Listening to In Our Time on BBC Radio 4 (Link : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3wy) with Melvyn Bragg on the subject of Nicolas de Condorcet, French philosopher and mathematician, born 17th September 1743 in Picardy and died in a prison cell on the 29th March 1794, in Bourg-la-Reine in the middle of his 51st year, I was moved to doing some further reading about this interesting man. Mentioned during the broadcast, amongst other writings, was his Sketch – [full title: Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de l'esprit humain (Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the huma mind)] The first paragraph reads:
“Man is born with the faculty of receiving sensations, of perceiving and distinguishing, in those he receives, the simple sensations of which they are composed, of retaining them, of recognizing them, of combining them, of preserving them or recall in one's memory, to compare these combinations with each other, to grasp what they have in common and what distinguishes them, to attach signs to all these objects, to better recognize them and facilitate new combinations.”
The Wikipedia entry referring to the Sketch states:
“It made the Idea of Progress a central concern of Enlightenment thought. He argued that expanding knowledge in the natural and social sciences would lead to an ever more just world of individual freedom, material affluence, and moral compassion. He argued for three general propositions: that the past revealed an order that could be understood in terms of the progressive development of human capabilities, showing that humanity's "present state, and those through which it has passed, are a necessary constitution of the moral composition of humankind"; that the progress of the natural sciences must be followed by progress in the moral and political sciences "no less certain, no less secure from political revolutions"; that social evils are the result of ignorance and error rather than an inevitable consequence of human nature. He was innovative in suggesting that scientific medicine might in the future significantly extend the human life span, perhaps even indefinitely, such that future humans only die of accident, murder and suicide rather than simply old age or disease.”
And
“For Condorcet's republicanism the nation needed enlightened citizens and education needed democracy to become truly public. Democracy implied free citizens, and ignorance was the source of servitude. Citizens had to be provided with the necessary knowledge to exercise their freedom and understand the rights and laws that guaranteed their enjoyment. Although education could not eliminate disparities in talent, all citizens, including women, had the right to free education. In opposition to those who relied on revolutionary enthusiasm to form the new citizens, Condorcet maintained that revolution was not made to last and that revolutionary institutions were not intended to prolong the revolutionary experience but to establish political rules and legal mechanisms that would insure future changes without revolution. In a democratic city there would be no Bastille to be seized. Public education would form free and responsible citizens, not revolutionaries.”
The Sketch was published in 1795 after his death, but no doubt written during the period of the French Revolution which followed on from the American Declaration of Independence and subsequent revolution 13 years earlier. That revolution was promulgated by men who clearly had education and knowledge of David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1761), as did Condorcet whose wife Sophie not only published her husband’s Sketch in 1795, but her own translation into French of Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1794. Indeed Sophie Madame de Condorcet started a salon at the Hotel des Monnaies in Paris opposite the Louvre which was attended, amongst others by Thomas Jefferson. She also hosted the Cercle Social whose members included Olympe de Gouge who had published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791.
This world and word of enlightenment clearly was widespread and led to the optimistic thinking of the power of education and man’s supposed ability to absorb knowledge and common sense which gave rise to the multiple and various declarations of the rights of men, and the formulation of the Constitution of the United States, “a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.
The people, who gave prominence to reason and real education and believed in the evolution of free and responsible citizens, have, so far as the current United States is concerned, been abandoned. The very idea that an individual such as Donald Trump can be tolerated, let alone actively supported, by free citizens with the power to vote in such numbers so as to make him President of the United States of America, is contrary to every expectation of human decency, education and intelligence. We appear to be living, or rather existing, in a world retreating into the dark ages.
The people who came to prominence and influence during the 17th and 18th centuries looked forward to a progressive and continually enlightened civilisation. The glass was always half full. Following on from the ravages of the 19th and 20th centuries, we seemed to be hell bent on a downward spiral rather than peaceful and human progress. Technologically there have been some impressive and inspiring advances and, on the whole, are beneficial to the planet, if applied and used with intelligence and reason. Then again, application and intelligence of technology is a problem all its own, but that too, has its up and down side. Overall one has to question why it is that the authoritarian approach to government seeks to maintain a populace in ignorance. What is it that creates ‘parental rights groups’ which seek to limit the availability of books ‘not approved of’ and enforce a very limited approach to learning. It’s as if education was about learning only what is deemed to be acceptable by the control group. That is not education, that is indoctrination. Societies have been there before and it never ends well.
There is a divide in the United States as to what the Constitution actually means. Both left and right of the political spectrum lay claim to it and appeal to it to enforce their point of view. Outrageously there are the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who propound that it protects their right to bigotry, intolerance, the power of the gun and violence both physical and verbal. Our way or no way. They hurl insult and threat at the slightest opposition. In the face of overwhelming evidence showing their leader to be an obsessive charlatan applauding violent behaviour, they do not see the sham. “He loves our country” is their instinctive response. Constituencies that can elect the likes of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Matt Gaetz. Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and many more, give cause for great concern.
Despite the revelations of the January 6 House Committee hearings and the statements of the variety of witnesses that Donald Trump is an arrogant swindler nothing seems to stick. How is it that a country whose popular majority rejected Donald Trump in 2020, having swallowed four years of his psychotic narcissism, is once again on the brink of allowing him to continue in any public office, despite exhibiting even greater psychotic obsession?
I wonder about humans born in the United States. Has the faculty of receiving, perceiving and distinguishing sensations been subverted? Do they really have the facility to recognise, compare and distinguish between what is the truth and what is criminal chicanery? The internet is so rife with skulduggery invading emails and messages across the globe that one is forever on alert and almost every transaction now requires double verification. How does one distinguish anything?
I do not seek to be depressing at
the very beginning of the new year, but the next 11 months is a major test for
democracy around the world. I truly hope that the predictions and prospects
felt during the Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th Centuries
will prevail. Where are the likes of Sophie
Condorcet and Olympe de Gouge when we need them? I know they are out there. Now would be their time and it's not the likes of Nikki Haley.
No comments:
Post a Comment