Dan Araujo WC: 2030 Professor Teague 11/18/2015

The modern era was one characterized by an unprecedented divergence from what

ought to be, and what actually was. Enlightened thinkers of the time frequently dwelled on the

innate desire of humanity to be free and freedom as a human right; collectively their beliefs can

be viewed as belonging to an idealistic school of thought. Such utopian ambitions were often at

odds with a social climate dominated by plutocratic business owners and power hungry

politicians. Due to such complexities it is troublesome to determine if the modern era genuinely

was an age of progress and enlightenment, or of regressive struggle. But before one can begin

to consider such an investigation it is important to precisely define the concepts of

enlightenment and progress. Enlightenment is best defined though the words of famed

philosopher Immanuel Kant, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage

(Enlightenment, 1),” meaning that one who is enlightened is one who can see past the outside

influences and institutions that would like to control ones thinking. Therefore, an enlightened

one operates purely from one’s own innate free will. Progress can be defined as the realization

of this ideal of freedom into concrete reality. Given these definitions as reference, it is possible

to cross-examine the popular enlightened thought of the period with the actual direction in which

humanity moved to surmise if the modern era was indeed a period of enlightenment and

progress.

Jean Paul Sartre’s most studied work, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” dissertates the

key principles for the 20th century’s existentialist philosophy, including a substantial appreciation

for mans freedoms. Sartre believes that a man is solely the sum of his actions and as such

bears complete responsibility for the actions that he commits. This suggests that Sartre finds

man to be an entity with unrestricted free will -- the foundational principle of enlightened thought.

Sartre’s extreme conviction for human freedom is reflected in his atheistic theology; Sartre

implies that there is no divine code which dictates what is right or wrong. What one defines as

moral comes from within and the freedom to make this decision is essential to his being. The

freedom to decide whether certain actions are good or bad can be viewed as the highest

freedom possible, for many are taught morals from an early age and are thus conditioned to a

certain moral code. This code acts as an informal chain fixed to man that Sartre believes should

be lifted for man to more completely emerge from his nonage.

A fellow proponent of the intrinsic nature of man to act freely, and thus an ally of

enlightened thought, was Friedrich Nietzsche, father to many radical new philosophies and

author of “The Genealogy of Morals”. One such theory was his idea of the “will to power,”

described by Nietzsche as “something with an insatiable instinct and will to power, which wants

Dan Araujo WC: 2030 Professor Teague 11/18/2015

to become master, not over something in life but over life itself (Genealogy, Essay 3; 12).” This

philosophy can be simplified to state that man will instinctually exert his will on the outside world

to achieve power over life itself. This philosophy aligns with the ideal of a free man in that it

suggests that man acts strictly on his own accord in his quest to fulfill his own will. It also is

inherently tied to a belief that man should be unrestricted by outside influences, such as

government, in this quest to fulfill his will. Closely connected with the theory of the will to power

is the concept of the Ubermensch, or in English, superhuman. The concept of the superhuman

is dependent on an atheistic reality, which, being devoid of God, is devoid of a divinely inspired

moral code. Similarly to Sartre, Nietzsche suggests that due to the lack of a pre-established

morality, man is free to do, and in fact does, create his own moral code, if any at all. By

suggesting that man creates his own morals Nietzsche places man on the highest pedestal of

freedom, for he suggests that even the most primitive compass which has traditionally guided

man’s actions should be disposed of and replaced with man’s freedom to choose.

Despite the claims of modern thinkers that human freedom was of the utmost

importance, many politicians such as Benito Mussolini sought to repress individual freedom in

seeking national superiority. In his essay, “The Doctrine of Fascism,” he outlines the key tenets

of the fascist government structure that so effectively repressed this most primitive aspect of the

human condition. Mussolini and fascist supporters believed that “man appears as an

individual… self-centered… (Doctrine 2),” an ailment that could be remedied through fascism

which, “…builds up a higher life… in which the individual, by… the renunciation of self-interest…

can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists. (Doctrine 2)”

These statements adequately summarize the foundational belief of fascism, which is that the

weak individual is made stronger, and achieves greatness through the state. This belief is

directly contradictory to the progressive philosophic thought of the time, which suggested that

human nature is deeply tied to freedom. The repression of free will is made clear when

Mussolini states “…the fascist conception of life… accepts the individual only in so far as his

interests coincide with those of the state (Doctrine 3).” This statement makes clear that the

individualistic ideals so cherished by Sartre and Nietzsche were outright rejected by the fascist

state, thus forcing humanity to a time of oppression, instead of forward to an era of freedom.

The impact of the fascist policies of Italy and Germany on their general populations can

be witnessed with disturbing clarity through the play, “Fear and Misery in the Third Reich,” by

Bertolt Brecht. Life in Nazi Germany was plagued with anxiety, suspicion, and the dread of

Dan Araujo WC: 2030 Professor Teague 11/18/2015

horrible punishment. The truth of this fearful apprehension distinctly breaks through to readers

when Brecht writes,

“The SA Man: Go on, you’ve got something on your chest. Your lot always have.

The Worker: Me? No. (Fear 13)”

This exchange continues for some time before the worker gives in and provides government

complaints for the SA Man; suggesting that the worker was genuinely fearful of stating any

complaint against the state due to the unjust nature of the SA policing system, coupled with the

threat of extreme repudiation. Being a work of realistic fiction meant to mirror reality in Nazi

Germany, it is only reasonable to conclude that the fog of artificial unity through violence

depicted in Brecht’s work was so suffocating that none could speak out against the regime.

This blatant curtailing of free speech and thought in the name of the state ran rampant through

Germany and Italy in the early 20th century and stood in stark contrast to the idealistic values of

freedom held by Sartre and Nietzsche.

The philosophy of Friedrich Hegel, particularly in his work, “Introduction to the

Philosophy of History,” presented the idea that, through Spirit, mankind engages in a collective

effort to realize its ultimate end – freedom. A principle aspect of spirit is that it can found in all

humans and thus connects them, suggesting that all humans share this desire for freedom upon

which spirit resides. Hegel also states that, “It is the passions… that are the most forceful things

(Introduction 23).” If the passions of individual men are the most powerful drivers in reaching

this goal of freedom, then it only stands to reason that of the utmost importance is the freedom

of the individual man to pursue these passions. This conveys the enlightenment ideal of the

freedom of man, for Hegel is essentially stating that freedom is humanities ultimate goal, and to

achieve this goal each individual man must also possess great freedom.

Karl Marx was a firm believer in the universal rights of the free man. He distinguished his

philosophy through his theory that freedom is ultimately derived from economic equality.

According to the encyclopedia Britannica, “Marx came to see the state as the instrument

through which the propertied class dominated other classes (McLellan).” This view suggests

that Marx saw inequality in the world as deriving from economic means, as he stated that one

class dominated another. He found the proletariat to be so estranged from the fruits of their

labor which were unjustly stolen from them by the propertied class. In order to liberate the

working class, Marx devised an economic and political system to empower them as much as

possible so that they might experience economic freedom for the first time. With the increased

Dan Araujo WC: 2030 Professor Teague 11/18/2015

wages and leisure time that Marx sought to establish, they would be free to purchase material

goods previously out of reach, and spend time in ways previously not possible.

Unfortunately for most, the modern era could not perpetuate the ideal of a universal and

free human existence; the burden of economic uncertainty on the working class transfigured

them from independent individuals to wage-reliant slaves. Pope Leo XIII addressed this issue in

his encyclical, “Rerum Novarum, stating, “… the condition of the working classes is the pressing

question of the hour and nothing can be of higher interest… (Rerum 29/30).” This statement

brings into perspective the magnitude of the burden that the proletariat bore. A society with such

devastating and widespread poverty had surely failed to fulfill the ideals set forth by enlightened

thinkers such as Marx and Hegel. However, wages were not the working classes only trouble,

for, in the words of Pope Leo, “employers too often treat them with great inhumanity and hardly

care for them outside of the profit their labor brings (Rerum 30).” Had the laborers of the modern

era truly been free, they would not have chosen to work for penurious wages doled out by

abusive employers. Proletarian existence truly was the greatest social problem of the time; for a

man who must work incredibly long hours just to survive is not free. His tired mind is weak,

vulnerable to intrusion from persuasive aristocrats seeking wealth; and his body is chained to

his factory post, for even when he has completed his daily labor, the physical strain will follow

him home until he returns.

The modern era was not only home to enlightened thought and civil unrest, but also to

one of the greatest leaps forward in the ceaseless march of technological advancement.

According to BBC.com, the modern era saw the conception of the steam engine, the blast

furnace, the spinning mill, and other mechanical advances that spawned the industrial

revolution. These advances, and the migration of the farmer to the city, are responsible for the

current lifestyle enjoyed by many today including: the mass production of inexpensive material

goods and the standardization of products. Such results enhanced the freedom of the populace

by allowing them to participate in trends that previously were exclusive to the rich such as

fashion and entertainment. However every light must cast a shadow, and the shadow of modern

technology has plagued the earth since WWI.

Siegfried Sassoon, a famed WWI poet, addressed the dark, weaponized side of modern

technology through his poetry. For example, in his poem, “The Death-Bed,” Sasson writes, “He

was blind; he could not see the stars…” This is an allusion to the widespread use of new

chemical weapons, which resulted in burns, death, and blindness. Advanced tools for death led

to WWI being among the most horrifying experiences mankind has ever witnessed, a bloody

Dan Araujo WC: 2030 Professor Teague 11/18/2015

celebration to man’s greatest achievements in the progression of mass slaughter. Thus the

effect of modern technology on the freedom of man is muddled, for its benefits are weighed

down by its powerful potential for destruction.

The divergence of the ideal from the real in the modern era is what defines it in terms of

enlightenment and progress. The popular philosophers of the time were certainly an enlightened

group, for they held strong beliefs regarding the importance of freedom and further, the variety

of their thought suggests that the outside world had little influence on how they thought.

Contrastingly, western society regressed more than it progressed. While societal advancement

was present, it was not progress because it most frequently resulted in the restriction of human

freedom rather than encouraging it.