Contrasting French and British Enlightenment Philosophies

Key Insight

The French Enlightenment, led by thinkers such as Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Condorcet, championed individual reason as the primary tool to detect error and logically arrive at universal truth, inspired by the scientific revolution. These philosophers confronted superstition and feudalism, viewing society and its institutions as machines that could be taken apart and reengineered. Their approach emphasized logic, science, and universal rules as foundations for understanding and improving the world.

In contrast, the British Enlightenment, featuring figures like David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, acknowledged reason's importance but deemed individual reason limited and secondary. It was observed that 'Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions' and that humans are 'men of untaught feelings' whose 'private stock of reason is small.' British thinkers based their view of human nature on the idea that behavior is largely shaped by unconscious, Level 1 cognition. They posited that human beings are not blank slates but are born with certain preferences, affections, and aversions, with senses and imagination captivating the soul before understanding engages.

British Enlightenment members stressed that people are born with a social sense, a 'fellow feeling' or natural sympathy for others' pain and pleasure, guided by a desire for admiration. Morality, they argued, flows from these semiconscious sentiments rather than logical deductions from abstract laws. They viewed society as infinitely complex organisms, not machines, emphasizing context and the connections between things. Abstract universals were distrusted, with historical precedents favored over universal principles. They distinguished between 'change' (replacing an institution's fundamental nature) and 'reform' (a medicinal process preserving essence while repairing wounds).