Carefully reread Outram’s discussion of “reform” in Enlightenment government practices (pp. 43-46). What passages strike you as especially suggestive or interesting or even debatable? Why?
One of the most interesting aspects of Outram’s discussion of “reform” in Enlightenment government practices was the discussion on how, in the 1780’s, German states were trying to find a peaceful way to reform the monarchy by discarding the ceremonial and symbolic aspects of kingship that their ancestors had spent so much time on creating (Outram 44). It seems to me that this shift from a person who is ordained by God to a person who is the first servant of the state carries lot of symbolism about the reformation process in general. It is important that individuals who hold high office positions see their positions as servants of the people and the public. It is essentially a public position that serves the people and the state, and this transition in thinking about the position of the King was the beginning of this view of government.
- Horkheimer and Adorno’s vs Habermas’s theorization of the Englightenment (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)
- The Social basis of the Enlightenment (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)
- New interpretation of the Englightment (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)
- The Englightment and the Commodification of Ideas (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)
- Kant’s Public and Privates Uses of Reason (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)
- Republic of Letters (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)
- Englightement’s “New Kind of Equality” (kprudchenko.wordpress.com)