Enlightenment? Enlighten me

• Let's shed some LIGHT on the Enlightenment

• But First! Time for a Blast from the Past

REMEMBER POLITIQUES??

It's okay neither do I

• Quick Recap: Politques were moderates that ended the War fo 3 Henry's by putting state over religion - a famous one was HENRY IV

So now the big question...

• Are philosophes and politiques the same???
• No - but they're SIMILAR
• They both want to protect France and maintain the monarchy & both called RADICAL by their contemporaries

What people contemporaries thought of philosophes & politiques

It's just the HOW that's different:

• 1) Politiques - save France w/ ABSOLUTE monarchy w/ all power in king
• Culturally = Tunnel vision into politics and government

• 2) Philosophes - save France w/ CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy that put more power in parliament and gave monarch residual (leftover) power.

• Culturally = Intellectual group with more broad vision of life

• Now Second! "ARE YOU HAPPY??"

How rich ppl felt during Enlightenment

"Actually I kinda am" -The Rich

• SO were people of Enlightenment pessimistic????
• WELL HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE???

• If You Got $$$ - You're part of the PUBLIC
• Enlightened people are upset about your current ignorance BUT have hope you to get smarter & independent

• IF You Broke - You’re a HOI POLLOI (part of the PEOPLE)

• Enlightened people have no hope because you can’t look past your poorness and survival (don't have time to fit into the new world-view)

• Thirdly! What did these PHILOSOPHES promote???

Their views on GOVERNMENT:

• Montesquieu
• Tried finding out how state could promote liberty
• Wanted balance of power between parliament (rich) and king (king wouldn't have too much control)

Balancing vegetables like Montesquieu's gov would balance power

• BUT how is this different from Locke's views (remember him?) ?????

• THEY WERE BOTH INTO LIBERTY

Difference is in HOW they wanted government to protect liberties

• Locke thought liberty could be protected under monarchy as long as people could revolt when government failed to do its job.

• Montesquieu thought monarch couldn’t be trusted to have power alone so wanted it shared w/ electorate → constitutional monarchy

• But constitutional sounds like republic

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE????

• how is it not a republic?

• Constitutional Monarch - Monarch not elected
• Republic - all people in government are elected.

Their (philosophes') view of GOD

• Voltaire
• God = Distant creator
• Earth like clock put in motion by God, and then let go without interference

• Now remember wayyyy back to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Edwards (Puritan)

Is this Voltaire's God?

• No
• Edwards says God saves followers
• Voltaire says God is not present since universe runs like a machine

Edwards dealing with Voltaire's perception of God

The Scientific Revolution

So the first name we should associate with the Scientific Revolution is....
SIR ISAAC NETWON! 
       ayyyy this guy was the greatest. And why, exactly, was he the greatest? Mainly because he built off of other scientists work. Sir Isaac not only made sense of these theories and ideas, but further progressed them, making him one of the most important figures of this time. 




What were the causes of the "Scientific Revolution?"
1. Universities 

what I am assuming Scientific Revolution college parties were like

Science was able to really emerge from these new "liberal arts" programs. Although the Medieval Times did have Universities, the combined vocational training and philosophical thinking/learning proved to make great human beings.



2. Revolution stimulated scientific progress
           There was a rebirth of the classics and people rediscovered humanism.

            Under this second cause, patronage also came up. People essentially used their money to buy   into certain ideas and people. Great times:)

3. Navigational Problems
            The terms longitude (England) and latitude (Portugal King) came about.

4. Better ways of obtaining knowledge of the world

In conclusion, just as Isaac Newton looked at the past and furthered their ideas, so did the Revolution.

Another big topic we discussed today was Empiricism: 

This is basically learning from experience. (John Locke is a prime example)










The Question of the Day: What is the difference between Inductive and Deductive Reasoning? (literally just tell us Yarn we're dumb and don't know anything)

Deductive Reasoning starts with a general theory, statement, or hypothesis and then works its way down to a conclusion based on evidence.

The result must be true

 

Inductive reasoning starts with a small observation or question and works it's way to a theory by examining the related issues.

The result is probably true 

Goes with empiricism

Scientists thinking they and the Church be homies. 

So... was the Church okay with all of this Science-y stuff?     

Fun Fact: Yes, actually. Do not listen to me in class, for I thought they did not :)

The Church was able to find a middle ground with the Scientists...

But then they messed with heaven. SMH.

  As soon as they hear that angels aren't controlling the heavens, church says nuh uh.

What is the difference between the Renaissance and Revolution?

Renaissance: abstract, all about humans and how amazing everyone is

Revolution: scientific, mathematical, breakthroughs by smart people

Basically, the Renaissance tried to imitate the classics. The Revolution, on the other hand, took the knowledge from the classical era and progressed it, furthering the developments and ideas. 

What is enlightenment?

• Not let people influence you

• 

  literally every man at this point
  
  
  
  

  Escaping self-immaturity
• Using your own intelligence
• Challenging yourself to think on your own
• You’ve been trained by the dominant guardians what is believed to be right or wrong
• Women did not even the option to be enlightened
• It's easy for someone to do the thinking for you
• They are cowards
• the most beautiful sex? Men
• SEXISM

Finally... this is at least one of us every day. Shots are a firing. I expect donuts at least once a week.

Yarn, I think you're up for this week. Thanks for volunteering:)

CHAPTER 18: THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 

1.) How was the scientific revolution the origin of both the modern world and modern mentality? 

• So previously, religion and science needed to be connected - or relate to one another as science was a branch of theology
• Aristotelian view suggested a motionless earth that was fixed at the center of the universe 
• BUT NOW  
• Copernicus --> He said the sun, rather than the Earth, was at the center of the universe (Heliocentric System - not Geocentric)
• He theorized that the stars and planets - including Earth - revolved around FIXED SUN

2.) SO HOW/WHY DID RELIGIONS RESPOND?!?!? 

• A.) Protestants:
• Martin Luther WAS MAD! He said "as the Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun stand still and NOT the Earth." 
• Protestants interpreted their sacred texts LITERALLY so they believed in a Geocentric universe 
• B.) Likewise, John Calvin and his followers condemned Copernicus for his radical hypothesis
• C.) Catholics:
• response was mild at first - they had never fully interpreted the Bible literally - but they still declared his theory false in 1616
•  
• POOR COPERNICUS (BUT HE DID GET SOME FRIENDS TO BACK HIM UP!)  

3.) SO WHO HELPED OUT COPERNICUS TO PROVE HIS HYPOTHESIS?!? 

• Brahe:
• He observed stars and planets w/ the naked eye 
• His greatest contribution = DATA - but he had a limited understanding of MATH 
• he supported Copernicus somewhat in that he stated all the planets revolved around the sun and that the entire group of sun and planets revolved around the earth-moon system 
• Kepler:
• Brahe's assistant 
• brilliant mathematician ==> formulated 3 laws of Planetary Motion 
• He demonstrate that 
• 1.) the orbits of the planets around the sun are elliptical rather than circular 
• 2.) planets do not move at a uniform speed in their orbits 
• 3.) the time a planet takes to make its complete orbit is precisely related to its distance from SUN 
• HIS Contributions were monumental 
• Kepler PROVED THE RELATIONS OF A SUN CENTERED UNIVERSE YAY

(<-- Copernicus)

• Galileo Galilei:
• On a another note --> this MAN Challenged the ideas of MOTION!
• He used the Experimental Method to prove his hypotheses
• He conducted controlled experiments to find out what actually happens rather than speculating
• He formulated the LAW OF INERTIA:
• rest was not the natural state of objects
• and as Lily explained in class --> the objects are forever in motion until they are stopped by an external force
• In addition to motion - he was fascinated by astronomy --> used telescope to discover the first 4 MOONS OF JUPITER 
• unfortunately - Galileo was forced to renounce his scientific beliefs before ecclesiastical judges 

SO BOTTOM LINE: As new scientists/astronomers/ mathematicians made breakthroughs in the laws of the universe --> Critical, modern, scientific method BEGAN TO EMERGE. 

Hobbes & Locke

Hobbes

What was the Leviathan and what did it represent? 

• It is commonly known as a large sea-monster of creature. 

• Hobbes uses it as a metaphor for the monarch. King is the head and the subjects make up the body. 
• The body (subjects) would not be able to function if the head (king) did not tell it what to do and the head(king) would not have anything to operate if the body (subjects) was not together as one firm being. 
• Note that the subjects pay a role in the ruling of the monarchy, but they are completely giving up their rights. 

What's the purpose of the government/ why would people listen to the ruler?

• The government is there to keep the people in check. 
• Hobbes believed people were born evil. They would listen to the ruler because they are inherently bad and the only way for them to be good is to be controlled and listen to the king. 

(Hobbes to all of humanity) 

• By giving up their rights to a (hopefully) just government the people are being protected and they are all in it together.

Can they rebel?

• According to Hobbes, no they cannot. 

Locke

What's the deal with people?

• They are born with natural rights including the right to life, liberty, and property. 
• They weren't good or evil at birth, they become it based on experiences. 

What's the purpose of government? 

• It's there to protect the rights of people. 

Do they have the right to rebel?

• Heck yea!! If the government is corrupt the people must fix it. 

Goal of both 

SOCIAL ORDER AND A JUST GOVERNMENT!!

From Ollie to Charlie (title courtesy of concussed Erin Feith)

Yes she is alive, but unfortunately, Oliver Cromwell is not... 

So honestly, how the heck did we go from Cromwell to Charles II? Basically, Parliament was mad bc they had thought they would rule together under Cromwell, but haha jokes on them, Cromwell established a military dictatorship! AKA the parliament didn't have any power.

So, after dear ole Ollie passes away, Richard Cromwell takes over but he gets kicked out and CHARLES II takes over the crown. 

You ask why did the parliament restore the monarchy? Yeah you got me... it was most likely because they didn't really like oliver very much, so i guess a monarchy was better? idk who understands parliament anyway.

Why was the civil war even fought? like the goal was to get rid of the monarchy right?  These are the questions we must ask ourselves in these dire times.

One important before we into how bad charles was at being king, the cabal

cabal is like the present day secretaries of war, state, etc --> the cabinet!

they are ministers between the king and the commons. they are held responsible to the commons and have to listen to them, not just the king. Basically, they were the ones that had to answer to the commons about what the king was doing. 

This is the first time ministerial responsibility became a thing! yay!!

Charles II and James II --> why were they so terrible that the glorious revolution occurred??

well... ya see, charles ii was only in partying  

IS today my birthday?

He was pretty indifferent towards religious issues, probably the only thing he should have been interested in bc THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT WAS TEARING ENGLAND APART??!?!?!

ANYWAY, Charles makes a deal with parliament as we said, but parliament was annoying, and didn't keep their side of the deal, so Charles was FORCED (not actually but ya know, I pity him) to make a deal with Louis XIV for money.

IN return he only promised to make england catholic again, NBD

WELL, the Puritans freak out

ALSO v important --> Charles had no legitimate heirs (AKA he only had bastard children) so James II takes over.    

James II screws things up even more, aka by being CATHOLIC (no one likes us anymore :( 

also lol he's the leader of the church of england, but he's catholic? okay, lmk 

Two things happen to make glorious revolution occur:

1. proclamation of indulgence (admissible bc as I said he's the head of the church of england) which 

gives a pardon to all catholics (he even hired some in the government --> against test act of 1763 and very bad for the puritans) 

2. his wife has a non-bastard child (a son) and thus James had an heir and the catholic monarchy was presumed to be permanent 

HAHA JOKES BC JAMES GETS KICKED OUT AND DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!!!!

 guess who takes over??

"OOOOO, Mary, William, Mary AND william, William and Mary!" - Erin Feith ladies and gentleman. (yes i did just make gentlemen singular)

THIS IS KNOWN AS GLORIOUS REVOLUTION - BLOODLESS REVOLUTION

- do they invade england --> umm no bc william and mary were invited into england by puritans/protestants so yarn you haven't been lying to freshmen for years

yarn for past years when he thought he was lying to freshmen

-___________________________________________________________________

P.S. ERIN IS STILL CONCUSSED BUT SHE CONTRIBUTED TO MY BLOG
ALSO SORRY FOR BEING A TERRIBLE PERSON DURING CLASS. HOPE MY DONUTS MADE UP FOR IT.

Elizabeth, Louis, and English Civil War

ELIZABETH V. LOUIS 

What is the significant difference between them in terms of how they ruled? 

• Louis actively sought war but Elizabeth only fought when it was necessary, and to protect things that were already present, like England's wool trade 
• She also tolerated other religions a little, especially Protestant and helped the Dutch revolt against Philip, something that Louis definitely wouldn't do 
• So basically because of his questionably amazing dance moves, Louis had to prove his masculinity by going to war all the time 

(yes i finally found it, enjoy) 

ELIZABETH 

Was Elizabeth an absolutist leader? 

• YES
• Just because she was a different ruler than Louis who is an absolutist, doesn't mean that she isn't one 
• She manipulated parliament to her will and exerted complete control over her people largely because of the fact that she was extremely cunning in terms of getting people, especially guys, to bend to her will 
• She also always had a political motive, even when she didn't state it 
• Elizabeth refused to marry, and she stated that she was the Virgin Queen, but ok lets face it she's a total liar because as Maeve said she had "Misters" 
• so basically Elizabeth had everyone played for a fool and she was amazing at it 

The biggest proof of the fact that she was an absolutist leader is the fact that absolutism itself started to decline after her death 

JAMES 

aka the guy who ruined England 

• he didn't have any skills in politics and lacked the "common touch" 
• he shattered the allusion that the house of commons even had any power, because he completely took this "power" away 
• even though Elizabeth kind of left a messy England for James, he lacked the strength as a ruler to handle it 
• so it looks like James was pretty hated on 

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR 

• Religious issues- James and Charles were both sympathetic towards Catholics, something that the Church of England was strongly against 
• people started to freak out because they thought that the country was going to go back to Catholicism 
• At the time, there were three streams of religious thought: Catholic, Anglican, and Puritan 
• The Catholics were critical with the Anglican Church because they changed from Catholicism 
• The Puritans were critical with the Anglican Church because they thought that the Anglicans didn't do enough and needed to take a bigger step in terms of reform 
• The sides of the war were: Royalists (loyal to the King) and Parliament (loyal to the country) 
• Why did he dissolve Parliament? 
• he took away power so he could have the power for himself to collect custom duties on wine and wool
• began in 1640 when he had to call on Parliament so he could pass a tax that would help to put down the revolt in Scotland
• Why did it sit for so long?
• the king died and there was no one left in charge but Parliament.. Sorry Charles

All Pain, Little Gain

A) Louis XIV's Wars

Louis XIV vs Everyone

• WHY???

• Absolute ruler (Louis XIV) wants to expand French land and culture so he (the state) looks cool

• WORTH IT??
• YES... French language and CULTURE SPREAD to other nations
• NO... Monarchy in DEBT (leads to RUIN)

• WAR of SPANISH SUCCESSION (1701-1713) 



Louis XIV after reading Charles II's Will

• Who: Grand Alliance (English, Dutch, Austrians, & Prussians) vs. French & Spanish

• Why:
• 1698 - Europe agrees to divide SPANISH territories between France and Holy Roman emperor.
• PROBLEM:
• CHARLES II (SPANISH KING) - will leaves entire Spanish empire to Louis XIV's grandson (Philip) but forbids union between Spain and France.
• ALL LAND going to one guy would upset BALANCE of POWER
• "Pyrenees no longer exist" Means Spanish and French could be united (never happens though thanks to war)



France to all of Europe After War

• The END: PEACE of UTRECHT
• NO CLEAR WINNER (but France lost the most)
• Completes balance of power by dividing lands
• Ended Spanish Empire & expanded England
• Introduced international cooperation
• France ends expansionism and gives up foreign lands

• CRITICAL THINKING: Would Spanish Succession Wars have started if Spain had no overseas territory?
• New World territories gave Spain prestige since land was power.
• People still would have cared since Spain had the history of being a strong empire. Without America, part of that monarchy would be missing and people might not have gone to the same lengths (like a full war), but actions still would have been taken since Spain is still a large country on its own and the balance of power is still upset.

B) SPAIN'S PAINS

Spain Realizing They Have No More Money

• Why is Spain in a BAD PLACE??
• Bad Leadership - Decadence (overspending) of Habsburg (Monarch)
• Paying taxes was frowned upon by wealthy - NO MIDDLE CLASS (expelled with Jews and Morse) left ALL TAXES on POOR
• Effect: Spain is BROKE, clings to OLD GLORIES
• Don Quixote - satire about the Spanish to IDEALIZE THE PAST and live in this alternate reality like FOOLS.

C) Intro to Constitutionalism (it's not Democracy) 

Constitutionalism - Limiting government through the use of laws.

Me prepping for Constitutionalism

• 2 types:
• Monarchy - KING possess authority but obeys laws 
• Ex) England
• Republic - ELECTORATE has power, more stable
• Not democracy because common people cannot vote.