Individualism - during the Enlightenment a doctrine was formed, which argued that only individual things exist, therefore classes and property did not have reality. This doctrine became the foundation for the development of a really important notion, the notion of individualism. A definition for individualism could be that it is the concept according to which every single human being is the beginning for a whole wealth of knowledge and action that an individual could possess. In addition, it is not possible for individuals to think at a higher level. According to this notion, society is just a collection of individuals who are continuously compared. However, sometimes individuality is lost among institutions.
Therefore individualistic theories seem to be so attractive as well as powerful, since they preserve individual freedom in an obvious, specific and understandable way. Considering its liberal content many of the Enlightenment thinkers tried to develop it and forward it to people belonging in the Third Estate (people without power), hence to understand how far they were exploited by the clergy and the authority. They paid more attention in many different kinds of individual necessities like power, happiness, pleasure and security where each one of these requirements were creating different societies depending on individual’s choices.
A representative supporter of individualism is Jean Jacques Rousseau. He fought the contract theorists who supported the notion that individuals were the consequence of society. Rousseau on the other hand supported the idea that the basic elements of human nature were rather the product of society. John Stuart Lock also supported this idea, as he believed in the freedom of the human being and in its right to live, to have personal freedom and have its own property.
Progress Enlightenment was mainly an idea of progress, which means those fields of nature and society that concerned people could become better by the use of science and reason. That way, the world would be forever in a continuous increasing level of happiness and well being.
Many theorists tried to explain the deeper meaning of progress; they therefore divided it in two parts, that of reason and of science. Kant, in his book “Critique of Pure Reason” explained how he understood reason; he viewed it as both the subject and the object of the Critique. He also expressed some questions such as, “what are the conditions of our knowledge through which modern natural science is possible?” and “how far does this knowledge extend?”
Reason became the power of the Enlightenment as it was encouraging the freedom in thinking and could let people discover many new things about themselves, nature, society and religion. It consists in culturally codified and transmitted combinations of experience and entails the communications of necessities.
Rationalism sought the power of reason in its universal unbiased representation of a morally good nature (Plato); in representations of empirical laws of nature (Lock); or in comprehensiveness and consistency (Hegel). With the growing of rationalism, the sense of spiritual meaning that had been provided by religion was lost. The main result of reasoned thinking was knowledge; as Renè Decartes said, ‘I think, therefore I am.’
As far as science is concerned, it flourished during the Enlightenment. It could be thought of as the ruler of the world’s mechanisms and the empiricism of life. It was and still is the mean for continuous discovery and invention, which through time is superposed. Therefore, science is temporary. It is also important to mention that it rationalises the human mind and the world, however it is unable to answer questions on ultimate values.
Horkheimer supports the fact that science shares the fate of the productive sources, its ‘ application is sharply disproportionate’ ‘to its high level of development and to the real needs of mankind.’ Specifically ‘it is concerned with comprehensive relationship upon its own existence and the direction of its work depend, namely society.’ According to Horkheimer, science is not fortuitous, it is ‘determined in the scope and direction of its work by its own tendencies alone, but by the necessities of social life itself.’ During Enlightenment some particular fields like biology, chemistry and physics developed further.
Change Something that is different from what it is already known is a change. During the 18th century, change had a primary role, since so many things developed. For example because of progress people started taking hold of their lives, facing several situations and thinking differently. The critical methods that were adopted and the religious viewpoints, which were replaced by scientific ones were the most important changes of the epoch. Through every legacy, change has both negative and positive results, winners and losers, as it also disposes of as well as creates problems. In the case of the Enlightenment the winners were the 3rd Estate who gained power and the losers were the Nobility and the Clergy whose power was dissolved. As far as the problems were concerned it threw away many problems as prejudice and inactivity was replaced by scientific research and rationalism. However, modernity brought new responsibilities and fresh challenges and it was not known if people would be able to deal with these new responsibilities or if they were going to reap the benefits by using their power in the right way.
It is obvious in the above essay that Enlightenment made an important try to bring equality to the whole community, by challenging the power that was collected in the hands of the minority. People found it difficult to accept progress and the idea of change was really frightening for them. In contrast to nowadays, were people take progress for granted and at the same time people have started losing their ultimate values. Modernity is just a movement, which will slowly end to its starting point. ‘Our civilisation destines us to realise more clearly these struggles again after our eyes have been blinded for thousand years – blinded by the allegedly or presumably orientation towards the grandiose moral favour of Christian ethics.’
References
-
Cahnman, W.J., 1964. Sociology and History. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
-
Connerton, P., 1980. The tragedy of Enlightenment. London: Cambridge University Press.
-
Fulcher, J., and Scott, J., 1999. Sociology. Athens: Oxford University Press.
-
Hall, S., Held T., and McGrew, T., 1992. Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with The Open University.
-
Hall, S. and Gieben, B., 1992. Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with The Open University.
-
Hawthorn, G., 1976. Enlightenment and Dispair. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Horowitz, A., and Maley, T., 1994. The Barbarism of Reason: Max Weber and the twilight of enlightenment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
-
Smelser, N.J., 1988. Handbook of Sociology. London: Sage Publications.
Cf. Connoly, Political Theory and Modernity, see in Barbarism of Reason: Max Weber and the twilight of Enlightenment, (p. 76)
See in Tragedy of Enlightenment, (p. 27).
See in Tragedy of Enlightenment, (p. 27).
See in Tragedy of Enlightenment, (p. 28).
See in Barbarism of Reason: Max Weber and the twilight of Enlightenment, (p. 237).