The Enlightenment. Where

[apathy maybe]

I have been having lectures on the Enlightenment in History, and it seems to me that Marx et al. along with right-wingers got many (if not all) their ideas from this time. For example, it seems to me that Marx got a lot of ideas from Morelly (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/morelly.html) (more info here (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture19a.html#morelly).
There were also people who said that the government had no right to interfere with a buyers right to buy, or a sellers right to sell. And more people who said that the government's job is to look after the people.

A lot of 'modern' ideas (from both left and right) came from the time we call the Enlightenment. These are ideas are rarely acknowledged by others or even heard of as the original person to think the though (except maybe Locke and that other English bloke).

[Essential Insignificance]

I am, if truth were told, not too sure what your intention(s) is or to a certain extent, what your point(s) is in general.

Although...I don’t know if it could be "documented" that both fields of the "right" and "left" got their ideas exclusively from the "age" of enlightenment.

What must, I suppose, needs to be clarified is that ideas are always build upon pre-existing ones…so I find it some what peculiar, that your surprised about some ideas of others existing indirectly with ideologies that are pertinent now.

Seldom have we seen a completely original idea or premise…in I guess the last 1000 years.

It was the age of reason…everything from the church to government was questioned on their existence and proposes…and in further, were they "progressive" or merely "reactionary".

The world changed from that point on…man started to "question"…that is to say, not in a "abstract" sense…generally.

[Wenty]

I would say yes and no. The enlightenment was a reaction to the scientific revolution. Philosophers now turned their attention to society at large. I would also cite the French Revolution as causing many of our modern ideas. Conservatism is a reaction against FR and liberalism, socialism are heavily influenced by it too.

EI - why do you put words in quotation marks all the time. Look over your posts, rarely are they necessary.

[Essential Insignificance]

EI - why do you put words in quotation marks all the time. Look over your posts, rarely are they necessary.

I find it necessary and effective when discoursing my thoughts on a message board.

[Wenty]

A lot of the time you put quotation marks in random words though, how asinine.

[Essential Insignificance]

I disagree…I use them when I feel it is necessary…its hardly "asinine", but I think you whole "argument" is though.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Although...I don’t know if it could be "documented" that both fields of the "right" and "left" got their ideas exclusively from the "age" of enlightenment.

It is a well documented era, most liberal ideas stem from the Enlightenment, Locke for example was one of the forerunners of religious toleration.





What must, I suppose, needs to be clarified is that ideas are always build upon pre-existing ones…so I find it some what peculiar, that your surprised about some ideas of others existing indirectly with ideologies that are pertinent now.

Most Enlighenment ideas were pretty radical and new stemming from a philosophical outlook towards political and religious issues.



Seldom have we seen a completely original idea or premise…in I guess the last 1000 years.

Bullshit, read some Hume, Locke and Voltaire and tell me where people had thought of what they were talking about before?

Certainly not in the field of philosophy, Hume's theory of the passions for example is a completely origanal idea.


It was the age of reason…everything from the church to government was questioned on their existence and proposes…and in further, were they "progressive" or merely "reactionary".

They were progressive, extremely so and most of their ideas were directly a cause of the French revolution. Not reactionary at all in the context of the time, also they did have an overdependance on reason and a futile attempt to divisnise man when clearly he wasnt ready for it, still sadly isnt.



The world changed from that point on…man started to "question"…that is to say, not in a "abstract" sense…generally.

What does this mean?

Anyway I have studied this over the last few months so I would be happy to answer any questions relating to the philosophical effects of the Englightenment.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Here are some excerpts from an essay of mine, I have taken out some non-relevent stuff.

It might help you with whatever you are studying, not the best of my essays, I am better at more philosophical ideas kind of questions than ones focusing on say the history of an era, anything abstract bores me but its a good fair attempt to answer the question so here ya go!



This essay will attempt to show that Whitehead’s criticisms of Enlightenment reason are justified on the basis of defending metaphysics. This will be attempted by first examining the development and subsequent acceptance of Enlightenment reason during the period. The second aspect of this form of reason to be examined is A.F. Whitehead’s reaction towards Enlightenment reason and his defence of metaphysics.
Whitehead will be compared to the prominent Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant due to the similarity of their viewpoints in order to further our understanding of his reaction. Finally the criticism of Whitehead will be applied to some positions of the philsophes of the time in order to strengthen Whiteheads viewpoint.

Let us begin by examining the background to the Enlightenment and how its form of reason was developed. The Enlightenment itself was essentially a reaction against the traditional authorities in all major areas of thought: religious, political and philosophical. In the area of philosophy a new faith in the power of man/woman and their ability to employ reason and experience to understand their world took hold. The germ seeds of the Enlightenment can be found in the science of Isaac Newton and of course the philosophy of René Descartes. These great thinkers gave the impetus for a more radical development of mans reason that would flourish over the next century. The most influential developer of this idea is the English philosopher John Locke, Locke himself reacted against the idea of the seventeenth century personified in Descartes that ‘science, theology and metaphysics were inseparable ways of looking at a unified human experience’ .

Thus the tie with metaphysics was beginning to be broken yet with Locke we find an attempt to somehow accommodate Christianity. With David Hume a more radical form of empiricism was developed, in which concrete experience is ‘our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact’ . So despite still being apparently tied to Christianity Locke and Hume began a process that was to develop the Enlightenment’s version of reason. Later thinkers, especially the philosophes would not be so kind to Christianity and it is with them that we have the view of the Enlightenment as a reaction against the Judeo-Christian tradition and Greek Philosophy, and not to forget their subsequent combination in the scholastic tradition.

As we have seen it is with Newton, Descartes and Locke that the Enlightenment’s version of reason is developed. Reason is thus established as a combination of rationalism and empiricism as it spreads throughout the intellectual world. The Enlightenment’s form of reason with its materialist outlook leads to a radical questioning of authority most notably the authority of organised religion and theology in general. This form of thinking, unsurprisingly leads to a general consensus that man could attain knowledge only ‘relative to the sense perception of man, and could attain no wider reality’ . The extent to which this version of reason was taken can be shown by one of the most prominent philosophes, ‘’what our eyes and mathematics demonstrate,’’ Voltaire asserted, ‘we must take as true. In all the rest we can only say: we are ignorant.’’

It is this form of reason that Whitehead calls deficient in it’s is vision of depth, the comfortable combination of rationalism and empiricism. As a viewpoint that leaves no room for any kind of metaphysics we would probably assume that it fits in quite well with the mind frame of a mathematician and philosopher such as Whitehead. This assumption, which is all it is, proves to be wrong. We must keep in mind that Whitehead’s view of many Enlightenment thinkers was that they were men of genius but not philosophers. This is crucial if we are to understand Whiteheads criticism of Enlightenment reason. The men who hold this view of reason to him are not philosophers and thus are likely to dismiss metaphysics in a way any man of philosophy is unlikely to do without the utmost consideration. At least he seems to be pointing out that we cannot as philosophers simply dismiss metaphysics and should always attempt to keep trying and build it a scientific system. This becomes clearer when we take into account that Whiteheads own philosophy ‘is an attempt at a systematic metaphysics built in the light of modern science and logic’ . Whiteheads view of the philosophes could be compared to Plato’s distinction between the philosopher and the sophist. When we take into account some of the more radical thinkers and especially some of the polemics against Christianity this viewpoint becomes attainable as we will examine later in relation to D’Holbach’s Le bon sens.

Comparisons can be drawn between another man of science who wished to build a system for metaphysics, Immanuel Kant. Kant like Whitehead did not accept the narrow confines of Enlightenment reason, or at least he did not wish to abandon some form of metaphysics. Both have much respect for the use of reason, the coupling of rationalism and empiricism surely appealing to their scientific minds but they also retain a respect for metaphysics and the possibility of building it a system. It is likely had Whitehead lived when Kant did that he would have been positioned like Kant at the periphery of the Enlightenment. It is important to point out here in defence of the many Enlightenment thinkers that most were not ‘against’ metaphysics as a possibility but believed that the possibility of human understanding comprehending metaphysical concepts was not a possibility. Thus we should abandon a project for metaphysics as it is distracting us from knowledge we can attain.

So what is Whitehead trying to tell us about the Enlightenment’s version of reason when he informs us that it is deficient in its vision of depth? It is a statement which attacks the very basis of much enlightenment thought when you consider that the Enlightenment was the age of reason. From our analysis so far it is clearly a criticism of the naiveté of enlightenment thinkers in their sole dependability on the power of reason. Also it is a criticism on the abandonment of metaphysics, saved of course by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. It is worth examining the extent to which the philosophes of the day actually upheld their own faith in the power of reason. For when Whitehead is criticising the Enlightenment thinkers it is surely directed more at the philosophes of the middle Enlightenment (1748 to 1751) than to Locke and Hume.

Let us examine the idea of being enlightened as held by possibly the most famous philosophe of them all, Voltaire, for his is a general stance held by many during his time. Voltaire himself wanted a system that comprised of science, empiricism and religious awe. This is important as despite a new emphasis on the power of man to understand his surroundings Voltaire was:

‘Himself a deist, he became famous as the implacable opponent of organised Christian religion, whose baleful effects were all too visible in the world of his time (‘those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities’)

So it seems that Whitehead’s criticism is based on the lack of room for
Metaphysics in the Enlightenment programme. If Voltaire himself, a vehement opposer of organised religion and a leading philosope could not fully discard the spectre of God then the question of whether man can abandon metaphysics is raised. Perhaps the approach of Deism is in fact more rational than atheism. Even if it is not, surely rash polemics like D’Holbach’s Le bon sens serve no purpose but to ridicule the believer. In his own words:

if one takes the trouble to probe the principles of which this so called science rests, one is forced to recognise that these principles, regarded as incontestable, are only rash assumptions, dreamed up in ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm on bad faith, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by unreasoning habit and revered only because it is not understood….

This is surely the kind of radical viewpoint that outright dismisses God and
ultimately leads to the abandonment of metaphysics as a whole. Perhaps one of the central flaws of this approach is the fact that a system of metaphysics does not only concern God. Yet we must keep in mind the aim’s of the philosophes, after all
when one is trying to build a systemisation of science and an emphasis on man who is the greater enemy than God.

To conclude this essay has attempted to outline the criticisms of A.F.
Whitehead on the Enlightenment’s form of reason. By examining the various aspects of Enlightenment thought in relation to reason an attempt has been made to justify Whiteheads position as a defence of metaphysics. We began by examining the ideas of development of Enlightenment reason from Newton to Locke, then describing its subsequent radicalisation and break from religion and ultimately metaphysics. The position of Whitehead himself was then outlined, his view of Enlightenment thinkers as not philosophers but men of genius and his own philosophy as an attempt at a system of metaphysics. Whitehead was compared to another thinker along his lines, Immanuel Kant whose reaction was similar and had a profound effect on the future of philosophy. Whiteheads criticisms were thus shown to be a disagreement about the lack of room for metaphysics in Enlightenment thought. The viewpoints of two prominent philosophes Volataire and ‘D’Holbach were examined to show that even these men of reason were generally flawed in their outright dismissal of metaphysics, to them metaphysics being God or organised religion.

Finally to conclude it seems that when Whitehead speaks of Enlightenment reason being deficient in its vision of depth he is reminding us that we should not abandon metaphysics due to our human nature not being able to understand its concepts. Like Kant, Whitehead wants to create for metaphysics a system. The strict empiricism, rationalism, pure reason and focus on science ignores too much about human nature to succeed. This is surely the central lesson that Whiteheads wants us to learn.

[Revolt!]

I disagree…I use them when I feel it is necessary

i.e. never dude.

[redstar2000]

The strict empiricism, rationalism, pure reason and focus on science ignores too much about human nature to succeed. This is surely the central lesson that Whitehead wants us to learn.

I never did get around to reading Whitehead; I'm glad to see that I didn't miss anything.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Actually Redstar he would pretty much have the same kind of view towards scuence as you just not as strict. Worth a look, maybe a library loan.

[gnuneo]

i would agree with the first post, in that marx and a lot of other supposed 'liberals' base their ideas upon this period.

one example could be that the enlightenment reomved 'values' from 'science', claiming that they had no place in a rational world - this has been disasterous for the entire world, and ultimately led to situation where politicians, who should be moral beacons, behave as though morality was only something for the ignorant masses under their control.

whilst there are historical reasons, arguably valid it the time for this removal of value, we in hindsight can most vertainly reject this notion, and virtually all of materialism with it, including the materialistic ideologies, like fundamentalist marxism.


i think the western educational structures need updating immediately, nero may or may not have fiddles whilst rome burned, but we for sure are watching TV whilst the world is dying.

[apathy maybe]

I was amazed by the amount of stuff that came from this period of time. I always thought that these ideas had come from the 1800's. The Communist Manifesto can not not really (IMHO) be thought of as the Communist piece. Code of Nature (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/morelly.html) details many 'communist' ideas.

Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society
I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
Look at that last one, sounds familier doesn't it.

While not all the ideas are good ideas or even communist ideas, Morelly outlined many things that were then picked up later.

[Essential Insignificance]

It is a well documented era, most liberal ideas stem from the Enlightenment, Locke for example was one of the forerunners of religious toleration.

I am all too attentive of it being a well documented era…but that was not what I was getting at.

Like you said, most, and I agree...my post said that that didn’t get their all their ideas "exclusively" from this epoch.


Most Enlighenment ideas were pretty radical and new stemming from a philosophical outlook towards political and religious issues.

They were fairly "radical" at the time…but like you’ve said…they were predominately liberalising ideas…. Locke as you have mentioned prior; was all for the ruling of governments, private property and class society…what he emphasised was that equality and liberty were an fundamental part of life and that people of the given nation, England, should chose whom governs them.

He was a "product" of his age…not too revolutionary…but liberal and progressive.



Bullshit, read some Hume, Locke and Voltaire and tell me where people had thought of what they were talking about before?

Certainly not in the field of philosophy, Hume's theory of the passions for example is a completely origanal idea.

It must be confessed here that I have not got around to the readings of Hume particularly and Voltaire especially…but as for Locke; what great and "original" idea did he conjure up…He’s most influential work was that of "An essay Concerning Human Understanding" where he layed his empiricist beliefs in opposition to the age old argument against rationalism…with his outer and inner experience of accruing knowledge and information.

And we all know how long that debate has being going on for, from Plato and Aristotle...the early days of philosophy.

Maybe I was a little "haste", when writing that there has not been a "original" idea in 1000 years.


i.e. never dude.

What.

[Wenty]

as for Locke; what great and "original" idea did he conjure up

Locke said everything we know comes from empiricism, everything . It was a radical and original position for the time.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well Wenty pretty much just said it but maybe just to reinforce it, dont you consider the idea that all our representations of our world come from the senses was a radical idea, you seem to equate empricism with Platonic idealism for some reason, I'll allow you to explain that...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I am all too attentive of it being a well documented era…but that was not what I was getting at.

You are diverging from what you said earlier:


Although...I don’t know if it could be "documented" that both fields of the "right" and "left" got their ideas exclusively from the "age" of enlightenment.

You have changed your mind.



They were fairly "radical" at the time…but like you’ve said…they were predominately liberalising ideas…. Locke as you have mentioned prior; was all for the ruling of governments, private property and class society…what he emphasised was that equality and liberty were an fundamental part of life and that people of the given nation, England, should chose whom governs them.



He was a "product" of his age…not too revolutionary…but liberal and progressive.


I see what you are saying but isnt this all self evident, you are re-inforcing the idea that ideas can be radical then become less over time. They are radical ideas because of the context of their time thus we call them radical ideas because the people who said them lived in a time when they were. You are judging Locke by todays standard which lacks a historical outlook, did you leanr nothing from Nietzsche :D

Next you said this:


Seldom have we seen a completely original idea or premise…in I guess the last 1000 years.

then go to this


It must be confessed here that I have not got around to the readings of Hume particularly and Voltaire especially…but as for Locke; what great and "original" idea did he conjure up…He’s most influential work was that of "An essay Concerning Human Understanding" where he layed his empiricist beliefs in opposition to the age old argument against rationalism…with his outer and inner experience of accruing knowledge and information.

The problem is you have essentially based your idea on nothing but a belief that somehow Locke had no new idea and you havent even read the wrok of Hume or Voltaire. The Essay by Locke is considered one of the most influential books for enlightenment thinkers which basically recieved attention from all its great thinkers including Hume because of a radical view of empricism, if it had been an old idea then nobody would have listened.


And we all know how long that debate has being going on for, from Plato and Aristotle...the early days of philosophy.

So there can be no new developments on ideas to do with anything Plato touched on or Aristotle for that matter, what argument are you talking about by the way?

[Essential Insignificance]

You are diverging from what you said earlier:
You have changed your mind.

Absolutely not…you have thoroughly misapprehend my intentional sentiment…I destined that I don’t know if it could be said that both the "left" and the "right" got all their ideas from the Enlightenment.

Is it apparent now.


I see what you are saying but isnt this all self evident, you are re-inforcing the idea that ideas can be radical then become less over time. They are radical ideas because of the context of their time thus we call them radical ideas because the people who said them lived in a time when they were. You are judging Locke by todays standard which lacks a historical outlook, did you leanr nothing from Nietzsche

I don’t know…is it "self-evident". You are forgetting that there were many "utopian" "socialists" in that era that were very "radical" with theories…and I sure that Mr Locke was all too aware of them. Yet he was still a liberalist in theory and practice…which is not a bad thing at all.

He was a liberal…which was a great thing at the time…much more productive then utopians.

As for Nietzsche…that "windbag" as not told me a thing. :lol:


Next you said this:
then go to this

The problem is you have essentially based your idea on nothing but a belief that somehow Locke had no new idea and you havent even read the wrok of Hume or Voltaire. The Essay by Locke is considered one of the most influential books for enlightenment thinkers which basically recieved attention from all its great thinkers including Hume because of a radical view of empricism, if it had been an old idea then nobody would have listened.

Because of my "gustily" ignorance towards Hume, I have just examined the majority of a book containing essays from Hume and another about him and his vocation…and believe it or not…I am very much in favour with his philosophy…but entirely innovative…it is not. His scepticism maybe but his empiricism is not original…but they do differ from others.

His empiricism was different to Locke’s slightly…all he did is look at it in another way. That experience only existed in the mind as individual units of experience. And what a person directly experienced was only that of the contents of his "consciousness" or "mind"…with its units of "perception" and "beliefs" or "thoughts".

As for Voltaire…that character as well known as he is, is only done so, by his playwriting more then anything…and his tale the "candied" which discussed the nature of "good" and "evil" and I am sure your familiar with concept…nothing to original about that...Plato toyed with these ideas.

The other contribution that he made to philosophy was that of that "Micromegas" (spelling) which was a very obscure dialogue…that conversed the relevance of the triviality of human pretentiousness towards religious subjects of matter. He fought religious intolerance throughout his life and added victims of religious persecution. Nothing, too original about that.

"Crush the evil thing"-Voltaire, referring to religious superstition. :lol:


So there can be no new developments on ideas to do with anything Plato touched on or Aristotle for that matter, what argument are you talking about by the way?

Of course there can, who am I to say otherwise…why are you implying otherwise…there has been grandiosely. It’s dialectical.

I am referring about their empiricism and rationalism postulations.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 4 2004, 02:08 AM













Absolutely not…you have thoroughly misapprehend my intentional sentiment…I destined that I don’t know if it could be said that both the "left" and the "right" got all their ideas from the Enlightenment.

Is it apparent now.

So what is apparent now? Ideas of the Enlightenment are leftist or to the right?


I don’t know…is it "self-evident". You are forgetting that there were many "utopian" "socialists" in that era that were very "radical" with theories…and I sure that Mr Locke was all too aware of them. Yet he was still a liberalist in theory and practice…which is not a bad thing at all.


You have said nothing and refuted nothing of mine there. So what if their was radical socialists, anyway show me them, who are you talking about, name all these more radical ideas?



He was a liberal…which was a great thing at the time…much more productive then utopians.

Well isnt Marxism by its nature utopian? Are liberals better than Marxists?



As for Nietzsche…that "windbag" as not told me a thing.

You most likely didnt understand a word he said.



Because of my "gustily" ignorance towards Hume, I have just examined the majority of a book containing essays from Hume and another about him and his vocation…and believe it or not…I am very much in favour with his philosophy…but entirely innovative…it is not. His scepticism maybe but his empiricism is not original…but they do differ from others.

Why is it not origanal if it differs from others? Tell me why and stop avoiding the substance of the question.



His empiricism was different to Locke’s slightly…all he did is look at it in another way. That experience only existed in the mind as individual units of experience. And what a person directly experienced was only that of the contents of his "consciousness" or "mind"…with its units of "perception" and "beliefs" or "thoughts".

What about innate ideas, Hume attacked Locke because of innate ideas, this alone signifies a major difference in their empiricism.


As for Voltaire…that character as well known as he is, is only done so, by his playwriting more then anything…and his tale the "candied" which discussed the nature of "good" and "evil" and I am sure your familiar with concept…nothing to original about that...Plato toyed with these ideas.

Maybe so but its a different treatment, a different perspective. Voltaire isnt great anyway, another deluded philosophe.

[Essential Insignificance]

So what is apparent now? Ideas of the Enlightenment are leftist or to the right?

Neither…ultimately in content or reason specifically. But on the contrariety of the first sentence, there were particular ideas taken from the Enlightenment on the side of lefitism, particularly from Rousseau, then anyone else.

You have still missed my projected assertion, nonetheless.


Well isnt Marxism by its nature utopian? Are liberals better than Marxists?

Absolutely not, and I would have thought, that even you, would have comprehended that by now, more so then anyone else. By nature albeit; I am going to assume that you’re implying how Marx "collected" a lot of his ideas, from the utopians such as Saint Simon, Fourier, Owen and even Proudhon, insofar. This however does not have any "falsification" or "disqualification" of Marx’s work because some of his " initial" ideas are from the above.

At the funeral of Marx’s death, Engel’s discoursed that Marx had found the "laws of motion within the capitalist mode of production"; and how Darwin had done so in the evolution of species, and the two, were just as the same, "sciences".

However, even me, an ardent Marxist, is not willing to go as far, to define Marxism as a science…but "utopian" by nature it is not. Its build on strong contention, not utopian dreams.

As for, are liberals better then Marxist…well I am a little obscured by what your intention is with "better". Nonetheless, in the 17th century liberal ideas were very progress, but now they have adopted by many commercial nations, and by thus, they have in the progress of history, that is, of civil society, become non-progressive as such.

And Marxism has.


You most likely didnt understand a word he said.

I did, and its unconditional rubbish.


What about innate ideas, Hume attacked Locke because of innate ideas, this alone signifies a major difference in their empiricism.

Like I said, their view on empiricism were different substantially, but the general tone was that of the same. Locke and the rationalist take on innate ideas were very different, although Hume did critique Locke’s as his ideas are an mild correlation with Plato’s innate ideas and empiricism; it was done so in the fashion of Hume’s scepticism above all else.


Maybe so but its a different treatment, a different perspective. Voltaire isnt great anyway, another deluded philosophe.

I see. And see your point.

What do you mean by the "deluded philosophe", their work, as a combined whole was pivotal, to a degree, in world history; as many of them contributed to the "encyclopaedia".

As for their letters and such…pretty much useless and ineffective; all they seemed to prove is their rhetorician skills and there eagerness to polemic each other about trifling matters of the time.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Wow, we have an all new Redstar, I swear to God he could have wrote that.

[Essential Insignificance]

Wow, we have an all new Redstar, I swear to God he could have wrote that.

Why, would you say that.