Reminder: The thread "Second Enlightenment" (SE) is destined to discuss the rationality of SE as well as to inquire into the sources of the irrational manipulation of masses and to look for remediation.

X1. Scientific Revolution X2. Ontology X3. Ideology X4. Social awareness X5. Establishment

with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. We start by the first enlightenment as guidance to the formulation of the second and warning of errors to be avoided. ============= The present section deals with steps F4. Social awareness and F5. Establishment of the first enlightenment (FE).

Starting this thread we posited that Social Awareness of an Ideology is the agent which concretizes it in form of a new Establishment. In the present section we try to find out if the historic data of FE verify this postulate.

As France of the FE's epoch had a complex class structure, two questions arise:

1. Which classes were aware of FE's ideology and were they strong enough to mold the new establishment?

2. If not, how and how truly was their awareness transferred to the less enlightened but powerful classes which finally did the job.


QUESTION 1.

The ideology of the first enlightenment was disseminated principally by the Great Encyclopedia and the only class literate enough to read it was the prosperous bourgeoisie, merchants, manufacturers, free professionals and high officials such as farmers general, charged to collect taxes. Many were richer and most were better educated than the nobles. Numerous farmers general distinguished themselves by their intelligence, honesty and knowledge of business. We shall illustrate the enlightened bourgeoisie with the example of the most famous farmer general, Lavoisier and his wife Pierrette Paulze.

We have seen in the preceding post on F3 that FE ideology lacked a consistent ontological foundation and hence was a heterogeneous collection of arbitrarily juxtaposed and occasionally contradictory principles. Lavoisier did two things. On the one hand he overleapt the muddled ideology and went directly to the scientific revolution continuing it with Pierette as "father and mother of chemistry". On the other hand, he took from the heterogeneous ideology, what he found fit, in particular the principle of egality, which he extended against Montesquieu over women and applied consequently in his life. Indeed, Lavoisier may be fully understood only in his marriage with Pierrette Paulze. She married him at age of 13, from the first day became his full fledged scientific partner and, at age of 16 completed Newton's mechanics conceiving and defining kinetic energy, lacking in his original system. Astounding as it may seem, Pierrette Paulze fell into almost complete oblivion. Maybe not so astonishing after all: she was a woman, she did not belong to any Academy, none would accept a woman in 18th Century and married to Lavoisier she was overshadowed by him. Not by his fault. He emphasized at every occasion her being his equal partner, so that the rare cognoscenti who heard about her call them "Father and Mother of modern Chemistry". But there it is, hardly anybody heard about her, which is another example of dogmatic prejudices which overran the rationality of FE and went on till our own days.

So, the enlightened bourgeoisie was aware of the scientific revolution and knew enough of the muddled ideology to take from it what appeared advisable. Yet, it was too sparse to have political weight, and was not searching it, which brings us to our second question: how and how truly was its awareness transferred to the less enlightened but more powerful classes which molded the new establishment.

QUESTION 2.
We don't find Lavoisier haranguing for revolution. His interest in politics concentrated on improving the existing system by such means as reforms in the French monetary and taxation system destined to help the peasants. In other terms he was for evolutionary changes rendering the existing establishment more human and egalitarian. It illustrates the attitude of the enlightened bourgeoisie, which was neither capable, nor willing to promote the new revolutionatry establishment, or rather disestablishment.

But each revolution carries with its flood some capos intending to subjugate it and to grab absolute, tyrannical power. In the case of the FE the principal ones were Robespierre, Danton and Marat. All three displayed the devilish guile to use most humanistic ideas of FE for their ruthless, inhuman ambitions. To keep the long story short, we shall restrict it to Marat, as, on the one hand he is typical and, on the other hand his clash with Lavoisier carries deep significance.

Marat was a quack, a self-appointed physicist, accepted by ignorant nobles first as tutor and than as physician and scientist. He applied for the job of assistant to Lavoisier, who after several trials dismissed him as ignorant, conceited dilettante.

One can only guess how deeply this reverse thwarted Marat's plans. Anyway, shortly afterwards he abandoned his "scientific" ambitions and immersed himself into hateful and revengeful political militancy. His revolutionary harangues were entirely negative, did not define the new world to come. They called for revenge, for extermination of nobility, great bourgeoisie and especially farmers general, who were in his eyes collectively responsible for the humiliations he had suffered as quack and dilettante. He was no less raging against his political competitors against whom he wrote for instance the following diatribe which pretty well characterizes him:

CONCLUSION

Our postulate saying that Social Awareness of an Ideology is the agent which concretizes it in form of a new Establishment clearly does not hold for the first establishment in the light of its historic data.

-We saw in the section F3 that Kant came too late for Voltaire, Diderot, Montesqieu and Rousseau. Lacking consistent foundations, the ideology reflects uncritically current controversies: its apparently rational form and declarations conceal noumenal utopianism. It radically detached itself from the Scientific Revolution and its phenomenal principles. In other terms, one may not talk about clearly defined and uniform ideology of the FE capable to directly inspire masses.

-The only literate enough class, the great bourgeoisie, could pick up only bits and pieces of the scattered ideology and was motivated to improve in their light the existing establishment but not to foster the Terror, which contradicted all principles of the FE.

-Even if the great bourgeoisie wanted to revolutionise the establishment, it lacked the capacity to do it by itself and would have to motivate the less enlightened, but powerful masses. Unfortunately the masses have been manipulated by the scrap of the enlightened bourgeoisie, by capos intending to grab absolute, tyrannical power, like Marat, displaying the devilish guile to use most humanistic ideas of FE for their ruthless, inhuman ambitions.

The first enlightenment has been betrayed, largely by its own fault, by its incapacity to translate its rigorous scientific revolution into a coherent, inspiring ideology capable to motivate masses directly, bypassing unscrupulous manipulations.

Shell we be capable to make the most of this precedent, when dealing with our contemporary, incomparably more perilous manipulations and indoctrinations?