What do you think?
Rate this book
Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind
Perhaps the last great work of the Enlightenment, this landmark in intellectual history is the Marquis de Condorcet’s homage to the human future “emancipated from its chains” and led by “the progress of reason” and “the establishment of liberty”. Writing in 1794, while in hiding, under sentence of death from the Jacobins in revolutionary France, Condorcet surveys human history and speculates upon its future. With William Godwin, he is the chief foil of Malthus’s Essay on Population. Portrayed by Malthus as an “elate and giddy optimist”, Condorcet foresees a future of indefinite progress. He argues that human society, freed from the yokes of ignorance and superstition, stands on the threshold of limitless improvement.
Condorcet defies modernist stereotypes of the right and the left. He is at once precursor of the free market and social democracy. This new edition of the original 1795 English translation, is the only English translation of a work of Condorcet currently in print or in Kindle.
Condorcet defies modernist stereotypes of the right and the left. He is at once precursor of the free market and social democracy. This new edition of the original 1795 English translation, is the only English translation of a work of Condorcet currently in print or in Kindle.
170 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1794
23 people are currently reading
608 people want to read
About the author
Nicolas de Condorcet
645 books36 followersMarie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis of Condorcet, known as Nicolas de Condorcet, was a French philosopher and mathematician. His ideas, including support for a liberal economy, free and equal public instruction, constitutional government, and equal rights for women and people of all races, have been said to embody the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment and Enlightenment rationalism. He died in prison after a period of flight from French Revolutionary authorities.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
Read
September 28, 2024Read in French. Published posthumously in 1795, this ‘sketch of human history’ is still very readable and even captivating in a way. The Marquis de Condorcet wrote this a year before his death (in 1794), as a warm-up for a much larger work. It outlines the broad outlines of a history of humanity, a world history in the style and philosophy of the Enlightenment, that is: super-optimistic and with the emphasis on the ascent of man, certainly in the last centuries after the (re)discovery of reason and science; progress is all around.
With its 250 pages, this ‘Esquisse’ already has quite a bit of meat on the bone, but - judging by the title - Condorcet only saw this as a first step. He repeatedly mentions “that he is going to prove that…”, which indicates that he had an even more extensive work in mind. Unfortunately for us, that did not work out. Of course this book is completely outdated now (although its division into periods and its general outlook look familiar), but as a document of the times and a testimony of unbridled belief in progress it is unsurpassed. More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
With its 250 pages, this ‘Esquisse’ already has quite a bit of meat on the bone, but - judging by the title - Condorcet only saw this as a first step. He repeatedly mentions “that he is going to prove that…”, which indicates that he had an even more extensive work in mind. Unfortunately for us, that did not work out. Of course this book is completely outdated now (although its division into periods and its general outlook look familiar), but as a document of the times and a testimony of unbridled belief in progress it is unsurpassed. More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Read
August 26, 2024
“Nature has not put any limit to the perfection of human faculties; that perfectibility of man is really indefinite.”
You can hardly help but smile pitifully at the tenor of this analysis by the French Marquis de Condorcet (1747-1794): his belief in the fundamental goodness of man, in the malleability of society through reason and freedom, and in inevitable progress of humankind, it all bursts from every page. It is not for nothing that this was written during the French Revolution, when everything was turned upside down and the world lay at the feet of modern man. The twentieth century would thoroughly free us from so much vain delusions, and the twenty-first century is certainly doing well to not undo that.
Condorcet has packaged his super-optimistic message in nothing less than a complete overview of human history. Because for the Marquis it was clear that history proves the victory of light over darkness, of reason and freedom over tyranny and prejudice. Spread over 9 periods, starting with prehistory and of course ending with the French Revolution, Condorcet sketches the ‘rise’ of humanity. Initially with trial and error because tyrants and priests regularly kept the majority of people in bondage (with the great exception of the time of the Greeks, who are praised as the great example); but since the breakthrough of reason, and especially science, an unstoppable process has been initiated resulting in a ‘liberation from the chains’.
I must say that I was surprised by the fairly homogeneous portrait that Condorcet sketches of history. Of course it is strongly Eurocentric and the emphasis is mainly the intellectual evolution. He also does not (yet) use certain terms such as “the Middle Ages”. But by and large this history story feels quite familiar, certainly if you know that before his time cyclical views of history or eschatological (the battle of God against the Devil, culminating in the End of Time) were the dominant ideas.
Condorcet also added a (tenth) chapter to his historical overview about the future. And in it he naturally outlines brilliant prospects: the principles of the (French) Revolution will inevitably proceed, no king or priest will be able to stop that. “There will come a time when the sun will shine on the earth only on free men, recognizing no other master than their reason; when tyrants and slaves, priests and their stupid or hypocritical instruments will exist only in history and on the stage; when they will no longer be concerned except to pity their victims and their dupes; to maintain, through the horror of their excesses, a useful vigilance; to know how to recognize and stifle, under the weight of reason, the first germs of superstition and tyranny, if ever they dared to reappear!”
But, apparently, the Marquis was not entirely sure of the inevitability of his prophecy: he concedes that there is a clear difference between principle and practice, and that paradise on earth will not come about by itself. That is why he has also included an extensive program in this tenth chapter. In it, a leading role is given to the sciences, which must help realize the ascent of man, but also a program of moral improvement, through education and upbringing. These are the ingredients of classical Enlightenment thinking, which in the 19th century would result in positivism and the “science of social improvement”.
Yes, we can now laugh at Condorcet's naivety, but when you read this work, it still has kind of freshness and hopeful drive that is infectious. Let's just say that it is never bad to keep on dreaming?
You can hardly help but smile pitifully at the tenor of this analysis by the French Marquis de Condorcet (1747-1794): his belief in the fundamental goodness of man, in the malleability of society through reason and freedom, and in inevitable progress of humankind, it all bursts from every page. It is not for nothing that this was written during the French Revolution, when everything was turned upside down and the world lay at the feet of modern man. The twentieth century would thoroughly free us from so much vain delusions, and the twenty-first century is certainly doing well to not undo that.
Condorcet has packaged his super-optimistic message in nothing less than a complete overview of human history. Because for the Marquis it was clear that history proves the victory of light over darkness, of reason and freedom over tyranny and prejudice. Spread over 9 periods, starting with prehistory and of course ending with the French Revolution, Condorcet sketches the ‘rise’ of humanity. Initially with trial and error because tyrants and priests regularly kept the majority of people in bondage (with the great exception of the time of the Greeks, who are praised as the great example); but since the breakthrough of reason, and especially science, an unstoppable process has been initiated resulting in a ‘liberation from the chains’.
I must say that I was surprised by the fairly homogeneous portrait that Condorcet sketches of history. Of course it is strongly Eurocentric and the emphasis is mainly the intellectual evolution. He also does not (yet) use certain terms such as “the Middle Ages”. But by and large this history story feels quite familiar, certainly if you know that before his time cyclical views of history or eschatological (the battle of God against the Devil, culminating in the End of Time) were the dominant ideas.
Condorcet also added a (tenth) chapter to his historical overview about the future. And in it he naturally outlines brilliant prospects: the principles of the (French) Revolution will inevitably proceed, no king or priest will be able to stop that. “There will come a time when the sun will shine on the earth only on free men, recognizing no other master than their reason; when tyrants and slaves, priests and their stupid or hypocritical instruments will exist only in history and on the stage; when they will no longer be concerned except to pity their victims and their dupes; to maintain, through the horror of their excesses, a useful vigilance; to know how to recognize and stifle, under the weight of reason, the first germs of superstition and tyranny, if ever they dared to reappear!”
But, apparently, the Marquis was not entirely sure of the inevitability of his prophecy: he concedes that there is a clear difference between principle and practice, and that paradise on earth will not come about by itself. That is why he has also included an extensive program in this tenth chapter. In it, a leading role is given to the sciences, which must help realize the ascent of man, but also a program of moral improvement, through education and upbringing. These are the ingredients of classical Enlightenment thinking, which in the 19th century would result in positivism and the “science of social improvement”.
Yes, we can now laugh at Condorcet's naivety, but when you read this work, it still has kind of freshness and hopeful drive that is infectious. Let's just say that it is never bad to keep on dreaming?
July 17, 2020
Condorcet is one of these historical figures that one can admire for his courage and humanity. As with all of these figures, they’re often despised and honoured at the same time. Being trained as a mathematician and a philosopher, he provoked hostility in academic circles for his original ideas, while at the same time collecting a following of believers. In politics he was no different: being a staunch supporter of the French monarchy, he switched sides when he learned about the king’s flight and eventual capture. He then went on to promote the same points he had done, initially gathering some support but in the end costing him his life – he was branded a criminal and arrested on the run. His dead body was found in his cell, and there is no information about the circumstances of his death. Some say it’s suicide, others claim he was assassinated. We probably will never know the truth.
Condorcet was one of the last French ‘philosophes’, and (correct me if I’m wrong) the only one who actually witnessed the Enlightenment ideas being put into practice during the French Revolution. As with most of the intellectuals of this ideology, he emphasized reason as the means to understand the world, and through this make it a better place. Reason allegedly shows us the equality of all people, no matter race, colour or creed; the human bond between all nations; the intrinsic human desire to be free of oppression and pursue own goals; and, last but not least, the obstacles of absolutism, mercantilism and religion in the way of attaining this final state of liberty, equality and brotherhood.
Condorcet is arguably the most radical of these philosophes, and this shows in his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind. Written shortly before his arrest and subsequent death, published posthumously, its function was to serve as the introduction to a multi-volume work in which Condorcet planned to flesh out all the historical developments that led to the current state of affairs, and also to offer a detailed projection of the future state of humanity.
The book itself is pretty straightforward: Condorcet distinguishes nine historical phases of humanity. The future of mankind is the tenth phase. Each phase is characterized by its own developments and people, yet there are some general themes running through history – all evolving towards the final state. The first two stages are shared by all civilizations: they are the formation of human groups along family lines during the hunter and gatherer stage, and the amalgamation of groups into agricultural collectives. Many societies never got past this stage; many others did. The societies who did are characterized by primitive science and mythology, as well as the discovery of writing.
From then on, a dualism kicks in. Due to division of labour and social stratification there develops a caste of elites whose sole raison d’être is holding on to their power. To do this, they start studying the universe to harness its powers while at the same time deluding the people and distorting their wills through occult rituals and stupid religious doctrines. This caste becomes the priests. Besides this, there is this hereditary class of land- and slave-owners who control the populace through wealth and military force. This class becomes the aristocracy.
According to Condorcet, Greece was an exception. It was a trade hub and the continuous circulation of ideas meant that priests never could control the people and absolute power was absent. Alas, all changed when the brutish Romans destroyed this civilization. Most of the world is still in these primitive stages of delusion and corruption.
It was only after the Muslim conquest of the East that old knowledge (from the Greeks) started flooding back into Europe, leading to the Renaissance and, through the printing press, to the Reformation. The Reformation, since it’s rooted in the idea of personal judgment and interpretation, sowed the seeds of liberalism, that would took off from John Locke onwards. The idea of liberty for all was the main spring for the American and the French Revolutions.
Through these two millennia humanity saw a continuous battle between religion and force on the one side, and reason on the opposing side. Religious delusions and feudal oppression, with its offspring mercantilism, were on the losing side through – humanity is somehow destined to acquire freedom. And this is because reason is its sole arbitrator: reason discovered the scientific method, which was so successful in understanding the universe, and through this, controlling it. For Condorcet, a trained mathematician, when it comes to humanity – practical ethics, politics, psychology, the study of society, etc. – this same scientific method of observation, experiment and mathematical calculations has to be applied.
Condorcet, unlike some of his peers, recognized the gradualness of scientific knowledge. He clearly sees how natural sciences are much more precise and certain compared to the human sciences. In the latter sphere, probability is all that can be established. His claim is that a probability calculus is the solution to a whole collection of problems: How to establish the general will of the people in a democracy? How to predict likely future scenarios based on earlier data? Etc. etc.
On each page you read Condorcet fulminating against all the delusions and superstitions of stupid religious people, as well as all the machiavellism of the absolutist establishment. Both have joined forces to oppress the people through ignorance.
The general thought of Enlightenment philosophers and intellectuals was the reason is the royal road to knowledge, and knowledge is the cure to all the ills in the world. A criminal commits his heinous act through lack of knowledge – re-educate him and he will do otherwise. The people will not revolt, and if they do are almost sure to fail in establishing significant changes, because they are ignorant of their own value and respect. Educate them and they will change the world for the better. In short: knowledge is key, and this requires reason – i.e. mathematical deduction and empirical experiments. Of course, not anyone can be a trained scientist or mathematician, but Condorcet clearly sees the value of having a highly educated population: they will be able to better choose their representatives and judge experts.
So far, this sounds rather like the musings of a modern scientist or intellectual. It is difficult to transport yourself to these ancient times when this type of worldview was radically new or challenging to established principles. I think modern science has vindicated a lot of Condorcet’s claims, and there have been many, many improvements in human existence along the lines Condorcet sketched. Just read Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now (2017) and you’ll be convinced.
But underlying these trains of thought lie two fundamental problems. The first is Condorcet’s historicism. He generalizes the whole human history and suffers from selectivity bias. That is, he picks out those historical times and places that serve his purpose of illustrating progress. It is heavily Greek-centred, and there is no argument whatsoever about why, for example, India or China haven’t been fundamental in human history. History evolves through the principle of freedom, which sees itself being repressed and then pop up at times and places when it’s least expected – mostly through the work of historical figures and geniuses. In this sense, Condorcet is Hegel in plain language.
Now, I simply don’t believe in historicism. There is no proof of historical laws, be they linear or cyclical. I subscribe to Karl Popper’s thesis on the impossibility of historical laws – any future prediction is, by definition, incorporated into the current stage, which will, by definition, change the future state of affairs. I also reject historical generalization: to reduce all of history to the development of equality or liberty, is simply reductionism of the absurd type. It is easy to see how Condorcet was prone to be swept away by his own ideals, training and human kindness – I even sympathize with him for this – yet it simply is untrue.
The second fundamental problem in Condorcet’s sketch is his narrow focus on reason. The ideal society is a world civilization, characterized by brotherly love; the abolishment of all inequality (including marriage and slavery) apart from inequality due to talents; the establishment of a very clear and distinct universal language; the modelling of society on scientific principles; etc. Years ago, I was a full blown adept of the Enlightenment ideals and their implications. I’ve come to realize over the years that human freedom isn’t compatible with a society modelled on scientific knowledge. I don’t believe that knowledge is the magic cure that heals all ills. Human freedom means taking risks, being irrational, which is something the mathematical mind abhors. This is why I reject socialism and religion alike – it is also why I reject science as the bedrock of ethics. For me human liberty comes first, and after this we can talk about other ethical dilemmas – I fully subscribe to Hayek’s thesis that there is no person or party that has more information about your situation compared to yourself, and hence there is no one but yourself who can make the best decision in your current situation. Any generalization means loss of freedom – this is fine when it comes to scientific knowledge, but it is dangerous when it comes to politics.
Right now we are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the first thing that gets thrown out is human freedom. You see the same thing in all the current political issues: Climate change? More government, more restrictions, more enforcement! Health risks (e.g. smoking)? More government, more restrictions, more enforcement!
Condorcet wants to educate the people to improve the world – a laudable goal. More knowledge means more freedom. Yet he also wants reason to dictate society. More knowledge means less freedom. I have struggled with this Enlightenment paradox for many years, and I feel like there is no way out.
A third and final problem for Condorcet is his overlooking the fact that all of the human sciences are intrinsically value-laden. A sociologist or an economist start from personal assumptions that are never mentioned. For example, any economic model is based, among other things, on the developer’s assumptions about what’s good and bad. Given the same problem, a Marxist and a libertarian would come up with two radically different (and mutually exclusive) solutions. Both can be true, yet what one gets to be the dominant one is a political question – and this boils down to simplistic power struggles that decide which system of ethics wins.
Anyway, reading this book made me both ponder the progress we’ve made as a species in the last couple of centuries as well as my own intellectual growth over the years. It also made me realize how different our modern outlook on things like truth, knowledge, reality, progress, etc. is compared to these Enlightenment thinkers’, yet at the same how much debt we owe to these original and courageous people. Throughout this work you see Condorcet fulminating against the horrific acts of slavery committed by Europeans, against the systematic oppression of women and their second-rate social states, against the ignorance of the masses, and the machiavellism of the elites (still with us today, unfortunately). He never got to enjoy the publication of his work – he died alone in a cold cell because of who knows what.
One of the most amazing experiences a reader can ask for, is the deep feeling of intimacy with another person. Reading this book transports you to an age long gone, listening to the musings of a wonderful humane person, seeing the world through his eyes and realizing it takes courage to point to wrong-doings, let alone attempt to change things. Read it, it is well worth your time!
Condorcet was one of the last French ‘philosophes’, and (correct me if I’m wrong) the only one who actually witnessed the Enlightenment ideas being put into practice during the French Revolution. As with most of the intellectuals of this ideology, he emphasized reason as the means to understand the world, and through this make it a better place. Reason allegedly shows us the equality of all people, no matter race, colour or creed; the human bond between all nations; the intrinsic human desire to be free of oppression and pursue own goals; and, last but not least, the obstacles of absolutism, mercantilism and religion in the way of attaining this final state of liberty, equality and brotherhood.
Condorcet is arguably the most radical of these philosophes, and this shows in his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind. Written shortly before his arrest and subsequent death, published posthumously, its function was to serve as the introduction to a multi-volume work in which Condorcet planned to flesh out all the historical developments that led to the current state of affairs, and also to offer a detailed projection of the future state of humanity.
The book itself is pretty straightforward: Condorcet distinguishes nine historical phases of humanity. The future of mankind is the tenth phase. Each phase is characterized by its own developments and people, yet there are some general themes running through history – all evolving towards the final state. The first two stages are shared by all civilizations: they are the formation of human groups along family lines during the hunter and gatherer stage, and the amalgamation of groups into agricultural collectives. Many societies never got past this stage; many others did. The societies who did are characterized by primitive science and mythology, as well as the discovery of writing.
From then on, a dualism kicks in. Due to division of labour and social stratification there develops a caste of elites whose sole raison d’être is holding on to their power. To do this, they start studying the universe to harness its powers while at the same time deluding the people and distorting their wills through occult rituals and stupid religious doctrines. This caste becomes the priests. Besides this, there is this hereditary class of land- and slave-owners who control the populace through wealth and military force. This class becomes the aristocracy.
According to Condorcet, Greece was an exception. It was a trade hub and the continuous circulation of ideas meant that priests never could control the people and absolute power was absent. Alas, all changed when the brutish Romans destroyed this civilization. Most of the world is still in these primitive stages of delusion and corruption.
It was only after the Muslim conquest of the East that old knowledge (from the Greeks) started flooding back into Europe, leading to the Renaissance and, through the printing press, to the Reformation. The Reformation, since it’s rooted in the idea of personal judgment and interpretation, sowed the seeds of liberalism, that would took off from John Locke onwards. The idea of liberty for all was the main spring for the American and the French Revolutions.
Through these two millennia humanity saw a continuous battle between religion and force on the one side, and reason on the opposing side. Religious delusions and feudal oppression, with its offspring mercantilism, were on the losing side through – humanity is somehow destined to acquire freedom. And this is because reason is its sole arbitrator: reason discovered the scientific method, which was so successful in understanding the universe, and through this, controlling it. For Condorcet, a trained mathematician, when it comes to humanity – practical ethics, politics, psychology, the study of society, etc. – this same scientific method of observation, experiment and mathematical calculations has to be applied.
Condorcet, unlike some of his peers, recognized the gradualness of scientific knowledge. He clearly sees how natural sciences are much more precise and certain compared to the human sciences. In the latter sphere, probability is all that can be established. His claim is that a probability calculus is the solution to a whole collection of problems: How to establish the general will of the people in a democracy? How to predict likely future scenarios based on earlier data? Etc. etc.
On each page you read Condorcet fulminating against all the delusions and superstitions of stupid religious people, as well as all the machiavellism of the absolutist establishment. Both have joined forces to oppress the people through ignorance.
The general thought of Enlightenment philosophers and intellectuals was the reason is the royal road to knowledge, and knowledge is the cure to all the ills in the world. A criminal commits his heinous act through lack of knowledge – re-educate him and he will do otherwise. The people will not revolt, and if they do are almost sure to fail in establishing significant changes, because they are ignorant of their own value and respect. Educate them and they will change the world for the better. In short: knowledge is key, and this requires reason – i.e. mathematical deduction and empirical experiments. Of course, not anyone can be a trained scientist or mathematician, but Condorcet clearly sees the value of having a highly educated population: they will be able to better choose their representatives and judge experts.
So far, this sounds rather like the musings of a modern scientist or intellectual. It is difficult to transport yourself to these ancient times when this type of worldview was radically new or challenging to established principles. I think modern science has vindicated a lot of Condorcet’s claims, and there have been many, many improvements in human existence along the lines Condorcet sketched. Just read Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now (2017) and you’ll be convinced.
But underlying these trains of thought lie two fundamental problems. The first is Condorcet’s historicism. He generalizes the whole human history and suffers from selectivity bias. That is, he picks out those historical times and places that serve his purpose of illustrating progress. It is heavily Greek-centred, and there is no argument whatsoever about why, for example, India or China haven’t been fundamental in human history. History evolves through the principle of freedom, which sees itself being repressed and then pop up at times and places when it’s least expected – mostly through the work of historical figures and geniuses. In this sense, Condorcet is Hegel in plain language.
Now, I simply don’t believe in historicism. There is no proof of historical laws, be they linear or cyclical. I subscribe to Karl Popper’s thesis on the impossibility of historical laws – any future prediction is, by definition, incorporated into the current stage, which will, by definition, change the future state of affairs. I also reject historical generalization: to reduce all of history to the development of equality or liberty, is simply reductionism of the absurd type. It is easy to see how Condorcet was prone to be swept away by his own ideals, training and human kindness – I even sympathize with him for this – yet it simply is untrue.
The second fundamental problem in Condorcet’s sketch is his narrow focus on reason. The ideal society is a world civilization, characterized by brotherly love; the abolishment of all inequality (including marriage and slavery) apart from inequality due to talents; the establishment of a very clear and distinct universal language; the modelling of society on scientific principles; etc. Years ago, I was a full blown adept of the Enlightenment ideals and their implications. I’ve come to realize over the years that human freedom isn’t compatible with a society modelled on scientific knowledge. I don’t believe that knowledge is the magic cure that heals all ills. Human freedom means taking risks, being irrational, which is something the mathematical mind abhors. This is why I reject socialism and religion alike – it is also why I reject science as the bedrock of ethics. For me human liberty comes first, and after this we can talk about other ethical dilemmas – I fully subscribe to Hayek’s thesis that there is no person or party that has more information about your situation compared to yourself, and hence there is no one but yourself who can make the best decision in your current situation. Any generalization means loss of freedom – this is fine when it comes to scientific knowledge, but it is dangerous when it comes to politics.
Right now we are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the first thing that gets thrown out is human freedom. You see the same thing in all the current political issues: Climate change? More government, more restrictions, more enforcement! Health risks (e.g. smoking)? More government, more restrictions, more enforcement!
Condorcet wants to educate the people to improve the world – a laudable goal. More knowledge means more freedom. Yet he also wants reason to dictate society. More knowledge means less freedom. I have struggled with this Enlightenment paradox for many years, and I feel like there is no way out.
A third and final problem for Condorcet is his overlooking the fact that all of the human sciences are intrinsically value-laden. A sociologist or an economist start from personal assumptions that are never mentioned. For example, any economic model is based, among other things, on the developer’s assumptions about what’s good and bad. Given the same problem, a Marxist and a libertarian would come up with two radically different (and mutually exclusive) solutions. Both can be true, yet what one gets to be the dominant one is a political question – and this boils down to simplistic power struggles that decide which system of ethics wins.
Anyway, reading this book made me both ponder the progress we’ve made as a species in the last couple of centuries as well as my own intellectual growth over the years. It also made me realize how different our modern outlook on things like truth, knowledge, reality, progress, etc. is compared to these Enlightenment thinkers’, yet at the same how much debt we owe to these original and courageous people. Throughout this work you see Condorcet fulminating against the horrific acts of slavery committed by Europeans, against the systematic oppression of women and their second-rate social states, against the ignorance of the masses, and the machiavellism of the elites (still with us today, unfortunately). He never got to enjoy the publication of his work – he died alone in a cold cell because of who knows what.
One of the most amazing experiences a reader can ask for, is the deep feeling of intimacy with another person. Reading this book transports you to an age long gone, listening to the musings of a wonderful humane person, seeing the world through his eyes and realizing it takes courage to point to wrong-doings, let alone attempt to change things. Read it, it is well worth your time!
January 31, 2021
Condorcet (1743-1794)
Tableau Historique des Progrès de l’Esprit Humain (publié 1795)
Nicolas de Condorcet was one of the actors during the French revolution of 1789.
He was an exceptional person with gifts of intelligence, love of individual freedom and unforgiving contempt of any obstruction of freedom created by political and religious tyranny.
It is very tempting to write more about the author, but I must concentrate on reviewing the present book.
Condorcet’s political activities ended up by getting him into a difficult position. He was under threat of arrest and in hiding during his last year of life during which he wrote the present:
“Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind”.
With this work, he aimed to demonstrate the progress of the Mind of Mankind in the Western World.
His sketch is presented in chronological order divided into ‘periods’ of history.
In Condorcet’s first period we find the human family and tribal gatherings. Family language, tribal language for communication, then tribal rules for social behaviour were the first steps of the progress of the human mind.
It follows the period of sedentary agricultural and pastoral populations. These need to learn how to grow food in abundance, hold domestic animals, organize their reproduction, produce textile clothing, invent trade and therewith some means of payments. More progress of the human mind.
In the third period takes us to Ancient Greece.
Condorcet was convinced that all modern science started in Ancient Greece.
Athens became the centre of Philosophy. Socrates, Plato in his Academy and Aristotle in his rival school, the Lycée embraced all scientific disciplines.
The author attributes this exceptional development of philosophy to the absence of political and religious influence on the philosophers.
The political downfall of Greece was followed by the rise of Rome.
The tyrannic Caesars of the Roman Empire had the ambitions of conquerors, but not those of meditation and philosophy. Educated Romans turned to the Greek civilization for philosophical education. They were fluent in Greek as well as the Latin language.
Condorcet considers the historical period of the Roman Empire only as a bridge of Human knowledge from Ancient Greece to the End of Rome.
The following sixth period is the rise of religious tyranny, barbaric invasions and the ensuing dark middle ages and the interruption of scientific and philosophical progress.
The seventh period brings the key to unlock these unfortunate centuries of ignorance and superstitions.
This key was the invention of the mechanical printing process of books by Gutenberg in 1439.
Books copied at a fast pace at low cost made reading available to every level of society.
Knowledge was no longer limited to the clergy and aristocracy. This was therefore a mayor steppingstone on the staircase to develop the Human Mind.
Condorcet now comes to describe the long and stony road that led to the French Revolution.
He mentions the works of philosophers closer to his time, like Descartes, Locke, Newton, Leibnitz, Collins, Fontenelle, Voltaire et Montesquieu. All defending science, philosophy and the liberation from political and religious oppression.
In his last chapter Condorcet gives the reader his perspective and hopes for the future.
In accordance with his personal character, he describes the future as a dreamlike perfection of personal freedom for all people on earth. ‘The unlimited intelligence of men and women will provide an oversupply of every basic need and that, in turn, will eradicate all jealousy, greed and vileness. Wars will have no reason to ever happen again and nations will live in harmony.’
Unfortunately, historical events in his century and ever after will prove his perceptions very wrong.
Condorcet’s “Sketch for a Historical Picture of Progress of the Human Mind” is aptly named.
It is really a sketch. But let us not forget, it was a first such project and written in 1794. It contains historical facts, but also a large proportion of the author's opinion of the motivations that brought about the French Revolution of 1789.
“History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russel, first published in 1946 provides work on this subject of infinitely more depth and volume.
Tableau Historique des Progrès de l’Esprit Humain (publié 1795)
Nicolas de Condorcet was one of the actors during the French revolution of 1789.
He was an exceptional person with gifts of intelligence, love of individual freedom and unforgiving contempt of any obstruction of freedom created by political and religious tyranny.
It is very tempting to write more about the author, but I must concentrate on reviewing the present book.
Condorcet’s political activities ended up by getting him into a difficult position. He was under threat of arrest and in hiding during his last year of life during which he wrote the present:
“Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind”.
With this work, he aimed to demonstrate the progress of the Mind of Mankind in the Western World.
His sketch is presented in chronological order divided into ‘periods’ of history.
In Condorcet’s first period we find the human family and tribal gatherings. Family language, tribal language for communication, then tribal rules for social behaviour were the first steps of the progress of the human mind.
It follows the period of sedentary agricultural and pastoral populations. These need to learn how to grow food in abundance, hold domestic animals, organize their reproduction, produce textile clothing, invent trade and therewith some means of payments. More progress of the human mind.
In the third period takes us to Ancient Greece.
Condorcet was convinced that all modern science started in Ancient Greece.
Athens became the centre of Philosophy. Socrates, Plato in his Academy and Aristotle in his rival school, the Lycée embraced all scientific disciplines.
The author attributes this exceptional development of philosophy to the absence of political and religious influence on the philosophers.
The political downfall of Greece was followed by the rise of Rome.
The tyrannic Caesars of the Roman Empire had the ambitions of conquerors, but not those of meditation and philosophy. Educated Romans turned to the Greek civilization for philosophical education. They were fluent in Greek as well as the Latin language.
Condorcet considers the historical period of the Roman Empire only as a bridge of Human knowledge from Ancient Greece to the End of Rome.
The following sixth period is the rise of religious tyranny, barbaric invasions and the ensuing dark middle ages and the interruption of scientific and philosophical progress.
The seventh period brings the key to unlock these unfortunate centuries of ignorance and superstitions.
This key was the invention of the mechanical printing process of books by Gutenberg in 1439.
Books copied at a fast pace at low cost made reading available to every level of society.
Knowledge was no longer limited to the clergy and aristocracy. This was therefore a mayor steppingstone on the staircase to develop the Human Mind.
Condorcet now comes to describe the long and stony road that led to the French Revolution.
He mentions the works of philosophers closer to his time, like Descartes, Locke, Newton, Leibnitz, Collins, Fontenelle, Voltaire et Montesquieu. All defending science, philosophy and the liberation from political and religious oppression.
In his last chapter Condorcet gives the reader his perspective and hopes for the future.
In accordance with his personal character, he describes the future as a dreamlike perfection of personal freedom for all people on earth. ‘The unlimited intelligence of men and women will provide an oversupply of every basic need and that, in turn, will eradicate all jealousy, greed and vileness. Wars will have no reason to ever happen again and nations will live in harmony.’
Unfortunately, historical events in his century and ever after will prove his perceptions very wrong.
Condorcet’s “Sketch for a Historical Picture of Progress of the Human Mind” is aptly named.
It is really a sketch. But let us not forget, it was a first such project and written in 1794. It contains historical facts, but also a large proportion of the author's opinion of the motivations that brought about the French Revolution of 1789.
“History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russel, first published in 1946 provides work on this subject of infinitely more depth and volume.
February 12, 2018
An amazingly precise and prescient description of our times by one of the first futurists, making projections from more than 200 years ago, who left us with a refreshingly optimistic view of our future, fed from the recent scientific discoveries of the times, Newton, and others.
Imagine that Nicolas de Condorcet, writing these lines in the 1790s, just before he was executed by French revolutionaries, had imagined state pensions, agricultural revolution, a world of nations trading with each other, equality between men and women, the inherent stupidity of racism, and much more.
He was so much ahead of his time. One can only wonder what he would write today. If only he was still here to make us dream.
Imagine that Nicolas de Condorcet, writing these lines in the 1790s, just before he was executed by French revolutionaries, had imagined state pensions, agricultural revolution, a world of nations trading with each other, equality between men and women, the inherent stupidity of racism, and much more.
He was so much ahead of his time. One can only wonder what he would write today. If only he was still here to make us dream.
April 16, 2014
Ce livre a été écrit par le marquis de Condorcet, (1743-1794), un philosophe des lumières qui ne fut pas simplement un littérateur, mais un véritable homme de science, puisqu’il a fait avancer les mathématiques dans le domaine de l’étude des probabilités, mais aussi un homme politique au service de son prochain, puisqu’il prit une part active dans la Révolution Française. J'avais déjà beaucoup apprécié ses écrits relatifs à l’éducation, ou contre l’esclavage. J’ai également éprouvé la plus grande estime pour ces deux écrits, pleins d’intelligence, de bonté, et de courage, d’autant qu’il les a écrites dans les circonstances les plus dramatiques, en pleine Terreur, alors qu’il est obligé de se cacher pendant plusieurs mois suite à sa condamnation pour trahison. Il succombera peu de temps après dans des circonstances tragiques.
Dans l’esquisse, il fait un plan détaillé d’un ouvrage qui pourrait couvrir, en plusieurs époques, les différentes étapes par lesquelles les progrès des arts et des sciences ont amélioré par degré la condition des hommes, contribuant de plus en plus à leur bonheur, en les soulageant par des commodités. Il arrive sur la constatation de l’état présent des choses, et lance un regard prophétique sur ce que sera l’avenir destiné à nos chers neveux !
Dans le second texte, fragment sur l’Atlantide, il s’agit de développer l’idée qui avait été émise par Francis Bacon dans sa La Nouvelle Atlantide, de créer une institution dédiée à la recherche scientifique : ce qui n’était dans un temps d’ignorance qu’un rêve de philosophe, voilà qu’il s’agit de le mettre en œuvre, réellement et pratiquement.
Ce sont des ouvrages magnifiques remplis de sentiments délicieux, d’espoir, de courage, et de générosité. Toujours combattant les injustices, le fanatisme et le despotisme, favorisant l’instruction et surtout l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes, dont il est un ardent défenseur. Je ne mets pas de limite à l’enthousiasme et à la dévotion qu’ils m’inspirent.
Dans l’esquisse, il fait un plan détaillé d’un ouvrage qui pourrait couvrir, en plusieurs époques, les différentes étapes par lesquelles les progrès des arts et des sciences ont amélioré par degré la condition des hommes, contribuant de plus en plus à leur bonheur, en les soulageant par des commodités. Il arrive sur la constatation de l’état présent des choses, et lance un regard prophétique sur ce que sera l’avenir destiné à nos chers neveux !
Dans le second texte, fragment sur l’Atlantide, il s’agit de développer l’idée qui avait été émise par Francis Bacon dans sa La Nouvelle Atlantide, de créer une institution dédiée à la recherche scientifique : ce qui n’était dans un temps d’ignorance qu’un rêve de philosophe, voilà qu’il s’agit de le mettre en œuvre, réellement et pratiquement.
Ce sont des ouvrages magnifiques remplis de sentiments délicieux, d’espoir, de courage, et de générosité. Toujours combattant les injustices, le fanatisme et le despotisme, favorisant l’instruction et surtout l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes, dont il est un ardent défenseur. Je ne mets pas de limite à l’enthousiasme et à la dévotion qu’ils m’inspirent.
March 14, 2015
It is a sad testimony of the state of our culture that few know who this man is, and even fewer have read this great work. I learned a lot in reading this. Condorcet's prescience into the future strides science was posturing to take is staggering. He does wax a bit utopian at the end in his over-estimation of the future progress of mankind, underestimating the power of retrograde cultural forces such as cupidity and sensuality.
February 1, 2018
For my purpose of learning to decode written French, this is good: moderate number of new words but quite complex sentence structures (e.g., a sentence of 130 word long).
The content is of philosophy of history, emphasizing in the mind. The main theme is probably the linear progression of human history in a determined course or at least direction, which is by now doubted by many. Down to the reasoning about various specific phenomena, I think what the marquis wrote (up to the point I am at now) seem conjectural, as the book does not give much proof, but most of it seem quite logical and convincing, albeit most theories are of common knowledge, at least nowadays. Whether they were mostly original around 1794 I don't know yet.
It is awesome to see such a calm style considering that this sage was writing it in the eve of his martyrdom that he probably more or less forsaw.
The preface to the 1796 English translation (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?...), which does this most virtuous and open-minded man justice, moved me to tears.
The content is of philosophy of history, emphasizing in the mind. The main theme is probably the linear progression of human history in a determined course or at least direction, which is by now doubted by many. Down to the reasoning about various specific phenomena, I think what the marquis wrote (up to the point I am at now) seem conjectural, as the book does not give much proof, but most of it seem quite logical and convincing, albeit most theories are of common knowledge, at least nowadays. Whether they were mostly original around 1794 I don't know yet.
It is awesome to see such a calm style considering that this sage was writing it in the eve of his martyrdom that he probably more or less forsaw.
The preface to the 1796 English translation (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?...), which does this most virtuous and open-minded man justice, moved me to tears.
August 8, 2024
THE FRENCH ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHER LOOKS AT HISTORY
Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794) was a French philosopher and mathematician. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1794 book, "we shall demonstrate how nature has joined together indissolubly the progress of knowledge and that of liberty, virtue and respect for the natural rights of man; and how these, the only real goods we possess... must on the contrary become inseparable from the moment when enlightenment has attained a certain level in a number of nations..." (Pg. 10)
He argues passionately, "these discoveries will have repaid humanity what they have cost only when Europe renounces her oppressive and avaricious system of monopoly; only when she remembers that men of all races are equally brothers by the wish of nature and have not been created to feed the vanity and greed of a few privileged nations; only when she calls upon all people to share her independence, freedom and knowledge, which she will do once she is alive to her own true interests." (Pg. 105)
He admits, "The human race still revolts the philosopher who contemplates its history; but it no longer humiliates him, and now offers him hope for the future." (Pg. 114) He summarizes, "We have watched man's reason being slowly formed by the natural progress of civilization; we have watched superstition seize upon it and corrupt it, and tyranny degrade and deaden the minds of men under the burden of misery and fear. One nation alone [the French Republic] escapes the two-fold influence of tyranny and superstition." (Pg. 124)
He states that the Enlightenment philosophers "fought on the side of truth, using in turn all the weapons with which learning, philosophy, wit and literary talent can furnish reason... finally taking for their battle cry---reason, tolerance, humanity." (Pg. 136-137) Nevertheless, "although everything tells us that the human race will never relapse into its former state of barbarism... we still see the forces of enlightenment in possession of no more than a very small portion of the globe, and the truly enlightened vastly outnumbered by the great mass of men who are still given over to ignorance and prejudice." (Pg. 169)
He adds, "Our hopes for the future condition of the human race can be subsumed under three important heads: the abolition of inequality between nations, the progress of equality within each nation, are the true perfection of mankind." (Pg. 173) He contends, "Among the causes of the progress of the human mind that are of the utmost importance to the general happiness, we must number the complete annihilation of the prejudices that have brought about an inequality of rights between the sexes, an inequality fatal even to the party in whose favor it works." (Pg. 193) He ends, "We may conclude that the perfectibility of man is indefinite." (Pg. 199)
Condorcet's book is a true "classic" of the French Enlightenment, as well as of the philosophy of history.
Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794) was a French philosopher and mathematician. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1794 book, "we shall demonstrate how nature has joined together indissolubly the progress of knowledge and that of liberty, virtue and respect for the natural rights of man; and how these, the only real goods we possess... must on the contrary become inseparable from the moment when enlightenment has attained a certain level in a number of nations..." (Pg. 10)
He argues passionately, "these discoveries will have repaid humanity what they have cost only when Europe renounces her oppressive and avaricious system of monopoly; only when she remembers that men of all races are equally brothers by the wish of nature and have not been created to feed the vanity and greed of a few privileged nations; only when she calls upon all people to share her independence, freedom and knowledge, which she will do once she is alive to her own true interests." (Pg. 105)
He admits, "The human race still revolts the philosopher who contemplates its history; but it no longer humiliates him, and now offers him hope for the future." (Pg. 114) He summarizes, "We have watched man's reason being slowly formed by the natural progress of civilization; we have watched superstition seize upon it and corrupt it, and tyranny degrade and deaden the minds of men under the burden of misery and fear. One nation alone [the French Republic] escapes the two-fold influence of tyranny and superstition." (Pg. 124)
He states that the Enlightenment philosophers "fought on the side of truth, using in turn all the weapons with which learning, philosophy, wit and literary talent can furnish reason... finally taking for their battle cry---reason, tolerance, humanity." (Pg. 136-137) Nevertheless, "although everything tells us that the human race will never relapse into its former state of barbarism... we still see the forces of enlightenment in possession of no more than a very small portion of the globe, and the truly enlightened vastly outnumbered by the great mass of men who are still given over to ignorance and prejudice." (Pg. 169)
He adds, "Our hopes for the future condition of the human race can be subsumed under three important heads: the abolition of inequality between nations, the progress of equality within each nation, are the true perfection of mankind." (Pg. 173) He contends, "Among the causes of the progress of the human mind that are of the utmost importance to the general happiness, we must number the complete annihilation of the prejudices that have brought about an inequality of rights between the sexes, an inequality fatal even to the party in whose favor it works." (Pg. 193) He ends, "We may conclude that the perfectibility of man is indefinite." (Pg. 199)
Condorcet's book is a true "classic" of the French Enlightenment, as well as of the philosophy of history.
October 22, 2024
A French seminal enlightenment work advocating the progress of human reason, science, and social institutions:
1)"𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆; 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒐𝒏𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒕 𝒊𝒕, 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒆 𝒖𝒑𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒖𝒔"
2)"𝑨𝒍𝒍 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔."
3)"𝓗𝓸𝔀 𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝔀𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓾𝓫𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽, 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓫𝓮𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓫𝓸𝓸𝓴𝓼 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓬𝓱 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓻𝓷 𝓽𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓭?"
4)"𝓝𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓱𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓽 𝓷𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓸𝓯 𝓱𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓲𝓮𝓼; 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓸𝓯 𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓵𝔂 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮."
condorcet's optimism about the future of human progression and scientific stance in towards a better and enlightened society.
1)"𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒍𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆; 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒐𝒏𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒕 𝒊𝒕, 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒆 𝒖𝒑𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒖𝒔"
2)"𝑨𝒍𝒍 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔."
3)"𝓗𝓸𝔀 𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝔀𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓾𝓫𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽, 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓫𝓮𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓫𝓸𝓸𝓴𝓼 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓬𝓱 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓻𝓷 𝓽𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓭?"
4)"𝓝𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓱𝓪𝓼 𝓼𝓮𝓽 𝓷𝓸 𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓸𝓯 𝓱𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓲𝓮𝓼; 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓫𝓲𝓵𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓸𝓯 𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓵𝔂 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮."
condorcet's optimism about the future of human progression and scientific stance in towards a better and enlightened society.
January 4, 2022
2022-01–04
Condorcet was impressive as a person. Here almost all of the optimism about science and technology in the final chapter is fulfilled in our age; increased lifespan, egalitarian society and IT. He was ahead of his time.
Title: historical picture of progress of the human mind (1794), originally in French.
Author: mathematician, scientist, atheist, friend to Voltaire and elected to the French academy Condorcet wrote this during the French Revolution and died after the book (possibly the first of a series of planned books) was finished in prison at 51 years old.
Condorcet was impressive as a person. Here almost all of the optimism about science and technology in the final chapter is fulfilled in our age; increased lifespan, egalitarian society and IT. He was ahead of his time.
Title: historical picture of progress of the human mind (1794), originally in French.
Author: mathematician, scientist, atheist, friend to Voltaire and elected to the French academy Condorcet wrote this during the French Revolution and died after the book (possibly the first of a series of planned books) was finished in prison at 51 years old.
January 12, 2025
kul grej, det där med äggen!
July 1, 2018
It's clear that most of guys living in the Enlightment era still have an influence over the scientism crowd: the Catholic Church blocked progress, it was Constantine's fault.
If we just followed the developed nations, we'd be wealthy, knowledgeable and happy. Everyone should do like France, the UK... because over there, men and women have equal rights, everyone goes to school, knows how to read and write, and life expectancy is as long as a good health will permit.
Learn English, learn French, become like them as much as you can (in our case, learn how to operate a computer, get a university degree, graduate before you're 30, and be sucessfull, always ambitious!). Do it the way "developed nations do!". Do these things sound familiar?
Well, they're part of our assumed discourse, this is one of the guys that started it all. In his defense, he didn't know how terrible it would get. He honestly thought knowledge alone would be the end to all injustice and war, and necessarily meant moral progress. So, if I had to rate it according to his predictions of the future... oh boy, how wrong he was!
But as for the clarity of the argument, it sure is crystal clear.
If we just followed the developed nations, we'd be wealthy, knowledgeable and happy. Everyone should do like France, the UK... because over there, men and women have equal rights, everyone goes to school, knows how to read and write, and life expectancy is as long as a good health will permit.
Learn English, learn French, become like them as much as you can (in our case, learn how to operate a computer, get a university degree, graduate before you're 30, and be sucessfull, always ambitious!). Do it the way "developed nations do!". Do these things sound familiar?
Well, they're part of our assumed discourse, this is one of the guys that started it all. In his defense, he didn't know how terrible it would get. He honestly thought knowledge alone would be the end to all injustice and war, and necessarily meant moral progress. So, if I had to rate it according to his predictions of the future... oh boy, how wrong he was!
But as for the clarity of the argument, it sure is crystal clear.
October 2, 2012
Condorcet's hopes were:
1. The abolition of inequalities between nations.
2. The progress of equality within each nation.
3. The true perfection of mankind. - I.e. the state of France and Anglo-American after their respective revolutions.
January 15, 2014
He was a man of the Enlightenment, an advocate of economic freedom, religious toleration and educational reform. Solid values and applied social sciences to his daily undertakings.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews