18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

Palomar · 2003-05-28 15:55:13

Another fascinating post, Cindy. Thank you.

*You're welcome!

***

"Woe to philosophers who cannot laugh away their learned wrinkles! I look on solemnity as a disease! It seems to me that morality, study and gaiety are three sisters who should never be separated." [Voltaire]

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-06-05 09:06:31

*Posted by me last year, at my private mailing list:

The Encyclopedia was the crowning achievement of the European
Enlightenment. It took Diderot, assisted by an army writers and
illustrators, to bring the Encyclopedia to fruition. He faced
scandals; his partner (d'Alembert) forsook the project and Diderot
under political pressure; royal decrees went out to confiscate and
destroy the plates and manuscripts; secular and religious authorities petitioned
against the project...in short, if it had not been for the
intervention of Malesherbes, "l'Encyclopedie" may never have come to the light of day; or, at the very least, its appearance would have been delayed by decades more.

We take encyclopedias for granted today. However, in its time,
the original Encyclopedia was a triumph of human will, secular
achievement, and pride in progress...which is why various elements of
the establishment railed so strongly against it. Hard to believe,
isn't it, that what we take for granted today and rarely give a 2nd
thought to, was once considered a great threat (which, of course, it
was -- to the establishment)? Diderot was the most amazing of
rebels. And the establishment of the time did have some degree of
genuine fear, for certain writers wrote articles for
the 'Encyclopedie' for the express purpose of undermining and even
ridiculing the "authority" of oppressive secular and church
operatives, and attendant persecution.

--Cindy

**********************************************

Diderot's preface:

"ENCYCLOPEDIE, f.n. (Philosophy). This word means the interrelation
of all knowledge; it is made up of the Greek prefix 'en' (in), and the
nouns 'kyklos' (cycle), and 'paideia' (instruction, science,
knowledge). In truth, the aim of an encyclopedie is to collect all
the knowledge scattered over the face of the earth, to present its
general outlines and structure to the men with whom we live, and to
transmit this to those who will come after us, so that the work of
past centuries may be useful to the following centuries, that our
children, by becoming more educated, may at the same time become more
virtuous and happier, and that we may not die without having deserved
well of the human race...

I have said that it could only belong to a philosophical age to
attempt an encyclopedie; and I have said this because such a work
constantly demands more intellectual daring than is commonly found in
the ages of pusillanimous taste. All things must be examined,
debated, investigated without exception and without regard for
anyone's feelings...We must ride roughshod over all these ancient
puerilities, overturn the barriers that reason never erected, give
back to the arts and sciences the liberty that is so precious to
them...We have for quite some time needed a reasoning age when men
would no longer seek the rules in classical authors but in nature,
when men would be conscious of what is false and true about so many
arbitrary treatises on aesthetics: and I take the term 'treatise on
aesthetics' in its most general meaning, that of a system of given
rules to which it is claimed that one must confirm in any genre
whatever in order to succeed...

I know this feeling is not shared by everyone. There are narrow
minds, deformed souls, who are indfferent to the fate of the human
race and who are so enclosed in their little group that they see
nothing beyond its special interest. These men insist on being called
good citizens, but I call them bad men. To listen to them talk, one
would say that a successful encyclopedie, that a general history of
the mechanical arts, should only take the form of an enmorous
manuscript that would be carefully locked up in the king's library,
inaccessible to all other eyes but his, an official document of the
state, not meant to be consulted by the people. They say what is the
good of divulging the knowledge a nation possesses, its private
transactions, its inventions, its industrial processes, its resources,
its trade secrets, its enlightenment, its arts, and all its wisdom?
They go on to say are not these the things to which it owes a part of
its superiority over the rival nations that surround it? This is what
they say; and this is what they might add: would it not be desirable
if, instead of enlightening the foreigner, we could spread darkness
over him or even plunge the rest of the world into barbarism so that
we could dominate more securely over everyone? These people do not
realize that they occupy only a single point on our globe and that
they will endure only a moment in this existence. To this point and
to this moment they would sacrifice the happiness of future ages and
that of the entire human race. They know as well as anyone that the
average duration of empires is not more than 2000 years and that in
less time, perhaps, the name 'Frenchman,' a name that will endure
forever in history, will be sought after in vain over the surface of
the earth. These considerations do not broaden their point of view,
for it seems the word 'humanity' is for them a word without meaning.
All the same, they should be consistent! For they also fulminate
against the impenetrability of the Egyptian sanctuaries; they deplore
the loss of the knowledge of the ancients; they accuse the writers of
the past for having been silent or negligent in writing so badly on an
infinite number of important subjects; and these illogical critics do
not see that they demand of the writers of earlier ages something they
call a crime when it is committed by a contemporary, that they are
blaming others for having done what they think it honorable to do!

These 'good citizens' are the most dangerous enemies that we have
had."

Palomar · 2003-06-14 15:19:16

*I mentioned (again) King Louis XV of France in a different thread today. He's been mentioned a few times in this thread, dates August 16, 2002; August 24, 2002; and December 5, 2002.

Here's some information about his childhood, which I posted months ago at my mailing list:

***

I'm summarizing, in my own words, what I've read this evening in
_Madame de Pompadour_ by Nancy Mitford, regarding Louis XV [Mme Pompadour
was his Royal Mistress].

His parents and siblings died when he was very young, from measles.
The royal physician, a Dr. Fagon, was basically a quack;
his "remedies" of bleeding measles patients and believing that
drinking donkey milk could cure King Louis XIV's gangrenous infection
led Nancy Mitford to call him the "killer of princes." Louis XV's
nurse, a Duchesse, took him away by stealth from the family epidemic
and suffering; if she hadn't done this, he too most certainly would
have contracted measles and died.

Louis XV was in the care of this Duchesse until age 7, when he was
taken into the care of a "governor." Apparently he cried and
screamed terribly when taken from the Duchesse; Mitford notes that,
after this incident, Louis became very reserved and private, keeping,
throughout his life, his emotions and thoughts to himself. This
makes sense when we recall that age 7 is, according to recent
studies, the worst age in which a child can experience separation
from a loved one, the death of a parent/guardian, or the divorce of
parents. No doubt this deeply affected little Louis.

Philippe, the Duc d'Orleans, was the nephew of the recently deceased
Louis XIV, and was 2nd in line to the throne. He took Louis XV's
interests to heart, genuinely affectionate and warm to the child.
Louis XV responded, loving Philippe immensely. I've posted
previously regarding Philippe; please refer to the Archives if you
need a refresher. Mitford notes that whereas Philippe had been
respectful to Louis XIV with fear and resentment, he was on the other
hand respectful to Louis XV with tenderness and affection. Mitford
goes on to point out that Philippe spoke to the child as subject to
King, always mindful of their respective positions regardless of the
immense age difference.

Mitford tells us that Louis XV would attend council meetings with
Philippe, with his pet cat cradled on his arm. Counselors would
merrily remark that the cat was Louis' "colleague." Louis was quiet
and shy, never talking during these meetings. The only disruption he
ever caused was upon learning that he [while still a little boy]
was betrothed to his first cousin, the Infanta of Spain: Louis broke down
and cried throughout the entire meeting.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-06-14 16:27:17

Philippe, the Duc d'Orleans, was the nephew of the recently deceased
Louis XIV, and was 2nd in line to the throne. He took Louis XV's
interests to heart, genuinely affectionate and warm to the child.

There is a story about that. At the revolution, when the newly formed republican assembly had to vote about what to do with the french King Louis XVI (exile the king or "quick cut" him) , the votes were not incredibly in favor of the "quick cut", in fact, the "quick cut" led by only one vote over the other options and it is said that it is Philippe, the Duc d'Orlean, who voted against the king Louis XVI his nephew, in favor of the clean quick cut. I am not sure if it has been proved, but there is at least strong suspicions that the last king of France lost his head because of his uncle, just by one vote.

Palomar · 2003-06-14 23:41:00

Philippe, the Duc d'Orleans, was the nephew of the recently deceased
Louis XIV, and was 2nd in line to the throne. He took Louis XV's
interests to heart, genuinely affectionate and warm to the child.
There is a story about that. At the revolution, when the newly formed republican assembly had to vote about what to do with the french King Louis XVI (exile the king or "quick cut" him) , the votes were not incredibly in favor of the "quick cut", in fact, the "quick cut" led by only one vote over the other options and it is said that it is Philippe, the Duc d'Orlean, who voted against the king Louis XVI his nephew, in favor of the clean quick cut. I am not sure if it has been proved, but there is at least strong suspicions that the last king of France lost his head because of his uncle, just by one vote.

*I do not know who the Duc d'Orleans was during the reign of Louis XVI (who was the *grandson* of Louis XV). If that Duc's name was also Philippe, then it was a -different- man with the same name and title, because Louis XV's Philippe/Duc d'Orleans died when Louis XV was still in his teenage years and decades before the French Revolution.

I've still yet to read about the French Revolution, Robespierre, "The Reign of Terror," etc. I'm sure you know that Marie Antoinette was a Hapbsburg (Austrian royalty)? Her mother was Maria Theresa, and her brother Emperor Joseph II (who is depicted in the 1985 film "Amadeus").

The aristocrat who attempted to defend Louis XVI and prevent his execution was Malesherbes, who also protected and aided Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert during the publication of the Encyclopedia. Malesherbes and some of his family were sentenced and executed on the guillotine for his assistance to Louis XVI, as a "defense lawyer" of sorts. Malesherbes believed -everyone- is entitled to justice and fair representation, even deposed Kings; he was murdered for staying true to his principles.

Most of my studies of the 18th century, though, pre-date 1785; it just wasn't the same (for me, anyway), after the philosophes began dying. :*( I do plan to study the French Revolution, though.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-06-15 09:13:29

I've still yet to read about the French Revolution, Robespierre, "The Reign of Terror," etc.

Most of my studies of the 18th century, though, pre-date 1785; it just wasn't the same (for me, anyway), after the philosophes began dying. :*( I do plan to study the French Revolution, though.
--Cindy

Your right, this Philippe "egalite", duc d'Orlean, was born in 1747, he was the son of the former duc of Orlean. He indeed voted the king execution, but was executed himself shortly after.

Concerning the french revolution, it's a bloody period that I don't like to read too much about because of the negative feelings it gives me. It's also teached more as a propaganda to french kids, for example, not much is said about the atrocities commited by the french republican troops in Britany and Vendee, one of the more royalist french provinces. Officially, we learned that the republican armies went to Vendee to :
" impose the democratic spirit of the republic to the rebels in ouest france, deeply rooted in their antiquated obscurantism ".
You would think that this dark episode has been erased, forgotten, not such. Very bitter remembrances and demonstrations were organised by people from Britany and Vendee at the occasion of the bicentenian of the french revolution, in 1989. They said to the parisians " your republic was imposed over a sea of blood in britany".
I cannot read much about that period, It disgusts me. I am happy that you are interested, maybe when you come to that period, you will be able to shed some light to it and tell us with objectivity and serenity what you think about it.

Palomar · 2003-06-15 10:56:31

dickbill: "Your right, this Philippe "egalite", duc d'Orlean, was born in 1747, he was the son of the former duc of Orlean. He indeed voted the king execution, but was executed himself shortly after."

*Thanks for the information. I'm not surprised this Duc didn't escape execution himself, considering his social position. Maybe he thought he could save his own neck by betraying the King?

dickbill: "Concerning the french revolution, it's a bloody period that I don't like to read too much about because of the negative feelings it gives me. It's also teached more as a propaganda to french kids, for example, not much is said about the atrocities commited by the french republican troops in Britany and Vendee, one of the more royalist french provinces. Officially, we learned that the republican armies went to Vendee to :
" impose the democratic spirit of the republic to the rebels in ouest france, deeply rooted in their antiquated obscurantism ".
You would think that this dark episode has been erased, forgotten, not such. Very bitter remembrances and demonstrations were organised by people from Britany and Vendee at the occasion of the bicentenian of the french revolution, in 1989. They said to the parisians " your republic was imposed over a sea of blood in britany".
I cannot read much about that period, It disgusts me. I am happy that you are interested, maybe when you come to that period, you will be able to shed some light to it and tell us with objectivity and serenity what you think about it.

*I didn't know it still provoked antagonistic feelings in people there. I guess I'm not extremely surprised, though, as some multi-generational American southerners still have ill feelings and resentment towards "The North" and "damned Yankees."

Sure, I'll be glad to share regarding my studies of the French Revolution; studying it is probably a few months away. One of the first books I read relative to The Enlightenment touched briefly on the French Revolution. The author, a man named Lloyd Spencer (British), speculated that probably one of the reasons the outcome of the French Revolution was so different from that of the American Revolution (at least initially) is because the French government (pre-Revolution or post-Revolution, it didn't matter) faced the continuing prospect of having to deal with hundreds of thousands of people in the peasant and lower middle class population...something the Americans didn't have to contend with (the Colonies were small, and the Native Americans were of course more than capable of caring for themselves...until more and more European immigrants arrived later; but this is referenced to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, pre-Civil War).

Well, it will be an interesting study, I'm sure. As an aside of sorts, it seems many people believe Jean Jacques Rousseau was a great Revolutionary who was essentially the "father" of the French Revolution. However, most scholars of the period whose books I've read discount this; they say he had some "revolutionary" ideas, as in the sense of being very unique and controversial, but not "Revolutionary"...and that
he was, at heart, a *reformer* and not a Revolutionary. Of course, he died in 1778, so he didn't see the French Revolution.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-06-15 12:58:32

Well, it will be an interesting study, I'm sure. As an aside of sorts, it seems many people believe Jean Jacques Rousseau was a great Revolutionary who was essentially the "father" of the French Revolution.

This is what I have been teached. Rousseau is the spiritual father of the revolution. But as you said, even that is doubtful, I cannot imagine that a single man can be at the origine of the french revolution by spreading early "socialist" ideas. I would rather think that these socialist ideas were present in a primitive form in the french population well before the revolution and spread by many people.

bye, camarade citoyenne Cindy !

dickbill · 2003-06-17 13:42:16

citoyenne Cindy !
What does that mean??

That's the way people called each other during the french revolution: citoyen, citoyenne. It was like Camarade or Komrad, for the communists. Imagine the nobility, the duc of something, he didn't like to be called a citoyen by a vulgar from the populace!

But Cindy is not a revolutionary, she is rather an aristocrate with democratic ideas.

Palomar · 2003-06-26 09:31:15

*Praise and comments about Voltaire, then quoting Voltaire (3 separate posts by me to my Yahoo! Group from January & May 2003, posted together here...enjoy, as it may be a while before I post to this thread again):

***

Mr. Thaddeus writes the following so beautifully that I will quote
his two short paragraphs which engulf Goethe's praise of Voltaire.
Consider this an appendage of sorts to the "Frederick and Voltaire in
their old age" post, as this likewise pertains to Voltaire in his
elder years:

"In Germany at this time is another man, many years younger than the
King of Prussia, who sits spellbound watching that great sun sinking
towards the horizon. How to describe it! He writes --

'Depth, genius, imagination, taste, reason, sensibility, philosophy,
elevation, originality, nature, intellect, fancy, rectitude,
facility, flexibility, precision, art, abundance, variety, fertility,
warmth, magic, charm, grace, force, an eagle's sweep of vision, vast
understanding, rich instruction, excellent tone, urbanity, vivacity,
delicacy, correctness, purity, cleanness, elegance, harmony,
brilliancy, rapidity, gayety, pathos, sublimity, universality,
perfection, indeed -- behold Voltaire!'

The man who writes this is not an Abbe who needs money. It is the 20-
year-old Goethe."

***

[Countess de Genlis visits Voltaire 1 year before his death at age 83]

I read this brief account of her visit to Voltaire in _Voltaire_ by
Georg Brandes. I checked the list of visitors to Ferney at the
Voltaire Society of America website (listed in our Links), because
Mr. Brandes doesn't give the date of her visit. VSA dates the visit
as having occurred in 1777 (the text of her visit reproduced there is
in French). VSA identifies her as not being an admirer of
Voltaire's; Mr. Brandes identifies her as a devout Catholic who had
an "aversion" to Voltaire...but apparently her curiosity got the best
of her, and she paid him a visit.

Here is a brief quote of what the Countess had to say:

"His portraits and busts resemble him very much. But no artist has
reproduced his eyes. I expected to find them gleaming and fiery --
and they have really the most spiritual expression I have ever
known. But at the same time there is something velvet-like in them,
an indescribable mildness. He is here greater than in his books; for
everywhere one notices a genial kindness. One cannot imagine that
the same hand which has written so much that is godless [apparently
she hadn't paid close attention to his writings, or somehow missed
his frequent Deistic references] should have created so much that is
noble, sensible and useful [she unknowingly admits she is unaware of
these being key elements of Enlightenment philosophy]. He showed us
his estate, explained to us in a simple, natural manner everything he
has built or started work on, and by no means seemed to pride himself
upon it. I don't know anyone else who could do it."

Wonderful! I enjoyed this item very much.

***

Summarizing material in my own words from _The Age of Voltaire_ by W. & A. Durant:

In 1736 Voltaire published a poem called "Le Mondain." Voltaire had
no patience with visionaries who were promoting ideas of "the noble
savage," "the friendly and flowing savage," etc. Contrary to J.J.
Rousseau, Voltaire felt that humankind tends to be more savage than
noble...and that, despite its flaws, civilization is a benefit to
mankind and can draw out the best qualities in humans (arts,
literature, etc.). He also shunned the call for "a return to nature"
as an attempted means to get away from the contrivances and
hypocrisies of civilization. Voltaire appreciated civilization,
despite its flaws. Primitive men may have been communists, but only
because they had nothing; they may have been sober, but only because
they didn't have wine. "For my part, I thank the wise nature that
for my happiness gave me birth in this age so decried by our
melancholy critics. This profame time is just right for my ways. I
love luxury, even a soft life [mollesse], all the pleasures, the arts
in their variety, cleanliness, taste, and ornaments." These
pleasures and luxuries seemed clearly preferable to Voltaire than the
Garden of Eden: "My dear father Adam, confess that you and Madame
Eve had long nails black with dirt and that your hair was a bit out
of order...In vain have scholars sought to locate the Garden of
Eden;...the terrestrial paradise is where I am."

Here, here! I quite agree.

Of course, Voltaire ran into trouble with the church authorities for
his portrayal of Adam and Eve as such...and, doubtless, for extolling
the virtues of carnal enjoyment and rational indulgences.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-06-26 18:48:30

It's off topic but I am curious, so Cindy, was Voltaire short or tall ?

Palomar · 2003-06-27 06:05:43

It's off topic but I am curious, so Cindy, was Voltaire short or tall ?

*Hi dickbill:

I've been searching for additional information, but all I can find is what I posted of the Americans' visit to Voltaire (posted in the "Prince Gets Confused" thread). The American doctor estimated Voltaire's height at 5' 10". You suggested (in the other thread) that perhaps Voltaire's thinness made him appear taller. I don't have any stats on how tall the physician was, or other information.

If Voltaire was only 5' 3" tall, as the newspaper article you read claimed, then the American doctor must have been very short himself. However, I'll give the doctor the benefit of the doubt; after all, the physical state is a doctor's profession.

If I turn up anything else, I'll let you know...but so far I just have that 1 reference.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-06-27 14:00:26

How life is difficult ! I tried to resolve the crucial problem of the size of Voltaire. Was he short or tall ? this is of prime importance, but I found contradictory informations, and I looked for original untranslated french texts.
SO, first web site:

http://www.voltaire-integral.com/Grimm/Portrait.html

CORRESPONDANCE LITT?RAIRE, PHILOSOPHIQUE ET CRITIQUE
NOUVELLES LITT?RAIRES (1747-1755)
Portrait de Voltaire par le marquis de Charost.

Il y a quelques ann?es qu?on fit courir en manuscrit un portrait de Voltaire fort ressemblant et extr?mement ing?nieux. Comme il vient d??tre imprim? dans une mauvaise critique de S?miramis, qui apparemment ne parviendra jamais jusqu?? vous, j?ai cru bien faire en vous l?envoyant. Quelques curieux m?ont assur? que ce portrait ?tait l?ouvrage du jeune marquis de Charost, qui fut tu? pendant la guerre de 1735, et dont nous avons quelques morceaux d?une grande d?licatesse que vous trouverez dans un recueil publi? par Saint-Hyacinthe(4).
. PORTRAIT DE VOLTAIRE.
? M. de Voltaire est au-dessous de la taille des grands hommes, c?est-?-dire un peu au-dessous de la m?diocre; je parle ? un naturaliste; ainsi point de chicane sur l?observation; il est maigre, d?un temp?rament sec; il a la bile br?l?e, le visage d?charn?, l?air spirituel et caustique, les yeux ?tincelants et malins.

I translate the bold text only:
' M. de Voltaire is slightly below the size of tall/important men (note: tall men or important men, I cannot be sure either the author means tall or important in the context), that is, slightly BELOW the average/short?' but he is clearly short then, since below the short is very short, IMO.
OK, now, exactly the same text, original french, but from a different web site, I just copy paste :

http://hypo.ge-dip.etat-ge.ch/www....au.html

PORTRAIT DE VOLTAIRE par un rival qui ne manque pas d'esprit
L'homme qui a ?crit cette lettre vers 1735 est peut-?tre Alexis Piron, po?te et satiriste. Peu importe. L'essentiel est d'y voir s'inscrire, en formules fatales, la matrice impeccable de tous les portraits ? venir de Voltaire, l'homme et l'oeuvre r?unis.

"Monsieur de Voltaire est au-dessous de la taille des grands hommes, c'est-?-dire un peu au-dessus de la m?diocre (...). Il est maigre, d'un temp?rament sec. Il a la bile br?l?e, le visage d?charn?, l'air spirituel et caustique, les yeux ?tincelants et malins. ?

the bold text now means:
'M de Voltaire is slightly below the size of tall/important men, that is, slightly ABOVE the average/short ?'
So now he is above the average ! and this is the same text. You definitively cannot trust blindly the infos on internet, surely, this is where the pentagone took his sources about the WMD.

From the same web site, another description of Voltaire :
Autre portrait de Voltaire par Joseph d'Hemery

Joseph d'Hemery est un inspecteur, s'occupant de la librairie (auteurs, ?diteurs...) qui r?digea 500 fiches de police sur des auteurs qui en valent la peine. Voici la fiche de Voltaire, commenc?e le 1e janvier 1748, mais r?dig?e essentiellement en 1751 (Voltaire a 57 ans).
Orthographe d'?poque
"Noms
Arouet de Voltaire
auteur
1er janvier 1748
Age
57
Pays
Paris fils d'un payeur de Rentes
Signalement
Grand, sec et l'air d'un satyre

Demeure
Rue Traversine chez Mme La Marquise du Ch?telet
Histoire
C'est un aigle pour l'Esprit et un fort mauvais sujet pour les sentiments, tout le monde connoit ses ouvrages et ses aventures. Il est de l'acad?mie francoise. Mad.e Denis est sa niece.

the bold text means:
"?
Appearance (signalement (of Voltaire))
Tall, dry and looks like a satyre
?
"

He is tall !!! and looks Like a satyre !!!!! Cindy you didn't tell us that !
I trust this one because it's from a police officer, anyway, most likely Voltaire is an X-man, he can modify his appearance at will ! too funny.

Palomar · 2003-06-28 07:03:58

How life is difficult ! I tried to resolve the crucial problem of the size of Voltaire. Was he short or tall ? this is of prime importance, but I found contradictory informations, and I looked for original untranslated french texts.
SO, first web site:
...I translate the bold text only:
' M. de Voltaire is slightly below the size of tall/important men (note: tall men or important men, I cannot be sure either the author means tall or important in the context), that is, slightly BELOW the average/short?' but he is clearly short then, since below the short is very short, IMO.
OK, now, exactly the same text, original french, but from a different web site, I just copy paste :
...
the bold text now means:
'M de Voltaire is slightly below the size of tall/important men, that is, slightly ABOVE the average/short ?'
So now he is above the average ! and this is the same text. You definitively cannot trust blindly the infos on internet, surely, this is where the pentagone took his sources about the WMD.
...the bold text means:
"?
Appearance (signalement (of Voltaire))
Tall, dry and looks like a satyre
?
"
He is tall !!! and looks Like a satyre !!!!! Cindy you didn't tell us that !
I trust this one because it's from a police officer, anyway, most likely Voltaire is an X-man, he can modify his appearance at will ! too funny.

*Lol! Yes, it is confusing. Apparently it depended on who was making the comments about him and the height of that person relative to Voltaire.

And he was described as having a "satyr-like" appearance...thanks for reminding me.

Well, we may not know exactly how tall he was, but we do know without a doubt that he was very skinny (from chronic illness).

Voltaire, an "X-Man"? Hmmmm. "Super-Philosophe!" Yes, that fits. :laugh:

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-07-09 06:08:49

*Check THIS out:

1. One of the greatest and deadliest swordsman of his day.

2. An agent of Louis XV's "Cabinet Noir de Versailles" -- an elite espionage agency formed by the King and so secretive that even his ministers were unaware of its existence.

3. A cross-dresser who wanted to be a woman.

Yep, you read that right!

http://www.ifge.org/books/monsieur_deon.htm

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/deon.htm

The Chevalier D'Eon sounds so fantastically interesting, that I've ordered the book about him! I wonder if dickbill is familiar with either D'Eon or the "Cabinet Noir de Versailles"?

--Cindy

Free Spirit · 2003-07-09 14:09:43

Of all the philosophers you mention, which would you vote for president if they all rose from the dead and started campaigning? Which one would you be least inclined to vote for?

Palomar · 2003-07-09 15:28:41

Of all the philosophers you mention, which would you vote for president if they all rose from the dead and started campaigning? Which one would you be least inclined to vote for?

*It's impossible to say. They were philosophers, not politicians; and though some had a political bent, our times are so very different from theirs.

But thanks for asking.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-07-09 15:38:08

*Check THIS out:
1. One of the greatest and deadliest swordsman of his day.
2. An agent of Louis XV's "Cabinet Noir de Versailles" -- an elite espionage agency formed by the King and so secretive that even his ministers were unaware of its existence.
3. A cross-dresser who wanted to be a woman.
Yep, you read that right!
http://www.ifge.org/books/monsieur_deon.htm
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/deon.htm
The Chevalier D'Eon sounds so fantastically interesting, that I've ordered the book about him! I wonder if dickbill is familiar with either D'Eon or the "Cabinet Noir de Versailles"?
--Cindy

Hi Cindy, yes I know the guy from name. I say guy because the chevalier d'Eon is quite a legend, officially he is a man (his autopsia confirmed that he has the "all stuff at the right place") but we know today that the phenotype sometimes doesn't fit the genotype because many people suspected he was a woman disguised as a man. Beside that I don't know much about him/her. I probably read about him a long time ago but forgot most of it.

There is a couple of other legends associated with that period of late french royalty/ pre revolution time that Alexandre Dumas used for his romans:
The "Iron Mask" ( suposedly a twin of Louis the XIV, emprisoned to the bastille all his life with an iron mask on his face to hide his ressemblance with the king). I think it's just a legend and he never existed.
LouisXVII, son of the king LouisXVI. Officialy the young LouisXVII died a the Bastille as a child, but some pretends he was actually exchanged with another boy. This hypothesis entertained a quasi mysticysm among the french royalists that the king of france legitime descendent is actually somewhere, even now, some are sure of that. A troubling fact is the story of a man who claimed he was the king's son. He was named Naundorff.

Palomar · 2003-07-12 07:39:43

There is a couple of other legends associated with that period of late french royalty/ pre revolution time that Alexandre Dumas used for his romans:
The "Iron Mask" ( suposedly a twin of Louis the XIV, emprisoned to the bastille all his life with an iron mask on his face to hide his ressemblance with the king). I think it's just a legend and he never existed.
LouisXVII, son of the king LouisXVI. Officialy the young LouisXVII died a the Bastille as a child, but some pretends he was actually exchanged with another boy. This hypothesis entertained a quasi mysticysm among the french royalists that the king of france legitime descendent is actually somewhere, even now, some are sure of that. A troubling fact is the story of a man who claimed he was the king's son. He was named Naundorff.

"Man in the Iron Mask" article

*Hi dickbill: Sorry for the tardiness of my response. Yesterday was a hairball...no, scratch that -- the past 3 days have been horrible.

Anyway, I thought you might like the article, which was referred to me by a list member at my Yahoo! group. Voltaire is in the mix..."le coquin" as usual!

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-14 05:37:21

*I shared the following with my "Age of Voltaire" Yahoo! Group recently; it regards Benjamin Franklin and the art of making friends and persuasion:

***

I was going to eventually share the following from Dale Carnegie's
book _How to Win Friends & Influence People_, wherein he shares the
following about Franklin:

"One of the finest things I know about Ben Franklin is the way he
accepted a smarting rebuke. He was big enough and wise enough to
realize that it was true, to sense that he was headed for failure and
social disaster [as a young man]. So he made a right-about-face. He
began immediately to change his insolent, opinionated ways:

'I made it a rule,' said Franklin, 'To forebear all direct
contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion
of my own. I even forebade myself the use of every word or
expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion such
as 'certainly,' 'undoubtedly,' etc., and I adopted, instead of
them, 'I conceive,' 'I apprehend,' or 'I imagine a thing to be so,'
or 'it so appears to me at present.'

When another asserted something that I thought in error, I denied
myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly and of showing
immediately some absurdity in his proposition: and in answering I
began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion
would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to
me some difference, etc.

I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the
conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way
in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and
less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be
in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up
their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be right.

And this mode, which I at first put on with some violence to natural
inclination, became at length so easy and so habitual to me, that
perhaps for these 50 years past no one has ever heard a dogmatical
expression escape me. And to this habit (after my character of
integrity) I think it principally owing that I had earned so much
weight with my fellow citizens when I proposed new institutions or
alterations in the old, and so much influence in public councils when
I became a member; for I was but a bad speaker, never eloquent,
subject to make hesitation in my choice of words, hardly correct in
language and yet I generally carried my points.'"

dickbill · 2003-08-14 10:14:54

Benjamin Franklin was a great man and a scientist. I read this about him: "If Franklin the diplomat could achieve so much, it was largely because first he was Franklin the scientist."

The true scientific spirit (IMO) is humility and perseverence. Never a scientist declares with arrogance "we know for sure they have this or that" rather he would say "despite our lack of definitive proof, we however believe that they have this or that". A good scientist also never takes for granted a fool who say "this is the obvious truth, those who disagree are dumb". There is no obvious truth in science, and in the life in general I believe, only today's arrogant politicians claim they know the "truth", like the church of the inquisition before them.
Benjamin Franklin was not an arrogant politician, and still, he was a successfull one. Could it be still possible in 2003 ?

Palomar · 2003-08-14 10:49:24

Benjamin Franklin was a great man and a scientist. I read this about him: "If Franklin the diplomat could achieve so much, it was largely because first he was Franklin the scientist."
The true scientific spirit (IMO) is humility and perseverence. Never a scientist declares with arrogance "we know for sure they have this or that" rather he would say "despite our lack of definitive proof, we however believe that they have this or that". A good scientist also never takes for granted a fool who say "this is the obvious truth, those who disagree are dumb". There is no obvious truth in science, and in the life in general I believe, only today's arrogant politicians claim they know the "truth", like the church of the inquisition before them.
Benjamin Franklin was not an arrogant politician, and still, he was a successfull one. Could it be still possible in 2003 ?

*Wow, that's a really good point you make, dickbill. I never thought of it that way before, in connection to Franklin directly...(although I'm familiar with the "true scientific spirit of humility and preserverence"...Carl Sagan pointed this out in his works).

As for your question "Could it still be possible in 2003?" I could only hope, but the sad thing is that American society (IMO) seems to be becoming increasingly more coarse and rude, I mean to the point of really bad "taste."

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-08-14 11:52:17

I never thought of it that way before, in connection to Franklin directly...(although I'm familiar with the "true scientific spirit of humility and preserverence"...Carl Sagan pointed this out in his works).

B. Franklin was a scientist interested in electricity, he is famous for that. But how many times, before he could set up "the successful experiment", his experiments went wrong ?

It happened to me (except that I am not a famous biologist) how many times my experiment went wrong, I don't count it anymore. Many factors can go wrong, sometimes you even question yourself. Ultimatly, when you do a research experiment, your beloved 'working hypothesis', the one that you are so sure, is just plain wrong. Sometimes you want so strong that the experiment gives the result you expect to fit your hypothesis, that when it fails, you question the experimental conditions rather that your hypothesis. At one moment, you should not fool yourself but you also have to be perseverent, because if you give up too early, It might well be that the experimental conditions were indeed wrong and your 'working hypothesis' right. So science is a school of humility and perseverence. And prudence too, entire series of papers describing research experiment and their interpretations, referering to older paper that nobody care anymore to put in doubt, prove to be wrong many years after, when one lab, for some reason, decides to redo a 10 years old experiment and find new results, new interpretations. Suddenly, the more recent experiment build on the old one, don't make sense anymore and doubts are raised...
Probably Franklin has been influenced by his scientific quest, he said it actually, that he never pronounces definitive and
ultimate claims, even at the cost to pass for an indecit in other 's people eyes.

Palomar · 2003-08-14 12:15:12

I never thought of it that way before, in connection to Franklin directly...(although I'm familiar with the "true scientific spirit of humility and preserverence"...Carl Sagan pointed this out in his works).
B. Franklin was a scientist interested in electricity, he is famous for that. But how many times, before he could set up "the successful experiment", his experiments went wrong ?
It happened to me (except that I am not a famous biologist) how many times my experiment went wrong, I don't count it anymore. Many factors can go wrong, sometimes you even question yourself. Ultimatly, when you do a research experiment, your beloved 'working hypothesis', the one that you are so sure, is just plain wrong. Sometimes you want so strong that the experiment gives the result you expect to fit your hypothesis, that when it fails, you question the experimental conditions rather that your hypothesis. At one moment, you should not fool yourself but you also have to be perseverent, because if you give up too early, It might well be that the experimental conditions were indeed wrong and your 'working hypothesis' right. So science is a school of humility and perseverence. And prudence too, entire series of papers describing research experiment and their interpretations, referering to older paper that nobody care anymore to put in doubt, prove to be wrong many years after, when one lab, for some reason, decides to redo a 10 years old experiment and find new results, new interpretations. Suddenly, the more recent experiment build on the old one, don't make sense anymore and doubts are raised...
Probably Franklin has been influenced by his scientific quest, he said it actually, that he never pronounces definitive and
ultimate claims, even at the cost to pass for an indecit in other 's people eyes.

*Well, there's this (humorous) example of an experiment of his going wrong:

On December 23, 1770, Franklin was amusing himself and a group of
friends by conducting an experiment in an enclosed building with
electrical shocks...Franklin [uncharacteristically, I presume] allowed his attention to wander for whatever reason, didn't realize he was still holding the
negative wand; the charge continued to build, and then -POP-!...he
was knocked to the floor.

*It must be interesting, being a scientist. Sans bodily injury, of course.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-16 13:44:55

*Posted a few months ago by me at my Yahoo! "Age of Voltaire" Group. The 1st paragraph is a summation in my own words...the 2nd paragraph is a quote.

***

Newton's theories regarding gravitation and related works
(Principia Mathematica) served greatly to overthrow the Church's self-
proclaimed authority over science and its insistence on mystical
explanations rather than objective method and investigation for
explaining the causes and effects of natural phenomena. Newton's
theories provided a firm structure on which further scientific
investigation could be made -- he nearly single-handedly blew away
the Medieval/Church-controlled mentality by which science had been
stifled for centuries. The scientists of the Enlightenment
(including men who lived and worked in the 17th century) were a new,
progressive type: They built on the foundations of the old -- and
added onto them (provided, of course, the old was considered worthy
of being built onto; it was discarded if it weren't). As an example,
a new theory in geometry didn't invalidate past theories; instead,
the new theory was built on the old and added to them. This was
*the* marked difference of Enlightenment science.

Here's a quote from _Voltaire_ by Georg Brandes, which fits in
perfectly with my brief summation above: "Henceforth natural
phenomena were to be explained not as miracles, but as the working of
natural laws. And facing the rising sun of science, specters and
ghosts dissolved. It extinguished the pyres on which heretics, Jews
and witches had been burned alive. It broke the chains of the insane
and of the negro."

***

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-05-28 15:55:13

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#102 2003-06-05 09:06:31

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#103 2003-06-14 15:19:16

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#104 2003-06-14 16:27:17

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#105 2003-06-14 23:41:00

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#106 2003-06-15 09:13:29

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#107 2003-06-15 10:56:31

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#108 2003-06-15 12:58:32

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#109 2003-06-17 13:42:16

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#110 2003-06-26 09:31:15

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#111 2003-06-26 18:48:30

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#112 2003-06-27 06:05:43

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#113 2003-06-27 14:00:26

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#114 2003-06-28 07:03:58

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#115 2003-07-09 06:08:49

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#116 2003-07-09 14:09:43

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#117 2003-07-09 15:28:41

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#118 2003-07-09 15:38:08

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#119 2003-07-12 07:39:43

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#120 2003-08-14 05:37:21

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#121 2003-08-14 10:14:54

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#122 2003-08-14 10:49:24

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#123 2003-08-14 11:52:17

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#124 2003-08-14 12:15:12

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#125 2003-08-16 13:44:55

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

Board footer