▲ 46 points
back
44 comments
I am not abreast of current thinking on the Enlightenment, but it seems blaming things like the world wars and their atrocities on the Enlightenment is bad history. The more likely culprit of those wars is romantic nationalism, which was a reaction to the Enlightenment. That the Enlightenment didn't figure everything out and precipitate the end of history in 1789 doesn't seem like an indictment of it, and it hardly seems fair to lay the crimes of counter-movements at its feet. I'm curious what the historical interpretation is that pins nationalism on the Enlightenment.
Some aspects of nationalism can certainly be traced to the Enlightenment. For example, the concept of one country = one language stemmed from the ideologues of the French revolution, who swiftly went to work suppressing regional languages in their own country. This fell like a lit match on Austro-Hungary, where each ethnic group now felt even greater pressure to carve out its own space on linguistic grounds.
I grant that the Enlightenment principle of the commonality of all people would lead to a universal language, and ending regional languages is the first step of that. However delineating linguistic boundaries based on national ones seems more like a throwback to the Westphalian settlement than to a universalizing movement. Just because something happened during the ferment of the Enlightenment doesn't mean its pedigree is pure; there are always atavistic forces at work.
You’re missing the key point expressed as exchanging theological conflict for political conflict through nationalism. Humans are a predator species and that doesn’t change.
To wit: “ Hume and his acolytes had not counted on the translation of superstition and intolerance from religion into politics. Just as soon as people stopped being willing to kill and die for their religion, they started killing and dying for their country.”
Austria-Hungary collapsed after WW1, quite some time after Enlightment. It survived the Napoleonic Wars just fine.
I thought that the political entity was known as the Holy Roman Empire up to the Napoleonic wars, and that Austria-Hungary was what it went by after. Maybe that's their point; at least nominally the basis of the empire went from being religious to being based on secular culture/ethnicity, and eventually a lot of the land previously part of the Holy Roman Empire instead eventually merged with Prussia into what became Germany.
So, I just read a bit on my pre-WW1 European history... And now I know why I regarded Austria-Hungary as seperate entity already before the Napoleonic Wars: The Prussian and Austrian tension arose already before, an in my memory that registered as an united Empire in name only, or as Volaire put it: Neither Roman, Holly nor an Empire.
One point to formalize this split would be 1806, rather early in the Napoleonic Wars.
Overall so, you are right. The Asutria-Hungary I talked about existed only between the Napoleonic Wars and the end of WW1.
My learning about this was all back in high school during AP European History over a decade ago, so I did have to do a quick search before my comment to make sure I remembered correctly when the transition from the Holy Roman Empire to Austria-Hungary happened as well. I also don't have any illusions that even if my memory of it was perfect, the stuff I learned wasn't necessarily any more accurate than anything anyone was taught to the contrary, since as you mention, trying to pin down an exact date of transition is a bit open to interpretation.
At least from what I remember being taught, Prussia definitely did start to rise in power before the Napoleonic Wars, and the Holy Roman Empire was certainly not a very unified entity (Voltaire's quote always sticks in my mind as well, although I honestly had forgotten who had said it). I think the textbook we used often would talk specifically about the Habsburg dynasty and their sphere of influence in order to be more precise about what was under a more centralized authority versus more independent, and it's arguable that centralized rule over the Holy Roman Empire was already proven infeasible by the Thirty Years War. My impression was that the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire as a unified entity was more or less inevitable, but where exactly all the pieces would end up was much less clear. Prussia obviously ended up a large winner, but their influence was contested in places; they fought wars against Denmark and France later in the century in addition to Austria-Hungary in the process of unifying a larger German state, and even those claims didn't necessarily last (e.g. France taking back Alsace and Lorraine after WWI). The Napoleonic Wars kind of just eliminated any remaining pretense of Austrian control over the lands that they hadn't really had much authority over for some time beforehand, which made the path Prussia to expand and consolidate easier than ever before.
Austria-Hungary finally collapsed after an entire 19th century full of ethnic strife, where many ideologues specifically pointed to French Revolution values.
More fundamentally, I tend to roll my eyes at anyone who blames our wars on one simple thing. Humans have been fighting and killing since there was more than one of us. Only the rationalizations, tools, and scale have changed.
> That the Enlightenment didn't figure everything out and precipitate the end of history in 1789 doesn't seem like an indictment of it
It's an indictment of the idea that reason is able to get us to transcend our nature.
Things have gotten better since then haven't they? It's not just because of the industrial revolution; attitudes did change. I think the best indictment of the Enlightenment is that its thinkers were too premature with their declaration of victory over human nature. This is ongoing, in fits and starts, but with an upward trajectory.
Your own declaration of success seems premature. We still haven't yet seen the full effects of post-religious societies.
Because, enlightment or not, there are no post-religious societies.
What we did see, plenty, is the effect of highly religious societies, and it ain't pretty when religion and politics aren't seperated. And we see the first nascent examples of religious nationalism in India, which isn't pretty neither.
If there are no post-religious societies, what makes you sure there can be post-religious politics?
By way of response, here's a link to the Inequality Database. Note the bottom 50% recently. Not very upward.
How do you differentiate between a "reaction" and a natural consequence? Maybe as religion / superstition diminished, that left an identity vacuum which was filled by nationalism?
I don't. The main work of the Enlightenment was to end religious wars, and I don't think that should not have been attempted because religious wars would be replaced by national wars. We have to keep working through all the crises that ensue. Blaming the Enlightenment for all the dominoes that fell over removes responsibility for other actors and currents, and makes the Enlightenment a scapegoat.
there is one field called "economic history" that is as dense as theology.
Their job is to gatekeep the reception and accepted nomenclature of the papers economists churn with contents that social scientists wouldn't touch with a 12ft pole, and they instead write with the utmost confidence. They produce all the "schools" of economics we talk about here which mean nothing.
Blaming enlightenment to the failures of the last imperialism is the accepted speak today.
How do you view romantic nationalism and its extensions (Nazism, Russian communism, white supremacy, etc.) as opposed to Enlightenment principles rather than as their offspring? I have always been taught the opposite.
> I have always been taught the opposite.
I find that sad.
It is historically correct that romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment. The thinkers of the day said as much. As I said elsewhere, you can't blame a thesis for its antithesis.
The Enlightenment emphasized universality, and pluralism as the means to coexist given our pre-existing differences. Romanticism celebrates the particular and the local. Many but not all Romantic thinkers extended this to include basically chauvinism for their own particular kind of culture.
The Enlightenment emphasized reason, evidence, and dispassionate analysis. Romanticism emphasized emotion, the inner life, and passion.
They could not be more different, given that Romanticism was conceived as a reaction to the Enlightenment and so its thinkers staked out opposing positions.
If you were actually taught that romanticism was not opposed to the Enlightenment I feel your education has done you a disservice.
"Oh actually the Enlightenment was bad" is very on-trend for academic historians in 2023.
The book isn't out yet, but the synopsis here seems like the author is projecting his bias onto history (claiming "the pursuit of happiness" is just about consuming luxury goods is moronic).
Arguing that the decline of religion lead to a rise in nationalism might be true, but that doesn't mean the previous religious structures didn't deserve to be corrected.
> "Oh actually the Enlightenment was bad" is very on-trend for academic historians in 2023.
It's been on-trend for a very long time: this review even mentions that the author's critique is based on his "Carlyle Lectures". So it seems that we're supposed to take our criticisms of the Enlightenment from Thomas Carlyle, a well-known racist and a supporter of slavery who famously decried economics as "the dismal science" merely because it advocated for the moral equality of all human beings as a basis for policy. And academia is now endorsing these perspectives? Come on, even Curtis Yarvin is not nearly as bad as this.
Good/Bad is too simplistic.
It seemed like the book was trying to bring back some nuance, that 'reason' didn't solve everything like the thinkers of the time thought it would.
So it is valuable to look back and see how the rise of 'reason' still leaves some gaps that humans can't seem to get over. And is pretty relevant to todays rise of nationalism and corporate wars (US government supporting dictators for business gains, is not unlike British Colonies draining resources). Like, we are repeating some history here, so lets go back and see how that worked out.
The English and Scottish attitude to the Enlightenment was never based on abstract "reason" alone, this is just a canard and a common strawman historically among anti-Enlightenment thinkers (if perhaps understandable when talking about the quite separate reception of Enlightenment ideas in continental Europe). There was always an emotional component too, and it wasn't the nationalism and chauvinism that OP goes on about.
Well, isn't nationalism a kind of religion, in that it binds people together through shared practices, traditions, and objectives? I think secularism's blind spot is how to bind people together, and in adopting it, the West has realized it is undoing the fabric of its own foundations.
I think religion comes out of the need for humans to organize in large numbers, and without it, perhaps civilization would have never occurred. The Enlightenment was correct in redefining this foundation on reason instead of mythology, and to the extent people have substituted their zealotry of a god with the zealotry of their political party, it is a failure of their reasoning... since as the article implies, that is part of our primitive nature, and therefore something that requires reasoning to break out from. So if more people actually used their reasoning skills more instead of instinctually following the herd, then we would solve political problems faster.
＞ Material comfort wins every time
So, people don't want to be miserable ?
This book promotion piece spends so much time dancing around the ideas that:
- people have priorities, and food and shelter is high on the list
- no idealogy is uncorruptible nor safe from being radicalized
> Saying an ideal didn't stop wars is kind of a dumb statement IMO.
Not when ideals were supposed to get us to transcend our nature. Don't people still think that way about human rights?
No, human rights are not supposed to transcend our nature, just make it less acceptable and likely to just fuck with the lives of people for purely power and ideologically driven reasons.
There is an implication that they will bring human unity.
This seems like an indictment the Enlightenment itself, instead of the critique of current social philosophy that I'd be interested in.
Fair enough, but one of the advantages of looking at Enlightenment philosophy on its own terms is that it's easier to perceive—and thus learn from—its failures. "Current social philosophy" has the disadvantage of being both current (so are we) and social (so are we), and so we suffer from a lack of perspective. It would not be surprising to me if one could identify weaknesses of 18th century thought that persist today.
"If one could identify weaknesses of 18th century thought that persist today?"
Quoting: So, people don't want to be miserable ?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/%2...
what is the current social philosophy for you?
It's a broad topic, but in this context I'd settle for an extension of Whatmore's earlier book The History of Political Thought.
Could be about the modern world. The same issues, just as relevant today.
A bunch of murder-monkeys with nukes, choose some kind of authoritarianism whether religious or nationalism. Just natural for the species to get behind some framework to provide a 'us-them'. Not fighting is too uncomfortable.
Is money authoritarian?
If I'm scared foreigners are taking my job ('Money'), and an authoritarian leader is saying they will fix that. Then yes, they are tied together.
A big part of the 'us-them' divide is 'I want to keep my money, screw those guys'.
Plenty of fights over resources have nothing to do with religion or nationalism. They can be used to justify killing people, but so can human rights.
Human Rights are not at all what you think they are...
Well that's probably because they've been disfigured through their misuse. Now they are a political tool, e.g. a 'human rights violation'.
The fact of history repeating after the Enlightenment is backed up by the Don Henley song talking about how we elected an old man to be King…may be referring to Reagan, but it fits the times we live in…
The ouroboros rolls on…
> What was the Enlightenment? Damned if I know.
It was the rediscovery of Aristotle along with the newly formed universities giving him an audience. Everything else fell out of that.
Rediscovery of Aristotle? Newly-formed universities? You are describing the late Medieval era and early Renaissance. The Enlightenment is the much later period of the 17th and 18th centuries. Moreover, the rediscovery of Aristotle and early universities were within a context of Roman Catholic scholasticism, while the height of the Enlightenment was skeptical, to put it mildly, about religion.