The whole thing
is worth a careful read. A taste:
Subsequent philosophers and historians have made
plain that the Enlightenment was not, and is not, a monolith. It was
not even a proposition. Rather, it was a force-field of often
conflicting arguments (Peter Gay), and it came in two main flavors, “moderate” and “radical” (Jonathan Israel).
But what these variants of Enlightenment share is a commitment to
reason—not as a cure-all or a final curriculum but as a means to know
the world and, in the process, increase human well-being. This is not to
say that a religious person is intrinsically unenlightened. It is to
say that religious belief is not the way to ascertain, for example, the
paths of the planets or the value of measles shots. It is also to say,
whatever climate-change-denying cranks and perpetual-motion machine
designers may think, that science does not produce graven tablets for
eternal truths. It rightly revises ideas previously held firmly, even by
scientists themselves. It’s not an end-point; it’s a journey.
I think George Washington, who I see as a man of the moderate Enlightenment, had some of these folks in mind when he referred to "minds of peculiar structure" who didn't need conventional religion in order to behave morally. But some of those minds were really freakin' "peculiar."
... None of the attempts to build Enlightenment into
the political world were without grave flaws. The American Constitution
accepted the abomination of slavery, while the French abolished it on
their territory, as did the Haitians, whose Constitution of 1801 fell
rather far short of democracy by installing Toussaint Louverture as
governor general for Life. So it goes in the Age of Enlightenment. ...
It is also true that Newton was a devout
Christian who found secret messages hidden in the Bible and that the
great mathematician Kurt Gödel was obsessed with the fear that he would
be poisoned if he ate any food not cooked by his wife—so much so that,
when she was hospitalized, he starved himself to death.
I don't even know what "Enlightenment" even means in our American context.
A BBC poll voted David Hume Britain's greatest philosopher, but America rejected his crypto-atheism, and the "free-thinking" Thomas Jefferson had his historical works banned from the University of Virginia. In America, Hume can barely be found.
To America, the Enlightenment was
---the religion-friendly Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment as taught by Rev. John Witherspoon to a number of future American Founders incl Madison
---John Locke [who thought himself a Christian], and of course
---Edmund Burke [called the "Godfather of Conservatism"], who supported the American Revolution and predicted tragedy for the French Revolution.
Oh yeah, and Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations, 1776. Madison liked him too.
But then again, Brant and Adair suggest the Hume influenced Madison's famous Federalist 10.
Yes, I've heard that and can accept it as true, but Hume's "political science" is a sliver of his main body of work.
My point is that your average American has heard of Locke but likely not Hume, whereas in Britain, I believe, their status is reversed.
Post a Comment