FREE ESSAY ON ENLIGHTENED DARKNESS

ENLIGHTENED DARKNESS

Enlightened Darkness
When I am asked to determine if I am a "child of the Enlightenment," the first thoughts
that come to my mind question the characteristics of the Enlightenment. What kind of
movement was it? Who else claims to support Enlightenment ideals? What characteristics
are associated with the Enlightenment, and do I want to label myself as sharing these? It
didn't take much time for me to happily embrace the fact that I am a "child of the
Enlightenment."
The Enlightenment encompasses many ideas concerning knowledge, political theory, science,
and economic theory. The Enlightenment worldview stresses reason instead of authority and
revelation. Enlightened thinkers believe in the freedom of choice of natural religion
instead of more formal and organized church religions (like the strict Roman Catholic
Church). Furthermore, the Enlightenment is characterized by the optimistic belief in the
improvement of the human condition, knowable laws discovered through the scientific
method, and natural rights. While I agree with much of what Enlightenment thinkers
believe concerning these areas of life, I am most interested in Enlightenment aspects
concerning the value of the individual, and the subtleties of natural rights such as
life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. I want to examine the human in and
of itself, without the outside influences of forced government or religion. How do people
feel about religion and their rights when they are allowed to reason freely? 
John Stuart Mill makes a very influential argument for the power of reason and the power
of the individual in his work, On Liberty, published in 1859. In it, Mill speaks of the
"tyranny of the majority" (Mill, H-3), and how this tyranny represents a contradiction to
human improvement. Intellects of the Enlightenment such as Mill, Locke, and Newton make a
rather strong point for this. We now know and appreciate these mens' contributions to
society and human improvement (which is a key theme of the Enlightenment), but during
each contemporary time period, these men were criticized for their own use of reason and
for thinking "outside of the box." Mill showed the world that traditionalism and
authority of the masses isn't necessarily right. He preached to society that every man
must be allowed his own liberty at all times only with the exception that man's liberty
does not interfere with the "utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent
interests of man as a progressive being" (Mill, H-4). Mill further explains that it is
unreasonable to shut out the opinion of even a single man out of one hundred because we
now know that the "majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many
opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will
now justify" (Mill, H-6). Human progression is earned through the rectification of
mistakes by discussion and experience. By remaining open to a variety of opinions instead
of silencing the remotest minority, mankind will create a more "stable foundation" in
which it can exist more efficiently (Mill, H-6). In a sense, John Stuart Mill was
enlightened to the fact that "individuals are lost in the crowd" (Mill, H-12), and this
crowd is being ruled "by men much like themselves" (Mill, H-12). The world often exists
in a state of regression in which men forget the lessons that thinkers such as Mill have
taught us. Humankind will continue to progress if each man uses "observation to see,
reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision,
discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to
his deliberate decision" (Mill, H-11).
In his book, Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud argues that civilization is
the cause of mankind's problems and misery. Freud attempts to define each human as having
two basic instinctive drives: one in the form of aggression, and one in the form of Eros
(love). He believes that sexual and aggressive drives are inborn instincts that each
person wishes to act on, but that society infringes on these inclinations. According to
Freud, our civilization "is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be
much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions" (Freud, 38). This
thought is contradictory to the Enlightenment ideals of optimism and the belief in human
progression. However, if man accepts Freud's views that human's have desires that they
wish to act on, but can't due to the consequences that civilization has made, then Freud
would be right to suggest a regression into primitive times. If sexual love is the
prototype for all happiness, and we cannot act on our desires of sexual love because of
civilization, then we will be unhappy people. Freud states that, "It is clearly not easy
for men to give up the satisfaction of this inclination to aggression. They simply do not
feel comfortable without it" (Freud, 72). Man must have found ways to express their
aggression because mankind is evolving to become more and more civilized everyday. Freud
may not be correct in his assumptions of man, but it is important to take his opinion
into consideration, and examine all aspects of his arguments against the tyranny of
society. While I agree that society does infringe on the individuality of man, I do not
agree that Freud is correct in his reasoning that we should return to primitive
conditions. Neurosis may originate from civilization, but this cannot be helped. What
better system can we come up with for the good of the general population? We cannot
abandon cleanliness or structure that society has created because of minor problems.
Human progression will not occur without the specialization and structure that can be
provided only through civilization. However, while Freud's point may be exaggerated, it
is important to realize that he does have a point.
"World War II and the exposure, during and after the war, of Nazi atrocities seem, from
one perspective, like the culmination of trends calling faith in Enlightenment principles
into question" (N-1). These events also brought a "renewed dedication" to the concept of
human rights central to the Enlightenment. By examining the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, we can see this struggle between Enlightenment ideals and contemporary
thought that I consider to be caused by, what Mill called, "the tyranny of the majority."
While I believe that the motivations behind the UN Declaration are sincerely and
genuinely good, I don't believe that a declaration of human rights can be effectively
standardized for the entire world. Countries are much too diverse in their religious,
economic, political, and social beliefs to agree on a standard worldwide view. The UN is
representative of an oligarchy in which a few rule over all. Article 3 states that
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person," (N-2). This article is
very general and acceptable, but the UN continues to declare in Article 29, that "These
rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations" (N-5). This statement is oppressive in every sense. Articles 29
and 30 hold the values learned through the Enlightenment in disregard. The Enlightenment
taught people of natural rights, government by the consent of the governed and majority
rule, but these principles can all be thrown out the window if the UN has taken the
initiative to state that THEIR laws take precedence over any other laws. Does this mean
that the UN has the right to tell Tahiti that their practices are wrong because they are
exercise "contrary to the purposes" of the UN? Further, we have established that
government is to exist by the extent of the governed, not by an elite group of tyrannical
delegates from cultures that have nothing to do with our own. The United Nations may be
under the impression that they are acting for the best interests of mankind, but this is
not the case. They are only politicians controlled by politics. Maybe the founders of
this declaration were sincere in their motives, but what would happen if another Hitler
gained power in the UN? Could he persuade other delegates to join him in a quest for
world domination acting under the existing approval of the superpowers of the world who
control the United Nations? When the articles within the Declaration contradict
themselves, how can Article 30 state that, "Nothing in this Declaration may be
interpreted as implying for any State, group, or person any right to engage in any
activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms
set forth herein" (N-5)? The UN Declaration was adopted without dissent on December 10,
1948, but I would declare that there is at least one with a dissenting opinion because I
would argue that the UN Declaration violates my rights as an individual.
While I did not live during the Enlightenment movement, I do consider myself to be a
"child of the Enlightenment." I believe in most of what the Enlightenment stands for, and
although nothing seems to be perfect now, I am optimistic that the human condition can
continue to improve with work. We must not allow government to exist without the will of
the governed, and we can't afford to allow the "tyranny of the majority" to rule because
they outnumber the truly enlightened. My beliefs can be summarized in the famous words of
John Stuart Mill: "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own
good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede
their efforts to obtain it" (Mill, H-4).