Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE SCIENCE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT
Kellen TiborHIS 451-01: World Historical Theme: Science
1 May, 2014
1
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
The Emergence of Mechanical Philosophy.....................................................................................3
Scientific Politics.............................................................................................................................8
Reasonable Morality......................................................................................................................12
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................16
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................18
2
Introduction
Vivre la révolution! These words echoed throughout France as the old monarchy was
overthrown and the Reign of Terror began. The French Revolution is instantly recognized as an
example of Enlightenment ideals brought into fruition; the ideals of reason, liberty, and
individualism were never seen on such a scale until this period in history. Such a contrast
between the social and political ideas of Renaissance and post-Enlightenment Europe surely
could not have come from nowhere. Like most major events in history, the revolutions of the
eighteenth century had been brewing for quite some time, influenced by a plethora of attitudes
and events. Put simply, the theories of the Enlightenment did not spontaneously appear in the
minds of men such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire. Rather, their philosophy was borne of a
broader intellectual and social movement – a movement which I contend was the Scientific
Revolution. This paper will argue that the changes in the philosophy and methodology of
science, advocated by men such as Francis Bacon and René Descartes, profoundly affected the
way in which the world and humanity were viewed because the emergence of mechanical
philosophy dramatically changed natural philosophy, and this methodology was applied to social
theory and individual morality as the Enlightenment progressed. This paper will not seek to
judge the merit or validity of any philosophies or methods of this period; it seeks instead to bring
attention to the development of Baconian and Cartesian thought throughout the Enlightenment –
in other words, to see how science shaped the Enlightenment.
The Emergence of Mechanical Philosophy
The Scientific Revolution, or the period in history which lasted roughly from 1560-
1660,1 is a topic which has undergone much debate in recent years. What was once universally 1 Charles Webster, ed. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1974), ix.
3
accepted is now being questioned as a matter of historical fact. In an effort to discern why there
was this great intellectual progress, many theories have been concocted, such as the debate
between positivism and contextualism.2 That debate will surely rage on, but there was one aspect
of this Revolution, developed by Alexandre Koyré, which undoubtedly substantially changed:
the metaphysical.3 Baconian and Cartesian thought are inherently tied to the Scientific
Revolution by their radical change of the metaphysics of science. This may not make me a
positivist, but this paper seeks to show the influence that two men would have on a massive
intellectual revolution. Through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the world was viewed
from the perspective of Aristotle: everything was ordered and had purpose. During the Scientific
Revolution, Aristotelian metaphysics was replaced with mechanical philosophy, an event which
“altered the foundations of natural philosophy as practiced for nearly two thousand years.”4 At
the base level, this philosophy sees nature as machine, purposeless and filled with lifeless
matter.5 Perhaps the best way to fully grasp this mechanical philosophy is by studying some of
the earliest proponents of mechanical philosophy: Francis Bacon and René Descartes.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was one of the first to advocate mechanical philosophy.
Dissatisfied with natural philosophy up to his time, he advocated a total re-ordering of the study.
He named his six-part work on the subject the Instauratio Magna, or Great Instauration. This
work is a refutation of Aristotelian methodology and a plan of action for his new method of
natural philosophy. He prefaced the work by stating that “the state of knowledge is not
prosperous nor greatly advancing; and a way must be opened for the human understanding
entirely different from any hitherto known, and other helps provided, in order that the mind may
2 John Henry. "Ideology, Inevitability, and the Scientific Revolution." Isis 99, no. 3 (September 2008): 552-559.3 David Lindberg. The Beginnings of Western Science, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),364.4 Ibid., 365.5 Ibid.
4
exercise over the nature of things the authority which properly belongs to it.”6 Bacon is
advocating for a complete revolution in natural philosophy because he is seeing what he believes
to be an utter lack of progress in the field. Although he will be bold in this endeavor, he
nevertheless understands that his writings are proposals; he himself was influenced by ancient
thoughts, such as Cicero and Quintillian.7 The Great Instauration is thus an exposition of how
Bacon believed natural philosophy ought to be undertaken.
A major reason for this is that he felt that no man was willing to advance beyond
Aristotle: “Men of this kind, therefore, amend some things but advance little; and improve the
condition of knowledge, but do not extend its range.”8 As stated, natural philosophy was
controlled by Aristotelian thought. This philosophy had many merits, as seen in the works of St.
Thomas Aquinas, but Bacon believed that many systems of Aristotelian logic were in error – he
flatly stated that “I on the contrary reject demonstration by syllogism, as acting too confusedly,
and letting nature slip out of its hands.”9
Bacon believed that science was inverted. Aristotelian thought relies heavily on the
senses, and trusting the reality of things as a reflection of greater truths. However, Bacon
understood that the senses can deceive. But, unlike Descartes would later assert, the senses
could, through the use of reason in the progression of axioms, find out what was not true.10 The
idea of progressing gradually from one provable piece of evidence to the next until a general
truth can be discerned is the basis of Bacon’s induction. It was not an entirely new concept, as
Bacon himself readily admitted,11 but he wanted to refine it so that there would be a standardized
6 Francis Bacon. Selected Writings of Francis Bacon. (New York: Random House, 1955), 428.7 Charles Whitney. Francis Bacon and Modernity. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 80.8 Bacon, 432.9 Ibid., 441.10 Ibid., 442-443.11 Ibid., 442.
5
method by which all logicians could examine hypotheses – the beginning of institutionalized
experimentation.
Personal experience was at the heart of Bacon’s method. Experience, he argued, ought to
guide man’s quest for axioms. He uses the analogy of experience being the lighting of a candle,
and the use of the candle to find a way is the experimentation.12 But there was also a point to be
made in that it took individuals’ volition for this experimentation to occur. He warned against
complete adherence to either experimentation or reason, and instead advocated the use of one’s
own power to bring the two together.13 Murmurs of individualism are here emerge as Bacon
charges individuals with taking inquiry into their own hands and drawing their own conclusions.
Indeed, he argued that it was man’s religious duty to know all things: “God hath framed the mind
of man as a mirror or glass capable of the image of the universal world… raised also to find out
and discern the ordinances and decrees which throughout all those changes are infallibly
observed.”14
Along with this emphasis on the person came a view of nature which, although intended
well, could easily be interpreted for utilitarian ends. He stated that “man is but the servant and
interpreter of nature… [it cannot] be commanded except by being obeyed.”15 This point he said
repeatedly, but he possessed idealistic views on how people would apply their newfound
knowledge. He readily admitted how people might seek to apply this knowledge to their own
ambitions – ambitions for the good of man, he assumed. He understood that people would seek
to expand their power over their own country, over other nations, and over the human race as a
whole.16 The final point he described as being “a more wholesome thing and a more noble (sic)
12 Ibid., 501.13 Ibid., 514.14 Ibid., 162.15 Ibid., 451.16 Ibid., 539.
6
than the other two.”17 He went on to say that “the empire of man over things depends wholly on
the arts and sciences.”18 One thing he failed to recognize was that empires also ruled over men,
and not merely things.
René Descartes (1596-1650) took the mechanical view of the world further in his
methods of deduction (see figure 1, upper left).19 Regarded as one of the world’s greatest
mathematicians, he revolutionized geometry and the world of math as a whole. His work on
grounding time upon motion and the manner in which he related matter and extension seem to be
precursors of the theory of relativity.20 Descartes took mechanical philosophy even further than
Bacon, and used his methodologies for determining the principles of geometry and algebra for
studying all of reality. Descartes believed that the senses could not be trusted at all. He flatly
rejected induction as “frequently fallacious,” and stated that “deduction, or the pure illation of
one thing from another… cannot be erroneous when performed by an understanding that is in the
least degree rational.”21 Indeed, reason seemed to be of utmost importance for Descartes, as
absolute certainty was required for any advancement in deduction: “If… we come to a step in the
series of which our understanding is not sufficiently well able to have an intuitive cognition, we
must stop short there. We must make no attempt to examine what follows.”22
Descartes’s stalwart insistence on possessing the certainty required for deduction led to a
view of the world marked by overcoming dogmatic doubt through reason. The senses simply
could not be trusted. They can lead us to false assumptions quite easily; how is one to understand
that the sun is much larger than it appears in the sky? Or, in the case of a Platonic ideal, just
17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Docstoc.com. “Enlightenment Thinkers.” Accessed 28 February, 2014. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1846354 /Enlightenment-Thinkers.20 Alfred North Whitehead. Science and the Modern World. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), 145.21 René Descartes. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. (London: The Cambridge University Press, 1968), 4.22 Ibid., 22.
7
because one can envision how a chimera appears, should one automatically presume that it does
in fact exist? Of course not, “for Reason tells us that our thoughts cannot possibly be all true.”23
Although Descartes does not share Bacon’s endorsement of induction, both place a significant
emphasis on Reason, which is slowly emerging as a fundamental aspect of the human condition.
Descartes described himself as “not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind or a
soul, or an understanding, or a reason.”24
This method of absolute deduction became so meticulous that Descartes could only
define the fact that he existed. “I think, therefore I am,”25 defines Descartes’s view of reality.
Because the very perception of his senses could simply be a projection of his own mind, the only
thing that was certain was the fact that he was indeed thinking. Because thoughts cannot exist
independent of a being, he must therefore be a being. This view can be ultimately interpreted as
the culmination of individualism; the only thing definite about reality is that one does, in fact,
exist. Although Descartes ultimately attempted to use this train of deductions to prove the
existence of God, albeit weakly, the implications of individualistic ideas would be developed
later on in the Enlightenment.
In the end, the Baconian method of scientific inquiry would have a greater impact on
philosophy and scientific inquiry. Although it was not developed precisely as Bacon prescribed,
he stimulated ideas in the way the world was viewed in a profound way.26 Although there were
fewer who took Descartes’s approach of deduction in scientific inquiry, his exhaustive emphasis
on Reason would resonate for centuries. Indeed, in just over a century, the map of Europe (see
23 Ibid., 106.24 Ibid., 152.25 Ibid., 101.26 Colin A. Ronan. Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures. (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1982), 373.
8
figure 2) 27 would look dramatically different as his ideals, developed in the Enlightenment,
caused revolution and ultimately war in Europe (see figure 3).28
Scientific Politics
Bacon was torn between the possibilities of science. Was it to be a pursuit of the truth of
the universe purely for its own sake, or should man seek to control the universe in
utilitarianism?29 The manner in which this question would develop would be influenced greatly
by the Puritans’ emphasis on utility. The utilitarian outlook was inevitable; it had been slowly
gaining popularity in England since the works of Ramus and Vives, humanists who emphasized
practical classics, such as Virgil’s Georgics.30 The Puritans, a very practical people, were
influenced by Ramism, and the fact that utilitarianism was in direct contrast to Aristotelian
thought only made it more attractive.31
A contemporary of Bacon and Descartes, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is famous for
developing the Social Contract Theory, a practical argument for the Commonwealth, expounded
in the Leviathan. In this work, the influence of Bacon and Descartes can already be seen. Hobbes
accepts the new mechanical philosophy fully, as can be seen in his opening statement on reason
and science: “When a man reasoneth, he does nothing else but conceive a sum total, from
addition of parcels; or conceive a remainder, from subtraction of one sum from another.”32
Descartes would surely have been proud that another had taken his mathematical view of the
27 Wikipedia. “File:Europe map 1648.” Accessed 28 February, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe _map_1648.PNG.28 Wordpress. “Napoleon1810.” Accessed 29 April, 2014. http://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ napoleon1810.jpg.29 H. F. Kearney. Puritanism and the Scientific Revolution. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), 235.30 Ibid.31 Ibid., 235-236.32 Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982), 58.
9
world and applied it. Indeed, Hobbes believed that reason was a simple reckoning of all the
factors of the mind,33 echoing Descartes’s belief of his own being as a product of the mind.
Hobbes’s belief in the power of an individual was grounded in one’s ability to obtain a
good. He defined natural power as the “eminence of the faculties of body, or mind.”34 All other
“instrumental” powers were derived from this, and they served only to receive more power.35
Although Bacon never actually stated that “knowledge is power,” the utilitarian undertones of
Baconian thought are plainly evident in Hobbes’s writing. Despite the fact that Hobbes described
the sciences as “small powers,”36 the use of Reason to understand one’s own mind now has clear
implications for politics. The interaction of power would then drive Hobbes’s Social Contract
Theory.
Hobbes believed that no man was by nature any better than another. The same
mathematical reckoning which drove reason confirmed the equality of individuals:
Though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he.37
Unfortunately, these equal individuals still desired power. With no inherent superiority, how can
one have more power than another? Hobbes understood this to mean that whenever there is no
common power to hold people together, all mankind was at war.38 The reasons for peace are
obvious; people do not want to die and they enjoy comfort, so a stable industrial base is needed
to have those things.39
33 Ibid.34 Ibid., 71.35 Ibid.36 Ibid., 73.37 Ibid,. 84.38 Ibid., 85.39 Ibid., 86.
10
Thus, we have laws. Much to the delight of Bacon, Hobbes used induction to argue for
these laws. He argued that simple reason would be used to determine the lex naturalis, or law of
nature: man cannot harm himself, nor can he put himself into a situation where he cannot defend
himself.40 Because peace is a time in which these laws of nature can be obeyed, man ought to
strive for that peace. However, induction does not deal in absolutes; in times of aggression, peace
is not the best course of action. Thus, reason dictated to Hobbes that man ought to defend
himself by whatever means necessary when attacked.41
By their nature, all men have these rights to peace and defense. A right can be
transferred, however, and that act of transferring is what Hobbes refers to as a contract.42 This
Social Contract Theory would be culminated in the Commonwealth, which is the “final cause,
end, and design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others).”43 Hobbes’s
development of the Commonwealth was one of the first political theories to be derived from the
effects of Baconian and Cartesian thought, and there would be many more to come.
John Locke (1632-1704) was another political theorist who deeply impacted the
Enlightenment and consequently Western Civilization as a whole (see figure 1, upper right).44
Much of his work is filled with Baconian experimentation, and many of his essays are similar in
form to Bacon’s own work.45 Like the Puritans, he possessed the idea that science ought to serve
utility, and he earnestly hoped that his work might have an effect in practical affairs.46
Locke further developed natural law in a Baconian manner. The very foundation of his
argument is grounded in the idea that all men have reason.47 The law of nature can be discerned
40 Ibid.41 Ibid.42 Ibid., 87.43 Ibid., 99.44 DocStoc.45 Neal Wood. The Politics of Locke’s Philosophy. (Berkely: University of California Press, 1983), 75.46 Ibid., 82.47 John Locke. Essays on the Law of Nature. (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 111.
11
by the light of nature – through reason. Unfortunately, not all people choose to use their reason,
which is why there is discontent between people regarding laws.48 Induction can be seen as he
argues for the existence of a law of nature despite this: for example, because there is discord on
the very definition of a principle, it follows that the principle likely exists.49 He also draws the
same argument of Hobbes when he appeals to the fact that rulers would simply exercise
unbounded control over people if they naturally possessed absolute power – this would be
damaging to the common individual, so he ought not to allow that to occur.50
By Locke’s time, it is becoming increasingly apparent that utilitarianism is emerging as a
cornerstone of Baconian thought, as Locke’s writing suggests. Locke echoes Bacon’s call for
mastery of nature as he states that “nature must be altogether negated before one can claim for
himself absolute liberty.”51 This is not to say that nature is a hindrance to freedom, but that
through studying nature one can come to a fuller knowledge of the natural law, and become
enlightened as to what man’s proper faculties are.52
Perhaps the greatest example of Baconian methodology is how Locke approaches the use
of reason in a form of graduation of axioms. Locke acknowledges that the basic foundations for
his method of discerning natural law are lacking in the use of reason – which he describes as the
“great and chief light of all knowledge,”53 a term which Descartes would surely have loved.
Despite this, Locke argues that the basics of natural law must be founded on the axioms which
are most easily attainable; they are already known to us, we hear of them from others, or we
perceive them through the senses. Without these foundations, axioms derived from reason would
48 Ibid., 115.49 Ibid.50 Ibid., 119.51 Ibid., 123.52 Ibid.53 Ibid., 125.
12
have nothing on which to stand.54 Then, with a firm foundation, reason “builds up and raises as
high as heaven.”55
Reasonable Morality
By the time Locke died, the Enlightenment had come to the West, and it was going to
stay. After over fifty years of development among intellectuals and political theorists like those
mentioned above, the ideas were finally becoming popularized and adopted by the common
citizen. As the eighteenth century progressed, people would increasingly see the connection
between science and utility. The public was not afraid to use reason, either – they were more
than willing to spurn the wishes of the elites in politics and scholarship.56 With an increased
number of people able to understand the Enlightenment figures’ work, the more immediately
influential the authors became.
One of the authors of this period in the Enlightenment was Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-
1778). His work would have serious consequences for the manner in which people viewed their
rights in regards to society, and he influenced the French Revolution in no small manner (see
figure 1, bottom right).57 In Rousseau, utilitarianism is seen at its finest in regards to family: “The
children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As
soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from obedience…
return to independence.”58
Rousseau’s approach to the rights of individuals within political relationships builds off
the Social Contract Theory postulated by Hobbes and Locke. In a contract, an individual is
54 Ibid.55 Ibid., 149.56 Michael R. Lynn. "Divining the Enlightenment: Public Opinion and Popular Science in Old Regime France." Isis 92, no. 1 (2001): 36.57 DocStoc.58 Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982), 387.
13
bound to both the individuals of the Sovereign, of which he is a part, and of the State. The
Sovereign, made up of all citizens, cannot work against itself; this goes against what Hobbes
induced to be the rights of a man, and the Sovereign is one body. The Sovereign, therefore, is not
bound to give its subjects any guarantees, for it cannot work against itself.59 However, the same
cannot be said for the individuals of the Sovereign. They possess, in addition to the will of the
Sovereign, a personal will which may be contrary to the Sovereign – this is a major conflict of
interest. Utilitarianism, however, remedies this. Building upon the idea that peace is best for the
individual, and that rights can be transferred, Rousseau appeals to individuals’ reason to compel
them to relinquish any principles not in accord with the Sovereign, so that they may receive the
benefits of the Commonwealth, which are naturally more favorable.60
To the pride of Descartes, his social theory is based on a deduction: if clashing interests
made societies necessary, and if the reconciliation of those grievances made it possible, then
society must be formed by the establishment of a general will.61 Because this is a deduction, the
conclusion is contingent on the constancy of the two points – and Rousseau already established
that some people may not want to reconcile personal their beliefs with the Sovereign. Therefore,
in order for society to function for Rousseau, all individuals must conform to a general will,
forming a collective being.62 If this is not done, society will be unable to function, and inequality
or utter collapse will ensue.
The implications of this social theory are numerous – for Rousseau’s society to work,
there can be no events which upset the deduction. For example, a singular master over the people
renders the Sovereign null and void; the will is no longer collective, but conformed to a single
59 Ibid., 392.60 Ibid., 393.61 Ibid., 395.62 Ibid.
14
individual’s will.63 Furthermore, factions cannot come to exist within the state. Small, partial
wills will evolve, and the Sovereign would become a product of the interaction of those small
wills. When one will prevails, there is no general will of any sort.64 Nevertheless, Rousseau
maintained that the Sovereign needed a significant reason to be able to take things away from
individuals – the state is only to take that which is needed. But, by his own admission, it is the
state itself who determines what is important.65 These difficulty in administering such a system
would be seen after the French Revolution, when a republic was established.
While Rousseau fought for social morals, Voltaire (1694-1778) advocated a change in the
way individuals saw the world on a personal level (see figure 1, top middle).66 Voltaire is
perhaps the culmination of how an individual was to embrace reason during the Enlightenment.
This is best summarized in regards to how he viewed faith:
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason… Faith consists in believing not what seems true, but what seems false to our understanding.67
Reason has really become the ideal to which Voltaire believes people ought to aspire. When
contrasting atheism and fanaticism, he prefers atheism solely on the grounds that reason would
prohibit the atheist from acting rashly.68
Voltaire’s views on life were profoundly rooted in embracing Reason. When writing on
liberty and free will, he blatantly denies man’s ability to choose for himself. Liberty, in
Voltaire’s mind, means simply, “to be able.”69 A man who is mobile is free to mount a horse, for
instance. Nevertheless, there must be a cause for his doing so. Even something as simple as him
63 Ibid.64 Ibid., 396.65 Ibid., 397.66 DocStoc.67 Voltaire. The Portable Voltaire. Translated by Ben Ray Redman. (New York: The Viking Press, 1968), 222.68 Ibid., 220.69 Ibid., 125.
15
feeling like mounting a horse would be the product of a greater perceived good atop the horse.70
Thus, we have no free will; our entire lives are but a series of our bodies doing the best perceived
good that they allow. It is no wonder then that Voltaire was a Deist; lives motivated by Reason
ought to correspond to a God that is Reason.
As regards truth, Voltaire used mathematical reasoning that is similar to Descartes.
Voltaire was also a historian, and understood that the truth of events can be lost to the ages.
Therefore, similar to Descartes, he chooses to not assume any fact to be true. He contended that
for every witness of a recent event, there is but one possible interpretation of how the event
occurred. Even if all say the same thing, there is still but a strong possibility that it actually
happened in that manner – nothing more. With fewer witnesses, one ought to be skeptical. If the
witnesses are no longer alive, then it is then impossible to inquire as to the event. In this manner,
Voltaire stated mathematically that as generations increase from the time of an event, “soon
probability is reduced to zero.”71
It would seem that people were beginning to embrace this love of Reason. But a
difference ought to be seen between the intellectual giants to whom we attribute the
Enlightenment and the common populace. The major Enlightenment thinkers were rational; their
works seem to shun superstition and illogical practices. However, there are always problems in
translation – in this instance, from Voltaire to the French people. This is best illustrated in the
events surrounding dowsing in the 1780s. Rather than logically concluding that there is no
correlation between sticks and water, the French people began to actually employ Reason and
scientific methods to study this “science.”72
70 Ibid.71 Ibid., 217.72 Lynn, 45.
16
Conclusion
Perhaps the French experience with dowsing should have been a warning of what was to
come. For over one hundred years, the ideas of the Enlightenment grew and evolved, but they
were never put into practice. They instead carried on within the minds of the intellectuals, as they
moved from one axiom to the next in a truly Baconian method. When the French Revolution
finally did occur, violence became the law of the land instead of natural law. Within a few years,
Napoleon would be emperor of France – the “master” about which Rousseau warned.73 Surely, it
is far from what Bacon intended when he called for people to take control of nature. But from
Bacon’s and Descartes’s changes in methodology in scientific philosophy came a change in the
way the world and humanity were viewed as mechanical philosophy transformed natural
philosophy, which changed social theory and individual morality in a profound way throughout
the Enlightenment. These changes still affect us today, politically, philosophically, and
scientifically. Mechanical Philosophy grips science, politics, and morality in every sphere of the
West. It is up to the people who live today to determine what further influence it will have.
73 Rousseau, 395.
17
Bibliography
1.
Bacon, Francis. Selected Writings of Francis Bacon. Edited by James Spedding, R. L. Ellis and
D. D. Heath. New York: Random House, 1955.PRIMARY 1.
2. Descartes, René. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. Translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane
and G. R. T. Ross. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968. PRIMARY 2.
3. Docstoc.com. “Enlightenment Thinkers.” Accessed 28 February, 2014.
http://www.docstoc .com/docs/1846354/Enlightenment-Thinkers. IMAGE.
4. Henry, John. "Ideology, Inevitability, and the Scientific Revolution." Isis 99, no. 3 (September
2008): 552-559. ARTICLE 1.
5. Hobbes, Thomas. 1982. Leviathan. Edited by Nelle Fuller. Chicago: Encyclopaedia
Britannica. PRIMARY 3.
6. Kearney, H. F. Puritanism, Capitalism, and the Scientific Revolution. 218-242. The
Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, edited by Charles Webster. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. ARTICLE 2.
7. Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2007. BOOK 1.
8. Locke, John. Essays on the Laws of Nature. Edited by W. von Leyden. London: Oxford
University Press, 1965. PRIMARY 4.
9. Lynn, Michael R. "Divining the Enlightenment: Public Opinion and Popular Science in Old
Regime France." Isis 92, no. 1 (2001): 34-54. ARTICLE 3.
10. Ronan, Colin A. Science: Its History and Development Among the World's Cultures. New
York: Facts on File Publications, 1982. BOOK 2.
18
11. Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. The Social Contract. Translated by G. D. H. Cole. Chicago:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982. PRIMARY 5.
12. Voltaire. The Portable Voltaire. Edited by Ben Ray Redman. New York: The Viking Press,
1968. PRIMARY 6.
13. Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1953. BOOK 3.
14. Whitney, Charles. Francis Bacon and Modernity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
BOOK 4.
15. Webster, Charles. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. London:
Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1974. BOOK 5.
16. Wikipedia. “File:Europe map 1648.” Accessed 28 February, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/File:Europe_map_1648.PNG. MAP 1.
17. Wood, Neal. The Politics of Locke's Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1983. BOOK 6.
18. Wordpress. "Napoleon1810." Accessed 29 April, 2014.
http://mapcollection.files.wordpress .com/2012/07/napoleon1810.jpg. MAP 2.
19
Figure 1.
20
Figure 2.
21
Figure 3.