Reason, Race and Rumor: Assessment #1

Dr. Benson @Trinity

PART 1: 1688 (Secondary Source: 1/5) → OK

OK

Why could 1688 mean nothing?

1688 is a Christian European year; at this time, many other places had different calendars and with no connections, it would be but a meaningless number to them.

Who had a good knowledge of the world in 1688?

Only the European elite, travelers and Jesuit missionaries would know the varieties of the world in 1688. After all, the world was disconnected — only the literate would have nearly enough knowledge to claim to know the extent of the world.

What are some differences between today and 1688? (Name FIVE.)

Communication was faster, less crowded, quieter, shorter life expectancy, slower technological advancements

Why does the author mention “certain omissions and overrepresentations”?

This is because those that were illiterate could not document their own stories, so their perspective had to be told from the rich European white elite men… as you can tell, there would be bias in these perspectives. The author forbears from succumbing to such prejudices and biases.

How does he convey these “voices”, in his words?

Despite most sources being written texts, he imagines their voices. For example, he could imagine the collective voice of the cries from a slave ship and use those as a source for their perspective, hearing their point of view, their “voice”.

PART 2: Europe and Control (Secondary Source: 2/5) → OK

OK

What is absolute power?

When the monarch is the sole lawmaker, the core of absolutism.

What is something absolute rulers claim?

They claim that they were above the law of normal people, not subject to the law of their kingdoms. Rather, the only person above them in absolutism is God, so God’s laws are the only one that they should follow.

How do rulers justify being above the law?

They claim divine right, saying that their power comes straight from god. This idea directly supports absolutism. However, they can’t break God’s laws, which (usually) keeps them in check — they are too afraid of going to hell to exploit this power too much and have the sin reflect on their soul.

What THREE strategies did absolute European monarchs employ?

They wanted to weaken the power of the assemblies so they could be the sole lawmaker.

Another strategy was to make the nobility subordinate to the ruler! They offered nobles exemption from taxes in exchange for recognizing and enforcing the absolute reign of the monarch.

The final strategy was to control the administrative machinery, thereby impacting the lives of their subjects.

What two states mainly had absolutism? What time period? How were they different?

Absolutism happened mainly in Europe; France and Spain were the main two states. The time period was from 1600-1700 and while France was successfully absolutist, Spain wasn’t.

Who was Louis XIII? Why was he important?

The first king of France to take serious efforts to bring about absolutism. He recognized the problem of the nobles immediately and wanted to diminish their power as greatly as possible.

Who was Cardinal Richelieu? What did he do?

Richelieu was a Cardinal who became Louis XIII’s chief minister. He brought down rebellions by the noblemen and his greatest act was empowering the intendants, a tax force directly connected to the king, therefore making the king that much more powerful.

Who was Mazarin? What did he do?

Mazarin was Richelieu’s student and successor. He fought to uphold Richelieu’s work and made sure it withstood the test of time (and the Frondes). He could not prevent the Fronde of the Parlement (where the Parlement rebelled and forced the royal family to flee) or the Fronde of the Princes (where Prince de Condé and his fellow nobles allied with Spain to wage war on the French government; this rebellion failed after de Condé’s defeat). However, he protected the achievement of Richelieu and allowed France to continue to become absolutist.

Who was Louis XIV? Why was he important?

Louis XIV was the first king to assume direct control of the government without a main councillor. After Mazarin’s death, he was directly controlling France. Not only that but his reign was long and fruitful.

What was Louis XIV’s main policies? Explain about Versailles.

Louis XIV built on Richelieu’s and Mazarin’s policies, taking them to another level. He realized how important limiting the nobility’s power was. He did this in two ways. First, he constructed the Palace of Versailles to demonstrate France’s great power. Additionally, he required nobles to stay at the palace and pay for the maintenance of their specific room, restricting their movements and limiting their financial power. His second act was to take away the nobles’ power in government. Louis XIV gave the nobles wealth and privileges in exchange for this slight.

Who was Colbert? What did he do?

A student of Mazarin, Colbert used the theory of mercantilism and brought it to France — the theory that a country’s power was based on having less imports than exports. Colbert focused on expanding France’s trade network and industry.

What was the Edict of Nantes incident? What happened; whom did it restrict?

The Edict of Nantes allowed Huguenots (French Calvinists) to practice their religion freely. However, Louis XIV used his absolute power to revoke the Edict. Additionally, he called the army to enforce conversions to Christianity and closed down all Protestant churches, resulting in a mass emigration.

What was Louis XIV’s nickname?

The Sun King

How did Louis XIV influence culture?

He wanted to control the production of culture and how the future would see him. Thus, he influenced culture such as art — those that painted him and wrote about his achievements positively would get direct financial support. His patronage also went to cultural institutions. He even influenced the dictionary to build a legacy.

PART 3: Bossuet (Primary Source: 1/4) → OK

OK

What were Bossuet’s four main points about his “royal authority”?

That “royal authority” is, at its core: sacred, paternal, absolute, with no coactive.

Break down his four points. What do they seem to resemble?

SACRED: divine right

PATERNAL: fatherly, caring, inherital

ABSOLUTE: no challenges

NO COACTIVE: sole power!

This reminds me eerily of ABSOLUTISM.

PART 4: Scientific Revolution (Secondary Source: 3/5) → OK

OK

When and where was the Scientific Revolution?

1500-1600 (16th-17th C.) in Afro-Eurasia

Was the Sci. Rev. revolutionary?

Kind of. In Europe, it had many new advancements in thinking and knowledge was spread. Additionally, science was made into a profession. However, these ideas had already existed outside of Europe and the change was slow and fragmented. Though it might have been revolutionary in Europe, it was not for most of the world.

Was the Sci. Rev. European?

Not necessarily. As said before, the European ideas seem to be based off of other sources outside of Europe. For example, Copernicus’ ideas on the world being heliocentric seemed to be based on Al-Tusi’s existing work. In fact, they were a one-to-one comparison, showing a clear reference from a European scholar claiming something “new” to an Arab scholar that had already had the same idea previously.

Whose revolution?

The revolution was mainly for the literate. That means rich, noble, white European men. Women took a part in science originally, but now that it was regarded as a serious profession, they couldn’t take part. Which is ridiculous, because women take part in cooking… which is basically chemistry (AKA SCIENCE).

PART 5: Galileo (Primary Source: 2/4) → OK

OK

What were Galileo’s ideas? Why were they so controversial? What happened to him?

He claimed the world to be heliocentric (which it is), which directly conflicts with the geocentric views of the Church. They charge him for heresy and give him a chance to recant. He believes that God wouldn’t have given us the ability to reason and create if we can’t, yet his truly revolutionary ideas were taken badly. Since he had no other option, he chooses to recant (else they would kill him) and they exile him indefinitely.

PART 6: Skepticism (Secondary Source: 4/5) → OK

OK

Again, who did the Sci. Rev. affect?

The literate. In other words, educated, rich, European, white males…

What was Descartes’ main philosophy?

Descartes brought about the encouraging of skepticism, rather he gave it new meaning and surpassed previous limits.

What was the most important part of the Scientific Method that Descartes approved of?

Descartes believed in observation; that it was the key to figuring out everything there is. Only through observation and our own senses can we find out who we truly are.

What did Descartes ask of people?

He asked for people to challenge everything and anything — to think clearly and systematically for themselves and doubt until there is proof that there is no reason for doubt. Only when someone has done that for themselves can they truly stop doubting.

What was deism? How did it conflict with religion? (There are TWO main ways.)

First, there is the matter of what Galileo was charged for: heliocentric vs. geocentric. If it directly conflicts with the Bible, it is seen as heresy. Thus, sun-centered theories were brought about. Second, scientists believed that God was an engineer that built the perfect machine (Earth) and that He no longer needs to work with it, just maintenance. However, this contradicts the Bible that says God takes a part in every day. This theory that God is a “retired engineer” is part of deism, a new system of belief (NOT a religion, as it does not have institutions, central texts, leaders or set rules).

What did some scientists claim to support science and religion?

Some people said science and religion were actually compatible. They compromised and said that God played a supreme role in governing the universe with inexplicable forces such as gravity and keeping matter in motion, while nature continues to operate on its own. Renowned scientists such as Newton used God to explain gravity.

PART 7: Descartes (Primary Source: 3/4) → OK

OK

What does “good sense” mean for Descartes?

He means reason. Only people have reason and every person has this ability, yet every person has a different perspective.

Why does Descartes appreciate math and proofs?

There is one set answer; all people eventually get to the right answer and if it’s wrong, you try again until it’s right. This clarity appealed to Descartes.

How did Descartes claim credibility?

He said that he went to a prestigious university to brag a bit about his credibility.

What did Descartes say?

He claimed that one had to doubt everything except those obvious truths — the ones that you can sense with your senses… but wait, how can you trust your senses? How can you trust yourself?

How did Descartes mention dreams?

Since you can sense things in dreams, the only consistency is your mind. That is the one thing you can be sure of and since you can think, you can be sure of your existence. One who can think must have a soul in some sense. Therefore, you must exist to be able to think in the first place. In Descartes’ words, “I think, therefore, I am.”

How did Descartes go on to prove God’s existence?

He says that no human soul is perfect and since there has to be a perfect soul in relation to an imperfect one, that perfect soul, that being, has to be God.

PART 8: The Enlightenment (Secondary Source: 5/5) → OK

OK

How was the Enlightenment possible?

With a growing connectedness across the world, ideas could collide freely and merge. Thus, the Enlightenment was born.

What was the Enlightenment?

Originally an intellectual movement, it became a little bit of everything as time progressed.

What was Locke’s idea that was supported by many Enlightenment thinkers? Why were his ideas controversial?

Locke claimed that despite the places or skin tones, every person has a sense of shared humanity. However, despite this idea, he also openly supported slavery. Ouch.

What happened as a result of Locke’s hypocritical position?

Religious groups and several people called for the abolition of slavery after hearing Locke’s controversial opinion, siding with both arguments.

PART 9a: Hobbes Backstory (Backstory: 1/1) → OK

OK

Who was Charles I? What did he do?

Charles I was an English king that became ruler after Henry (would have been VIII) died. He was very shy towards nobles and they got mad at him for refusing to talk to them. Additionally, he wanted absolute power to make laws. Although he claimed divine right, the nobles rebelled and found him guilty of treason. Charles I refused to recant and was executed in public. This was radical as it challenged divine right.

What was Hobbes’ relation to Charles I? How did this affect his primary source ‘Leviathan’?

Hobbes fled after Charles I’s execution, knowing in his heart that challenging divine right was wrong. He went to France to tutor Charles I’s son (soon to be Charles II!) He knew that Charles I’s death was unjustified and against God and he put that knowledge into his piece ‘Leviathan’.

PART 9b: Hobbes (Primary Source: 4/4) → OK

OK

What does Hobbes say is the State of Human Nature?

He says that at our base impulse, humanity is a life of continual fear of violent death, with no culture, industry or creativity whatsoever. He says that at our core, we are at a constant state of war and that without society, we would be nothing more than animals with brutish, solitary, short lives.

What does Hobbes say is the ultimate goal of humans?

Hobbes says that humanity is greedy for power after power endlessly. The end goal is to indefinitely be on the path to success in any case, to have “foresight of your own preservation.” In other words, safety and security is man’s primary concern and to have the most safety is to have the most power

How does Hobbes suggest humanity solved this issue of war to get into the state of society we are in today?

Hobbe suggests that our ancestors used a covenant to create a covenant, making a commonwealth between sovereign and subjects.

What is a commonwealth? What does Hobbes suggest about the sovereigns of today?

A commonwealth is when subjects go under one sovereign to form an agreement, a covenant, to gather their power under one person and maintain a sense of society to avoid the state of nature in humanity that is war. Hobbes believes that long ago, our ancestors formed such a covenant and that it is binding throughout the generations. This covenant lasts between the sovereign of today, the ruler, and their subjects. Thus, the covenant will forever exist and there should be no challenge to the ruler because we are all bound by our covenant.

How does Hobbes NOT make sense? Which part?

Hobbes says that a sovereign will never harm a subject because no one would harm a part of themself — however, this isn’t true. Humanity would, especially if at their core they are evil. Maybe the sovereign would exploit the chance? What then?