18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-16 17:31:54

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.

really? I always read that he wanted to reconcile the rift with church and science. I believe that there is no true division and that both sides have polarized the issue.

Palomar · 2003-08-16 20:54:29

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.
really? I always read that he wanted to reconcile the rift with church and science. I believe that there is no true division and that both sides have polarized the issue.

*I'm not (yet) overly familiar with Newton's personal life. I do know that he believed in God. As to whether he worked and/or hoped for a reconciliation between religion and science, I can't confirm or deny it at this point in time (because my current Enlightenment studies revolve around Mozart, d'Alembert, the history of the Encyclopedia Project, Thomas Paine and Catherine the Great...whew! Enough already! But I love it!).

The 1st paragraph was my summarization of material I'd read in _Science and the Enlightenment; Cambridge History of Science Series_ by Thomas L. Hankins. Will & Ariel Durant's material about Newton in _The Age of Voltaire_ agrees with that of Mr. Hankins's, regarding the impact the _Principia Mathematica_ had on Enlightenment philosophy.

That's the gist of the post: The impact of the _Principia Mathematica_ on Enlightenment philosophy.

I should have reworded that one particular sentence a little more clearly; I can see how my wording could create some confusion. Sorry about that; it wasn't intentional.

"...investigation could be made -- which nearly single-handedly blew away..." is perhaps a better way of saying it.

Again, it's the impact of the _Principia Mathematica_ on
Enlightenment philosophy which the post relates.

I don't yet know how familiar (or unfamiliar) Newton himself was with trends in philosophy current to his time. Newton died in 1727, shortly before the Enlightenment really began "hitting its stride" in the 1740s.

In 1727 (year of Newton's death), Voltaire was only in his early 30s and known as a poet and playwright; he would become world famous as a philosopher later. Other "major players" in the 18th century were either very young or perhaps not yet born: In 1727, Denis Diderot was 14 years old and Jean le Rond d'Alembert was 13 years old. Thomas Paine wouldn't be born until 1737.

Newton's intentions regarding the _Principia Mathematica_ may or may not have been different from the course it took in Enlightenment philosophy (again, I don't yet know at this point in time, not having studied Newton's life indepth). Of course, anything any author "puts out there" can take on a life of its own...whether or not the author would have approved.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-18 21:33:58

*Are there any Antonio Vivaldi fans here? I just "discovered" him this past weekend, and picked up a CD entitled "The Best of Vivaldi." He's definitely "up there", in my estimation, with Bach and Mozart. I could write a dozen adjectives to describe his music...check him out, give his spectacular music a listen. One piece of his music can nearly move you to tears...another makes you want to dance; "profound" is the most complimentary adjective I can think of to describe his music.

http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/vivaldi.html

http://www.antonio-vivaldi.org/

http://www.naxos.com/composer/vivaldi.htm

And, of course, more links can be found by searching Google with his name. Viva Vivaldi!

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-19 01:38:20

A brief comment on Newton.
Apparently he wrote far more about the pseudo-science of alchemy than he ever did about science and mathematics!
He was a strange man; very complex and definitely not universally liked. From memory, I believe he had a long-running feud with someone almost as famous ... Robert Hooke, I think(?). There were even accusations of plagiarism by one against the other - not sure who was accuser and whom the accused though!

The Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment were phenomenal periods of learning and change. Without any intentional disrespect to Prometheusunbound, who is no doubt very well informed in such matters, I can understand the thrust of the writings Cindy draws attention to.
As long as there was no rational explanation for natural events, there was ample room for the church(es) to put everything down to direct divine intervention. The growth of scientific knowledge simply made it easier for the less religiously-inclined to say: "Whoa Neddy! I don't believe farmer Brown's barn was hit by lightning because he didn't go to church last Sunday. It wasn't the act of a vengeful deity; it was just a natural accident. We won't let the barn burn down because we fear divine retribution. Let's go get some buckets and help the poor ba****d save his property!!"

Religion is an amazing phenomenon in itself, though. If we look at different historical eras, we can see long periods of time during which a particular religion held sway. Whole nations and even groups of nations held certain beliefs to be absolutely true, and did so for centuries.
Let's take Egypt as a 'for instance'. The scriptural stories of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Set underpinned a religion which lasted many many centuries. Ra, the Sun god, was firmly believed to embark on a boat in the west at sunset, sail through the underworld each night, and reappear in the east at dawn to shine once more during his passage across the sky. This was the state religion and nobody seriously doubted its veracity.
Today, we have christianity, judaism, buddhism and islam as the world's religions. Their scriptures are just as rich and complex as their predecessors and vast numbers of sincere people hold their teachings to be true.
But just because these religions exist today, doesn't make them any more valid than any organised religion of the past. From the point of view of the outsider, each religion (whether extant or extinct) looks just as quaint in its formal doctrines as any other.

Science, on the other hand, stands alone in revealing truths which are valid in all countries and in all times. For example, atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. This applies in Egypt, America, and Australia and it applies today, 5,000 years ago, and 2 billion years hence!
To an outsider all of today's religions look equally valid. And there is absolutely no reason to think they won't pass away into the pages of history as time goes on, only to be replaced, perhaps, with other religions which will be just as earnestly believed in and adhered to.
But the applied science which allows us to generate electricity and light up the darkness will be just as valid after the next ice age as it is now!

There is no truth but truth! (Apologies to islam! ). May the Renaissance never end and the Age of Enlightenment go on enlightening us forever. Amen!

Palomar · 2003-08-19 08:21:01

A brief comment on Newton.
Apparently he wrote far more about the pseudo-science of alchemy than he ever did about science and mathematics!
He was a strange man; very complex and definitely not universally liked.

*Regarding Newton, a member of my Yahoo! Group posted, months ago, saying he'd seen a television program wherein it was claimed Newton studied Bible prophecy indepth -- for 50 years! He also supposedly made a prediction that the world would end in 2060. I can't verify whether these are true or not; again, I'm relating with a member posted.

I did happen to read an article earlier this year, wherein it was strongly speculated that Newton and a few other mega-geniuses may have had a form of autism. I can't remember the precise name, but this type of autism makes people rather antisocial, disagreeable, argumentative, etc.

Regardless, _Principia Mathematica_ got us to the moon and back.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-20 01:37:23

Cindy's quote:-

Regardless. _Principia Mathematica_ got us to the moon and back.

Never a truer word spoken! If that's autism, maybe we should all have it!!!
:laugh:

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-20 19:08:03

There is no truth but truth! (Apologies to islam! ). May the Renaissance never end and the Age of Enlightenment go on enlightening us forever. Amen!

Why apoligize to islam and ingore judaism and christianity?

Careful, or you may meet some dangerous Calvinists, the ones your parents told you to stay away from. :angry:

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-20 20:49:13

Uh-oh!
I'd hate to have to fend off a screaming horde of enraged Calvinists!!

I didn't intend any offence toward judaism and christianity or wish to show any favouritism toward islam. It's just that one of islam's standard prayers, or statements of faith if you prefer, is: "There is no god but God".
Since I paraphrased it for my own purposes, I thought it only polite to make my apologies.

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-21 11:35:18

oh ok, no offense taken. . . I see now what you mean.

Palomar · 2003-08-22 08:54:28

I had the good fortune of finding _The Wit & Wisdom of Benjamin
Franklin_ in a bookstore the other day...I'll share a fable:

"An eagle, King of the Birds, sailing on his wings aloft over a
farmer's yard, saw a cat there basking in the sun, mistook it for a
rabbit, stooped, seized it, and carried it up into the air, intending
to prey on it.

The cat turning, set her claws into the eagle's breast; who, finding
his mistake, opened his talons, and would have let her drop. But
puss, unwilling to fall so far, held faster; and the eagle, to get
rid of the inconvenience, found it necessary to set her down where he
took her up."

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-28 13:01:49

My favorite image of Voltaire (what a cutie!)

*There's nothing like a little Voltaire to lift the spirits.

The following was posted to my "Age of Voltaire" group months ago, from the online _Philosophical Dictionary_. Voltaire -- a very compassionate and kind-hearted man -- stands up for the dignity of animals and calls for humane treatment of them, in his characteristically eloquent style. The notion that animals were mere machines devoid of senses, memory, etc., was rather popular in his time; he denounced this idea, as will be seen below:

The Philosophical Dictionary
Voltaire
Selected and Translated by H.I. Woolf
New York: Knopf, 1924
Scanned by the Hanover College Department of History in 1995.
Proofread and pages added by Jonathan Perry, March 2001.

**Animals**

"What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are
machines bereft of understanding and feeling, which perform their
operations always in the same way, which learn nothing, perfect
nothing, etc.!

What! That bird which makes its nest in a semi-circle when it is
attaching it to a wall, which builds it in a quarter circle when it is
in an angle, and in a circle upon a tree; that bird acts always in the
same way? That hunting-dog which you have disciplined for three
months, does it not know more at the end of this time than it knew
before your lessons? Does the canary to which you teach a tune repeat
it at once? Do you not spend a considerable time in teaching it? Have
you not seen that it has made a mistake and that it corrects itself?

Is it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling,
memory, ideas? Well, I do not speak to you; you see me going home
looking disconsolate, seeking a paper anxiously, opening the desk
where I remember having shut it, finding it, reading it joyfully. You
judge that I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of
pleasure, that I have memory and understanding.

Bring the same judgment to bear on this dog which has lost its master,
which has sought him on every road with sorrowful cries, which enters
the house agitated, uneasy, which goes down the stairs, up the stairs,
from room to room, which at last finds in his study the master it
loves, and which shows him its joy by its cries of delight, by its
leaps, by its caresses.

Barbarians seize this dog, which in friendship surpasses man so
prodigiously; they nail it on a table, and they dissect it alive in
order to show the mesenteric veins. You discover in it all the same
organs of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has
nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal so that it may
not feel? Has it nerves in order to be impassible? Do not suppose this
impertinent contradiction in nature."

***

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-09-06 10:38:09

*Posted in June 2002 by me, to my "Age of Voltaire" group:

"If we divide mankind into twenty parts, it will be found that
nineteen of these consist of persons employed in manual labor, who
will never know that a man such as Mr. Locke existed. In the
remaining twentieth part, how few are readers? And among such as are
so, twenty amuse themselves with romances to one who studies
philosophy. The thinking part of mankind is confined to a very small
number, and these will never disturb the peace and tranquility of the
world...All the works of modern philosophers put together will never
raise so much commotion as did the dispute among the Franciscans, over
the cut of their sleeves and cowls." (from "On Mr. Locke" by
Voltaire, in _Philosophical Letters from England_, 1733).

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-09-11 19:45:06

"Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion"

By Benjamin Franklin -- who else?!

Once again, from _The Wit & Wisdom_ of Benjamin Franklin. Soon to be posted to my "Age of Voltaire" group...I'll post it here for reading first.

Warning! The following may make you chuckle at least once!

--

"Your business is to shine; therefore, you must by all means prevent the shining of others, for their brightness may make yours the less distinguished. To this end:

1. If possible, engross the whole discourse; and when other matters fail, talk much of yourself, your education, your knowledge, your circumstances, your successes in business, your victories in disputes, your own wise sayings and observations on particular occasions, etc., etc., etc.

2. If when you are out of breath, one of the company should seize the opportunity of saying something, watch his words and, if possible, find somewhat either in his sentiment or expression, immediately to contradict and raise a dispute on. Rather than fail, criticize even his grammar.

3. If another should be saying an indisputably good thing, either give no attention to it or interrupt him; or draw away the attention of others; or, if you can guess what he would be at, be quick and say it before him; or, if he get it said, and you perceive the company pleased with it, admit it to be a good thing and then remark that it had been said by Bacon, Locke, Bayle, or some other eminent writer. Thus you deprive him of the reputation he might have gained by it, and gain some yourself, as you hereby show your great reading and memory.

4. When modest men have been thus treated by you a few times, they will choose ever after to be silent in your company."

--

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-12 01:45:03

Many thanks, Cindy!
Those last four posts were very entertaining.
Especially the instruction manual on how to be a disagreeable bore, by the inimitable Mr. Franklin. :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-09-17 18:26:33

Many thanks, Cindy!
Those last four posts were very entertaining.
Especially the instruction manual on how to be a disagreeable bore, by the inimitable Mr. Franklin. :laugh:

*No problemo, Mr. Barrett. The pleasure's all mine.

***

Posted this evening by me to my "Age of Voltaire" group:

More praise from Frederick the Great to Voltaire, in their elder years. The
following is taken from _Voltaire_ by Mr. Georg Brandes:

"Do you wish compliments? I will tell you the truth: I esteem you
the greatest genius that centuries have created. I admire your
poems. I love your prose, especially the brief frivolous parts of
your miscellaneous writings. Never before has any writer had such
perfect tact, such a sure and refined taste. You are charming in
conversation; you know how to instruct and to entertain at the same
time.

You are the most fascinating person I know, able to make yourself
loved by anyone you wish. You have so much charm in your wit that
you can offend and be forgiven at the same time.

In short, you would be perfect, if you were not human.

For man, everything depends upon the time [in which] he is born.
Although I was born far too early, I am not sorry, for I have seen
Voltaire; and even though I see him no more, I read him and and he
writes to me."

--Cindy (I'm envious!)

My group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ageofvoltaire

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-17 20:13:31

Gosh! I knew this Voltaire character was a cut above the average philosopher (spot the understatement! ) but this praise by Frederick really underlines Voltaire's almost God-like talent, intellect, self-assurance and social savoir-faire.
Thank goodness I never met him! The poor man would have been bored to distraction.

Palomar · 2003-09-24 10:40:45

Thank goodness I never met him! The poor man would have been bored to distraction.

*No, I think Voltaire would have liked talking with you. He wasn't big on "small talk," but he did enjoy conversation (obviously). He was known to wander around the grounds of his estates and talk with peasants (there is also a painting of him talking with peasants -- with his hands folded in a definite gesture of deference and humility; see link below). He also hosted weddings for his servants (who were peasants) in his own home, at his own expense! He was a real sweetheart.

http://humanities.uchicago.edu/homes/VS … sants.jpeg

I posted this last year to my "Age of Voltaire" group:

"You profound and extravagant philosopher, you enemy of Descartes,
who deceived yourself like him; you whose physical errors are great
but pardonable, because you came before Newton, you who did first
display the chimeras of innate ideas, you who were the forerunner of
Locke in many things, as well as Spinoza, in vain did you astonish
your readers by almost succeeding to prove to them that there are no
laws in the world but the laws of conventions; that there is no
justice or injustice but what has been agreed upon as in such a
country.

If you had been alone with Cromwell on a deserted island, and
Cromwell would have killed you for having been a partisan of your
king in the island of England, would not such an attempt appear to
you as unjust on the desert island as in your own England?

You said in your _Law of Nature_ that 'every one having a right to
all things, each has a right over the life of his own likeness.' Do
you not confuse power with right? Do you think that, in fact, power
conveys right? And that a robust son has nothing to reproach himself
with for having murdered his old and decrepit father?

Whoever studies morality should begin by refuting your book in his
heart."

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-09-24 12:22:57

*I thought I'd make a 2nd post today, as an "appendage" of sorts to the post above (written earlier in the day):

Voltaire was a good-hearted man, very generous and kind. Here are a few examples:

1. He gave the profits of his plays to the actors in them (who were poor, coming as they did from the lower classes).

2. His mistress, Madame Emilie du Chatelet (who died in 1749 at the age of 43; Voltaire died in 1778), frequently complained about Voltaire paying his servants more than she paid hers.

3. When a Madame de Grafigny spent the winter of 1744 or 1745 (can't recall which at the moment) with Voltaire and Emilie at their estate in Cirey, Mme. de Grafigy told the company at the table one evening of the horrible beatings her ex-husband (yes, she was legally granted a divorce...in that day and age, when divorce was nearly unheard of) used to give her. She recorded in her diary that Voltaire had tears in his eyes, and asked her in a very sad voice why none of her friends had come to her aid (neither he nor Emilie had met her prior to her winter's stay with them).

4. Voltaire was eating breakfast one morning when he learned, via letter, that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was being persecuted for material he'd published. Rousseau had emotional difficulties, and had previously lashed out irrationally in letters and pamphlets against Voltaire and other colleagues who cared for him. Voltaire forgave this; he began to cry when hearing Rousseau was in danger of imprisonment and wrote 7 letters (to 7 different addresses), hoping Rousseau would receive one of them: Voltaire invited Rousseau to his home, for safety and protection; Voltaire said, "I will receive him as a son."

5. Voltaire became a self-made, wealthy man. Upon hearing of a person or family going through a tragedy, he would send money to them...even if he did not know them.

6. When Mrs. Calas (whose husband had been tortured and put to death for a crime he didn't commit, which Voltaire heard about after it had occurred) and her family were awaiting the French court's final decision -- whether Mr. Calas' name would be "cleared" and restored to dignity -- Voltaire allowed she and her children to stay in his home in Paris, provided for them (they were peasants), and when the trial was over (Mr. Calas was, postmortem, cleared of all charges, found innocent, and his name restored to dignity) Voltaire gave the family additional money to get back up on their feet. Calas had been 69 years old when he'd been tortured and broken on the wheel. When Voltaire heard the story, he was doubtful a man that age could have committed a crime based on fanaticism (Calas' son had hung himself; it was put about that the old man killed his son in a fit of religious fervor regarding the allegation that Calas Jr. had wanted to convert to Catholicism), and demanded the French courts actually try the case, find and look at the FACTS, and if possible to clear Calas' name...which is precisely what did happen.

7. Voltaire dropped a slander lawsuit he'd opened against a man who was maliciously and consistently slandering his name, when the man's old father came to Voltaire, crying, and asking Voltaire to drop the lawsuit. Voltaire listened, then he too began crying with the old father, and dropped the lawsuit.

8. A young girl, orphaned, happened to come to Voltaire's attention when he was an old man. He did not wish to see her placed in an orphanage, and no one in his little village of Ferney could or wanted to adopt her. Voltaire named her "Belle-et-Bonne" ("Beautiful-and-Good"), and adopted her as his daughter. He provided a generous dowry for her, found a good husband for her when she was of marrying age, and left her in his Will. Years after his death, when his coffin was carried in a grand procession through the Paris streets and he was buried in the Pantheon with highest honors, Belle-et-Bonne and her husband, dressed in black, walked behind the coffin.

There are many other examples.

--Cindy

alokmohan · 2003-09-25 04:12:40

Cindy,your posts are useful.But Newton was very much pro chrch.I may convince you later on .

Palomar · 2003-09-25 11:52:35

Cindy,your posts are useful.

*Thank you.

But Newton was very much pro chrch.

*Yes, he was a religious man.

I may convince you later on .

*That might not be necessary; please read my post dated August 16, 2003 (page #10 of this thread). This may save you the time and trouble of typing a lengthy explanation of Newton's religious sentiments.

As mentioned previously, I was primarily addressing the matter of the impact the _Mathematica Principia_ had on the secular free-thinking philosophical community (not Newton's religious sentiments, which I am aware he had).

Thank you.

--Cindy

alokmohan · 2003-09-26 04:05:45

Then it is alright.Newton as a man was mean.I cant call him religious also.

Palomar · 2003-09-27 09:42:25

I posted this last year to my "Age of Voltaire" group:
"You profound and extravagant philosopher, you enemy of Descartes,
who deceived yourself like him;...

*Oh good grief. I couldn't remember which of Voltaire's quotes I'd shared here. I checked back, and see I didn't give the reference ::slaps self on forehead::

He's referring to Hobbes...author of "Leviathan", etc. Sorry.

--Cindy

alokmohan · 2003-09-28 04:08:01

fORGET Voltare for now.Do you agree newton was mean person?

Palomar · 2003-09-28 08:22:12

fORGET Voltare for now.Do you agree newton was mean person?

*Alokmohan: I don't know if Newton was a mean person or not. I've not -yet- been studying his life. I have posted regarding Newton in the context of:

The impact his _Mathematica Principia_ had upon the secular philosophers of the time.

I have so many avenues of study currently open regarding the 18th century that I cannot possibly cover an entire century (including the last 3 decades of the 17th century) at one time.

If you want to discuss Newton in his private life, that's fine. I'll read what you post.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-09-28 14:58:47

"You profound and extravagant philosopher, you enemy of Descartes,
who deceived yourself like him;

Hi Cindy,

Just about Descartes, Voltaire was anti Descartes, why's that ? do you know more about this and why being an enemy of Descartes was apparently supposed to be a good thing at that time ?
Poor Descartes, it doesn't deserve to be treated that way.

It's actually the second time that I see a negative content in a Voltaire comment, the first was about the "barbarians" who vivisected animals. I know...I'm not gonna argue here, in 2003, in support of vivisection, I have learned by heart my politically correct "what to say and how to say it for dummies" dictionary, but in the contest of that time, I am not so sure that the first physiologists or biologists were all barbarians because they used living animals for experiments.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2003-08-16 17:31:54

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#127 2003-08-16 20:54:29

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#128 2003-08-18 21:33:58

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#129 2003-08-19 01:38:20

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#130 2003-08-19 08:21:01

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#131 2003-08-20 01:37:23

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#132 2003-08-20 19:08:03

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#133 2003-08-20 20:49:13

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#134 2003-08-21 11:35:18

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#135 2003-08-22 08:54:28

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#136 2003-08-28 13:01:49

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#137 2003-09-06 10:38:09

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#138 2003-09-11 19:45:06

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#139 2003-09-12 01:45:03

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#140 2003-09-17 18:26:33

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#141 2003-09-17 20:13:31

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#142 2003-09-24 10:40:45

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#143 2003-09-24 12:22:57

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#144 2003-09-25 04:12:40

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#145 2003-09-25 11:52:35

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#146 2003-09-26 04:05:45

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#147 2003-09-27 09:42:25

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#148 2003-09-28 04:08:01

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#149 2003-09-28 08:22:12

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

#150 2003-09-28 14:58:47

Re: 18th Century: Age of Enlightenment

Board footer