Summary
The Enlightenment was a period of immense change. Science replaced a lot of superstitious beliefs, ancient traditions and religions were discarded and debased, and the goal of equality was first introduced. David Stove is a rare critic of the Enlightenment. He was not religious, yet he defended religion against some attacks by Enlightenment thinkers. Though he smashed many idols himself, Stove warned that carelessly dismantling traditions could have dire consequences. His strongest attacks are directed at the notion of equality and the inevitability of progress. These are the topics of the first section of the book.
The first essay is a defense of privilege. The word has taken on an increasingly negative meaning in recent years, implying that privilege is unearned or robbed from others. Stove's opinion was that men of privilege are responsible for the vast majority of cultural and intellectual output. Not kings and queens, but people who have at minimum: access to books, leisure time, and peace and quiet. Karl Marx believed that in a classless society, anyone could be an artist, writer or thinker. This was absurd to Stove. He argued that the idea of equality is so dangerous and destructive that it ought to be illegal to express. Interestingly, the editor of this volume, Andrew Irvine, wrote a forceful riposte against this opinion in the introduction.
Stove then moves on to question whether the human progress promised by the Enlightenment was a promise kept by accident. In 1700 or even 1850, very little progress had been made towards curing diseases, reducing man's labor burden, or increasing the food supply. This is in spite of many great scientific advances that had already been made. Stove made the additional point that the pursuit of equality and creation of social welfare programs should have bankrupted most societies. However, the near simultaneous inventions of electricity and the internal combustion engine created immense prosperity that no one could have predicted. Except for the most disastrous implementations of communism, these inventions prevented the collapse of egalitarian societies under the weight of Enlightenment social projects.
Educationism was another Enlightenment belief that Stove dismissed. The idea is that man can be perfected through education. Stove brings up the point that very few drivers of a car are capable of repairing a car and even fewer car mechanics could have ever invented a sequential gearbox. The people who are capable of making these advancements are one in a million. Stove brings up several great scientists, who received the same education as their peers, but produced vastly more knowledge. Michael Faraday pioneered electricity in spite of a relatively privileged upbringing.
The second section of the book discusses why the world is the way it is. The key figure here is Thomas Malthus, who wrote the influential Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). This essay was written as a political polemic intending to attack the proto-welfare state forming in England. It was purely by accident that his ideas gave Charles Darwin the spark to formulate the theory of evolution by natural selection. Malthus' population principle is that any species is always at or rapidly approaching the limit of its food supply. As a result, there is a struggle for survival among members of a species. This idea provided the motive force for natural selection that Darwin needed. However, Malthus' point in writing the essay was that social welfare programs would create more of the problem it intends to solve. By giving money to feed the poor, they will increase in number, but not increase the food supply. The confiscation of money from the rest of the population will drive people on the margin into poverty. So, it is a vicious cycle.
The ideas of Malthus and Darwin were soon employed by eugenicists and contraceptionists. At the time, the contraceptionists were considered to be the social pariahs of the two. The eugenicists believed that society would be overrun by the poor, so only the best and brightest should be encouraged to procreate. Eventually, the eugenicists saw contraception as a valuable tool in its endeavor, so they forged an alliance. Stove strongly denounced both ideas and called contraception (especially abortion), the “diabolical” secret of the Enlightenment.
Reverend Thomas Malthus was a very well-liked and respected man in his time. However, by the late 1800s, his name became associated with Darwinism (which attacked religion) and contraception (a taboo in Victorian England). He had also attacked the great Enlightenment projects directed towards the goal of equality. The name Malthus was now spat upon by both sides.
Stove also wrote of what he called a “paralytic epistemology.” This is a belief system that leaves you numb and then defenseless, like a spider stung by a wasp. It begins with the idea that “politically, everything is permissible.” Step two is: “morally, everything is permissible.” While this leads to social destruction, it continues on for three more steps: scientifically, methodologically, and cognitively, everything is permissible. This is the irrationalist philosophy he attacked in Popper and After. Once a person has gone down this path, they are paralyzed and defenseless against threats such as communism.
The third section of On Enlightenment is called “Reclaiming the Jungle.” It primarily consists of Stove's three-part essay, Why You Should be a Conservative. It also attacks feminism, which was on the rise during Stove's academic career at the University of Sydney. They were enforcing a policy of only hiring women until some level of parity was reached. Stove opposed this within his philosophy department on the grounds that they should hire the best philosopher, even if it was a broomstick.
Stove's argument for conservatism rests largely on the idea of unintended consequences. Even the most benevolent interventions in society have negative downstream effects. If a disease is eradicated in a native people, this could lead to a population boom, which causes a famine, which increases dependency on imported food, which destroys local culture. In other words, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Stove believed that benevolence was actually the largest contributor to misery in the modern world. The desire to create an egalitarian worker's paradise led to nothing but mass graveyards everywhere the ideas of Karl Marx were dutifully employed. In spite of the catastrophes, cruelties, and the horrors inflicted on their own people, Stove argued that the “emotional fuel” driving Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and others was benevolence.
Another belief that Stove counted as unique to the conservative position is that the existence of a wrong does not imply a logical or moral imperative to right it. There are some necessary evils in the world which cannot be eradicated. In other cases, the cure can be worse than the disease itself. Stove argued that conservatives are often right on social reforms because they tend to act in areas where they are personally involved or have a stake in the outcome. A person (usually a politician) who tries to solve a problem through the collective action of others often creates an outcome worse than leaving the problem alone.
Stove ends the book on a pessimistic note asking the reader to identify a list of ways human flourishing has increased over the past twenty years as respect for life and property have diminished. “Any takers?”
The Enlightenment was a time when people first started to use science instead of superstition. They also stopped following old traditions and religions. Instead of giving everything to kings and queens, they wanted everyone to be equal. David Stove was a critic of the Enlightenment. He liked some of the ideas, but he attacked the ideas of equality and progress. He thought that people who had access to books, free time, and peace and quiet were responsible for most of the good art and books in the world. He didn't think that everyone could be an artist, writer, or thinker. He thought that the idea of equality was so bad that it should be illegal to even talk about it. The editor of this book disagreed with him in the introduction!
Stove also questioned whether the Enlightenment era's promise of making life better for everyone was kept by accident. Despite many scientific advances, little progress had been made towards curing sickness, making work easier, or producing more food. He also argued that programs to help the poor should have bankrupted most societies. However, the inventions of electricity and the gas-powered engine created a ton of wealth, which no one could have predicted. These inventions allowed societies to pursue equality without going bankrupt, except for a disastrous plan called communism.
Stove also thought it was wrong that people can be perfected through education. He pointed out that very few drivers of a car are capable of repairing a car and even fewer car mechanics could have ever invented an engine. The people who can do that are one in a million. Stove talked about several great scientists who received the same education as their friends but produced vastly more knowledge. Michael Faraday pioneered electricity despite growing up poor.
The second section of On Enlightenment discusses the ideas of Thomas Malthus, who wrote an essay in 1798 about how the number of people in a country can grow. Malthus believed that any species (like humans or a type of animal) usually has barely enough food to feed everyone. This idea inspired Charles Darwin's theory of evolution! Malthus' point in writing the essay was that programs to help the poor would actually create more poor people. By taking money to feed the poor, you will get more poor people, but not more food. And some of the people whose money was taken will become poor and need help. So the problem just keeps getting bigger.
Malthus' and Darwin's ideas were soon promoted by people who only thought rich people should be allowed to have kids. Stove hated this idea and called it an evil secret of the Enlightenment. Thomas Malthus was a reverend (church leader) and everyone liked him. But by the late 1800s, his ideas had been used to attack religion and cause harm to people. He also attacked the programs to help poor people. So, no one liked him anymore.
Stove also wrote about a “paralytic epistemology.” This is a way of thinking that makes you helpless against bad ideas. It begins with the idea that “politically, everything is okay.” Step two is: “morally, everything is okay.” This means that nothing you do is either good or bad. That's a dangerous idea by itself, but this way of thinking continues on to say that any idea can be called scientific and any thought you can have is okay. For example, if you want to think that eating candy all day is a good idea, that's fine, it can even be scientific! Stove attacked these ideas in another book called Popper and After. Once a person believes this way of thinking, they are vulnerable to all kinds of bad ideas.
The third section of On Enlightenment is called “Reclaiming the Jungle.” The main point is that even when you think you are doing some good, it can actually backfire and cause harm to people. For example, if you give a kid every toy he wants, he might become spoiled, and maybe even start stealing if he doesn't get what he wants.
Stove also criticized feminism in this book. He was a teacher at the University of Sydney and people thought there weren't enough women teaching there. So, his school started only hiring women. He didn't like this. He thought they should hire the best one for the job, even if it was a broomstick, he joked.
David Stove believed that benevolence (trying to make people's lives better) was actually making people more miserable. One guy named Karl Marx believed that people would be better off if everything was shared and all people were equal. When they tried his ideas, millions of people died. According to Stove, bad things can happen even when you try to help people.
He also warned that people should only try to fix problems that are close to them. When you try to fix problems that are far away, you probably don't know what you're doing and might make things worse. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you have to fix it. Some bad things will never go away. Other times, the solution is worse than the problem.
At the end of the book, Stove sounds like a grouch, because he asks the reader to make a list of ways the world has become better in the last 20 years. He doubts that it has gotten better.
--------- Original ---------
The idea of enlightenment entails liberty, equality, rationalism, secularism, and the connection between knowledge and well being. In spite of the setbacks of revolutionary violence, mass murder, and two world wars, the spread of enlightenment values is still the yardstick by which moral, political, and scientific advances are measured. In On Enlightenment, David Stove attacks the roots of enlightenment thought to define its successes, limitations, and areas of likely failures. Stove champions the use of reason and recognizes the falsity of religious claims as well as the importance of individual liberty. He rejects the enlightenment's uncritical optimism regarding social progress and its willingness to embrace revolutionary change. What evidence is there that the elimination of superstition will lead to happiness? Or that it is possible to accept Darwinism without Social Darwinism? Or that the enlightenment's liberal, rationalistic outlook will lead to the social progress envisioned by its advocates? Despite best intentions, says Stove, social reformers who attempt to improve the world inevitably make things worse. He advocates a conservative approach to change, pointing out that social structures are so large and complex that any widespread social reform will have innumerable unforeseen consequences. Writing in the tradition of Edmund Burke with the same passion for clarity and intellectual honesty as George Orwell, David Stove was one of the most articulate and insightful philosophers of his day.The Enlightenment was a time of big changes in ideas. Science replaced superstitions, old traditions were questioned, and the idea of equality became a major political and social movement. In On Enlightenment, David Stove criticized the Enlightenment, which is rare. Even though he wasn't religious, he defended religion and tradition against Enlightenment attacks. Stove warned that carelessly discarding traditions could be dangerous. And he strongly criticized the ideal of equality and the inevitability of progress.
Stove argued that the idea of equality is so dangerous that it should be illegal to talk about it. He defended privilege, because the people who advance knowledge and culture the most are the ones fortunate enough to have access to books, leisure time, and peace and quiet. Enlightenment thinkers optimistically believed any person could be a great artist or scientist. Stove criticized the idea that education has an unlimited power to perfect people. He said genius insights come mostly from innate ability, not schooling.
Stove also doubted that human progress was inevitable. Even though a lot of scientific discoveries were made during the Enlightenment, little progress had been made in curing diseases, making work less brutal, or increasing the food supply. He said most progress happened much later, and by accident, when technologies like electricity and gas-powered engines created vast new wealth.
Part two of the book discusses why the world is the way it is. A key influence here was Thomas Malthus, who said populations grow faster than food supplies. Any species is always close to the limit of its food supply, which causes a struggle for survival. This idea inspired Darwin's theory of evolution. His actual intent was to attack welfare programs, saying they create more poverty than they fix. Malthus was a popular man in his time and a reverend. By the late 1800s, his name became toxic for criticizing the dream of equality and because his ideas had been used to promote Darwinism (which hurt religion), eugenics (which said only the best people should reproduce), and contraception (a major taboo in Victorian era England).
Stove advocated for conservatism. He said even well-meaning reforms can have unintended bad consequences. Trying to make people's lives better often increases misery, as seen in disastrous communist states. Stove argued there are some necessary evils in the world that cannot be eliminated. In other cases, the cure can be worse than the disease.
Stove ended the book pessimistically, doubting whether the world had improved at all in the past twenty years. He asked the reader if they could come up with a list of improvements. He doubted they could. “Any takers?”
--------- Original ---------
The idea of enlightenment entails liberty, equality, rationalism, secularism, and the connection between knowledge and well being. In spite of the setbacks of revolutionary violence, mass murder, and two world wars, the spread of enlightenment values is still the yardstick by which moral, political, and scientific advances are measured. In On Enlightenment, David Stove attacks the roots of enlightenment thought to define its successes, limitations, and areas of likely failures. Stove champions the use of reason and recognizes the falsity of religious claims as well as the importance of individual liberty. He rejects the enlightenment's uncritical optimism regarding social progress and its willingness to embrace revolutionary change. What evidence is there that the elimination of superstition will lead to happiness? Or that it is possible to accept Darwinism without Social Darwinism? Or that the enlightenment's liberal, rationalistic outlook will lead to the social progress envisioned by its advocates? Despite best intentions, says Stove, social reformers who attempt to improve the world inevitably make things worse. He advocates a conservative approach to change, pointing out that social structures are so large and complex that any widespread social reform will have innumerable unforeseen consequences. Writing in the tradition of Edmund Burke with the same passion for clarity and intellectual honesty as George Orwell, David Stove was one of the most articulate and insightful philosophers of his day.
Let's start with the truth!
Support the Broken Science Initiative.
Subscribe today →
recent posts
Was Otto Warburg right about the origins of cancer?
Principles for Feeling Great Now and Learning How To Live To Be 100
