Enlightenment Debates: From Rationality to Social Contracts and Beyond

The Enlightment was about the 'mind', the way people think, like what's rational or not or a way about coming upon knowledge or intellet of the mind or one's mind. It was an era about defining beliefs. Enlightenment thinkers tried all kinds of approachs to help find the best way to help people understand the world and the way it works. They believed that people should be unlimited when it comes to their own knowledge or understanding. They also believed that scientific laws helped not only the natural world but also human nature, which was also a key factor in for human thinking or understanding.

From the scientific knowledge helped spark ideas about God and how he relates to people or human kind. One thing led to another when it came to knowledge or understanding, everything connects, but of course there were some disagreements.

There were some disagreements when it came to the understanding of God and what he looked liked and what he wanted us to do on earth.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified writer

Proficient in: Philosophers

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Enlightenment thinker, deists they were on the same page for the most part. They believed that human beings could use their 'reason to understand natural laws God had laid down' from the time he created the earth to help his/their purpose. They didn't believe that they needed to refrence the bible to understand God and his laws but but uncovering the natural and doing what they thought or think is right. Until David Hume came along and challenged the enlightment views and thoughts on their religous beliefs.

Hume challenged philosopher René Descartes, who believes that 'God implants clear and distinct ideas in our minds', Hume believes that our understanding comes from our 'sense perceptions' and not our ideas. He didn't even believed knowledge played apart.

Next, we have Voltaire and Rousseau and their is issue is with the social contract. The social contract is Rousseau's work on dealing with political issues, which establishes the sovereignty of the people. Rousseau believes that man are not a social creature but that the social order is a basis of all the other rights and that this right does not come from nature and to be founded or established on conventions. Voltaire doesn't agree with Rousseau, he argues that this right does come from nature and that's what makes us social beings. Rousseau basically argue's aout having power over the people and doing what they please while, Voltaire, says no, I don't give permission to rob or steal but to assist his people rightfully and with justice and he would want the same in return.

The problems between Voltaire and Rousseau lead to another argument between Rousseau and Condorcet, which are very similar. One wants to be democratic the other doesn't. To be real Rousseau has a problem with human freedom. Don't get me wrong he wants to be able to help the people with their freedom but he wants to make sure he can help himself as well and assure his freedom as well. He doesn't really help the outvoted citizens, but really helps himself with the new law he establishes. He is trying to get them to change their mind about the common intrest for his benefit and Condorcet comes along and disagrees. Condorcet tries to clarify that the majority vote does not and should not out weight the minority.

Finally, we discuss the continous problem from Roussseau and andour new member on board, Mary Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft actually was influenced by rousseau and his imaginations. Their significant views, however leads to some differences. These two view faculty of reason and the relations to the passions. Rousseau believes reason as a derivative faculty, has a primary purpose of faculty of perfection. Wollstonecrft believes different, she believes that reason is the faculty that demostrates human nature. She doesn't beleive that imagination has anything to do with romantic features but has alot to do with close affinity which defines reason's and imagination. She is less worried about her imagination wandering without control than rousseau is because she is certain that, her reason's ability to guide or have control of her imagination by choosing it's objects.In contract, she's more legit when it comes to her passions, as compared to rousseau, well he is just a critic.