Please add at least two questions for discussion prior to each week's class, pertaining to that week's assigned reading. (First read previously-posted questions, don't be redundant. Also post a brief essay responding to any question posed by yourself, a classmate, or me. Try to post before Tuesday, so we'll all have an opportunity to reflect on your questions prior to class.
I suggest we apportion the assignment into thirds: two or three of us can pose questions focused on the first 1/3 of the reading (this week the first 22 pages-Lucy and Kelly), two or three on the 2/3 (Gabriella and Nat), and Nathan and Jennifer the last).
Please review all the questions that have been posted before posting your own, to avoid redundancy.
- Do you believe "radical improvement in the human condition" (1) is attainable? What might that look like?
- Do you think Plato's cave analogy (2) is a useful depiction of the benighted pre-Enlightenment state of human understanding?
- What do you think of Kant's definition of Enlightenment? 6-7
- Nathan was wondering in class about the problem of accurate historiography, when interpreting the ideas and attitudes of another time and place and applying them to our own. Do you think this poses particular challenges to our attempt to learn enlightenment lessons from The Enlightenment?
- If enlightenment is a "process," (8) how do you think it begins? What are its significant stages?
- Do coffee houses and reading groups (12) continue to contribute to an expansion of enlightenment in our culture? What else does? What in our society detracts from it?
- Have we yet attained in our culture a more enlightened view of women's roles and status?
- Does Wittgenstein's "family resemblance" concept help in thinking about what enlightenment means?
- Is it accurate to call Spinoza's metaphysics "atheist"? 15, 25
- Are those who would "sacrifice the possibilities of life here on earth" (16) for an imagined afterlife inherently anti-enlightenment?
- What do you think of the "Epicurean conviction"? 18
- Does it matter if Christ was "divine"? 19
- Is Christianity a "mystery"? 23
- Is Deism a plausible view? 24
- Can there really be a science of humanity "independent of nature"? 28 What's an enlightened way to think about the relation between nature, culture, and society?
- The "Enlightenment Bible" may not have undermined revelation (30), but what about the Jefferson Bible?*
- What do you think of David Hume's view that Christians "supported their elevation of the next world above the present with a morality of self-denial," and that this is antithetical to what is naturally "useful and agreeable"? 32 **
* Thomas Jefferson believed that the pure-principled teachings of Jesus should have been separated from the dogma and abuse of organized religion of the day. This led him to recast, by cutting and pasting from the gospels, a new narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus, where, according to Jefferson, ""there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man... To the corruptions of christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.”"
** Today is publication day for Julian Baggini's book about Hume:
David Hume (1711-1776) is perhaps best known for his ideas about cause and effect and his criticisms of religion, but he is rarely thought of as a philosopher with practical wisdom to offer. Yet Hume's philosophy is grounded in an honest assessment of nature--human nature in particular... [The Great Guide] follows Hume on his life's journey, literally walking in the great philosopher's footsteps as Baggini takes readers to the places that inspired Hume the most, from his family estate near the Scottish border to Paris, where, as an older man, he was warmly embraced by French society. Baggini shows how Hume put his philosophy into practice in a life that blended reason and passion, study and leisure, and relaxation and enjoyment. The Great Guide includes 145 Humean maxims for living well, on topics ranging from the meaning of success and the value of travel to friendship, facing death, identity, and the importance of leisure. g'r... Baggini's site
Another cartoon treating "enlightenment" more as an eastern concept, but still an amusing critique of western pop cultural distraction--
After reading the text, the two questions from pgs 1-22 are as follows
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: When you hear/see the word enlightenment, do you think of ancient or modern philosophers, why? (pg 5)
Question 2: Why is it believed that enlightenment is hostile to religion when lumieres suggest a religious connotation? (pg 2)
We can each do more than two. We may need to, to cover the ground adequately. But this is a great start. My initial responses:
Delete1. Both. Although "The Enlightenment" is a modern historical era (in the philosophers' sense, which dates "modern" from Rene Descartes-who died in 1650), there have been figures and moments throughout history whom we rightly consider to have been enlightened champions of the unbiased application of reason and quest for truth. The best of the old Greeks were enlightened, even when they disagreed fundamentally -- Plato and Aristotle, for instance. The Stoics and the Epicureans. Maybe even the Cynics and the Skeptics...
2. Probably because enlightenment embraces a spectrum of belief and disbelief with respect to the question of god(s). Generally I'd say most enlightenment figures were either religious in a naturalistic sense OR hostile to supernaturalism in religion and philosophy. In other words, it is a unifying characteristic of enlightenment to reject supernaturalism (or to put it positively, to embrace naturalism). Spinoza, for instance: a naturalist in philosophy and religion who was nonetheless described as a "god-intoxicated" man...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen I think of enlightenment, the philosophers that I think about are ancient. The prominent philosophers that I tend to think of are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I think of Socrates and his followers because he is like the father of Western Philosophy. Although in my classes, I have been given exposure to contemporary philosophers.
ReplyDeleteThe parts that emphasize each ancient philosopher are that Socrates always asked questions to encourage his students to look at what they know and continue to ask questions to enhance critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, Socrates was guilty of corrupting the youth and sentenced to death by drinking poison for his free-thinking. I have participated in several Socratic method discussions, and I find it a great way to challenge students on an unbiased quest for truth.
I remember Plato being a student of Socrates and forming the Academy, emphasizing mathematics and Science. Science and math emphasis is still seen as relevant today with the STEAM/STEM movement in education.
Aristotle was a student at the Academy. He also started his school, the Lyceum. During his lectures, Aristotle walked as he taught. The walking left his students to trail after him like ducks following their mother; only the students were hungry for knowledge. Walking and teaching was a new thing, and even comparing teaching in general now, I cannot think of a stationary teacher while imparting wisdom.
I am enjoying learning about contemporary philosophers and look forward to expanding my knowledge.
"...look at what they know" -- and especially at what they don't, as the Delphic Oracle emphasized in declaring Socrates the wisest Athenian.
Delete"...guilty of corrupting the youth" -- he was found guilty by a slim margin of the large "jury," but did he really "corrupt" anyone? It is a central tenet of enlightenment that asking uncomfortable questions is liberating, not corrupting.
We should discuss the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle dynamic, the interesting ways each diverged from his teacher, and what that says about enlightenment and "thinking for oneself"...
I personally do not believe that Socrates corrupted anyone. My opinion is that people were upset that he encouraged followers/students to think for themselves and expand their thinking process. That was something that was not familiar and viewed as different. Different is not bad and is sometimes necessary. So I concur, there is liberation is pushing into the unknown and asking questions.
DeleteAlso, sorry that it shows I deleted the comment twice, I had to get it into paragraph format. :)
Do we as Americans find ourselves in an age of enlightenment because of the perception of a paradigm shift after the death of George Floyd and the conviction of Derek Chauvin?
ReplyDeleteDid Gianna Floyd’s father “change the world?
Will the future generations look at this time as pivotal in bettering the human condition?
It sure felt like something shifted a year ago, didn't it? And yet,the list of subsequent incidents involving police and unarmed African Americans is long. My perception is that a significant number of well-intentioned but inattentive white Americans have now been "woke" to the problem of structural racism, that fewer of them are actually doing anything to address it, and that racist reactionaries are more intransigent and dug in than ever. But the whole world did seem to be watching, and marching, last year. Maybe it was a historical watershed moment.
DeleteNathan was wondering in class about the problem of accurate historiography, when interpreting the ideas and attitudes of another time and place and applying them to our own.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this poses particular challenges to our attempt to learn enlightenment lessons from The Enlightenment?
Paradigm shifts continue to happen in science and reason continuously. As we grow as not only a single society but as a world culture, we continue to gain understanding. Enlightenment in history has taken many forms overtime and as we look at the context of the different things that we study we can look at our questions about how we are enlightened today and how the things that we've learned have affected how we as a society work through the problems of bias or non-reasoned thinking.
Is enlightenment in our time the proliferation and access to the Internet and how we address nonreasoned thought and how we look at truths as pliable in many instances. Kant may have a corner on universal truth, but it can be difficult to implement when information is coming from so many directions as it is today. Are we creating an environment for enlightenment or chaos and confusion?
Delete"As we grow as not only a single society but as a world culture..." I agree, real enlightenment comes when we reconstruct our identities more inclusively and reject parochialism, nationalism, ethno-centrism etc. The cosmopolitan ideal need not threaten what's good about locality and "home," as many conservatives seem to think. Consider someone like Wendell Berry, the Kentucky poet who loves his home turf but also cares profoundly for the health and integrity of the global ecosystem.
DeleteBernard Mandeville used satire on the subject of moral reform in London to question the ability of making decisions with other than reasoned thinking. Today we have many political satirists that raise important questions in a way that makes it easier for the general public to understand. Is using satire an effective way of bringing the kinds of ideas that create reasoned thought?
ReplyDeleteBased on my personal experiences, satire is an effective way of beginning conversations. I follow a few different satire sites, particularly on Twitter. As I see the satirical tweets on my feed, I become intrigued to do research on my own. The headlines and stories that are presented are attention grabbing and more appealing than outright facts.
DeleteSarah Garfinkel from Harvard Ed. Magazine states that using humor makes information more "digestible" and is more engaging. During a workshop, her group found that using satire to portray political information made it more appealing to adults. So not only is humor good for children, it is applicable to adults and can create more engaging atmospheres for potentially uninteresting information.
Satire is an effective way to discuss and teach topics. It seems as though it could help people form thoughts and opinions. Since satirical sites are using humor, it creates a less serious environment and may help people to feel more open and comfortable to form opinions. The humor may also reduce the severity of the bias seen on these satirical sites. It is very obviously satire, therefore, it is seen as comedy, not necessarily bias or prejudice.
What are some of your favorite satirical sources? Do any of you like Andy Borowitz? The Onion? Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel et al? (I see that Colbert is coming back to live production in mid-June, btw.)
DeleteIs using satire an effective way of bringing the kinds of ideas that create reasoned thought?
DeleteI find this question rather interesting, and I did not put much thought into what satire can contribute towards until the question was posed. This made me think about my personal experiences throughout high school and my undergraduate career. I have had many professors present videos in order teach an objective. Personally, I feel that the way that satire is delivered/presented can resonate more effectively with an audience.
An article by Matthew Swayne from Penn State states how satire "is not just entertainment... it is a vital function of democratic society and a way to broach taboo subjects, especially in times of crisis" (Swayne). Not only can satire help people understand a certain concept, but it can also help address difficult conversation and topics.
There are many satirists that range from Mark Twain to Stephen Colbert. Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain believed that humor was important politically. For example, they portrayed the pen and sword as weapons in order to establish a new future in the Republic. Further, many TV satirists such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart spoke out about U.S. policies and the government after the events of 9/11.
The subject of satire reminds me of some of my favorite satirists such as Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon. Many of their videos will come up on my suggestions. A lot of the topics that they cover usually make me end of researching the topic by the end of the video.
Here are some interesting articles I found about satire and how others have used it:
https://www.futurity.org/satire-politics-845712/
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2017/0215/Stephen-Colbert-vs.-Jimmy-Fallon-What-s-the-role-of-satire-in-the-Trump-era
My favorite satirical sources are The Onion and John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight." I find these to be the most appealing and intriguing when it comes to furthering my research.
DeleteI am relatively new to the source The Onion having just heard about it two years ago, but I have since encountered many who utilize it. I had never visited the site, "Last Week Tonight", but I have seen several of his videos floating around Facebook. Interesting takes!
DeleteBorowitz is fantastic but almost surreal in delivery. The Onion can have some great stuff but I don't seek it out. I like Fallon more for his physical comedy and musical talent. Kimmel is like the kid down the street that hangs out in his parents basement and gets stoned all the time. He has had some deep conversations and addressed real issues but to me he is a great guy but less of a satirist. Colbert is to me the satirist with a conscience. Colbert takes the time and space that he has and uses it to the best of his ability to create reasoned insight. Bill Maher is good at trying to build reasoned discussion by adding voices from multiple sides and John Oliver uses his time to bring a cause or event to our collective attention through humor and absurdity. Trevor Noah is by his mere presence a statement of the times a how they are a changin' regardless of his insight and personality. Each can have their place and I have neglected to mention a few others that share rare talent in using satire to embed reasoned thinking into our culture.
DeleteTwo Questions for Pages 22-44
ReplyDelete1. We are told that separation of church and state has remained a principle of government. John Toland stated that religion has been used as an "instrument of policy." Could this arguably be seen today? Is religion the main driving force for personal philosophies and morals that are then translated into policy?
2. Religion appears as a consistent topic throughout the discussion of enlightenment. How does atheism provide a different perspective than those using a religious lens?
1. The present-day GOP leans heavily toward theocracy with its talk of America as a "Christian nation" etc. They do not acknowledge or respect the Founders' wall of separation. As Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg for my neighbor to affirm many gods or none, but that's not a form of tolerance we've heard from many Republicans lately.
Delete2. There's a lot to be said on this, but I'll just note that those who like John Lennon's "Imagine" offer that "different perspective"...
Q. 1 intrigues me, so here are some quick thoughts...
DeleteReligion as an instrument of policy is alive and well in the United States, in my opinion. And by religion, I refer to Christianity only, as you would be hard pressed to find any policies or bills on the hill advocating for any religion outside of Christian principles. One only has to look at the plethora of examples* in religious legislation (passed and attempted) to substantiate this.
Policies and laws on women’s rights, both from a historical and contemporary context, illustrate an adherence to the submissive role of women in the Bible that is borne out in legislation prohibiting women from voting, having access to healthcare, body autonomy, owning property, etc. The “Right to Discriminate” movement, while not new, pushes religious views while actively seeking the right to discriminate against persons of color, women, and the LGBTQ community.
Religion is a nuanced bird and I find this question and topic fascinating.
-Jenn
*HJR 150: A Resolution to designate the Holy Bible as the official State book. (TN)
House Bill 836: allows religious-based adoption agencies to deny services to LGBTQ families (TN)
Senate Bill 1556: therapists and counsellors exempt from serving clients based on sincerely held religious beliefs or principles (TN)
Senate Bill 8: bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. It includes cases where the woman was impregnated as a result of rape or incest. (TX)
After reading about Engaging with Religion (pgs. 22-44), these are my three questions:
ReplyDelete1. John Toland combined the idea of metaphysics with select appropriations of modern Biblical, Patristic, and religious scholarship. He started off with his book, Christianity not Mysterious. The central idea of the book states how the mystery of Christianity is considered as a clerical fraud (pg. 23). If this is the case, is the idea of REASON above the 'mystery' of Christianity?
2. Pagano realized the full potential of the history of religion and the history of society. The author connects and argues, later in the book, the focal concern of the Enlightenment: progress of society (pg. 34). Can these both, history of religion and society, correlate with the progress of society? If so, how do they both affect the progress of a society?
3. John Toland and his colleagues considered themselves as Deists, believers in a god but not in Christ specifically. The book states how this type of view has fallen out of use (pg. 24). Is it possible for this type of view to become more commonly used in modern times?
1. "Above" in the sense of being immune to the charge of fraud?It always depends, I think, on how we're defining REASON. If we think of it as a fallible but indispensable tool for making our ideas clear and discovering what's true and real based on the evidence available to us at any given time, then I think it is relatively immune to that charge. But when "reason" is corruptly invoked to summarily ignore or discount others' experience, it does become fraudulent. Thinking of people like young A.J. Ayer here, compared with old A.J. Ayer. Remind me to elaborate...
ReplyDelete2. Big questions. Is history inherently OR potentially progressive? Is it going somewhere? Or is it just "one damned thing after another" without rhyme or reason, a series of discontinuous events? Is religion blocking the path of progress? Or is irreligion? In general I'd say the way history (or the study of history) affects progress is by generating greater insight into history's errors, so we don't repeat them. Or not.(Santayana's quip, again.)
3. One reason Deism was so popular during the Enlightenment was that it pre-dated Darwin. Many 18th century Deists (Voltaire for instance) might have considered natural selection a sufficient explanation of life's processes (if not yet of its ultimate origins) to let go of God. Personally, though, I'm fine with the Deist assertion of divine indifference to our fate. Whether you're a Deist or a Darwinian agnostic or an atheist, you believe we have to paddle our own canoes and not count on divine intervention to save us from our own foibles.
And that phrase "let go" reminds me of one of the wittier takes on religion and personal enlightenment I've seen: former SNL cast member Julia Sweeney's one-woman stage show "Letting Go of God" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74-f4ZV-ss&t=17s
DeleteSome questions:
ReplyDelete1. Do you agree with or what are your thoughts on Mandeville’s take on urban areas (London) being representative of “betterment of the human condition?” p. 55
2. A multifaceted question about Kant and the “categorial imperative.” p. 58-59
a. Am I understanding what categorical imperative means in Kant’s context? That they are absolutes, something that must be done to rectify certain situations. I’ve seen the example of “I’m thirsty, therefore I MUST drink.”
b. Does this also apply to what some deem as moral choices that they abide by unequivocally? Such as, abstaining from alcohol based on moral grounds, being pro-life regardless of circumstances, etc. Curious to hear other’s thoughts as I’m not sure I’m completely grasping the concept.
c. On p. 59 it states, “…he accepted that it was a problem in human history, where the prevalence of the passions… meant that the prospects of men and women abiding by the rule of the categorical imperative were limited or even non-existent, now and for the foreseeable future.” My nutshell version of this is that human passions make living by categorical imperative an impossibility, based on the innate characteristics of humanity. Is that analysis in the ballpark?
1. "Luxury consumption" may have been a lifestyle improvement for many in 18th century London (etc.) but it's not really serving us well in the 21st. Anyway, online retailers effectively quash the distinction between urban and rural with respect to access to consumer goods. But if we really want to better the human condition, in my opinion, we need to break our heavy consumption habit.
Delete2.a. It was Kant's intention to defend an absolutist ethic, but with the absolutes determined not be authority or fiat but by reason. Still, the implication that it may ALWAYS be wrong to lie (for instance) has troubled many critics. The "thirsty" example is a hypothetical imperative, in Kant's terms: if you want to quench your thirst, then it's imperative to drink. But ethical prescriptions are supposed to be categorical and without exception: always do the thing reason indicates as your duty, never violate a categorical imperative.
2.b. Yes, if you cannot universalize the maxim (rule) of your act with respect to (say) consuming alcohol, then it fails the universalizability condition and is categorically the wrong thing to do (according to Kant).
3.c. Yes, in the ballpark. Kant said we were made of "crooked timber" and thus could not consistently abide the correct moral rules. Kant's bete noire David Hume would have contested Kant's claim that categorical imperatives are necessarily right (in the moral sense), holding instead that reason should be the "slave" of the passions. That overstates his own case, I think. What he really means to say is that reason's rules can only be worked out in conjunction with feelings, sentiments, and other facets of human nature we don't normally consider the domain of reason per se.
Our text shares that Enlightenment shares how "the Enlightenment can be associated with a spectrum of attitudes towards religion"(p. 15). In this context, where would you place yourself? Why?
ReplyDeleteOne of the quotes that stuck out to me was this: "I shall adopt but qualify this suggestion." What areas of our readings do you connect/relate reflecting on this idea (think outside of the section/specification of where this quote was pulled)?
On the religious spectrum I'm definitely in the non-theist camp. I believe there probably are no gods, at least not of the omnipotent/omniscient/omni-benevolent variety. I also believe in what they used to call the religion of humanity. So I guess that makes me some variety of humanist and naturalist. But I'm also a defender of William James's approach to "the varieties of religious experience," meaning that I--like he--support the right of individuals to decide for themselves what they believe. I simply urge them to be sure that their beliefs accord with their own experience, and that they not interfere with others' equal right to (dis)believe. Like James, I believe in believing -- but not in coercing others to share any particular belief or dogma.
Delete"Adopt but qualify" is my approach to pretty much everything. I've very bad at responding to questionnaires, I always want to interpret the questions and qualify my replies.
If enlightenment is a "process," (8) how do you think it begins? What are its significant stages?
ReplyDeleteI love this question! In my personal opinion, enlightenment cannot begin until one is willing to humble themselves to ideas beyond their ways of thinking. If the willingness is not there, it will be nearly impossible to move forward. I have always treasured the quote, "You don't know what you don't know," but we must be willing to ask questions! We will remain ignorant of things beyond us if we never seek ideas and understandings ourselves.
We spoke last week about how the public school system has been designed and carried out, often leaving many students (such as myself) uncreative and in a habitual pattern of knowledge memorization and exportation. However, this makes asking questions all the more crucial! I consider how my creativity has been impacted by the current school system, and I have had to relearn what questions are beneficial to ask (those that look far beyond the surface) and to question ideas and thoughts to both get a better understanding and to see what others areas/topics they might be connected to.
Furthermore, this seeking initiative and questioning things, in my personal opinion, is a milestone for someone such as myself. Determining that my learning needs never to stop has encouraged my own enlightenment process, keeping me questioning even some of my innate understandings and perceptions. Because enlightenment can mean something different for each person, I believe that the significant stages are unique to each circumstance. However, I do believe that it all goes back to willingness. If one is closed off to new or unfamiliar ideas, he/she simply will not grow.
That's great: it's a never-ending process, ideally. And it's never too late or too early to begin. Ideally, I think, it begins in childhood under the nurturing care of loving parents who give their children quality time and attention, read to them a lot, encourage their questions, respond honestly to them, etc. Parents who shrug off the Big Questions of childhood, or who insist on instilling very particular beliefs and attitudes in their progeny from the earliest years, are in my opinion doing a tremendous disservice to their kids and to society at large. Emerson said to such parents "you're trying to create another you. One is enough!"
DeleteOf course many kids, through no fault of their own, are denied quality nurture. For them, we as a society need to step up and support their education from pre-K forward. I've always loved what John Dewey said: "What the best and wisest parents want for their children, that must society want for all children."
I also think we need to encourage philosophical curiosity from the earliest ages. Philosophy with children is a growing movement, and it's a great idea. I believe we'd do a better job of creating a society of adults if we began by philosophizing with kids. (That's what Rousseau thought too, it's what his book "Emile" was about.)
See Christopher Phillips's "Philosophers Club"...