EuropeenlightnEssay Preview: EuropeenlightnReport this essayThe EnlightenmentThe Enlightenment is a name given by historians to an intellectual movement that was predominant in the Western world during the 18th century. Strongly influenced by the rise of modern science and by the aftermath of the long religious conflict that followed the Reformation, the thinkers of the Enlightenment (called philosophes in France) were committed to secular views based on reason or human understanding only, which they hoped would provide a basis for beneficial changes affecting every area of life and thought.
The more extreme and radical philosophes-Denis Diderot, Claude Adrien Helvetius, Baron dHolbach, the Marquis de Condorcet, and Julien Offroy de La Mettrie (1709-51)–advocated a philosophical rationalism deriving its methods from science and natural philosophy that would replace religion as the means of knowing nature and destiny of humanity; these men were materialists, pantheists, or atheists. Other enlightened thinkers, such as Pierre Bayle, Voltaire, David Hume, Jean Le Rond Dalembert, and Immanuel Kant, opposed fanaticism, but were either agnostic or left room for some kind of religious faith.
All of the philosophes saw themselves as continuing the work of the great 17th century pioneers-Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Leibnitz, Isaac Newton, and John Locke-who had developed fruitful methods of rational and empirical inquiry and had demonstrated the possibility of a world remade by the application of knowledge for human benefit. The philosophes believed that science could reveal nature as it truly is and show how it could be controlled and manipulated. This belief provided an incentive to extend scientific methods into every field of inquiry, thus laying the groundwork for the development of the modern social sciences.
The enlightened understanding of human nature was one that emphasized the right to self-expression and human fulfillment, the right to think freely and express ones views publicly without censorship or fear of repression. Voltaire admired the freedom he found in England and fostered the spread of English ideas on the Continent. He and his followers opposed the intolerance of the established Christian churches of their day, as well as the European governments that controlled and suppressed dissenting opinions. For example, the social disease which Pangloss caught from Paquette was traced to a “very learned Franciscan” and later to a Jesuit. Also, Candide reminisces that his passion for Cunegonde first developed at a Mass. More conservative enlightened thinkers, concerned primarily with efficiency and administrative order, favored the “enlightened despotism” of such monarchs as Emperor Joseph II, Frederick II of Prussia, and Catherine II of Russia.
Voltaire and others were in favor of the “freedom-loving” ideas which they advocated. Voltaire saw this as the way of a world that would grow just as quickly as the French Revolution – the “freedom” world that the English colonies could only dream of, and then gradually spread to others. In particular, in his speech to the London Society of the Archduke of Monmouth (April 11, 1788) about the progress of English philosophy and the social importance of liberty, Voltaire wrote in the following words: “My good friends have taken me over, my way or the highway. I have not been without some difficulties at first, but if I shall find myself in the country again-to-morrow and here to-morrow-I shall be able to bring to me the true and true of Liberty, which we have always been talking, and that which ought to be made manifest to all Americans. I, of course, do not suppose myself a servant to some old-men like England” (p. 78).
In addition, for centuries the English government had been a little more civil and friendly, and the rest was for it a bit harsher. In 1796, Sir John Lawson, a conservative who had been instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, wrote an answer to a debate of the House of Lords which, among other points, was published in 1805. This was about what is commonly called “democracy” laws or “slavery laws,” in which the states (as he put it, they were) were permitted to set laws to enforce the laws of their citizens (see page 3 of his pamphlet “A History of the Rights of the People of the United States, Vol. i.” for a brief description of a section of the Bill of Rights). It was proposed that the States be entitled to the rights of the people as well as of men, but not as individuals. In order to this, some in the House proposed a form of government, in which all the individual states, and perhaps even of the few states, would be the subjects of a single or separate local government — without, according to Lawson’s idea, state sovereignty over any part of the country. By this system, the people in most of the colonies would be kept in government by legislatures, and the individual citizens might decide their own affairs and policy. But as the British government did not recognize the right of the citizens to decide, or so hold the state governments unconstitutional, it passed new legislation which made it extremely hard for the American colonies to change their political policy (cf. Smith, op. cit., pp. 82 ff.). A large proportion of these had to go as a consequence of this new law, and a lot of them were made to think that they could become better citizens in order to gain a better government. (We will briefly consider this point in this chapter.)
Laws which are based upon “equal” (i. e., equal) rights in the home and in the government (such as laws which are based upon “equal” rights in the nation) did become so in 1825 when the British Parliament passed a National Law for the Education of Children in 1799, which stated, “the laws and rules of the country, from infancy to the present age, with a view to preserving and extending the fundamental liberties of the people, constitute an essential part of the character of the constitution in the home of the British Colonies and their colonies.” In this law the states (or in other words the people-States, that is, the sovereign legislatures) would not only be empowered to pass laws, but to give them power to pass others. (See page 2 of “A History of the Rights of the People of the United States, Vol. I.” for more on this topic.) Many states, by this law, had to act upon their own initiative under this new law (see p. 8 of the pamphlet “A History of the Rights of the People of the United States, Vol. II.), and they could do so within their own state legislatures.
But now, for the second time in the history of the American nation the British Parliament passed a law to institute some of these new laws. This law allowed all those Americans, or people who grew up in the colonies, and who now live in the Commonwealth, to own property and to take over all their personal property, and to set aside their estates, and not be allowed to pay any interest, to do their civil and social duties (that is, to attend to their own business, such as school, health and education, health care, etc.) as
While the political, economic and military importance of liberty were highly valued in America, Voltaire and others viewed it as a real, pressing issue, that is, as a matter of necessity. They called for a political remedy under which an unlimited number of citizens and corporations that could afford to exercise their natural rights as citizens or corporations might be “to take over” the government as it existed. This was the political solution to “freedom to be free”! In England, the “freedom” of the people came down to its own people, and they were a powerful, free people. They had no other right to take over the government where they felt needed or needed.
When and where to take over an office, one could not say a question on the constitution without first asking a question to the people. The Constitution also included several provisions for this purpose, including the following: a declaration that the people, in exercising their rights, would have the authority to legislate, to be elected, to nominate their representatives, to decide what laws should be passed or not passed; a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures upon the land, and a prohibition against the importation of goods which had to be passed before they could be transported on a passenger ship. The other provisions would be the right of the people to make laws which would protect their children’s futures, and their protection from harm.
As the American Civil War was over in 1861-1865, a period also known as “the Great Civil War,” a situation still prevalent on the Continent in the mid-1800s, Voltaire and others would argue, freedom of the press and freedom of speech were very important things within the legal system in our country. Freedom of speech should be in fact regulated by the government because it gave the liberty of the individual its rights. The same was true of liberty of the press. If citizens should not exercise their civil rights, then that ought to be regulated in more limited ways. The press is a very important tool of civil discourse and there should not be an “open press,” so as not to make the people less informed into an opinion based principally upon their private, personal opinions.
The people have the right to be able to regulate a number of things as long as they are free and fair. They do have the right to the printing press and the monopoly of printing in commerce, and that right is not infringed on by political interference. It should not be allowed to restrict the liberty of the people’s political speech. Such freedom should be protected not by force or fear of government; it should be protected under due process of law and by the checks and balances of public opinion. Liberty ought not only to be protected, it should be protected from coercion too.
Voltaire’s freedom to take in business as well as his political power
Voltaire and others were in favor of the “freedom-loving” ideas which they advocated. Voltaire saw this as the way of a world that would grow just as quickly as the French Revolution – the “freedom” world that the English colonies could only dream of, and then gradually spread to others. In particular, in his speech to the London Society of the Archduke of Monmouth (April 11, 1788) about the progress of English philosophy and the social importance of liberty, Voltaire wrote in the following words: “My good friends have taken me over, my way or the highway. I have not been without some difficulties at first, but if I shall find myself in the country again-to-morrow and here to-morrow-I shall be able to bring to me the true and true of Liberty, which we have always been talking, and that which ought to be made manifest to all Americans. I, of course, do not suppose myself a servant to some old-men like England” (p. 78).
In addition, for centuries the English government had been a little more civil and friendly, and the rest was for it a bit harsher. In 1796, Sir John Lawson, a conservative who had been instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, wrote an answer to a debate of the House of Lords which, among other points, was published in 1805. This was about what is commonly called “democracy” laws or “slavery laws,” in which the states (as he put it, they were) were permitted to set laws to enforce the laws of their citizens (see page 3 of his pamphlet “A History of the Rights of the People of the United States, Vol. i.” for a brief description of a section of the Bill of Rights). It was proposed that the States be entitled to the rights of the people as well as of men, but not as individuals. In order to this, some in the House proposed a form of government, in which all the individual states, and perhaps even of the few states, would be the subjects of a single or separate local government — without, according to Lawson’s idea, state sovereignty over any part of the country. By this system, the people in most of the colonies would be kept in government by legislatures, and the individual citizens might decide their own affairs and policy. But as the British government did not recognize the right of the citizens to decide, or so hold the state governments unconstitutional, it passed new legislation which made it extremely hard for the American colonies to change their political policy (cf. Smith, op. cit., pp. 82 ff.). A large proportion of these had to go as a consequence of this new law, and a lot of them were made to think that they could become better citizens in order to gain a better government. (We will briefly consider this point in this chapter.)
Laws which are based upon “equal” (i. e., equal) rights in the home and in the government (such as laws which are based upon “equal” rights in the nation) did become so in 1825 when the British Parliament passed a National Law for the Education of Children in 1799, which stated, “the laws and rules of the country, from infancy to the present age, with a view to preserving and extending the fundamental liberties of the people, constitute an essential part of the character of the constitution in the home of the British Colonies and their colonies.” In this law the states (or in other words the people-States, that is, the sovereign legislatures) would not only be empowered to pass laws, but to give them power to pass others. (See page 2 of “A History of the Rights of the People of the United States, Vol. I.” for more on this topic.) Many states, by this law, had to act upon their own initiative under this new law (see p. 8 of the pamphlet “A History of the Rights of the People of the United States, Vol. II.), and they could do so within their own state legislatures.
But now, for the second time in the history of the American nation the British Parliament passed a law to institute some of these new laws. This law allowed all those Americans, or people who grew up in the colonies, and who now live in the Commonwealth, to own property and to take over all their personal property, and to set aside their estates, and not be allowed to pay any interest, to do their civil and social duties (that is, to attend to their own business, such as school, health and education, health care, etc.) as
While the political, economic and military importance of liberty were highly valued in America, Voltaire and others viewed it as a real, pressing issue, that is, as a matter of necessity. They called for a political remedy under which an unlimited number of citizens and corporations that could afford to exercise their natural rights as citizens or corporations might be “to take over” the government as it existed. This was the political solution to “freedom to be free”! In England, the “freedom” of the people came down to its own people, and they were a powerful, free people. They had no other right to take over the government where they felt needed or needed.
When and where to take over an office, one could not say a question on the constitution without first asking a question to the people. The Constitution also included several provisions for this purpose, including the following: a declaration that the people, in exercising their rights, would have the authority to legislate, to be elected, to nominate their representatives, to decide what laws should be passed or not passed; a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures upon the land, and a prohibition against the importation of goods which had to be passed before they could be transported on a passenger ship. The other provisions would be the right of the people to make laws which would protect their children’s futures, and their protection from harm.
As the American Civil War was over in 1861-1865, a period also known as “the Great Civil War,” a situation still prevalent on the Continent in the mid-1800s, Voltaire and others would argue, freedom of the press and freedom of speech were very important things within the legal system in our country. Freedom of speech should be in fact regulated by the government because it gave the liberty of the individual its rights. The same was true of liberty of the press. If citizens should not exercise their civil rights, then that ought to be regulated in more limited ways. The press is a very important tool of civil discourse and there should not be an “open press,” so as not to make the people less informed into an opinion based principally upon their private, personal opinions.
The people have the right to be able to regulate a number of things as long as they are free and fair. They do have the right to the printing press and the monopoly of printing in commerce, and that right is not infringed on by political interference. It should not be allowed to restrict the liberty of the people’s political speech. Such freedom should be protected not by force or fear of government; it should be protected under due process of law and by the checks and balances of public opinion. Liberty ought not only to be protected, it should be protected from coercion too.
Voltaire’s freedom to take in business as well as his political power
Enlightened political thought expressed demands for equality and justice and for the legal changes needed to realize these goals. Set forth by Baron de Montesquieu, the changes were more boldly urged by the contributors to the great Encyclopedie edited in Paris by Diderot between 1747 and 1772, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Cesare Beccaria, and finally by Jeremy Bentham, whose utilitarianism was the culmination of a long debate on happiness and the means of achieving it.
The political writers of the Enlightenment built on and extended the rationalistic, republican, and natural-law theories that had been evolved in the previous century as the bases of law, social peace, and just order. As they did so, they also elaborated novel doctrines of popular sovereignty that the