THE SCIENCE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Kellen TiborHIS 451-01: World Historical Theme: Science

1 May, 2014

1

Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................................2

The Emergence of Mechanical Philosophy.....................................................................................3

Scientific Politics.............................................................................................................................8

Reasonable Morality......................................................................................................................12

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................16

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................18

2

Introduction

Vivre la révolution! These words echoed throughout France as the old monarchy was

overthrown and the Reign of Terror began. The French Revolution is instantly recognized as an

example of Enlightenment ideals brought into fruition; the ideals of reason, liberty, and

individualism were never seen on such a scale until this period in history. Such a contrast

between the social and political ideas of Renaissance and post-Enlightenment Europe surely

could not have come from nowhere. Like most major events in history, the revolutions of the

eighteenth century had been brewing for quite some time, influenced by a plethora of attitudes

and events. Put simply, the theories of the Enlightenment did not spontaneously appear in the

minds of men such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire. Rather, their philosophy was borne of a

broader intellectual and social movement – a movement which I contend was the Scientific

Revolution. This paper will argue that the changes in the philosophy and methodology of

science, advocated by men such as Francis Bacon and René Descartes, profoundly affected the

way in which the world and humanity were viewed because the emergence of mechanical

philosophy dramatically changed natural philosophy, and this methodology was applied to social

theory and individual morality as the Enlightenment progressed. This paper will not seek to

judge the merit or validity of any philosophies or methods of this period; it seeks instead to bring

attention to the development of Baconian and Cartesian thought throughout the Enlightenment –

in other words, to see how science shaped the Enlightenment.

The Emergence of Mechanical Philosophy

The Scientific Revolution, or the period in history which lasted roughly from 1560-

1660,1 is a topic which has undergone much debate in recent years. What was once universally 1 Charles Webster, ed. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1974), ix.

3

accepted is now being questioned as a matter of historical fact. In an effort to discern why there

was this great intellectual progress, many theories have been concocted, such as the debate

between positivism and contextualism.2 That debate will surely rage on, but there was one aspect

of this Revolution, developed by Alexandre Koyré, which undoubtedly substantially changed:

the metaphysical.3 Baconian and Cartesian thought are inherently tied to the Scientific

Revolution by their radical change of the metaphysics of science. This may not make me a

positivist, but this paper seeks to show the influence that two men would have on a massive

intellectual revolution. Through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the world was viewed

from the perspective of Aristotle: everything was ordered and had purpose. During the Scientific

Revolution, Aristotelian metaphysics was replaced with mechanical philosophy, an event which

“altered the foundations of natural philosophy as practiced for nearly two thousand years.”4 At

the base level, this philosophy sees nature as machine, purposeless and filled with lifeless

matter.5 Perhaps the best way to fully grasp this mechanical philosophy is by studying some of

the earliest proponents of mechanical philosophy: Francis Bacon and René Descartes.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was one of the first to advocate mechanical philosophy.

Dissatisfied with natural philosophy up to his time, he advocated a total re-ordering of the study.

He named his six-part work on the subject the Instauratio Magna, or Great Instauration. This

work is a refutation of Aristotelian methodology and a plan of action for his new method of

natural philosophy. He prefaced the work by stating that “the state of knowledge is not

prosperous nor greatly advancing; and a way must be opened for the human understanding

entirely different from any hitherto known, and other helps provided, in order that the mind may

2 John Henry. "Ideology, Inevitability, and the Scientific Revolution." Isis 99, no. 3 (September 2008): 552-559.3 David Lindberg. The Beginnings of Western Science, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007),364.4 Ibid., 365.5 Ibid.

4

exercise over the nature of things the authority which properly belongs to it.”6 Bacon is

advocating for a complete revolution in natural philosophy because he is seeing what he believes

to be an utter lack of progress in the field. Although he will be bold in this endeavor, he

nevertheless understands that his writings are proposals; he himself was influenced by ancient

thoughts, such as Cicero and Quintillian.7 The Great Instauration is thus an exposition of how

Bacon believed natural philosophy ought to be undertaken.

A major reason for this is that he felt that no man was willing to advance beyond

Aristotle: “Men of this kind, therefore, amend some things but advance little; and improve the

condition of knowledge, but do not extend its range.”8 As stated, natural philosophy was

controlled by Aristotelian thought. This philosophy had many merits, as seen in the works of St.

Thomas Aquinas, but Bacon believed that many systems of Aristotelian logic were in error – he

flatly stated that “I on the contrary reject demonstration by syllogism, as acting too confusedly,

and letting nature slip out of its hands.”9

Bacon believed that science was inverted. Aristotelian thought relies heavily on the

senses, and trusting the reality of things as a reflection of greater truths. However, Bacon

understood that the senses can deceive. But, unlike Descartes would later assert, the senses

could, through the use of reason in the progression of axioms, find out what was not true.10 The

idea of progressing gradually from one provable piece of evidence to the next until a general

truth can be discerned is the basis of Bacon’s induction. It was not an entirely new concept, as

Bacon himself readily admitted,11 but he wanted to refine it so that there would be a standardized

6 Francis Bacon. Selected Writings of Francis Bacon. (New York: Random House, 1955), 428.7 Charles Whitney. Francis Bacon and Modernity. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 80.8 Bacon, 432.9 Ibid., 441.10 Ibid., 442-443.11 Ibid., 442.

5

method by which all logicians could examine hypotheses – the beginning of institutionalized

experimentation.

Personal experience was at the heart of Bacon’s method. Experience, he argued, ought to

guide man’s quest for axioms. He uses the analogy of experience being the lighting of a candle,

and the use of the candle to find a way is the experimentation.12 But there was also a point to be

made in that it took individuals’ volition for this experimentation to occur. He warned against

complete adherence to either experimentation or reason, and instead advocated the use of one’s

own power to bring the two together.13 Murmurs of individualism are here emerge as Bacon

charges individuals with taking inquiry into their own hands and drawing their own conclusions.

Indeed, he argued that it was man’s religious duty to know all things: “God hath framed the mind

of man as a mirror or glass capable of the image of the universal world… raised also to find out

and discern the ordinances and decrees which throughout all those changes are infallibly

observed.”14

Along with this emphasis on the person came a view of nature which, although intended

well, could easily be interpreted for utilitarian ends. He stated that “man is but the servant and

interpreter of nature… [it cannot] be commanded except by being obeyed.”15 This point he said

repeatedly, but he possessed idealistic views on how people would apply their newfound

knowledge. He readily admitted how people might seek to apply this knowledge to their own

ambitions – ambitions for the good of man, he assumed. He understood that people would seek

to expand their power over their own country, over other nations, and over the human race as a

whole.16 The final point he described as being “a more wholesome thing and a more noble (sic)

12 Ibid., 501.13 Ibid., 514.14 Ibid., 162.15 Ibid., 451.16 Ibid., 539.

6

than the other two.”17 He went on to say that “the empire of man over things depends wholly on

the arts and sciences.”18 One thing he failed to recognize was that empires also ruled over men,

and not merely things.

René Descartes (1596-1650) took the mechanical view of the world further in his

methods of deduction (see figure 1, upper left).19 Regarded as one of the world’s greatest

mathematicians, he revolutionized geometry and the world of math as a whole. His work on

grounding time upon motion and the manner in which he related matter and extension seem to be

precursors of the theory of relativity.20 Descartes took mechanical philosophy even further than

Bacon, and used his methodologies for determining the principles of geometry and algebra for

studying all of reality. Descartes believed that the senses could not be trusted at all. He flatly

rejected induction as “frequently fallacious,” and stated that “deduction, or the pure illation of

one thing from another… cannot be erroneous when performed by an understanding that is in the

least degree rational.”21 Indeed, reason seemed to be of utmost importance for Descartes, as

absolute certainty was required for any advancement in deduction: “If… we come to a step in the

series of which our understanding is not sufficiently well able to have an intuitive cognition, we

must stop short there. We must make no attempt to examine what follows.”22

Descartes’s stalwart insistence on possessing the certainty required for deduction led to a

view of the world marked by overcoming dogmatic doubt through reason. The senses simply

could not be trusted. They can lead us to false assumptions quite easily; how is one to understand

that the sun is much larger than it appears in the sky? Or, in the case of a Platonic ideal, just

17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Docstoc.com. “Enlightenment Thinkers.” Accessed 28 February, 2014. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1846354 /Enlightenment-Thinkers.20 Alfred North Whitehead. Science and the Modern World. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), 145.21 René Descartes. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. (London: The Cambridge University Press, 1968), 4.22 Ibid., 22.

7

because one can envision how a chimera appears, should one automatically presume that it does

in fact exist? Of course not, “for Reason tells us that our thoughts cannot possibly be all true.”23

Although Descartes does not share Bacon’s endorsement of induction, both place a significant

emphasis on Reason, which is slowly emerging as a fundamental aspect of the human condition.

Descartes described himself as “not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind or a

soul, or an understanding, or a reason.”24

This method of absolute deduction became so meticulous that Descartes could only

define the fact that he existed. “I think, therefore I am,”25 defines Descartes’s view of reality.

Because the very perception of his senses could simply be a projection of his own mind, the only

thing that was certain was the fact that he was indeed thinking. Because thoughts cannot exist

independent of a being, he must therefore be a being. This view can be ultimately interpreted as

the culmination of individualism; the only thing definite about reality is that one does, in fact,

exist. Although Descartes ultimately attempted to use this train of deductions to prove the

existence of God, albeit weakly, the implications of individualistic ideas would be developed

later on in the Enlightenment.

In the end, the Baconian method of scientific inquiry would have a greater impact on

philosophy and scientific inquiry. Although it was not developed precisely as Bacon prescribed,

he stimulated ideas in the way the world was viewed in a profound way.26 Although there were

fewer who took Descartes’s approach of deduction in scientific inquiry, his exhaustive emphasis

on Reason would resonate for centuries. Indeed, in just over a century, the map of Europe (see

23 Ibid., 106.24 Ibid., 152.25 Ibid., 101.26 Colin A. Ronan. Science: Its History and Development Among the World’s Cultures. (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1982), 373.

8

figure 2) 27 would look dramatically different as his ideals, developed in the Enlightenment,

caused revolution and ultimately war in Europe (see figure 3).28

Scientific Politics

Bacon was torn between the possibilities of science. Was it to be a pursuit of the truth of

the universe purely for its own sake, or should man seek to control the universe in

utilitarianism?29 The manner in which this question would develop would be influenced greatly

by the Puritans’ emphasis on utility. The utilitarian outlook was inevitable; it had been slowly

gaining popularity in England since the works of Ramus and Vives, humanists who emphasized

practical classics, such as Virgil’s Georgics.30 The Puritans, a very practical people, were

influenced by Ramism, and the fact that utilitarianism was in direct contrast to Aristotelian

thought only made it more attractive.31

A contemporary of Bacon and Descartes, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is famous for

developing the Social Contract Theory, a practical argument for the Commonwealth, expounded

in the Leviathan. In this work, the influence of Bacon and Descartes can already be seen. Hobbes

accepts the new mechanical philosophy fully, as can be seen in his opening statement on reason

and science: “When a man reasoneth, he does nothing else but conceive a sum total, from

addition of parcels; or conceive a remainder, from subtraction of one sum from another.”32

Descartes would surely have been proud that another had taken his mathematical view of the

27 Wikipedia. “File:Europe map 1648.” Accessed 28 February, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe _map_1648.PNG.28 Wordpress. “Napoleon1810.” Accessed 29 April, 2014. http://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ napoleon1810.jpg.29 H. F. Kearney. Puritanism and the Scientific Revolution. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), 235.30 Ibid.31 Ibid., 235-236.32 Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982), 58.

9

world and applied it. Indeed, Hobbes believed that reason was a simple reckoning of all the

factors of the mind,33 echoing Descartes’s belief of his own being as a product of the mind.

Hobbes’s belief in the power of an individual was grounded in one’s ability to obtain a

good. He defined natural power as the “eminence of the faculties of body, or mind.”34 All other

“instrumental” powers were derived from this, and they served only to receive more power.35

Although Bacon never actually stated that “knowledge is power,” the utilitarian undertones of

Baconian thought are plainly evident in Hobbes’s writing. Despite the fact that Hobbes described

the sciences as “small powers,”36 the use of Reason to understand one’s own mind now has clear

implications for politics. The interaction of power would then drive Hobbes’s Social Contract

Theory.

Hobbes believed that no man was by nature any better than another. The same

mathematical reckoning which drove reason confirmed the equality of individuals:

Though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he.37

Unfortunately, these equal individuals still desired power. With no inherent superiority, how can

one have more power than another? Hobbes understood this to mean that whenever there is no

common power to hold people together, all mankind was at war.38 The reasons for peace are

obvious; people do not want to die and they enjoy comfort, so a stable industrial base is needed

to have those things.39

33 Ibid.34 Ibid., 71.35 Ibid.36 Ibid., 73.37 Ibid,. 84.38 Ibid., 85.39 Ibid., 86.

10

Thus, we have laws. Much to the delight of Bacon, Hobbes used induction to argue for

these laws. He argued that simple reason would be used to determine the lex naturalis, or law of

nature: man cannot harm himself, nor can he put himself into a situation where he cannot defend

himself.40 Because peace is a time in which these laws of nature can be obeyed, man ought to

strive for that peace. However, induction does not deal in absolutes; in times of aggression, peace

is not the best course of action. Thus, reason dictated to Hobbes that man ought to defend

himself by whatever means necessary when attacked.41

By their nature, all men have these rights to peace and defense. A right can be

transferred, however, and that act of transferring is what Hobbes refers to as a contract.42 This

Social Contract Theory would be culminated in the Commonwealth, which is the “final cause,

end, and design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others).”43 Hobbes’s

development of the Commonwealth was one of the first political theories to be derived from the

effects of Baconian and Cartesian thought, and there would be many more to come.

John Locke (1632-1704) was another political theorist who deeply impacted the

Enlightenment and consequently Western Civilization as a whole (see figure 1, upper right).44

Much of his work is filled with Baconian experimentation, and many of his essays are similar in

form to Bacon’s own work.45 Like the Puritans, he possessed the idea that science ought to serve

utility, and he earnestly hoped that his work might have an effect in practical affairs.46

Locke further developed natural law in a Baconian manner. The very foundation of his

argument is grounded in the idea that all men have reason.47 The law of nature can be discerned

40 Ibid.41 Ibid.42 Ibid., 87.43 Ibid., 99.44 DocStoc.45 Neal Wood. The Politics of Locke’s Philosophy. (Berkely: University of California Press, 1983), 75.46 Ibid., 82.47 John Locke. Essays on the Law of Nature. (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 111.

11

by the light of nature – through reason. Unfortunately, not all people choose to use their reason,

which is why there is discontent between people regarding laws.48 Induction can be seen as he

argues for the existence of a law of nature despite this: for example, because there is discord on

the very definition of a principle, it follows that the principle likely exists.49 He also draws the

same argument of Hobbes when he appeals to the fact that rulers would simply exercise

unbounded control over people if they naturally possessed absolute power – this would be

damaging to the common individual, so he ought not to allow that to occur.50

By Locke’s time, it is becoming increasingly apparent that utilitarianism is emerging as a

cornerstone of Baconian thought, as Locke’s writing suggests. Locke echoes Bacon’s call for

mastery of nature as he states that “nature must be altogether negated before one can claim for

himself absolute liberty.”51 This is not to say that nature is a hindrance to freedom, but that

through studying nature one can come to a fuller knowledge of the natural law, and become

enlightened as to what man’s proper faculties are.52

Perhaps the greatest example of Baconian methodology is how Locke approaches the use

of reason in a form of graduation of axioms. Locke acknowledges that the basic foundations for

his method of discerning natural law are lacking in the use of reason – which he describes as the

“great and chief light of all knowledge,”53 a term which Descartes would surely have loved.

Despite this, Locke argues that the basics of natural law must be founded on the axioms which

are most easily attainable; they are already known to us, we hear of them from others, or we

perceive them through the senses. Without these foundations, axioms derived from reason would

48 Ibid., 115.49 Ibid.50 Ibid., 119.51 Ibid., 123.52 Ibid.53 Ibid., 125.

12

have nothing on which to stand.54 Then, with a firm foundation, reason “builds up and raises as

high as heaven.”55

Reasonable Morality

By the time Locke died, the Enlightenment had come to the West, and it was going to

stay. After over fifty years of development among intellectuals and political theorists like those

mentioned above, the ideas were finally becoming popularized and adopted by the common

citizen. As the eighteenth century progressed, people would increasingly see the connection

between science and utility. The public was not afraid to use reason, either – they were more

than willing to spurn the wishes of the elites in politics and scholarship.56 With an increased

number of people able to understand the Enlightenment figures’ work, the more immediately

influential the authors became.

One of the authors of this period in the Enlightenment was Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-

1778). His work would have serious consequences for the manner in which people viewed their

rights in regards to society, and he influenced the French Revolution in no small manner (see

figure 1, bottom right).57 In Rousseau, utilitarianism is seen at its finest in regards to family: “The

children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As

soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from obedience…

return to independence.”58

Rousseau’s approach to the rights of individuals within political relationships builds off

the Social Contract Theory postulated by Hobbes and Locke. In a contract, an individual is

54 Ibid.55 Ibid., 149.56 Michael R. Lynn. "Divining the Enlightenment: Public Opinion and Popular Science in Old Regime France." Isis 92, no. 1 (2001): 36.57 DocStoc.58 Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982), 387.

13

bound to both the individuals of the Sovereign, of which he is a part, and of the State. The

Sovereign, made up of all citizens, cannot work against itself; this goes against what Hobbes

induced to be the rights of a man, and the Sovereign is one body. The Sovereign, therefore, is not

bound to give its subjects any guarantees, for it cannot work against itself.59 However, the same

cannot be said for the individuals of the Sovereign. They possess, in addition to the will of the

Sovereign, a personal will which may be contrary to the Sovereign – this is a major conflict of

interest. Utilitarianism, however, remedies this. Building upon the idea that peace is best for the

individual, and that rights can be transferred, Rousseau appeals to individuals’ reason to compel

them to relinquish any principles not in accord with the Sovereign, so that they may receive the

benefits of the Commonwealth, which are naturally more favorable.60

To the pride of Descartes, his social theory is based on a deduction: if clashing interests

made societies necessary, and if the reconciliation of those grievances made it possible, then

society must be formed by the establishment of a general will.61 Because this is a deduction, the

conclusion is contingent on the constancy of the two points – and Rousseau already established

that some people may not want to reconcile personal their beliefs with the Sovereign. Therefore,

in order for society to function for Rousseau, all individuals must conform to a general will,

forming a collective being.62 If this is not done, society will be unable to function, and inequality

or utter collapse will ensue.

The implications of this social theory are numerous – for Rousseau’s society to work,

there can be no events which upset the deduction. For example, a singular master over the people

renders the Sovereign null and void; the will is no longer collective, but conformed to a single

59 Ibid., 392.60 Ibid., 393.61 Ibid., 395.62 Ibid.

14

individual’s will.63 Furthermore, factions cannot come to exist within the state. Small, partial

wills will evolve, and the Sovereign would become a product of the interaction of those small

wills. When one will prevails, there is no general will of any sort.64 Nevertheless, Rousseau

maintained that the Sovereign needed a significant reason to be able to take things away from

individuals – the state is only to take that which is needed. But, by his own admission, it is the

state itself who determines what is important.65 These difficulty in administering such a system

would be seen after the French Revolution, when a republic was established.

While Rousseau fought for social morals, Voltaire (1694-1778) advocated a change in the

way individuals saw the world on a personal level (see figure 1, top middle).66 Voltaire is

perhaps the culmination of how an individual was to embrace reason during the Enlightenment.

This is best summarized in regards to how he viewed faith:

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason… Faith consists in believing not what seems true, but what seems false to our understanding.67

Reason has really become the ideal to which Voltaire believes people ought to aspire. When

contrasting atheism and fanaticism, he prefers atheism solely on the grounds that reason would

prohibit the atheist from acting rashly.68

Voltaire’s views on life were profoundly rooted in embracing Reason. When writing on

liberty and free will, he blatantly denies man’s ability to choose for himself. Liberty, in

Voltaire’s mind, means simply, “to be able.”69 A man who is mobile is free to mount a horse, for

instance. Nevertheless, there must be a cause for his doing so. Even something as simple as him

63 Ibid.64 Ibid., 396.65 Ibid., 397.66 DocStoc.67 Voltaire. The Portable Voltaire. Translated by Ben Ray Redman. (New York: The Viking Press, 1968), 222.68 Ibid., 220.69 Ibid., 125.

15

feeling like mounting a horse would be the product of a greater perceived good atop the horse.70

Thus, we have no free will; our entire lives are but a series of our bodies doing the best perceived

good that they allow. It is no wonder then that Voltaire was a Deist; lives motivated by Reason

ought to correspond to a God that is Reason.

As regards truth, Voltaire used mathematical reasoning that is similar to Descartes.

Voltaire was also a historian, and understood that the truth of events can be lost to the ages.

Therefore, similar to Descartes, he chooses to not assume any fact to be true. He contended that

for every witness of a recent event, there is but one possible interpretation of how the event

occurred. Even if all say the same thing, there is still but a strong possibility that it actually

happened in that manner – nothing more. With fewer witnesses, one ought to be skeptical. If the

witnesses are no longer alive, then it is then impossible to inquire as to the event. In this manner,

Voltaire stated mathematically that as generations increase from the time of an event, “soon

probability is reduced to zero.”71

It would seem that people were beginning to embrace this love of Reason. But a

difference ought to be seen between the intellectual giants to whom we attribute the

Enlightenment and the common populace. The major Enlightenment thinkers were rational; their

works seem to shun superstition and illogical practices. However, there are always problems in

translation – in this instance, from Voltaire to the French people. This is best illustrated in the

events surrounding dowsing in the 1780s. Rather than logically concluding that there is no

correlation between sticks and water, the French people began to actually employ Reason and

scientific methods to study this “science.”72

70 Ibid.71 Ibid., 217.72 Lynn, 45.

16

Conclusion

Perhaps the French experience with dowsing should have been a warning of what was to

come. For over one hundred years, the ideas of the Enlightenment grew and evolved, but they

were never put into practice. They instead carried on within the minds of the intellectuals, as they

moved from one axiom to the next in a truly Baconian method. When the French Revolution

finally did occur, violence became the law of the land instead of natural law. Within a few years,

Napoleon would be emperor of France – the “master” about which Rousseau warned.73 Surely, it

is far from what Bacon intended when he called for people to take control of nature. But from

Bacon’s and Descartes’s changes in methodology in scientific philosophy came a change in the

way the world and humanity were viewed as mechanical philosophy transformed natural

philosophy, which changed social theory and individual morality in a profound way throughout

the Enlightenment. These changes still affect us today, politically, philosophically, and

scientifically. Mechanical Philosophy grips science, politics, and morality in every sphere of the

West. It is up to the people who live today to determine what further influence it will have.

73 Rousseau, 395.

17

Bibliography

1.

Bacon, Francis. Selected Writings of Francis Bacon. Edited by James Spedding, R. L. Ellis and

D. D. Heath. New York: Random House, 1955.PRIMARY 1.

2. Descartes, René. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. Translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane

and G. R. T. Ross. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968. PRIMARY 2.

3. Docstoc.com. “Enlightenment Thinkers.” Accessed 28 February, 2014.

http://www.docstoc .com/docs/1846354/Enlightenment-Thinkers. IMAGE.

4. Henry, John. "Ideology, Inevitability, and the Scientific Revolution." Isis 99, no. 3 (September

2008): 552-559. ARTICLE 1.

5. Hobbes, Thomas. 1982. Leviathan. Edited by Nelle Fuller. Chicago: Encyclopaedia

Britannica. PRIMARY 3.

6. Kearney, H. F. Puritanism, Capitalism, and the Scientific Revolution. 218-242. The

Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, edited by Charles Webster. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul. ARTICLE 2.

7. Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 2007. BOOK 1.

8. Locke, John. Essays on the Laws of Nature. Edited by W. von Leyden. London: Oxford

University Press, 1965. PRIMARY 4.

9. Lynn, Michael R. "Divining the Enlightenment: Public Opinion and Popular Science in Old

Regime France." Isis 92, no. 1 (2001): 34-54. ARTICLE 3.

10. Ronan, Colin A. Science: Its History and Development Among the World's Cultures. New

York: Facts on File Publications, 1982. BOOK 2.

18

11. Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. The Social Contract. Translated by G. D. H. Cole. Chicago:

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1982. PRIMARY 5.

12. Voltaire. The Portable Voltaire. Edited by Ben Ray Redman. New York: The Viking Press,

1968. PRIMARY 6.

13. Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: The Macmillan

Company, 1953. BOOK 3.

14. Whitney, Charles. Francis Bacon and Modernity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

BOOK 4.

15. Webster, Charles. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. London:

Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1974. BOOK 5.

16. Wikipedia. “File:Europe map 1648.” Accessed 28 February, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/File:Europe_map_1648.PNG. MAP 1.

17. Wood, Neal. The Politics of Locke's Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1983. BOOK 6.

18. Wordpress. "Napoleon1810." Accessed 29 April, 2014.

http://mapcollection.files.wordpress .com/2012/07/napoleon1810.jpg. MAP 2.

19

Figure 1.

20

Figure 2.

21

Figure 3.