There needs to be a taxonomy of these “Enlightenment Ideas” because they are not all “equal under the law” of Nature and Nature’s God. The discovery of those laws is natural science. The usefulness of Enlightenment Ideas arise from the methods by which we obtain knowledge of those laws. Without such knowledge we are unable to subordinate ourselves to Nature and Nature’s God, no matter how much we might wish to. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions ignorant of the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
In short, the proper taxonomy of Enlightenment Ideas must admit that there are “ideas” and there are “meta-ideas” and that the “ideas”, although politically expedient for the time, cannot be considered in the same category as the meta-ideas of the Enlightenment.
The ideas of the Enlightenment were, from the Enlightenment meta-idea perspective, merely scientific propositions subject to revision by social sciences.
Confusing these two categories is how Popper and Kuhn managed to destroy Western Civilization by eliding Algorithmic Information Theory at the dawn of Moore’s Law, as well as Popper compounding this attack on science by valorizing “Open Societies” over tolerance of control groups not consenting to what amount to sociological propositions set forth as axioms. This unleashed the ideas of the Enlightenment on us devoid of their subjugation to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
This essentially expands on what I said in my response to your prior post, “Hope Springs Eternal”.