Posts Tagged ‘Enlightenment’

Podcast 5 Romantic Aesthetics

ART-FOR-ART’S SAKE

Aesthetics, as a branch of philosophy, was established in 1735 by Alexander Baumgartner in Germany.  The early development of aesthetics evolved from moral stances on art, espoused by Lord Shaftsbury and Winckelmann, became the basis for the modern definition of “art.”  This new definition of art was articulated by Kant and extended by Schiller.  Ideally suited to a modern world, ruled by the middle class, modern aesthetics ushered in the era of the independent Romantic artist and the concept of “art-for-art’s sake.”

 
Share

The Enlightenment and Reason

The Enlightenment and Reason

The Enlightenment is also referred to as The Age of Reason, a time period that stems from the awakening of European interest in science in the Seventeenth Century and ends with the unreason of the French Revolution at the end of the Eighteenth Century.  The importance of individual scientists, such as Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, and the significance of the voyages of world explorers, such as Captain Cook, indicate a cultural shift away from spiritual interests and toward worldly interests.  The need for worldly answers to cosmic questions overtook the spiritual dogmas, and the desire to explore the real world for commercial purposes proved to be more compelling than religious revelation.

Over time, it became impossible for educated persons to accept theological limitations of Church dogma and more difficult to explain the world as “God’s will.”  Philosophy would take the place of established religion as a way to explain the world, and, by the Eighteenth Century, philosophy was tasked with the problem of establishing a new system of ontology (a theory of being) and epistemology (the ground of knowledge) to replace God’s plan for the world.  Faced with the apparently irrefutable findings of scientific discoveries, philosophers developed contempt for religion and welcomed the new light into a world long shrouded in the darkness of misguided belief in a Deity.

If God, Voltaire declared, did not exist, we, the people, would have found it necessary to invent a supreme being.  Voltaire’s cynical statement comes very close to the Modernist concept that all aspects of culture are constructed. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers and political thinkers were Deists.  They believed in a God but rejected organized religion as superstition. Severing themselves from the comforts of certainty that religion brings caused pain.  “I grieve,” Denis Diderot mourned, “that I can no longer believe in God.” The philosophers were at the beginning of a process that moved Western civilizations away from the received wisdom of religion to the relativism of philosophical systems.  Because the Enlightenment was based upon the scientific model, there were earthly answers for everything. One conceived of a hypothesis and then tested the theory by employing empirical methods. The universe was conceived of as, not a heavenly realm, but a simple clock, a logical and rational mechanism.  Human beings were mere cogs, and insignificant ones at that, in this vast impersonal, soulless, uncaring machine.

The notion of the universe as a gigantic machine reflected the new concern with new technologies that were connected to the Industrial Revolution.  Human beings, not God, were in the center of this new universe.  The philosophers were confident that God’s mercy, capricious as it was, could be replaced by human reason and rationality.  The Enlightenment, in its own way, was based upon a belief system, every bit as powerful as the Christian system that was being phased out. The “faith” of the philosophers was based in Reason.  “Dare to reason…Have the courage to use your own minds…is the motto of the Enlightenment,” Kant declared. Reason was the basis of science: one made logical deductions and accepted the inevitable conclusion.  If the universe was rational, a machine, then society could also be rational and human beings could come to logical and orderly decisions on their own by reasoning like scientists.

Philosophers assumed that there was a rational order of eternal truths and philosophy in the Age of Reason would seek to ground their deductions in universality and transcendence.  They also assumed that human beings were perfectly able of recognizing the validity of these truths and that people would act accordingly. Reason was a certain kind of thinking based upon a logical progression from hypothesis to conclusion.   It was “self-evident,” a favorite term of the philosophers, that humans would not only accept truths derived from the mechanism of Reason but would also act according to these truths in their everyday lives.  The idea that people might act irrationally or counter to their best interests or that they might oppose “self-evident” truths was not an option.

Secular intellectuals believed that the time of Christianity had come and gone and that religion would be replaced by scientific, social and economic Progress. Progress was the logical outcome of the forces of Reason.  Progress, the philosophers and scientists assumed, had been impossible when timeless spiritual values dominated society.  From the Seventeenth Century, progress was the inevitable product of unstoppable technological advance fueled by scientific discoveries and inventions.  The Age of Reason was grounded in an optimism that Progress would improve humanity, now cleansed of superstition.  Rational thinking could create a regularized system for living, a system that was logical and produced social order. Rather than explained as a sudden strike from an angry God, natural events were understood as having a scientific explanation.  Order came from laws that arose from Nature, not God.  These laws were inevitable and irrefutable, or “self-evident” because they were, a priori, logical. French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau based his ideas about the human condition upon a Natural Law could be utilized to resolve conflicts so that humans could come together and freely negotiate a Social Contract.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to
Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed.  Thank you.
info@arthistoryunstuffed.com

Share

The Enlightenment: Introduction

The Enlightenment: Introduction

Like any great cultural change, the Enlightenment was long in gestation.  By the Eighteenth Century, a critical mass of philosophical thinking and social custom had emerged, and, with it, certain famous intellectual heroes.  The Enlightenment can be understood precisely in terms of its entomology–that which sheds light: light into the darkness of religious “superstition”.  The principal conflict of the Enlightenment was the contest between established religious beliefs and a growing body of scientific knowledge that grounded knowledge, not in the will of God, but in an exercise of empirical evidence.  Upon this dialectic, struggles for social, political, and economic parity would be launched and would last to this very day. It is important to remember that the Enlightenment way of thinking is very Western and is a singular result in a particular place due to the impact of science and technology, resulting in the “death of God.”  Other areas of the world, such as Africa, were left out of technological progress and its benefits, and other areas, such as the Mid-East chose to not follow the secular path of the Europeans.  The result, two centuries later, would be a world split between those who took part in “Modernism” and those who did not.  The Enlightenment was a Western phenomenon, which established not only new philosophical ideas concerning the grounds of knowledge but also new ideals, such as “liberty, equality and fraternity,” “all men are created equal,” and the “inalienable right” of the “pursuit of happiness.”  These ideals would not be forgotten, but it would take time for the Enlightenment to become more than the ideals of speculative philosophers and to become a gradually unfolding reality.

A complex phenomenon, the Enlightenment was defined by one central question: how can life be lived and understood without God?  If God was “dead,” as Friedrich Nietzsche proposed, then the Deity was certainly an animated corpse, going to its demise, kicking and screaming, and becoming reanimated at unpredictable intervals.  The Enlightenment was confronted with Counter-Enlightenments, such as Romanticism and Catholic revivals, but politics, society and economics continued their inexorable march down the secular path.  Over time, Christianity came to occupy a smaller place in Western culture and ceased to be the basis for society’s belief system.   Once religious faith had permeated Western life and the answer to all questions was “God’s will.”  Unquestioning belief in God was challenged by two forces that proved to be critical to Enlightenment thinking.  First, was the idea  of “natural rights,” that is, the notion that people were created free and equal and had, as human beings, certain rights that could not be violated.  The concept of “natural rights” would be articulated by Enlightenment philosophers, from Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Thomas Jefferson but it dated back to the Twelfth Century and was present in a nascent from during the Medieval era.  The second was the explosion of scientific experimentation and hypothesis that shattered doctrines supported by the Church. Although there were certain scientific discoveries that particularly irked the religious authorities, such as the findings of Copernicus and Galileo, the combined weight of empiricism and the scientific method undermined the ability of religion to insist upon unquestioning belief.  Doubt entered into society.  Western culture shifted decisively towards secular questions and secular answers.

The result of secularism was a ripple effect that questioned the validity of the “divine right to rule,” creating a question of how could society be governed without God.  It was not just a question of government in the sense of whether or not to continue with Kings and Emperors but government in the sense of self-governance.  Without religious edicts telling people what to do, what kind of system would take the place of God’s law?  Just as scientists rewrote the knowledge of the universe, philosophers sought a new epistemology or ground for social relations. But even more urgent was the problem of knowledge.  Without God, what was knowable and how?  A new epistemology of knowledge also had to be established.  The new philosophical system proposed a new society and a new form of knowledge that would have profound impact upon art and artists, creating new ways of defining both art and artist and developing an entirely new branch of philosophy called “aesthetics.” The idea of “artistic freedom” is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment introduction of the concept of the “individual.”  The idea of the defiant artist, challenging the establishment and shocking the conservative public is an Enlightenment concept of rethinking received wisdom.

The profound secularization that is the Enlightenment has installed suspicion of authority, tradition, and divine right to rule…at least in the West.  Using the deductive and logical practices of science, rational thinking, and the powers of human reason discovered universal laws, which appear to have taken the place of God, the Enlightenment ended eighteen hundred years of spiritualized thinking.  As Thomas Carlyle said, “Philosophers strove to sink the supernatural to the natural”.  The concepts of “Nature” and “Natural Law” and “Natural Rights” and “Progress” could be used as powerful weapons against traditional powers that once ruled by “divine right.”  The Enlightenment also had a dark side.  The proponents of this unsettling upheaval in society were able to go only so far in their thinking.  The concept of “nature” or the “natural” could be used as powerful weapons to deny participation and power to those declared to be outside the confines of progress, such as women and people of color who were tied to Nature and therefore were beyond the forces of History and thus, the democratic fruits of the new social system.  Emmanuel Kant once stated, “If someone asks are we living in an Enlightened Age today?  The answer would be, ‘No,’ but we are living in an age of Enlightenment.”  The Enlightenment could not guarantee fully enlightened thinking, but the alternative to the Enlightenment, with all of its a prorias was, as David Hume, remarked, “..stupidity, Christianity, and ignorance”.  The men who made the new laws were bold, brave and even arrogant, quite capable of using enlightened modes of thinking to justify slavery and imperialism, all in the name of European superiority.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to
Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed.  Thank you.
info@arthistoryunstuffed.com

Share