Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Question 2: The goals of the philosophies were meant to exercise a set of ideals. Which common tenets of enlightened thinking do writers Mary Wollstonecraft and Denis Diderot advance in "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" and the selection from "Encyclopedie." Contemporary connections: Discuss how you see the tenets you identified in these works as having informed/influenced our contemporary experience.
Although Mary Wollstonecraft speaks about the rights of women specifically, her "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" stresses the value of rationality and reasonable discourse in keeping with Enlightenment principles that were particular to many other Enlightenment thinkers, including Diderot. Wollstonecraft argues one of the defects of male oppression of women is that it limits female education, and makes women more irrational. When men criticize women, men have essentially created a self-fulfilling prophesy. Women have not been allowed full venues to enrich themselves, which is the right of all human beings. Rational thought and education, Enlightenment thinkers such as Wollstonecraft, saw as the true purpose of human life.
In Denis Diderot's "Encyclopedie," the values of the Enlightenment over past superstition are advanced for all humanity, both men and women. Diderot saw understanding the world, rather than obeying the tenants...
Like Wollstonecraft saw ideas about female empowerment as rooted in outdated and cruel customs and superstition, Diderot saw Catholic dogma and social institutions that limited people's ability to express thoughts freely, experiment, and maximize their potential, as damaging to the true purpose of human life. Enlightenment thinking's embrace of reason, the individual, and a rejection of past tradition are all reflected in Diderot's distain for accepting authority based upon history, and his belief that the human mind could set us all free.
The debate about nature vs. nurture in terms of the socialization of the sexes still continues to this day, as does the value of rationality. In many states in America, the controversy over teaching evolution in schools is still raging, and although women are accepted in most positions of power, the notion of the similarity and equality of the sexes, and whether this is rooted in biology or socialization remains controversial. Through personal empowerment and social engineering, how much can we change human society? Wollstonecraft and Diderot argued that a great deal of change was possible, while conservative advocates of tradition and faith fear the repercussions of such change, and even some scientists argue that such social engineering is limited, ironically, by biology.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each formulated notions regarding human liberty in nearly the same social, political, and provincial circumstances. Although their most famous works were separated approximately forty years from one another, they were both wealthy members of seventeenth century English society during a period of particular social and religious turmoil. Similarly, both Hobbes and Locke sought to use reasoning to determine the most appropriate form of political and
Basically, Hobbes takes a long historical view of human society, and sees the continuation of civil societies -- i.e. those organized under governments -- as the prime necessity for any progress. Left in the state of nature, mankind could not be guaranteed the continued success of any long-term projects, and therefore would not desire to undertake them. Also, without the rule of law, many men would not feel any need
Hobbes vs. Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each provide intriguing opinions concerning the state of nature, but their thinking differs when considering the form of governing that each promotes as being the most effective. The individuals in Locke's example of a government appear to have greater security than those in Hobbes', as the latter considers that there would be nothing wrong with people renouncing some of their rights in order
So, who was right? Well, it seems that history has taught us again and again that in certain conditions, humans do express their evil and competitive natures (e.g. fascism, genocide, etc.); but that in other situations, the species can be incredibly giving and benevolent (think of Mother Theresa, people helping people). The complexity is that humans are not all one type or another, but a combination. Most sociologists believe
He favored a large and powerful government able to enforce its will on subjects, in order to control their natural unruliness. Locke, on the other hand thought men in the state of nature were good, but that due to their need to be secure in their property and to protect themselves from outside forces, they banded together to form a state to benefit themselves individually. He favored a limited
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: Perspectives on Governance and Power Though John Locke's theory of natural law and natural rights at first glance seem to oppose the conservative authoritarianism of Thomas Hobbes', both men set out to establish a framework for governance that would protect the rights of individuals. John Locke takes the approach that a democratic nation with a system of checks and balances was an essential ingredient to protecting