Thanks Chaz - a good read. Well-balanced yet still charged with something worthwhile. Interesting to note that your bibliography is similar to much Sue got through in her research methods MA at Manchester. If we leave aside the reasons for the production of your essay, I'm struck that claims about 'interest' in the Enlightenment aren't true - I mean this in the obvious sense that we wouldn't find anyone if we went on a pub crawl. Quite how we can really discover origins of terms like Enlightenment seems set interests now and I like the way you address this.
The more important issue is no doubt why there is so little spread of "enlightenment" into the village idiot population. My own interest is why they have been included in the vote process. This is not some swipe at letting low IQ in - more a wonder on whether power-interests are at work in ways we are not spotting. We've both been in front of enough classes to know how hard teaching is. I'd have readily wired my lot up to an 'enlightenment button' on the bad days! I take another tack on modernity, but that's another story (broadly it's all science and we aren't rid of 'dark forces'). This would be 'analytic' rather than 'immanent' critique. Inside your well-written work, I find a story on 'fashion'. You spot a desire to 'dress' the real story in 'fine words' and 'positive generality' and are clearly not swayed by them like so many academics. On could say Hume attacks Reason - I'm rusty but stuff like 'rationality should be slave to the passions'. Habermas was forever trying to 'extirpate ideology' to leave Reason the only force and Marx even unhappy with rights because they were too individualised - both critical of much otherwise called Reason (instrumental rather than communicative). Horkheimer and Adorno could be summarised thus 'How can the progress of modern science and medicine and industry promise to liberate people from ignorance, disease, and brutal, mind-numbing work, yet help create a world where people willingly swallow fascist ideology, knowingly practice deliberate genocide, and energetically develop lethal weapons of mass destruction? Reason, they answer, has become irrational'. We might ask how so little has changed since they wrote this. They claimed the whole of thinking needed repair and the whole of society had to change. Of course, this is utterly apparent in the Bacon they pin instrumental reason on - society is plagued by Idols. The Idol of the theatre is clearly at work in your last paragraph - groups making sure they are attached to 'the good' (fashionable) and not the old and bad. The question for me is whether science is now producing something workable on human nature. I believe it is and that the key issue is about how this could be in all human hands rather than an elite - which is where the philosophy or 'professional academe' has remained. In terms of this kind of study of the Enlightenment, the studies themselves remain instrumental in being set in various 'Brownie point' systems and we do nothing about this. What might it mean to write other than as a functionary in such a system? One can make very reasonable arguments to power and just be told to 'fuck off'. My own view is that academic learning and school ejukation are more about learning your place in the pack than a society of Reason. A line into this in the history of thought might not concern 'Outram's capsule' but a wider history of 'no change' and what lies in that. This does not suit academics, other than scientists, who work by excluding it as far as they can as Idols (the interference of village idiots). Other academics really should be more engaged with the 'dark side' of why Enlightenment does not work - something I suspect they ignore because they can get away with repeated plagiarism from convenient sources. These connotations stand against confusion, darkness and ignorance, notions that no one would wish to be associated with So what, in the 'grand light', is the 'mechanism' to evade this Other? Can we find this now and can we track it back to the 18th century and even pre-modernity? Does it work behind 'fine words'? Is there a problem with argument going back to the pre-Socratics that is about what it excludes? And some state of mind for 'decision' that is always secret in the sense of not being amenable to demonstration as required in science? Is there something about this form of academic history that is stuck up itself and wants to believe in the Enlightenment and use it as 'grounding' instead of pursuing more scientific study because its people are incompetent? I only ask mate and I get the feeling you were in the guise of these words. Reason is critiqued, so I'd have asked for a bit of a re-write on what you were getting at there. Reads like polemic - which I hold as a good thing in these areas. I don't know if you've tried Bacon - the style of writing is often lick-arse and I'd bet it would take an age to get to the Idols for a beginner. One still finds this in academic text, with 'grounding figures' replacing the King's ass. You say something like this politely. Most of my students still want to rush to closure rather than do something argumentative like your piece. I liked it. On Jul 4, 10:39 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Essay: What is Enlightenment? > > This essay is not about the Enlightenment. It is an investigation as > to how the idea, ‘Enlightenment’ has been adopted, and is used. It > is closer to a genealogy of Enlightenment than an assessment of the > actions of historical actors of the eighteenth century who have been > enlisted to characterise the term. Due consideration of the ideas of > the Enlightenment is only addressed in the light of this > investigation. First the essay examines the reception of the > Enlightenment into English, as a word to signify aspects of the > eighteenth century. Then it looks at the evidence for the concept, as > it existed in the eighteenth century. The essay will then investigate > some of the historiographical issues that are complicit in the > application of the term and some of the difficulties and arguments > that have arisen from the consequence of the widening of the > boundaries to which the term as been put, in contrast to the actuality > of eighteenth century thinking. > > It would appear that no English-speaking historian used the word > Enlightenment to describe the eighteenth century, until the twentieth > century. An investigation into several encyclopaedias of the Victorian > period reveals not a single mention. This may reflect a nineteenth > century attitude that ‘patronised’ the eighteenth century as being > rather shallow. Indeed a late Victorian OED definition associated > Enlightenment with a French “shallow and pretentious intellectualism, > unreasonable contempt for tradition and authority.” A perusal of the > British Library catalogue reveals not a single title containing the > word “Enlightenment” until 1910. But despite this negative evidence, > it is not to say that nineteenth century historians did not concern > themselves with the eighteenth century. Leslie Stephen, for one, > devoted much consideration to the eighteenth century but did not make > ‘Enlightenment’ the object of his approach. Next from the study of > the BL catalogue, we have to wait for 1942 when The Age of > Enlightenment, an Anthology of 18th Century French Literature becomes > available. But it is not until 1951 that the word Enlightenment > becomes used to describe a unity of historical thought on the > eighteenth century, in a book translated from the 1932 German version > from the posthumous Cassirer. The next book of significance is > offered from Isaiah Berlin in 1956, The Age of Enlightenment. The > 1960s provides a further handful of books, notably from Gay, Manuel, > and Fellows. But even after Enlightenment’s adoption into English, > Bronowski’s and Mazlish’s The Western Intellectual Tradition mention > it only in passing, and then only dismissively; “To us, the Age of > Enlightenment… is not a restful abstraction. It is a complex of people > and groups with conflicting ideas…” Then, when dealing with France > during this period they are again somewhat dismissive of the term: > “usually labelled the French Enlightenment.” This demonstrates that > the link between Enlightenment with the eighteenth century is not a > necessary one and perhaps novel in some respects to twentieth century > thinking. The 1960s is rather an interesting period for the career of > this particular signifier as there was also a growing interest in > Buddhism and so this decade also marks the appearance of another > literary kind of “enlightenment”. It seems the word was attracting a > certain kudos. During the first half of the 1970s both Buddhist > enlightenment and the historical “Enlightenment” start to flourish. > There were around 35 further history books on the eighteenth century > containing the word in their titles. The rest of the decade sees an > explosion of titles of around 100 British Library entries culminating > in a cookbook of the Enlightenment. Presumably if you can eat it, it > must be real? From that time to the present, Enlightenment studies has > now become a massive historical industry. In the early twenty-first > century, Enlightenment has become a historical category driven both by > consensus and argument, and has undergone a massive proliferation of > versions: French, German, Dutch, Scottish, Scientific, Radical, > Counter-Enlightenment and even Christian and Jewish. Not to be left > out we now also have a book about English Enlightenment from Roy > Porter. > > There is a claim that ‘Enlightenment’ is one of the few words to > describe an historical period for whom the historical participants are > responsible for its coining. Indeed there is a significant amount of > evidence for this claim and a certain amount of justification. However > the evidence for this claim is somewhat limited considering the > widened scope that the Enlightenment now enjoys. It is true that many > of the historical actors now associated with it would not have > recognised themselves as part of the Enlightenment per se, (at least > not as currently characterised) nor would wish to be associated with > many of the other historical actors also associated with it. This > becomes especially evident if we were to confront say La Mettrie, > author of L’Homme Machine, with a leading light of the so-called > Christian Enlightenment. It seems, that as Intellectual Historians, we > should be in the business of avoiding anachronisms and false > attributions such that it would seem unfair to attribute to people in > the past such descriptions that they would not have employed of > themselves. This essay is a brief investigation of this problem. > > The evidence for the attribution of the word “Enlightenment” to be > applied to the eighteenth century comes from two key areas, and a > third rather less satisfying one. First, it may be accurate to say > that the philosophe grouping in France during the eighteenth century > were explicitly and openly were conscious of a distinct movement, > initiated by Voltaire, in which the metaphor of revealing a light was > used textually and iconographically – this can be seen clearly in the > preface and frontispiece, respectively, to the Encyclopaédie of > D’Alembert and Diderot. But it is not clear to what degree their > movement attracted a signifier that approximates “Enlightenment” at > the time, though the English translation uses the ‘enlightenment’ > throughout the entire work. In particular, the use to which this word > was put, by D’Alembert was a recognition that the philosophes were > reflecting a previous age in ancient times in which the search for > truth was less restrictive than their present. D’Alembert in writing > his encyclopaedia was uncovering 1200 years of darkness stating, “The > masterpieces that the ancients left us in almost all genres were > forgotten for twelve centuries.” This somewhat retrospective > viewpoint stands in some distinction to which various practitioners of > intellectual history have applied the term “Enlightenment”, as we > shall see. What does come near is the use of the term of Diderot’s, > siècle philosophe, which he applied to the eighteenth century, whereas > the term siècles de lumiére referred, not to the eighteenth century, > but to pre-Christian, ancient times. But it is this siècles de > lumiére that has been recruited, and used to form the Enlightenment. > This “French Enlightenment” seems to be the seed from which most other > Enlightenments have borne their own contradictory progeny. > > The second main area of evidence comes from the much quoted and > perhaps over stated connection to Enlightenment that is the result of > the famous question “was ist Aufklärung?” presented as a competition > in a Berlin journal in 1783. It is often Kant’s answer that receives > the most attention. This position was that Aufklärung was a maturing > of mankind in its ability to be able to think for itself. Although the > subsequent debate “raged” for the rest of the decade, it is evident > from Schmidt’s study of the Mittwochsgesellschaft that the Aufklärung > was a limited phenomenon: limited to a small group of thinkers who > under the license “you can think as much as you like as long as you > obey”, were asking the questions: why had the public received so > little Enlightenment, and even so, was it really a good idea to let > them have any more? The restrictions proposed for this limitation were > class based and considered application to the public and private. Even > though these thinkers considered that they were enjoying many > liberties, in being able to conduct this discourse, nonetheless this > was conducted to a degree in secret, and this ‘liberty’ was peculiar > to the benign despotism of the reign of Frederick the Great. What > little liberty the Prussians enjoyed was soon to be reversed by the > succession of Frederick William II when a Censorship Commission was > there to “stamp out the Enlightenment”. This Aufklärung has fed the > imagination of Enlightenment studies as is exemplified by Foucault > asking the same question in 1984. He was not imune to the irony that > Kant’s view is the very antithesis of a position of social > responsibility, and was a position not likely to have a major impact > on a wide swath of the public. It might be concluded that Kant’s view > is paradoxical in allowing ‘public’ freedom to a ‘scholar’, but to > demand obedience to all those in a ‘private’ role : is not a scholar > also holding an office? One has to ask if some great irony has been > lost from the context, but also how much of an influence did > Aufklärung actually have at the time in the brief reign of Frederick > the Great? If this influence was so limited; why call the eighteenth > century the Enlightenment? For Moses Mendelssohn, answering the same > question as Kant, associates Aufklärung, with Bildung and Kulture. He > stated that though these words may have been newcomers to the > language, this did not prove that they are new things. “The Greek had > both culture and enlightenment.” With this > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
