Intellectual Revolution--Was's Postmodern Interpretation
The Intellectualhtt Revolution of the 16th-18th Centuries created a new Western Civilization that improved on its rational, mathematical interpretation of the universe and society. New ideas on government (applied in the US Constitution), new ideas on natural rights, new ideas on the penal code exploded throughout Europe, creating a new wave of skepticism that elevated Western Culture.
With that said, one cannot accept all aspects of this Revolution since it was driven by the bourgeoisie in hopes of crushing the feudal order and absolutism of the age. If this was not true, why was Great Britain not the leader during the 18th Century? The answer is obvious--the French bourgeoisie and liberal nobles desired a new society from from traditional restraints. No where does a historian see where these changes directly or indirectly positively impact the peasantry. Quite on the contrary, the peasantry found increase oppression, even during the French Revolution.
The Intellectual Revolution saw the world from the merchant point-of-view. Rationally, the philosphes wanted to recreate society to better serve their interests. Women were ignored, slavery (even though it was attacked) was continued even during the French Revolution.
With these thoughts, one can say the Intellectual Revolution created a new social caste system that was not better for society but in some ways more oppressive.
BTW--this is more of a Postmodern, Neo-Marxist view
33 Comments:
Also, what about the complete rejection of the soul, faith, and the irrational?
what replaced that? You have to have some morals or society would crumble. I can't believe that peasants rejected those things unless nobles made them. Peasants were trying to survive. They couldn't have had the time to think about the ideas going about.
Anyway, the rejection of the soul, faith, and the irrational was probably one of the main causes of the French Rev. People had no faith to believe for the better-nor were they given a reason to-and without faith one has no soul. So the irrational is...well...irrational...
I don't understand your question sledge. Of course they rejected religion (that is Christianity and the tradtional). They replaced it with the worship of reason. Hence, that entire rejection of traditions caused the chaos of the revolution
without traditions, there was no foundation for society to exist somewhat peacefully-like taking away the church but not replacing it with morals.
Is that right, Was?
Was?
Oh yeah, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family; I can't remember if I told you that earlier...
whit---a conservative historian would agree....a more liberal historian would identify tradition with oppression...
ps I did have agreat thanksgiving...thanks :)
It's as if France is in the Dark Ages or something-which is really ironic...
The new order I think was absolutely terrible the church was yet agian under state control. The Bourgeoisie was trying to become gods. I say that because they tried to control society. The Enlightenment led to the Sans- Couletts being with the philosophes, which caused the radical side of the French Revolution. The fact is though that to me all this was nessassary. While the peasants were more oppressed they were not truely ready for full freedom. That is shown in how violent the peasants were. If you disagree tell me but it over all while terrible and deadly was nessassary for us to move on. If all freedom had been given the society would be even more black. I personally think that the Enlightenment (and therefore the French Revolution) was all about the Third Estates different groups all trying to become gods.
By the way all other radicals don't bother only one blog name.
For an in depth French revolution debate visit http://Universalsuffrage.blogspot.com/
what do you mean by only one blog name ??
It's what Was said.
Awww-I was looking forward to the debate of the century. Seriuosly, guys that was funny! Was, you should just set up a post called "Debates" and let the great debaters go at it.
And I disagree anyway. The Third Estates weren't trying to become gods. The Bourgeoisie wanted to be nobles, so they could gain political power and be in the right estate. The Sans-culottes were just a bunch of radical cut throats who furhter manipulated the ignorant peasantry because they could. And the peasantry were just tired of being screwed around with-which is probably the only thing they realized was going on except they didn't target the right group of people-and had so much crap to put up with. Plus, they were starving on top of it all. They just wanted to have freedom from starvation. Why would they ever think to be a god?
The Bourgeoiesie was all about gaining noble status which I think they thought was Godly in status because it controlled all the political power. The Third Estate in general though was not the Bourgeoisie so I am sorry if that caused misunderstanding.
Sorry that the radical dogmas didn't become expressed, Stress
GO SMALL GOVERNMENT AND CONSERVATIVES (in the debate)
Come on the Enlightenment was all wrong. The liberal factors of the Enlightenment (about government)were all about the seperation of powers, and enlighten despots. The despots often ruined countries. That is why only conservatives offer freedom. (by the way this is part of the radical plan.)
hello
i love jacob lee
hi was
The Bourgeosie knew that they must use peasant emotions to throw themselves higher. They played emotions which is why they were Demigogues. It did not matter to them really because they did not use thier own emotions.
yeah, they basically said, "Nobles are why you're starving!!! So come, stu-we mean-oppressed peasants!!! It's time for change! Now!"
I understood your view, Blaze, but it confused me that you included the peasantry. You did say Third Estate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
well, allison, its me. i love jacob lee.
hi jacob i love you.
i'll give you some hints:
i'm a girl :)
i'm into asians
i'm into smart asians
I'M INTO JACOB LEES
(i would give you my phone number but than everyone would call me)
love, me!!!
p.s. i often walk by your chemistry class and see you. you're hot!
JACCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HEY ALISON!!!
JACOB THINKS I AM HIS LOVER, NOT YOU!!!!
HI CUTIEEE PIE :) LOVE YA JACOB!!
dont be afraid jacob, come cuddle with me any day!!! we'll hold each other all night long, just me and you in each other's arms. mmmmm...
WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!. This has to be a joke. It must be a joke. But either way Jacob Lee be very alert if your alone at night after Tennis. WAS IF YOU EVER REMEMBER THIS BLOG EXISTS THEN UPDATE IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Zack that is anarchy there is no one here to enforce the laws therefore everyone does as they wish. That is also called a power vacumn which is how greatly cruel dictators like Hitler come into power.
Reasons like that show that there muust be government, however the government must stay within their bounderies. The government should never be trying to control the economy. Perfect example communism was an economy that was in the long run the government was the economy. Governments should enforce the laws that are nessassary, protect young economic development, borders, and the general interest of society, but should leave the economy alone LET ALONE ECONOMICS not interefere when appears vital.
Ummmm, y'all do realize me and Jacob Lee go back further than any of you freshmen. I mean... back in the days of Flatland, we were quite the couple. Ahhhh, Sodium Pentathol and the whole Dharma Initiative!
who is "west-indian-dreamer"? who are you to tell ME to stop loving jacob lee?? i think your jealous. plus, who do you think i am? what's all this about
"I know who you're trying to pretend to be and to let the rest of you know, thats not who most of you would initially think it is."
i <3 jacob lee!!! i wish i were 18 and then i could propose to him!! mmmmm :)
and yes, the whole reason i set this up was to confess my love for HIM through a convenient outlet without people making fun of me...and i intend to keep my identity a secret!
love, me
ilovejacoblee, you're wasting blog space. Start another blog and spew your anonymous, incoherent, unrequited affections there.
west_indian_dreamer-
How did it benefit the lower classes then? They were starving. Natural freedoms/inalienable rights is great and all, but they don't put bread on the table or feed a hungry stomach.
true, true...
I was just asking.
Post a Comment
<< Home