As we continue trying to understand the philosophy of the enlightenment (an admitted challenge for me I freely admit) we started with Newton’s mathematical explanation of the movement of planets. He completed this analysis without the use of metaphysics, the intellectual discipline where the observer would attempt to understand the entire nature of the item that they were studying, its existence and meaning, and then attempt to comprehend other specific characteristics of their subject based on that top down understanding.
We then discussed how the enlightenment used skepticism as a jumping off point for all discussions. This was not a bad thing as saying “prove it” is still the best way to approach scientific hypotheticals, but that very skepticism began to devour the movement as philosophers began to question the very inputs to scientific analysis, because those inputs were based on our senses and those senses could not be trusted. We closed with the philosopher David Hume who believed that, because of this skepticism, “all knowledge degenerates into probability” as there was no way to have absolute knowledge once we doubt the input of our senses.
But the success of Newton mathematical model of planetary movement made the scientific study of mankind inevitable. That study changes the “nature” of man from something that was “created in His image” to just another animal. When we explored the Hebrew’s Ten Commandments, we looked at the first commandment (I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.) and we discussed the second half of that first sentence. God did not just bring the Hebrews out of the Egypt and bondage, he (presumably) brought all of us as well. That freedom from bondage means that we possess free will. But, if man is now at the center of the universe, and man’s existence and thoughts can be explained by science, then the very concept of free will is brought into question. In fact, our reason, our immortality, our uniqueness as creatures would also, by definition, disappear. The French intellectual Mettrie’s book “Man as Machine” in 1748 makes precisely this point. Man, as a machine, loses any of the mystery that made him special, divine even, to this point.
The enlightenment philosophers began to contemplate the complication to traditional thinking that man, as just another animal, creates in the philosophical world. In the same way that the sun replaces the earth as the center of the universe, then cannot man replace God at the center of the universe? And if that happens, then what happens to man’s humanity? They thought it would be possible to turn the study of philosophy from its past outward focus on God and metaphysics, to an inward study of man himself. In addition, scientific skepticism, taken to its extreme, calls into question all knowledge. Man cannot really understand causality because the relationship that man believes to exist, may or may not be real. The fact that a past action caused a reaction is no guarantee that it will have the same effect the next time that action is taken. The best we can have is a kind of contingent truth or Hume’s “probability”. At its extreme, this formulation destroys science because science is the study of causation.
This concept is probably most famously articulated by Immanuel Kant. In his “Critique of Pure Reason” Kant takes the earlier scientific “skepticism” of the movement to its next level. In Kant’s view, no amount of analysis of the subjects gets us to an understanding of the results. As an example, Kant takes the simple equation of 7+5=12 and says that no amount of analysis of the number 7, and no amount of analysis of the number 5 will show anything regarding the number 12. Therefore, that equation, and all mathematical equations, are a synthetic judgement.[1] And if that is true, then all previous knowledge is called into question because none of it is self-evident.
Regardless, Kant attempts to defend rationalism and seeks to understand not only what happens in nature, but what must happen in nature in a causal relationship. Ultimately, the question that his “Critique” seeks to solve is how is any synthetic knowledge, including science, possible? He attempts to solve this by saying that the objects of our study have to conform to human knowledge rather than human knowledge conforming to objects. He would say that certain things are already part of the human mind, concepts such as time for instance, and that objects must fall into these pre conceived ideas to be known. He believed that humans cannot know things for which their experience is insufficient. Because of this limitation, things like God, or freedom, or the soul, may exist, but we cannot know them.
As we contemplate the philosophies that became western civilization, it is helpful to see the enlightenment as the birth of many modern sciences. The elevation of observation and scientific skepticism over metaphysics is responsible for the birth of the sciences of psychology, economics, and anthropology. This knowledge developed an anti-authoritarian bend in that the philosophers of the time viewed their newfound knowledge as a challenge not only to the beliefs of those who went before them, but also to the very authority of previous generations.
Next time we will explore the political implications of this movement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reaso
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Johnk, another excellent article. Keep up the good work
Today, Kant would be criticized for saying that 7 plus 5 is always 12.