What Was the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment has been defined in many different ways, but at its broadest was a philosophical, intellectual and cultural movement of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It stressed reason, logic, criticism and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith and superstition. Logic wasnt a new invention, having been used by the ancient Greeks, but it was now included in a worldview which argued that empirical observation and the examination of human life could reveal the truth behind human society and self, as well as the universe. All were deemed to be rational and understandable. The Enlightenment held that there could be a science of man, and that the history of mankind was one of progress, which could be continued with the right thinking.

Consequently, the Enlightenment also argued that human life and character could be improved through the use of education and reason. The mechanistic universe that is to say, the universe when considered to be a functioning machine could also be altered. The Enlightenment thus brought interested thinkers into direct conflict with the political and religious establishment; these thinkers have even been described as intellectual terrorists against the norm. They challenged religion with the scientific method, often instead favouring deism. The Enlightenment thinkers wanted to do more than understand, they wanted to change for, as they believed, the better: they thought reason and science would improve lives.

The end is usually given as either the death of Voltaire, one of the key Enlightenment figures, or the start of the French Revolution. This is often claimed to have marked the downfall of the Enlightenment, as attempts to rework Europe into a more logical and egalitarian system collapsed into bloodshed which killed leading writers.

This might have led to some historians wishing to drop the label Enlightenment were it not for the fact that the Enlightenment thinkers actually called their era one of Enlightenment. The thinkers believed that they were intellectually better off than many of their peers, who were still in a superstitious darkness, and they wished to literally lighten them and their views. Kants key essay of the era, Was ist Aufklrung literally means What is Enlightenment?, and was one of a number of responses to a journal which had been trying to pin down a definition. Variations in thought are still seen as part of the general movement.

Where historians once believed that the philosophes were the sole carriers of Enlightenment thought, they now generally accept that they were merely the vocal tip of a much more widespread intellectual awakening among the middle and upper classes, turning them into a new social force. These were professionals such as lawyers and administrators, office holders, higher clergy and landed aristocracy, and it was these who read the many volumes of Enlightenment writing, including the Encyclopdie and soaked up their thinking.

Link:
The Enlightenment - European History

Although the intellectual movement called "The Enlightenment" is usually associated with the 18th century, its roots in fact go back much further. But before we explore those roots, we need to define the term. This is one of those rare historical movements which in fact named itself. Certain thinkers and writers, primarily in London and Paris, believed that they were more enlightened than their compatriots and set out to enlighten them.

They believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition, and tyranny and to build a better world. Their principal targets were religion (embodied in France in the Catholic Church) and the domination of society by a hereditary aristocracy.

Background in Antiquity

To understand why this movement became so influential in the 18th century, it is important to go back in time. We could choose almost any starting point, but let us begin with the recovery of Aristotelian logic by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. In his hands the logical procedures so carefully laid out by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle were used to defend the dogmas of Christianity; and for the next couple of centuries, other thinkers pursued these goals to shore up every aspect of faith with logic. These thinkers were sometimes called "schoolmen" (more formally, "scholastics,") and Voltaire frequently refers to them as "doctors," by which he means "doctors of theology."

Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the tools of logic could not be confined to the uses it preferred. After all, they had been developed in Athens, in a pagan culture which had turned them on its own traditional beliefs. It was only a matter of time before later Europeans would do the same.

The Renaissance Humanists

In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and France a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary political debate. Almost all of them were practicing Catholics. They argued that the proper worship of God involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that crown of creation: humanity. By celebrating the human race and its capacities they argued they were worshipping God more appropriately than gloomy priests and monks who harped on original sin and continuously called upon people to confess and humble themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that humans were like God, created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative power. The painter, the architect, the musician, and the scholar, by exercising their intellectual powers, were fulfilling divine purposes.

This celebration of human capacity, though it was mixed in the Renaissance with elements of gloom and superstition (witchcraft trials flourished in this period as they never had during the Middle Ages), was to bestow a powerful legacy on Europeans. The goal of Renaissance humanists was to recapture some of the pride, breadth of spirit, and creativity of the ancient Greeks and Romans, to replicate their successes and go beyond them. Europeans developed the belief that tradition could and should be used to promote change. By cleaning and sharpening the tools of antiquity, they could reshape their own time.

Galileo Galilei, for instance, was to use the same sort of logic the schoolmen had used--reinforced with observation--to argue in 1632 for the Copernican notion that the earth rotates on its axis beneath the unmoving sun. The Church, and most particularly the Holy Inquisition, objected that the Bible clearly stated that the sun moved through the sky and denounced Galileo's teachings, forcing him to recant (take back) what he had written and preventing him from teaching further. The Church's triumph was a pyrrhic victory, for though it could silence Galileo, it could not prevent the advance of science (though most of those advances would take place in Protestant northern Europe, out of the reach of the pope and his Inquisition).

But before Galileo's time, in the 16th century, various humanists had begun to ask dangerous questions. Franois Rabelais, a French monk and physician influenced by Protestantism, but spurred on by his own rebelliousness, challenged the Church's authority in his Gargantua and Pantagruel, ridiculing many religious doctrines as absurd.

See the article here:
The Enlightenment

Comment by hellomynameis It has been proposed on forums that this buff will be more beneficial at higher levels, since then 50% would give more xp. But when you think about it, you will get xp 50% faster for 1 hour no matter what level you are. You will basicly save 30 minutes of leveling no matter what level you are.

We can messure it in XP, or levels gained, or time saved. If you want to gain as much xp as possible from the buff, save it for higher levels. If you want to gain as many levels as possible while this buff is active, then do the quest at lvl20. If you want to save time, then it really doesn't matter what level you use it at, you will save 30 minutes of the average time it takes level at that level for 1.5 hour, therefore going through the content in 1 hour instead of 1.5 hours.

Now, if you want to make good use of the buff, have 10-15 quests lined up within one quest hub and deliver them all when you get this buff.

We can messure it in XP, or levels gained, or time saved. If you want to gain as much xp as possible from the buff, save it for higher levels. If you want to gain as many levels as possible while this buff is active, then do the quest at lvl20. If you want to save time, then it really doesn't matter what level you use it at, you will save 30 minutes of the average time it takes level at that level for 1.5 hour, therefore going through the content in 1 hour instead of 1.5 hours.

Now, if you want to make good use of the buff, have 10-15 quests lined up within one quest hub and deliver them all when you get this buff.

What's NOT obvious is that the duration stacks - that is, if you complete the "every 10 levels version" and then a daily back to back, the durations will add together, so two of them will give you two hours worth of Enlightenment, etc.

Not sure if there's a cap yet.

EDIT: A few more quirks of this spell.

PS: Don't join a battleground or log out when it's stuck on 0 seconds, or it will be removed.

Edit: That's 7% free mastery for anyone crunching numbers.

View original post here:
Enlightenment - Spell - World of Warcraft - Wowhead

An intellectual movement which began in England in the seventeenth century, but then spread to have eventual influence over all sections of the world. The term "Enlightenment," rooted in an intellectual skepticism to traditional beliefs and dogmas, denotes an "illumined" contrast to the supposed dark and superstitious character of the Middle Ages. From its inception, the Enlightenment focused on the power and goodness of human rationality. Some of the more characterisitic doctrines of the Enlightenment are: 1) Reason is the most significant and positive capacity of the human; 2) reason enables one to break free from primitive, dogmatic, and superstitious beliefs holding one in the bonds of irrationality and ignorance; 3) in realizing the liberating potential of reason, one not only learns to think correctly, but to act correctly as well; 4) through philosophical and scientific progress, reason can lead humanity as a whole to a state of earthly perfection; 5) reason makes all humans equal and, therefore, deserving of equal liberty and treatment before the law; 6) beliefs of any sort should be accepted only on the basis of reason, and not on traditional or priestly authority; and 7) all human endeavors should seek to impart and develop knowledge, not feelings or character.

More:
Glossary Definition: Enlightenment (Age of Enlightenment)

PBS Previews The National Parks PBS

Filmmaker Ken Burns and his longtime colleague Dayton Duncan take us on a behind the scenes tour of their new PBS series, THE NATIONAL PARKS: AMERICA'S BEST IDEA. The team explains why they chose The Parks as their subject, as well as describing their five-year journey through research, scripting, filming and editing the series. Continue

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich sits down with Bill Moyers to talk about the influence of lobbyists on policy, the economy, and the ongoing debate over public health care. On the 200th anniversary of Thomas Paine's death, Bill Moyers discuss the influential early American with scholar Harvey J. Kaye and National Review senior editor Richard Brookhiser. Continue

With the noose and the lynching tree entering the national discussion, Bill Moyers interviews theologian James Cone about how these powerful images relate to the symbol of the cross and how they signify both tragedy and triumph. Dr. Cone is the Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Also, singer Berenice Johnson Reagon. Continue

Actor and children's author John Lithgow - best known as Dick Solomon from NBC's hit show 3rd Rock from the Sun - reveals a new side of himself... poetry lover. The award-winning stage and screen star Lithgow shares his favorite poems, insights into acting, and thoughts on the enduring power of art. Continue

Bill Moyers interviews best-selling historian Thomas Cahill in a far ranging interview that takes viewers from the Coliseum in Rome to death row in Texas.Cahill, who is best known for his The Hinges of History series of books, which includes the widely read How the Irish Saved Civilization. Continue

David Cay Johnston who says America's system has been rigged to benefit the super-rich. Harvey J. Kaye whose book Thomas Paine and the Promise of America channels the "the greatest radical of a radical age." Craig Unger, author of the bestselling House of Bush, House of Saud. A Bill Moyers essay on Martin Luther King, Jr., LBJ, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Continue

He's played heroes, villains, saints, sinners, a ballet-dancing elephant, and a space alien, now actor and children's author John Lithgow - best known as Dick Solomon from 3rd Rock from the Sun - reveals a new side of himself: poetry lover. The award-winning stage and screen star Lithgow shares his favorite poems, insights into acting and thoughts on art. Continue

Read the original:
Enlightenment History | PBS

Paula Bronstein / Staff/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Definition:

The Sanskrit word for enlightenment is "bodhi," which means "awakened." But awakened to what?

The only true answer to the question is to be awake -- in the Buddhist sense -- yourself. Short of that, we must come up with provisional answers that, the teachers tell us, do not really do justice to enlightenment.

Enlightenment can be defined as the cessation of dukkha, which is another word usually mangled in translation.

It can be defined as the full realization of the truth of the Buddha's teachings. It can be defined as awakening to a great reality most of us never perceive.

Enlightenment in the Buddhist sense has nothing to do with knowledge or intellect. Nor is it living in an otherworldly state of being "blissed out" or having visions or supernatural experiences.

In Mahayana Buddhism, it's incorrect to think of enlightenment as something some people possess and other people don't. Enlightenment is our basic nature, whether we realize it or not.

In his book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunryu Suzuki Roshi said that enlightenment is "nothing special. ... You may say 'universal nature' or 'Buddha nature' or 'enlightenment.' You may call it by many names, but for the person who has it, it is nothing, and it is something."

Read More: What Is Enlightenment, and How Do You Know When You've "Got" It?

Continued here:
Enlightenment Definition in Buddhism - Bodhi

The Enlightenment was an 18th-century movement in European and American thought that emphasized the power of reason and science, rather than traditional doctrine, to understand and reform the world. Some historians also include 17th-century philosophy, usually called the Age of Reason.

The Enlightenment artistic style is called "classical" (as opposed to the earlier Baroque and the later Romantic styles). The Enlightenment marked advances in philosophy, the sciences (especially physics, chemistry and mathematics), economics, political theory, geography (especially exploration), and technology (especially the origins of the Industrial Revolution), though in fact the greatest achievements in those fields were typically inspired by Christianity.

Out of the Enlightenment emerged the new philosophy of liberalism. Thinkers like Adam Smith had a major impact on creating classical liberalism and the ideals of the free market. John Locke is often considered the father of the Enlightenment and wrote several works on social contract theory and religious toleration. Several of America's Founding Fathers were actively engaged in the Enlightenment, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and their political thinking influenced American political ideas of republicanism.

Developed by the philosophes in France, England, Scotland, and the German states, the Enlightenment influenced the whole of Europe including Russia and Scandinavia, as well as the American colonies in the era of the American Revolution.

The French Enlightenment was marked by virtue, reason, freedom, and progress. BBC documentary on Beethoven

Liberalism (Classical liberalism) was one the dominant political thoughts to emerge from the European Enlightenment. Writers like John Locke imagined the foundations of classical liberal thought in government and society. In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke expounds on the basic tenets of liberalism such as individual freedom[1], legal equality under the law, and private property[2]. His concept of civil society was one of a contractual agreement between the citizens and a government formed to protect the fundamental rights of all persons[3].

These ideas provided a foundation for constitutional government and the creation of rights in the private and public sphere. Discussions between philosophers in French salons and in British coffeehouses created a community now regarded to as the "public sphere." This sharing of ideas between individuals without the overview of authority allowed for the creation and critique of ideas without fear of traditional authority figures. This tradition of the public sphere, or the "marketplace of ideas" is an underlying institution in Western democratic theory.

Constitutionalism competed with absolutism as a source of central, government power beginning the 17th century. In 1688, constitutionalism was codified in England during the ascension of William and Mary to the throne. An English Bill of Rights was also adopted. The French Revolution of 1789 replaced the absolutist tradition of the French Monarchy. American independence established a constitution (originally the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution of 1787) and articles like the Declaration of Independence echoed themes of social contract theory.

The Enlightenment, its writers, and its ideas are considered to have had influenced both the American and French revolutions in the late 18th century. These revolutions were unlike their predecessors. Both countries shed their ruling monarchies in favor of republican system. Both were also revolutions by and for the people, not a military coup detat, invasion, or reformist movement. Both countries established Constitutions, recognized equality under the law, and recognized a number of liberties afforded to all individuals. These Enlightened revolutions are thought to have changed the definition of revolution because of means and goals of both the American and French peoples.

The American Revolution began over general discontent of British economic and military policy in the new world. In 1776, Jeffersons Declaration of Independence stated the rights of the people to throw off such Government, the British government, in the event that their laws overstepped the natural rights and liberties of its subjects. This rhetoric stems directly from John Lockes treatise on social contracts and the role of government in the lives of its subjects.

Originally posted here:
Enlightenment - Conservapedia

Enlightenment, or the Age of the Enlightened, was an intellectual movement most fertile between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in central Europe (France and Germany most distinctly) as well as in Russia and North America. The movement converged around the (at times unconditional) belief in the light of reason, regarded as the best gift to guide human agency, both theoretical and practical.

The list of authors affiliated to some degree with the movement is particularly extensive and includes figures such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Smith, Kant, Franklin, and Jefferson. The work that most embodies the spirit of enlightenment is probably the Encyclopdie that dAlembert and Diderot assembled between 1751 and 1772.

The Age of Reason Enlightenment emerged at a time when the force and unity of religious faith in Europe seem unavoidably compromised. At the same time, improved health conditions and economic prosperity, boosted also by emergence of colonial trade, promoted an optimistic and utilitaristic perspective on society and the individual.

The first steps of that technological progress which eventually led to the industrial revolution, then, seemed to provide a tangible justification in the potentiality of reason; meanwhile, the success of new printing techniques opened up new avenues for spreading ideas, much like internet has done in our age. In short, enlightenment emerged amidst a novel historical scenario, which saw also the rise of diplomacy and legal power to back up the operation of large States.

Theory and Practice During enlightenment new theories of the individual and society were formulated. Kant proposed a theory of the self as autonomous: if following the proper steps, each person possesses a capacity to rationally discern whats best, independently of factors such as the specific upbringing, race, gender, or social status. A few decades before, in Of the Social Contract (1762) and the Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1754) Rousseau had offered a novel theory of private property and social inequality, according to which the division of goods rested on no rational grounds. Meanwhile, Voltaire attacked Leibnizs Christian thesis that our own is the best of all possible worlds in his Candide: or, All for the Best (1759).

The influence of enlightenment was impressive also on practical matters. For instance, in gardening enlightenment promoted a style that joined the beautiful with the useful: favorite plants were those that could also be used for culinary or other practical purposes (e.g. sage and potatoes in stead of roses.) The consequences of the movement are still visible today in the rediscovery of the value of all arts and crafts (such as cooking, gardening, wood-carving), which are paralleled to fine arts.

The Encyclopdie The work that probably more than anyone else represents the spirit of enlightenment is The Encyclopdie that dAlembert and Diderot

Originally, The Encyclopdie was supposed to be a translation of a British encyclopedia published in 1728 under the editorship of Ephraim Chambers. Luckily, however, the deal was abruptly broken and dAlembert and Diderot were hired as editors of the new project. Published in twenty-eight volumes, the work featured more than seventy thousands articles and three thousands illustrations.

The most brilliant minds of France contributed to it, including Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Voltaire. A measure of the scope of the work as well as its unconditional faith in reason is the opening taxonomy of human knowledge, which the work aimed at covering entirely.

Further Online Readings The entry on Enlightenment at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Link:
Enlightenment - About.com Education

What Is Enlightenment? Immanuel Kant 1

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.

It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man's value and of his duty to think for himself. It is especially to be noted that the public which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men afterwards forces these very guardians to remain in submission, if it is so incited by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. That shows how pernicious it is to implant prejudices: they will eventually revenge themselves upon their authors or their authors' descendants. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of a personal despotism or of avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought. New prejudices will serve, in place of the old, as guide lines for the unthinking multitude.

This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom--and the most innocent of all that may be called "freedom": freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: "Do not argue!" The officer says: "Do not argue--drill!" The tax collector: "Do not argue--pay!" The pastor: "Do not argue--believe!" Only one ruler in the world says: "Argue as much as you please, but obey!" We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.

On the other hand, the private use of reason may frequently be narrowly restricted without especially hindering the progress of enlightenment. By "public use of one's reason" I mean that use which a man, as scholar, makes of it before the reading public. I call "private use" that use which a man makes of his reason in a civic post that has been entrusted to him. In some affairs affecting the interest of the community a certain [governmental] mechanism is necessary in which some members of the community remain passive. This creates an artificial unanimity which will serve the fulfillment of public objectives, or at least keep these objectives from being destroyed. Here arguing is not permitted: one must obey. Insofar as a part of this machine considers himself at the same time a member of a universal community--a world society of citizens--(let us say that he thinks of himself as a scholar rationally addressing his public through his writings) he may indeed argue, and the affairs with which he is associated in part as a passive member will not suffer. Thus it would be very unfortunate if an officer on duty and under orders from his superiors should want to criticize the appropriateness or utility of his orders. He must obey. But as a scholar he could not rightfully be prevented from taking notice of the mistakes in the military service and from submitting his views to his public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes levied upon him; indeed, impertinent censure of such taxes could be punished as a scandal that might cause general disobedience. Nevertheless, this man does not violate the duties of a citizen if, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his objections to the impropriety or possible injustice of such levies. A pastor, too, is bound to preach to his congregation in accord with the doctrines of the church which he serves, for he was ordained on that condition. But as a scholar he has full freedom, indeed the obligation, to communicate to his public all his carefully examined and constructive thoughts concerning errors in that doctrine and his proposals concerning improvement of religious dogma and church institutions. This is nothing that could burden his conscience. For what he teaches in pursuance of his office as representative of the church, he represents as something which he is not free to teach as he sees it. He speaks as one who is employed to speak in the name and under the orders of another. He will say: "Our church teaches this or that; these are the proofs which it employs." Thus he will benefit his congregation as much as possible by presenting doctrines to which he may not subscribe with full conviction. He can commit himself to teach them because it is not completely impossible that they may contain hidden truth. In any event, he has found nothing in the doctrines that contradicts the heart of religion. For if he believed that such contradictions existed he would not be able to administer his office with a clear conscience. He would have to resign it. Therefore the use which a scholar makes of his reason before the congregation that employs him is only a private use, for no matter how sizable, this is only a domestic audience. In view of this he, as preacher, is not free and ought not to be free, since he is carrying out the orders of others. On the other hand, as the scholar who speaks to his own public (the world) through his writings, the minister in the public use of his reason enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason and to speak for himself. That the spiritual guardians of the people should themselves be treated as minors is an absurdity which would result in perpetuating absurdities.

But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding ages are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and outrageous. The touchstone of all those decisions that may be made into law for a people lies in this question: Could a people impose such a law upon itself? Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period of time in expectation of better order. But, while this provisional order continues, each citizen (above all, each pastor acting as a scholar) should be left free to publish his criticisms of the faults of existing institutions. This should continue until public understanding of these matters has gone so far that, by uniting the voices of many (although not necessarily all) scholars, reform proposals could be brought before the sovereign to protect those congregations which had decided according to their best lights upon an altered religious order, without, however, hindering those who want to remain true to the old institutions. But to agree to a perpetual religious constitution which is not publicly questioned by anyone would be, as it were, to annihilate a period of time in the progress of man's improvement. This must be absolutely forbidden.

A man may postpone his own enlightenment, but only for a limited period of time. And to give up enlightenment altogether, either for oneself or one's descendants, is to violate and to trample upon the sacred rights of man. What a people may not decide for itself may even less be decided for it by a monarch, for his reputation as a ruler consists precisely in the way in which he unites the will of the whole people within his own. If he only sees to it that all true or supposed [religious] improvement remains in step with the civic order, he can for the rest leave his subjects alone to do what they find necessary for the salvation of their souls. Salvation is none of his business; it is his business to prevent one man from forcibly keeping another from determining and promoting his salvation to the best of his ability. Indeed, it would be prejudicial to his majesty if he meddled in these matters and supervised the writings in which his subjects seek to bring their [religious] views into the open, even when he does this from his own highest insight, because then he exposes himself to the reproach: Caesar non est supra grammaticos. 2 It is worse when he debases his sovereign power so far as to support the spiritual despotism of a few tyrants in his state over the rest of his subjects.

When we ask, Are we now living in an enlightened age? the answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment. As matters now stand it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reason in religious matters confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal [of religious truth] is now opened. What is more, the hindrances against general enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed nonage are gradually diminishing. In this respect this is the age of the enlightenment and the century of Frederick [the Great].

See the original post here:
Kant. What is Enlightenment

Subscribe for ad free access & additional features for teachers. Authors: 267, Books: 3,607, Poems & Short Stories: 4,435, Forum Members: 71,154, Forum Posts: 1,238,602, Quizzes: 344

Literature Network Literary Periods The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment, sometimes referred to as the Age of Reason, was a confluence of ideas and activities that took place throughout the eighteenth century in Western Europe, England, and the American colonies. Scientific rationalism, exemplified by the scientific method, was the hallmark of everything related to the Enlightenment. Following close on the heels of the Renaissance, Enlightenment thinkers believed that the advances of science and industry heralded a new age of egalitarianism and progress for humankind. More goods were being produced for less money, people were traveling more, and the chances for the upwardly mobile to actually change their station in life were significantly improving. At the same time, many voices were expressing sharp criticism of some time-honored cultural institutions. The Church, in particular, was singled out as stymieing the forward march of human reason. Many intellectuals of the Enlightenment practiced a variety of Deism, which is a rejection of organized, doctrinal religion in favor of a more personal and spiritual kind of faith. For the first time in recorded Western history, the hegemony of political and religious leaders was weakened to the point that citizens had little to fear in making their opinions known. Criticism was the order of the day, and argumentation was the new mode of conversation.

Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton are frequently mentioned as the progenitors of the Enlightenment. In the later phase of the English Renaissance, Bacon composed philosophical treatises which would form the basis of the modern scientific method. Bacon was also a logician, pointing out the false pathways down which human reason often strays. He was also an early proponent of state funding for scientific inquiry. Whereas Bacon worked in the realm of ideas and language, Isaac Newton was a pure scientist in the modern sense. Like Galileo, he relied on observation and testing to determine the soundness of his theories. He was a firm believer in the importance of data, and had no philosophical qualms regarding the reliability of the senses. Newtons Principia, completed in 1687, is the foundation of the entire science of physics. This mechanistic view of the universe, a universe governed by a set of unchanging laws, raised the ire of the Church fathers. However, the mode of inquiry which both Bacon and Newton pioneered became much more influential than the Churchs teachings. The Enlightenment would see these ideas applied to every segment of life and society, with huge ramifications for citizens and rulers alike.

The Enlightenment was, at its center, a celebration of ideas ideas about what the human mind was capable of, and what could be achieved through deliberate action and scientific methodology. Many of the new, enlightened ideas were political in nature. Intellectuals began to consider the possibility that freedom and democracy were the fundamental rights of all people, not gifts bestowed upon them by beneficent monarchs or popes. Egalitarianism was the buzzword of the century, and it meant the promise of fair treatment for all people, regardless of background. Citizens began to see themselves on the same level as their leaders, subject to the same shortcomings and certainly subject to criticism if so deserved. Experimentation with elected, consensual leadership began in earnest. The belief was that the combined rationality of the people would elect the best possible representatives. The idea of a collective, national intelligence led many to imagine that virtually all the worlds serious problems would soon be solved. Discussion and debate were considered healthy outlets for pent-up frustrations, not signs of internal weakness. Argumentation as a style of decision-making grew out of the new scientific method, which invited multiple hypotheses to be put to the test. Empiricism, or the reliance on observable, demonstrable facts, was likewise elevated to the level of public discourse. During the Renaissance, there was certainly unbridled optimism, and a sense of humanitys great unfulfilled potential. The Enlightenment was believed to be the realization of the tools and strategies necessary to achieve that potential. The Renaissance was the seed, while the Enlightenment was the blossom.

The idea of a public, an informed collection of citizens invested in the common good and preservation of the state, reached fruition during the Enlightenment. Curiously, the coffee shop or caf became the unofficial center of this new entity. Citizens would gather to read whatever literature was available, to engage in heated conversation with neighbors, or to ponder the affairs of state. What made this kind of revolution in free time possible was an increasingly urban, sophisticated population coupled with the steady progress of industrialization. The coffee houses became the stomping grounds of some of the greatest thinkers of the age. Indeed, democracy would have been unachievable if the citizens had no community forum in which to commiserate, plan, and debate their needs and desires. Grassroots political movements were the natural outgrowth of these populist venues. It must be stated, of course, that this public entity was still a very exclusive one. Women, minorities, and the lower classes were not exactly welcomed into this new civil discourse. For all the high-minded discussion of a new, egalitarian social order, the western world was still predominantly owned by middle class men.

One of the beneficial effects of the Industrial Revolution was a surge in the amount of reading material available to the general public. Consequently, the cost of such material decreased to the point that literature was no longer the sole purview of aristocrats and wealthy merchants. Literacy rates are believed to have risen dramatically during the eighteenth century, as the upwardly mobile citizenry clamored for information, gossip, and entertainment. Some coffee houses and salons appealed to more lowbrow tastes, and these were sometimes the target of authorities. Personal libraries were still expensive, but they were becoming more common. The trend of solitary reading, initiated during the Renaissance, continued unabated throughout the Enlightenment. The first modern lending libraries began to dot the provincial capitals of Europe, with the trend eventually reaching America as well. A literate public was a more opinionated public, and so more equipped to engage in the political discourse. Probably some of the elites looked upon the new reading public with disdain. However, the days of literature as a sacred and guarded realm open only to a few were all but gone by the time the nineteenth century arrived.

In Europe, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were the torchbearers of Enlightenment literature and philosophy. Rousseau was a strong advocate for social reform of all kinds. He more or less invented the autobiography as it is known today. His most important work, however, was mile, a massively influential piece of non-fiction that argues for extensive and liberal education as the means for creating good citizens. Rousseaus work on behalf of social empowerment and democracy would remain influential long after his passing. Espousing similar political positions, Voltaire employed dry wit and sarcasm to entertain his readers while making convincing arguments for reform. Voltaire was in fact the pen name of Francois-Marie Arouet, and there are endless interpretations of the meaning of that name. On the most practical level, a pen name probably helped shield him from the persecution which his writings encouraged. For like Rousseau, Voltaire had harsh criticism for many of the powers-that-were. He reserved especially pointed barbs for the Church, which he reviled as intolerant, backward, and too steeped in dogma to realize that the world was leaving the institution behind. Together, Voltaire and Rousseau are the most well-known of a collective of European writers working to promulgate Enlightenment philosophy, all for the sake of making their world a better and fairer place.

Britain likewise had her share of satirists and humorists attacking the tired and ponderous institutions of the eighteenth century. In the genre of the novel, Jonathan Swift is probably most well-remembered. In all honesty, the Enlightenment was a bit of a dry spell for English literature. Working in the shadow of the Elizabethans presented creative difficulties for English writers, as no one could quite determine how to follow up after Shakespeare and Marlowe. Swift answered the call with a sizzling wit that resonates to this day. Gullivers Travels has established itself as a classic of world, not just English, literature. The fantastic story, which in one sense could be seen as mere childrens literature, works on multiple levels at once. Each of the societies that Gulliver encounters has a metaphorical relation to the eighteenth century in England. Whereas some authors confronted social injustice head-on, Swift preferred the inviting trickery of the allegory. His sense of humor charmed his admirers, disarmed his critics, and cemented his reputation in literary history.

Alexander Pope was arguably the only great poet of Enlightenment England. Not surprisingly, he was a controversial figure who invited as much scorn as praise. His biting satires were not modulated with as much humor as Swift or Voltaire, so he drew down the thunder of many powerful figures. From a literary standpoint, Pope was an innovator on several fronts. For one, he popularized the heroic couplet, a sophisticated rhyme scheme that suited his subject matter well. He took mundane settings and events and made them grandiose, a kind of irony that anticipated Modernism by two centuries. He blended formal criticism into his poetry, a diffusion of generic boundaries that also strikes one as an entirely modern practice. In his own day, Pope was possibly most admired for his capable and effective translations of classic literature. He single-handedly elevated translation to an art-form, and demonstrated that a good poetic sensibility was necessary to pull it off with any success. Popes great masterpiece was The Dunciad, a four-part, scathing indictment of eighteenth century English society. Although he initially attempted to conceal his authorship, the vitriol of his attacks made it clear that only Alexander Pope could have produced such a piece of literature. Unlike most of his Enlightenment brethren, Pope was singularly pessimistic about the future of civil society. Perhaps he foresaw that the tide of rationalism could sweep out just as easily as it had swept in.

Read more:
The Enlightenment - Literature Periods & Movements