Difference between revisions of "The Enlightenment by Paul Brians"
m (Text replacement - "Christianity" to "{{Wiki|Christianity}}") |
|||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:500.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:500.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Although the [[intellectual]] movement called "The [[Enlightenment]]" is usually associated with the 18th century, its [[roots]] in fact go back much further. But before we explore those [[roots]], we need to define the term. This is one of those rare historical movements which in fact named itself. Certain thinkers and writers, primarily in {{Wiki|London}} and Paris, believed that they were more [[enlightened]] than their compatriots and set out to [[enlighten]] them. | + | Although the [[intellectual]] {{Wiki|movement}} called "The [[Enlightenment]]" is usually associated with the 18th century, its [[roots]] in fact go back much further. But before we explore those [[roots]], we need to define the term. This is one of those rare historical movements which in fact named itself. Certain thinkers and writers, primarily in {{Wiki|London}} and {{Wiki|Paris}}, believed that they were more [[enlightened]] than their compatriots and set out to [[enlighten]] them. |
− | They believed that [[human]] [[reason]] could be used to combat [[ignorance]], superstition, and tyranny and to build a better [[world]]. Their principal targets were [[religion]] ([[embodied]] in {{Wiki|France}} in the Catholic Church) and the domination of {{Wiki|society}} by a hereditary aristocracy. | + | They believed that [[human]] [[reason]] could be used to combat [[ignorance]], {{Wiki|superstition}}, and tyranny and [[to build]] a better [[world]]. Their [[principal]] targets were [[religion]] ([[embodied]] in {{Wiki|France}} in the {{Wiki|Catholic Church}}) and the {{Wiki|domination}} of {{Wiki|society}} by a [[Wikipedia:Heredity|hereditary]] {{Wiki|aristocracy}}. |
===Background in Antiquity=== | ===Background in Antiquity=== | ||
− | To understand why this movement became so influential in the 18th century, it is important to go back in [[time]]. We could choose almost any starting point, but let us begin with the recovery of Aristotelian [[logic]] by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. In his hands the [[logical]] procedures so carefully laid out by the {{Wiki|ancient Greek}} [[philosopher]] {{Wiki|Aristotle}} were used to defend the {{Wiki|dogmas}} of {{Wiki|{{Wiki|Christianity}}}}; and for the next couple of centuries, other thinkers pursued these goals to shore up every aspect of [[faith]] with [[logic]]. These thinkers were sometimes called "schoolmen" (more formally, "scholastics,") and Voltaire frequently refers to them as "doctors," by which he means "doctors of {{Wiki|theology}}." | + | To understand why this {{Wiki|movement}} became so influential in the 18th century, it is important to go back in [[time]]. We could choose almost any starting point, but let us begin with the recovery of {{Wiki|Aristotelian}} [[logic]] by {{Wiki|Thomas Aquinas}} in the 13th century. In his hands the [[logical]] procedures so carefully laid out by the {{Wiki|ancient Greek}} [[philosopher]] {{Wiki|Aristotle}} were used to defend the {{Wiki|dogmas}} of {{Wiki|{{Wiki|Christianity}}}}; and for the next couple of centuries, other thinkers pursued these goals to shore up every aspect of [[faith]] with [[logic]]. These thinkers were sometimes called "schoolmen" (more formally, "scholastics,") and Voltaire frequently refers to them as "[[doctors]]," by which he means "[[doctors]] of {{Wiki|theology}}." |
− | Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the tools of [[logic]] could not be confined to the uses it preferred. After all, they had been developed in Athens, in a pagan culture which had turned them on its own [[traditional]] [[beliefs]]. It was only a matter of [[time]] before later Europeans would do the same. | + | Unfortunately for the {{Wiki|Catholic Church}}, the tools of [[logic]] could not be confined to the uses it preferred. After all, they had been developed in Athens, in a {{Wiki|pagan}} {{Wiki|culture}} which had turned them on its [[own]] [[traditional]] [[beliefs]]. It was only a {{Wiki|matter}} of [[time]] before later {{Wiki|Europeans}} would do the same. |
===The {{Wiki|Renaissance}} Humanists=== | ===The {{Wiki|Renaissance}} Humanists=== | ||
− | In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and {{Wiki|France}} a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary {{Wiki|political}} [[debate]]. Almost all of them were practicing Catholics. They argued that the proper worship of [[God]] involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that crown of creation: [[humanity]]. By celebrating the [[human]] race and its capacities they argued they were worshipping [[God]] more appropriately than gloomy priests and [[monks]] who harped on original [[sin]] and continuously called upon [[people]] to confess and humble themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that [[humans]] were like [[God]], created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative [[Power]]. The painter, the architect, the musician, and the [[scholar]], by exercising their [[intellectual]] [[powers]], were fulfilling [[divine]] purposes. | + | In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in {{Wiki|Italy}} and {{Wiki|France}} a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary {{Wiki|political}} [[debate]]. Almost all of them were practicing [[Catholics]]. They argued that the proper {{Wiki|worship}} of [[God]] involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that {{Wiki|crown}} of creation: [[humanity]]. By celebrating the [[human]] race and its capacities they argued they were worshipping [[God]] more appropriately than gloomy {{Wiki|priests}} and [[monks]] who harped on original [[sin]] and continuously called upon [[people]] to confess and [[humble]] themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that [[humans]] were like [[God]], created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative [[Power]]. The painter, the {{Wiki|architect}}, the [[musician]], and the [[scholar]], by exercising their [[intellectual]] [[powers]], were fulfilling [[divine]] purposes. |
− | This celebration of [[human]] capacity, though it was mixed in the {{Wiki|Renaissance}} with [[elements]] of | + | This celebration of [[human]] capacity, though it was mixed in the {{Wiki|Renaissance}} with [[elements]] of gloom and {{Wiki|superstition}} ({{Wiki|witchcraft}} trials flourished in this period as they never had during the {{Wiki|Middle Ages}}), was to bestow a powerful legacy on {{Wiki|Europeans}}. The goal of {{Wiki|Renaissance}} humanists was to recapture some of the {{Wiki|pride}}, breadth of [[spirit]], and {{Wiki|creativity}} of the {{Wiki|ancient Greeks}} and Romans, to replicate their successes and go beyond them. {{Wiki|Europeans}} developed the [[belief]] that [[tradition]] could and should be used to promote change. By cleaning and sharpening the tools of antiquity, they could reshape their [[own]] [[time]]. |
[[File:TF03-EN.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:TF03-EN.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | {{Wiki|Galileo}} Galilei, for instance, was to use the same sort of [[logic]] the schoolmen had used--reinforced with observation--to argue in 1632 for the Copernican notion that the [[earth]] rotates on its axis beneath the unmoving {{Wiki|sun}}. The Church, and most particularly the Holy Inquisition, objected that the Bible clearly stated that the {{Wiki|sun}} moved through the sky and denounced Galileo's teachings, forcing him to recant (take back) what he had written and preventing him from [[teaching]] further. The Church's triumph was a pyrrhic victory, for though it could [[silence]] {{Wiki|Galileo}}, it could not prevent the advance of [[science]] (though most of those advances would take place in Protestant northern {{Wiki|Europe}}, out of the reach of the pope and his Inquisition). | + | {{Wiki|Galileo}} Galilei, for instance, was to use the same sort of [[logic]] the schoolmen had used--reinforced with observation--to argue in 1632 for the Copernican notion that the [[earth]] rotates on its axis beneath the unmoving {{Wiki|sun}}. The {{Wiki|Church}}, and most particularly the {{Wiki|Holy}} Inquisition, objected that the Bible clearly stated that the {{Wiki|sun}} moved through the sky and denounced Galileo's teachings, forcing him to recant (take back) what he had written and preventing him from [[teaching]] further. The Church's {{Wiki|triumph}} was a pyrrhic victory, for though it could [[silence]] {{Wiki|Galileo}}, it could not prevent the advance of [[science]] (though most of those advances would take place in {{Wiki|Protestant}} northern {{Wiki|Europe}}, out of the reach of the pope and his Inquisition). |
− | But before Galileo's [[time]], in the 16th century, various humanists had begun to ask [[dangerous]] questions. François Rabelais, a French [[Monk]] and physician influenced by Protestantism, but spurred on by his own rebelliousness, challenged the Church's authority in his Gargantua and Pantagruel, ridiculing many [[religious]] [[doctrines]] as absurd. | + | But before Galileo's [[time]], in the 16th century, various humanists had begun to ask [[dangerous]] questions. François Rabelais, a {{Wiki|French}} [[Monk]] and [[physician]] influenced by {{Wiki|Protestantism}}, but spurred on by his [[own]] rebelliousness, challenged the Church's authority in his Gargantua and Pantagruel, ridiculing many [[religious]] [[doctrines]] as absurd. |
− | ===Michel de Montaigne=== | + | ==={{Wiki|Michel de Montaigne}}=== |
− | Michel de Montaigne, in a much more quiet and modest but ultimately more subversive way, asked a single question over and over again in his Essays: "What do I [[know]]?" By this he meant that we have no right to impose on others {{Wiki|dogmas}} which rest on cultural [[habit]] rather than [[absolute truth]]. Powerfully influenced by the discovery of thriving non-Christian cultures in places as far off as {{Wiki|Brazil}}, he argued that morals may be to some degree [[relative]]. Who are Europeans to insist that Brazilian cannibals who merely consume [[dead]] [[human]] flesh instead of wasting it are morally inferior to Europeans who persecute and oppress those of whom they disapprove? | + | {{Wiki|Michel de Montaigne}}, in a much more quiet and modest but ultimately more subversive way, asked a single question over and over again in his Essays: "What do I [[know]]?" By this he meant that we have no right to impose on others {{Wiki|dogmas}} which rest on {{Wiki|cultural}} [[habit]] rather than [[absolute truth]]. Powerfully influenced by the discovery of thriving non-Christian cultures in places as far off as {{Wiki|Brazil}}, he argued that {{Wiki|morals}} may be to some [[degree]] [[relative]]. Who are {{Wiki|Europeans}} to insist that Brazilian cannibals who merely consume [[dead]] [[human]] flesh instead of wasting it are {{Wiki|morally}} {{Wiki|inferior}} to {{Wiki|Europeans}} who persecute and oppress those of whom they disapprove? |
− | This shift toward cultural relativism, though it was based on scant understanding of the newly discovered peoples, was to continue to have a profound effect on European [[thought]] to the present day. Indeed, it is one of the hallmarks of the [[Enlightenment]]. Just as their predecessors had used the tools of antiquity to gain unprecedented freedom of inquiry, the [[Enlightenment]] thinkers used the examples of other cultures to gain the freedom to reshape not only their [[philosophies]], but their {{Wiki|societies}}. It was | + | This shift toward {{Wiki|cultural}} {{Wiki|relativism}}, though it was based on scant [[understanding]] of the newly discovered peoples, was to continue to have a profound effect on {{Wiki|European}} [[thought]] to the {{Wiki|present}} day. Indeed, it is one of the hallmarks of the [[Enlightenment]]. Just as their predecessors had used the tools of antiquity to gain unprecedented freedom of inquiry, the [[Enlightenment]] thinkers used the examples of other cultures to gain the freedom to reshape not only their [[philosophies]], but their {{Wiki|societies}}. It was becoming clear that there was [[nothing]] inevitable about the {{Wiki|European}} patterns of [[thought]] and living: there were many possible ways of [[being]] [[human]], and doubtless new ones could be invented. |
The other contribution of Montaigne to the [[Enlightenment]] stemmed from another aspect of his famous question: "What do I [[know]]?" If we cannot be certain that our values are God-given, then we have no right to impose them by force on others. Inquisitors, popes, and {{Wiki|kings}} alike had no business enforcing adherence to particular [[religious]] or [[philosophical]] [[beliefs]]. | The other contribution of Montaigne to the [[Enlightenment]] stemmed from another aspect of his famous question: "What do I [[know]]?" If we cannot be certain that our values are God-given, then we have no right to impose them by force on others. Inquisitors, popes, and {{Wiki|kings}} alike had no business enforcing adherence to particular [[religious]] or [[philosophical]] [[beliefs]]. | ||
− | It is one of the great paradoxes of {{Wiki|history}} that radical [[doubt]] was necessary for the new sort of certainty called "[[scientific]]." The good [[scientist]] is the one is willing to test all assumptions, to challenge all [[traditional]] opinion, to get closer to the [[truth]]. If [[ultimate truth]], such as was claimed by [[religious]] thinkers, was unattainable by [[scientists]], so much the better. In a [[sense]], the strength of [[science]] at its best is that it is always aware of its limits, aware that [[knowledge]] is always growing, always [[subject]] to | + | It is one of the great [[Wikipedia:paradox|paradoxes]] of {{Wiki|history}} that radical [[doubt]] was necessary for the new sort of {{Wiki|certainty}} called "[[scientific]]." The good [[scientist]] is the one is willing to test all {{Wiki|assumptions}}, to challenge all [[traditional]] opinion, to get closer to the [[truth]]. If [[ultimate truth]], such as was claimed by [[religious]] thinkers, was unattainable by [[scientists]], so much the better. In a [[sense]], the strength of [[science]] at its best is that it is always {{Wiki|aware}} of its limits, {{Wiki|aware}} that [[knowledge]] is always growing, always [[subject]] to change, never [[absolute]]. Because [[knowledge]] depends on {{Wiki|evidence}} and [[reason]], arbitrary authority can only be its enemy. |
[[File:Skandhas 01.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Skandhas 01.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
===The 17th Century=== | ===The 17th Century=== | ||
− | {{Wiki|René Descartes}}, in the 17th century, attempted to use [[reason]] as the schoolmen had, to shore up his [[faith]]; but much more rigorously than had been attempted before. He tried to begin with a blank slate, with the bare minimum of [[knowledge]]: the [[knowledge]] of his own [[existence]] ("I think, therefore I am"). From there he attempted to [[reason]] his way to a complete defense of {{Wiki|{{Wiki|Christianity}}}}, but to do so he committed so many [[logical]] faults that his successors over the centuries were to slowly disintegrate his gains, even finally challenging the notion of [[selfhood]] with which he had begun. The {{Wiki|history}} of [[philosophy]] from his [[time]] to the early 20th century is partly the story of more and more ingenious [[logic]] proving less and less, until Ludwig Wittgenstein succeeded in undermining the very bases of [[philosophy]] itself. | + | {{Wiki|René Descartes}}, in the 17th century, attempted to use [[reason]] as the schoolmen had, to shore up his [[faith]]; but much more rigorously than had been attempted before. He tried to begin with a blank slate, with the bare minimum of [[knowledge]]: the [[knowledge]] of his [[own]] [[existence]] ("I think, therefore I am"). From there he attempted to [[reason]] his way to a complete defense of {{Wiki|{{Wiki|Christianity}}}}, but to do so he committed so many [[logical]] faults that his successors over the centuries were to slowly disintegrate his gains, even finally challenging the notion of [[selfhood]] with which he had begun. The {{Wiki|history}} of [[philosophy]] from his [[time]] to the early 20th century is partly the story of more and more ingenious [[logic]] proving less and less, until {{Wiki|Ludwig Wittgenstein}} succeeded in undermining the very bases of [[philosophy]] itself. |
− | But that is a story for a different course. Here we are concerned with early stages in the process in which it seemed that [[logic]] could be a powerful avenue to [[truth]]. To be sure, [[logic]] alone could be used to defend all sorts of absurd notions; and [[Enlightenment]] thinkers insisted on combining it with something they called "[[reason]]" which consisted of {{Wiki|common sense}}, observation, and their own unacknowledged prejudices in favor of {{Wiki|skepticism}} and freedom. | + | But that is a story for a different course. Here we are concerned with early stages in the process in which it seemed that [[logic]] could be a powerful avenue to [[truth]]. To be sure, [[logic]] alone could be used to defend all sorts of absurd notions; and [[Enlightenment]] thinkers insisted on combining it with something they called "[[reason]]" which consisted of {{Wiki|common sense}}, observation, and their [[own]] unacknowledged prejudices in favor of {{Wiki|skepticism}} and freedom. |
− | We have been focusing closely on a thin trickle of [[thought]] which traveled through an {{Wiki|era}} otherwise dominated by {{Wiki|dogma}} and fanaticism. The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts and wars of [[religion]] and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics denounced each other as followers of Satan, and [[people]] could be imprisoned for attending the wrong church, or for not attending any. All publications, whether pamphlets or [[scholarly]] volumes, were [[subject]] to prior censorship by both church and state, often working hand in hand. [[Slavery]] was widely practiced, especially in the colonial plantations of the Western Hemisphere, and its cruelties frequently defended by leading [[religious]] figures. The despotism of monarchs exercising far greater [[powers]] than any medieval [[king]] was supported by the [[doctrine]] of the "[[divine]] right of {{Wiki|kings}}," and [[scripture]] quoted to show that revolution was detested by [[God]]. Speakers of sedition or [[blasphemy]] quickly found themselves imprisoned, or even executed. Organizations which tried to challenge the twin authorities of church and state were banned. There had been plenty of intolerance and {{Wiki|dogma}} to go around in the Middle Ages, but the [[emergence]] of the modern state made its tyranny much more efficient and powerful. | + | We have been focusing closely on a thin trickle of [[thought]] which traveled through an {{Wiki|era}} otherwise dominated by {{Wiki|dogma}} and fanaticism. The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts and [[wars]] of [[religion]] and {{Wiki|imperial}} conquest. Protestants and [[Catholics]] denounced each other as followers of [[Satan]], and [[people]] could be imprisoned for attending the wrong {{Wiki|church}}, or for not attending any. All publications, whether pamphlets or [[scholarly]] volumes, were [[subject]] to prior censorship by both {{Wiki|church}} and [[state]], often working hand in hand. [[Slavery]] was widely practiced, especially in the colonial plantations of the {{Wiki|Western}} Hemisphere, and its cruelties frequently defended by leading [[religious]] figures. The despotism of monarchs exercising far greater [[powers]] than any {{Wiki|medieval}} [[king]] was supported by the [[doctrine]] of the "[[divine]] right of {{Wiki|kings}}," and [[scripture]] quoted to show that [[revolution]] was detested by [[God]]. Speakers of sedition or [[blasphemy]] quickly found themselves imprisoned, or even executed. Organizations which tried to challenge the twin authorities of {{Wiki|church}} and [[state]] were banned. There had been [[plenty]] of intolerance and {{Wiki|dogma}} to go around in the {{Wiki|Middle Ages}}, but the [[emergence]] of the {{Wiki|modern}} [[state]] made its tyranny much more efficient and powerful. |
− | It was inevitable that sooner or later many Europeans would begin to weary of the repression and warfare carried out in the name of [[absolute truth]]. In addition, though Protestants had begun by making powerful critiques of Catholicism, they quickly turned their guns on each other, producing a bewildering array of churches each claiming the exclusive [[path]] to salvation. It was natural for [[people]] tossed from one demanding [[faith]] to another to wonder whether any of the churches deserved the authority they claimed, and to begin to prize the {{Wiki|skepticism}} of Montaigne over the certainty of Luther or Calvin. | + | It was inevitable that sooner or later many {{Wiki|Europeans}} would begin to weary of the repression and warfare carried out in the [[name]] of [[absolute truth]]. In addition, though Protestants had begun by making powerful critiques of {{Wiki|Catholicism}}, they quickly turned their guns on each other, producing a bewildering array of churches each claiming the exclusive [[path]] to {{Wiki|salvation}}. It was natural for [[people]] tossed from one demanding [[faith]] to another to {{Wiki|wonder}} whether any of the churches deserved the authority they claimed, and to begin to prize the {{Wiki|skepticism}} of Montaigne over the {{Wiki|certainty}} of Luther or Calvin. |
[[File:Unreo3 1280.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Unreo3 1280.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
Meanwhile, there were other powerful forces at work in {{Wiki|Europe}}: economic ones which were to interact profoundly with these [[intellectual]] trends. | Meanwhile, there were other powerful forces at work in {{Wiki|Europe}}: economic ones which were to interact profoundly with these [[intellectual]] trends. | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===The {{Wiki|Political}} and Economic Background=== | ===The {{Wiki|Political}} and Economic Background=== | ||
− | During the late Middle Ages, peasants had begun to move from rural estates to the towns in search of increased freedom and prosperity. As trade and {{Wiki|communication}} improved during the {{Wiki|Renaissance}}, the ordinary town-dweller began to realize that things need not always go on as they had for centuries. New charters could be written, new governments formed, new laws passed, new businesses begun. Although each changed institution quickly tried to stabilize its [[Power]] by claiming the support of [[tradition]], the pressure for | + | During the late {{Wiki|Middle Ages}}, peasants had begun to move from rural estates to the towns in search of increased freedom and [[prosperity]]. As trade and {{Wiki|communication}} improved during the {{Wiki|Renaissance}}, the ordinary town-dweller began to realize that things need not always go on as they had for centuries. New charters could be written, new governments formed, new laws passed, new businesses begun. Although each changed institution quickly tried to stabilize its [[Power]] by claiming the support of [[tradition]], the pressure for change continued to mount. It was not only [[contact]] with alien {{Wiki|cultural}} patterns which influenced {{Wiki|Europeans}}, it was the [[wealth]] brought back from {{Wiki|Asia}} and the Americas which catapulted a new class of {{Wiki|merchants}} into prominence, partially displacing the old {{Wiki|aristocracy}} whose [[Power]] had been [[rooted]] in the ownership of land. These {{Wiki|merchants}} had their [[own]] [[ideas]] about the sort of [[world]] they wanted to inhabit, and they became major agents of change, in the [[arts]], in government, and in the {{Wiki|economy}}. |
− | They were naturally convinced that their earnings were the result of their {{Wiki|individual}} [[merit]] and hard work, unlike the inherited [[wealth]] of [[traditional]] aristocrats. Whereas individualism had been chiefly emphasized in the {{Wiki|Renaissance}} by artists, especially [[visual]] artists, it now became a core value. The ability of {{Wiki|individual}} [[effort]] to [[transform]] the [[world]] became a European {{Wiki|dogma}}, lasting to this day. | + | They were naturally convinced that their earnings were the result of their {{Wiki|individual}} [[merit]] and hard work, unlike the inherited [[wealth]] of [[traditional]] {{Wiki|aristocrats}}. Whereas {{Wiki|individualism}} had been chiefly emphasized in the {{Wiki|Renaissance}} by {{Wiki|artists}}, especially [[visual]] {{Wiki|artists}}, it now became a core value. The ability of {{Wiki|individual}} [[effort]] to [[transform]] the [[world]] became a {{Wiki|European}} {{Wiki|dogma}}, lasting to this day. |
− | But the chief obstacles to the reshaping of {{Wiki|Europe}} by the {{Wiki|merchant}} class were the same as those faced by the [[rationalist]] [[philosophers]]: absolutist {{Wiki|kings}} and {{Wiki|dogmatic}} churches. The struggle was complex and many-sided, with each participant absorbing many of the others' values; but the general trend is clear: individualism, freedom and | + | But the chief [[obstacles]] to the reshaping of {{Wiki|Europe}} by the {{Wiki|merchant}} class were the same as those faced by the [[rationalist]] [[philosophers]]: [[absolutist]] {{Wiki|kings}} and {{Wiki|dogmatic}} churches. The struggle was complex and many-sided, with each participant absorbing many of the others' values; but the general trend is clear: {{Wiki|individualism}}, freedom and change replaced {{Wiki|community}}, authority, and [[tradition]] as core {{Wiki|European}} values. [[Religion]] survived, but weakened and often [[transformed]] almost beyond [[recognition]]; the {{Wiki|monarchy}} was to dwindle over the course of the hundred years beginning in the mid-18th century to a pale shadow of its former [[self]]. |
− | This is the background of the 18th-century [[Enlightenment]]. Europeans were changing, but Europe's {{Wiki|institutions}} were not keeping pace with that | + | This is the background of the 18th-century [[Enlightenment]]. {{Wiki|Europeans}} were changing, but Europe's {{Wiki|institutions}} were not keeping pace with that change. The {{Wiki|Church}} insisted that it was the only source of [[truth]], that all who lived outside its bounds were damned, while it was apparent to any reasonably sophisticated [[person]] that most [[human beings]] on [[earth]] were not and had never been Christians--yet they had built great and inspiring {{Wiki|civilizations}}. Writers and speakers grew restive at the {{Wiki|omnipresent}} censorship and sought whatever means they could to evade or even denounce it. |
− | Most important, the middle classes--the bourgeoisie--were painfully aware that they were paying taxes to support a fabulously expensive aristocracy which contributed [[nothing]] of value to {{Wiki|society}} (beyond, perhaps, its patronage of the arts, which the burghers of Holland had shown could be equally well exercised by themselves), and that those useless aristocrats were unwilling to share [[Power]] with those who actually managed and--to their way of thinking,--created the national [[wealth]]. They were to find ready allies in {{Wiki|France}} among the impoverished masses who may have lived and [[thought]] much like their ancestors, but who were all too aware that with each passing year they were paying higher and higher taxes to support a few thousand at Versailles in idle dissipation. | + | Most important, the middle classes--the bourgeoisie--were painfully {{Wiki|aware}} that they were paying taxes to support a fabulously expensive {{Wiki|aristocracy}} which contributed [[nothing]] of value to {{Wiki|society}} (beyond, perhaps, its {{Wiki|patronage}} of the [[arts]], which the burghers of [[Holland]] had shown could be equally well exercised by themselves), and that those useless {{Wiki|aristocrats}} were unwilling to share [[Power]] with those who actually managed and--to their way of thinking,--created the national [[wealth]]. They were to find ready allies in {{Wiki|France}} among the impoverished masses who may have lived and [[thought]] much like their {{Wiki|ancestors}}, but who were all too {{Wiki|aware}} that with each passing year they were paying higher and higher taxes to support a few thousand at Versailles in idle dissipation. |
[[File:A53728ae.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:A53728ae.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | ===The Role of the Aristocrats=== | + | ===The Role of the {{Wiki|Aristocrats}}=== |
− | Interestingly, it was among those very idle aristocrats that the French [[Enlightenment]] [[philosophers]] were to find some of their earliest and most {{Wiki|enthusiastic}} followers. Despite the fact that the Church and State were more often than not allied with each other, they were keenly aware of their differences. Even {{Wiki|kings}} could on occasion be attracted by arguments which seemed to undermine the authority of the Church. The fact that the aristocrats were utterly unaware of the precariousness of their position also made them overconfident, interested in dabbling in the new ideas partly simply because they were new and exciting. | + | Interestingly, it was among those very idle {{Wiki|aristocrats}} that the {{Wiki|French}} [[Enlightenment]] [[philosophers]] were to find some of their earliest and most {{Wiki|enthusiastic}} followers. Despite the fact that the {{Wiki|Church}} and [[State]] were more often than not allied with each other, they were keenly {{Wiki|aware}} of their differences. Even {{Wiki|kings}} could on occasion be attracted by arguments which seemed to undermine the authority of the {{Wiki|Church}}. The fact that the {{Wiki|aristocrats}} were utterly unaware of the precariousness of their position also made them overconfident, [[interested]] in dabbling in the new [[ideas]] partly simply because they were new and exciting. |
− | Voltaire moved easily in these {{Wiki|aristocratic}} circles, dining at their tables, taking a titled mistress, corresponding with monarchs. He opposed tyranny and {{Wiki|dogma}}, but he had no notion of reinventing that discredited Athenian folly, democracy. He had far too little [[faith]] in the [[ordinary person]] for that. What he did think was that educated and sophisticated persons could be brought to see through the exercise of their [[reason]] that the [[world]] could and should be greatly improved. | + | Voltaire moved easily in these {{Wiki|aristocratic}} circles, dining at their tables, taking a titled mistress, corresponding with monarchs. He opposed tyranny and {{Wiki|dogma}}, but he had no notion of reinventing that discredited Athenian folly, {{Wiki|democracy}}. He had far too little [[faith]] in the [[ordinary person]] for that. What he did think was that educated and sophisticated persons could be brought to see through the exercise of their [[reason]] that the [[world]] could and should be greatly improved. |
===Rousseau vs. Voltaire=== | ===Rousseau vs. Voltaire=== | ||
− | Not all [[Enlightenment]] thinkers were like Voltaire in this. His chief adversary was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who distrusted the aristocrats not out of a [[thirst]] for | + | Not all [[Enlightenment]] thinkers were like Voltaire in this. His chief adversary was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who distrusted the {{Wiki|aristocrats}} not out of a [[thirst]] for change but because he believed they were betraying decent [[traditional]] values. He opposed the theater which was Voltaire's lifeblood, shunned the {{Wiki|aristocracy}} which Voltaire courted, and argued for something dangerously like democratic [[revolution]]. Whereas Voltaire argued that equality was impossible, Rousseau argued that inequality was not only unnatural, but that--when taken too far--it made decent government impossible. Whereas Voltaire charmed with his wit, Rousseau ponderously insisted on his correctness, even while contradicting himself. Whereas Voltaire insisted on the supremacy of the {{Wiki|intellect}}, Rousseau emphasized the [[emotions]], becoming a contributor to both the [[Enlightenment]] and its successor, {{Wiki|romanticism}}. And whereas Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core [[Enlightenment]] notions, Rousseau sparked off original [[thoughts]] in all [[directions]]: [[ideas]] about [[education]], the family, government, the [[arts]], and whatever else attracted his [[attention]]. |
− | For all their personal differences, the two shared more values than they liked to [[acknowledge]]. They viewed [[absolute]] monarchy as [[dangerous]] and [[evil]] and rejected orthodox {{Wiki|{{Wiki|Christianity}}}}. Though Rousseau often struggled to seem more devout, he was almost as much a skeptic as Voltaire: the minimalist [[faith]] both shared was called "deism," and it was eventually to [[transform]] European [[religion]] and have powerful influences on other aspects of {{Wiki|society}} as well. | + | For all their personal differences, the two shared more values than they liked to [[acknowledge]]. They viewed [[absolute]] {{Wiki|monarchy}} as [[dangerous]] and [[evil]] and rejected {{Wiki|orthodox}} {{Wiki|{{Wiki|Christianity}}}}. Though Rousseau often struggled to seem more devout, he was almost as much a skeptic as Voltaire: the minimalist [[faith]] both shared was called "deism," and it was eventually to [[transform]] {{Wiki|European}} [[religion]] and have powerful [[influences]] on other aspects of {{Wiki|society}} as well. |
[[File:19ufo1 500.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:19ufo1 500.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Across the border in Holland, the merchants, who exercised most {{Wiki|political}} [[Power]], there made a successful industry out of publishing [[books]] that could not be printed in countries like {{Wiki|France}}. Dissenting [[religious]] groups mounted radical attacks on {{Wiki|Christian}} orthodoxy. | + | Across the border in [[Holland]], the {{Wiki|merchants}}, who exercised most {{Wiki|political}} [[Power]], there made a successful industry out of publishing [[books]] that could not be printed in countries like {{Wiki|France}}. Dissenting [[religious]] groups mounted radical attacks on {{Wiki|Christian}} {{Wiki|orthodoxy}}. |
− | ===The [[Enlightenment]] in England=== | + | ===The [[Enlightenment]] in {{Wiki|England}}=== |
− | Meanwhile {{Wiki|Great Britain}} had developed its own [[Enlightenment]], fostered by thinkers like the English thinker John Locke, the Scot {{Wiki|David Hume}}, and many others. England had anticipated the rest of {{Wiki|Europe}} by deposing and decapitating its [[king]] back in the 17th century. Although the monarchy had eventually been restored, this [[experience]] created a certain [[openness]] toward | + | Meanwhile {{Wiki|Great Britain}} had developed its [[own]] [[Enlightenment]], fostered by thinkers like the English thinker {{Wiki|John Locke}}, the Scot {{Wiki|David Hume}}, and many others. {{Wiki|England}} had anticipated the rest of {{Wiki|Europe}} by deposing and decapitating its [[king]] back in the 17th century. Although the {{Wiki|monarchy}} had eventually been restored, this [[experience]] created a certain [[openness]] toward change in many places that could not be entirely [[extinguished]]. English {{Wiki|Protestantism}} struggled to express itself in ways that widened the limits of freedom of [[speech]] and press. Radical Quakers and Unitarians broke open old {{Wiki|dogmas}} in ways that Voltaire was to find highly congenial when he found himself there in exile. The English and {{Wiki|French}} [[Enlightenments]] exchanged [[influences]] through many channels, Voltaire not least among them. |
− | Because England had gotten its revolution out of the way early, it was able to proceed more smoothly and gradually down the road to democracy; but English liberty was dynamite when transported to {{Wiki|France}}, where resistance by church and state was fierce to the last possible moment. The result was ironically that while Britain remained saturated with class privilege and relatively pious, {{Wiki|France}} was to become after its own revolution the most {{Wiki|egalitarian}} and anticlerical state in Europe--at least in its ideals. The [[Power]] of [[religion]] and the aristocracy diminished gradually in England; in {{Wiki|France}} they were violently uprooted. | + | Because {{Wiki|England}} had gotten its [[revolution]] out of the way early, it was able to proceed more smoothly and gradually down the road to {{Wiki|democracy}}; but English liberty was dynamite when transported to {{Wiki|France}}, where resistance by {{Wiki|church}} and [[state]] was fierce to the last possible [[moment]]. The result was ironically that while {{Wiki|Britain}} remained saturated with class privilege and relatively pious, {{Wiki|France}} was to become after its [[own]] [[revolution]] the most {{Wiki|egalitarian}} and anticlerical [[state]] in Europe--at least in its ideals. The [[Power]] of [[religion]] and the {{Wiki|aristocracy}} diminished gradually in {{Wiki|England}}; in {{Wiki|France}} they were violently uprooted. |
− | ===The [[Enlightenment]] in America=== | + | ===The [[Enlightenment]] in {{Wiki|America}}=== |
− | Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, many of the [[intellectual]] leaders of the American colonies were drawn to the [[Enlightenment]]. The colonies may have been founded by leaders of various {{Wiki|dogmatic}} [[religious]] persuasions, but when it became necessary to unite against England, it was apparent that no one of them could prevail over the others, and that the most desirable course was to agree to disagree. [[Nothing]] more powerfully impelled the movement toward the separation of church and state than the [[realization]] that no one church could dominate this new state. | + | Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, many of the [[intellectual]] leaders of the American colonies were drawn to the [[Enlightenment]]. The colonies may have been founded by leaders of various {{Wiki|dogmatic}} [[religious]] persuasions, but when it became necessary to unite against {{Wiki|England}}, it was apparent that no one of them could prevail over the others, and that the most desirable course was to agree to disagree. [[Nothing]] more powerfully impelled the {{Wiki|movement}} toward the separation of {{Wiki|church}} and [[state]] than the [[realization]] that no one {{Wiki|church}} could dominate this new [[state]]. |
[[File:Chion-in.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Chion-in.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American revolution--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French [[Enlightenment]] [[thought]]. The [[God]] who underwrites the {{Wiki|concept}} of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist [[God]] Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the [[traditional]] churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over {{Wiki|Europe}}. Jefferson and Franklin both spent [[time]] in France--a natural ally because it was a [[traditional]] enemy of England--absorbing the [[influence]] of the French [[Enlightenment]]. The [[language]] of {{Wiki|natural law}}, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the [[language]] of the [[Enlightenment]], though often coated with a [[light]] glaze of [[traditional]] [[religion]], what has been called our "civil [[religion]]." | + | Many of the most {{Wiki|distinguished}} leaders of the American revolution--Jefferson, {{Wiki|Washington}}, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French [[Enlightenment]] [[thought]]. The [[God]] who underwrites the {{Wiki|concept}} of equality in the Declaration of {{Wiki|Independence}} is the same deist [[God]] Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the [[traditional]] churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over {{Wiki|Europe}}. Jefferson and Franklin both spent [[time]] in France--a natural ally because it was a [[traditional]] enemy of England--absorbing the [[influence]] of the {{Wiki|French}} [[Enlightenment]]. The [[language]] of {{Wiki|natural law}}, of [[inherent]] freedoms, of [[self-determination]] which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the [[language]] of the [[Enlightenment]], though often coated with a [[light]] glaze of [[traditional]] [[religion]], what has been called our "civil [[religion]]." |
− | This is one [[reason]] that Americans should study the [[Enlightenment]]. It is in their bones. It has defined part of what they have dreamed of, what they aim to become. Separated geographically from most of the aristocrats against whom they were rebelling, their revolution was to be far less corrosive--and at first less influential--than that in {{Wiki|France}}. | + | This is one [[reason]] that {{Wiki|Americans}} should study the [[Enlightenment]]. It is in their {{Wiki|bones}}. It has defined part of what they have dreamed of, what they aim to become. Separated geographically from most of the {{Wiki|aristocrats}} against whom they were rebelling, their [[revolution]] was to be far less corrosive--and at first less influential--than that in {{Wiki|France}}. |
− | ===The Struggle in Europe=== | + | ===The Struggle in {{Wiki|Europe}}=== |
− | But we need to return to the beginning of the story, to Voltaire and his allies in {{Wiki|France}}, struggling to assert the values of freedom and [[tolerance]] in a culture where the twin fortresses of monarchy and Church opposed almost everything they stood for. To oppose the monarchy openly would be fatal; the Church was an easier target. Protestantism had made [[religious]] controversy familiar. Voltaire could skillfully cite one {{Wiki|Christian}} against another to make his arguments. One way to undermine the [[Power]] of the Church was to undermine its credibility, and thus Voltaire devoted a great deal of his [[time]] to attacking the fundamentals of {{Wiki|Christian}} [[belief]]: the inspiration of the Bible, the [[incarnation]] of [[God]] in {{Wiki|Jesus}} Christ, the damnation of unbelievers. No [[doubt]] he relished this battle partly for its own sake, but he never lost [[sight]] of his central goal: the toppling of Church [[Power]] to increase the freedom available to Europeans. | + | But we need to return to the beginning of the story, to Voltaire and his allies in {{Wiki|France}}, struggling to assert the values of freedom and [[tolerance]] in a {{Wiki|culture}} where the twin fortresses of {{Wiki|monarchy}} and {{Wiki|Church}} opposed almost everything they stood for. To oppose the {{Wiki|monarchy}} openly would be fatal; the {{Wiki|Church}} was an easier target. {{Wiki|Protestantism}} had made [[religious]] controversy familiar. Voltaire could skillfully cite one {{Wiki|Christian}} against another to make his arguments. One way to undermine the [[Power]] of the {{Wiki|Church}} was to undermine its credibility, and thus Voltaire devoted a great deal of his [[time]] to attacking the fundamentals of {{Wiki|Christian}} [[belief]]: the inspiration of the Bible, the [[incarnation]] of [[God]] in {{Wiki|Jesus}} {{Wiki|Christ}}, the damnation of unbelievers. No [[doubt]] he relished this {{Wiki|battle}} partly for its [[own]] sake, but he never lost [[sight]] of his central goal: the toppling of {{Wiki|Church}} [[Power]] to increase the freedom available to {{Wiki|Europeans}}. |
− | Voltaire was joined by a band of rebellious thinkers known as the philosophes: Charles de Montesquieu, Pierre Bayle, Jean d'Alembert, and many lesser lights. Although "philosophe" literally means "[[philosopher]]" we use the French word in English to designate this particular group of French 18th-century thinkers. Because Denis Diderot commissioned many of them to write for his influential {{Wiki|Encyclopedia}}, they are also known as "the Encyclopedists." | + | Voltaire was joined by a band of rebellious thinkers known as the philosophes: Charles de Montesquieu, Pierre Bayle, Jean d'Alembert, and many lesser lights. Although "philosophe" literally means "[[philosopher]]" we use the {{Wiki|French}} [[word]] in English to designate this particular group of {{Wiki|French}} 18th-century thinkers. Because {{Wiki|Denis Diderot}} commissioned many of them to write for his influential {{Wiki|Encyclopedia}}, they are also known as "the Encyclopedists." |
− | ===The Heritage of the Enlightenment=== | + | ===The Heritage of the [[Enlightenment]]=== |
− | Today the [[Enlightenment]] is often viewed as a historical anomaly, a brief moment when a number of thinkers infatuated with [[reason]] vainly supposed that the perfect {{Wiki|society}} could be built on {{Wiki|common sense}} and [[tolerance]], a fantasy which collapsed amid the Terror of the French Revolution and the triumphal sweep of Romanticism. [[Religious]] thinkers repeatedly proclaim the [[Enlightenment]] [[dead]], Marxists denounce it for promoting the ideals and [[Power]] of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working classes, postcolonial critics reject its idealization of specifically European notions as [[universal]] [[truths]], and postructuralists reject its entire {{Wiki|concept}} of [[rational]] [[thought]]. | + | Today the [[Enlightenment]] is often viewed as a historical anomaly, a brief [[moment]] when a number of thinkers infatuated with [[reason]] vainly supposed that the {{Wiki|perfect}} {{Wiki|society}} could be built on {{Wiki|common sense}} and [[tolerance]], a [[fantasy]] which collapsed amid the Terror of the {{Wiki|French}} [[Revolution]] and the triumphal sweep of {{Wiki|Romanticism}}. [[Religious]] thinkers repeatedly proclaim the [[Enlightenment]] [[dead]], Marxists denounce it for promoting the ideals and [[Power]] of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working classes, postcolonial critics reject its idealization of specifically {{Wiki|European}} notions as [[universal]] [[truths]], and postructuralists reject its entire {{Wiki|concept}} of [[rational]] [[thought]]. |
− | Yet in many ways, the [[Enlightenment]] has never been more alive. The notions of [[human]] rights it developed are powerfully attractive to oppressed peoples everywhere, who appeal to the same notion of {{Wiki|natural law}} that so inspired Voltaire and Jefferson. Wherever [[religious]] conflicts erupt, mutual [[religious]] [[tolerance]] is counseled as a solution. Rousseau's notions of self-rule are ideals so [[universal]] that the worst tyrant has to disguise his tyrannies by claiming to be [[acting]] on their behalf. European these ideas may be, but they have also become global. Whatever their limits, they have formed the consensus of international ideals by which modern states are judged. | + | Yet in many ways, the [[Enlightenment]] has never been more alive. The notions of [[human]] rights it developed are powerfully attractive to oppressed peoples everywhere, who appeal to the same notion of {{Wiki|natural law}} that so inspired Voltaire and Jefferson. Wherever [[religious]] conflicts erupt, mutual [[religious]] [[tolerance]] is counseled as a {{Wiki|solution}}. Rousseau's notions of self-rule are ideals so [[universal]] that the worst tyrant has to disguise his tyrannies by claiming to be [[acting]] on their behalf. {{Wiki|European}} these [[ideas]] may be, but they have also become global. Whatever their limits, they have formed the consensus of international ideals by which {{Wiki|modern}} states are judged. |
− | If our [[world]] seems little closer to [[perfection]] than that of 18th-century {{Wiki|France}}, that is partly due to our failure to appreciate gains we take for granted. But it is also the case that many of the enemies of the [[Enlightenment]] are demolishing a straw man: it was never as simple-mindedly optimistic as it has often been portrayed. Certainly Voltaire was no facile optimist. He distrusted utopianism, instead trying to cajole Europeans out of their more harmful stupidities. Whether we [[acknowledge]] his [[influence]] or not, we still think today more like him than like his enemies. | + | If our [[world]] seems little closer to [[perfection]] than that of 18th-century {{Wiki|France}}, that is partly due to our failure to appreciate gains we take for granted. But it is also the case that many of the enemies of the [[Enlightenment]] are demolishing a straw man: it was never as simple-mindedly {{Wiki|optimistic}} as it has often been portrayed. Certainly Voltaire was no facile optimist. He distrusted utopianism, instead trying to cajole {{Wiki|Europeans}} out of their more harmful stupidities. Whether we [[acknowledge]] his [[influence]] or not, we still think today more like him than like his enemies. |
− | As we go through his most influential work, The [[Philosophical]] Dictionary, look for passages which helped lay the groundwork for modern patterns of [[thought]]. Look also for passages which still seem challenging, pieces of arguments that continue today. | + | As we go through his most influential work, The [[Philosophical]] {{Wiki|Dictionary}}, look for passages which helped lay the groundwork for {{Wiki|modern}} patterns of [[thought]]. Look also for passages which still seem challenging, pieces of arguments that continue today. |
{{R}} | {{R}} |
Latest revision as of 11:36, 29 January 2015
Although the intellectual movement called "The Enlightenment" is usually associated with the 18th century, its roots in fact go back much further. But before we explore those roots, we need to define the term. This is one of those rare historical movements which in fact named itself. Certain thinkers and writers, primarily in London and Paris, believed that they were more enlightened than their compatriots and set out to enlighten them.
They believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition, and tyranny and to build a better world. Their principal targets were religion (embodied in France in the Catholic Church) and the domination of society by a hereditary aristocracy.
Background in Antiquity
To understand why this movement became so influential in the 18th century, it is important to go back in time. We could choose almost any starting point, but let us begin with the recovery of Aristotelian logic by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. In his hands the logical procedures so carefully laid out by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle were used to defend the dogmas of [[Wikipedia:Christianity|Christianity]]; and for the next couple of centuries, other thinkers pursued these goals to shore up every aspect of faith with logic. These thinkers were sometimes called "schoolmen" (more formally, "scholastics,") and Voltaire frequently refers to them as "doctors," by which he means "doctors of theology."
Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the tools of logic could not be confined to the uses it preferred. After all, they had been developed in Athens, in a pagan culture which had turned them on its own traditional beliefs. It was only a matter of time before later Europeans would do the same.
The Renaissance Humanists
In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and France a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary political debate. Almost all of them were practicing Catholics. They argued that the proper worship of God involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that crown of creation: humanity. By celebrating the human race and its capacities they argued they were worshipping God more appropriately than gloomy priests and monks who harped on original sin and continuously called upon people to confess and humble themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that humans were like God, created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative Power. The painter, the architect, the musician, and the scholar, by exercising their intellectual powers, were fulfilling divine purposes.
This celebration of human capacity, though it was mixed in the Renaissance with elements of gloom and superstition (witchcraft trials flourished in this period as they never had during the Middle Ages), was to bestow a powerful legacy on Europeans. The goal of Renaissance humanists was to recapture some of the pride, breadth of spirit, and creativity of the ancient Greeks and Romans, to replicate their successes and go beyond them. Europeans developed the belief that tradition could and should be used to promote change. By cleaning and sharpening the tools of antiquity, they could reshape their own time.
Galileo Galilei, for instance, was to use the same sort of logic the schoolmen had used--reinforced with observation--to argue in 1632 for the Copernican notion that the earth rotates on its axis beneath the unmoving sun. The Church, and most particularly the Holy Inquisition, objected that the Bible clearly stated that the sun moved through the sky and denounced Galileo's teachings, forcing him to recant (take back) what he had written and preventing him from teaching further. The Church's triumph was a pyrrhic victory, for though it could silence Galileo, it could not prevent the advance of science (though most of those advances would take place in Protestant northern Europe, out of the reach of the pope and his Inquisition).
But before Galileo's time, in the 16th century, various humanists had begun to ask dangerous questions. François Rabelais, a French Monk and physician influenced by Protestantism, but spurred on by his own rebelliousness, challenged the Church's authority in his Gargantua and Pantagruel, ridiculing many religious doctrines as absurd.
Michel de Montaigne
Michel de Montaigne, in a much more quiet and modest but ultimately more subversive way, asked a single question over and over again in his Essays: "What do I know?" By this he meant that we have no right to impose on others dogmas which rest on cultural habit rather than absolute truth. Powerfully influenced by the discovery of thriving non-Christian cultures in places as far off as Brazil, he argued that morals may be to some degree relative. Who are Europeans to insist that Brazilian cannibals who merely consume dead human flesh instead of wasting it are morally inferior to Europeans who persecute and oppress those of whom they disapprove?
This shift toward cultural relativism, though it was based on scant understanding of the newly discovered peoples, was to continue to have a profound effect on European thought to the present day. Indeed, it is one of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment. Just as their predecessors had used the tools of antiquity to gain unprecedented freedom of inquiry, the Enlightenment thinkers used the examples of other cultures to gain the freedom to reshape not only their philosophies, but their societies. It was becoming clear that there was nothing inevitable about the European patterns of thought and living: there were many possible ways of being human, and doubtless new ones could be invented.
The other contribution of Montaigne to the Enlightenment stemmed from another aspect of his famous question: "What do I know?" If we cannot be certain that our values are God-given, then we have no right to impose them by force on others. Inquisitors, popes, and kings alike had no business enforcing adherence to particular religious or philosophical beliefs.
It is one of the great paradoxes of history that radical doubt was necessary for the new sort of certainty called "scientific." The good scientist is the one is willing to test all assumptions, to challenge all traditional opinion, to get closer to the truth. If ultimate truth, such as was claimed by religious thinkers, was unattainable by scientists, so much the better. In a sense, the strength of science at its best is that it is always aware of its limits, aware that knowledge is always growing, always subject to change, never absolute. Because knowledge depends on evidence and reason, arbitrary authority can only be its enemy.
The 17th Century
René Descartes, in the 17th century, attempted to use reason as the schoolmen had, to shore up his faith; but much more rigorously than had been attempted before. He tried to begin with a blank slate, with the bare minimum of knowledge: the knowledge of his own existence ("I think, therefore I am"). From there he attempted to reason his way to a complete defense of [[Wikipedia:Christianity|Christianity]], but to do so he committed so many logical faults that his successors over the centuries were to slowly disintegrate his gains, even finally challenging the notion of selfhood with which he had begun. The history of philosophy from his time to the early 20th century is partly the story of more and more ingenious logic proving less and less, until Ludwig Wittgenstein succeeded in undermining the very bases of philosophy itself.
But that is a story for a different course. Here we are concerned with early stages in the process in which it seemed that logic could be a powerful avenue to truth. To be sure, logic alone could be used to defend all sorts of absurd notions; and Enlightenment thinkers insisted on combining it with something they called "reason" which consisted of common sense, observation, and their own unacknowledged prejudices in favor of skepticism and freedom.
We have been focusing closely on a thin trickle of thought which traveled through an era otherwise dominated by dogma and fanaticism. The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts and wars of religion and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics denounced each other as followers of Satan, and people could be imprisoned for attending the wrong church, or for not attending any. All publications, whether pamphlets or scholarly volumes, were subject to prior censorship by both church and state, often working hand in hand. Slavery was widely practiced, especially in the colonial plantations of the Western Hemisphere, and its cruelties frequently defended by leading religious figures. The despotism of monarchs exercising far greater powers than any medieval king was supported by the doctrine of the "divine right of kings," and scripture quoted to show that revolution was detested by God. Speakers of sedition or blasphemy quickly found themselves imprisoned, or even executed. Organizations which tried to challenge the twin authorities of church and state were banned. There had been plenty of intolerance and dogma to go around in the Middle Ages, but the emergence of the modern state made its tyranny much more efficient and powerful.
It was inevitable that sooner or later many Europeans would begin to weary of the repression and warfare carried out in the name of absolute truth. In addition, though Protestants had begun by making powerful critiques of Catholicism, they quickly turned their guns on each other, producing a bewildering array of churches each claiming the exclusive path to salvation. It was natural for people tossed from one demanding faith to another to wonder whether any of the churches deserved the authority they claimed, and to begin to prize the skepticism of Montaigne over the certainty of Luther or Calvin.
Meanwhile, there were other powerful forces at work in Europe: economic ones which were to interact profoundly with these intellectual trends.
The Political and Economic Background
During the late Middle Ages, peasants had begun to move from rural estates to the towns in search of increased freedom and prosperity. As trade and communication improved during the Renaissance, the ordinary town-dweller began to realize that things need not always go on as they had for centuries. New charters could be written, new governments formed, new laws passed, new businesses begun. Although each changed institution quickly tried to stabilize its Power by claiming the support of tradition, the pressure for change continued to mount. It was not only contact with alien cultural patterns which influenced Europeans, it was the wealth brought back from Asia and the Americas which catapulted a new class of merchants into prominence, partially displacing the old aristocracy whose Power had been rooted in the ownership of land. These merchants had their own ideas about the sort of world they wanted to inhabit, and they became major agents of change, in the arts, in government, and in the economy.
They were naturally convinced that their earnings were the result of their individual merit and hard work, unlike the inherited wealth of traditional aristocrats. Whereas individualism had been chiefly emphasized in the Renaissance by artists, especially visual artists, it now became a core value. The ability of individual effort to transform the world became a European dogma, lasting to this day.
But the chief obstacles to the reshaping of Europe by the merchant class were the same as those faced by the rationalist philosophers: absolutist kings and dogmatic churches. The struggle was complex and many-sided, with each participant absorbing many of the others' values; but the general trend is clear: individualism, freedom and change replaced community, authority, and tradition as core European values. Religion survived, but weakened and often transformed almost beyond recognition; the monarchy was to dwindle over the course of the hundred years beginning in the mid-18th century to a pale shadow of its former self.
This is the background of the 18th-century Enlightenment. Europeans were changing, but Europe's institutions were not keeping pace with that change. The Church insisted that it was the only source of truth, that all who lived outside its bounds were damned, while it was apparent to any reasonably sophisticated person that most human beings on earth were not and had never been Christians--yet they had built great and inspiring civilizations. Writers and speakers grew restive at the omnipresent censorship and sought whatever means they could to evade or even denounce it.
Most important, the middle classes--the bourgeoisie--were painfully aware that they were paying taxes to support a fabulously expensive aristocracy which contributed nothing of value to society (beyond, perhaps, its patronage of the arts, which the burghers of Holland had shown could be equally well exercised by themselves), and that those useless aristocrats were unwilling to share Power with those who actually managed and--to their way of thinking,--created the national wealth. They were to find ready allies in France among the impoverished masses who may have lived and thought much like their ancestors, but who were all too aware that with each passing year they were paying higher and higher taxes to support a few thousand at Versailles in idle dissipation.
The Role of the Aristocrats
Interestingly, it was among those very idle aristocrats that the French Enlightenment philosophers were to find some of their earliest and most enthusiastic followers. Despite the fact that the Church and State were more often than not allied with each other, they were keenly aware of their differences. Even kings could on occasion be attracted by arguments which seemed to undermine the authority of the Church. The fact that the aristocrats were utterly unaware of the precariousness of their position also made them overconfident, interested in dabbling in the new ideas partly simply because they were new and exciting.
Voltaire moved easily in these aristocratic circles, dining at their tables, taking a titled mistress, corresponding with monarchs. He opposed tyranny and dogma, but he had no notion of reinventing that discredited Athenian folly, democracy. He had far too little faith in the ordinary person for that. What he did think was that educated and sophisticated persons could be brought to see through the exercise of their reason that the world could and should be greatly improved.
Rousseau vs. Voltaire
Not all Enlightenment thinkers were like Voltaire in this. His chief adversary was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who distrusted the aristocrats not out of a thirst for change but because he believed they were betraying decent traditional values. He opposed the theater which was Voltaire's lifeblood, shunned the aristocracy which Voltaire courted, and argued for something dangerously like democratic revolution. Whereas Voltaire argued that equality was impossible, Rousseau argued that inequality was not only unnatural, but that--when taken too far--it made decent government impossible. Whereas Voltaire charmed with his wit, Rousseau ponderously insisted on his correctness, even while contradicting himself. Whereas Voltaire insisted on the supremacy of the intellect, Rousseau emphasized the emotions, becoming a contributor to both the Enlightenment and its successor, romanticism. And whereas Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core Enlightenment notions, Rousseau sparked off original thoughts in all directions: ideas about education, the family, government, the arts, and whatever else attracted his attention.
For all their personal differences, the two shared more values than they liked to acknowledge. They viewed absolute monarchy as dangerous and evil and rejected orthodox [[Wikipedia:Christianity|Christianity]]. Though Rousseau often struggled to seem more devout, he was almost as much a skeptic as Voltaire: the minimalist faith both shared was called "deism," and it was eventually to transform European religion and have powerful influences on other aspects of society as well.
Across the border in Holland, the merchants, who exercised most political Power, there made a successful industry out of publishing books that could not be printed in countries like France. Dissenting religious groups mounted radical attacks on Christian orthodoxy.
The Enlightenment in England
Meanwhile Great Britain had developed its own Enlightenment, fostered by thinkers like the English thinker John Locke, the Scot David Hume, and many others. England had anticipated the rest of Europe by deposing and decapitating its king back in the 17th century. Although the monarchy had eventually been restored, this experience created a certain openness toward change in many places that could not be entirely extinguished. English Protestantism struggled to express itself in ways that widened the limits of freedom of speech and press. Radical Quakers and Unitarians broke open old dogmas in ways that Voltaire was to find highly congenial when he found himself there in exile. The English and French Enlightenments exchanged influences through many channels, Voltaire not least among them.
Because England had gotten its revolution out of the way early, it was able to proceed more smoothly and gradually down the road to democracy; but English liberty was dynamite when transported to France, where resistance by church and state was fierce to the last possible moment. The result was ironically that while Britain remained saturated with class privilege and relatively pious, France was to become after its own revolution the most egalitarian and anticlerical state in Europe--at least in its ideals. The Power of religion and the aristocracy diminished gradually in England; in France they were violently uprooted.
The Enlightenment in America
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, many of the intellectual leaders of the American colonies were drawn to the Enlightenment. The colonies may have been founded by leaders of various dogmatic religious persuasions, but when it became necessary to unite against England, it was apparent that no one of them could prevail over the others, and that the most desirable course was to agree to disagree. Nothing more powerfully impelled the movement toward the separation of church and state than the realization that no one church could dominate this new state.
Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American revolution--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French Enlightenment thought. The God who underwrites the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist God Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the traditional churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over Europe. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France--a natural ally because it was a traditional enemy of England--absorbing the influence of the French Enlightenment. The language of natural law, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the language of the Enlightenment, though often coated with a light glaze of traditional religion, what has been called our "civil religion."
This is one reason that Americans should study the Enlightenment. It is in their bones. It has defined part of what they have dreamed of, what they aim to become. Separated geographically from most of the aristocrats against whom they were rebelling, their revolution was to be far less corrosive--and at first less influential--than that in France.
The Struggle in Europe
But we need to return to the beginning of the story, to Voltaire and his allies in France, struggling to assert the values of freedom and tolerance in a culture where the twin fortresses of monarchy and Church opposed almost everything they stood for. To oppose the monarchy openly would be fatal; the Church was an easier target. Protestantism had made religious controversy familiar. Voltaire could skillfully cite one Christian against another to make his arguments. One way to undermine the Power of the Church was to undermine its credibility, and thus Voltaire devoted a great deal of his time to attacking the fundamentals of Christian belief: the inspiration of the Bible, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, the damnation of unbelievers. No doubt he relished this battle partly for its own sake, but he never lost sight of his central goal: the toppling of Church Power to increase the freedom available to Europeans.
Voltaire was joined by a band of rebellious thinkers known as the philosophes: Charles de Montesquieu, Pierre Bayle, Jean d'Alembert, and many lesser lights. Although "philosophe" literally means "philosopher" we use the French word in English to designate this particular group of French 18th-century thinkers. Because Denis Diderot commissioned many of them to write for his influential Encyclopedia, they are also known as "the Encyclopedists."
The Heritage of the Enlightenment
Today the Enlightenment is often viewed as a historical anomaly, a brief moment when a number of thinkers infatuated with reason vainly supposed that the perfect society could be built on common sense and tolerance, a fantasy which collapsed amid the Terror of the French Revolution and the triumphal sweep of Romanticism. Religious thinkers repeatedly proclaim the Enlightenment dead, Marxists denounce it for promoting the ideals and Power of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working classes, postcolonial critics reject its idealization of specifically European notions as universal truths, and postructuralists reject its entire concept of rational thought.
Yet in many ways, the Enlightenment has never been more alive. The notions of human rights it developed are powerfully attractive to oppressed peoples everywhere, who appeal to the same notion of natural law that so inspired Voltaire and Jefferson. Wherever religious conflicts erupt, mutual religious tolerance is counseled as a solution. Rousseau's notions of self-rule are ideals so universal that the worst tyrant has to disguise his tyrannies by claiming to be acting on their behalf. European these ideas may be, but they have also become global. Whatever their limits, they have formed the consensus of international ideals by which modern states are judged.
If our world seems little closer to perfection than that of 18th-century France, that is partly due to our failure to appreciate gains we take for granted. But it is also the case that many of the enemies of the Enlightenment are demolishing a straw man: it was never as simple-mindedly optimistic as it has often been portrayed. Certainly Voltaire was no facile optimist. He distrusted utopianism, instead trying to cajole Europeans out of their more harmful stupidities. Whether we acknowledge his influence or not, we still think today more like him than like his enemies.
As we go through his most influential work, The Philosophical Dictionary, look for passages which helped lay the groundwork for modern patterns of thought. Look also for passages which still seem challenging, pieces of arguments that continue today.