Random quote
We know that sometimes in war fortune is more impartial than the disparities in forces would suggest. Surrendering would instantly render us hopeless, but by resisting we will preserve some hope of success.
                                                                    Thucydides (c. 460 – c. 400 BC) 

Characteristics of the Enlightenment

Spinoza enlightens the world
(image constructed from real photos; no AI)

Recently, I attended a lecture on Spinoza, and at the end someone asked the speaker: Do you think we are experiencing the end of the Enlightenment these days? I think that you know that Spinoza was one of the founders of the Enlightenment, and the question was relevant in the context of the lecture. The question pointed to the present rise of authoritarian leaders; the increasing suppression of the freedom of expression; blaming your opponents for the simple fact that they are your opponents, especially in politics; etc., etc. You’ll know what I mean. Now I think that these tendencies are dangerous and should be stopped, but speaking of the end of Enlightenment is yet a step too far at the moment. Movements in history go with ups and downs and temporary setbacks are not unusual. I think that since the end of the Middle Ages, on average, the world has become more enlightened. It is like a gradual upward wave motion. Nevertheless, in view of the present political crisis, I think that it is good to ask: What are the characteristics of the Enlightenment? This in order to better understand and realize what is going on and what we need to defend.
What follows are the main characteristics of enlightenment, as I see them; not so much of the Enlightenment as a period in the history of ideas but as a standpoint towards the present world and towards our fellow human beings. So, maybe I should rather say that this blog is about the question “What are the characteristics of an enlightened attitude?”

I think that the core of an enlightened attitude is tolerance towards others and their opinions and views, even if they are different from yours. However, this is quite abstract, so let me fill it in. The characteristics that follow don’t only refer to the direct relations between individuals, but also to the general political situation, which has a broader influence on the way individuals live.

- Not authority but reason and rational thinking are the guides to truth. In case we have different opinions about how the facts are, don’t determine what is true by a call on authority, status, position or ancient scriptures, but look for concrete facts that support or just refute what we think to be true. Don’t blindly accept what an authority says but think self. Accept that some questions cannot be immediately answered. Maybe later, maybe never. That’s especially the case for moral and ethical questions. Therefore, differences in opinion and ideas are normal; not objectionable.
- Have respect for individuality, for self-governance, and for individual, personal rights. Basically, people have the right to fill in their lives in their own ways, as they wish. Human rights are a clear expression of this point.
- Montaigne always said: What do I know? Montaigne lived before the Age of Enlightenment but can be seen as a precursor. Life would be impossible without accepting certainties and securities. Without them, you cannot act and you would be like Buridan’s ass. Nevertheless stay sceptical. Things can be different from what they seem. Be open to questioning established beliefs, authority (religious and secular), judgments and prejudices, and superstition. Accepting authority because it is authority is the first step to suppression of freedom.
- Observe and discover the world and don’t be afraid to know. Do this in a methodical, systematic way. This makes it easier for you and for others to detect mistakes. Share your knowledge and methods with others, so that they can discuss them. Accept that you can learn from what others think about them. Open science and public scientific methods are the foundation of knowledge and progress.
- Everybody has the right to know and to be free. Nobody is better or worse than someone else. Since in practice there is much inequality between humans, emancipation and liberation from the inability to think independently must be stimulated. It’s why free education is so important.
- In order to stimulate enlightenment in the political field separation of church and state and the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers (the so-called Trias Politica) are important as ways to prevent tyranny and the oppression of freedom of expression of one’s thoughts if not of the freedom of thinking itself.

Without a doubt I could have added more characteristics of an enlightened world, but I think that I have mentioned here the core of what is at stake in the present world. Look around and draw your conclusions and think about what can be lost and is difficult to regain once lost.

Random quote
There is never doubt in the soul because of what is doubted ... Doubt will just exist because of a second idea, which, however, is not so clear and distinct that we can draw any conclusions from it with regard to what is doubted; in other words, the idea that makes us doubt is not itself clear and distinct.

Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) 

Where did Spinoza live?

Spinoza's Opera Posthuma (Posthumous Works) with the Ethica,
 published in 1677 by his friends after his death. 

As regular readers of this blog will know, I am not only interested in philosophical theories, views and ideas, but I also like to visit places where philosophers have lived and worked. So, when I was in Egmond in the northwest of the Netherlands, I visited the places where Descartes had spent many years when he lived in the Netherlands. And when I was in Basel in Switzerland this summer, I made a walk along the sites where Erasmus lived in the last years of his life. In Innsbruck I looked for places that Montaigne visited during his journey from France to Rome. And already quite a while ago I had been in the room in his castle near Bordeaux, where he wrote his Essays. Later I went to Bordeaux, where Montaigne also had a house and where he has been buried. But where lived Spinoza, the most famous philosopher of the Netherlands – with Erasmus – and one of the founders of the Enlightenment? So, I took my camera and went looking for his traces.

The Waterlooplein in Amsterdam. The house where 
Spinoza was born was about where the church is.

Baruch de Spinoza – his Portuguese first name was Bento and his self-chosen Latin name was Benedictus – was born on 24 November 1632 in Amsterdam in the Jewish quarter. His parents had fled from Portugal, because Jews were forced to convert to Catholicism. The city of Amsterdam had made an island in the Amstel River available to Jewish refugees where they could settle, although they were free to live elsewhere in the city, if they preferred. Where Spinoza exactly lived in the Jewish quarter is not known. About 140 years ago the area of the Jewish quarter was reconstructed and the houses were demolished. So, the house where Spinoza was born and passed his youth doesn’t exist anymore. Now you find there a square, the Waterlooplein, and in 1986 the present Opera and Ballet House and Town Hall have been built there. In 2008 a Spinoza Monument made by Nicolaas Dings has been erected on the square.

The Spinoza Monument on the Waterlooplein in Amsterdam

When he was 23 years old, Spinoza was banned from the Jewish community. Maybe it was because his religious views strongly conflicted with the Jewish religion; maybe other reasons were involved, too. Since then Jews were no longer allowed to have contact with Spinoza. He moved to the Latin School of Franciscus van den Enden (1602-1674) on the Singel in Amsterdam. It is not known exactly where the school was located. Van den Enden taught Spinoza Latin, put him in touch with the classics, and inspired him. About then Spinoza learned how to grind lenses. Grinding lenses and making microscopes and the like became the way he made his living.

The house where Spinozahuis lived in Rijnsburg

We don’t know when and why he moved, but in 1661 we find Spinoza in Rijnsburg. Probably he moved there that same year. Spinoza lived in the house of the surgeon Herman Homan. Maybe, Spinoza moved to Rijnsburg because regularly the Collegiants met there, a group of people with religious views that conflicted with the teachings of the official Reformed Church and that were not unlike Spinoza’s views. Rijnsburg was on walking distance from Leyden with its well-known university, so it was a place that allowed Spinoza easily to stay in touch with other scholars. In Rijnsburg Spinoza started to write his Ethica (Ethics).
In 1663, Spinoza moved to Voorburg near The Hague. He lived there in the house of the painter Daniel Tydeman in Kerkstraat (Church Street). Spinoza will have met there both Constantijn Huygens Jr. (1628-1697), statesman, poet and scientist with a special interest in lenses, as well as his brother Christiaan (1629-1695), the famous mathematician, scientist, etc. Their father, the politician and poet Constantijn Huygens Sr. (1596-1687) had built a mansion in Voorburg. Spinoza kept working on the Ethica here.

The house on Paviljoensgracht in The Hague
 where Spinoza had rented a room

In 1670, Spinoza moved again, now to The Hague. He had room and board with a widow on the Stille Veerkade, but because it was too expensive for him, in May 1971 he rented a room in the house of the painter Hendrik van der Spyk on the Paviljoensgracht, just around the corner. In 1670, Spinoza published anonymously his Theologico-Political Treatise. It was forbidden by the authorities in 1674. During his years in The Hague Spinoza finished his Ethica. He died on 21 February 1677 in his room.

Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague where Spinoza was buried

Spinoza was buried in the Nieuwe Kerk (New Church) in The Hague. There were many people present at the burial. Spinoza had been buried in a rented grave, and the grave was cleared in the 18th century. His remains were buried in the churchyard together with remains from other graves. Now you find a gravestone (from 1927) and a monument (from 1956) at the place where this may have happened. Soon after his death, his friends published Spinoza’s Ethica and other manuscripts as the Opera Posthuma (Posthumous Works). 

Gravestone and monument for Spinoza in the courtyard
of the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague

Stone bricked in the wall of the Spinoza House in Rijnsburg

Ah, if all men were wise

And wanted good!

The earth would be a paradise.

Now she is most of a hell.

Dirk Rafaelsz. Camphuysen
(Dutch poet, 1586-1627) 

Inutilities

In his essay “Of vain subtleties” (Essays I, 54) Montaigne writes that “there are a sort of little knacks and frivolous subtleties from which men sometimes expect to derive reputation and applause: as poets, who compose whole poems with every line beginning with the same letter.” Writing such poems was fashionable among the rhetoricians of his days. They excelled in writing poems with literary tricks. For instance, the Dutch national anthem, written about 1571 by an unknown author and the oldest national anthem in the world, consists of fifteen verses and the first letters of all verses together form the name Willem van Nassou, also known as William, prince of Orange and count of Nassau, the leader of the Dutch struggle for independence. However, so Montaigne, such vanities are not only mental but also physical, for he tells us that “the cloth of state [=canopy] over our tables is not permitted but in the palaces of princes and in taverns.” What is the use of it except as a showpiece in honour of the owner?

Such “vain subtleties” were not only typical for Montaigne’s time. He found them already among the old Greeks. It’s not surprising: “Tis a strong evidence of a weak judgment when men approve of things for their being rare and new, or for their difficulty, where worth and usefulness are not conjoined to recommend them.” This human characteristic that existed already in the past still exists today. Political leaders want to display their omnipotence and glory with useless projects like highways that nobody needs or by building palaces that are by far too big for themselves, but that are full of gold and gleam. The private palace of the former Romanian dictator Ceaușescu (toppled in 1989) is a case in point, but also the present renovation of the White House in Washington, D.C., the residence of the US President, belongs to this category. But such vanities are not more than striking extravagances, if one realizes that in fact the economy of the western societies is based on such inutilities. There are shops and websites that (literally!) sell “Useless Gifts” and even such products like golden toilet paper or bricks for $ 30 each. However, these are only marginal cases, for a walk through a random city centre will show you what I mean: Look how many fashion shops you find there. Do we really need all those clothes? How often it happens that people wear the clothes they have bought there only once or twice (or never!) and then throw them away (sometimes only after years, ashamed that they bought it?). But also in supermarkets, where we buy the products we really need each day, the choice of products is so big that I wonder why. Do we really need a choice of, say, more than ten types of toilet paper? Not to mention websites like TikTok that try to sell products like fashion and makeup in the first place and to the most vulnerable groups like children in the first place; groups of people who actually don’t have the money for it and products they don’t need and often are not worth the money. As Sander Bais wrote in an article titled (translated) “Of vain subtleties” (indeed, inspired by Montaigne’s essay): “The point of things is mainly that they are sold... Advertising and media firmly show us the way to fulfilling our needs while also dictating what those needs are. Big Brother determines which creams we should put on our skin, which meatball to swallow, which films we should have seen and which books we will like very much.” Are you surprised that such a society, so a society economically founded on inutilities, vanity and superfluity, is on the way to its own ecological destruction?
Although Montaigne, then, couldn’t see yet this actual meaning of his words in this essay – so in spite of himself –, as so often he holds up a mirror to us. But we see our image and close our eyes.