Enlightenment

I have been struggling through my World Civ class this semester. I think mainly because I have a hard time submitting something I don't fully buy in to. Recently we had to read info about the European Enlightenment and then, knowing that our worldview is largely based on the ideas of Enlightenment, we had to consider what the opposite of an "enlightened" individual might be. I was SHOCKED at how easily my classmates simply accepted that the "enlightened way" was the best way and anything less is ignorance. It took me a while to post mine submission because I wrote the exact opposite of everyone in my class. That is a little intimidating. But I got 100% on it so I guess it wasn't so awful. Thought I'd post it here for your enjoyment...ok maybe not for your enjoyment..perhaps for your enlightenment...lol...

I have to disagree with some of my classmates who have described the Enlightened concept of the individual as though it were "better" than it's opposite. To suggest that the opposite of the Enlightened concept is "un-enlightened" or "ignorant" ignores the impact that the ideals of Enlightenment can have on a society. Allison Goforth suggested that to be "un-enlightened" is to be blind. Jennifer Rau went on to say that the opposite of the enlightened individual is ignorant and obedient. I would like to suggest that cultures that live without these concepts that we are studying are not "less than" but simply carry a different value system. While the Enlightened individual may value "solitude" and "independence" as Goforth mentioned, the opposite values connectedness. Of course the differences go deeper than that and there are problems associated with either view in its extreme as many of my classmates have pointed out. The key difference I see between these opposing views is that the Enlightened concept sets up the individual person as the "end all, be all." One must think for themselves and derive all truth from one's own experiences and perceptions, devoid of any connection to past traditions or the community in which one lives. Our text states, "Most historical cultures define the individual's relation to society not by the concept of "right," as we do, but the concept of 'obligations.' This means that an individual sees himself or herself in relation to others based on the duties he or she owes others and society. Obligations tend to be stable, inherited, and concrete; they remain relatively the same through history as a culture develops." Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes about an individual's rights being given to them by the society within which they live. The Enlightened individual is concerned with their personal rights. In our country you often hear talk of our "rights" to do this or that and often our lack of concern regarding how exercising our rights impacts the lives of those around us. It makes sense that this view would bring with it more conflict than a culture where the concept of the individual is based on their obligations to the community they are a part of. The Enlightened individual values autonomy whereas it's opposite values connection. While the Enlightened concept might be, "Everyone's out for themselves," its opposite would be, "Watch out for the needs of others." Although in our nation there are pockets of communities who've held onto or rediscovered a greater desire to be connected and value community over individuality, for the most part we do tend to look out for our own needs above the needs of others. Recently I read a book titled, "What's the Matter With Kansas," that connects this view of an individual's rights and interests over those of the society with Rousseau's discussion of the "social contract." The book basically asks the question, "Why do working-class farmers in Kansas always vote Republican when the Republican Party never looks out for their best economic interests?" Of course the answers to that question are deep and impossible to properly discuss here. Essentially the author, Thomas Frank, communicates that the Republican Party looks out for the interests of the capitalists, the business class, the wealthy. Rousseau might suggest that it's time for a change because the individuals who've been given authority by the people, aren't working to protect the interests of the people. However, they are. The problem is that they are looking out for the interests of the wealthy rather than the working class. Herein lies one of the downfalls of the Enlightened concept of the individual: if you live in a society where everyone is looking out for their own interests, inevitably someone loses.