#easyeuro

Alright, let’s begin with the idea that this is European History.

Which is in Europe.

Which is a patriarchal culture.

During the Enlightenment, male intellectuals liked to argue that women were inferior to men because of biological factors and intellectual capacity. Some, like Voltaire and Diderot disagreed and said that women were essentially supposed to be equal to men.

So let’s begin with Mary Astell, an Englishwoman and the daughter of a wealthy merchant, who wrote in her work “A Serious Proposal to the Ladies” that women needed to get better educations in order to achieve equality, which is obviously true. She also wrote “Some Reflections Upon Marriage” which stipulated that it was wrong for the man to be the sole authority. Basically, it was just as fucked as absolute monarchy.

So Astell’s like, newsflash, you’re not the shit.

Ok, enter Mary Wollstonecraft.

important!!! she!! is!! the shit!!!

Mary Wollstonecraft writes “Vindication of the Rights of Women” in 1792. Her work pointed out two key contradictions in the male supremacist view of the era. First, the idea that women obey men is contrary to the same belief that monarchs ruling over people and slave owners over slaves are both wrong. Women have reason - therefore, women deserve equal rights in education, economics and politics.

which begs the question like.. what the fuck did you think it was before

seriously she was pretty fucking important

It’s also important to note that the Enlightenment had its greatest appeal in the aristocracy and middle classes. Salons were established to safely share these ideas - you know, to make sure no one got beheaded for heresy or, you know, pissing off the king.

Of course, god forbid men like, feed themselves, so generally these salons were hosted by women. More female influence meant salon owners like Madame Geoffrin could introduce their own ideas into the Enlightenment intellectual sphere.

Salons: not places to get your hair done

Salons: coffeehouses, cafes and reading clubs/libraries

Anyhow.

 A Serious Proposal to the Ladies: women need to get educated, yo. love, ya girl Mary Astell

Mary Wollstonecraft and the Vindication of the Rights of Women: the same inequality one sees in government and slavery is just as wrong when observed between the genders

Alright, so let’s recap - the natural sciences have just established you can figure out the natural laws of systems via inductive and deductive science and natural observation. The Enlightenment has taken that a step further to apply reason to all aspects of life.

Okay, now the philosophes are like wow awesome hey but what about the natural laws of society? Because why not come up with things that are even more complicated than the rest of the things, in order to one day terrify history students?

Anyway, they decided to come up with this field called the science of man, which essentially was the first evolution of the social sciences. Philosophes arrived at the natural laws of sociality, reflected on the time in which they lived, and utilized observation and reflection.

translation: look and learn bitches

Let’s start with David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume said that through observation and reflection with common sense, one could arrive at the truths of the science of man. This became the foundation of modern sociology.

Next up to bat were the Physiocrats:

Enlightenment thinkers applying the strategies of the natural sciences to economics, laying the groundwork for the foundations of modern economic theory. Led to the development of the idea of economic liberalism.

First we gotta talk about Adam Smith, who led the formation of the modern discipline of economics and wrote The Wealth of Nations, which essentially is probably one of the most influential works of modern economics.

Basically it said that if you need a thing and somewhere makes that thing really cheap, just buy it from there instead of trying to produce it yourself. Labor is really the only source of wealth, and the state should only protect from invasions - basically, just defend individuals and builds roads and shit. It shouldn’t involve itself in economics. This is what became known as economic liberalism. Of course, this was pretty different from what everyone had thought forever, mercantilism, which was the exact opposite. Of course that hadn’t really been an A+ theory in the first place, so Adam smith was like

The leader of the Physiocrats was a guy called Francois Quesnay, who strove to discover the natural laws of economics. He said that land was the only form of wealth, not labor, and that wealth was increased with agriculture. All other economic strategies were unproductive and sterile. The state’s money should only be derived from a single tax on land. He also supported the theory of laissez-faire, in which the state doesn’t affect the market. He said that supply and demand should rule, and individuals were responsible for pursuing their own interests. So yeah, no mercantilism.

So at this point, during the Later Enlightenment, a new generation of philosophers began to build on the earlier work of others:

Baron Paul d’Holbach: German aristocrat in Paris - strict atheist, believed in materialism. Wrote the System of Nature in 1770, which said that everything was made of matter. God was an invention by man. Morality should instead come from worldly motives. Most intellectuals, of course, were shocked by this theory and were much more comfortable with deism.

Marie-Jean de Condorcet (this was a man): French aristocrat and philosopher who lived during the French Revolution and wrote “Progress of the Human Mind”, which said that humans had progressed through 9 stages of history and were currently in the 10th, and that there was no limit to the perfection of humanity.

And finally, most importantly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

French intellectual, held odd jobs in France and Italy before going back to school on money earned essentially as a “paid lover” (rich bitches love me)

Wrote “Discourse on the Origins of the Inequality of Mankind” which stated that humans were naturally happy, and adopted government to protect private property. Government, essentially, was a necessary evil.

Wrote “The Social Contract” which said society agrees to be governed by the general will, which was based on the idea that the common good = individual good. What’s best for all is best for individuals, essentially. True freedom, then was the ability to obey the laws you impose upon yourself.

Wrote “Emile” which was this novel-style treatise on education. Said that education should foster kids’ natural instincts, not restrict them, and advocated for a balance between love and mind, sentiment and reason - essentially, for romanticism.

OKAY PLEASE LISTEN TO ME: ROUSSEAU IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. He is probably one of the most influential thinkers in European History. This guy will never ever ever be ignored by an AP test. Know him. Love him.

-Science of Man = the social sciences.

-David Hume: observation and reflection with common sense.

-Physiocrats and Adam Smith: developed the modern discipline of economics.

-Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations, economic liberalism. Wealth was based on labor.

-Francois Quesnay: led the Physiocrats, laissez-faire. Wealth was based on land.

-Paul d’Holbach: athiest, materialism. Wrote System of Nature. Shocked intellectuals.

-Marie-Jean de Condorcet: humans had progressed through 9 stages of history, were on the 10th.