[peter12]

That in itself is a fairly presumptuous statement, and one that you make with some frequency. At what point do we concede that one has failed to correctly understand "alternatives" instead of legitimately rejecting them? I expect that you will likely disagree with this, but one of the reasons for the rapid expansion of the "modern world" has not so much to do with some preconceived materialistic agenda, and much more to do with the functionality of scientific and rational thinking. Quite simply, it is embraced because it works.

We are primarily concerned with effect, although we don't do a very good job of measuring it or qualifying it.

The temptation, in regards to mental illness, is to judge a successful treatment by the pacification of the subject. But what if the torment, battle of the will, and relentless self-judgement was an essential part of the treatment experience. This is where theological and psychoanalytic views of the mind differ from the biomedical model. Can you ever reject this?

I was hesitant to use the term "alternative" because it's so easy for opponents to label it as pseudoscientific. What if the experience of human growth was as Nietzsche said "spontaneous moments of becoming?"

This isn't functional, which as you pointed out is one of the primary ideological justifications of The Enlightenment. I tend to view it is as far more dysfunctional and artificial. How can anyone come through with such a blind faith in Enlightenment progress after this past century which was the absolute outcome of such thinking? How can anyone put such faith in Enlightenment Man when we are as Nietzsche showed us, to be Last Men?

I don't wish to deny that our world is riddled with problems, but neither do I find it helpful to vilify the post-Enlightenment worldview through an excessively romanticized notion of the past. There were problems then as there are now: different sorts of problems; different challenges.

Agreed. So let's move past the essentialism of the Enlightenment and look at global culture a little bit more holistically. One of the most striking arguments against modern progress (to me) is the existence of Plato's Symposium; a stunning discussion between close friends over the Eternal concept of love.

Two things blew me away on first reading:

1) The refutation of procreation being the ultimate purpose of human relationships. A preemptive discussion of the "Selfish Gene," if you will.

2) This close philosophical discussion took place during the Peloponnesian War which was the darkest time in Athenian history. Truly a sign of the universality of humanity in any context.