Enlightenment through Sciences and Culture - Term Paper Example

It is quite unusual for a Jew to be celebrated in the country that once prosecuted his people. Moses Mendelssohn, a Jewish philosopher, rising to prominence in 18th century Germany’s age of reason for his philosophy of Enlightenment, a movement which abetted the development of science and society, has continued to challenge contemporary thoughts. Mendelssohn immensely influenced and greatly contributed to the German Enlightenment period and the formation of modern Jewish ideology. Mendelssohn’s notion of enlightenment has been a constant subject of analysis and debate which in turn spawned countless scholarly works with regards the subject. Indeed, the philosopher’s concept of enlightenment deserves a second look as it bore considerable influence on the cultural and social aspects of Western nations. This paper will discuss Mendelssohn’s assertions with regards enlightenment and will explore the deeper implications of his claims. Mendelssohn contends that ‘Bildung or education, enlightenment and culture’ are variations in the development of our social relations as these denote the end results of human beings’ endeavours to improve their social standings (Mendelssohn 313). As humans strive to unify these social experiences through the accumulation of knowledge and through diligence, Mendelssohn believes that more education or bildung a group of people acquire. Education, thereby, is stratified into two areas: Culture and enlightenment. He states that ‘culture is to enlightenment as theory is to practice’ emphasising the necessity of understanding and applying the practical aspect of culture which for him mainly manifests in the aesthetics of the arts, customs, technological advancements and other tangible aspects of our cultural lives – qualities which connote ‘human perfectibility.’ Enlightenment, therefore, is founded mainly on cultural progress and on its practice. He adds that ‘discernment’ intensifies ‘morality’ while ‘cultural criticism’ enhances ‘virtuosity’ (314). Even if these concepts necessitate divergent definitions, ‘they exist in the closest possible synergy’ (314). Although these expressions are identical in concept, they equally represent the struggles of the individuals to develop themselves and improve their social position. He believes that artistic endeavours such as an architectural work portrays development and can bring society advantages as these impinge upon human perfection. He believes that human perfection can be used as a gauge to measure our struggles as well as a great prize. Moreover, Mendelssohn brings forth the notion of being ‘polished’ which according to him is parallel to being cultured. Nations whose ‘polish’ is the result of their efforts to achieve enlightenment should be praised. He contends that social class and status or vocation establishes that duties, responsibilities and rights of individuals in society which puts forth demands in relation to social status, talents, skills and incidences or tendencies. “The more these qualities correspond exactly to the different social classes with their professions, the more culture a nation possesses” (317). This denotes the importance of both culture and enlightenment that the citizens and individuals must possess in that “all practical virtues only acquire meaning in relation to life in the social sphere” (315). As Mendelssohn asserts that culture and enlightenment are manifested in the aesthetics, the philosopher assumes that the human soul has learned to mimic beauty in different forms of arts. He challenges the prevailing concept and definitions of art and beauty and contends that our prevailing knowledge of aesthetics require redefinition but asserts that the most prevailing feature of beauty is ‘sensuously perfect representation’ which includes ‘forms, orders and harmonies’ and everything that can be perceived by the senses as ‘perfection’(Philosophical Writings, 172). Through these assertions, the philosopher was able to concoct two significant conditions for the measurement of the aesthetics of fine arts and letters. These include ‘faithfulness of the representation’ and the high level of artistry or ‘genius.’ He argues that the beauties found in nature are inferior to the beauties that are manifested in the arts (Dahlstrom, 1). Moreover, he observes that the aesthetics bridge the gap between truth and falsehood – the acquisition of knowledge - and the distinction between good and evil. This is in line with his arguments that knowledge is important to the formation of ethical values (Philosophical Writings, 34-51). Furthermore, Mendelssohn’s view that language forms a crucial part of culture is cemented in his other philosophical writing where he delineates the interdependence of language progress to the progress of the god-given inclinations such our sociability and affiliations with other individuals (Dahlstrom 3). He further shed light on this when he asserts that Judaism is a religion that utilise spoken rather written language which is employed to transmit and interpret Jewish religious legislations. He also stressed the importance of the social aspect of language as used in ritual performances and emphasised the practical usability of language in the process of enlightenment. He further clarifies that language obtains ‘Enlightenment through sciences and Culture through poetry and eloquence.’ Language and culture are both important in their practicability whereas enlightenment is essential in theoretical foundations (314). Nevertheless, the philosopher puts more emphasis on acquiring enlightenment as this brings about the development of theoretical foundations whereas culture has mainly practical relevance. He asserts that countries which successfully merge enlightenment and culture attain the zenith of enlightenment as for instance the great cultural achievements of the Ancient Greeks. For him, modern societies are not able to reach a parallel standard as he believes that, “Nurembergers have more culture, Berliners more enlightenment, the French more culture, the British more enlightenment, the Siamese more culture and little enlightenment” (314). However, this view provides that the possession of a distinct knowledge creates equilibrium between an individual citizen and a human being. He argues that as a citizen, a person undergoes ‘civil enlightenment’ which includes the individual’s social proclivities while a human being can achieve ‘human enlightenment.’ This involves the acquisition of human knowledge which does not centre on ‘the maintenance of social order’ (Schmidt, 5). Hence, this illustrates Mendelssohn’s stratification of the acquisition of knowledge into two more distinct types: public and private. While other philosophers argue that the freedom of knowledge acquisition should not be curtailed (Kant in Belas 457-460), Mendelssohn believes in imposing restrictions to public knowledge in some instances if it poses a threat to society (Schmidt 5-6). The implications of this line of reasoning, however, are very broad. Philosophers who tackled the issue of enlightenment had applied the principles to religious freedom and enlightenment. Kant, for instance, believes that the restrictions promulgated by the church as well as religious doctrines impede personal freedom and thereby called for the individual’s autonomy from the influence of religious ideals (Lassman 815-820) while Mendelssohn focuses his concept of freedom within the religious faith and adds that “reason could demonstrate the fundamental truths of natural religion” (Arkush, xiii). As reason creates a novel apprehension of religious teachings, it endows human beings enlightenment. However, the contrast of these two concepts is obvious since religion, in some ways, limits the ability to acquire reason. Hence, he further gives light to this assertion by stating that enlightenment is acquired by individuals who are courageous enough to question norms and ideas but at the same time show deference to authority. The courage to dispute ideas, exhibit reason, and obedience exemplifies enlightenment. Mendelssohn also highlights in his works freedom from religious faiths through the separation of the society’s most formidable powers: the church and the state. This has become the subsequent basis for the call to church-state separation. Mendelssohn furthermore links the concept of enlightenment to Judaism as he believes that enlightenment is essential to the ‘emancipation of the Jews’ (Shmueli 167). Mendelssohn’s more profound definition of enlightenment is revealed in that he asserts that it should be founded on the concept of natural religion, coupled with reason, which, when applied, results to the shaping of a more enlightened population (Meyer 29). The impact of this contention cannot be ignored as it helped shape the contemporary Jewish culture and the Jewish concept of religion. This aided the period known as the Jewish Enlightenment in which reason detached itself from the constraints of religion. Moreover, this called for the reinvention of the Jewish character in the contemporary world and brought to light the traits that consists Jewish identity through the unification of traditional Jewish values and the philosophical aspects of their cultural life. Mendelssohn challenged the dominant thoughts on the role of the Jewish populace in society, questioning whether ‘enculturation’ or ‘assimilation’ should prevail in the Jewish ideology. Consequently, some Jews took the position that the dominant ideal was for the Jew to think first as a citizen of a country, assimilate into the majority culture while others maintained to keep their traditional culture. Yet, Mendelssohn’s thoughts on the issue, one that embraced tolerance and freedom, paved the way for the Jewish openness as he adheres to the adoption of “the mores and constitution of the country” in which the Jewish find themselves in, yet “steadfast in upholding the religion of [their] fathers.” This is not an utter dismissal of the Jewish faith and cultural norms. Instead, Mendelssohn advocates the integration of Jews in the community (Meyer 127). The consequence of the Mendelssohn perspective with regards culture and enlightenment on the Jewish community is exactly what the philosopher had envisioned when he put forth the definitions and the implications of his ideology. This is consistent with his contentions that the achievement of freedom and enlightenment is done only if an individual transforms himself and adheres to the freedom of conscience – freedom that the philosopher closely linked to religion and faith. This also clarifies his argument that a state should not put constraints on the religion of its citizens, thereby cementing his proclivity towards freedom of choice. The implication of this is massive in that the philosopher was able to go beyond the prevailing religious biases and prejudices and was able to bridge the gap between Christianity and Judaism (Beiser 92-95). These transformations consists genuine enlightenment as it helped revived humanism and the respect for divergent principles. This is also in line with his delineation of the fact that enlightenment is essentially religious as he further endeavours to reconcile religious concerns with philosophical principles (Sorkin 34-43). Hence, although he treats Judaism as a religion which holds the greatest plane of rationality, it did not save religion from being criticised by the philosopher which in turn resulted to the deconstruction of Judaism’s traditional principles (Altmann 13-21). As enlightenment can endow people with the rationality to confront particular religious issues, Mendelssohn believes that simple faith in the Divine is not sufficient to prove God’s existence. Hence, through the application of reason, individuals will be able to receive answers to the religious dilemma that beset them. Arkush clarifies this when he states that Mendelssohn observes “reason could demonstrate the fundamental truths of natural religion” which is composed of God’s existence, providence and immortality (Arkush xiii). He argues that governments cannot impinge upon human conscience. He refers to the teachings of Judaism as a source of this contention as ‘religious power’ owes its support from Mosaic legislations. He insists that Judaism is a natural religion which is revealed to its founding fathers and is always guided by Divine reason (Arkush 20). He views Judaism with rationalism and yet contends that its principles are revealed in legislations. In his other work Jerusalem, for instance, Mendelssohn utilised reason to defend his views on Judaism. Although criticised by other scholars for doing so, as reason and religion oppose each other, it illustrates Mendelssohn’s commitment to reason (Jerusalem 84-87) which is put forth in his definitions of enlightenment. Experts on Mendelssohn’s philosophy argue that Mendelssohn’s latter work, Jerusalem is a defence on reason, firmly illustrating his adherence to rational inquiry as for him; it is the responsibility of the philosopher to investigate, analyse and inquire. A philosopher’s actions and moral duties should not hinder with this responsibility (Mendelssohns Defense of Reason in Jerusalem 452-453). Moreover, Mendelssohn advocates the ‘virtuosity’ founded on vigorous acquisition of knowledge through inquiry as this counters ‘superstition, fanaticism and intolerance (Beiser 96 – 98). One facet of the philosopher’s commitment to reason is his utilisation of liberalism and virtue - an example of which is tolerance. His idea of a cultured and ‘polish’ state is one which is occupied by rational and moral entities which are also defined by their unique obligations, history and customs and traditions. This cultural diversity and convergent ideals must not only be tolerated but also freely expressed (Smith, Chapter 3). These declarations strengthen his concept of enlightenment which should always be put into practice. However, Mendelssohn is sceptical if the period of enlightenment will ever come to pass as all throughout history human beings have gone through a cycle of construction and deconstruction – sometimes verging forward and sometimes backwards which hindered the progress of human societies. Although a person is able to obtain a particular level of enlightenment, the populace impose certain hindrances such as laws and limitations which hamper the progression of enlightenment. Mendelssohn’s contention with regards culture and enlightenment also has metaphysical inclinations. He believes in the external realities which are verified by our senses, knowledge and cognitive ability which include our experiences but ones which are coupled with rationality and reasoning. He believes in the distinction between reality and imagination which could mislead our senses and perceptions. For him, the difference between real and ideal is slimmer that what we usually presuppose and further argues that only God knows truly a ‘thing in itself.’ Hence, the debate between the definitions of real and ideal deals merely with semantics rather than a substantial argument. Although these preconceptions are in fact criticised as derivative of the works of Kant, they subsequently become the basis of Mendelssohn arguments on the existence of God. His proof is derived from the reality his senses experienced and founded his convictions on the existence of God on common sense as he believes that common sense is usually precise (Dahlstrom, 2). Hence, it is undeniable that Mendelssohn’s influence on the propagation of enlightenment during his time was considerable and had created a huge impact on his society and his contemporaries. The proliferation and acquisition of knowledge, and his substantiations of his definition of enlightenment which Mendelssohn put much importance have helped advanced different areas of cultural and scientific life. The unshackling of the religious individuals from the clutches of the church doctrine is liberating as well whether these individuals are contend that the understanding of the Divine comes with merely faith or coupled with rationality. Most importantly, the influence of Mendelssohn on the transformation of Jewish faith has also brought changes in our society. These changes have affected most of us in one way or another, directly or indirectly. The most important thing however is that we are able to fully grasp the idea of practicality and application of culture, knowledge and enlightenment which are manifest in our ways of life. WORKS CITED Altmann, Alexander. Moses Mendelssohn, A Biographical Study. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1973. Arkush, Allan. Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994. Beiser, Frederick. The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1987. Dahlstrom, Daniel. "Moses Mendelssohn." Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. 2002. Stanford University. 26 Nov 2008 . Lassman, Peter. "Enlightenment, Cultural Crisis, and Politics. The Role of Intellectuals from Kant to Habermas." The European Legacy. 5 (2000): 815-828. Mendelssohn, Moses, and Allan Arkush. Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism. Hanover: Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New England, 1983. Mendelssohn, Moses. On the Question: What does "To Enlighten" Mean? Philosophical Writings. By Moses Mendelssohn. Trans. and ed. Daniel O. Dahlstrom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 313-317. Meyer, Michael. The Origins of the Modern Jew. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967. Morgan, Michael. "Mendelssohns Defense of Reason in Jerusalem.." Judaism 38(1989): 449-460. Philosophische Schriften [Philosophical Writings]. Berlin: Voß, 1761; also in Fritz Bamberger, ed. (1929). Gesammelte Schriften Jubiläumsausgabe. Volume 1: Schriften zur Philosophie und Ästhetik [Writings on Philosophy and Aesthetics]. Translation: Philosophical Writings. Translated by D. O. Dahlstrom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Schmidt, James, ed. What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-Century Questions and Twentieth-Century Answers. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1996.) Shmueli, Efraim. Seven Jewish Cultures: A Reinterpretation of Jewish History and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Smith, Steven, Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) Ch. 3 Sorkin, David. Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Wellesz, Egon, and Frederick W. Sternfeld. The Age of Enlightenment, 1745-1790. New Oxford history of music, v. 7. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. Read More