Podcasts about Scottish Enlightenment

In everything from the social sciences and technology to art and architecture, 18th-century Scotland saw a flowering of ideas and innovation. But what made the Enlightenment in Scotland different to the rest of Europe? Who were some of its key thinkers? And why were so few women involved? Historian Craig Smith, from the University of Glasgow, runs Ellie Cawthorne through the key inventions and individuals of the Scottish Enlightenment. The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Who are the most symbolic mid 20th century American Jews? In Eminent Jews, New Yorker staff writer David Denby tells the remarkable stories of Leonard Bernstein, Mel Brooks, Betty Friedan, and Norman Mailer. He explains how each embodied a new Jewish confidence after WWII, contrasting with earlier generations' restraint. Each figure pushed boundaries in their own way - Bernstein through his musical versatility, Brooks through his boundary-pushing humor about Jewish experiences, Friedan through her feminist theories, and Mailer through his provocative writing style. Five key takeaways * Post-WWII Jewish Americans displayed a newfound confidence and willingness to stand out publicly, unlike previous generations who were more cautious about drawing attention to their Jewishness.* The four figures in Denby's book (Bernstein, Brooks, Friedan, and Mailer) each embraced their Jewish identity differently, while becoming prominent in American culture in their respective fields.* Mel Brooks used humor, particularly about Jewish experiences and historical trauma, as both a defense mechanism and a way to assert Jewish presence and resilience.* Each figure pushed against the restraint of previous Jewish generations - Bernstein through his expressive conducting and openness about his complex sexuality, Friedan through her feminist activism, and Mailer through his aggressive literary style.* Rejecting the notion that a Jewish "golden age" has ended, Denby believes that despite current challenges including campus anti-Semitism, American Jews continue to thrive and excel disproportionately to their population size.David Denby is a staff writer at The New Yorker. He served as a film critic for the magazine from 1998 to 2014. His first article for The New Yorker, “Does Homer Have Legs?,” published in 1993, grew into a book, “Great Books: My Adventures with Homer, Rousseau, Woolf, and Other Indestructible Writers of the Western World,” about reading the literary canon at Columbia University. His other subjects for the magazine have included the Scottish Enlightenment, the writers Susan Sontag and James Agee, and the movie directors Clint Eastwood and the Coen brothers. In 1991, he received a National Magazine Award for three of his articles on high-end audio. Before joining The New Yorker, he was the film critic at New York magazine for twenty years; his writing has also appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Review of Books, and The New Republic. He is the editor of “Awake in the Dark: An Anthology of Film Criticism, 1915 to the Present” and the author of “American Sucker”; “Snark”; “Do the Movies Have a Future?,” a collection that includes his film criticism from the magazine; and “Lit Up,” a study of high-school English teaching. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Do you know your Adam Smith from your Adam Ferguson? What was it that sparked a historical period overflowing with ideas, intellect and philosophical musings? And what did Enlightenment ever do for Scotland? Jackie is joined by Dr Alasdair Raffe, senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, to unpick the tapestry of this fascinating era, meeting some of the key thinkers, makers and doers who made their impact during the 18th century. No matter how familiar you are with the Scottish Enlightenment, this episode covers the very basics, leaving you with a better understanding of an important and consequential period of European history. To enjoy more episodes of Love Scotland, please follow or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. For more information on Newhailes, click here. For more information on the wildlife at Trust places, click here. --- Alasdair's book, Scotland in Revolution, 1685-1690, is available now.

Watch here: https://youtu.be/0jUZKIoyDPY  In this episode of Liberalism in Question, Rob sits down with historian and journalist Simon Heffer to explore the rich and complex history of liberalism. From the intellectual breakthroughs of the Scottish Enlightenment to the enduring influence of Adam Smith, we trace the evolution of liberal thought and its impact on modern society. How did thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill shape the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government? What challenges has liberalism faced over the centuries, and how has it adapted? Join us for a deep dive into the historical roots of classical liberalism.

Watch here: https://youtu.be/TgeMnPeo-Tc In this episode of Liberalism in Question, Rob sits down with historian and journalist Simon Heffer to explore the rich and complex history of liberalism. From the intellectual breakthroughs of the Scottish Enlightenment to the enduring influence of Adam Smith, we trace the evolution of liberal thought and its impact on modern society. How did thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill shape the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government? What challenges has liberalism faced over the centuries, and how has it adapted? Join us for a deep dive into the historical roots of classical liberalism.

I'm up in Glasgow and we're devoting this podcast to all things Scottish, kkicking off with the amazing Scottish Enlightenment. Why did 18th-century Scotland emerge as a crucible for radical ideas, drawing intellectuals, inventors, and innovators alike? The Scottish Enlightenment marked an era where thinkers like David Hume and Adam Smith thrived amidst newfound economic growth, sparked by an influx of wealth from trade routes and ventures (like Scotland's ill-fated attempt to build a canal in Panama). But unlike France, where revolutionary fervor overthrew established order, Scotland's intellectual revolution developed under the stability of the British Empire, with Scots integrating into its growing power. As thinkers flocked to Glasgow's and Edinburgh's salons and Masonic lodges, they fostered advancements in empiricism, economics, and even steam technology, laying foundations for the industrial age. With Ireland facing a similar boom today, we explore whether prosperity will again inspire an era of transformative thinking.Buy the new book here: https://linktr.ee/moneydavidmcwilliams Join the gang! https://plus.acast.com/s/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Declaration of Independence audaciously declares certain “truths” to be “self-evident”.  And, in so doing, offered a justification for not only a break with Great Britain and Revolutionary War, but the foundation upon which a new nation could be built.  But how uniformly were these “truths” held and understood by the Founding Fathers?  Were they disparate views that were ultimately incoherent or inconsistent?  Did the divergent cultures of the American North and South have fundamentally different ideas of what they conceived of America to be?  Were the Founders simply protecting their material interests and reaching for any argument at hand that seemed useful to that end?   Who was most responsible for the ideas of the American founding?  John Locke?  Scottish Enlightenment thinkers?  Egalitarianism?  Modernity?  Scientific rationalism?  Christian teachings?  Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is historian Hans Eicholz who argues it was actually a harmonization of many of these different, but not incompatible, sentiments that lead to the founding of America.   About Hans Eicholz Hans Eicholz is a historian and Senior Fellow at Liberty Fund.  Much of his work has been in the history of economic thought, looking initially at the influence of market ideas in the American founding period, but also extending up through the 19th century.   Hans is the author of Harmonizing Sentiments: The Declaration of Independence and the Jeffersonian Idea of Self-Government (2001; Second Edition, 2024), and a contributor to The Constitutionalism of American States (2008).  

This week on the podcast, hosts Marlo Slayback and Tom Sarrouf sit down with Aaron Zubia to delve into the life and philosophy of David Hume. Join them as they explore Hume's background and his pivotal role in the Scottish Enlightenment. They discuss Hume's Epicureanism and skepticism, examining how these ideas shaped his thought and influenced modern philosophy. The conversation turns to Hume's views on conservatism and liberalism, sparking a debate on whether conservatives can reconcile with liberal politics today. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion and leave with some recommended readings to deepen your understanding of Hume's enduring impact.

In this weekend episode, Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Sami Winc explore David Hume's life and role in the Scottish Enlightenment. They discuss the warning to Israel to hold back, Tulsi Gabbard trailed by TSA, Trump-Harris debate will happen, Harris-Walz "vibes-joy" campaign, Walz's past works against him.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After ol Robert Bruce takes a dirt nap, Scottish Independence is threatened before his body's even cold. The English wolves are at the door yet again. We'll fine out what happens when all of that Scottish/English martial mingling results in the King of Scotland being the next closest relative when the Monarch of England dies? Who was Mary, Queen of Scots? A dude named Bonnie Prince Charlie throws his hat in the rulership ring. And we finally get to talk about that most beautiful of all Scottish exports, the game of Golf. Join us as we put a bow on our two part class on the History of Scotland. 

Host Jackie Bird is joined by curator Antonia Laurence-Allan and historian Sally Tuckett to discuss all things 18th-century fashion. Recorded inside the Georgian House, just days before the exhibition Ramsay & Edinburgh Fashion opened its doors, the trio talk about the artist Allan Ramsay and the women behind the paintings. What was life like for someone at the centre of the Scottish Enlightenment? Who were his patrons? And what do his paintings tell us about the role of fashion among the Georgian movers and shakers? To enjoy more episodes of Love Scotland, please follow or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  For more information on the Georgian House, click here. Or click here for more on the 2024 exhibition.  We would like to thank those who have supported the Ramsay and Edinburgh Fashion exhibition, including The American Friends of British Art, NTS Foundation USA, The Real Mary King's Close, Edinburgh NTS Members' Centre, and donors in memory of the Duchess of Buccleuch.

How can we restore America’s frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon […]

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How can we restore America's frontier spirit, foster innovation, and stave off decay? Chris Buskirk sits down to discuss his new book America and the Art of the Possible: Restoring National Vitality in an Age of Decay. Along the way, he delves into the history of innovation from Augustan Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment to Silicon Valley, whether America is an oligarchy or an aristocracy, how our education system can better support American needs, and more. Chris Buskirk is the founder, editor, publisher of the magazine American Greatness, as well as a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A serial entrepreneur, he is also the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of 1789 Capital. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Episode 5, uncover a pivotal time in Scotland's history. As private golf clubs emerged, so did harsh reprisals from the British government, aiming to quash Jacobite rebellions. Explore the impact on key figures like David Weems of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, forced into exile. Amidst this turmoil, the clubs thrived during the Scottish Enlightenment, a period of intellectual and cultural renaissance. Discover how these clubs became hubs for enlightenment ideals, providing a space for Scotland's elite to exchange ideas. 

On this episode of ID the Future from the archive, host Jay Richards speaks with James Barham about his carefully revised edition of 18th century Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Thomas Reid's lectures on natural theology. Source

Throughout the "Secret of St. Andrew's" podcast, listeners will embark on a journey through 18th-century Scotland, exploring the intertwining of a bloody civil war, the Scottish Enlightenment, the emergence of private golf clubs, and the parallel events leading up to the Revolutionary War in America. Each episode builds up to the mystery surrounding St. Andrews, revealing secrets that have been closely guarded through oral history, including a significant revelation shared with golf legend Bobby Jones. Through academic research, interviews, and detective work, the podcast aims to connect historical dots, shedding light on the resilience and bravery of Scottish and American patriots, and drawing parallels to contemporary challenges in politics and the world of golf.

Professor Aaron Zubia joins Anchoring Truths Podcast host Garrett Snedeker to discuss his new book analyzing David Hume's political theory with its implications on liberalism. Professor Zubia gives a glimpse into what the state of affairs was in the age of the Scottish Enlightenment, the ancient and Epicurean roots Hume has, and the modern applications and ramifications of his political theory. In a time of ever growing political turmoil, Zubia's renewal of David Hume's thought and proposal of a “politics of truth” is well worthy of listening. Aaron Zubia is Assistant Professor of Humanities at the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida. He specializes in the moral and political philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment and the American founding. His first book, The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination (ND Press) is available now. His scholarly work has appeared in Hume Studies and Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy. He has also written in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, First Things, Law & Liberty, Washington Examiner, and Public Discourse. He is the winner of the first annual Hume Studies Essay Prize for his paper, “Hume's Transformation of Academic Skepticism," and he was a runner up for the Jack Miller Center's Excellence in Civic Education Award in 2021. Previously, Zubia was a Postdoctoral Fellow with The Tocqueville Program in the Department of Politics and International Affairs at Furman University. In 2019-20, he was a Thomas W. Smith Postdoctoral Research Associate in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University. He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a B.B.A. in Marketing from the University of Texas at El Paso Follow Prof. Zubia's work here https://www.aaronzubia.com/

An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Volume 1: Economic Thought Before Adam Smith In volume one, Murray Rothbard traces economic ideas from ancient sources to show that laissez-faire liberalism and economic thought itself began with the Spanish Scholastics and early Roman, Greek, and canon law. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's labor cost theories became the dominant view, especially in Britain. Rothbard regards Smith as largely a retrograde influence on economic theory. Narrated by Jeff Riggenbach.

A conversation with Constantine Vassiliou about his recent book "Moderate Liberalism and the Scottish Enlightenment: Montesquieu, Smith, Hume, and Ferguson" (Edinburgh University Press).

Think about your top-ten Scottish historical figures. How many are women? For most people, Scottish history is simplified to William Wallace, Robert the Bruce, Bonnie Prince Charlie, etc. But women are 50% of the population and they *were* there - playing a central role - for everything from the Jacobite Uprising of 1745 to the Scottish Enlightenment.We've asked Beth Reid, a historian who has become very well known on Instagram as historywithbeth, to talk to us about the many women who played history-making roles in the Scottish Wars of Independence. We cover:The basics of the Scottish Wars of IndependenceThe reasons we should study women in historyThe story of Isabella MacDuffThe influential Queens Consort during the Scottish Wars of IndependenceWomen in combat rolesHave thoughts? Connect with 63 Percent Scottish on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram or contact us at 63percentscottish.com.Music by RomanSenykMusic from Pixabay.

Adam Smith, born in 1723 and the father of modern economic theory, remains one of the most influential writers on markets development and state formation.  He is also the author of Theory of Moral Sentiments, an examination of how people relate to one another.  Peter S. Onuf, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, prolific scholar of the life and thought of Thomas Jefferson, joins us to talk about Adam Smith, the Scottish enlightenment, and Revolutionary America. 

How much did the religious beliefs of the Enlightenment Age influence the evolution of modern economic theory? Can widespread economic growth lead to an improvement in moral character across a vast population? Benjamin M. Friedman is a professor and former Chair of Economics at Harvard University. In his books Religion and the Rise of Capitalism and The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, he explores the relationship between economic theory, religious thought, and views of moral progress.Benjamin chats with Greg about how the Scottish Enlightenment, in particular, became a hub for social scientific thought, what the belief in Calvinism had to do with the rise of capitalism and the correlation between economic growth and positive moral changes in society.  *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Predictable pathologies01:01:20: The fact that there's a lot of ungenerosity in our society, the fact that we have renewed racial tensions, the fact that there's a lot of antipathy toward immigrants, the fact that large numbers of people in our country are not particularly committed to the fundamentals of American democracy that we've had for a very long time—all these are not just pathologies. They are predictable pathologies. They are the symptoms that emerge whenever we go through a lengthy period, like 18 years, in which the broad bulk of society doesn't have any improvement in its living standard.The cause and effect of our acts and works34:26: The fact that people can and sometimes do make other people better off through actions, which are not self-interested behavior doesn't preclude the fact that people also can make others better off under the right conditions by acting in a way that's self-interested.Is economic growth consistent with the improvement of human moral character?58:33: I believe that economic growth, by which I mean rises sustained, increases improvements in living standards, broadly distributed among the population. That is the condition under which society is able to move forward in a variety of non-material dimensions that, ever since the Enlightenment, we've taken to be morally positive.Economics is a product of the Enlightenment06:09: Economics is a part of the Enlightenment, and we do normally think of the Enlightenment as a movement away from conceptions of a God-centered universe toward what we, in our modern vocabulary, would call secular humanism. And so I don't think people who have the conventional view are being stupid, obtuse, or ignorant, but I do think it is wrong. And that's what the book was about: showing that the conventional view, which excludes any role for religious thinking in the origins of modern Western economics, is seriously incomplete.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Adam SmithDavid Hume Newton's Principia MathematicaDeism and Benjamin Franklin Charles DarwinThomas Robert MalthusAlbert EinsteinThe Fable of the Bees by Bernard MandevilleMax WeberFrancis WaylandJohn McVickarFrancis BowenGreg's conversation with William BernsteinRichard ElyHenry Ward BeecherGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Harvard UniversityProfessional Profile on National Bureau of Economic ResearchProfessional Profile on American Academy of Arts and SciencesHis Work:Religion and the Rise of Capitalism The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth More publications

In his book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Scottish Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith described the ‘invisible hand' at play in free market economics.  One of the keys to letting that invisible hand work efficiently is the concept of self-interested interdependence. Producers do what is best for themselves, consumers do what is best for themselves, and the economy reaches equilibrium. If only it were that simple in practice. In this week's episode of Dial P for Procurement, Kelly Barner covers a current day example to illustrate the complexity and sensitivity of the laws of supply and demand: Tyson Foods is the largest U.S. meat company by sales, and they are caught in a margin squeeze The meat supply chain, literally from farm to table, includes many factors that make profitability far from a sure thing Why the Federal government's effort to increase competition and stability in the highly concentrated meat market may actually lead to more instability  

Anna Keay is a historian who specializes in the cultural heritage of Great Britain. As the director of the Landmark Trust, she has overseen the restoration of numerous historical buildings and monuments, while also serving as a prolific author and commentator on the country's architectural and artistic traditions. Her book, The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown, was one of Tyler's top picks for 2022. Tyler sat down with Anna to discuss the most plausible scenario where England could've remained a republic in the 17th century, what Robert Boyle learned from Sir William Petty, why some monarchs build palaces and others don't, how renting from the Landmark Trust compares to Airbnb, how her job changes her views on wealth taxes, why neighborhood architecture has declined, how she'd handle the UK's housing shortage, why giving back the Koh-i-Noor would cause more problems than it solves, why British houses have so little storage, the hardest part about living in an 800-year-old house, her favorite John Fowles book, why we should do more to preserve the Scottish Enlightenment, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video.  Recorded February 23rd, 2023 Other ways to connect Follow us on Twitter and Instagram Follow Tyler on Twitter Follow Anna on Twitter Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here.

Sam Gregg discusses his new paper for The Heritage Foundation “American Individualism, Properly Understood” which considers how Individualism in America is rooted in Biblical, Classical, and Scottish Enlightenment sources. All of these provide a foundation for freedom and virtue rooted in God and human nature. But they have been challenged now by egalitarianism, and also […]

Sam Gregg discusses his new paper for The Heritage Foundation “American Individualism, Properly Understood” which considers how Individualism in America is rooted in Biblical, Classical, and Scottish Enlightenment sources. All of these provide a foundation for freedom and virtue rooted in God and human nature. But they have been challenged now by egalitarianism, and also by expressive individualism. These ideologies locate individualism in either sameness of result or moral anarchy. Sam Gregg urges us to return to the sturdy ground of freedom and virtue that supports individual flourishing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Ethan sit's down with Paul Schwennesen, AIER Graduate Fellow, to discuss his research on the Spanish empire and its unlikely liberal impulses. When people think of liberty in the Western World, they typically point to the English tradition and the Scottish Enlightenment. When people think of the Spanish, they might remember them as brutal conquerors with few philosophical insights. Schwennesen's research adds an important nuance to this historical narrative, pointing out that ideas such as the rule of law, human rights, and market exchange showed themselves throughout the empire's history. Although Paul does not claim that the Spanish empire was a liberal civilization, his insight provides important facts about the reality of Spanish rule and what that might say about human nature.

Each year, Dublin City Council hosts the Winter Lights festival, lighting up key buildings and sites around Dublin. Myself and historian Fergus Whelan went for a walk through some of the 2022 locations, from the Marshalsea Prison to Wolfe Tone Park. Did you know that the 'Father of the Scottish Enlightenment' is buried in Dublin, or that Smithfield was once transformed into Checkpoint Charlie? For more see:  Dublin Winter Lights. 

Even among the very elite people throughout history, few people have fame that lasts more than a few decades. So, what's the story about Adam Smith, whose name is well-known to millions even now—about 250 years after he lived? Just what did Smith do or say about economics?  Is he as worthy as some say? And how might what he said correlate with Kingdom truth? Join Kevin as we explore the story of Adam Smith and why he is relevant to this very day, especially from a Christian perspective! // Download this episode's Application & Action questions and PDF transcript at whitestone.org.

The Origins of the Austrian School of Economics "There are two types of enlightenment. Grass roots, like the Austrian or Scottish kind, or Top down like the Jacobin or Fabian kind." Rahim Taghizadegan is most well known as an Author, Bitcoiner & Educator/University Lecturer and the “Last Austrian Economist in the direct Austrian Tradition”. He wrote a piece for the latest Bitcoin Times, Austrian Edition. You can read and boost that here: https://bitcointimes.com.au/from-bitcoin-to-the-austrian-school/ This man is an absolute WEALTH of knowledge and I we had an incredible discussion about the origins of Austrian Economics, money, banking and merchant networks - all which are precedents to Bitcoin. If you're a history buff and love to learn about the origin of things, THIS is an episode you will absolutely love. We cover: A history of Austrian Economics: Menger & his lineage. Menger as a bright “node” in emergent Austrian thinking A little about the Crown prince Who was the Nobel Laureate (Hayek?) Menger's students “Two lesser-known nodes in the network of the Austrian School would go on to have a much more profound impact on the world than the academic heirs of that tradition.” Felix Somary who became one of the founders of Swiss private banking. Richard Schüller, one of the best-connected diplomats of his time, who played an equally underestimated role in the return to peace after the World Wars and the independence of small post-war Austria. The difference between the Prussians of that era and their focus on Politics, VS the Austrian focus on culture and enterprise. “In the Austrian empire, a limited group of merchants had been granted total economic freedom and tax exemptions to make up for the relative backwardness of the empire. Successful entrepreneurs gathered in Vienna, and their quickly rising wealth brought leisure without political clout, influencing, among others, people like Menger and Hayek.“ “In a way, they resembled the Scottish Tobacco merchants whose leisure and similar distance from the state had fostered the Scottish Enlightenment. And there had indeed been old intellectual connections through Scottish and Irish monks and the scholastic tradition.” How did Switzerland emerge in the first place? Switzerland and Alpine Regions as microcosms and remnants of the glory of Europe. Emergent VS Top Down enlightenment. Who were the Fabians & the Jacobins? What is their view & model of the world? Why has that remained so appealing? Does Bitcoin change that? This was an incredible conversation and one that I hope you will learn alot from. Rahim made a book recommendation: “The Raven of Zurich” Go pick that up. You can follow Rahim's work on twitter: @scholarium_at And of course, go check out the Essay & support The Bitcoin Times here: bitcointimes.com.au/essays ____________________________________ Thanks again for listening. Reminder that you can pick up a copy of The UnCommunist Manifesto on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B837FN63 You can pick up a copy of The Bitcoin Times from: BitcoinTimes Subscribe & Leave a Review !! That helps too.

Hello Interactors,Last week's post on Karl Marx introduced issues he had with the Scottish philosopher and so-called father of economics, Adam Smith. I found myself digging into Smith's life and work before his contributions to economics. Which, as history shows, was barely recognized until 1942. His name is now more popular than ever. As interactors, you're special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You're also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.Please leave your comments below or email me directly.Now let's go…MAKING SENSE OF THE SENSESVisiting his grandfather in Strathenry, the four-year boy wandered to the banks of the River Leven. He was a weak boy, shy, and prone to talking to himself. He'd lost his father three months before he was born and was being raised by his mother, whom he adored, alone.When the boy did not return to his grandfather's home, he and his mother went looking. Surely in a panic assuming the worst, they soon encountered a man who had just witnessed something suspicious. He had come across a group of nomadic people heading toward a nearby town that included a woman struggling to hold onto a screaming child.A search crew was dispatched immediately. And there, in the town of Leslie, nearly a mile from Strathenry, the woman was spotted with the boy. As the crew approached the woman, she dropped the screaming child who ran to his saviors. The crew then returned the boy to his mother. He never left her side again. He did, however, like keeping to himself until the day he died. And he never stopped talking to himself either. It's hard to know if he was traumatized by that event, but it didn't stop him from becoming one of Scotland's most famous academics. Had that group of nomads managed to kidnap that young boy, the founding father of economics would not have been Adam Smith.Smith was born in 1723, entered school in at age six, and began learning Latin as early as 1733, age ten. He was sent to one of the best secondary schools in Scotland, the Burgh School in Kirkcaldy. Kirkcaldy was a port town with a population of 1500 people. Though Smith was shy and kept to himself, he was nonetheless engaged and observant. He kept track of the town's activities and was familiar with some of its local characters. The town was home to shippers and traders and thus full of tall tales from journey men and smugglers.It also had multiple nail manufacturers that young Adam liked to visit. It was there and then he was first exposed to division of labor and how the value of labor was compensated. Nailers, he observed, were paid in nails which they would then exchange for other goods at local stores. Perhaps these observations, and his high marks in mathematics and classics, were the first seeds to grow as he entered the University of Glasgow in 1737 at the ripe age of 14.Smith continued his studies in mathematics and Latin but added Greek and Moral Philosophy. This was the glimmering beginnings of the enlightenment and he himself was about to be enlightened. His math professor was Robert Simson, an eccentric man made famous through Europe as the “Restorer of Grecian Geometry”, as his tombstone reads. The Simson line in geometry is named after him and he also noted a curious relationship among Fibonacci numbers. As the values increase, the ratio of adjacent numbers approaches the golden ratio of 1.6180... But his most influential professor was Thomas Hutcheson, his Moral Philosophy instructor – a discipline Smith went on to become famous for himself.But when Smith was in school, Hutcheson was the popular one in Britain. He was one of Britain's premiere moralists and key figure in a long line of Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, including his professor, Thomas Locke. He was also the first professor in Glasgow to lecture in the native tongue of his students and not in Latin. This alone made him an easy target among conservative faculty, but it was what he was teaching that really rattled them.Hutcheson believed, contrary to the established and prevailing belief, human action does not descend from the will of God, but from one's own mind. And even then, we have little to no control over our own actions but are instead influenced by our complex interactions with people and place.He believed we form images and beliefs in our mind by sensing the environment around us through our five physical senses. We then formulate ideas which lead to feelings either pleasure or pain. This, in turn, leads to the creation of other senses internal to our mind – though still interrelated and interdependent on our five external senses. He believed there are many mental senses generated, but three emerged as particularly notable – especially as we learn more of Adam Smith's own philosophies.The first is a public sense for the happiness of others and the pleasure it brings, but also the sadness that comes with observing misery in others. The second is the moral sense upon reflection of our own good or evil, and perceived good or evil in others, and the feelings of pleasure or pain that ensue. And the third is a sense of honor that comes from the admiration from others who observe the good in us for the positive actions we may have taken – the very actions of which are necessary for sensing the pleasure that comes when seeing others are happy.Hutcheson observed these emotions are not willed. We cannot will ourselves into happiness, but we can will ourselves to take actions that create public conditions that enable feelings of pleasure to arise. These pleasurable feelings arise, as a moral sense, out of complex interactions among others, to instill a public sense of pleasure, which upon reflection of our own behavior instills pleasure in us as a sense of honor. Good behavior toward ourselves and toward others makes us and others feel good. We are all then rewarded with a sense of honor which in turn motivates more good behavior.A SENTIMENTAL MOOD FROM A PRUDE DUDEHutcheson's ideas shock the religious establishment who believed goodness can only come through getting in the good graces with God through worship. One 19th-century biographer noted Hutcheson was “bitterly attacked by the older generation outside the walls of the College as a ‘new light' fraught with dangers to all accepted beliefs, and at the same time worshipped like an idol by the younger generation inside the walls, who were thankful for the light he brought them, and had no quarrel with it for being new.”His views were also in opposition to another influential philosophical figure during these times, Thomas Hobbes, who believed our will to act was rooted not in altruism, but in selfishness and egoism. Though Hutcheson admitted there is virtue in tempered self-love, taken to an extreme could erode not only one's moral sense, but also public sense and a reciprocal sense of honor. Clearly, Hobbesian beliefs made their way into colonial America and are present in cultural norms and beliefs today, especially in the neoliberal tradition that helped pull Smith, and the single occurrence of the words ‘invisible hand', from obscurity.But many of Hutcheson's teachings also made their way to colonial America. His book, Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, was used as a textbook at Harvard in the 1730s. It included familiar U.S. declaration of independence constructs, like “unalienable rights are essential Limitations in all Governments” (his italics) and the public has a right to resist oppressive governments. The professor of Moral Philosophy at the College of Philadelphia, Francis Alison, was a student of Hutcheson and three signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence were Alison's students, Thomas McKean, George Read, and James Smith.But Hutcheson's most famous student became Adam Smith. And his fame and impact are attributed to the teachings and reading of Francis Hutcheson. Smith's primary contribution to philosophy extended Hutcheson's ideas of ‘senses' in his book, Theory of Moral Sentiments, that was written in 1759, seventeen years before his more popular economic treatise, Wealth of Nations. Smith believed that when we see another suffer, it makes an ‘impression of our own senses' by relating to a similar situation in which we've been in. He writes, “we enter as it were into his body, and become in some measure the same person”.These feelings of sympathy are expanded on in later revisions of his theories to address injustice. If one witnesses an act of injustice, one feels sympathy with the victim but not with the perpetrator. This is grounds for punishment against the perpetrator. Smith writes, “All men, even the most stupid and unthinking, abhor fraud, perfidy, and injustice, and delight to see them punished.” He continues that as true as this may be, there's a tendency not to attribute this to a necessary condition of a society. He adds, “But few men have reflected upon the necessity of justice to the existence of society, how obvious soever that necessity may appear to be.”This sentiment was directed toward politicians (or statesmen) and industrialists (or projectors, people who build projects) in a document that predates Wealth of Nations but contains its central themes. Smith writes, “Man is generally considered by statesmen and projectors as the materials of a sort of political mechanics. Projectors disturb nature in the course of her operations on human affairs, and it requires no more than to leave her alone and give her fair play in the pursuit of her ends that she may establish her own designs…Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degrees of affluence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”Smith no doubt was a free market and free trade advocate, but also preached modesty, temperance, and justice. And he routinely ran to the defense of those with lesser means or who were victims of injustice. For example, when wealthy consumers of foreign garments sought Smith's support in abolishing a ban on imported yarn, he surprised many by supporting the embargo. And it wasn't the flax farmers or domestic yarn corporations he was protecting, but the women living and spinning yarn in their homes scattered across the country.And in the Wealth of Nations, he defends the right for poor people in cities to earn enough to by clothes and shoes fit enough to blend in with society. He writes, “But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt…in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessity of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them.”Smith also suggested sumptuary laws, taxes on consumable high-end goods, to limit luxurious or immodest behavior. He writes, “The high price of such commodities does not necessarily diminish the ability of the inferior ranks of people to bring up families. Upon the sober and industrious poor, taxes upon such commodities act as sumptuary laws, and dispose them either to moderate, or to refrain altogether from the use of superfluities which they can no longer easily afford.”For an economy and a society to function well, Smith believed, one must put themselves in the shoes of others and act in accordance to bring about the three internal senses Hutcheson spoke of: a public sense for the happiness of others, a moral sense to reflect on the good feelings that come with doing good things, and a sense of honor that comes when others admire you for your good intentions and actions.WAS THE SENTIMENTALIST AN ENVIRONMENTALIST?Smith's insight into markets, especially in the dawning of the industrial age, was that technology helped to reduce the price of goods making them affordable to more and more people. This increased the flow of money to manufacturers to buy more capital goods, like machines and energy, thus reducing the need for, and time needed to, produce handcrafted goods. This created a win-win situation for the society at large so long as people cooperated and were sympathetic to each other's needs through trust in each other, business, and the government.This was not something Smith believed should be left to a free-wheeling, laissez-fare market economy free of interventions. Smith believed three conditions were necessary for an effective economy and with each he paired a moral value:* State-Justice: “Commerce and manufacturers” he wrote, “can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice…” This is achieved, he believed, through the administration of laws that inspire security through enforceable regulation and redistribution of tax derived revenues. For Smith, trust in government is a requisite for a healthy economy.* Market-Liberty: “Trade opens a new market…” The “causes seem to be: the liberty of trade…notwithstanding some restraints…”, he said. The freedom to create, market, and compete on value or price, comes with prudence and protection from monopolies. He wrote, “It is thus that the single advantage which the monopoly procures to a single order of men is in many different ways hurtful to the general interest of the country.”* Community-Benevolence: It is here Smith relies on his philosophy of ‘moral sentiments” and a shared commitment to each other across a community. To do so, he, albeit naively, admits, “many reputable rules and maxims for the conduct of human life, must have been laid down and approved of by common consent…” The Dutch economic pluralist, Irene van Severan, reminds us that social economists may refer to this as ‘group cohesiveness' or ‘social cohesion', institutional economists might call it ‘the management of common pool resources', and some feminists economists might simply call it ‘caring'.There is much debate on whether Smith would attribute the same care and moral sentiments to other animals and the natural environment. I suspect he would have. I would imagine over exploitation or seemingly extravagant indulgences to benefit a few, or even many, would have been met with questions of reciprocity, modesty, benevolence, and prudence. He would have walked in the shoes of those hurt by economic, environmental, or social exploits and demanded justice be served.At the same time, Smith encouraged industry, consumerism, and growth, albeit restrained, yet all three are the engines of our environmental demise. Could it be Smith's social cohesion is an unachievable ideal beyond groups of a certain size? Perhaps free trade among industrious people has its limits beyond a certain scale or application of technology. Then again, he may look at the innovation curves of renewable energy, signs of an invigorated green economy, and declare the liberty of market competition is again leading to a better future for all. It also wouldn't be lost on him that it was the state funded subsidies that helped feed that momentum. At the same time, he likely would have been screaming for a carbon and luxury goods tax long ago.I think there are lessons to be drawn from Smith, and his mentor Hutcheson, that could be used to frame a green, moral, or circular economy, just as the neoliberals from the 1940s to now drew from Smith for the economic systems we currently have.I do wonder if that kidnapping incident as a four-year-old indeed scared him into a need to feel secure. He never married and lived with his mom, in the same house he grew up in, until the day she and he died. I can imagine he must have ‘walked in the shoes' of those poor nomadic people as an adult and surely felt moral sentiments – maybe even empathy. He might have even imagined himself walking alongside them had he been captured. He may have, in his own words, “entered as it were into his body, and become in some measure the same person”.Did that incident motivate him to pursue the path he did, to ensure his own fate, and to devise philosophies and theories that allowed for the least suffering of the most people? He envisioned, as he wrote in Wealth of Nations, that “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.” That vision may be naïve, and perhaps not be achievable, but the path toward it is a worthy moral sentiment. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Francis takes charge here leading the guys through an in-depth discussion of the philosophical and political ideas of Scottish Enlightenment figure David Hume. 

When we look back on history, the industrial revolution in Britain seems likely an historical inevitability. Following on from the Scottish Enlightenment and the growth of Britannia as a global empire and trading power, surely the industrial revolution as we now know it was uniquely and distinctly British thing. But is this really the case? To discuss this and other questions we are joined by Dr Anton Howes. Key amongst Anton's arguments is the belief that a unique "improvement mentality" drove the Industrial Revolution and resulted in the unique innovations of that time. We also explore the implications of this improvement mentality for businesses and organisations today. Dr Anton Howes is an innovation historian focusing on the development of innovation over the centuries and author of the Age of Invention newsletter. He is head of innovation research at The Entrepreneurs Network, a UK-based think tank focused on encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship. He is also honorary historian-in-residence at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, having written its latest history. Anton was previously a lecturer in Economic History at King's College London. Anton's forthcoming book will examine why innovation accelerated in seventeenth and eighteenth century in Britain, which in turn led to the Industrial Revolution. You can find out more about Anton's work at: https://www.antonhowes.com/ And sign up to his newsletter: https://antonhowes.substack.com/

CONTENT WARNING : discussions of racism, colonialism and cultural appropriation as it pertains to romance novels. Also loud bagpipe sounds. This week we're taking a look under the kilt at the dark(?) history behind Scottish romance novels. Do you agree with Jackie- is there something a little off about Scots in romance books? Or is she thinking too deeply about all this...after all, these are *just* fiction books.Shoutout to Dr. Euan Hague at De Paul University for sitting down with Jackie to talk cultural geography! Make sure to tune into minisode #22 to hear that entire interview!Raging Romantics Book List! Questions? Comments? Concerns? Suggestions? Email us at ragingromantics@nopl.org!Authors/Books we mentionDragon Fever by Donna Grant (quote Jackie reads at the beginning)Diana GabaldonJennifer AshleyKaren Marie MoningLyndsay SandsMaya Banks Highlander seriesKinley MacGregor MacAllister seriesRecommended reads:How the Scots Invented the Modern World by Arthur HermanA History of Scotland by Neil OliverThe Highland Furies: The Black Watch by Victoria SchofieldLiterally ANYTHING by Alistair Moffat but especially Scotland; A History From Earliest Times ; The Highland Clans ; and Scotland's Lost FrontierThe Lowland Clearances: Scotland's Silent Revolution, 1760 - 1830 by Aitchinson and CassellThe Highland Clearances by Eric RichardsTo the Ends of the Earth: Scotland's Global Diaspora, 1750-2010 by TM DevineOther resources:"Why Scottish Romances?" (Somerville Public Library, 2006)"Romance Unlaced: Exploring the appeal of Scottish heroes" (Hunter, 2014)"'Och Aye': Reading Scottish Romances as an Actual Scottish Person" (Donaldson, 2017)"The Fetishization of Scottish Highlanders" (Jane, 2009)"Outlander tourism effect a 'double edged sword'" (BBCnews.com, 2020)"The Outlander Effect" (Drysdale)"From tartan to bagpipes: the story behind Scotland's brand" (Dickie, 2019)"A Professor Studies Scottish Romance" (Wordwenches.com, 2013)"Why do Americans love Scotland so much? We visit California's Scotsfestival to find out" (Stephenson, 2020)"Romanticism in Literature: Definition and Examples (Somers, 2019)"Tartan and the Dress Act of 1746" (Scottish Tartans Authority)"Tartan Repeal" (ibid.)"Ancient Highland Dress" (ibid.)"The Act of Proscription" (ibid.)"Mythbusters!" (ibid.)"Scots Gaelic language" (Britannica.com)Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 (British Heritage)"The Scottish Enlightenment and the Romantic Movement" (Rosslyn Chapel)"The Aftermath of the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion: How British Reformatory Measures and Chief Complicity Destroyed Clanship in the Scottish Highlands" (Jones, 2021)"1746 – Highland Dress Proscription Act" (Scotlans.com)"The Act of Proscription, tartan and Gaelic culture" (Sassenach Sticher, 2021)"Scottish Enlightenment" (britannica.com)"The Seventh Romantic: Robert Burns" (Burch)"Gaelic language erosion and revitalization on the Isle of Skye, Scotland" (Smakman, 2008)"UNESCO Project: Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger" (UNESCO.org)

A lively conversation with farmer Haleigh Christ while picking a crop of green beans at a  biodynamic Black Forest farm.  As her two toddlers play underfoot and farm life bustles all around, Haleigh shares about day to day life as a regenerative farmer and the important personal choices on the path towards harmony with one's life-affirming values.The topics of this episode include:Why food is possibly our most significant connection with the ecosystemThe difference between organic and biodynamic farmingThe carnivorous wonders of healthy soilLiving in tune with the cycles of lifeFrom consumer to ecological co-creatorHaleigh Christ is a regenerative farmer living and farming in Southern Germany.  She lives with her husband and two children on a bio-dynamic community farm, which does its best to live in harmony with its ecosystem. She lives passionately for strengthening communities and ecosystems through empowerment of the individual within the whole. Her current focus is in building a community supported agriculture program to extend the farm's current self-sufficiency onto others. She is excited for the future and believes that we have endless opportunities to connect and heal through food!To learn more about the place, humans and animals check out www.klosterhofsitzenkirch.de Quotes and references mentioned by Haleigh during the conversation:Michael Pollan (Voting With Your Fork)Zach Bush, MDRené Descartes, French philosopher, mathematician, scientist. (1596-1650)David Hume, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist, librarian. (1711-76)Dugald Stewart,  Scottish philosopher and mathematician. (1753-1828)Support the show

Political Theorist Ross Carroll takes the reader through Enlightenment conversations about the use of ridicule and laughter in politics and political engagement in his new book, Uncivil Mirth: Ridicule in Enlightenment Britain (Princeton UP, 2021) explores, as a framework, two schools of thought on the place of ridicule in political engagement, Thomas Hobbes and those who took their approach to understanding human nature from Hobbes, and the Third Earl of Shaftsbury, and those who followed his arguments. Carroll dives into these two approaches to the use of ridicule, unpacking not only the ideas around how ridicule can be used in politics, but also how it might be managed appropriately, noting the dichotomous approach to ridicule as part of the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. The Hobbesian school was concerned with the corrosive impact of the use of ridicule since it can communicate contempt. The Shaftsbury school thought that ridicule could be used in an emancipatory way, as another means of engaging with political opponents while also undercutting the political claims of those opponents. Carroll traces these debates and those involved in them, while also providing a fascinating “case study” of the use of ridicule by Scottish Abolitionists. This particular chapter, focusing on the work of these polemicists, explores their use of ridicule “to expose defenders of African slavery as not merely mistaken but contemptable, and their arguments as absurd.” (Carroll, Uncivil Mirth, p. 152) This was an ambitious political project that took ridicule as the weapon or tool to attack the Atlantic slave trade and the immorality of slavery. Uncivil Mirth concludes with Mary Wollstonecraft's commentary on the use of ridicule in terms of political education, and her own use of it in deconstructing sentimental teachings to women. There is a tension at the heart of the argument about ridicule and politics, namely that it can and often does make the political personal and the personal political. Thus, long before Second Wave Feminism would coin the adage that the “personal is political,” the British and Scottish Enlightenment thinkers and political activists were wrestling with how to manage the personal and the political, especially through the use of ridicule and laughter in politics. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj.

This episode is a mixed bag of current events with a specific focus on the current mass psychosis phenomena being deployed across the planet. Please share it with someone you think might like it.Show links: monolithic ceramic water filtration- https://www.alloutdoor.com/2013/10/22/monolithic-ceramic-water-water-filtration-system/Scottish Declaration of Arbroath- https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/DeclarationBook, John Prebble: Culloden: https://www.amazon.com/Culloden-John-Prebble/dp/0712668209/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13BITZK1CI38F&keywords=culloden+prebble&qid=1638146848&qsid=147-5144974-8028308&sprefix=culloden+pr%2Caps%2C180&sr=8-1&sres=0712668209%2CB000YTF2BE%2CB000UF59DI%2C0140253505%2CB00RWRY0Y6%2CB08531LSF6%2CB002FKG7Y6%2CB0019T1ZLE%2C0140028374%2CB00NLR1PX0%2C0985253797%2C0141985933%2C0880290900%2CB008M4OI4U%2CB004IXLOWS%2CB00PUTCUFYGood Patriot video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzydFWuObooSponsor support "Shout-Outs"Jill Barc - PatreonManuel Espejo - Snail MailJT - SubscribeStarRyan Mansfield - PatreonEric Heikkila - PatreonSupport the show on:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JesseJaymzSubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/jesse-jaymzSocial Media:Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/jessejaymz1/Telegram- https://t.me/jessejaymzGab- https://gab.com/JessejaymzJoin my mailing list: https://mailchi.mp/03e09a1333c8/jessejaymzemailsignupSend stuff to my PO Box: Jesse JaymzPO Box 541 Clarkston, MI 48347Listen on:Apple- https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1585900698Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/show/4qT8ncYfYNe9EgVle3sN5kStitcher- https://www.stitcher.com/show/jesses-jaymz-dangerous-infoTune In-Alexa- https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/Jesse-Jaymz-Dangerous-INFO-p1517255/iHeart- https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-dangerous-info-with-jesse-87089579/Google Podcast- https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS8xODUzOTUyLnJzcw==Amazon Music- https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/07d53a75-897d-491a-8ce6-17f78658f06f/dangerous-info-with-jesse-jaymzPodchaser- SMART is the acronym that was created by technocrats that have setup the "internet of things" that will eventually enslave humanity to their needs.

We continue our look at Murray Rothbard's two volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought with a show focused on Adam Smith. Rothbard attacked him mercilessly as a plagiarist who set economic theory back decades with his muddled views on value and price. But was this criticism justified, or was Smith actually an early and valiant proponent of laissez-faire? Our guest Hunter Hastings defends Smith in this rollicking discussion, while Professor Jonathan Newman is not so sure. They also discuss the Scottish Enlightenment and Smithian thinkers like Bentham and Malthus, and even tackle the contentious question of whether Smith produced Marx. Don't miss this! Additional Resources Read Rothbard's important work: Mises.org/APHET

We continue our look at Murray Rothbard's two volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought with a show focused on Adam Smith. Rothbard attacked him mercilessly as a plagiarist who set economic theory back decades with his muddled views on value and price. But was this criticism justified, or was Smith actually an early and valiant proponent of laissez-faire? Our guest Hunter Hastings defends Smith in this rollicking discussion, while Professor Jonathan Newman is not so sure. They also discuss the Scottish Enlightenment and Smithian thinkers like Bentham and Malthus, and even tackle the contentious question of whether Smith produced Marx. Don't miss this! Additional Resources Read Rothbard's important work: Mises.org/APHET]]>

Was Adam Smith the founder of modern economics? Not so, says Murray Rothbard in his staggering two-volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. Dr. Patrick Newman joins the show for a look at Rothbard's treatment of economics before Smith—from the Ancient Greeks all the way to the Scottish Enlightenment—and his take no prisoners revisionist approach. Jeff Deist and Dr. Newman cover Aristotle and Plato, Aquinas, Protestants and Catholics in the Middle Ages, Spanish Scholastics, Mercantilists, French Physiocrats and Turgot, and the criminally underappreciated Richard Cantillon. If you're a fan of economics and non-bowdlerized history, don't miss this! Additional Resources Read Rothbard's important work: Mises.org/APHET Find out more about Dr. Newman's new book: Mises.org/CronyismBook]]>

Was Adam Smith the founder of modern economics? Not so, says Murray Rothbard in his staggering two-volume An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. Dr. Patrick Newman joins the show for a look at Rothbard's treatment of economics before Smith—from the Ancient Greeks all the way to the Scottish Enlightenment—and his take no prisoners revisionist approach. Jeff Deist and Dr. Newman cover Aristotle and Plato, Aquinas, Protestants and Catholics in the Middle Ages, Spanish Scholastics, Mercantilists, French Physiocrats and Turgot, and the criminally underappreciated Richard Cantillon. If you're a fan of economics and non-bowdlerized history, don't miss this! Additional Resources Read Rothbard's important work: Mises.org/APHET Find out more about Dr. Newman's new book: Mises.org/CronyismBook

James Robertson, brilliant author of The Testament of Gideon Mack, and University of Edinburgh's top prof. Penny Fielding beam in from their respective corners of Scotland. Extensive reference is made to (John's madly beloved) James Hogg and to Robert Louis Stevenson, especially his Jack-the-Ripperesque Jekyll and Hyde. The violence that underpins slavery–aye, even in Scotland, and even during the enduringly influential Scottish Enlightenment–is dredged up, as is the question of feeling implicated in the legacy of an enslaving system. James sketches a generous theory about what and how a novel signifies: it is simply asleep until a reader picks it up and invests imagination into it. Hints are dropped regarding James's newest novel, News of the Dead due for release in May. And, of course, we learn about his writerly treat… Mentioned in the Episode Louis L'Amour, J. T. Edson and Will Henry Robert Louis Stevenson, Jekyll and Hyde, Weir of Hermiston (“a tragic part of his life….and I'd like to finish it for him”) James Hogg, The Private Memoir and Confessions of a Justified Sinner Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (imagine watching during its first release and…. not knowing! Joseph Knight…..and the actual Joseph Knight (“a history I didn't know, and I'd done two history degrees!”) The Fanatic Edinburgh's Dundas Statue Johns Hopkins, a slaveowner Ben Okri, Birds of Heaven, “Nations and peoples are largely the stories they feed themselves.” Aarthi Vadde is Associate Professor of English at Duke University. Email: aarthi.vadde@duke.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices