Enlightenment Thought: Reason, Nature, and Human Freedom

Enlightenment Reason: Finite Yet Critical

Reason during the Enlightenment was considered finite, limited by experience. It cannot surpass experimental limits, yet within the realm of experience, reason can potentially know everything. Within experience, reason is autonomous and self-sufficient, limited only by itself. It governs itself, independent of trends, customs, or traditions. Reason is inherently critical; it must subject everything to critique and judgment. Kant's conception of reason, while also critical and autonomous, acknowledges its limits, suggesting that what lies beyond experience either doesn't exist or cannot be proven.

The Enlightenment Concept of Man

This era moved towards a new humanism, emphasizing freedom from religious and moral pressures or coercion. Reason must be free, mirroring the freedom required in its application. An individual cannot be truly free without the knowledge necessary for informed choices. Two primary forces were seen as limiting freedom: religion and traditional education. Enlightenment thinkers sought societal forms based on reason, free from arbitrary limitations. This ideal of the free individual is embodied in the figure of the philosopher – wise, governed by reason, and free-spirited. Rousseau opposed religions based on revelation, arguing they were not governed by reason or verifiable metaphysics. He advocated for:

• Natural morality
• Natural law
• Natural religion
• Natural freedom

Rousseau on Religion

Rousseau criticized revealed religion, viewing it as an obstacle to intellectual progress. Revealed religions contain supernatural mysteries incomprehensible to reason, making them incompatible with rational freedom. Faith, in this view, stands in opposition to reason. (Faith, often described as a gift involving trust in divine revelation, makes religion inaccessible to purely rational knowledge.) Everything, Rousseau argued, should align with nature. A natural religion would be devoid of mysteries, staying within the bounds of reason. Deism serves as an example: it affirms God's existence as a supreme being knowable through reason, not faith, thereby removing constraints imposed by revealed dogma. Atheism, in contrast, denies revealed religion and potentially God's existence. (Some argued against the possibility of theoretical atheists.) Anti-theism actively opposes theism. Agnosticism, distinct from atheism, maintains that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable.

Rousseau on Morality

Rousseau opposed traditional Christian morality, deeming it coercive. He proposed a morality identified with nature—a form of moral psychology based on sentiment rather than pure reason or intellect. By following nature, humans tend towards inherent goodness; therefore, if nature is good, it deserves attention. Morality should highlight nature's work, favoring instincts that lead to happiness. Rousseau's morality is founded on two primary emotions:

• Self-love (amour de soi): Natural self-esteem and the drive for self-preservation (distinct from vanity or amour-propre).
• Compassion (pitié): A natural repugnance at seeing any sentient being suffer, which moderates excessive self-love.

Morality involves the explicit development and balancing of these two originating feelings, guiding individuals towards achieving happiness. Individuals have a duty (obligation) to be happy and, consequently, to contribute to the happiness of others. Anything promoting happiness and well-being is considered good; anything generating pain or suffering is considered bad. Compliance with civil law allows individuals to pursue their own well-being within society, enabling harmonious relationships. (Tolerance, in this context, involves the capacity to understand others' perspectives.)