The Advancement of Human Understanding

While this week’s readings are vastly different with regards to their specific content, they all certainly can be seen as quite similar when analyzed from the viewpoint of core Enlightenment values (such as progression of science, society, and non-adherence to religion).

Beginning with Francis Bacon’s piece, “The New Science,” we see that the importance of science is finally being recognized. Written early on in the Enlightenment, in 1620, Bacon describes how “human knowledge” and “human power” must be able to propel society to achieve something greater (39). Bacon wrote that human understanding distorted “the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it” (42). Surely he was talking about religion, and how the lens which people were viewing the world was greatly skewed by their religious value systems.

At the later stages of the time period, Condorcet wrote in 1794 on the same values of science that Bacon had touched upon. However, in contrast to Bacon’s writing, Condorcet believed that society had already progressed a great amount as we had begun to research and discuss phenomenon that had previously gone unnoticed. He wrote, “prejudice has been destroyed, and the human understanding in some sort rectified; after having been forced into a wrong direction by absurd objects of belief, transmitted from generation to generation, taught at the misjudging period of infancy, and enforced with the terrors of superstition and the dread of tyranny” (67). Essentially, he is adding onto Bacon’s point that religions lead society in the wrong direction, and that now that we have accepted science human understanding is what it should be.

We read example of science coming into our lives in Franklin’s many small anecdotes on the occurrences of weather (and how to explain them rationally), and with his famous kite experiment. In addition, Buffon’s piece displays how a diversity of topics was being explored during the time. His writing on the many species of rats, and their varying names and whatnot, is a small example of how acquiring all of this new knowledge allowed for us to get out of the period in which there was an “infant-darkness of mankind” with regards to human understanding of the world (61).

Finally, on a completely different note, John Cleland’s very graphic “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure,” is more than simply just a work of erotic fiction. Published in 1749, the his novel appalled the bishop of London and most likely many other citizens, as sex was not talked about in this open of a manner at the time. His work can therefore be seen as another way of challenging what was perceived as acceptable at the time. Denis Diderot then adds onto to the same notion that Cleland was getting at by stating that sex and religion are essentially incompatible, and that something is very wrong with that as, “The propagation of beings is the greatest object of nature” (266). These various works all challenged pre-conceived notions and (in their own unique ways) advocated for the advancement of human understanding.

Robinson Crusoe Does What He Wants

Daniel Defoe's 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe is one that echoes a major theme we have covered thus far this year- the balance of one’s faith and reason. Defoe writes in the preface that the novel is didactic in its purpose and it will teach the reader “the wisdom of Providence.” Crusoe is forced to fight for his life out at sea, and realizes that not even God can protect one from death but keeping faith is necessary to survival. Defoe shows the reader that repentance and loyalty to a higher power can offset some of the hardship and turmoil life can deal out. I found it interesting that Crusoe did not develop his spiritual side through traditional worship and practice, but rather through personal ambition and reason. He shows that one’s individual experiences are the avenue to finding God versus preachings or adapting another man’s beliefs. Crusoe begins his own quest by going against the wishes of his father and heading out to sea. I related the contrast of what is expected of him and what he individually desires to his religious evolution. I think he finds value in his personal beliefs unlike other philosophers at the time because of the first hand experience he builds his faith on. He does not simply take another man’s word as fact and is not afraid to disobey his father in order to find himself. I find this trait extremely admirable and worthy of emulation. I often question so many of the things I am told and expected to believe. Just because someone of authority or with expertise in a certain area claims that society should be one way doesn’t mean there are not alternatives to that supposed “right” way to live. People today turn to the media for perceived social norms and standards of living by which they can judge others who don’t seem to follow suit. If someone today rejects what is commonly believed by others they are sometimes shunned and not taken seriously. I find it hard to believe how so many people will do anything just because someone else is doing it. I ask myself, why do people look to celebrities and other public figures to gauge their quality of life? Defoe writes, “How little repining there would be among Mankind, at any Condition of Life, if People would rather compare their Condition with those that are worse, in order to be thankful, than be always comparing them with those which are better, to assist their Murmurings and Complainings." Crusoe serves as an example that not only is it okay to go against the grain, but perhaps those who are trailblazers achieve real personal happiness and satisfaction.

Growth of Feminine Influence

Rousseau’s Duties of Women explores a very traditional view on the basic difference between the roles of men and women in the development of the family, within society, and in relation to one another. While the immediate impression of women as “weak and passive” and entirely dependant upon their masculine counterparts for sustenance and reasoning appears to be rather archaic for the Enlightenment era that challenged such dated views, their abilities are not. Rousseau clearly illustrates their subtle control, stating “the stronger party seems to be master, but is as a matter of fact dependent on the weaker”. It is this hidden side of the gender power struggle that really interested me.

As women have gained the ability to sustain themselves independently within society, gender roles have unquestionably converged drastically. But has it been the empowerment of women that has granted them more influence, or has the path to power within society been altered to better suit women? When I think of the prototypical that made an individual rose to a position of authority in the 18^th century, I picture the aristocratic elite that determined societal affairs. Today’s culture, whether it be in economically, politically or socially driven more by results and performance than ever before, presenting women with the ever growing opportunity to demonstrate their ability. As women have generally become more assertive, Rousseau’s proposition that “The more women are like men, the less influence they will have over men” seems to be both true and false. Essentially women have transitioned from the objects of passion into additional competition, and “when women become strong, men become still stronger” in a natural reaction to the increasing competition.

At the same time, from my experience, women still have a apparent innate ability to leverage their femininity to maneuver male counterparts to their will. Therefore, I believe the notion that a portion of a woman’s “strength is in her charms” still holds. This ability to affect men’s actions, using the desire of men to act ‘chivalrous’ and please the object of their desire - the ‘delicate’ female – has appreciated in value. The ability to feign a subservience or modesty to behoove a woman’s all-important reputation was crucial in Rousseau’s era. Rousseau wrote that the attitude of ““What will people think” is the grave of a man’s virtue and the throne of a woman’s”. The fact that males can certainly no longer be described as caring “very little what people think” confirms the advantage women have come to possess in their ability to maintain a favorable disposition within society. As Rousseau said, “Cunning is a natural gift of women” that has become ever more valuable in conjunction with their expanded opportunities.

Vices and Virtues

If you were to ask anyone if, given the opportunity, they would erase all the vices of the world, the answer would probably tend to be yes. In fact, that person might look at you like you were crazy for even having to ask that question. However, would ridding the world of all vice ve beneficial to society? Would getting rid of every flaw and evil in the world fix everything? Well, according to Bernard Mandeville the answer is an emphatic no.
Mandeville, in his "The Fable of the Bees", sets up a society of bees who act like men. He describes the bees as being corrupt, and immoral, with lawyers who "kept of Hearings willfully,/ To finger the refreshing Fee" and physicians who "valued Fame and Wealth/ Above the drooping Patient's Health". Mandeville depicts a society in which vice rules, in which it is the worse rather than better nature of man that prevails. However, he later adds "Thus every Part was full of Vice,/ Yet the whole Mass a Paradise". According to Mandeville's fable, it is the faulty faculties of man which indeed fosters progress in society. To further illustrate this point, when the figure of Jove removes all vice from the world, society collapses. All bars close, lawyers are out of jobs--it's hardly the perfect society one would suspect.
According to Mandeville, we need vice to make society run. I would disagree. While there is some truth in what Mandeville says, he goes too far in saying vice is necessary for progress. Sure, the vice of vanity drives competition which in turn allows progress, but there are also those who help simply to help, who want progress not merely for their own gain, but for the benefit of others. To say "Bare Virtue can't make Nations live/ In Splendor" is too extreme. Do we have our flaws? Of course we do. But are we a vice driven society? Some people are, but I would like to have a little more faith in people. Mandeville posits that we are driven by our own ambitions, by our own selfish wants and needs. We are evil creatures and it is in being evil that we are able to take steps forward. I would argue that we are flawed. At times we only think of ourselves, but at times we think of anything but ourselves. It is that mix of selfishness and selflessness that makes us what we are, and what allows us to progress.

More Than a History of Mediation

Siskin and Warner’s “This is Enlightenment” brings up many interesting points worthy of discussion. In their text, the authors essentially state that the enlightenment was an event in the history of mediation. Or in other words, it was an event in the history of media. While I certainly agree that a large portion of the enlightenment had to do with the mainstream proliferation of media, I still find their argument to be somewhat narrow. For example, when I think of the enlightenment and on what we have read thus far in the course, the enlightenment seems to have been more about defying the common day conceptions of religion and other ingrained beliefs, in pursuit of promoting science and other well informed ideas. It was a period of daring to know, as Kant would say. The enlightenment was not only about the well known philosophers and the “enlightenment elite” publishing their findings, but was also largely about breaking down the intellectual wall that the laypeople in various countries faced as for centuries they had been intellectually deprived and uniformed with regards to many facets of society.

As Kant wrote, the enlightenment was about men becoming “more than machines.” They were able to finally become informed due to the proliferation and saturation with regards to the many media sources of the time. This time period was more than just a simple history in the spread of media; it was about countries progressing and societies becoming more sophisticated. The well-known philosophers of the time were the primary persons who allowed for this knowledge to become widespread, and they came from all over the world (England, France, Germany, U.S., etc.). For example, they would often write to each other sharing ideas and critiques of one another’s pieces of work. This further allowed for the citizenry of the various countries to become better informed and intellectually “enlightened.”

The enlightenment was more than just a period in history, it was an intellectual and worldwide societal movement. It will certainly be interesting in the upcoming weeks to trace the involvement of Benjamin Franklin during this period as he essentially went from a nobody literally writing behind a veil to one of the most prominent enlightenment contributors.