"“Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-inflicted immaturity. … ‘Have courage to use your own reason!’—that is the motto of enlightenment.” -Kant
"the difference between science and other things comes up when people pretend to have the authority of science for things that aren’t science. But on the bigger picture, the more important demarcation is between reason and unreason." -David Deutsch
Is 'the enlightenment project' still coherent, or definable? Is it still a motivating framework to take philosophy and society in a (the?) desirable direction?
I have encountered views that the 'enlightenment project' has failed, dissipated, become obscured, or otherwise needs recapitulating, and 'fighting for'. Is this only politicised hyperbole? Or is the idea of an enlightenment project that is the sole arbiter of reason politicised hyperbole? Have modern philosophical trends failed to live up to desirable aspirations of the age of the emergence of science in some way/s?
A frequent implication of these critiques, seems to be that there is a crisis in Western culture, of confidence, of values, and in the capacity to assert shared ideas about how best to be. Is there? It has been argued this problem arises from the state of moral discourse and I can't help but notice that virtue, once a mainstay of philosophical discussion, is now seemingly a term too 'uncool' to use, and no one would unironically declare themselves virtuous.
In short, what is the status of 'the enlightenment project', if there still is one, in modern philosophy?
Edited to add:The article posted by @Gordon sums up a common critique https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/ The rejection of 'postmodernism' in this way. I am very interested in Jurgen Habermas' reaction/approach. It seems that postmodernity is not an alternative to modernity, but a critique to be integrated into a new modernity?