So what was the Enlightenment?

I guess it might be worth throwing around some ideas about my understanding of what it is I am against. The "Enlightenment" is rather elusive of tight definition but has been summarised neatly, in that fount of all wisdom, Wikipedia so it might be worth running a quick search there.

When did it begin? Well it is possible to regard political theorists like Hobbes as being part of the early germination of the enlightened thinking and even to see it as partly the legacy of men like Newton. Nonetheless, it is generally regarded as a product of the Eighteenth Century. In origin, it was largely European and indeed perhaps Anglo-Saxon, as many Continental proponents looked to the balance of powers they saw in Britain as exemplary. It generally countered the superstition of religious dogma and challenged rigid social stratification - the dominance of nobility and absolutist monarchy. In essence, it was an optimistic movement that sought to remodel society on "rational" lines. Perhaps it is fair to say it bore fruit most obviously in America and France with their revolutions and then became a dominating influence on 19th century political and social reforms more widely. Even what we might now view as conservative, particularly nationalist, movements owed much to the Enlightenment. Subsequently, with European Empires and American trade it was exported around the globe. Saint-Simon, perhaps exemplified some of the spirit of the movements when he wrote in 1825 "the golden age, which blind tradition has hitherto located in the past is ahead of us." Stirring beautiful sentiment. However, it is worth noting that neither rational thinking nor optimism originated in the Enlightenment. The ancient Greek philosophers and Cicero (as well as Abelard and Heloise) were certainly profound thinkers, while we cannot but count the Puritans (for all their sanctimonious guff) as optimists who wished to re-shape their age.

The Enlightened merely came to dominate and deploy their "rationalism" in challenging the old order and unlocking greater freedom for thinkers, writers and liberals of all hues.

Unless you are pretty extreme, there may be little in that summary above which warrants condemnation. We might regard democratic institutions, much scientific advance, a great deal of global capitalism as legacies of the Enlightenment and to that extent I would concur that it had positive influence.

However it has also created a dominant intellectual paradigm that rapid progress is and ought to be "good" and that those who doubt the wisdom of rapid advance are either stupid or self-interested. Think about politics for example. Progressive politicians in most societies I can think of enjoy "the benefit of the doubt" if trapped in dishonesty or other tawdriness. There was little investigation of the links Mitterand had with Vichy France, Bill Clinton was able to shrug off claims of dishonesty, whilst in the U.K. Tony Blair, in his early days as Prime Minister, was blatantly trapped in a dodgy party funding row which he escaped by claiming to be a "pretty straight sort of guy." That such politicians should attempt to elude dismissal is understandable self preservation but that they should enjoy a reservoir of goodwill because they are "progressive" is, I believe, a tainted legacy of the Enlightenment.

Later, I will try to claim that some of the worst violence of the last few hundred years was "ideological" and thus had its roots in the Enlightenment which spawned so many "isms". Wars which convulsed the world, every bit as devastating as the crusades, were driven by ideals which in turn were forged by Enlightened thinkers - liberal revolutionaries, nationalists, Communists and even, perhaps contentiously, I will suggest that even Fascists were a product of the Enlightenment. Moreover, the arrogance of the Enlightenment is that it enables us to perceive earlier evils, such as the sacking of Jerusalem by the crusaders, as the children of ignorance, or distorted faith, but modern wars as less so - more matters of misfortune and conflicts of interest.

I will also contend that, in science, particularly in the realm of particle acceleration, our destructive potential, coupled with eagerness to unravel the mysteries of the universe, may (and I understand the chance is slim) lead to the loss of all life as we know it, and that that sharp intellectual curiosity, willing to take such risks, is itself a product of the Enlightenment. I will suggest that our age needs a corrective current of spirituality and morality, such is most easilly given through the very institutions challenged by the Enlightenment. Essentially, I feel we need more wisdom before we seek more knowledge.

All of this should wait for the future. I am rather exhausted after nappies and burping last night and should be helping Vera with our little bundle of joy. Outside, we have a crisp Bohemian winter day. The weather is beautiful and calling out for us to take Miriam for a walk.