Enlightenment Philosophers Essay

John Locke (1632-1704) The British philosopher John Locke was especially known for his liberal, anti-authoritarian theory of the state[->0], his empirical theory of knowledge, his advocacy of religious toleration, and his theory of personal identity. In his own time, he was famous for arguing that the divine right of kings is supported neither by scripture nor by the use of reason. In developing his theory of our duty to obey the state, he attacked the idea that might makes right: Starting from an initial state of nature with no government, police or private property, we humans could discover by careful reasoning that there are natural laws[->1] which suggest that we have natural rights[->2] to our own persons and to our own labor. Eventually we could discover that we should create a social contract[->3] with others, and out of this contract emerges our political obligations and the institution of private. This is how reasoning places limits on the proper use of power by government authorities. Regarding epistemology[->4], Locke disagreed with Descartes[->5]‘ rationalist theory that knowledge is any idea that seems clear and distinct to us. Instead, Locke claimed that knowledge is direct awareness of facts concerning the agreement or disagreement among our ideas. By â€Å"ideas,† he meant mental objects, and by assuming that some of these mental objects represent non-mental objects he inferred that this is why we can have knowledge of a world external to our minds. Although we can know little for certain and must rely on probabilities[->6], he believed it is our God-given obligation to obtain knowledge and not always to acquire our beliefs by accepting the word of authorities[->7] or common superstition. Ideally our beliefs should be held firmly or tentatively depending on whether the evidence is strong or weak. He praised the scientific reasoning of Boyle and Newton as exemplifying this careful formation of beliefs. He said that at birth our mind has no innate ideas; it is blank, a tabula rasa. As our mind gains simple ideas from sensation, it forms complex ideas from these simple ideas by processes of combination, division, generalization and abstraction. Radical for his time, Locke asserted that in order to help children not develop bad habits of thinking, they should be trained to base their beliefs on sound evidence, to learn how to collect this evidence, and to believe less strongly when the evidence is weaker. We all can have knowledge of God[->8]‘s existence by attending to the quality of the evidence available to us, primarily the evidence from miracles[->9]. Our moral obligations, says Locke, are divine commands[->10]. We can learn about those obligations both by God’s revealing them to us and by our natural capacities to discover natural laws. He hoped to find a deductive system[->11] of ethics in analogy to our deductive system of truths of geometry. Regarding personal identity[->12], Locke provided an original argument that our being the same person from one time to another consists neither in our having the same soul nor the same body, but rather the same consciousness. Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679): Moral and Political Philosophy The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is best known for his political thought, and deservedly so. His vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to contemporary politics. His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He poses stark alternatives: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign (a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue). Otherwise what awaits us is a â€Å"state of nature† that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible. His most famous work is Leviathan, a classic of English prose (1651; a slightly altered Latin edition appeared in 1668). Leviathan expands on the argument of De Cive, mostly in terms of its huge second half that deals with questions of religion. One controversy has dominated interpretations of Hobbes. Does he see human beings as purely self-interested or egoistic[->13]? Several passages support such a reading, leading some to think that his political conclusions can be avoided if we adopt a more realistic picture of human nature. However, most scholars now accept that Hobbes himself had a much more complex view of human motivation. A major theme below will be why the problems he poses cannot be avoided simply by taking a less â€Å"selfish† view of human nature. Hobbes’s moral thought is difficult to disentangle from his politics. On his view, what we ought to do depends greatly on the situation in which we find ourselves. Where political authority is lacking (as in his famous natural condition of mankind[->14]), our fundamental right seems to be to save our skins, by whatever means we think fit. Where political authority exists, our duty seems to be quite straightforward: to obey those in power. But we can usefully separate the ethics from the politics if we follow Hobbes’s own division. For him ethics is concerned with human nature, while political philosophy deals with what happens when human beings interact. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778) Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society. Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract: both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques. Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New Heloise impacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ide als were championed by leaders of the French Revolution. The Social Contract is, like the Discourse on Political Economy, a work that is more philosophically constructive than either of the first two Discourses. Furthermore, the language used in the first and second Discourses is crafted in such a way as to make them appealing to the public, whereas the tone of the Social Contract is not nearly as eloquent and romantic. Another more obvious difference is that the Social Contract was not nearly as well-received; it was immediately banned by Paris authorities. And although the first two Discourses were, at the time of their publication, very popular, they are not philosophically systematic. The Social Contract, by contrast, is quite systematic and outlines how a government could exist in such a way that it protects the equality and character of its citizens. But although Rousseau’s project is different in scope in the Social Contract than it was in the first two Discourses, it would be a mistake to say that there is no philosophical c onnection between them. For the earlier works discuss the problems in civil society as well as the historical progression that has led to them. The Discourse on the Sciences and Arts claims that society has become such that no emphasis is put on the importance of virtue and morality. The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality traces the history of human beings from the pure state of nature through the institution of a specious social contract that results in present day civil society. The Social Contract does not deny any of these criticisms. In fact, chapter one begins with one of Rousseau’s most famous quotes, which echoes the claims of his earlier works: â€Å"Man was/is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.† (Social Contract, Vol. IV, p. 131). But unlike the first two Discourses, the Social Contract looks forward, and explores the potential for moving from the specious social contract to a legitimate one. Voltaire (1694-1778) Voltaire (real name Franà §ois-Marie Arouet) (1694 – 1778) was a French philosopher and writer of the Age of Enlightenment[->15]. His intelligence, wit and style made him one of France’s greatest writers and philosophers, despite the controversy he attracted. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform (including the defense of civil liberties, freedom of religion and free trade), despite the strict censorship laws and harsh penalties of the period, and made use of his satirical works to criticize Catholic dogma and the French institutions of his day. Along with John Locke[->16], Thomas Hobbes[->17] and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, his works and ideas influenced important thinkers of both the American and French Revolutions. He was a prolific writer, and produced works in almost every literary form (plays, poetry, novels, essays, historical and scientific works, over 21,000 letters and over two thousand books and pamphlets). As his best-known work, Candideis a satirical examination on numerous themes like religion, philosophy, and government, written in the mordant wit and skepticism that Voltaire employs in so many of his works. Translated to numerous languages and adapted to the stage and screen, Voltaire’s opus continues to be widely read over two centuries later. Voltaire certainly gained enough real life experience to garner a cynical attitude towards established dogmatic institutions that repressed the individual during his lifetime. Why does so much evil exist, seeing that everything is formed by a God whom all theists are agreed in naming â€Å"good?† (â€Å"Why?† Philosophical Dictionary, 1764). In his later years Voltaire championed the rights of victims of religious, cultural, and political persecution, sharing many of the same views as Jean Jacques Rousseau[->18] (1712-1778) Charles- de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)Montesquieu was a French[->19] social commentator and political thinker[->20] who lived during the Enlightenment[->21]. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers[->22], taken for granted in modern discussions of government[->23] and implemented in many constitutions[->24] throughout the world. Montesquieu’s most influential work divided French society into three classes (or trias politica, a term he coined): the monarchy[->25], the aristocracy[->26], and the commons[->27]. Montesquieu saw two types of governmental power existing: the sovereign[->28] and the administrative. The administrative powers were the executive[->29], the legislative[->30], and the judicial[->31]. These should be separate from and dependent upon each other so that the influence of any one power would not be able to exceed that of the other two, either singly or in combination. This was a radical idea because it completely eliminated the three Estates[->32] structure of the French Monarchy: the clergy[->33], the aristocracy, and the people at large represented by the Estates-General[->34], thereby erasing the last vestige of a feudalistic[->35] structure.Likewise, there were three main forms of government, each supported by a social â€Å"principle†: monarchies[->36] (free governments headed by a hereditary figure, e.g. king, queen, emperor), which rely on the principle of honor; republics[->37] (free governments headed by popularly elected leaders), which rely on the principle of virtue; and despotisms[->38] (enslaved governments headed by dictators[->39]), which rely on fear. The free governments are dependent on fragile constitutional arrangements. Montesquieu devotes four chapters of The Spirit of the Laws to a discussion of England, a contemporary free government, where liberty was sustained by a balance of powers. Montesquieu worried that in France the intermediate powers (i.e., the nobility) which moderated the power of the prince were being eroded. These ideas of the control of power were often used in the thinking of Maximilien de Robespierre[->40].Montesquieu was somewhat ahead of his time in advocating major reform of slavery in The Spirit of the Laws[->41]. As part of his advocacy he presented a satirical hypothetical list of arguments for slavery[->42], which has been open to contextomy[->43]. However, like many of his generation, Montesquieu also held a number of views that might today be judged controversial. He firmly accepted the role of a hereditary aristocracy and the value of primogeniture[->44], and while he endorsed the idea that a woman could head a state, he held that she could not be effective as the head of a family.|| Thomas Jefferson (1741-1826) Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia in 1743 and died on July 4, 1826, t the same day as John[->45] Adams, his life long associate and friend. Their e relationship illustrates the dichotomy that was Thomas Jefferson. He a was the author of the Declaration of Independence, a Secretary of State, a an envoy to France, the third president of the United States, a founder of t the Democratic-Republican party, the anti-federalists party. Baron Charles de Montesquieu’s views on the separation of powers, and t the protection for the rights of the citizenry influenced Jefferson. He believed in the virtues of â€Å"checks and balances† in the formation of the national government, its secured rights and protection for the people. While his views of humanity were more idealistic than those of Madison, they were in agreement for different reasons, for controlling a strong central government. Jefferson, however, opted more for states rights as a means of protection for America’s citizen, an attitude that exemplified his anti-Federalist views. His political thinking was in some respects Newtonian, and he saw social systems as analogous to physical systems. Under this philosophy, love takes the place in the social world that gravity does in the physical world, so that all people are naturally attracted to each other, and it is dependence that corrupts this attraction and results in political problems. Wood argues that, though the phrase â€Å"all men are created equal† was a clichà © in the late 18th century, Jefferson took it further than most. Jefferson held that not only are all men created equal, but they remain equal throughout their lives, equally capable of this attractive love, and that it is their level of dependence that make them unequal in practice. Thus, removing all this corrupting dependence would make all men equal in practice. Thus, Jefferson idealized a future relatively devoid of dependence, in particular those caused by banking or royal influences. Jefferson’s concepts of democracy were rooted in The Enlightenment[->46]. He envisioned democracy an expression of society as a whole, calling for national self-determination, cultural uniformity, and based upon the education of the all the people. The emphasis on uniformity allowed no opportunity for a multiracial republic in which some groups were not fully assimilated into the identical republican values William Blackstone (1723-1780) Blackstone was the great Eighteenth Century English legal scholar whose philosophy and writings were infused with Judeo-Christian principles. The Ten Commandments are at the heart of Blackstone’s philosophy. Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority. Blackstone’s great work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, was basic to the U. S. Constitution. This work has sold more copies in America than in England and was a basic textbook of America’s early lawyers. It was only in the mid-Twentieth Century that American law, being re-written by the U. S. Supreme Court, repudiated Blackstone. An attack on Blackstone is an attack on the U. S. Constitution and our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Blackstone’s Commentaries draws on standard authorities from Bracton onwar d, especially Matthew Hale’s Analysis of the Law, but it is far more accessible. Book I, â€Å"Rights of Persons,† deals with government, church, corporations, and individuals; Book II, â€Å"Rights of Things,† with property, especially land; Book III, â€Å"Private Wrongs,† with torts; and Book IV, â€Å"Public Wrongs,† with crime and punishment. An immediate success—contemporary readers included George III, Burke, Edmund[->47], Charles James Fox, and legions of lawyers and laymen—it went through eight British editions in his lifetime and fifteen more by 1854, as well as numerous abridgements. The standard legal textbook for a century, it helped establish law as a university subject. The first of many American editions appeared in 1771-72, and it was translated into French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish. Though outdated in some particulars, Blackstone remains widely read. Though systematic and thorough, Blackstone was conservative and provincial. He argued that the king could do no wrong, though he regarded parliament as essential and endorsed the separation of powers. He was convinced of the superiority of English common law, though his knowledge of civil law was limited (what he knew came from Burlamaqui, Jean-Jacques[->48], Grotius, Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de[->49], and Pufendorf). His constitutional theory drew upon John Locke and Montesquieu, but he was not an Enlightenment creature. He had numerous critics: Priestley, Joseph[->50] objected to his comments on religious dissenters and most famously, Bentham, Jeremy[->51] denounced his views on the sovereignty of government, as did John Austin later. Other critics included Boswell, James[->52], Gibbon, Edward[->53], and Johnson, Samuel[->54].