Denis Diderot

1713-1784

Denis Diderot was born on October 5, 1713 in Langres, France and died on July 31, 1784 in Paris, France (Verma, 1984, 808). He was a prominent writer and major philosopher of the Enlightenment Era (Holt, 2000, 19) who published many critical thoughts on religion, politics, art, philosophy, and science. Growing up in Langres, Diderot received a Jesuit education in the hopes that he would join the clergy in his future (Verma, 1984, 808). However he later gave up his Jesuit education to go and study law in Paris (Verma, 1984, 809). While in Paris studying he met and befriended Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a famous French philosopher (Verma, 1984, 809).This friendship had an impact on Diderot’s life as the two became close and frequently discussed philosophical matters. (Verma, 1984, 809). Diderot later on encouraged Rousseau to participate in an essay contest held by L’Academie de Dijon which was about whether the progress of sciences and arts purified or corrupted morals (Verma, 1984, 809). The essay was vital for their friendship as it further enhanced philosophical knowledge for the both of them. Also around this time Diderot decided to drop his studies in law and went on to learn Latin, English, mathematics, and sciences (Verma, 1984, 808). From this he became a writer translating non-French books to French such as the Medical Dictionary by Robert James (Verma, 1984, 809). Diderot also produced his own original works such as Philosophical Thoughts (1746), The Skeptics Walk (1947), and Letters on the Blind for those who see (1749). Many of his books revolved around important philosophical thought of his time and included analysis on deism, rationalism, materialism, and religion. Such analysis was controversial during this time and his works usually ended him up in prison (Verma, 1984, 809). While working as a writer he was approached by French Publisher Andre Francis Le Breton who made Diderot the most important offer in his life. Breton wanted Diderot to translate Ephraim Chambers’ Cyclopedia or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences to French as it was of great importance to the progression and organization of knowledge (Verma, 1984, 809). Diderot agreed not only to translate it, but to also “prepare a more original and extensive one” (Verma, 1984, 809). On October 16, 1747 Diderot paired up with Jean le Rond d’Almbert to begin publishing the Encyclopedie ou Dictionnaire Raisonne’ des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Verma, 1984, 809). There was also continual work and revisions on the Encycloopedie that lasted from 1751-1777 (Perovic, 2011, 14). The Encyclopedie in whole would contain 32 volumes with over 70,000 articles and diagrams on the sciences, the arts, religion, politics, philosophy, technology, medicine, and mathematics (Perovic, 2011, 14).Furthermore it had over 140 contributors who were prominent writers and philosophers of the Enlightenment (Kafker, 1973, 452). These contributors were called encyclopaedists and included names such as Voltaire, Rousseau, d’Holbach, and Montesquieu. The encyclopaedists were also keen in literature, painting, music, phisics, chemistry, epistemology, and metaphysics (Kafker, 1963, 152).  In total, the Encyclopedie encompassed the knowledge of everything that was known about the natural, social, and spiritual world. The purpose of the Encyclopedie, as Diderot puts it, was “to collect all knowledge that now lies scattered over the face of the earth” (Rosenberg, 1999, 232). Such collection of Enlightenment thought and ideas was meant to be a manual of information that can be shared around the world and used by anyone (Verma, 1984, 810). The theories, discoveries, and analysis of empirical evidence provided critical insight about the world and its vast mysteries. The Encyclopedie also revealed many different and valuable perspectives about the world (Perovic, 2011, 18). Overall the Encyclopedie was based on reason and empirical evidence that pushed for a rational thought based approach to life that did not rely on superstition. The Encyclopedie also provided people with a basis of realistic knowledge that they can use to develop a further understanding about the world. This great progression of available information about the world created social shifts against religion, superstition, and the Old Regime. The ruling classes and the King decided to ban the Encyclopedie stating that the saturated knowledge was a threat to their roots (Verma, 1984, 810). The threat being that the Encyclopedie promoted liberty of conscience, questioned religion, and advocated limits on the French Kings power (Kafker, 1988, 86). However the ban was lifted by some ministers and Madame Pompadour allowing the production and the sales of the Encyclopedie to continue (Verma, 1984, 810). In conclusion the Encyclopedie (as stated) had great historical significance. It was one of the first works to combine empirical fact from around the world to form a common basis of knowledge that can be used by anyone. Furthermore the knowledge about the world that was published had a purpose of ensuring “the coming generations are greater in virtue and happiness” (Verma, 1984, 810). Adding on to this the Encyclopedie had a vital impact in the modern sense as it influenced modern encyclopedia’s and information collection sources, such as Wikipedia. Overall the Encyclopedie was one of the greatest contributions to the progression of knowledge and information.

Marco Minadeo

Works Cited

Kafker, F. A. (1963). Diderot’s Encyclopedia: A Call to Reason or to Arms. The Historian, 151-171.

Kafker, F. A. (1973). The Recruitment of the Encyclopedists. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 452-461.

Kafker, F. A. (1988). Some Observations on Five Interpretations of the “Encyclopédie”. Diderot Studies, 85-100.

Perovic, S. (2011). The Intelligible as a New World? Wikipedia versus the Eighteenth-Century “Encyclopédie”. Paragraph, 12-29.

Rosenberg, D. (1999). An Eighteenth-Century Time Machine: The “Encyclopedia” of Denis Diderot. Historical Reflections, 227-250.

Verma, L. B. (1984). Denis Diderot, the Encyclopaedist . Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 808-812.

Other Relevant Reading 

Holt, D. K. (2000). Denis Diderot and the Aesthetic Point of View. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 19-25.

     

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Hegel was a German philosopher known for his vast impact on philosophy, and for work that is famously difficult to understand.  This brief biography will explore the historical context surrounding his life, and the historical significance of his life.

Hegel was born in a Europe on the cusp of a great deal of change.  The Enlightenment movement was in full swing.  In the decades leading up to 1770, principles of reason, empiricism (knowledge supplied by experience) and the scientific method were being extolled by philosophers like Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and Hume.  These Enlightenment thinkers were building on the contributions made by Bacon, Newton, Locke and other participants in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century.  An intellectual migration was taking place; the church and dynastic monarchy were being left behind in favour of science, reason, individual and human rights, progress, and economic globalization.  Along with these principles of modernity came revolutions.  At Hegel’s birth, the American Revolution was five years in, and would last another thirteen.  The French Revolution would begin when Hegel was eighteen.

The political upheaval was intriguing to Hegel, and as Europe began to realize its new identity, he was drawn to try to understand his modern environment (Pinkard x).  In 1789, Hegel was attending a seminary in Tübinger, which served as a sort of university for Hegel, because although the seminary trained young men to be clerics, Hegel had “no clerical aspirations,” (Baur, 4).  The summer of his first year is when the Bastille was stormed, igniting the French Revolution.  The fall of the French monarchy occasioned “joyful anticipation” in Hegel and his contemporaries (Moland 133).  The news that power was shifting to the lower  classes (or at least away from the monarchs) must have been seen as a victory for the enlightened spectators of south-west Germany.  However, the revolution proved more bloody than anticipated, leading Hegel to disapprove of the violence that resulted (133).  Hegel remarked that revolution had its roots in thought, namely the thought that we can create a society based on “a rational concept of human being,” (Rockmore 51).  Hegel was aware that the modern world was progressing as his predecessors had envisioned, but also that the concept of freedom would need to be applied to society in a way that made practical sense (53).  The strife that accompanied the revolutions in his early life lead him to question what freedom means in the context of modernity and history.

Hegel’s philosophy is commonly attributed to the school and period of “German idealism” (Baur 8)  The idealists put an emphasis on our experience as subjects when coming to know things about the world.  The idealists were in many ways a contrast to the realists, who would claim that the world exists as it does without our active participation in experiencing it.  This divide between the knowing subject, and knowable object, was a common thread for early modern philosophy (8).  Hegel took parts of this school a step further, and his work suggests that since human knowledge is limited by the faculties of perception, there must be an independent “something” (13) beyond ourselves.  This something manifests in Hegel’s idea of Geist, or Spirit, a popular view of Hegel’s in the philosophy of aesthetics.

Hegel’s vast influence begins with Karl Marx.  Marx was a student of Hegel, but he disagreed on some key points. He defends materialism over idealism (Buchwalter 159) which means he views the world as knowable by virtue of matter and objects, not any mystical Giest.

Hegel’s influence also stretches to the existentialist movement of the twentieth century, where his work is cited by many thinkers as beginning the discussion on the irrational aspects of human nature examined by existentialism (Ciavatta 169).  Like Marx, existentialist thinkers focused more on what they rejected about Hegel than on what they agreed.  Existential thought prioritizes existence over essence (meaning) in a similar way that Hegel sees experience as dependent on the knowing subject.

Hegel had further influence on thinkers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Royce, Merleau-Ponty, and Heidegger (Rockmore 159, 161, 164, 171).

Stephen Good

Works Cited

Baur, Michael. G.W.F. Hegel: Key Concepts. Routledge, 2015.

Buchwalter, Andrew. “Hegel and Marx.” G.W.F. Hegel: Key Concepts, edited by Michael Baur. Routledge, 2015, pp. 155-168.

Ciavatta, David. “Hegel and Existentialism.” G.W.F. Hegel: Key Concepts, edited by Michael Baur. Routledge, 2015, pp. 169-181.

Pinkard, Terry. Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Rockmore, Tom. Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel’s Thought. University of California Press, 1993.

Moland, Lydia. “Philosophy of History.” G.W.F. Hegel: Key Concepts, edited by Michael Baur. Routledge, 2015, pp. 128-139.

Johann Gottfried Von Herder

Johann Gottfried Von Herder (1744-1803)

Johann Gottfried Von Herder was born 25 August 1744 in Mohrungen, Prussia (today in Poland) and died 18 December 1803 in Weimar. He was a German writer, philosopher, and theologian where he studied theology at the University of Königsberg, and was influenced by Immanuel Kant and Johann Georg Hamann.

Herder was born into a poor family during the near end of the Enlightenment period (1685-1815). Growing up during this time, Herder experienced the change between monarch governments with individuals represented by class, to a democratic government shown after the French revolution. This formed Herder’s interpretation of history to be both democratic and anti-imperialistic (Schmidt). According to Mishra, Herder moved from a way of thinking without morals to the assertion that the French lack what the Germans had: a true moral freedom combined with a sense of experience and culture within an individual (178), meaning that an individual has the freedom to be their unique self along with having a sense of freedom within their community.

Herder’s argument against the Enlightenment era revolved around the stress of everyone sharing common interests and characteristics (Iggers, 38). Herder believed that each individual had a purpose to create their own character in order to contribute to society. He challenged the Enlightenment assumption that progress in history had become inevitable (Mishra, 180), by the confinement of language, literature, religion, traditions, values and laws, Herder claimed progress in history came from national self-fulfilment (175). Herder had sympathized with the cultural aspirations made by the French during their revolution and opposed foreign powers to intervene France to disrupt their development of cultural freedom (Schmidt). Herder was concerned with how the upbringing of cultural nationalism would hold within the government. “In the mood of the Enlightenment, Herder was looking for basic historical and natural laws which could serve as a foundation for a philosophy of history. This eventually led him to assert that time, place, and national character govern all events that happen among mankind” (Schmidt).

Herder had stressed freedom of expression because he felt that the greater variety of voices would ultimately benefit humanity (Schmidt). He argued for the maximum of freedom for the growth of the German cultural nation to develop a sense of national character within the government to benefit the people. Herder’s understanding of natural law contributed to his theory of history (Spitz). Herder argued that natural law must take place in the state to unify its citizens rather than separate them by class.

In Herder’s Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man, his theory of bringing cultural nationalism to the state directly contributed beyond the German borders. “His writings were translated into the Slavic languages, as well as into French and English” (Iggers, 37). Through his popular writings, Herder had influenced cultural nationalism from one country to another. “The historicism of Johann Gottfried Von Herder in the eighteenth century had initiated a keen awareness of the variety of human values; in the nineteenth century it increasingly tended to lead to a negation of universal human values.” (Iggers, 7). Thus, Herder was best known for his contributions to philosophical history and became the philosophical father of cultural nationalism.

Brianna Borean

 

Works Cited

Herder, Johann. Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man. 1st ed., London, Bergman Publishers, 1800.

Iggers, Georg G. The German Conception of History. Middletown, Wesleyan University Press, 2012.

Mishra, Pankaj. Age of Anger: A History of the Present. First American edition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017.

Schmidt, Royal J. “Cultural Nationalism in Herder.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 17, no. 3, 1956, 407–417.

Spitz, Lewis W. “Natural Law and the Theory of History in Herder.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 16, no. 4, 1955, 453–475.

Other Relevant Reading

Adler, Hans. “Johann Gottfried Herder’s Concept of Humanity,” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, vol. 23, no. 1, 1994, 55–74

Peyre, Henri. “Beyond Cultural Nationalism.” World Literature Today, vol. 59, no. 4, 1985, pp. 549–556.

Despotism

Despotism is a state of government where a ruler has absolute power. In modern usage despot and despotism is almost always pejorative. The word comes, originally, from the Greek despotes literally meaning ‘master of the house’ and usually translated as ‘lord’ or ‘owner’ (Douglas n.d.). In the Byzantine Empire Despot was an official court title bestowed on the heir apparent. Several other minor kingdoms throughout the middle ages imitated the Byzantines by having despots of their own (Billarsky 2011, 277)

When despot entered the Enlightened European’s vernacular during the 18^th century, it did so as a more general term for a king, monarch, emperor or other dictator, with no pre-existing ideological baggage (Bonney 2003).

In the mid 18^th century, ‘despotism’, as derived from the older ‘despot’ came in to use for the first time as a term to describe ideologies where the ruler of a nation should possess unlimited and unchecked power. Many enlightenment Philosophes discussed despotism. Voltaire believed that a single well-educated ruler, unburdened by debate or scrutiny, was the ideal form of government, and praised Catherine the Great as an example of this ‘Enlightened despotism’ (Mishra 2017, 98. Lentin 1971). Voltaire believed that democracy did not offer protection against the idiocy of the masses, and that an absolute sovereign who acted in the best interests of his subjects was the most effective way to govern (Shank 2015). Joseph De Maistre also believed that a single enlightened despot was the most effective kind of leadership, although he disagreed with Voltaire on almost everything else (Mishra 2017). Others such as Montesquieu (Bok 2014) and Rousseau were much more critical of despotism and despots, just as most modern thought is (Burney 1993).

During it’s Enlightenment heyday, despotism was a mostly neutral term, as wider democratic attitudes spread across the world, despot increasingly became a negative descriptor. This was especially true of the fiercely democratic United States. North American newspapers used the term as a clear pejorative as early as the 1850s (n.a. 1856).

Statistically, the use of the word despotism peaked around the end of the 18^th century, in line with the French revolution, and the broader political climate it inspired. In the wake of the incredible violence of the French Revolution, the great political thinkers of the day often had to align themselves against either the tyranny of the few that had led to the revolution, or the tyranny of the masses that had led from it. Today the western world has made its choice and despot has become a charge to level at some distant autocrat, but that was not always the case.

Grace Michael

 

Further Reading:

• Bonney, Richard. 2003. “Reconsidering Absolutism in Early Modern Europe: The development of an Idea” Ajia-Taiheiyou Ronso 13, 91-135. Historical Abstracts.

• Burney, John. 1993 “History, Despotism, Public Opinion and the Continuity of the Radical Attack on Monarchy in The French Revolution, 1782-1789” History of European Ideas 17:2/3 245-263

• Dominguez, Juan Pablo. 2017. “A State Within the State: The Inquisition in Enlightenment Thought” History of European Ideas 43:4 376-288  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2016.120360

• Lentin, A. E. 1971 “Catherine the Great and Enlightened Despotism” History Today 170-1771 Historical Abstracts

Additional Works Cited:

• Billarsky, Ivan. 2011. Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninkijke Brill NV.
• Bok, Hilary. 2014 “Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/montesquieu/
• Google Books. 2013. Google Ngram Viewer: “despotism, despot” Last Modified 2017. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=despotism%2C+despot&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdespotism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdespotism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDespotism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cdespot%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdespot%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDespot%3B%2Cc0

• Harper, Douglas. n.d. “Despot” Online Etymology Dictionary http://www.etymonline.com/word/despot

• Mishra, Pankaj. 2017 Age of Anger. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

• Shank, J.B. 2015 “Voltaire”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/voltaire/

• n.a. 1856 “Another Great Republican Meeting in the Tabernacle.: FREEDOM AND FREMONT. How the Despotism of the Day has Grown. Speeches of Senator Wilson, Lieut, Gov. Raymond. and Hon. B. G. Noble.” New York Daily Times, Sept. 18^th, 1856.

Romanticism

Identification 

Romanticism is a movement that began in the late 18th century. It was an artistic movement which focused on the person’s imagination, as well as their spiritual and emotional expression.

It developed from the dissatisfaction felt by the “latecomers to modernity”; it was a reaction of those who felt scorned by the ultra-rational values of the Enlightenment. Meant to fulfill the spirit and create a strong identity, it manifested in the creation of music, poetry, paintings, and literature designed to fiercely impact the individual; it focused on the unity and harmony of the person with others and with nature.

Centered in Europe, namely England, Italy, Germany, and France, it was in clear opposition to the materialistic and individualistic culture taking hold of the continent at that time. Composers such as Goethe, writers such as Hegel, and painters such as Goya were all contributors to the movement.

Historical Significance 

Rousseau – argued to be the originator of this movement – severely opposed individualism and materialism. He argued a strong national identity to be the antidote to this. Thus, Romanticism was marked by identifying the self by defining what it had better or different from the other. It was a tool in which people alienated by modernity’s increasingly individualistic and materialistic structure could find identity and belonging.

Consequently, the countries most affected by this scorn of modernity, used Romanticism as a way to heal that wound. Accordingly, this extreme identification with national culture is one of the roots of, and, gives context to the rise of totalitarianism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. These other “ism” movements that came partly from Romanticism – Nationalism, Nazism, Fascism – stem from a combination of alienating and being alienated by others, and finding comfort solely in national identity. They were completely contingent on an “us versus them” mentality, in which the “them” was to blame for the problems of the “us”.

Additionally, this period of history produced some of the most widely recognizable and influential artworks still relevant in modern day. Many of which are still studied, revered, and mimicked to this day in academic institutions and in popular culture. The artist became an emblem of culture; the artist’s expression of emotion as well as the artistic tendency to experiment and push the boundary, can be traced back to Romanticism’s desire to break free from the rigidity of the Enlightenment.

Key Historical Proponents

Romanticism soon became a means to work towards the unification of divided states like the territories of modern Germany and Italy in the late 1800s. German Romantics, such as Fichte, called for a unification largely based on ethno-linguistic commonalities which were glorified and exalted by this movement. Specifically, one of the ways the German people consolidated their culture was by recapturing national folklore; namely, the tales by the Brothers Grimm circa 1812, helped foster and develop a German identity.

In addition, as Romantic expression pushed for greater harmony and union, the dissemination and prominence of Enlightenment and Industrial ideas of rationality, empiricism, and utility continued to oppose it. Unsurprisingly, however, it was the main contributor to Romanticism’s extensive popularity and strength. The new system sweeping the continent was one of organized social hierarchy, founded upon the utility, skill, and success of a person in the new industrialized world. However, many German Romantics, such as Novalis and Schlegel circa 1795, argued that people were already placed in a hierarchy of sorts within nature. People had a role that was a part of a greater whole; not less or more important than any other part, and all working in harmony subdued under the solidarity and codependence of one with the other. This way, there was no need for the man-made social hierarchies, as man’s place was already established.

Salomé Rodríguez Solarte

 

Bibliography

Mishra, Pankaj. Age of Anger. New York. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2017. Print.

Needham, Lawrence. “Romanticism, Race, and Imperial Culture, 1780-1834.” Research in 

African Literatures, vol. 31, no. 3, 2000, p. 208. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=oakv28633&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA64719149&it=r&asid=2cd4f7a9c4108e22fee909d4fd117d39. Accessed 10 Oct. 2017.

Stone, Alison. “Alienation from nature and early German romanticism.” Ethical Theory and 

Moral Practice, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, p. 41+. Academic OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=oakv28633&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA369914907&it=r&asid=df85362e0d453e655dce1c600f8098dc. Accessed 10 Oct. 2017.