ENGL 2112 World Lit II

Unit I: The Eighteenth Century: Terms to Know

The Enlightenment, or The Age of Enlightenment—An approx. Eighteenth Century movement in philosophy and cultural life that began in Europe and spread its influence to the United States and other areas. The Enlightenment as it affected the arts emphasized traditional forms, genres, and subject matter inspired by ancient Greece and Rome; emphasized reason and rationality; the idea of the “universal”; and society with its norms and conventions.

It is an age in which Reason is advocated as the primary source and basis of authority.  The era is marked by political aspiration towards governmental consolidation, nation-creation, and greater rights for common people. Following the revolution of knowledge commenced by Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton, and in a climate of increasing disaffection with repressive rule, Enlightenment thinkers believed that systematic [reasoning, rational] thinking might be applied to all areas of human activity, and carried into the governmental sphere. Its leaders believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of over-emphasis on tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they argued came out of the Middle Ages. Enlightenment thinking strongly influenced revolutions and independence movements in the Americas, France, Haiti, Poland, Russia, Latin America, Greece, and more.  These thinkers believed in the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values in society. One much later philosopher (Kant) described The Enlightenment as freedom to use one’s own intelligence.

Put a different way: Enl thinkers believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition, and tyranny to build a better world (Progress). The principal targets of their criticism were religion and established organized religion, hereditary aristocracy, and divine right of kings.

Lasting contributions of The Enlightenment: concepts of human rights, religious freedom and tolerance, rule by the people.

Deism—Religious movement which grew out of the Enlightenment. Deism is the belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe but does not subsequently intervene in the affairs of human life or the law of the natural world. Drawing on Newton’s description of the universe as a great clock built by the Creator and then set in motion, the Deists argued that everything—physical motion, human physiology, politics, society, economics—had its own set of rational principles established by God which could be understood by human beings solely by means of their reason. The Deists were not atheists; they simply asserted that everything that concerned the universe could be understood independently of religious teachings, mysticism, superstition, etc. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy scripture, most deists see as interpretations made by humans and not authoritative sources. Later led to the development of Unitarianism. This type of thinking has existed since ancient times but the movement officially called “Deism” is an Enlightenment outgrowth. Americans heavily influenced by or actually calling themselves Deist: G. Washington, T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine.

Progress—The idea that all human activity should be future-directed with the specific, calculated purpose of improving or bettering the world, society, and each individual. Roots: Christian worldview in the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the purpose of a human’s life is the reach the end of the life and enter heaven, and that the purpose of history is to reach an end at which the universe will be perfected and morally ordered. The Enlightenment contribution to this idea is heavily influenced by Sir Isaac Newton: if the natural processes of the universe can be understood, then we can manipulate them to produce a steadily improving future.

Divine Right of Kings or Rule By Divine Right—The idea that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God. The king ruled by virtue of God’s authority; therefore he should be obeyed in all things. No group (nobles, parliament, senators) or any other person has any right to participate in the king’s rule. To question or oppose the monarch was to rebel against God’s purpose and was therefore the ultimate treason. The sway of this idea officially ended in Europe with the French Revolution when King Louis XVI was beheaded.

The Social Contract: Hobbes vs. Rousseau and Locke—In earlier time periods, Europe was continually shaken by political instability, which led to the development of Enlightenment ideas about government, democracy, etc. Several philosophers from the 18^th century (and thereabouts) are noted for their contributions. One is Thomas Hobbes, who believed that humans are driven by two and only two impulses: fear of death and desire for power. If left unchecked, human beings would act on these impulses and live violent, brutish, inhumane, and solitary lives. In order to keep these impulses in check, human beings, acc. to Hobbes, drew up a social contract among themselves in which people ceded all authority and sovereignty to a ruler in exchange for security from each other and from foreign invaders.  The single ruler would control the violent and selfish impulses of individuals in the society through brute force. Individuals would lose their liberty, but they would gain security and community. The ruler might be in the form of monarch, dictator, or whatever, but Hobbes believed that absolute power was required to keep the society together. Any breach of absolute power would lead to chaos and the dissolution of the society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, however, radically revised Hobbes’ version of The Social Contract. In Rousseau’s view, the people agreed to cede authority to some group in order to gain the benefits of community and safety. If those in power refused to guarantee community and safety, the governed were free to disobey and establish a new political contract. While Hobbes believed in absolute rule, Rousseau believed that absolute rule was a perversion of the original, ancient social contract.

John Locke argued that men had fundamental and natural rights to life, health, liberty, and property (i.o.w., laid the groundwork for the theory of rights). He argued that the purpose of government was to guarantee and protect its citizens’ rights. His version of The Social Contract was that any ruler who failed to protect the citizens’ rights could be deposed. He attacked the idea of the Divine Right of Kings.

Descartes/Cartesianism—Rene Descartes was another important and influential philosopher in this time period, and some consider him to be the single most important thinker of the Enlightenment because his famous dictum “I think, therefore I am” tore down previous forms of knowledge and laid the foundation for the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason (thinking). Cartesianism’s central idea is that the mind is separate from the body, can be more fully understood than the body, and is the seat of one’s essential identity. Therefore, the processes of the mind have more “reality” than physical processes of the body.

Rights vs. Obligations—the concept of human rights and individual rights grew to prominence during the Enlightenment, but these are relatively modern inventions. Earlier foundation in Europe: Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Revolution, had argued that every Christian had the freedom to believe as they chose without external coercion. In other words, he argued that in religious matters, humans were meant to be autonomous.

But most historical cultures define the individual’s relation to society not by the concept of “right” as we now do, but by the concept of “obligations.” We’ll see this in some of the Asian literature we read. This means that an individual sees him or herself in relation to others based on the duties he or she owes others and the society. Obligations tend to be stable through time, inherited, and concrete. But when you define yourself in relation to others based on the concept of “rights” you derive your selfhood based on aspects of your life that you demand are not to be interfered with. Rights exist on based on general agreement. You receive a right to anything only when others agree you have that right. Ex, I don’t have the right to drive my car while intoxicated because the social group around me is not willing to agree to let me have that right. In cases where demonstrable harm is not so clear, when the social group denies what you feel are your rights you must try to secure them through conflict (fight for your rights).Rights are fundamentally conflictual—that is, one’s rights often conflict with another’s (smoking). The history of modern Western culture (since this idea has come to hold sway) has by and large been a history of the conflict between these principles of autonomy and authority(individual vs. society), between conflicting self-interests, and between groups that have certain rights and other groups which are denied those very same rights.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism—one of the “big debates” in philosophy.

Rationalism—the idea that the starting point for all knowledge is not the senses, but reason. That all of our beliefs and the whole of human knowledge consists first of principles and innate concepts (meaning we’re born with these concepts) that organize and categorize sensory input and that therefore must pre-exist sensory input. Descartes influenced the formation of this “ism.”

 Empiricism—the idea that knowledge comes only or primarily through sensory experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas and knowledge.  John Locke, among others.

Tabula Rasa—“blank slate” or as John Locke put it, white (blank) paper. The idea that the human mind is not born with any innate knowledge or traits, but is born as a blank slate. Knowledge, personality, etc., come from experience and sensory perception. Also, the idea that our rules for processing data (so to speak) are learned as we go and are not innate or pre-existing. One therefore is determined by his/her experiences (not heredity) but has the freedom to “author one’s own mind” and character.

Hobbes—disagreed. Said that humans come into the world already endowed with mental content such as selfishness.

Rousseau—used the concept of tabula rasa to argue that warfare comes with society and culture and is not an automatic, natural human trait. So therefore, warfare is learned.

Freud (later than 18^th c)—a proponent of the tabula rasa. Argued that one’s personality traits are formed/determined by the family environment, family dynamics. In other words, your upbringing (nurture) not your genetics (nature). “Nature v. Nurture.”

The Ghost in the Machine—20^th century phrase coined by Gilbert Ryle to describe Decartes’ dualism—separation of mind from the body. Descartes had argued that mental states are separate from physical states. Cartesianism’s central idea is that the mind is separate from the body, can be more fully understood than the body, and is the seat of one’s essential identity. Therefore, the processes of the mind have more “reality” than physical processes of the body. Physical acts are caused by mental acts (ex, reaching for a potato chip is a thought first). This is what Ryles referred to as “the ghost in the machine.”

These concepts are still being debated in the 20^th century and beyond. In our history, “nature” arguments have led to racism, sexism, eugenics and other extreme attempts to “manage” society. On the other hand, “nurture” arguments have led to such things as, well, Casey Anthony getting away with murder (allegedly).