Mendelssohn and the Movement for Popular Philosophy

Moses Mendelssohn from new encyclopedia

Moses Mendelssohn from new encyclopedia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In The Enlightenment Outram writes, “[f]or the Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn (1729-86), ‘Enlightenment’ referred to an as yet uncompleted process of education in the use of reason, which should be open to all.” Mendelssohn [she goes on] “therefore supported the movement for ‘popular philosophy’ which sought to spread Enlightenment ideas among the lower classes” (1). Does her interpretation accord with yours? Did you gather this argument from the essay? Explain.

I agree with Outram’s interpretation of Mendelssohn’s essay. Mendelssohn stated that an individual’s duties and rights are determined by his status and vocation, and, as a result, each individual requires “different theoretical insights and different skills to attain them – a different degree of enlightenment” (54 – 55). Rather than being critical of social and intellectual guardianship within societies, like Kant, Mendelssohn is critical of the state as a body that creates tensions between the essential destiny of man as man and the essential destiny of man as citizen. In particular, he points out that, while the enlightenment of man as a man is universal, the enlightenment of man as a citizen fluctuates according to the status and vocation of that individual (Mendelssohn 55). Furthermore, the enlightenment of a nation depends on the amount of knowledge that the nation possesses, the importance of the nation’s knowledge in relationship to the destiny of man and the destiny of citizen, the dissemination of knowledge throughout different states, and its accordance with the people’s vocations (Mendelssohn 55). For Mendelssohn, the goal of the enlightenment of man as citizen is to enlighten man as man; therefore, the most important measure and goal “of these efforts,” i.e. the enlightenment of a nation, is the destiny and enlightenment of man as man (55).

Mendelssohn understands the process of enlightenment as a modification “of social life, the effects of the industry and efforts of men to better their social conditions” (53). The concept of enlightenment is intertwined with the concepts of culture and education: “a language attains enlightenment through the sciences and attains culture through social intercourse, poetry, and eloquence” (Mendelssohn 54). Enlightenment is attained through rational and scientific thinking and culture is attained through literary and poetic thinking. Furthermore, for Mendelssohn, the process of enlightenment is ongoing in that it is “yet uncompleted process of education in the use of reason, which should be open to all” (Outram 1).

While Mendelssohn appears to be in favor of “the movement for ‘popular philosophy’ which sought to spread Enlightenment ideas among the lower classes” (Outram 1), he is careful to note that “the misuse of enlightenment weakens the moral sentiment and leads to hard-heartedness, egoism, irreligion, and anarchy. Misuse of culture produces luxury, hypocrisy, weakness, superstition, and slavery” (56). Here, Mendelssohn points out that while rational and scientific thinking facilitates enlightenment, rational and scientific thinking is also the kind of thinking that leads to egotism and narcissism. In this sense, Mendelssohn is foreshadowing Max Horkheimer’s and Theodor Adorno’s criticism of the Enlightenment. Horkheimer and Adorno viewed the Enlightenment from the perspective of the immediate aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, and saw the Enlightenment and its arguments for total freedom as an argument for ultimate totalitarianism. “The Enlightenment relies on ‘rationality,’ reasoning which is free from superstition, mythology, fear and revelation, which is often based on mathematical ‘truth,’ which calibrates ends to means,” and it is this kind of reasoning which led mankind “to sink into a new kind of barbarism” instead of “entering into a truly human condition” (Outram 6). Despite his warnings about the dangers of extreme enlightenment views, Mendelssohn’s emphasis on culture and the importance of literary and poetic influences on rational thought makes me view his position as one that “supports the movement for ‘popular philosophy’ which sought to spread Enlightenment ideas among the lower classes” (Outram 1).

Outram, D. The Enlightenment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. 2005. Print.

Heller, D. “Teaching Paper on Kant and Mendelssohn.” (2012). 1-3.

Heller, D. “Mendelssohn 2.” 3 September 2012. Mendelssohn 2 Forum. 6 September 2012.

Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (1784). Trans. James Schmidt. 58-64.

Mendelssohn, Moses. “On the Question: What is Englitenment?” (1784). Trans. James Schmidt. 53-57.

Horkheimer and Adorno’s vs Habermas’s theorization of the Englightenment

Jurgen Habermas

Jurgen Habermas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How is Jurgen Habermas’s theorization of the Enlightenment a very different one from that of Horkheimer and Adorno? In what sense is Max Habermas (according to Outram’s description) a far more positive theorist of the Enlightenment than Horkheimer and Adorno?

According to Outram, Jurgen Habermas adopted many of Max Horkheimer’s and Theodor Adorno’s insights about the way that “the Enlightenment consumed culture, turned culture into a commodity, and turned knowledge into information” (7). Given these views, Horkeimer and Adorno argued that it was the Enlightenment’s use of reason and rationality that enabled the stripping away of society’s humanity which facilitated the Holocaust, the systematic killing of millions people. Unlike Horkeimer and Adorno, Habermas argued that many of the ideas of the Enlightenment were still worth pursuing because the Enlightenment “contained potential for emancipating individuals from restrictive particularism in order to be able to act, not as ‘Germans’ embattled by adherence to particular national or cultural ethos, but rather as human beings engaged in a common search with other human beings for universal values such as freedom, justice and objectivity” (7). Habermas was a far more positive theorist of the Enlightenment than Horkheimer and Adorno because he viewed the Enlightenment as the creator of the public realm. A public realm is the concept that a public opinion could come about and “start to question privileged traditional forces” (7). This space is similar to Kant’s notion of private realm, a place where men could escape from the role of subjects and gain autonomy by exchanging their own opinions and ideas (7).

Dorinda Outram, The Enlightenment, 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780521546812