Category: Enlightenment

In the Bhagvad-Gita, the author implies that enlightenment is gained through teachings whereas in the Siddhartha it is implied through one’s own experiences.

Siddhartha spends most of his life doing things that most everyone tends to do, living by the ways and rules of society. He abides by all the foundations, makes a way to perform the rituals and does what is expected of him by all the individuals of his village and his father but remains unhappy. Day after day, still ensuring to uphold his religion to everyday life and still, nothing. Siddhartha begins to long for one thing much more; enlightenment.

When a group of half-naked and starved men pass through the village, Siddhartha begins to wonder if they have reached true enlightenment. He knows that they have been taught differently than the way he had known and sought out find the answers he had been looking for, so he joined them, alongside his best friend Govinda.

Through their journey, Govinda begins to feel a sense of true peace and congratulates them, however, Siddhartha remains unsatisfied and decides to look for other options. He hears about a man named Bhudda and makes the decision to find him for answers. At first, Siddhartha is incredibly proud of him and his teachings but continues to be questioned by his own faith. He questions Bhudda and his followers and decides that they just simply do not have the answers that he is trying to find, so he leaves.

Siddhartha is now on his own, meditating and living an awfully religious life. During this time, he is faced with a river. He follows the river until he reaches a small town. There, he meets a woman that catches his eye and makes him believe that she could teach, show and tell him all the aspects of love and the world of it. Kamala refuses, until he learns the life of being a market keeper, in which he does, so she teaches him all that she knows within the world of love.

Siddhartha begins to make more and more money and shortly becomes incredibly wealthy. All this wealth and status goes straight to his head. He then begins to travel through a downwardly spiral and loses himself and yet again, ultimately making him decide to leave.

Siddhartha sought-after the same man that he had remembered for his sense of enlightenment and happiness that he had met years and years before on the river. The man and Siddhartha begin to exchange words and Sidharth exclaims to the man that he wants nothing more than to feel as he feels and try and do what he does during a sense of peace. The man proclaims to him that through his life, he has learned and adapted this manner by simply studying the river. To Siddhartha, this was a surprise, but will search to the ends of the earth to find his answers, so he does so, and begins to work beside the man and study the river. During the novel, the boater man can be used as an allusion to God himself, sending us on our way to find inner peace within ourselves with the triumphs that life gives us as compared to the man guiding and leading people up, down and across the river.

While studying the river, Siddhartha is yet again faced with triumph. Kamala is presented to him with an 11-year-old boy that she explains is his son in her last dying words. The son refuses to live the life that he lives and runs away, taking all his money. He tries to find his son, but the boatman insists on returning to the river and tells him to find sanity in it. By using allegory, the author suggest that the river represents more than just a body of water, it is meant to be interpreted by the reader as life and its entirety. The river taught Siddhartha all he needed to know, without any spoken words, just like life. It also completes the flow of life that it interpreted through the flow of the river; water continues to return, in many forms, just like life.

After many more years, Siddhartha is finally enlightened, even so much so that Govinda approaches the river to hunt what Siddhartha once sought-after, only to realize that the wise man he was trying to find was Siddhartha himself. Siddhartha exclaimed to Govinda the teachings that he has learned through his journey of life and easily states that knowledge, peace and enlightenment cannot be educated through spoken words, solely through one’s own experiences.

The Bhagavad-Gita is a conversation held between two people about a war within one’s self and his morals. In the story, Arjuna is faced with the chance to obtain his kingdom back and continue on the path of good karma, he must first kill his family to do so. Arjuna, like most people, view the act of murdering as a sin and killing one’s own flesh would be the epitome of sin. Krishna proclaims to Arjuna that people die, and their “atman” remains but obtain form in someone or something else. To pursue Arjuna into killing his family, Krishna teaches him about “yoga”, a sense of obtaining an emotional detachment in order to accomplish things that one is called to do.

Krishna endures many things on his journey to teach Arjuna the right pathway but is determined to keep him on track. With the knowledge of Krishna embedded into arjuna, he decides to go to war to keep his good karma. He realizes that without the teachings of Krishna, he would never have been led towards a more knowledgeable, enlightened state that he is so familiar with now.

In conclusion, without the trial and error that Siddhartha had faced on his path to enlightenment, he would have continued to look for all the wrong things to become at peace with himself in all the wrong places. No one held his hand and taught him how to be sane, he had to experience life and all it threw at him by himself. Arjuna was faced with many triumphs as well but unlike Siddhartha, he was taught how to obtain peace and realized that he could detach himself with things that were going to lead him down the wrong paths.

The basis of Enlightenment thinker Thomas Paine’s arguments in Common Sense is the independence of America from British rule. His first argument has to do with the monarchical rule and the choice of Kings being based on hereditary succession. Paine thought it was wrong that the rulers of the British inherited their power rather than gaining it by being chosen by the people. Paine stated, “All men being original equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them”, (Paine 96-97). Paine mentions that all of mankind is born equal, but naturally become unequal as their lives progress. People who are hardworking and those who are not will become unequal. This funnels into his argument that the role of being King should not be inherited, they acquire this role simply because their father was a King.

Paine’s other argument is that being under British rule is preventing America from growing and flourishing. Paine argued with those who thought America should stay under British rule because of the former connection to Great Britain’s rule and the flourishment that came along with it, “Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty.”, (Paine 98). By this, Paine means that just because America has been under the British rule and though there may have been “good” times, there is no reason that this makes America unable to grow independent. His opinion is that America is fully ready to be independent and that the British rule shall end sooner or later.

Paine justifies rebelling against the British by stating that the King will always prevent America from growing to become its full potential in fear that America will become too powerful. Paine stressed that a proper government for America is a natural right, “A government of our own is our natural right”, (Paine 100). Britain did not put in time to govern America properly. This was preventing America from getting the legislation and government that was based on the needs and necessities of America itself and the people who lived there.

According to Pain, the American colonists will benefit in many ways when finally, independent from the British rule. When independent from the British America would finally have a chance to have a proper government that was not based upon a monarchial rule. People would earn their roles as government officials, not be born into the role. Paine was very against the selection of a King based on heredity, “One of strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.”, (Paine 97). America being independent would be safer for those living there. Paine explains that America’s connection to Britain has caused them to have enemies for reasons that are not America’s own. “We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest, not attachment; and that she did not protect us from out enemies on our account; but from her enemies from her account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be out enemies on the same account,”, (Paine 98).

Of all of Thomas Paine’s arguments, I find his argument about monarchy and hereditary succession the most convincing. Everyone is born equal, as Paine said, no one should be able to be a king/ruler solely based on who their family is. This does not guarantee that this person is qualified to rule a country or has the best interest of the people who live there. Enabling this type of ruling to happen only creates oppression and severe inequality throughout the people. Paine expressed mankind was created in an equal state and that inequality and oppression were created by circumstances that were being encountered, “Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could on be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, maybe in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill sounding names of oppression and avarice.”, (Paine 96). Everyone should be looked at as an equal, not as a “subject” or a “king”. A king is supposed to thrive off doing right by their people and country, but obviously, this was not the case. Thomas Paine made many valid arguments, but this is the one that I found most convincing.

A revolution in thought took place in the middle of the 18th century. Influenced by scientific developments of the last century, the theorists of the Enlightenment believed in throwing light on the world from science and reason so as to challenge existing ideas and practices.

The 20th century was a time of great change, and uncertainty was confronted by fronts of biblical criticism and evolution in Europe as the dominance of Christianity in Europe. When people inquire about Christianity’s decline among nations or a community of people, one question usually arises ‘How does this happen? The first explanation is that the Churches can devalue the position of the Bible that contributes to an immoral church that is not gospel-related to the surrounding region. ‘What is reality, understanding? ‘The Word of God, which lays the basis for understanding justice, values, ethics, and faith, is of great importance to understand reality.

Doctor Harold J. Berman, Harvard University Professor of Law, wrote The relationship between law and Religion to speak about the huge lack of faith in Western society in law and religion. This lack of faith in religion and law has caused a double loss of trust and a radical separation. Berman believes that without religion you can’t have workable laws for conduct, since religion itself is the sole basis for morality and law. He fears the lack of an absolute means that Western culture is doomed to relativism in law.

In the absence of a religious tradition, why should universal values be laid the foundations for social organizations? Cultures that rupture with the idea of an authoritative religion and even the definition of God rupture with the chance of absolute reality. All that remains is universal relativism, a shaky and continuously shifting basis upon which no definitive rule of law or morality can be founded.

The logic of the Enlightenment and romantic idealism parented in a critique that aimed at undermining the supernatural essence of the Bible. Such a view tried to turn the bible into a prophecy that documents the word in human consciousness the subjective nature of faith. The critical views on liberalism are related to higher or historical and literary criticism and the thorough analysis of the historical context of each Bible book. The analysis of the text of the Bible in an effort to decide if the text we have was from the hands of the author. Inferior criticism contributed to a high degree of precision in the text of the Bible. This has allowed Christians to know that we have the writings of the original Bible writers. Thus, the most extreme critique can not challenge any doctrine or ethical teaching of the Scripture. The confidence of many people in the Bible’s divine revelation was undermined by extreme, strong criticism, rather than lower constructive criticism.

The Enlightenment was a movement in Europe that stressed thought and reason. The legacies can still be seen today. Slavery is abolished, people have rights to freedom and natural rights, governments use separation of powers, and women have equality.

Throughout history, there have been significant time periods in which have influenced the human race from past to present. Three historically well know periods that influenced world civilization and history include Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Romanticism. This time periods all portray similar aspects of rule-breaking, and rebelling against past beliefs and traditions, and diminished the previous ways of living and viewing life. Though these movements all relate to rebelling, they all depict different contributions in changing aspects to society and basically modifying the influences of history and artistic articulations.

1300 the Renaissance began, it was a time where education and learning bloomed, shaking the intellectual world of Europe. Coming out of the “Dark Ages”, this period of time allowed writers, philosophers, and artists to express and experiment with new ideas. Sandro Botticelli a famous artist during this time, took advantage of the new era to express their ideas about this Renaissance period of time. In his work Botticelli’s ‘Birth of Venus’, it shows the nudity of Venus. This art style celebrates the idea of the human form, and show it much finer detail, which was a major change in the art world. Botticelli piece is completely different from any other Middle Ages artworks, due to this expression of nudity, as well as realistic landscape and religious focused aspects of it. Rebellious ideas like Botticelli’s work vastly changed the movement of Western Civilisation in this time period. Though without these outbreaks and expressions of new ideas, which were revealed throughout the Renaissance, perhaps the world would not be the same as it is today without these rebellious acts from historic figures.

The Enlightenment was known as a philosophical and educational era that developed in Europe around the 17th century. Its actions of rebelling were influenced by religious ideas form the previous history, and thoughts about the idea of man’s connection to the universe and rights of an individual also came from this period. The hierarchy of people was formed around this time, which was all based on religion and the social class of people. Feminism was born in this period by the founder Mary Wollenstonecraft. Wollenstonecraft was a philosopher and advocate of women’s rights, who wanted equal rights for women in her society. During this time men were seen as superior to women, making Wollenstonecraft rebel against this old order throughout history. Rationality was thought to keep this society stable, until the rebellious movement of the Romanticism era began, which focused on the idea of individual’s experience.

In Europe later on in the 18th century began the Romanticism era. It can be seen many actions of rebelling formed from previous artistic and social ideas from the Enlightenment period. This era was completely different from the Enlightenment, as it dove into the ideas of beauty and emphasis of emotion. It was mainly the idea that rationalization was irrelevant and the importance of existence was beauty and aesthetics. This really depicted that society had completely flipped its views of life since the Enlightenment era. The era’s only real new idea was the Focus on oneself rather than society as a whole. ‘Wanderer above the Sea of Fog’ by the C. D. Friedrich is an example of art from Romanticism. This piece depicts ideas of place in which can be found in one’s subconscious, and emotional expression of the individual. The figures face is not shown, leaving the audience to question the emotions and thoughts in which the figure could be potentially express. The landscape is very detailed and beautiful in ‘Wanderer above the Sea of Fog’, though the piece expresses the artist’s own experiences and emotions, which many works within the era portrayed. The Romanticism, may not have ever happened if it wasn’t for the Enlightenment era, which the world then could have not seen the rebellious ideas which took place.

Without these important periods, and the rebellious aspects portrayed throughout each era, in many various forms, history would not be the same. The influence in which these periods of time have had on humans from past to present helps shape the world it is today. Starting from the ignition of rebelling in the Renaissance, with new ideas and expression, to the events of the Enlightenment. Bringing the people to the era of Romanticism, which ideas were basically shaped from the Enlightenment. All three of these movements, influence our history in some aspect and will always be no matter how much time goes on.

In Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, Victor Frankenstein runs away from his newly animated monster. Appalled by his creation, he collapses into a months-long fever while Henry Clerval takes care of him. This passage takes place during a pivotal part of the novel when Clerval and Frankenstein both spend the summer studying Oriental languages. It is a turning point for Frankenstein as, at that moment, he changes how he views the world. This passage explores how Mary Shelley suggests that Enlightenment ideologies cause misery and loneliness, while Romanticism ideals lead to spiritual uplifting. It discusses tension between the two themes by investigating how the two ideologies can profoundly impact a person’s understanding of the world and the decisions they make.

Clerval and Frankenstein are two similar yet contrasting characters, as they represent opposing ideologies: Romanticism and Enlightenment. They are foils to each other. Readers can compare how these two ideologies react to world side-by-side. Both Frankenstein and Clerval were born the same way, neither good nor bad intentioned. In the passage, Frankenstein says that “Clerval came to the university with the design of making himself complete master of the Oriental languages” (Shelly, 44), reminding readers that they both started out the same: innocent, enthusiastic youth, fascinated by a passion. Frankenstein then goes on to talk about how “Clerval had never sympathized in his tastes for natural science” (Shelly, 44), implying that their key difference was in their interest. However, as they grow older, Frankenstein’s innocent passion turned into an uncontrollable obsession. In contrast to Frankenstein, Clerval balances his emotional and intellectual pursuits. The effect of these differences were caused by Enlightenment ideologies taking over the rationality of an individual. Clerval balances his emotional and intellectual pursuits –representing Romanticism– while Frankenstein’s obsessions cause him destruction, misery, and disillusionment –representing Enlightenment. Clerval serves as an ideal alternative of how Frankenstein could have controlled his ambitions in a healthy way and kept his sense of innocence. These differences can be seen when Clerval and Frankenstein both travel to Europe. During the trip, Frankenstein isolated himself and thought that “company was irksome” (Shelly, 115). He avoided as many people as possible unless they had information that could help him create the second monster. In contrast, Clerval was very social as he “desired the intercourse of the men… and his mind expanded in the company of men of talent” (Shelly, 114-117). Clerval acts how Frankenstein used to, excited by learning and wanting to meet and talk to everyone. However, due to his pursuit of Enlightenment, Frankenstein isolates himself from society. Through the effects of a Romantic and Enlightened mindset, readers can see how two people who start out the same, end up very differently.

Enlightenment ideologies seem to inflict isolation, sorrow, and misery. Frankenstein’s decisions are so heavily influenced by these ideologies that he embodies Enlightenment ideals. In this excerpt, he says that “he wishes to fly from reflection as he hates his former studies” (Shelly, 44). He later reflects on his decision to study Oriental languages in this passage, expressing that he “felt great relief in being the fellow pupil with my friend” (Shelly, 44). His gratitude for this decision demonstrates how he misses human connection when delving deep in scientific pursuits. When Frankenstein creates his monster, Enlightenment once again is seen to inflict pain and isolation. He focuses so much on the task that “his cheeks had grown pale with study, and his person had become emaciated with confinement” (Shelly, 32). Due to Enlightenment, he sacrificed his moral compass and human nature. Walton is another example of someone who suffers the misteachings of Enlightenment. He writes to Margaret that isolation at sea causes him to “bitterly feel the want of a friend” (Shelly, 4). This shows how the ideologies of Enlightenment can strip people away from the human “desire to have the company of a man” (Shelly, 4). Furthermore, in the context of the Modern Prometheus, fire can be seen as a symbol of knowledge. When the monster eagerly “thrusts his hand into the live embers, he quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain” (Shelly, 72). This metaphor teaches that even though innovation is good, one can get hurt if one pursues knowledge too far.

The eighteenth century was a period of Enlightenment as well as an intellectual movement and was known as the age of reason. Many philosophers contributed to the term Enlightenment because it was the awakening to a new outlook on life. Intellectuals realized that they could come up with theories and logic on their own without the guidance of another. The seventeenth century was a revolution of scientific break through based off of previous theories throughout the years. This gave intellectuals reason to believe that if philosophers during that time period could come up with new inventions to advance science based off others accomplishments, then reason and the theory of the scientific method could be applied to real life to find laws that will govern human society. The enlightenment was a movement of encouragement to everyone to contemplate and use their own intelligence and reason. Enlightenment thinkers argued that providing reason could end superstitious beliefs and religious skepticism. Faith in literature and the belief that God and a divine king should have absolute power were diminishing. Man began to empower himself and in addition, independence and equality of mankind became more widely spread.

Prime factors to the development of the Enlightenment derived from Issac Newton and John Locke. Issac Newton was known as genius among all species. The intellectuals believed that if they followed his rules of reasoning, they would find ways to govern themselves with natural laws. Along with Newton’s idea of reasoning, John Locke contributed with his essay, Concerning Human Understanding. Locke assumed everyone was born with a blank slate in their mind and their knowledge was formed based off of their environment and experiences they encounter. He alleged that heredity or religion did not play a role in the building of character. Based upon these combined notions and other factors, an era of Enlightenment was born.

Among the intellectuals during that period who introduced the Enlightenment, a majority were French, social reformers ranging from the upper to the lower class. These intellectuals were also known as philosophes. The philosophes advertised to apply the principle of reason and rational reproach to every aspect of life. One of the first philosophes to contribute to this movement was Charles de Secondat, the baron de Montesquieu. Montesquieu’s work contained the Persian Letters. These letters attacked religion, slavery and the scheme to use reason to liberate humans. His most famous work was The Spirit of the Laws, which was also known as the separation of powers. He believed that England should separate into Legislative, Judicial and Executive powers, which would give each state more freedom and security. This idea later contributed to the United States constitution. The second philosophe and most famous was Francois- Marie Arouet or Voltaire. Voltaire supported religious toleration and was well known for criticizing the traditional religion. He strongly believed in deism along with the vast majority of philosophes. Deism was based on the Newtonian World-machine. They believed that God created the universe however; he did not directly have any power or involvement of running it. They believe the world is structured by the natural laws. Voltaire strongly believed in religious toleration. He supported the notion that there could be a peaceful environment with more then one religion.

Another major contributor to the Enlightenment was the philosophe Denis Diderot. His most famous involvement was the twenty-eighth volume of the Encyclopedia. His work became a solid defense mechanism against old understandings. Diderot’s goal was to change the way people thought and he did precisely just that. In the Encyclopedia he attacked religious superstition as well as promoting religious toleration and social, economic and political reform. Following Diderot was Adam Smith. Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher who devised the term laissez-faire, which also means let the people do what they choose. Smith attacked the concept of mercantilism in The Wealth of Nations. He came up with three principles of economics, thus included the principle of free trade, labor theory of value and the theory that the state should not interfere in economic troubles. Free trade meant that if another country produced the same product for a cheaper price then it is better to consume it from that country. Smith’s labor theory of value was the image that farmers, merchants and artisans were the true value of the nation. Finally, the principle that the state should not interfere meant that the individual should have economic liberty because the government should only protect, maintain and serve the society. Adam Smith’s principles led to economic liberalism.

A later period of philosophes arose beginning with Jean-Jacques Rosusseau. Rosusseau created the social contract. This social contract basically alleged that people were born with freedom but when they enter society they are conformed by chains and laws that limit everyone. His social contract was a general will that compelled everyone to have self-interest and foster his or her natural intelligence. He believed people should be in touch with the instincts of the heart, which led to the movement of romanticism. Rosusseau raised debate to the idea of gender.

The final major contributor to the Enlightenment was Ceasare Beccaria. He wrote an essay on Crime and Punishments. He believed that imprisonment was a better tactic then torment and brutality. His work along with a growing sentiment against torture led to the decline of capital and corporal punishment.

Many of the philosophes I mentioned along with other contributors helped cultivate the movement of the Enlightenment. The eighteenth century created a new worldview. This movement shaped the world and lead to the improvement of a better society.

According to Kant enlightenment is the freedom and courage to use one’s reason without being steered by others in a direction. It is laziness that acts as a barrier to using one’s own reason, as people don’t want to take responsibility of their decisions (Kant and Wood, 1784). It is always easier to rely on others to make our choices and then blame them for the consequences. Enlightenment will liberate people from this self-decaying practice and everyone can and will make conscious, independent choices for themselves. In this reflection I will argue for positivity of enlightenment and how it helped the society form a new, modern way of thinking, resulting in the birth of social sciences.

Enlightenment philosopher like Kant have argued that it is only possible when there is freedom. The main characteristic of this modern way of thought was rationality and a belief that freedom precedes this (1784). People are numb creatures just following others, who have made them believe in their superiority. It is assumed by people that they are not capable of doing anything themselves and must rely on others who have better knowledge. This discourages them to use their own reason and makes them cowards. Enlightenment emerges for people to escape from this. The belief is that all humans are equally capable if they use reason, and no one is superior to another. If complete freedom is granted people can use rationality to make accurate choices for themselves. Once people are free to critically evaluate all beliefs and publicly use reason, they’ll liberate from unquestionably following others. {Kant argues in all public spheres use of reason to justify choices is a must precondition for enlightenment, while privately it is not that necessary always (1783).} This resulted in a new way of thinking about society, a positive way using rationality as key. As outlined by Hamilton, writers such as Comte, Durkheim, and Simon put forward this theory of critical rationality as enlightenment’s mode of thought. This focused on application of reason to all domains of life like social and political. Thus, portrayed society as open to change and transformation which Durkheim highlighted. Furthermore, based on reason society can evolve, improve and break free from problems like status quo. This is what eventually resulted in positivism of Comte as he argued, reason will remove prejudice, ignorance, superstition and intolerance. Also, many of Marx’s ideas were influenced by the enlightenment principle (Hamilton, 1992). This effectively proves how enlightenment is a positive for society which has helped improve it. This has further resulted into the birth of social sciences which looks at society in a scientific way, therefore, is a more accurate way of studying it.

Before enlightenment there was a traditional world, based on blindly following religious ideas. Due to lack of freedom, people could not challenge the church or even clergy. As enlightenment emerged and philisophes rose to power, they were now in a position to challenge Christianity. Previously church had monopoly and people could not go against it. Kant gave an example of this; the clergyman has to align his teachings and sermons in accordance to the church. He himself is not free to preach his teachings on a public platform given by the church (1784). This led to dogmatism, where the Church and other people in position of power could force their opinions on others as the ultimate truth. Enlightenment came to free people from these deteriorating practices. Enlightenment brought about new cultural and technological innovations made its path to a modern, scientific world. The philosophes made secular, intellectual life a normality and for the first time were powerful enough to overthrow the clergy. Moreover, the 2nd generation of philosophes, like Hume and Diderot, were the ones who particularly widespread anticlericalism and interest in scientific method. Thus, resulted in looking at the world in a modern way (Hamilton, 1922). Therefore, this effectively shows how enlightenment brought society to a new phase of reason and scientific method. Rationality replaced dogmatism. Using reason and critically analyzing things now became the norm of the society, instead of blindly following the church’s views. Eventually, this led to science of the social world and studying society with scientific methods. Sociology and other social sciences emerged.

On the contrary, some philosophers have critiqued enlightenment, namely Foucault and Gadamer. There is a general criticism that it completely removes God out of the equation. Humans replace God as the center of the world, hence, develop a superiority complex leading to colonialization. This shows enlightenment having negative impacts, which are hard to critically analyze while being a part of it. Dostal in his paper outlines the criticism of Kant and enlightenment by Gadamer. Gadamer calls it ‘Bad Enlightenment’, and thinks Kant is an embodiment of it. Furthermore, Gadamer is concerned with rhetoric tradition reviving with authority and tradition gaining significance again. Kant, on the opposite end, dismisses rhetoric and sees it as merely a deception tool. Enlightenment completely rejects rhetoric, as it is a constraint to freedom and use of reason. Gadamer contradicts this, arguing that although rhetoric may appeal to feelings, in no way does it go against reason (Dostal, 2016).

In conclusion, the above arguments in favor of enlightenment outweigh its critiques. Many positive implications resulted from enlightenment, such as the birth of social sciences outlined in this reflection. The world started to be looked at and studied in a scientific way based on reason and empirical methods. Moreover, enlightenment also sowed seeds for revolutions, leading to equality and freedom. Monarchy replaced by democracy. An article by Toothman, talks about how the principles of enlightenment created skepticism around unquestionable authority of church and monarchy, resulting in several revolutions, fighting for individualism, freedom and change. Result was democracy and equality removing status quo. One such was the French revolution. The change spread throughout the world like South America, with modern science and culture emerging (Toothman, 2010). Spread of enlightenment’s impact continued to the east and Islamic world.

The enlightenment was an intellectual and artistic movement that, at its core, aimed to promote a rational, scientific mindset, both in thought and in deed, in contrast to the superstition and traditionalism of earlier generations. It encouraged individual excellence, and rewarded those bold enough to challenge the accepted limitations of their fields and then to push them to new places. With this came an uptake in critical thinking that posed a threat to the church and organised religion in general, which up until this point had been the primary patron of the arts. Music in particular was democratised: the most important composers now wrote for public concerts or societies, and were able to write much more freely now that they were no longer employed solely by aristocrats and clergymen, who regarded musicians as servants who worked to please them and them alone, and who could count on their employees’ continued reliance upon their funding, allowing them to dictate exactly when and what composers could create.

As these public concerts became more and more widespread, the music industry became more profitable, and composers started to be able to earn a living for themselves. Because of this, the hierarchy of composers and players was turned on its head. Whereas in earlier times it was commonplace for musicians to alter the composer’s score (partly explaining the prevalence of ornamentation and improvisation in early music) when attempting to play it, after the enlightenment had taken hold the music became sacred in itself (in value not in theme), and the way in which musicians distinguished themselves changed. Before the enlightenment, one’s skill as a musician was judged primarily by one’s ability to ‘augment’ and ornament the score in pleasing and appropriate ways. By contrast, musicians practicing after or during the enlightenment were judged by their ability to express the score as accurately and as meaningfully as possible, later giving rise to phenomena like the virtuoso, a musician valued for their technical mastery of a particular chosen instrument. As well as this, the increased emphasis on the music itself elevated the status of the composer above the musician, allowing them to make more of a name for themselves than had been possible before.

More money also meant larger ensembles, which hadn’t previously existed, for the most part because no-one could afford to pay all the musicians (or to commission such large works), and also because large – scale compositions were unsuited to the intimate environments in which music was traditionally played; typically rooms within the houses of aristocrats or in churches. The public however, wanted spectacle, and so composers extended the upper limit of how many musicians could be performing in a single piece. This caused the symphony (at the time the genre generally involving the most musicians) to expand both in terms of ensemble and length, but most importantly popularised opera as the most fashionable form of entertainment for the upper and middle classes.

Finally, it is true that the political and philosophical mood of the enlightenment affected musical style in fundamental and lasting ways. Order, elegance and simplicity were at the heart of enlightenment thinking, and this is reflected in the music of the time. The long, unbalanced phrases of the baroque style (a word that means ‘over – complicated’ or ‘vulgar’, and only came into use around the time of the enlightenment) were abandoned, in favour of regular, even phrases that lessened the emphasis on movement between parts (counterpoint), instead prioritising vertical, homophonic, melodic textures, that were built on a simpler harmonic language than that of the previous era. This resulted in a more accessible style of music that could be appreciated without serious academic endeavour, and by anyone, which is another reason why public concerts became the standard way of experiencing music.

To conclude, the enlightenment was a philosophical and artistic movement that radically altered the path that music was to take throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Composers, liberated by their new-found status and income, no longer relied on the church and the aristocracy to make their livings, and so were significantly freer to write according to their own whims than the previous generation of composers (as long as the public liked what they were producing). The advent of public concerts and recitals generated large amounts of money, which led to longer, more ambitious pieces that used larger ensembles, and as a result brought opera into the public eye like never before. The way in which musicians were seen changed, and the criteria for success as a player shifted away from one’s skill in ornamentation and addition, and towards interpretation and accuracy. Finally, the enlightenment’s emphasis on order and simplicity led to change in musical style that did away with complex counterpoint and replaced it with homophonic, melody – dominated textures that were both easier to understand and more immediately appealing. This new mode of composition was called the ‘Galante’ style, and dominated the musical landscape until Beethoven and those after him moved towards a more expressive and emotionally rich style in the early years of the nineteenth century.

In the eyes of a casual citizen, philosophical notions stay unrelated to the events happening in real life. However, all philosophical concepts have been designed for the description of the events in the real world, the main scenarios of which become unchanged for thousands of years. Thus, each of them is likely to find its references in the events happening in the lives of casual people. This paper will review the concept of falsifiability, which is a part of the theory of Karl Popper, the concept of enlightenment, which is a part of Immanuel Kant’s theory of enlightening, and identify the connection of these terms to the recent events published in media. Namely, the paper will prove that the concepts of falsifiability and enlightenment are connected, both being related to the ability of critical thinking, which, in its turn, is a key subject of the interview “We Are Striking to Disrupt the System”: An Hour with 16-Year-Old Climate Activist Greta Thunberg” by Amy Goodman and published on the website of Democracy Now.

The Definition of the Concepts

The Concept of Falsifiability

Popper is a scholar who proposed an idea of the identification of the criterion of a scientific theory. He proposed a criterion, by which the theory that claims to be scientific can be checked. One of the examples brought by the scholar in the explanation of his ideas was ‘No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white’ (Chapter 2, 149). The observation that all swans are white is a theory, which, according to the proposed criterion, is falsifiable. In other words, it can be proven that the theory is non-scientific and wrong. Moreover, after a while, his words were proven; not all swans turned out to be white since black swans were found in nature.

Thus, falsifiable theories have contradictions in their basic statements; hence, they cannot be considered scientific. Similarly, if one says that falling from the tenth floor, a person dies, the theory is not scientific since there have been survival cases in the cases of falling from the tenth floor. Therefore, scientific theories do not have contradictions in their basic statements (Chapter 2 n.d.). Thus, every theory that humanity believes in is supposed to be proven by a piece of clear scientific evidence, at the same time passing Popper’s criterion of falsifiability.

The Concept of Enlightenment

The concept of enlightenment was proposed by Kant as an idea opposing to the traditional religious views. “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage” (Chapter 1, 51). In this definition, enlightenment is understood as the realization of the power of an individual. The enlightenment refers to the understanding that a human has the power to study and to implement the innovations in education, religion, politics, and every other aspect of life. The motto of the theory of enlightenment has become ‘Sapere Aude,’ which can be translated as ‘dare to know’ (Chapter 1, 51). Compared to the previously popular belief that everything in the world happens by the grace of God, the theory of enlightenment encourages getting an education in every sphere of life and taking personal responsibility for every aspect of human activities.

The Interview of Greta Thunberg

The reviewed interview is dedicated to the life struggles and challenges of a 16-year-old activist whose aim is to attract the attention of humanity towards the aspects of a climate change. In her speech in the United Nations Organization, Greta Thunberg was trying to awaken the policy-makers and humanity to dare to know more about the changes that – according to her beliefs – are caused by the irresponsible human activity (Goodman, n.d.). Her lifestyle and her reasoning, which are highlighted in the interview, attract people with uniqueness and her brave character. The choices and the speeches of this young lady inspire the whole world to increase their awareness and the responsibility in the aspects of climate change.

The Connection Between the Concepts and the News Article

As mentioned above, the activities of Thunberg are inspiring; however, an interesting perspective opens when the interview is analyzed through the prisms of the concepts of enlightenment and the falsifiability. People believe that Thunberg’s emotional speeches are based on the theories that have already been checked and proven by scholars (Goodman, n.d.). However, it is not the case.

Being one of the most popular topics, it – surprisingly – does not pass the Popper’s criterion (Chapter 2, n.d.). Namely, the theory of global warming suggests that the temperature on the surface of the Earth is increasing due to the unpleasant human activity and pollution (Allchin, 2015). In reality, the theory is difficult to be proven following the criterion of falsifiability. Even though the results of the current studies clearly show that the temperature on the surface of the Earth is increasing, the reasons for it cannot be identified clearly by the scientific community.

In world history, there have been periods when the temperature was rising (global warming) and falling (ice age) because of the reasons not related to human activity and pollution. Thus, the theory that global warming is caused by human activities does not meet the criterion of falsifiability, which means that it cannot be considered scientific (Allchin, 2015). In this regard, Greta Thunberg, even though she does a great job on the popularization of awareness of climate change, does not operate true facts and scientific theories in her speeches and interviews (Goodman, n.d.). It does not mean, however, that there is no correlation between human activity and the global increase of temperature. However, it means that the theory on the connection between these events can hardly be proven scientifically.

Thus, humanity believes in the theories that do not pass Popper’s criterion, which, hence, are not scientific. Nonetheless, it does not mean that the subsequent research in the area should not continue. However, it means that people can be fooled believing in the information, which cannot be proven (Chapter 2, n.d.).

At the same time, the concept of enlightenment is related to Popper’s criterion, which, in its turn, is applicable to the reviewed interview. As mentioned above, people who rely on the evidence or the knowledge that does not pass the criterion can be misguided, and their opinion can be easily manipulated (Chapter 1, n.d.). At the same time, it will not be easy to manipulate the opinion of a person who – according to the ideas of the theory of enlightenment – has personal responsibility for the obtained knowledge and follows the principles of lifelong education. Hence, people who have realized the importance of enlightenment are more likely to apply Popper’s criterion in making their judgments. In other words, the popularity of Thunberg’s speeches is understandable through the prism of human emotions, and at the same time, can be defeated with the principles of falsifiability by the adepts of the enlightenment.

Conclusion

I think that Ms. Thunberg is a brilliant speaker who inspires the audience. However, I cannot agree with her position on the aspects of climate change. In my opinion, she takes irrational decisions; traveling through the Atlantic for two weeks on a boat is time-wise unaffordable in the twenty-first century. At the same time, the concepts of falsifiability and enlightenment are in a strong connection to the studied interview of Thunberg. Namely, the concept of falsifiability changes the attitude towards the theory of global warming. At the same time, the interview shows evidence of how the opinion of society can be manipulated with the use of concepts that do not pass Popper’s criterion.

The notion of enlightenment refers to the majority of the processes happening in science and politics. It is linked to the concept of falsifiability, as both concepts refer to the critical thinking of a human. In my opinion, the scale of the problem is immense, as a huge amount of people may be misguided once not having enough knowledge of these concepts. Thus, regardless of me being inspired by Thunberg’s activities, her speeches need to be checked through the prism of the studied concepts. I am sure that both Popper and Kant would agree with my skepticism, as both scientists promote the ability to think critically.

The Enlightenment of the eighteenth century is commonly acknowledged by most modern contemporary thinkers as being a pivotal moment in the advancement of human intellect, if not the beginning of modernity. According to Immanuel Kant, the Enlightenment encouraged people to be free-thinking and to deviate from conventional ways of thinking by using their own ability to reason (Jacob, 2001). In addition, this movement should be observed , not as a singular force, but as a diffusion of moderate versus radical ideas across different sectors of European society. As argued by historian Jonathan Israel, while moderate Enlightenment thinkers seeked to use reason and religion to justify old ideas of social hierarchy and imperialism, radicals rejected these structures and veered towards a more liberal and atheist approach (Then & Now, 2017). Therefore in order to measure the radicalism of each principle of the Enlightenment, it is imperative to consider those who advocated them, who they benefitted, as well as the religious and social context which they were developed in. This essay will seek to analyse the impact which enlightened thought had on religion in relation to the state, absolutism, ideas of race and the status of women.

During the 18th century, religion stood at the apex of society and thinkers commonly sought to use rationalism to reinforce the Church’s teachings and the status quo. The conventional theist view held the notion that God is at the center of reality and human rational (Paul Helm, 2020). However, Renee Descrates’s theory of rationalism and John Locke’s empiricism encouraged a more enlightened view of the world that, as argued by Immnuel Kant, that God was conceptualised by ‘human concern’(Paul Helm, 2020). This view was reflected in the growing disillusionment, by radical thinkers, with the idea that God had a hand in worldly affair. Therefore, mass religious conversion and persecution by the state was not justifiable. In a post-Reformation Europe, the enlightened concepts of tolerance and reason had led to calls for religious freedom in order to accommodate the growing multiculturalism (Tonder 2006). Most thinkers agreed that religion was, as put by Locke, a ‘private’ aspect of people’s lives which could not be wholly controlled by the state via nationwide conversion methods (Tonder 2006). As a result, certain philosophers such as Voltaire in the Calas affair, publicly stood for the ‘right of religious freedom’ (Tonder 2006). The creation of underground belief systems such as deism encouraged religious tolerance and found that persecution of the basis of religious differences and superstition to be nonsensical (Crash Course, 2019).

Notably, deism also proposed an alternative way to the dominant Christian view to observe the events of the natural world (Barnett, 2003). The 1755 Lisbon earthquake and its aftermath could be said to be the culmination of this shift in ideology. The physical rebuilding of the Portueguese city under the rule of Pombal stimulated a decrease in the church’s influence and encouraged the practice of scientific research. However, this transformation also had less progressive absolutists aims of increasing state control implying a more conservative motive.(Walker,2015) Alternatively, the Enlightenment also sprouted radical atheist thoughts, which argued that the capacity to which men are able to use reason should be limitless and not restricted by religion. The atheist French philosopher Baron d’Holbach argues in his 1767 publication ‘Christianisme dévoilé’ (Le Buffe, 2020) that religion poses a threat to enlightened thought and essentially the progression of society. This infers that due to the abstract nature of religion, it cannot fully co-exist with enlightened reason rooted in empiricism as it too inconclusive. Above all, this debate represents an extremely radical shift, as this meant that religion and reason, especially in the context of the state, were beginning to gain separate identities.

Absolutism could be argued to be another defining feature of the Ancient Regime, and its transition into enlightened absolutism depicts the radical and influential nature of the enlightenment in the political sphere. This doctrine had placed monarchs like Louis XIV ‘le roi solei’, at the top of the social structure and used religion to reinforce their hierarchical importance. The radical influence of Enlightenment principles was most evident in the political reforms of Emperor Joseph II of Austria, who boldly severed the relations between the state and the church to enact liberal education and social policies (Decker, 2017 pp.32-71). Revoking political influence from the church in favour of state control was argued by some radical Josephisites to be setting the foundations for a more bureaucratic and radically secular government. However, was this truly the case? Despite the fact that Josephism had liberal humanitarian aims for Austria, this ideology was ‘nationally conscious’ and could be said to have less radical, conservative motives. This raises the question; Were the intentions behind these reforms radically progressive or were these ‘masked attempts’ to achieve enlightened ends (Ingrao, 1986). This was reflected in Prussia under the rule Fredereich II, who implemented enlightened economic tax reforms and encouraged religious toleration. However, this was undermined by his push for military and territorial expansion as well as his contradictory treatment of serfs which only entrenched the power of ‘junker’ aristocrats (Crash course, 2019). Thus pointing at the thought that enlightened rulers were merely adapting to the times in order to secure their position and reinforce their absolutist agenda. As described by Francois Bluche enlightened despotism was the ideas of the old system which were slightly adjusted to look more liberal (Enlightened Despots in France, Austria & Prussia: Reforms & Goals, 2013). Despite these limitations, it is impossible to deny the radical structural changes which were made to the European political landscape as a result of the Enlightenment. The French revolution and the Napoleonic era that ensued, are the culmination of this change. The revolution forced the acknowledgment of the Third Estate as a significant political force which was less violently emulated by countries throughout Europe (Acemoglu et al., 2009).

The theory of natural rights was another key principle of the Enlightenment, however when measuring the extent of its radicalism, it is important to note that throughout the eighteenth-century, the Western world was forging its infrastructure and economy using the slave trade. When debating the issues of rights and freedom for that other than white men, it becomes difficult to then describe the Enlightenment as a completely radical movement. This is evident in the hypocrisy of the arguments made by key figures of the era such as John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the ‘New World’ would one hand advocate that men are ‘free’ and ‘equal but would actively participate in the slave trade (Tyson and Oldroyd, 2018). It is also important to acknowledge the role of white supremacy, which provides the context for this paradox. As philosophers like Locke did not believe that black people were “wholly human”, it was only natural that these rights did not apply to them. This was reflected in the popular religious justification of slavery which dictates that the Bible described black people as ‘cursed’ (Tyson and Oldroyd, 2018). On one hand, it could be argued that the Enlightenment was radical in the fact that, it triggered a widespread awareness the inhumanity of the slave trade, and eventually led to its legal abolition in 1807. The memoir of Olaudah Equiano detailing his experience as a victim to the slave trade was critically important in the advocacy of human rights for all people and encouraged calls for abolition. Nevertheless, this did not address the issues of racial hierarchy which is still present to this day in the modern western world, albeit less overtly violent and more systemic.

The Enlightenment also explored the natural rights of women (chiefly white women) and set the basis for waves of feminism that were to ensue .The traditional view that women should be bound to domestic life and sexual chastity was the popular view of what a woman’s life should be. However, through the invention of the printing press and the increased publication of literature meant women were able to increase their social status for the first time, independent from that of their husband or fathers. ( Saylor) The works of British author Mary Wollstonecraft in relation to women’s right to education crucially argues the radical view that not only should women be encouraged to become learned individuals, but that this would in turn lead to a more flourishing economy and diverse intellectual sphere. (Owusu-Gyamfi, 2016) During the French revolution, Locke’s principle of natural rights was used by French revolutionary Olympe De Gouges, as the basis for her argument for gender equality, especially women’s right to divorce, a taboo subject which was for the first time being brought into question. (Mian and Alvarez, 2013) .

Nevertheless, the Enlightenment only saw the very tip of the feminist movement as the key ideologist, including Wollstonecraft still advocated for the traditional nuclear role of men and women. Though Rousseau encouraged the education of women, this was under the misogynistic view and unfortunate view that women were intellectually, biologically and fundamentally inferior to men. (Herdman,2017)

In conclusion, it is evident that the Enlightenment had a drastically radical impact on the different structures of 18th century European society and beyond. The use of reason and scientific method to question the use of religion in non-theological context led to secularisation of political thought. In turn, this led to the dismissal of abstract concepts such as the divine rights of Kings and absolutism which had defined the Ancien Regime. Thus, this set the foundation for a more modern form of state governance such as constitutional monarchy in Britain or the French republique. Socially, the Enlightenment could be argued to have been radical but only moderately by modern liberal Western standard. Whilst the position of the average white man had gained ‘natural rights’, black people were still portrayed as ‘two-thirds of a human’. This reflects the regressiveness of the Enlightenment pertaining to the toleration and acceptance of different cultures and ethnicities. On the other side, (white) Women were becoming a more visible force in the social hierarchy , whilst they were still encouraged to pursue traditional roles, this was the first time that their right to education and freedom was being discussed. It is fair to say that when observing the constitutional political systems which followed the Enlightenment, the theories and ideas proposed by radical thinkers could be considered to be the defining features of the Enlightenment.