Published near the end of the Enlightenment period, Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women eloquently advocates for ideas of reason and progress similar to those of Enlightenment philosophers. Wollstonecraft agrees with German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant about seeking knowledge as well as Horkheimer and Adorno about the threat intelligence poses. However, she possesses an opposing opinion concerning the separation of Church and State in secularism and its effects on morality, disagreeing with French writer and Enlightenment thinker Pierre Bayle.
As the Enlightenment progressed, the application of reason in daily life became more widespread. Intellectuals began advocating for the application of the scientific …show more content…
Although this appears to be a good thing, Enlightenment thinkers Horkheimer and Adorno, among others, as well as Wollstonecraft are cautious about the threat that too much intelligence poses. Despite being generally supportive of the expansion of intelligence and societal progress, "the philosophes were not naïve optimists. Many of them realized that the ignorance and suffering of their society were not easily overcome and that progress would be slow and would exact a price" (Spielvogel 598). Enlightenment thinkers were not blind to the challenges and dangers of progress. They recognized that progress is not always beneficial, and can actually be detrimental to society. As written about in The Boston Globe, author Darrin McMahon quotes German philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno about the destruction that the Enlightenment threatens when he wrote, the "Enlightenment behaves towards things, as a dictator toward men. The fully enlightened earth radiates the triumph of destruction" (qtd. in McMahon). Horkheimer and Adorno sum up the tone of Enlightenment thinkers towards the idea of progress. Philosophes were generally welcoming to the progression of society, but many were cautious about what progress would entail. As society slowly became more enlightened, Horkeimer and Adorno worried that too much knowledge would threaten the well-being of …show more content…
With the advantage of living after many Enlightenment philosophers, she had a stronger basis to argue for her ideas of reason, progress, and Secularism. Wollstonecraft comes to a conclusion similar to those of Enlightenment philosophers concerning reason and progress, and has a different point of view on Secularism. She builds on German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant's Enlightenment catchphrase about combining the courage to seek knowledge and applying the scientific method to create a foundation of reason where humanity is able to reach its fullest potential. Along with Horkheimer and Adorno, Wollstonecraft was cautious about progress resulting in a fully enlightened earth. Having the chance to witness more of the destruction that progress threatens, Wollstonecraft could confidently reaffirm the weariness of previous Enlightenment philosophers in her own work. Concerning the separation of Church and State that a majority of Enlightenment thinkers believed in, Wollstonecraft disagreed with French writer and Enlightenment thinker Pierre Bayle. He had advocated for a dissociation between morals and religion, claiming that there was no correlation between the two. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand, combined the clergy and monarchy positions in her argument that any man with a high rank and enough power will
As the Enlightenment progressed, the application of reason in daily life became more widespread. Intellectuals began advocating for the application of the scientific …show more content…
Although this appears to be a good thing, Enlightenment thinkers Horkheimer and Adorno, among others, as well as Wollstonecraft are cautious about the threat that too much intelligence poses. Despite being generally supportive of the expansion of intelligence and societal progress, "the philosophes were not naïve optimists. Many of them realized that the ignorance and suffering of their society were not easily overcome and that progress would be slow and would exact a price" (Spielvogel 598). Enlightenment thinkers were not blind to the challenges and dangers of progress. They recognized that progress is not always beneficial, and can actually be detrimental to society. As written about in The Boston Globe, author Darrin McMahon quotes German philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno about the destruction that the Enlightenment threatens when he wrote, the "Enlightenment behaves towards things, as a dictator toward men. The fully enlightened earth radiates the triumph of destruction" (qtd. in McMahon). Horkheimer and Adorno sum up the tone of Enlightenment thinkers towards the idea of progress. Philosophes were generally welcoming to the progression of society, but many were cautious about what progress would entail. As society slowly became more enlightened, Horkeimer and Adorno worried that too much knowledge would threaten the well-being of …show more content…
With the advantage of living after many Enlightenment philosophers, she had a stronger basis to argue for her ideas of reason, progress, and Secularism. Wollstonecraft comes to a conclusion similar to those of Enlightenment philosophers concerning reason and progress, and has a different point of view on Secularism. She builds on German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant's Enlightenment catchphrase about combining the courage to seek knowledge and applying the scientific method to create a foundation of reason where humanity is able to reach its fullest potential. Along with Horkheimer and Adorno, Wollstonecraft was cautious about progress resulting in a fully enlightened earth. Having the chance to witness more of the destruction that progress threatens, Wollstonecraft could confidently reaffirm the weariness of previous Enlightenment philosophers in her own work. Concerning the separation of Church and State that a majority of Enlightenment thinkers believed in, Wollstonecraft disagreed with French writer and Enlightenment thinker Pierre Bayle. He had advocated for a dissociation between morals and religion, claiming that there was no correlation between the two. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand, combined the clergy and monarchy positions in her argument that any man with a high rank and enough power will