Add new comment

Going back to darkness sounds like a return to tradition, like the Dark Ages, which is the result of not understanding the context. Reading Thomas Hobbes is very helpful in understanding darkness, and can even help us better understand the meaning of philosophy. For Hobbes, darkness is caused by soteriological philosophy and demonic mythology. Those philosophical schools, paganism and outsiders from ancient Greece brought bad influence to the ancient Roman Church, and they compromised the state, the axioms of geometry and the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, in order to reaffirm the doctrine of St. Paul and the state, it was necessary to criticize philosophy and paganism, especially the philosophy of Aristotle. The main point is that it has an element in it that can bring down Platonism.

Hobbes was accurately aware of the danger posed by darkness. This was not due to tradition, but to paganism, philosophy and the abolition of "is (are, be)". If the idea of a truth (or Trinity) depends on reasoning, then "is" is indispensable. But philosophy can relate the concept to matter on an equal footing. According to Platonism, matter is subordinated to the activity of ideas, and everything has a law, a hierarchy, and a purposiveness. But if there is a becoming madness, the world will be reduced to chaos.

In Hobbes' view, this chaos makes a joke of the "is" reasoning. This brings about darkness.

The charlatans, "with a set of claims about the nature of independent existence based on the false philosophy of Aristotle, scare people into disobedience to the laws of their own country by using empty and meaningless terms.

And because "Aristotle and other pagan philosophers defined good and evil according to human desires." Therefore, "this measure is wrong in a state".

So, just as Platonism was ready to expel the poets, Hobbes intended to expel from Leviathan a philosophy that was contrary to "is".
So this is the narrative established by the Enlightenment, light versus darkness, which in fact was proposed in order to preserve the power of the state, and it was not against tradition, but against paganism, poets and philosophy.

We could even flip this conclusion: a return to darkness is a return to tradition. This is not the case. For we find that the most conservative movements, the trials of heretics, the patriarchal, fundamentalist movements are in fact products of modernity. They treat tradition as a fetish. The problem with Iran is not that it doesn't have modernity, but that for the sake of the state and modernity, it must adhere to a "non-Western tradition.

So what exactly is darkness? Is it a tradition, or is it a spiritual force? Is it ignorance, or is it the practice of thought?

This is also an interesting topic for anarchism. There are many things that are not what we are used to believing, but those who came before us (the forerunners of darkness) did not have a clearer understanding.