In the long run:

Two strains notable:

• liberation of humans and human resourcefulness from the constraints of the old order [Ancien Regime] = The Enligthenment, and
• the notion that by the applications of reason to improving the conditions of human existence = enlightenment.

On the former, with a captial E,

• the message played out in three critical documents that focus on a new definition of the relationship between the individual and the collective. All three had revolutionary impacts.
  • The notion of freedom from the mercantilistic practices of the British establishment led to the American Revolution and to the adoption of Enligthenment values encapsulated in the notion of 'inalienable rights',
    • 'we the people' [instead of l'état? c'est moi of Louis XIV],i n the bill of rights: and
    • in France, in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. All three documents stand in strong contrast to the paternalistsic practices of the Old Order in that they focus instead on popular sovereignty and personal freedom.
  • By the early 19th century, these values were adopted or being adopted throughout much of the Atlantic world, and national elections, the goal of many Enlightenment thinkers, were certainly the norm by the mid 19th century --A significant achievement.

On the latter -- with a lower case e [the application 'freedom' and 'reason' to human affairs; the extension of Cartesian and Newtonian science]

• The third document, the Communist Manifesto, understood liberation in terms of a proletatian revolution, where liberty meant the rational allocation of resouces to all, each according to his/her need. For Marx and Engels, this was true liberty. As we will see later in the course, Lenin, Hitler and Stalin all justified their [totalitarian] control on the basis of their 'enlightened' or 'rational' allocation work and resources.

Liberty and property. To the intellectuals of the Enligthenment and beyond, these two notions were bound together.

• And reviewing the historical context one can understand why. Given that property in the Old Order was in the hands of 'princes and potentates' and of the 'established church', liberty without property was perceived to be an oxymoron [logically impossible].
• Many economists today perceive that:
  • personal freedom, prosperity and private property are closely linked. Those states where private property has been largely suspended, are also those states in which there is little personal freedom and little prosperity. Cases come to mind...
  • Those states that adopted Enlightenment values were manfestly more successful in acquiring and developing the resources needed to enhance the material basis of human life. The standard of living improved dramatically throughout the Atlantic world.

we have posed the question in this course: are humans part of/ in parternership with Nature, or distinct from Nature? Collectively (if I read your responses properly) most believe we should be in partnership with nature, yet recognized that we do not always act as if we are. Our values and behavior are not consistent. So too with the Enlightenment. Jefferson could write his immortal words, and yet own slaves; so too the infamous 3/5s compromise. Party bureaucrats in the Soviet Union no doubt believed that they could rationally allocate work and resources. And in creating the New Soviet Man, it did not matter that 'a few eggs were broken'.

The great dilemma we face may not be the values and aspirations themselves, but understanding what we actually do in their name.