History of Philosophy

Philosophy of the Modern Age

English Enlightenment

The philosophy of the 18th century is termed the Enlightenment because philosophers and scholars of the era aimed to discover an ideal model of a happy society, which they envisioned through enlightenment. They attributed the woes of European society to the low level of education among the masses, believing that limited knowledge prevented people from building effective social institutions and interpersonal relationships. They held that enlightening people, i.e., imparting knowledge to them, would enable them to construct a society where all would feel fulfilled. This mission of enlightenment shaped the principal directions of Enlightenment philosophy. If the Enlightenment thinkers sought to enlighten people to create a happy society, then the main themes of philosophy during this time were dictated by this goal. Enlightenment thinkers were concerned with issues of knowledge, society, religion, and morality. Although the Enlightenment spanned all of Europe, its main centers were England, France, and Germany. The Enlightenment had clear chronological boundaries: it lasted one century, beginning in 1690 with John Locke’s "Essays" and ending in 1790 with the death of Adam Smith, the founder of classical economic theory. Enlightenment philosophy, particularly in England and France, exhibited several distinct characteristics:

• Enlightenment thinkers abandoned Latin and began writing in their native languages.
• They adopted a path of philosophical minimalism, focusing on narrower topics, unlike Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, and others who developed grand philosophical systems.
• In epistemology, Enlightenment thinkers were empiricists, contrasting with the rationalists of the previous century. Their empirical orientation led them to critique the mathematics favored by their predecessors and embrace natural science.
• Enlightenment philosophy was marked by criticism. Everything inherited from previous epochs was subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
• There was a growing interest in societal matters. Law, history, economics, politics, and other fields became subjects of lively debate.

The foremost and most influential representative of English Enlightenment was John Locke (1632-1704), a contemporary of Spinoza. Locke began writing quite late and did not publish anything until the age of 57, but in his mature years, he authored numerous works with a profound impact. Among them, his two significant works are "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" and "Two Treatises of Government."

• In the realm of epistemology, Locke adhered to empiricism, asserting that experience is the source of knowledge. He reiterated Thomas Aquinas’s dictum "Nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu" (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses). For Locke, the sole path to knowledge is experience. However, he understood experience broadly, distinguishing between external experience (of the surrounding world) and internal experience (of processes within the soul). Locke termed knowledge of the external world as sensations and knowledge of the internal world as reflections. Locke’s analysis of empirical knowledge focused not on what is known but on how knowledge is acquired. The result of sensory perception, i.e., what is imprinted on the mind after the act of knowing, Locke called ideas. There are two kinds of ideas. Primary ideas, which exist independently of the subject (e.g., the size of an object exists whether or not someone measures it), and secondary ideas, which arise from the interaction between object and subject (e.g., a dish has taste only when it interacts with a person’s taste buds). Locke inherited the distinction between primary and secondary qualities from Galileo. Experience generates simple ideas, described in logic as simple categorical judgments (e.g., "The table is wooden"). From simple ideas, the mind forms complex ones (e.g., the idea of substance). To form complex ideas, the mind requires not just experience but also specific faculties that enable this process. Locke argued that both experience and mechanisms for processing it are necessary for accumulating knowledge.
• In political philosophy, Locke, like Hobbes, subscribed to the social contract theory but believed that human beings are motivated to form such a contract by their benevolent nature rather than a malevolent one. Human nature is good, and people aspire to do good. However, this aspiration can only be effective when organized. To ensure organization, people created the state. Thus, Locke believed that the state is formed to realize humanity’s good dispositions. The state can fulfill this function only when governed by the rule of law. Locke emphasized the unconditional value and inviolability of natural law.

Since no one is above the law, and everyone (including the king) is bound to obey it, Locke supported constitutional monarchy rather than absolute monarchy, as under a constitutional monarchy, the king is accountable to the people. He was the first thinker to propose the division of power into legislative, executive, and federal branches. Locke did not separate the judicial branch, as in the English legal tradition, the judiciary is independent of the state.

• In religious philosophy, Locke, like most Enlightenment thinkers, upheld the concept of natural religion. Religious belief is natural to humans, and one can derive fundamental religious tenets through the study of nature and reason, without divine revelation. Reason should be the criterion for the truth of religion. For Locke, Christianity was the most acceptable religion, as it represents a natural religion.

George Berkeley (1685-1753) was an Anglican priest in Ireland, becoming a bishop in 1734. Berkeley made a significant contribution to English philosophy. Like Locke, Berkeley adhered to empiricism, but in a much more radical form. Berkeley believed that abstract concepts do not exist at all: they are neither in reality nor in the mind. One cannot think of "color in general," but only of some specific color. Only individual objects exist, and generalities can only be words. The sole source of knowledge about individual objects is the senses. From this, Berkeley concluded that the content of natural science should be exclusively empirical data. Since mathematics relies on reason rather than experience, Berkeley opposed the use of mathematics in natural science.

If the only source of knowledge is the senses, then nothing outside of the senses is accessible to humans. Thus, in their cognitive activity, humans can rely solely on their senses. Berkeley’s empiricism thus evolved into sensualism, the doctrine that humans accumulate knowledge only through sensory experience. If the senses do not perceive something, it means that it does not exist. The senses do not perceive matter as such. Therefore, it does not exist.

The third prominent figure of the English Enlightenment was David Hume (1711-1776). Like Locke, he analyzed not the things of reality, but human perceptions of them. He divided knowledge into impressions, which are derived from experience, and ideas, which are produced by the mind based on impressions. Accordingly, science studies two subjects: the relations between ideas and facts. The former is the domain of mathematics; it does not operate on experience.

For example, the Pythagorean theorem describes the relationship between two ideas (hypotenuse and legs), regardless of whether such a figure exists in reality or not. The latter (facts) is the domain of natural science. Both subjects of knowledge have their issues: the relations between ideas are reliable and incontrovertible, but they have no relation to reality; facts are related to reality but are not reliable.

The main question Hume grappled with was the problem of expanding knowledge and the possibility of science. The mind can produce new knowledge when future events are predicted based on past facts. However, there is no logical law that allows for connecting facts in causal relationships. So why do people link facts together? Hume believed that this is a result of tradition: if in the past one fact followed another, it gave grounds to expect the same sequence in the future. Thus, the basis for connecting facts is not causal relationships but habit.

Habit became the central concept in Hume’s philosophy. With its help, he explained absolutely everything. Hume believed in God but considered the content of religion to be a product of habit. Similarly, he thought that morality and law have no objective basis but have developed over millennia as a habit of acting in certain ways.

In shaping the most significant philosophical doctrines of the English Enlightenment, another key figure was Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713), a pupil of Locke, who criticized contemporary philosophy. He asserted that neither strict rationalism nor dry empiricism could reveal the harmony of the world and bring happiness to humanity. Only morality could achieve this task. Therefore, Shaftesbury focused on moral philosophy. The main tenet of his philosophy was the dictum: whether a person has innate knowledge or acquires it through experience, they seek happiness and should act morally. He defended the autonomy of ethics, arguing that goodness explains itself and does not require an authority to give it weight. Moral actions elicit pleasure, just like beauty. If the essence of beauty is harmony, then it is also the essence of goodness. Goodness is what harmonizes with human nature. In ethics before Shaftesbury, the prevailing belief was that seeking one's own advantage was wrong. Hobbes thought that humans are egoistic, and therefore, seeking one's own advantage is immoral; thus, ethics and law should limit expressions of human egoism. Shaftesbury, however, believed that seeking one's own advantage is good. What is wrong with a person wanting to live comfortably, eat well, or dress nicely? If a person seeks what is natural to them, then their desires are good. The moral problem arises when a person wants nothing at all.

The convictions of Shaftesbury and other English thinkers gave rise to a new direction in moral philosophy in England—utilitarianism. Adherents of this theory believe that the foundation of a good and happy society lies in the desire to satisfy one’s own interests and aspirations. While a person is naturally inclined to think first of themselves, this is preferable to having no thoughts or desires at all. The pursuit of one’s own good has positive consequences for the state. For example, someone who desires wealth may create a business that not only brings them profit but also generates new jobs and pays taxes; someone who wishes to live in a good country may advocate for quality laws that benefit everyone. However, utilitarians emphasized that such desires must not harm others. Thus, the pursuit of wealth should be achieved through labor and entrepreneurship, not theft, and career advancement should be realized through personal achievements, not by discrediting competitors. The greatest contribution to the development of utilitarianism was made by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Classical economic theory is based on utilitarian ethics. Its creator, Adam Smith, asserted that the economy should be founded on complete freedom from any interference by the state or society. Only then will the market ensure the best development. This is possible not because people are inherently good, but because they are egoistic and seek to satisfy their own interests, and the only way to achieve this is by working for the common good.

In direct opposition to English empiricism emerged the Scottish school of common sense, commonly referred to as Common-Sense Philosophy. The founder of this school, Thomas Reid (1710-1796), believed that humans perceive the world intuitively through common sense. Experience, which English empiricists regarded as reliable knowledge, produces numerous ideas incompatible with common sense and thus fails to form coherent knowledge. Reid held that the perception of reality occurs exclusively through intuition. It is intuition that distinguishes true perceptions from false ones; it is responsible for the human mind's ability to perceive whole objects and even form correct ideas about things without experimental evidence. Reid maintained that intuitive, albeit non-evident, perceptions are possible due to intuition.

Reid’s ideas were carried forward by his followers. James Hay Beattie (1735-1803) reduced the principles of common sense to complete subjectivity. He argued that what must be considered true is that which people, based on their nature, are compelled to believe, that which appears self-evident and undoubted. Another of Reid's followers, the Scottish philosopher Dugald Stewart (1753-1828), pursued a different direction in his reflections than Beattie. Stewart proposed abandoning the term "principles of common sense" altogether. Instead, Stewart preferred to discuss fundamental laws of belief. With this new philosophical term, Stewart referred to knowledge that is self-evident and essential for further understanding of the world. He proposed including only mathematical axioms and metaphysical transcendent concepts in this category.