@NEStalgia That's a fair point, but I do think it is based in a misunderstanding. You all-in-all basically argue against one tradition over another, like I declare my tradition as superior by some "objective" measure to yours, and then go on to diminish, marginalize, surpress or even eradicate that other tradition, either by way of its ideals (outlawing, persecution or such) or by downright eradicating those individuals who hold those traditions/believes/values - horrible, but proven by history.

That's not my point though, and your example of the "Enlightenment" and the Church are good ones to illustrate that. Even the fathers of enlightenment were no strangers to racism, sexism or obviously Speciesism (like I wager 99% of folks still today) + other 'isms and some of them were at best "problematic" when it comes to any modern & western idea of Democrary (just look as Rousseau for instance).

When I would talk about being enlightend, I would decidely not refer to their tradition, belief or legacy, but their process. I don't understand "right" or "true" as something that can be told, learned or perpetuated by belief, religion, culture, philisophy, virtues, values or such, but that which springs from one's ability of understanding or verification, either in the object itself, or in the explanation/argument of the person, who does the understanding or verification in the 1st place (what we today would refer to an an expert or "scientist" - meaning I will not do near-zero-Kelvin experiments myself, but I be made to understand the process, the results and the implications, by one who does).

We have the capacity for critical thought and we thus have a responsibility to use that capacity to the best of our ability. Someone may convince me yet, that their hanging onto a particular value or tradition etc. is not just a short-cut, pure convenience or even an early from of extremism or zealotry ... yet because so far, I have not really be convinced by anyone, that they just happened to come to the same conclusion as a (on average und roundabout) 2000 year old book (for instance), after prolonged phases of independent critical thought on their own part. I would even argue, that having exposed to "the book", creates a bias that is incredibly hard to overcome.

It's not just the book though. Science is on a basic level the same. We know clearly understand, that we were all thought a very narrow, and objectively indefensible and unreasonable concept of "intelligence" in school, just as there is no way from pretending that we are not all suffering from "presentism" of some form, as well as an incredible "eurocentric" bias in our general worldview (beginning but not ending from the way we view the world through a objectively misrepresentative form of map, aka the mercator projection), to name just a handful of aspects.

Again, we hold these things as a form of broadly agreed upon knowledge, something we pride ourselves in actually as being "educated", "learned" and thus "enlightend" ( in this modern sense). Yet ... we aren't not by any meaning of the word aimed and a progression of our understanding of the world and each other.

And yes, I agree herein lies the basic truth imho of what you rightfully called out as the zealotry of the "enlightend". The Nazi had a "scientifc" cause for their actions, as did and do the communist, as they feel that they have discovered the "scientific" laws of history by way of economics - aka the history of the world, is the history a class struggle, which will and must end in communism (without much specifics as to what actually will be, but anyways ...^^).

But the problem remains the same: These people are stuck. They accepted or marginally adapted those intellectual traditions they were presented with. They never really tried to falsify them, to finally fall back on Popper here.

Maybe that is the easiest way to describe my issue then: Stuck are those, that are unable or unwilling to seek falsification of that which they hold dear or hold to be true.

It is really, really understandable, and to a degree, I would suggest, humbly so, if I may say so myself, we are ALL without exception guilty of this, but this is a case of guilt by degrees, and unfortunately those degrees matter a whole lot. Experience tells me, and I am willing to be proven wrong here, that someone who is unwilling or unable to challenge minor misunderstandings of the the world, will find themselves more often than not unwilling or unable to challenge major misunderstandings.

That's why politics still kinda works. Your start out with something "minor", like being an oldschool chauvinist, strongly oversimplifying here, but to challenge that view would be tough, so you don't do it. Suddenly, you are presented with a much tougher challenge, that there is something like man-made climate change. That challenge would have a lot more significant ramifications for your generall understanding of the world and your role within that the mere chauvinism you stood by for 40 years...

It's not impossibel, but in my mind unlikely that you duck away from the previous challenge about chauvinism, but are ready and good to actually engage with climate change.

Again, there are surely plenty of exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb, the unwillingess to inability to confront a minor challenge will translate to the same negative predisposition to major challenges.

It also helps understand Trump and his likes alot better. Being constantly challenged and told "you're wrong, oldtimer" and maybe even marginalized (real or imagined) and belittled by the "youngers" and swaths of the media, will make turn you from a defensive traditionalist, quite likely, into an aggressive one.

That's not making excuses for anyone. I myself have been wrong plenty of times. I do not like having that pointed out to me. I do not like to have to face my own biases and misunderstandings and love for old truths, but that's really also what it means to be "mature".

Which would lead into another essay-like rambling of mine on the matter of media/pop culture criticism and "maturity" in the context of movies, games, comics and so on and so forth and how "sex", "violence" etc. should not enter into the consideration. That's for another day though, even if it would not be entirely out of place when we are talking TMS#FE ...