Age Of Enlightenment Essay

The Age of Enlightenment was an intellectual movement beginning in the late seventeenth century that attempted to revive the some of the classical principles of the Renaissance, emphasizing humanity and individual philosophy, bringing Western Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the modern age. During the Enlightenment, Western Europe saw the genius of philosophers like John Locke, Diderot, and, with Isaac Newton, saw the rise of the Scientific Revolution. The advances seen in the sciences, philosophy, and arts gave way to a heightened sense of self awareness within the individual in Enlightenment society. This self awareness led to debates about the origin of happiness and misery. Two philosophers, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, attempted to address these debates through their writing. Voltaire’s “Candide” describes human misery as a phenomenon that stems from the philosophical belief in optimism. He states that blindly following a belief that rationalizes even the most absurd of adversities is detrimental to both the individual and society. Rousseau, on the other hand, attributes human misery to the influence that society and institution has on the individual. It is Rousseau’s belief that humanity should return to a simpler life in the pure state of nature, which Rousseau explicitly defines in his “Discourse on Inequality”. Both philosophers offer valid depictions of human misery and its origins, however, it is because Rousseau’s argument lies heavily on his own definition of the human “state of nature” that he loses legitimacy, and makes Voltaire’s argument more effective.

Voltaire constructs his satire as a discussion of optimism. He believes that as a philosophy it is useless. Voltaire includes Pangloss, Candid...

... middle of paper ...

... get sick in modern society is because of their lavish and greedy lifestyles.

Ultimately, Voltaire’s explanation for the existence of human misery proves to be more valid because it is based on instances that he observed in his own life. It is his belief that through reason and education, man can separate himself from the savage whereas Rousseau argues that man is naturally good and becomes corrupted by the institutions that he himself created. Rousseau’s fault lies in the fact that he bases his entire argument off of a theoretical state of nature that he tailors to suit his argument throughout his discourse. Rousseau’s argument is also invalid because what he is proposing is impossible. Man will never be able to regress back into what Rousseau defines as the state of nature because man will never be able to rid himself of the memories and customs of the past.