I’m just dipping my toe into the boundless sea that is online graduate study, and I got involved in a discussion the other day that I thought I’d post something about. The instructor wanted us to share our feelings about the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment, in case you haven’t brushed up your history in a while, was an intellectual movement that flourished in the 18th Century. Thinkers like Rousseau and Voltaire were leading lights. It was a reaction against the religious passions that had caused so much death and suffering through religious wars like the Thirty Years’ War. We religious types had made ourselves look pretty bad, and decent people began to think we’d all be better off if we jettisoned God entirely. But on what would we base our morality, without a God?
Oddly enough, Isaac Newton (himself a devout, if unorthodox, Christian) gave them their answer. Newton discovered what looked like absolute, immutable laws in the universe. Everything could be explained in terms of mathematics. Ultimate truth, for the fervid Newtonian, was mechanical, impersonal. Obviously morality was also a matter of eternal rules. Identify those rules and that was all the revelation you needed. Human nature was ultimately simple too, and soon we would know how it worked. Then we’d be able to establish a rational government which would permit everyone’s natural goodness to blossom like a flower.
The problem with the Enlightenment was that it was over-simple. Human beings just aren’t that neat (neither is the universe, as we’ve learned since). Human beings, and the universe, are like Doctor Who’s Tardis, bigger inside than outside. As you go deeper in, you discover new levels of complexity.
This, I think, explains the horrors of ideology in the centuries since the Enlightenment. Every tyrant thinks he’s found, at last, the simple key to human nature. It’s economics (Marx). It’s frustrated sex (Freud). It’s race (Hitler). Despot after despot tries to impose his simple solution on the people he rules, and the people stubbornly refuse to respond in a scientific way. So he’s forced to kill them, and to try to find some better people.
The difference between post-Enlightenment horrors and pre-Enlightenment horrors, it seems to me, is the industrialization of evil. The religious fanatic may kill you because he considers you evil, a tool of Satan. But the statist kills you without caring who you are. You’re just in the way, like a tree in a building zone.
It’s worth remembering that “the Enlightenment” was the title these guys gave themselves. It’s always worth taking a step back from people who write their own press releases.
Did you share this approach with the class & instructor? If so, what was the response?
I expressed it in terms of my skepticism. I tempered my words.
“The religious fanatic may kill you because he considers you evil, a tool of Satan. But the statist kills you without caring who you are. You’re just in the way, like a tree in a building zone. ”
“They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.” G.K. Chesterton, The Secret People
There almost always seems to be something appropriate in Chesterton, somewhere. I happen to be reading “Orthodoxy” as we speak.
I’m currently slogging my way through the librivox audiobook of The Flying Inn. The book presents England taken over by a Muslim Temperance Movement. It’s interesting that what he imagined as unimaginable a hundred years ago is now descriptive of the current scene.
There are some great quips, such as the newspaper reporter who is trusted to write up the major stories because of his diplomacy. He began his career with an innate ability to sidestep the real question by answering an unimportant related question. Later he developed his skill to the point where he could sidestep the main question by answering a totally unrelated question.
The difficult part is that he depicts lengthy speeches by the various proponents in order to demonstrate the airheaded logic behind their appeals. Those sections tend to get a bit tedious.
I should add that Chesterton also portrays in an insightful manner how bureaucracy stifles commerce. The temperance movement did not outlaw the serving of alcohol. They regulated it by saying that alcohol could only be served in an inn with a proper sign. They then banned proper inn signs.