Civilization #46: The Revolution of Reason

So today we start a three-part series on the French Revolution, which I believe to be the most significant event in human history. Okay. So let me very quickly explain its significance. So as I keep on mentioning in this class, it is the religious worldview that underpins society and civilization. It is what allows society to function. And to oversimplify, there have been four major religious worldviews in human history. Okay, so let's go over them briefly. The first is what we call the animistic, and this is basically during the Ice Age when we were hunter-gatherers and we were just roaming the earth.

Okay. Right. And there are three major keywords that underlie this worldview. Harmony, and oneness. We do not believe that we were different from the plants, the animals that lived on this planet. We were one with them. We were interconnected with them. We didn't fear death because life and death were part of the same continuous cycle. Okay. So this is the idea of the animistic worldview. From then we moved on to polytheistic, many gods, and the three main ideas that underpin the polytheistic worldview are ritual and fate.

No one, not even the gods, can escape fate. Our fate has been preordained. What courage is, is the willingness to embrace with honor and with dignity your fate. So think of Hector as he is about to battle Achilles. He knows he is going to get killed and he's afraid. He shakes, but he still confronts his fate and he dies. And that's what's expected of you in the Viking world, in the Greek world, in the Roman world. To face your death with honor and dignity, to live your life with courage, action, but in a ritualized manner.

Okay? In a way that the community expects of you and to embrace your fate no matter what it is. Okay? That's the polytheistic worldview. Then this leads us to the worldview, the monotheistic. Okay. So the monotheistic are the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. The three major ideas that underpin the monotheistic worldview: orthodoxy, and truth. There is an eternal truth called God. We must have faith in him. And faith and truth are expressed through orthodoxy. There is a set of beliefs that you cannot question, that you must believe, and you must live your life according to this orthodoxy.

Okay. So these are the three major ideas underlying monotheism. Now we move to the modern period. Okay. Another word that we can use for modern is deism. Okay, deism, you may not have heard of this, but the idea of deism is that there is a god. God created the universe but then he left us. He doesn't care about what happens anymore because the world he created was perfect. And it is up to us to understand the perfect laws of the universe and then perfect our lives according to these laws.

Okay. So let's say you have deism. This is important because deism is the founding religion of both the American as well as the French revolutions. All right. And there are three major beliefs that underpin deism. The first is reason. Okay. So rather than faith, we have to use our reason because that's the gift that God gave us before he left. We are able, using logic, using intuition, using skepticism, to understand how the world works. Okay? Reason. All right? But reason by itself is not enough. You have to engage in debate in order to fully use our reason.

You may not be able to reason out for yourself the truth, but in a debate, you're able to hear out the truth. Okay? And if we do this, if we continue to exercise our reason, if we continue to engage in debate, what is often called the marketplace of ideas, this will lead to the idea of Okay. So what's happened is that the modern period is responding to the Christian period by replacing faith with reason, orthodoxy with debate, and truth with progress. Okay. And these three ideas, reason, debate and progress, are the foundations of the period we live in today called the modern period.

These three ideas are the foundations of our school system, of our universities, of our scientific institutions. Okay, does that make sense? All right. Now, having gone through these four different periods, I want to do some analysis. Okay. The first analysis is to explain to you how these changes manifested themselves. So the animistic period is the most natural. It's what makes the most sense. Quite honestly, if animals had a religion, it would probably be an animistic religion. Okay. So how do we transition from the animistic to polytheistic?

Well, the main reason is because of civilization. Okay? Because of mass society, civilization, because we chose to settle down and learn agriculture and develop systems. All right? And with that comes war, comes hierarchy, comes inequality. And as such, we develop the polytheistic worldview. All right? From the polytheistic worldview, we then transition into the monotheistic worldview. Why? Because of Christianity. All right. Christianity.

Remember, you're usually taught that Christianity is, oh, Jesus dies and then everyone becomes a Christian. That's not what happened. Okay? As you learn in this class, Christianity was a mechanism developed by the Roman Empire in order to assimilate the Jews and then later on to assimilate barbarians who were economic migrants into the Roman Empire. Basically, it was a tool of control for the Roman Empire. Okay. But then you have this mass transition from monotheism, the Christian period, into modernism. All right. And this turning point, which is the most radical turning point in human history, is what we call the French Revolution.

Without the French Revolution, modernity could not happen. All right. And what's amazing about the French Revolution is it is entirely unprecedented. We've never had anything like this before. It was entirely unpredictable and it was unique in human history. All right. So we will spend the next three classes to understand how the French Revolution happened, because without understanding the French Revolution you cannot understand future events, especially communism, the rise of communism, World War II. None of these things would have been possible without the French okay. All right. So another thing that's really important for us to understand is that all four worldviews still exist today.

All right, there are still people who believe in animism, polytheism, okay? But they're the minority. The dominant people are still the monotheists, okay? And they're in competition with the modernists, okay? Who are the educated elite, okay? So this clash is still going on today. The other thing that's really important for us to understand is none of these beliefs is inherently superior to the other. Okay, you can make the argument, you cannot make the argument to me at least that one is better than the other.

But new systems believe they are superior to the other. Okay, to the previous. So the polytheists believe they are superior to the animists. The monotheists think they are superior to the polytheists and the deists think they're superior to the monotheists. Okay. And because of this sense of superiority they try to crush previous worldviews. Okay. So these four worldviews are not in competition with each other, but the new ones seek to displace the old ones and this has led to a lot of conflict throughout human history.

All right. So this is the overall framework we're working with. I know it's a bit simple but for the purpose of this class it's good enough. Okay. All right. So now what I'm going to do is explain the framework for the next three classes. Okay. My argument to you is the French Revolution was ultimately a religious crusade. That is the main thesis of the next three classes. In each class, we will introduce different elements of this crusade that made it possible. For a crusade to happen, you need three different types of geniuses.

You need the poet to envision the future. Okay, the poet. But then you need the prophet who has the courage to take the people into this new land. And then you need the prince or the conqueror who has the conviction and the determination to physically conquer this new land and expand the revolution. Okay. So the poet is Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He wrote The Social Contract. We will be focusing on him mainly today. Okay. He's the one who introduces the idea that it is possible to build a new world based entirely on reason itself.

All right, that's Rousseau. Then you have the prophet. The prophet is the one who has the courage to lead the people into the new land even though it may cost him his life. And this person, his name is Maximilien Robespierre. Okay. Maximilien Robespierre is in my opinion one of the most misunderstood and underrated individuals in human history.

Next class we'll focus on Robespierre. Without Robespierre the French Revolution could not have succeeded. And then now you need a prince who will take the ideas of the prophet and he will militarily expand into the world and conquer a new world and build a new world. And this person's name of course is Napoleon, and this is the last class. All right. And my argument to you today is that without the active cooperation of all three, if they're not able to build on each other's work, the French Revolution would not have succeeded.

Because if you just look at the French Revolution, the odds were so against the revolutionaries, right? They were not only against the aristocracy and their own people, they were up against the entire world. Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, everyone wanted to destroy the revolution before it threatened their nations. So the odds were completely against the French Revolution but they succeeded and it was only because of the cooperation of these three particular types of geniuses. Rousseau the poet, Robespierre the prophet and Napoleon the prince. Okay. So that's what we will be doing these next three classes.

All right. So let's talk about the ideas that underpin the French Revolution, the Enlightenment. Okay. How do we get into the modern period where the ideas are now reason, debate, and progress? Okay. So let's go back to Dante. Dante's Divine Comedy is a prophecy. It is a new understanding of the world. Okay. So what the Divine Comedy does is it helps people take all these new structural forces that are being unleashed onto the world and understand them in a new way that unleashes three major movements. Okay.

These are of course the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Okay. Now as these things are happening, what else is happening is the gunpowder revolution. The gunpowder revolution. And these things combine in order to create massive structural changes within European society. Okay, so we discussed this but there are three major changes that are happening throughout this period. The first is the transition from feudalism to a nation. Okay, the idea of a nation. Okay, at first it's an absolute monarchy but then after revolution it transitions into a nation-state.

Okay, from decentralization to centralization basically, that's the first major change. Second major change is from rural to urban, basically from agriculture into industry. Okay. And the third major change is from religion into science. All right. And this is what's happening in Europe because of the gunpowder revolution. Now what's important about this is with these structural changes comes massive demographic, political and economic changes. Essentially what's happening is that new groups of people are being created and these groups of people are who we collectively call the middle class.

Okay. So let's look at the middle class. All right. So previously in Europe there are just roughly speaking two major groups. Okay, there's the nobility and the clergy. Okay, there's almost no difference between the two because they intermarry. They come from the same families. Okay, but they're the leading elite of society. Okay, you have the top people, the nobility, the clergy, and then at the other end are the peasants and And of course I mean like this is not that simple. I mean you always have a middle class.

You always have tradespeople. You always have people working in towns but they're a minority. And what's happening now because of all these changes in society is they now become an increasingly powerful group of people. They're the ones who are driving economic change. Okay. Now, the middle class is an extremely complicated set of people. But roughly speaking, we can divide them into three major categories. Okay. Three major categories. The first is what we call bourgeois. The bourgeois. Okay. The bourgeois is a French term that we use and it comes actually from the German, which is burger.

Burger means the leading citizens of a town, the burghers. And the leading citizens of a town usually are the factory owners, the merchants, the people who trade, the bankers, the people who control the money, the lawyers. Okay. So these are the bourgeois. These are the elite. Okay. And this is a new group of people that work very closely with the nobility but they have some differences. Okay. And the thing to remember about these people is they tend to be conservative because in terms of status they already have all the status that they want.

Okay. And over time what will happen is that the king and nobility will increasingly depend on the bourgeois for financing. Okay? So they pay for wars, they pay for new industry, they pay for roads. Okay? So the bourgeois are the ones who are most heavily taxed but they're usually conservative. They're really happy with the way things are. At the other end, sorry, next to the bourgeois are what we call the petite bourgeois, all right, and these people are not rich but they're solidly in the middle class, they're comfortable where they are, okay, these people are schoolteachers, maybe they're restaurant owners, maybe they're notaries, okay, so the thing about these people is that they tend to be aspirational.

They're not happy with their lives. They want more and as such they are opportunistic. Okay. Usually the people who are most likely to lead the revolution come from members of the petite bourgeoisie. Okay. So most of the leaders of the French Revolution, the most radical members, were provincial lawyers. Okay, lawyers who worked in small cities. They're not part of the elite, the bourgeois. Okay, but they're pretty comfortable where they are. Okay, they're the provincial elite. If you look at the communist revolution, right, Mao, he was a petit bourgeois, right?

He was a provincial elite, not a Beijing elite. All right. And the last group is what will be referred to in the future, okay, not now, as the proletariat. The proletariat are artisans, craftspeople, people who work in cities and in the urban centers and they have a specialized craft that makes them valuable. Okay, they're not peasants, they're not poor, but the problem is they are very precarious. Okay, precarious. What this means is that as the economy progresses new technology will start to replace the Okay, like a sewing machine, and as such they lose their livelihoods.

So their lives are very precarious. Therefore they most likely tend towards violence. So these are the foot soldiers of revolutions. Okay, the petite bourgeois are often the thought leaders but the proletariat are the ones who provide the muscle. Okay. So if you look at most revolutions this is how it works. What's really important for us to understand is that first of all these categories are not strict. Okay, there are lots of interchange between the proletariat and the peasantry. There's lots of interchange between the bourgeois and the nobility.

Okay, these categories are not static. The other thing is that the loyalties of each group will change according to the circumstance. Okay. So the petite bourgeois is not definite that they will rebel against the bourgeois. It depends on their economic interest and it is not definite that the peasants will work with the petite bourgeois against the nobility. In fact during the French Revolution this is really important. The nobility and the peasants were working together to suppress revolution. Why? Because the French Revolution wanted to destroy the Catholic religion and the peasants love their religion.

Okay, the peasants wanted to be Catholic and they wanted to protect their priests. So there was a massive civil war going on in France between the peasants and the proletariat. And that would be counterintuitive to you, you think it's like why would poor people be fighting against poor people? Well, it's because they have different religious interests. Okay, does that make sense? All right. So this is a framework that I want you guys to remember. There are different groups. This is an oversimplification. And their loyalties will change. So during the revolution the loyalties will change and it will mark different stages in the French Revolution.

And you can use this framework to also understand future revolutions, especially the communist revolution. Okay. And it's also important for us to remember that most revolutions will fail. Okay. All right. So this is the middle class. Now the thing about the middle class, the thing about new groups, is that what they have to do is establish group solidarity. Okay. And then the way you do that is by establishing group So how is it that the middle class is different from everyone else?

Okay. And as we discussed what the middle class will do is they will slowly adopt the Enlightenment principles of debate and progress. Okay, that's how the middle class or most members of the aspirational middle class will try to differentiate themselves from everyone else by embracing the Enlightenment, and that's why we have the Enlightenment. Okay. So, over time these things will become much more concrete. Okay. So, what makes the middle class identity? The first is the idea of education. Second is the idea of achievement. And the third is the idea of morality.

All right? So what is the middle class? The middle class are those who embrace these three ideas. Education, achievement, and morality. Right? If you're in the middle class, you will be much more educated than the nobility and the peasantry. You will read books. You will read newspapers. That's why we have newspapers. Okay? Because the middle class wants information. Achievement, the achievement ethos is I will always strive to be better. I want my children to be better than me. Okay? If you're a peasant, you don't believe your children will live a better life.

If you're nobility, you don't really care if your children live a better life. But for the middle class, it's very important that their children live better lives. Okay? Okay, so the idea of the achievement ethos is to work hard. Okay, so you guys should understand this because you're all members of the middle class in China, right? The last is the idea of morality. Okay, and this is really important. Morality is especially when it comes to sexual morality. All right, sexual morality. So the idea is that if you're a poor person, the thing about being poor is you have no control over your body.

So during this time of industrialization, what's happening is a lot of peasants are moving into the cities. And what are women doing? Well, they're becoming prostitutes. There are tons and tons of prostitutes in these cities at this time in Europe. Okay? We just walk on the street and guess what? There are prostitutes everywhere. So as a poor person, you have absolutely no control over your body. So the way that the middle class differentiate themselves is by saying that we have enough resources to protect our bodies and if you're part of the middle class then you're expected to adhere to a very strict morality.

Okay, does that make sense? That's where we get the idea of morality from, from the development of the middle class. As a middle class you are much more sexually You are much more sexually appealer but also you have a new idea called childhood. If you are a poor person your child at age six starts to work. Okay, at age 10 he or she may be working in a factory and by 12 may be dead. What the middle class can do is give his or her child a childhood. Okay, the modern concept of childhood comes from this period and we'll be looking at this, right?

Okay, so that's the idea here. The Enlightenment basically was a movement in which a new group of people, the middle class, they've always existed, but now they exist in quantity and they have more resources than they used to have before, especially literacy, access to information. They have more wealth. They have more technology. They are the future leaders of the world. And as such, they want to embrace a new identity. And that's why we have the Enlightenment. Okay, the Enlightenment was basically a period when they tried to bring the ideas of science into society in order to create a new middle class identity and it still exists today.

Okay. All right. So that is the basic framework for today. Now we will look at specific writers and thinkers of the Enlightenment. Okay. Any questions so far? Okay, great. All right.

So let's start looking at some major thinkers of the Okay. All right. So today's class is on the European Enlightenment. Now what's really important for us to remember is that there are major ideological differences between the British Enlightenment and the European Enlightenment. Okay, European just means France, Germany, Netherlands, okay, basically continental Europe. The ideas that develop in Europe will be different from the ideas that develop in Britain. After the French Revolution we'll look at Britain specifically, but now I just want to focus on the European Enlightenment. Okay. So please remember that the British Enlightenment and the European Enlightenment have contrasting ideas even though most historians consider them part of the same movement.

All right. So what is the Enlightenment? It is a movement to systematize and Dante to create a new European middle class identity. So all these ideas are coming from Dante. But there is a major difference that we must remember. Remember, for the Enlightenment thinkers what God left us is the capacity to reason. Through reason we can access the mind of God. Okay. Reason is the fundamental principle of the Enlightenment. That's not what Dante said though. Okay. Dante said love is what God gave us. Love is the light in us.

Now you think, well, what's the difference between love and reason? Okay, what I will do over the course of the semester is show you that there's actually a huge difference between love and reason. Specifically, reason is independent. You can by yourself reason out things. But love requires you to connect with someone else. Either your child, your wife, your mother, who knows, okay? But you must connect with someone else. And because of that idea of interconnectedness, it puts a restraint on your reason.

But if you're capable of reasoning by yourself, you can reason anything, including concentration camps, nuclear bombs, genocide. Okay? So there's a huge difference between love and reason. And it's really important that the thinkers see reason as a central organizing principle of human society and not love. Okay? So I just want you guys to keep that in mind as we move on. The Enlightenment happened mainly in salons. These are places organized by wealthy bourgeois women. And these salons were not political. They were mainly designed to learn manners, speech, refinement, right?

Because they're trying to differentiate themselves from the nobility, the clergy, and the peasantry. And one way that they want to do this is through their education, through their knowledge, expertise. Okay. Salons. In Britain they mainly spread ideas through coffeehouses. All right, coffeehouses. So the idea of a coffeehouse comes from this period in Britain. So these women like Madame Labard were the ones who were driving Enlightenment ideas. Okay. And these salons were places for the leading intellectuals of the time to come and debate ideas. All right.

So these were the leading women of that time. All right. So there are lots and lots of Enlightenment thinkers because this is a time of literacy, right? People want to read. There's a marketplace of ideas. So money can be made from writing books. And that's why you have this explosion of ideas, the marketplace of ideas during this time. But now I want to just go through some of the major thinkers of the Enlightenment. Okay. The first major thinker of the Enlightenment is Rene Descartes. And Rene Descartes, he is a mathematician.

He's a philosopher. He wanted to ask two questions. The first question is how do we know that God exists and how do we know the soul exists? Okay, these are the two questions that he is trying to grapple with in his philosophy and he wrote a book called Meditations on First Philosophy. This is a really important book in the development of Western civilization. Okay, we will be referring to this book quite often for the rest of the semester. So I want you guys to remember this book, Meditations on First Philosophy. And so he's asking these questions and let's read a few paragraphs from his book to understand his thinking.

Okay. "It is some years now since I realized how many false opinions I had accepted as true from childhood onwards and that whatever I had since built on such shaky foundations could only be highly doubtful." All right. So what he's doing here is saying, okay, I want to know if God exists but first I must ask myself what do I believe and how do I know if it's true or not. I must look inside myself. All right. "Hence I saw that at some stage in my life the whole structure would have to be utterly demolished and that I would have to begin again from the bottom up if I wish to construct something lasting and unshakable in the sciences." And what he's saying here is that after I examine my own beliefs, I recognize that most of my beliefs are not true.

Okay, this is a radical departure from previous traditions where you know something is true because someone really smart said it. Okay, you defer to authority, right? That's a practice we use in China, where, well, Confucius said this so this must be true. And what Descartes is saying is that no, that's not true. Okay. I myself have the capacity to know if something is true and I have a responsibility to reflect and question everything I know and through that process of self-doubt, self-examination, I can construct something that is more truthful.

Okay? And this is the idea of Enlightenment. All right? And this is the idea of education. You know, when we try to teach you critical thinking skills, this is what we're trying to do. Okay? Trying to get you to question things so that you may construct a more eternal truth. All right. "But this seemed to be a massive task and so I postponed it until I had reached the age when one is as fit as one will ever be to master the various disciplines." So to get to this point, you also have to go through a long process of education.

Okay? You just can't be like, "Okay, I'm going to do this right now." You have to first learn these beliefs and then you have to go back and re-examine these beliefs. "I have delayed so long that now I should be at fault if I use up in deliberating the time that is left for acting. The moment has come and so today I have discharged my mind from all its cares and I've carved out a space of untroubled leisure. I've withdrawn into seclusion and shall at last be able to devote myself seriously and without encumbrance to the task of destroying all my former opinions."

Okay. What he's doing here is saying that for me to discover the truth, I just have to rely solely on my reason, not debate, not talking to others, not reading old books, but self-examination. Okay? And so this is the beginning of the book. We will read other sections later on in the semester. But this is the introduction. Okay. So this project is a process of quantum self-examination. And through this self-examination, what he discovers is everything is false. How do we know the sky is blue? How do we know the sky exists?

We don't. How do I know that the words I'm speaking make any sense? I don't. It's a constant process of Okay. But what he then recognizes is that the only way that I can actually engage in this process of self-examination is through doubt. Right? So what do I know to be true? Doubt is true. I doubt therefore I am. Right? You know the expression I think therefore I am. Right? It's actually I doubt therefore I am. The Latin is cogito Okay. The thing that I know to be absolutely true is my capacity to doubt and that is who I am.

Therefore, I exist. And so the capacity to doubt is my soul. All right. Now, how do I know that God exists? Well, if God didn't exist, then I would not have the capacity to doubt, right? Someone must have given me the gift of doubt and that must be God, whoever God is. But now, how do I know that God is good, right? Because God could be a trickster, God could be the devil, and God could be deceiving me and my capacity to doubt will only lead me into error.

Okay, so that's the question he asked. And then he says, well, because God is perfect. If you are perfect, you're incapable of Therefore, I know God is good. Okay? And obviously this makes logical sense. This is not logical. It's what we call a tautology, right? God is perfect. Therefore, I know God is good. God is good. Therefore, he's perfect. Okay? It makes no sense. But what's important is that Rene Descartes is asking us to challenge our assumptions about the world, to doubt, to reason, and he's saying that the idea of reason is the most powerful force in the world, more powerful than the church, more powerful than dogma, more powerful than society itself.

Okay. Our individual capacity to reason is what matters. It is what allows us to have access to God. Does that make sense? Right? So this is one of the major ideas underpinning the Enlightenment. All right. Now let's move on to Goethe. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. He is considered the greatest German writer of all time and he wrote a book called Faust. Okay. Faust. And we'll just read a few passages from Faust, but Faust is also a very quintessential Enlightenment work of art. Okay. And so the book of Faust is based on another book called the Book of Job, which we find in the Bible.

And the Book of Job is about this very pious individual who is very faithful to God. Okay. He's very wealthy. He has a lot of children. He's very happy and he's very devout. He prays to God all the time. He makes sacrifices to God all the time. He's very generous. He has a lot of friends. One day God is in heaven and he has a meeting with Satan. Okay, Satan in the Bible means adversary. So Satan is actually an archangel, an agent of God who roams the planet.

And God is very proud of Job. And he says to Satan, "Have you seen Job? Do you see how faithful he is to me?" He's very proud. And Satan says, "God, he's only faithful to you because he's rich." Okay? You take away his money, you take away his children, and he will curse you. And God says, "Fine, I make you the spat. You can do anything you want to him, but you must not kill him." Okay, that's the only condition. So, Satan basically makes Job's life a living hell.

All his children die in accidents. He loses all his money. He becomes infected with diseases. He's old. And eventually he curses God. And he's like, why is God doing this to me? And then God appears before him and says, how dare you question me, God? I created the world. What have you done with your life? Okay. But basically, God calls him for a long, long time and curses Job and says, "You as a human being have absolutely no right to ever doubt, to ever question me. I can do whatever I want.

I'm God. I'm a mystery. Do not ever think you can understand me. Do not ever believe you can question me." Okay? And then what God does is he restores Job's health and wealth. Okay? So it's a very strange story and it's one that is meant to inspire fear among people. And so what Goethe does that's really interesting is that he reimagines the story of Job and turns it into a much more confident, optimistic story that captures the spirit of the Enlightenment. Okay, does that make sense? So the story goes like this.

Faust. He is a professor. He loves learning. He's very curious. But what he recognizes is that despite all his book learning, he doesn't really have access to the truth. He's not really learning new information, new knowledge. He doesn't feel as though he's accessing God. So he tries magic. One day Satan, and Satan's name here in Faust is Mephistopheles. Okay, Mephistopheles talks to God and Mephistopheles says to God, "You know what? The worst thing you ever did was allow humans the capacity to reason because you're idiots.

You're stupid. If you're stupid and you can reason, all it does is confuse you and make you unhappy." And then God is like, "Well, have you met Faust? Faust is my favorite person in the whole world because he's curious. He loves learning. Eventually, through the process of self-exploration, he will discover the truth. He will get there. I have faith in Faust." And Mephistopheles says, "Fine, I'll make you a bet. I bet you I can make him complacent. I bet you that I can make him not want to learn anymore, to lose his curiosity.

And if I win this bet, then Faust will become my servant." Okay? His soul will be mine. I will damn him to hell for eternity. Okay? And that's the bet. All right? So, let's look at some passages. This is Mephistopheles saying to God, "Their lives will be a little easier if you not let them glimpse the light of heaven. They call it reason and employ it only to be more bestial than any beast." Okay? What's important to first remember is that here Goethe is invoking Dante, right? Remember Dante in the Divine Comedy says that love is the light of heaven.

And here Goethe and the Enlightenment thinkers are saying that no, it's reason that is the light of heaven. In fact in many ways Faust is a rewriting of the Divine Comedy. Right? So Mephistopheles is saying to God reason is bad because it makes people who are stupid more confused. And then God says, "Do you know Faust?" And then says the doctor, the Lord says, "My servant." Okay. My favorite person in the whole world. Mephistopheles: "Indeed, he serves you in a curious way. The fool is not content with earthly food or drink.

Some ferment makes him want what is exotic, yet he's half-conscious of his folly." Okay. Faust wants to understand the world. He's curious. He's driven by his curiosity and his imagination. And Mephistopheles makes fun of him because he'll never get there. Okay.

"From heaven he claims as his the brightest stars and from the earth all of its highest joys, but nothing near and nothing far away can satisfy a heart so deeply agitated." Okay, he's just too curious. He can't be satisfied. And then God says, "Though now he only serves me blindly, I shall soon lead him into clarity. The gardener knows when the sapling turns green that blossoms and fruit will brighten future years." Okay. So God is saying if he continues to be curious eventually I, God, will lead him into the light.

Okay. So what's important for us as humans is to be curious and that's how we show our faith in God. Right? Now so Mephistopheles and Faust meet and Mephistopheles says to Faust, listen, I know you want to know the truth about the world. I know you want to experience the whole world, but you can't do it by yourself. So I will help you, okay? I will grant you the knowledge of the world. But if at any point you become complacent, you stop striving, you're happy with the way things are, you're happy with the moment, then you will become my servant.

Is that a deal? Faust. And Faust says, "Sure." Because Faust does not believe that he can ever lose his curiosity. Okay. So what happens is all these strange events where Faust falls in love with a lady named Gretchen and Gretchen falls in love with him and they try to have sex but the mother gets in the way so Faust has Gretchen kill the mother. The brother finds out and tries to kill Faust. Faust kills the brother. Gretchen gets pregnant and then has to kill the baby because Faust has disappeared and then Gretchen basically dies in prison.

Okay, so it sounds terrible but what happens is that eventually Gretchen forgives Faust because Gretchen goes to heaven and then Faust has more adventures. He becomes a servant to the king. He builds a lot of roads and a lot of cities. He marries Helen of Troy. He goes back in the past. Anyway, a lot of strange things happen. Okay. But what's happening is that he's experiencing life for all its potential, for all its possibilities. And so as he gets older, he's about to die and Mephistopheles comes to collect his soul.

Okay? And this is the last speech of Faust before he dies. "A swamp lies there below the hill, infecting everything I've done. My last and greatest act of will succeeds when that foul pool is gone." Okay, so he is an architect and he is an urban planner working for the government. He's a civil servant basically and his job is to make the city much more livable for people. Okay, to help civilize the world and he's seeking pride in his work. "Succeeds when that foul pool is gone. Okay, let me make room for many a million.

Okay, let me in. Let me make space for more people. Not wholly secure, but free to work on. Green fertile fields where men and herds may gain swift comfort from the new-made earth. Quickly settled in those hills. Embrace pound high by a brave industrial race. And in the center here, a paradise whose boundaries hold back the raging tide. And though it gnaws to enter in by force, the common urge unites to hold its course." Okay. So, he's taking pride in all that he's accomplished and that he will accomplish. Okay.

He's taking pride in this moment when he's actively contributing to the betterment of civilization. But because he's taking pride in this moment, he's now lost a bet to Mephistopheles, right? He's now become complacent. He wants to live in the moment. You can't do that. "Yes. I've surrendered to this thought insistence. The last word wisdom ever has to say. He only earns his freedom in existence who's forced to win them freshly every day. Childhood, manhood, age, vigorous years surrounded by dangers they'll spend here. I wish to gaze again on such a land, free earth where a free race and freedom stand."

Okay. So to be alive means to constantly struggle to progress things. Okay. And this is it. "Then to the moment I dare say, stay a while, you are so lovely." He wants to stay in this moment forever. "Through eons then never to fade away this path of mind through all that's earthly, anticipating here its deep enjoyment now I savor it, that highest moment." Okay, in this moment when he feels he's contributed to the development of society he feels at peace he feels Okay. And so the irony is that at this moment when he's most fulfilled, he should now be damned to hell, right?

But what happens as Mephistopheles is about to claim Faust's soul is angels appear and steal it from Mephistopheles. Okay. "The angels pure incandescent whom its flames bless, blissful with goodness is their existence. Gather together, rise now and praise, spirit can breathe here in pure waves." So God has come to save Faust. They rise carrying away the immortal part of Faust. Faust's soul is now in heaven. Mephistopheles says, "How then? Where did they vanish to? You took me by surprise, you adolescents. Now with what they've salvaged from the tomb as their own prize, they've flown off to heaven.

They've stolen a great and unique treasure, that noble soul mortgaged to my pleasure. They've snatched it away with cunning even. But whom can I even complain to anyway?" Okay. So, Mephistopheles knows he's been tricked, but he has no say in the matter. Okay. And so, Faust is considered the greatest work of German literature. And the main message is God loves us. God wants us to be curious. God wants us to explore, to challenge ourselves, to grow. And if we do that, God will always protect us no matter how many stupid things we do.

Okay? God is ultimately about forgiveness and love and mercy and kindness and generosity. So that's a very optimistic and confident view of the world, right? Any questions so far? Okay, let's move on to Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant is the greatest philosopher who ever lived. We'll be spending a lot of time on Immanuel Kant throughout the semester. Okay. So I introduce you to him here and he wrote a very influential essay called "What Is Enlightenment?" Why do we have enlightenment? Okay. All right. "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed knowledge.

Knowledge is the inability to use one's own reasoning without another's guidance. This knowledge is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! Have the courage to use your own understanding is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment." Okay. So what he's saying here is that you're students and I'm the teacher. Okay. I'm enlightened because I'm using my reason. But you're not enlightened because you're relying on others instead of reason. Right? And what he's saying is that it's not because you lack the capacity to reason that's a problem.

It's because you guys are lazy, right? It's just easier for you to just sit there and take notes rather than to actually read these texts for yourself and understand them yourself. That's why we rely on me. Okay. But if you don't ever rely on yourself, you can never be free to think. Does that make sense? That's what he's saying here. "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives long after nature has freed them from external guidance."

Okay, you have the capacity to reason. You can just read these things by yourself, but you're lazy and you're cowardly. Okay, you don't want to make a mistake. Okay, you don't want to be wrong.

"Thus, it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of knowledge which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it." Okay. So, everyone can do it but only a few can do it. So, what's the solution to this problem? The solution is free and open debate. Does that make sense? If you're able to access information, if you're able to access different points of view, then you're able to hear the truth for yourself.

Okay? Does that make sense? All right. So, you don't want to find the truth for yourself. But if you're able to hear the truth, hear the opinions of others, then you can make up your own mind as to what the truth is. And you can because you have access to the reason that God implanted in you. Okay, that's the logic here. "It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself. Indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude."

Okay, so this idea of reason, debate, and progress. If there's a debate, if everyone is able to hear different opinions, then society will almost always progress. Okay? Does that make sense? "This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom. And the most innocent of all that may be called freedom: freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Now, I hear the cry from all sides: Do not argue. The officer says, 'Do not argue. Drill.' The tax collector: 'Do not argue. Pay.' The pastor: 'Do not argue. Believe.' Only one ruler in the world says, 'Argue as much as you please, but obey.' We find restrictions on freedom everywhere.

But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent and which advances enlightenment? I reply, the public use of one's reason must be free at all times and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind." He is arguing absolute freedom of expression. Okay? Even if it's hate speech, even if you say racist things, you're still allowed to say it because people have reason and therefore the capacity to judge for himself or herself what is true. Whenever you censor something, you're denying freedom to people. Okay? So this is an absolutist understanding of freedom and this becomes the foundation for, of course, the American Constitution or the revolution.

"In view of this he as preacher is not free and ought not to be free since he is carrying out the orders of others. On the other hand as a scholar who speaks to his own public through his writings the minister in the public use of his reason enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason and to speak for himself." Okay, this is a really important idea. All right, so I'm your teacher. Okay, I'm your teacher. Now, I can perceive myself in different ways. I can perceive myself as an employee of a school in China.

Therefore, I must be aware of censorship laws in China. I must be aware of what I can teach you and what I cannot teach you. I must also be aware that my main responsibility is to make you a citizen of China and therefore make you feel good about China. Okay? If I see myself as an employee of a school in China. But if I see myself as a free individual in the service of human progress, then my job is to enlighten you as to the possibilities of human reason.

Right? So I must be honest with you. I must challenge you to think for yourself. I must give you the capacity to think for yourself. Okay? Therefore I will not tell you what Kant says. I will show you what Kant says so that you can by yourself interpret what he's saying. Does that make sense? Okay. That's the difference. You can either see yourself as an employee who is just making money in the service of others or as a citizen of the world. As a citizen dedicated to the progress of human civilization.

Okay, that's your choice. "But a society of ministers, say a church council, have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people. I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity is simply null and void, even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot include a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment.

That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress." Okay, this is a radical statement. What he's saying is that I'm of an older generation than you, right? I have absolutely no right to tell you what to think. I have absolutely no right to tell you what to think. I can show you possibilities. I can argue with you, but I must not enforce my ideas on you because that would limit human progress. Progress is determined by a new generation's capacity to question and negate a previous generation's ideas.

Okay, does that make sense? Right. All right. So, this is Voltaire. Voltaire I don't really want to spend too much time on, but Voltaire is considered a celebrity of the Enlightenment. Okay? He was very famous at that time because he is what we call today a troll. Okay, a troll. Why? Because he's always making fun of the nobility and the clergy, the powers that be. And as such, the middle class basically worshiped him. Okay, they love his contributions. But he himself was not a very deep thinker. Okay, he himself was not a great thinker.

So I don't want to spend too much time on him. All right. So let's move on to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is the most influential Enlightenment thinker in France. It is his ideas that will drive the French Revolution. Okay. All right. So he wrote a very influential book called Emile. Emile is his treatise on education. How should you best educate children? Okay. All right. So let's just read some basic passages.

"If the infant sprang at one bound from its mother's breast to the age of reason, the present type of education would be quite suitable. But his natural growth calls for quite a different training. The mind should be left undisturbed till its faculties have developed. For while it is blind, it cannot see the torch you offer it, nor can it follow through the vast expanse of ideas a path so faintly traced by reason that the best eyes can scarcely follow it." Okay. So, what he's saying here, and it's a very controversial idea.

What he's saying here is that kindergarten and primary school make no sense. Kids come into school to learn math, to learn language, right? But the problem is that their faculty for reason has not fully developed. Okay? It's like me asking you to fly even though you don't have wings. So, what he's saying is this. Before the age of 12, let kids play. Because if you ask them to come to school, all that will do is screw up their minds, right? If a child is crawling and you make the child walk, all that's going to do is make the bones deformed, okay?

It's going to really screw up the legs. And that's what we're saying. Do not ever send kids to learn anything before the age of 12 because their faculty of reason has not developed before the age of 12. And guess what guys? This is the idea of childhood. Okay, childhood. Children should be allowed to play until the age of 12 and it comes from Okay, does that make sense?

"Therefore, the education of the earliest years should be merely negative." Negative just means like don't have kids jump in the pool by themselves. Okay? But don't be positive. Don't make them do mathematics. "It consists not in teaching virtue or truth, but in preserving the heart from vice and from the spirit of error. If only you could let well alone and get others to follow your example. If you could bring your scholar to the age of 12, strong and healthy, but unable to tell his right hand from his left, the eyes of his understanding would be open to reason as soon as you began to teach him.

Free from prejudices and free from habits. There would be nothing in him to counteract the effects of your labors. In your hands he would soon become the wisest of men. By doing nothing to begin with, you would end with a prodigy of education." Okay, that's the secret of education. Before age 12, leave the kid alone. Make sure he or she is healthy. Make sure he or she is eating well. But do not teach mathematics. Okay? Because by leaving the child alone, you free the child from bad mental habits.

You allow the child to think for himself or herself. Okay? So the very idea of childhood comes from Rousseau. And this is an idea that a lot of middle class parents will adopt. Okay, I myself also believe very heavily in this idea. I don't want to send my kids to school before age 12, possibly even age 16. Okay, I work in a school so I don't really trust schools. I don't trust teachers. It's like being a cook and you work in a restaurant.

Like you would never actually go eat in a restaurant because you know how they make the food. Okay. All right, let's continue. "There are two classes of men who are constantly engaged in bodily activity: peasants and savages." Okay, there are these peasants who work the farm and these savages who run around in the forest all day. Okay, so you think there's no difference, but in fact there's a world of difference. "And certainly neither of these pays the least attention to the cultivation of the mind. Peasants are rough, coarse, and clumsy.

Savages are noted not only for their keen senses, but for great subtlety of mind." Savages are really smart. Peasants are really dull. Why? "Generally speaking, there is nothing duller than a peasant or sharper than a savage. What is the cause of this difference? The peasant has always done as he was told, what his father did before him, what he himself has always done. He's the creature of habit. He spends his life almost like an automaton on the same task. Habit and obedience have taken the place of reason.

The case of the savage is very different. He is tied to no one place. He has no prescribed task, no superior to obey. He knows no law but his own will. He is therefore forced to reason at every step he takes. He can neither move nor walk without considering the consequences. Thus, the more his body is exercised, the more alert is his mind. His strength and his reason increase together and each helps to develop the other." The savage is an explorer. The savage is a problem solver. The savage is free and independent to make his own destiny.

That's the difference. Okay? So if you want to educate your child well, then let the child be a savage and not a peasant. "Oh man, seek no further for the author of evil, thou art he. There's no evil but the evil you do or the evil you suffer and both come from yourself. Evil in general can only spring from disorder and in the order of the world I find a never-failing system. Evil in particular cases exists only in the mind of those who experience it. And this feeling is not the gift of nature but the work of man himself."

"Pain has little power over those who have thought little, who look neither before nor after. Take away our fatal progress. Take away our faults and our vices. Take away man's handiwork and all is well." If you take children out of school, you let them play by themselves whatever they want. Guess what? They become smart. They become resilient. They become educated. They become curious. They love learning. So if we try to build structure, if we try to build civilization, if we move children away from the state of nature, we can only screw things up.

Schools are not designed to educate children. Schools are first and foremost designed to control children. Right? Why? Because we don't like kids running around. Okay, it's that simple. They're not meant for kids. They're meant for adults so that parents don't actually have to see them and teachers don't have to deal with them. Okay, so that's what Rousseau is saying and he's absolutely right. All right. So that was Emile. Now Rousseau also wrote a really famous book called the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, which will have a major impact on the French Revolution and Enlightenment.

Okay. And it's the idea of private property. Where does private property come from? "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society." Okay. So we have society because some people want property, private property. Okay. "From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind by pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditch and crying to his fellows:

Beware of listening to this impostor. You're undone if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all and the earth itself to nobody." What he's saying is this. Suddenly one day some people in our society are like, "Oh, this is mine. This ground is mine. You can't come here." We should have all been like, "What are you talking about? How can you claim this ground for yourself?" Well, we didn't do that. In fact, we claim our own ground or we let them have their own ground.

And because of this, because of the idea of private property, we now have patriarchy, war. Okay. This is where war and patriarchy and inequality come from, because of some people's insistence on having private property. All right. Okay. Any questions so far? Okay. Is this all clear to you? All right. So, let's move on to the final book. The Social Contract. Okay. The Social Contract is the bible of the French Revolution. It is the book that is the most influential in the development of the thinkers of the French Revolution.

All right. The most famous sentence, the sentence that begins The Social Contract, is "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Here is one who thinks he is the master of others yet is more enslaved than they are." Okay. So we were born free but we choose to become slaves. But not only that, the people who have enslaved us think they're our masters, but in fact they're more enslaved than us because they are trapped by the system. You understand? Slavery is a system that enslaves all. Slavery is not a system where a few oppress the others.

Slavery is a system where an idea has oppressed everyone, especially the masters. Right? "We see at once that on this account of things certain questions can be laid aside. Whose business is it to make laws? They are acts of the general will. Is the prince above the law? No, because he is a member of the state. Can the law be unjust? No, because nothing is unjust towards itself. How can we be both free and subject to laws? There's no problem about this because the laws are nothing but records of our volitions."

Okay. So, this is a really important idea that I need to explain to you. All right? Right? And it becomes a basis for a new type of society promoted by the French Revolution. All right. So Rousseau is trying to reason from general principles as to how to form a good society. Okay. A social contract where everyone chooses to participate in a society and is not compelled to participate in a society. And what he says is this. There are two types of will. There's a general will and there's the particular will.

Okay, general will is what we can agree on if we are left to reason by ourselves. Particular will is what we believe if we are part of a group of people. Okay, a part of an interest. So let's just say for example the central government in China is like, I want to spend $10 billion on new roads, where should we invest this money? Okay, general will is everyone agrees that we should invest in roads where they're most needed in China, right? Maybe Joe, maybe you, the poorest parts, because it will do the most good. We can all agree on that, right? But because we are in Beijing we would be like, no, you should put the money in Beijing. That's a particular will. Okay, so in other words society, if it is to function well, must be based entirely on the general will and negate the particular will, on the common interest. And that's why everything works, because if laws are based on the general will then all the laws are acceptable to people because the laws are just an expression of the general will, and the king, he's just acting out the general will.

So the king is acceptable to everyone. Okay, does that make sense? The problem with this, of course, is that that's not how the world works. Okay? There's actually no one in the world who's like, "Oh, I should do this because of the general will." It's always a particular will. Right? Does that make sense? And so this is the divergence between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. The French Revolution is fundamentally idealistic. It believes that people are capable of considering the common interest. The American Revolution denies this. Okay? So, we will discuss the American Revolution later on, but I just want you to be aware of this.

Okay? The French Revolution is based on the idea of the general will, that everyone is capable of reason, of promoting the common interest. The American Revolution refuses to believe this. Okay? All right. "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will. And in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." Okay? So as long as we are capable of reason, which we are, we can understand the general will. "That the populace held its celebrations on a basis of adequate information while the citizens communicating with one another.

What emerged from all those particular wills would always be the general will and the decision would always be good." Okay. So if you only think about the common interest everyone would come to the same conclusion about everything. Okay. "If the general will is to emerge clearly, it's important that there should be no partial society within the state and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts, which was indeed, I'm continually astonished that such a simple sign of good government isn't recognized, or perhaps many do recognize it but aren't honest enough to say so.

What's the purpose of any particular association? The preservation and prosperity of its members. And what is the surest sign of their preservation and prosperity? Their number and the population growth. That's the sign you're looking for. Other things being equal, the unquestionably best government is the one under which the population increases most without external help from naturalizing foreigners or establishing colonies. The government under which the population shrinks is the worst. Over to you calculators. Count, measure, compare." Okay, this is a really important idea here. What Rousseau is saying is that not only can we deduce good government from general principles, but good government can be measured.

Okay. So we can know how we are doing as a society through measurement, by measuring things, by counting things. Okay. Count, measure, compare. And that's what progress means. Now what we will learn later on is this is actually a really dumb idea. Okay. But for now I want you to be aware of this, and that's why in the French Revolution they will introduce the metric system. The metric system comes from the French Revolution and the metric system is now used by every country in the world except two.

Right? There are the two countries in the world who don't use the metric system. You guys know, there are exactly two countries in the world that do not use the metric system. Can you guess these two? These two countries are the countries that were most against the French Revolution. These countries are America and Britain.

Okay. Yeah. It's true. In China we use Celsius, right? When you go to America, they don't use Celsius. They use Fahrenheit. Okay? And when you go to Britain, they use something called the imperial system. So just be aware when you go to America, you will hear terms like, oh, 12 yards, and you're like, what is 12 yards? Okay. So they don't actually use the metric system in America, but everywhere else does. "But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic. Those two terms are mutually exclusive.

Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. Genuine Christians are made to be slaves and they know it and don't mind much. This short life counts for too little in their eyes." Okay. So he is rejecting religion in government. This idea of separation of church and state becomes the basis for the French nation-state. It's a very important idea and during the French Revolution this will lead to civil wars between the peasants who want to be Christians and the revolutionaries who want to establish a state.

"The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple and exactly worded, with no explanation or commentary. Its positive dogmas are the existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws, and just one dogma of exclusion: the exclusion of intolerance, which is a feature of the cult we have rejected." Okay. So what Rousseau is saying here is that the new society should now have a new religion, a state religion that is based on reason.

Okay. And this new religion of reason must reject all other religions because these religions are intolerant of each other. And that's why in France today there's so much conflict in society. Okay? You have a lot of Islamic immigrants and they're always in conflict with the French state because the French state insists on a secular religion but the Islamists want to practice their own religion.

Okay. So that's it. Okay. So these ideas that we looked at will now become the basis of the French Revolution. Right. So next class we'll look at the Revolution. All right. So I know this was a lot, but are there any questions about what we've learned so far? Why are so loyal to the religion? Excuse me. Why would so loyal to the religion? Why are peasants so loyal to the religion? Right. Yes. Okay. Great question. All right. Sorry. Let me All right. So, what you learn in this class is that the Christian religion is something that is adopted, okay, or enforced, but over generations, right, over the centuries it becomes part of your tradition, right? So what is, okay, people, okay, what do we know that people are loyal to? People are loyal to their home, right, their land. That's true, right? People like being in a place, they don't want to move.

Most people in the world don't want to move. If you give people the choice of like, Chinese, the choice of like just moving to America, you think everyone would go, but no, no, no. Most people would not go because they want to live where they grew up. Okay? So, they're loyal to the land, but they're loyal to family, they're loyal to tradition or culture, they're loyal to food. Okay. Right. This is true for most people. If you grew up eating, I don't know, rice, you don't want to eat potatoes. You want to eat rice.

Okay. So, what this tells us is that people are first and foremost people of habit. Okay? Does that make sense? Why are people of habit? Because this is a really important idea. Okay? And I know this is a strange idea, because it feels good. Do you understand? Because when you do something out of habit, you feel good about yourself. When you break this habit, you feel bad about yourself. And the only way that you know if something is good or bad is how you feel about it.

Okay? Right? Like you're eating rice and you're happy eating rice because you've been doing this all your life. But then now you're eating potatoes and it kind of tastes weird. But I tell you, hey, no, no, eating potatoes is better for you. It's more nutritious. It's cheaper. You don't care. Okay? It's all about feeling good. So, you resort to habit. And habit is in the land, the family, the tradition, and the food. Does that make sense? And these ideas are all encapsulated in religion.

Because religion is what determines your culture, your food, it's what your family practices. It is your connection to your family. It's your connection to your land. Okay? And that's why people will die for religion, because religion is really a metaphor or an encapsulation of all these things that people understand and know and love. Does that make sense? Okay. Now what you will learn in this class is people don't just die for religion, they also die for ideas which include the nation, right, the nation-state, because what you will learn in this class is what the French Revolution will do is sort of a process where religion becomes part of the nation.

Our ideas of religion become transplanted into the nation. Okay? So people will also die for the nation. That's why you have these incredibly devastating wars like World War I and World War II where people will die for the nation. Okay? And they won't even think about it. But it starts during the French Revolution. Okay? Does that make sense to you? Okay. Great.

So how do you Okay. All right. Good question. So how can a religion be based on reason? So traditionally religion is given to us by God. Okay? Right? Every religion is like, well, we have this religion because God told us to believe in him. Okay? And the way you do that is through priests who then tell you what to believe. Okay. So this is the way that most religion is practiced. Right? What the Enlightenment thinkers are saying, especially Rousseau, is no, no, no, this system doesn't really work, right? Because you have reason and therefore you have the capacity to access God so you don't really need priests, right? So we can just reason out what religion should be like and from principles you can deduce religion, right?

Okay, does that make sense? Now, if you just reason from first principles about what religion should be like, what are they? Well, first of all, there is a God. Okay, first of all, there is a God. Second of all is that there is heaven and hell. You do good things, you go to heaven. If you do bad things, you go to hell. Right? That's the second thing. Third thing is good people go to heaven. Therefore, you should do good. Okay? And then fourth would be like if you believe in these things, you are free to believe anything else.

For example, you're like, I don't know, I believe that animals have the same rights as humans. Well, that doesn't contradict what we already believe. Therefore, you can believe that animals can go to heaven as well. Okay, do you understand? So what Rousseau is saying is that just from general principles, if you're able to exercise reason by yourself you should be able to deduce the basic principles of an organized state religion and that's what he does in The Social Contract and it becomes a basis again for the French Revolution.

Okay, does that make sense? All right, any more questions? Okay. Great. Okay. So I apologize for the length of this class but the French Revolution is really complicated and I really need to explain some basic ideas to you. Okay. So next class we'll do Robespierre, right?