The Greatest Impact on Western Civilization - Essay Example

? The Greatest Impact on Western Civilization PART A: Which had the greatest impact on Western Civilization, the Intellectual Revolution (Scientific Revolution & Enlightenment), the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution? Make sure to provide specific examples to support your arguments and conclusions.  The Intellectual Revolution, which included the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, had the greatest impact on Western Civilization because of the ideas from the Intellectual Revolution that triggered the other two important events, which are namely the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. In short, without the ideas that came from the Intellectual Revolution, there would be not much change in Europe and America, and revolutions for independence and efforts for the development of commerce and industry would not have been possible. The Intellectual Revolution was actually brought about by a deluge of scientific ideas that created an impact “on the way people live and think” and thus changed their “view of the nature of reality” (“Chapter 23”). Because of the scientific ideas brought about by the scientists of the Enlightenment like Newton, Copernicus and Pascal, “it [was] no longer possible to maintain that the sun [revolved] about a motionless earth, or that there [were] four terrestrial elements: earth, air, fire, and water” (“Chapter 23”). This implies that with the advent of the Scientific Revolution, people started assessing the validity of their beliefs through reason and stopped believing in superstitions. Moreover, perhaps the most important change was that people began to think and perhaps sought out the reasons for their own existence. Discoveries in the field of science like astronomy somehow also paved the way for people to make “exact [observations and to refuse] to accept any conclusion that did not square with all the observed data” (“Chapter 23”). This means that people started to seek evidence for the claims of their existence and of those of others. This must have made them begin thinking and thus made them question existing beliefs. In short, the development of their empirical attitude somehow made the people challenge ancient authority, not only in the field of science but also in economics, politics and government. This must have eventually led groups of people to evaluate their existence and position vis-a-vis a power hungry monarchy like that of France during the 18th century. Such revolutionary change in the way people thought would have indirectly led to the recognition of their rights as human beings by virtue of reason and thus eventually brought the French Revolution. The Intellectual Revolution also brought with it a new philosophy that perhaps awakened man’s sense of self. The political philosophy of John Locke, which was adopted by the constitutional monarchy of England, spread around Europe around this time and made those governed by absolute monarchy to rethink their positions and to consider the idea of having not an absolute king but three separate branches of government – executive, legislative and judiciary (“The Philosophies”). Moreover, the philosophy of Voltaire taught the people that “man’s desire to pursue one’s happiness [is] inborn” (“The Philosophies”). Another philosopher, Montesquieu emphasized the legal system of each nation, and a great philosopher in the name of Jean Jacques Rosseau theorized that “the society in the state of nature [is] the society with no class-distinctions” (“The Philosophies”). This paralleled the Intellectual Revolution in America with Thomas Paine proclaiming the rights of man and the first 13 states finally declaring independence from the British. All this philosophy perhaps awakened in man a recognition of his innate right to freedom and, naturally, a desire to attain it at any cost. The philosophical aspect of the Intellectual Revolution thus helped to trigger the occurrence not only of the French Revolution but also of the other revolutions that followed it. The scientific aspect of the Intellectual Revolution also brought with it the perfection of mathematics under Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal, as well as the development of an empirical mind that desired exactness and accuracy (“Chapter 23”). This may have eventually led the Western World to the era of machines and industry and thus paving the way for the Industrial Revolution, and eventually the development of modern technology as we see it today. Modernizations that revolutionized transportation and communication from the Enlightenment to the present day would not have been possible had it not been for scientific and mathematical development that resulted from the Intellectual Revolution. The influence of the founding of the Royal Society in England during the Enlightenment was also particularly important. During the 16th century, the Royal Society was founded by chemist and physicist Robert Boyle and his contemporaries, and this sought to “gather all knowledge about nature, particularly that knowledge which might be useful for the public good” (Kreis, “Lecture 12”). The effect of the founding of the Royal Society must have eventually brought two significant changes in European society at that time – the increase in the desire to build industries for the benefit of man, and the idea that everything must be directed towards the public good. This particular idea – that all things must be for the good of the people – must have had a twofold effect on Europe at that time: a “constructive” change that ushered in the Industrial Revolution, and a “revolutionary” change that brought about the French Revolution – but all for the aim of edifying the good of the people. Aside from its alleged influence in making possible the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, the Intellectual Revolution also brought about changes in the political systems of the Western world (Kreis, “Lecture 12”). The political philosophies, the recognition of the role of reason in the lives of people, and the idea of directing everything towards the public good may have eventually revolutionized governments and political systems. When British philosopher Thomas Hobbes underlined in his political masterpiece Leviathan that “political authority is grounded not in conquest, natural or divinely instituted hierarchy, or in obscure myths and traditions, but rather in the rational consent of the governed,” he made it clear to the people of Enlightenment Europe that it was eventually the citizens who was supposed to decide who should govern them, and that if they were oppressed, then the responsibility to change whatever they did not want clearly rested upon them (Bristow). Long before Rosseau elaborated on the ideas of equality, Hobbes’s philosophy had already somehow begun a revolution in the hearts of the Western people. The French Revolution therefore as well as everything else that followed after may have been brought about by the changes in political ideology of countries and people that philosophers like Hobbes helped to create. Without the knowledge and ideas brought about by the Scientific and Philosophical Revolution in Europe during the Enlightenment and the corresponding changes in the minds of people, it would have been impossible to witness the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The mind must indeed be triggered and inspired first before the individual begins to act. Thus, the Intellectual Revolution remains as the event which had the greatest impact on Western Civilization. PART B, 1C: Discuss the three enlightened absolutists—Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, and Joseph II. Show to what extent each fulfilled and failed to fulfill the criteria for an enlightened ruler.  Frederick the Great of Prussia succeeded in being an enlightened ruler of his country by formally regarding himself as “first servant of the state” (“The Enlightened Despots”). Frederick always governed “under the guidance if what was most beneficial for Prussia” and that he expected the Prussians to share his views (“The Enlightened Despots”). Since the Middle Ages, the rulers before him as well as his contemporaries may not have even thought of themselves to be a “servant” of their people or someone equal to them. Nevertheless, Frederick’s fulfillment of his role as an enlightened ruler showed in his humility and his innate trust of his subjects and people. The fact that he expected people to share his views shows that he was not Machiavellian in nature and that all that he desired was for the good of his mother country, Prussia. Frederick the Great also fostered and promoted “universal religious toleration,” “freedom of the press,” “individual protection against the law” and “agricultural reforms” as well as reforms in education (“The Enlightened Despots”). In fact, his intellectual and cultural achievements led him to establish the Rechtsstaat, or a state of laws, where citizens had the opportunity to “[enjoy] far more legal equality than in most other states” of the Habsburg Empire (Keithly). Thus, through the development of the arts, sciences, education and politics in Prussia, Frederick the Great was able to succeed in his role as an enlightened ruler. Perhaps, the only problem with Frederick the Great was that he tolerated “governmental bureaucracy” and gave territorial princes a significant role in the government (“The Enlightened Despots”). Although this may not have been his intention or whether he thought that governmental bureaucracy would not alter his plans, it clearly violated the principle that all men are equal and therefore have equal rights with princes in the handling of the affairs of the state. Another monarch during the Enlightenment, Joseph II of Austria, governed Austria from the death of his mother Maria Theresa in 1780 until his own death in 1790. Short as it may seem, the 10 years that Joseph II governed Austria was filled with dedication for his country. He was successful as an enlightened ruler in the sense that he “gave the reforms an ideological edge reflecting the utilitarian theories of the Enlightenment” (“The Enlightened Despots”). His adoption of the utilitarian principle – that something must be useful or practical, or that something is good only if it benefits the greatest good of the greatest number of people – made him support “greater religious toleration” (“The Enlightened Despots”). Joseph II, as an enlightened ruler, was therefore one who was open-minded when it came to the existence of various religions in his country, like Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism. These religious groups may not have enjoyed the same privileges under Joseph II compared to the monarchs before him, who fostered only Catholicism. Furthermore, without the enlightened governance of Joseph II, it would have been impossible for these various religions in 18th century Austria to possess equality with each other. Moreover, through this enlightened ruler, the Austrian people had the privilege to exercise their freedom of professing their individual religious beliefs. The problem with Joseph II was that he was too strict and idealistic in his utilitarian principles, thus he also ordered the “suppression of religious institutions and customs deemed contrary to utilitarian principles” (“The Enlightened Despots”). Thus, he ordered the closure of Catholic monasteries that did nothing useful and various traditional customs of the Jews that he considered “detrimental to [their] Germanization,” all perhaps based on Joseph II’s views (“The Enlightened Despots”). Thus, Jacob II may have acted as an enlightened ruler in tolerating the existence and practice of religious groups but he somehow failed in carrying out this enlightened rule because of his inability to recognize the practical values of religious contemplation as well as the values that can be fostered through traditional religious customs. A third monarch of the Enlightenment, Catherine the Great of Russia, is considered “one of the greatest reformers” of her country (“The Enlightened Despots”). His success as an enlightened ruler showed in her efforts at effecting reforms within Russia and in the field of arts, music and education of which she was a great patron and from whose cause came the Hermitage collection (Atchison). Aside from the arts and music, Catherine also developed agriculture and industry and thus created “the Free Economic Society” in 1765 (“The Enlightened Despots”). Moreover, she also relaxed the censorship law and encouraged foreign investment in order to help the underdeveloped areas of Russia (“The Enlightened Despots”). For a female monarch to be this strong, influential and efficient in carrying out reforms in her country in almost all respects, Catherine the Great was outstanding and was definitely able to fulfill her role as an enlightened monarch. The problem with Catherine the Great, however, was that she tolerated the existence of non-Orthodox Christians in Russia as well as Muslims, and this “made the task of constructing an empire more difficult and more costly” (Corwin). Catherine the Great may have considered religion as a means to cultivating discipline in the people, but the fact that several non-Orthodox Christians were actually violent did not prove to be helpful to Russia even after Catherine’s death. The leniency of Catherine the Great when it came to religion may have been a part of her being an enlightened ruler but she may have overdone this and overlooked its possible consequences to the Russian nation. PART B, 2C: Was the French Revolution worth the human cost? The French Revolution took the lives of around 50,000 people (Fitch). However, around 17,000 people died during the Reign of Terror from 1793 to 1794, with the official head count at 15,000 and an estimated total of 100,000 who were detained (Kreis, “Lecture 13”). Many of the deaths during the French Revolution were caused by several instances of fighting in the streets as well as those who perhaps died of accident or torture during the Reign of Terror. Some deaths were due to the “[roasting of] women and children in baking ovens,” which was carried out by some bloodthirsty French generals in 1796 even after the death of Maximillian Robespierre (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn). The overwhelming number of deaths and the very few positive consequences that resulted from the overthrow of the monarchy indeed tell us that the French Revolution was NOT worth the human cost. Except for the accidents and those killed out of cruelty and torture, much of the criticism on the worthiness of the death toll falls on how Robespierre carried out the Reign of Terror. The basis of most of the executions during the French Revolution was underlined by Maximillian Robespierre, who, as Head of the Committee of Public Safety, basically had so many people from the First and Second Estates guillotined. According to Robespierre’s speech on February 5, 1794, the Reign of Terror was justified because “it is necessary to stifle the domestic and foreign enemies of the Republic or perish with them” and that “terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice [which] flows, then, from virtue” (“Primary Sources”). Based on the aforementioned statement, Robespierre equates terror with justice and thereafter links terror with virtue. Nevertheless, before a just punishment must be carried out, there should be a clear violation of the law. This was not exactly the case during the Reign of Terror. In fact, “many…people died without death sentences” and who were just arrested by the soldiers under Robespierre’s command as well as those who died in “overcrowded and unsanitary” prisons while they were waiting for their trial (Linton). This is clearly not the idea of justice nor is it an example of virtue. There is indeed nothing virtuous about dying in prison without a fair and just trial and it was clearly equally unjust to have people arrested without clear written accusations of their arrest. However, although they will undergo trial, this trial was mostly an unfair trial because of the rule of the “mob” who simply shouted in unison whether or not the one on trial would be put to death or not (“The Alien and Sedition Acts”). In this case if the one on trial was a member of the First and Second Estates, then chances are the mob would sentence him to death with just one scream. Moreover, the basis of the Reign of Terror also contradicts the core principles of the revolution, which Robespierre himself defined as “a peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality” (“Primary Sources”). Furthermore, he stated in his speech that the aim of France was to “become the model of all nations” (“Primary Sources”). If Robespierre’s aim was that France would become a model to other nations when it comes to unjustly putting people to death, then he was indeed thinking of an outrageous thing which is for all nations of Europe and the world to do the same. Moreover, another contradiction between Robespierre’s acts of terror and his principles was that he stated in his speech that “the nation safeguards the welfare of each individual, and each individual proudly enjoys the prosperity and glory of his fatherland” (“Primary Sources”). If he were really to safeguard the welfare of “each individual,” then why did Robespierre have to unjustly condemn the members of the First and Second Estates over others, and why would he generally have people convicted without a fair and just trial? He had not even clearly defined who “the good citizens” were and who “the enemies of the people” were, which were the two groups that he mentioned at the end of his speech on February 5, 1794 (“Primary Sources”). Because of these unjust executions as well as the inconsistencies between the killings and the principles of the revolution, the French Revolution was indeed not worth the human cost. Indeed, there was no honor in the deaths of most who died during this time. If, however, the utilitarian view were considered, then it would suffice to say that the deaths of many would be justified if the consequences were for the good of the greatest number of people. However, the French Revolution gave us only “the metric system” of measurement, for the political ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity were already brought to the world by the political philosophers who fostered it (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn). PART B, 3C: Compare and contrast three of the –isms of the 19th century (conservatism, liberalism, socialism, nationalism, Romanticism); what were the main characteristics of each and what role did they play in the 19th century? Which of the three you chose was the most influential?  According to John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, liberalism is the view that “government exists to serve the people and community it governs [and that] its power is limited by concepts of natural rights of individuals and moral or natural law” (Riley). Moreover, for Locke, “life, liberty and estate” belonged only to the individuals and cannot be altered by the government (Riley). In fact, liberalism may have been the idea behind the overthrow of the absolute monarchy during the French Revolution. The French Revolution then served to inspire various other colonies in the world during the Enlightenment to raise arms against their conquerors or even against their own existing national governments. The concept of the natural law, which John Locke underlined in his Treatise, was therefore the seed of liberalism and a seed that eventually bore fruit out of influence and example. Therefore, since liberalism gave rise to nationalism and since nationalism was more of a global phenomenon, then liberalism might therefore have been the cause of all independence in the world. Thus, it was the most influential during the 19th century, compared to socialism and nationalism. Another political ideology, socialism, means “a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy” (“Socialism”). This means that the workers of factories and economic institutions are free to elect their supervisors as well as their management committees. Moreover, these elected representatives must be worker-delegates and must be their own fellow workers. Socialism may have been the philosophy that gave birth to communism, which began in Russia. Although it was indeed influential in triggering the creation of communist states in Russia, North Korea, Vietnam and China, socialism may not have lived long because most Communist governments were eventually subjected to corruption and were finally overthrown due to unpopularity. The core principles of socialism were not that honored because capitalism in industries often did not contradict democratic principles. A third political ideology during the 19th century was nationalism. Nationalism is the revival of the national identity of a people and its natural desire to attain independence usually from a foreign power (Nosotro). In fact, nationalism was the driving force behind the quest of many countries for independence, such as the revolutions of Latin America (Metcalf). The efforts of the Venezuelan military leader Simon Bolivar to drive the Spanish out of South America in the 19th century as well as those of the Haitian leader Touissant L’Ouverture in freeing Haiti from the French were actually acts of nationalism, and which may have been influenced by the French Revolution. Nationalism in the 19th century also led to the forced opening of many countries to the Western world. Among these included China, which was forced open by England as a result of the Opium Wars. Another was the forced opening of Japan by the United States in 1854, and thus the power of the shogun was transferred to the Emperor (Nosotro). The opening of China and Japan, as well as that of other countries, to the world, may have helped in the overall scenario of international trade and commerce and even contributed greatly to the advent of the Industrial Revolution (Nosotro). This is all because of nationalism. Nevertheless, since nationalism may have been born out of liberalism, then it remains as a mere consequence of it. Works Cited Atchison, B. “Biographies – Catherine The Great.” 2012. Alexander Palace Time Machine. 11 Mar 2011. Bristow, W. “Enlightenment.” 2010. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 12 Mar 2012. “Chapter 23: The Beginning of the Scientific Revolution. 2012. Carrie: A Full-Text Electronic Library. 11 Mar 2012. Corwin, J. “Russia: Catherine the Great’s Lessons on Religious Tolerance.” 2006. Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty. 11 Mar 2011. Fitch, N. “The French Revolution.” n.d. California State University, Fullerton. 11 Mar 2011. Keithly, D. M. “Frederick II, the Great.” 2008. 18th Century Online Encyclopedia: Enlightenment and Revolution. 11 Mar 2011. Kreis, S. “Lecture 12: The Scientific Revolution, 1642-1730.” 2009. The History Guide: Lectures on Early Modern European History. 11 Mar 2011. Kreis, S. “Lecture 13: The French Revolution: The Radical Stage, 1792-1794.” 2009. The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. 11 Mar 2011. Linton, M. “The Terror in the French Revolution.” n.d. Kingston University. 11 Mar 2011. Metcalf, A. S. “Political Revolutions.” 2001. New York State High School. 11 Mar 2011. Nosotro, R. “Nationalism: Enlightenment’s Deadly Successor.” 2010. HyperHistory. 11 Mar 2011. “Primary Sources for the French Revolution.” n.d. The Cave Online. 13 Mar 2011. Riley, J. L. “Modern Political Ideologies: Liberalism and Conservatism.” 1990. Regis University. 13 Mar 2011. “Socialism – Its Meaning and Promise.” n.d. The Socialist Labor Party of America. 12 Mar 2012. “The Alien and Sedition Acts: Defining American Freedom.” 2012. Constituional Rights Foundation. 11 Mar 2011. “The Enlightened Despots.” n.d. The Paths Separate Home Page. 11 Mar 2011. “The Philosophies of Enlightenment.” n.d. California State University, Dominguez Hills. 12 Mar 2011. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. “Operation Parricide: Sade, Robespierre & The French Revolution.” n.d. Fidelity. 11 Mar 2011. Top of Form Bottom of Form Read More