only once in its entirety in the West. Isn't this integrity just a major front for the Enlightenment? More importantly, the Enlightenment was a kind of national spontaneity. Other peoples are passive in their pursuit of enlightenment. The word enlightenment, to put it bluntly, also has the conceptual cognition of modern progressiveism.
In fact, for the history and culture of the West, the Enlightenment was not created out of thin air, nor was it to rediscover some things that had long been ancient, a little bit of research, research and understanding, in fact, the core of the Enlightenment, even in the Middle Ages, still existed, but it became a kind of religious, philosophical thing hidden in the classics.
When people rediscover and re-recognize some things from ancient times, they will find that this is not some of the things of so-and-so in the religious creed, which originally came from here. In other words, the things that come out of enlightenment do not disappear completely, but exist and exist in another way. It is only when the time comes that people rediscover this doctrine, or the connotation, logic, and true meaning of thought, and thus step by step back along a less clear footprint.
But for other peoples, without this process, enlightenment does not mean that you have to put Western things on yourself. This is clear to everyone, but what exactly is enlightenment? Many people have a brief taste, in fact, enlightenment is to re-understand yourself, not to let you know the West. To re-understand yourself, you must be based on your own past, especially what kind of objectivity a nation has.
This kind of cognition is neither excessively rational nor excessively worshipful, and at the same time it is not excessively negative. But whichever of the three, you have to be fact-based. As a historian or social activist, one may have its own tendency to study a certain part of something, but this does not prevent him from studying it, nor does it prevent the whole nation from reflecting on the cultural history of the past conceptually.
For example, in ancient times, the West also had Colosseums, taking pleasure in bloody battles between people. But in the end, they abolished the entire industry. This continuous progress in civilization, and the final leap, it is not a source of water, a rootless wood. An enlightenment without spontaneity, to re-recognize one's own nation, as soon as you want to break something, immediately thinks that you are going to do something about him, this cultural extreme lack of self-confidence, now more and more obvious.
He even began to deliberately hide culturally for the saints what was unfavorable to himself, and where he was beneficial to himself, he said that it was an excellent traditional culture. Especially when people say 5,000 years of excellent culture, 5,000 years at every turn, more just stay on a number. In terms of the identity of each person or in an ethnic group, and in the daily habits of life, you don't see the shadow of a thousand years of history.
There is also a reflection on one's own nation, of course, this kind of reflection is more of a need for representative figures. For example, in the Puritans of North America, we all know the things that the Indians did. But it wasn't us who really overturned the Indians. It's also the white people. Even now, they have some excessive neuroticism, and we call them white left, right.
At the very least, people have such a group, forming such a force, that they can think about certain issues. But we have a great admiration for our past. But for some problems, it is always said that it is in the process of stage development, and then it is chosen to ignore. Whoever says it is not friendly to you. neuropathy?
Enlightenment, in the final analysis, is the awakening of self-consciousness. It's not that you don't recognize the history of a certain country in the West, that stuff is useless. But it is true that only the West has completely passed through this stage. For understanding the past of history, there is its own reflection. Even, I don't mind others studying my own culture. Even if what you're studying may not seem to them to be recognized. But they also hold a basic kind of haina, see what you are studying?
And what about other civilizations? Nothing is a form of self-worship.
As conservatives say, God, this concept can never disappear. If it is not God, if it is not God, it is very likely that it is a certain person, or a certain culture. If it is not God, then everyone has chosen an entity, a substance, that can be worshipped. Then when it is time for this entity and matter to happen, it will inevitably cause serious consequences. The worship of God does not necessarily mean that this God must exist, but itself is a personified worship phenomenon, God is just a concept, and there is a basic respect for God.
Control that one source of power. In fact, it is also self-reflection to some extent. Otherwise, put the source of that power in your own hands, and you will wait to suffer. To put it more specifically, man is born to be a cult animal. He does not worship a concept, he must worship a substance and an entity. And the concept, itself is rational, but if it is a material entity, even an individual, he can take this power and do whatever he wants. For others worship him, and worship him for no reason. And this worship is unquestionable, absolutely correct, and it is bound to go wrong.