Gorbachev allowed, but did not ignite, the Revolutions of 1989

I believe that Gorbachev played a vital role in the occurrence of the 1989 revolutions, but his role was limited to allowing the revolutions to happen, rather than starting them. My main argument is that the people would have rebelled earlier, if not for the staunch no-tolerance policies of Stalin and Brezhnev. Without a more tolerant leader like Gorbachev, these revolutions never have been given the opportunity to manifest.

Under Stalin's five year plans, Soviet Union individuals experienced no increase in their quality of life, even though the nation as a whole was getting richer (910). If the people under Stalin had a low quality of life, and were given no freedoms under an oppressive government, why didn't they protest and rebel? One reason: because Stalin did not allow the people to protest. He immediately stifled any threats to his power, and as a result, the fear that he created effectively caused little public opposition to his regime. In other words, people were forced, by their fear, to follow him.

After Stalin's death and from 1953-1964, Kruschev assumed the role of leader of the USSR. Kruschev, unlike Stalin, allowed free speech and allowed people to rebel---to an extent. As a result of this, the people's unhappiness (as a result of low quality of life and lack of freedoms) manifested in rebellions in Poland and Hungary. One can see in Kruschev's rule how a leader's tolerance for opposition directly leads to the degree of rebellion. Kruschev allowed a little bit of 'wiggle room' for the protestors, and as a result this fermented protests.

However, Kruschev was quickly replaced by Brezhnev and his much more oppressive regime. Under Brezhnev, the people's quality of living was no worst than under Kruschev's, the only difference is that they experienced less freedom to protest. Under Brezhnev, the only public opposition to his regime came in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Under Kruschev or Gorbachev, this protest movement might have gained momentum and might have spiraled into a revolution in 1968; however, Brezhnev quickly invaded Czechoslovakia to halt any proceedings.

Finally, when Gorbachev replaced Brezhnev in the 1980s, he again allowed freedoms of speech. Suddenly, the people's unhappiness, which had been in place since Stalin, was allowed to manifest into open protest and subsequently revolution. The main reason why the 1989 revolutions occurred is not because there was a sudden change in attitude in 1989; it was because Gorbachev ALLOWED them to occur. The main point about all of this is that if the people had a chance in the 1960s to rebel, which would have occurred potentially if Kruschev had never left office, the people would have publicly protested and probably would have ignited rebellions. Throughout Stalins rule and through to Gorbachev's rule, the people held basically the same attitude: they were unhappy because they were poor and they had little freedom. Naturally, people would protest given this situation; it is just a matter of how tolerant the leader is in allowing protest. Under Stalin, the oppressed and poor people would definitely have liked to remove Stalin from power, but their fear and Stalin's terror prevented them from doing so. The reason why the 1989 revolutions happened at the time they did is because Gorbachev gave them the means to do so.

Predicting the Egyptian Revolution

The Iranian Revolution ultimately resulted in a conservative government being installed. A dislike for the Shah and a desire to unseat him initially united the people of Iran, but that is where the shared viewpoint ends. After the Shah left Iran in 1979, Iran was deeply divided on how to manage the vacated government. There was a prolonged conflict between the People's Mujahideen (liberal communists: desired a secular government), Moderates (middle: desired a government with Islamic influence but democratic) and the Conservatives (desired a pure theocracy). However, by the end of 1979, Khomeini (leader of the conservatives) had seized complete power for life, and thus, created an Islamic Republic that is still the current government of Modern Iran.

Many experts compare the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I am not writing to compare the two revolutions, but I wish to share a prediction concerning the outcome of the ongoing Egyptian Revolution. I predict that the Egyptian Revolution will not result in a theocracy like the Iranian Revolution, but it will ultimately lead to a moderate government. I make this prediction based on the evidence of one article I read that examined the role of Sunnis versus Shiites on the results of the Iranian and Egyptian societies.

According to Joe Schlesinger, "Sunnis consider their relationship with God direct and imams are generally seen only as prayer leaders", while "The Shia, on the other hand, have a hierarchical structure and their imams are considered community leaders". Egyptians are predominantly Sunni Muslims while Iranians are Shiites. Because Sunnis place less importance on the role of imams in society, it is logical that Sunnis would have a larger distinction between mosque and state. This contrasts with a Shiite society that places incredible emphasis on imams on society. In a Shiite society, imams would have more power and leadership because they would have to make that vital connection between God and his people. On the other hand, Sunnis are more apt to directly speak with God, and therefore have less need of an imam in society; therefore, the imams are not as powerful in a Sunni nation.

This has impact in the Egyptian Revolution because, obviously, the people involved are Sunni Muslims. I predicted that the Egyptian revolution will not end in a theocracy, because, among other reasons, the Sunnis will be less inclined to elevate an imam, or any other religious leader, to power. Unlike Khomeini who was an imam himself and easily convinced the Shiite Iranians to elect him leader, an Egyptian conservative leader will have a much harder time convincing the people to elect a religious figure to power.

Comparing the Taiping Rebellion with the rise of Communism in China

While reading about the rise of Communism in China, I couldn't help but compare Mao's ideology to Hong Xiuquan's ideology, who was the leader of the failed Taiping Rebellion in the mid 19th century. As I will show you, both Mao and Hong had similar political and economical ideas, and both of the movements were distinctly anti-traditional. However, the Taiping Rebellion was defeated in 1864, while the Communist party is still in power in China to this day.

The Taiping Rebellion was a massive rebellion in China during the Qing Dynasty, that resulted in, somewhere between, twenty to a hundred million deaths. The leader of this movement was Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, and who also believed that he was sent by God (the Christian God) to replace the Qing Dynasty with a Taiping heavenly kingdom. Throughout the rebellion, Hong called for the destruction of sacred Chinese artifacts because he wanted to completely remove any reminders of Confucianism. (http://taipingrebellion.com/) Furthermore, Hong's ideal society included the abolition of private land ownership. Instead, each Taiping family was allotted land proportional to their size. Also, there were public granaries assigned to every twenty five families; every group of twenty five families was treated as a community that was assigned a loosely-enforced quota of production. Hong's kingdom is best summed up in an excerpt from a document written in 1853; "There being fields, let all cultivate them; there being food, let all eat; there being clothes, let all be dressed; there being money, let all use it, so that nowhere does inequality exist, and no man is not well fed and clothed." (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taiping.html)

Mao Zedong's ideology was very similar to Hong's, in fact, Mao was actually inspired by the actions of Hong Xiuquan. Mao also desired to purge China of anything reminiscent of Confucianism and traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, Mao closed down temples when he first came to power in the early 1950s, Later, in 1965, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution which resulted in the widespread destruction of ancient monuments, books, art, and antiques. This is similar to how Hong destroyed similar ancient artifacts. In terms of egalitarianism, Mao also abolished private ownership of land and also redistributed this newly-seized land. Furthermore, Mao created "communes", which were small communities of people that were assigned a quota of produce. This is loosely similar to Hong's communities of "twenty five families".

Clearly, Mao and Hong were very similar in their approaches to change; both desired the termination of traditional Chinese culture, and both possessed very egalitarian economical ideas. This naturally leads to the question of what caused the Taipings to falter, whereas Mao's Communist Party succeeded. I believe that timing, though the simple answer, is the main reason why. The Taiping Rebellion lasted from 1850-1864; thus, the Chinese had not yet lost the Sino-Japanese war to the Japanese. According to the McKay textbook, it was it not until after the Sino-Japanese war that the Chinese realized that they were internationally, very weak (Mckay). That being said, at the time of the Taiping Rebellion, there was no major desire for the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty because there was no reason to believe that China needed reform, and certainly did not need reform with Western influence (Hong preached Christianity). Conversely, when Mao came to power, the Qing dynasty had already been overthrown. Secondly, there was no absolute government in China during the 1940s. The "government" at the time were the Nationalists, who were preoccupied with the Japanese in China (McKay). This distraction gave Mao the perfect chance to recruit followers and to spread propaganda; this coupled with the massive Chinese casualties suffered by the war between the nationalists and the Japanese gave Mao the perfect window of time to seize power.

Nonviolent or Violent Rebellion?

Gandhi is famous for holding fast to his belief that nonviolence is "a far more powerful weapon than guns or bombs." (In class Handout, 28). Even when the British in Colonial India physically harmed Indians, such as at the "Massacre at Amritsar", Gandhi never once condoned a violent reaction.

One of Gandhi's reasons for supporting nonviolence is obvious: violence is immoral and no good can result from it. This notion can be generally accepted. However, violence is often employed by rebels because it causes rapid change. This can be seen during the Indian Nationalist Movement, when after being released from jail, Gandhi was urged to start a new satyagraha campaign. Gandhi reluctantly agreed on the condition that the campaign would be explicitly nonviolent, however, some of his followers, who were impatient for change, burned a police station and killed 22 policemen in the process. Gandhi immediately ended this campaign after this incident.

Gandhi ignored the fact that violence quickens the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi once wrote that "Swaraj by non-violence must be a progressively peaceful revolution such that the transference of power...will be as natural as the dropping of a fully ripe fruit from a well-nurtured tree. I say again that such a thing may be quite impossible of attainment. But I know that nothing less is the implication of non-violence". (Handout, 42). The idea that Gandhi is trying to convey is that non violence is a much more natural transition of power than violence. This is based off of Gandhi's fundamental belief that truth will emerge inevitably. Thus, "truth" or in this case, freedom of the Indians from British captivity, will happen inevitably because no group can ever keep another group oppressed forever. Therefore, Gandhi sees no use in 'pressing the matter', especially if violence is the sacrifice that one must make in order to quicken the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi trusts that time will do its work and will eventually unravel all unjust things.

Is Gandhi correct in his statement that nonviolence will ultimately lead to justice? I say yes, because throughout history, no group has been prejudiced for eternity. Whether it be race, religion, gender etc., rights and freedoms have always emerged, to some extent, for the oppressed. Then, if the idea of inevitable truth holds true, there is no use for violence in fighting for independence. Violence causes increased emotion and bloodshed, neither of which are ultimately good. Instead, people should just remain calm and patient, and especially careful in practicing nonviolence. In the end, the oppressed will find justice.

An Ideal Communist Society: Does it promote Laziness?

On page 94 of "The Communist Manifesto", Karl Marx states that the "abolition of private property" is an inherent trait of an ideal communist society. Subsequently, once the bourgeoisie are forced to relinquish their private property, a classless society is formed. According to Marx, in a capitalist society there are two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. People in a capitalist society are placed in a class based on their relation to the society's means of production (57). Marx argues that the bourgeois own the means of production, meaning that they receive income from the 'produce', and they also pay the laborers. The laborers are named the proletarians, and because the laborers do not own any means of production, they must work for the bourgeois owners in order to create income and survive (68). Essentially, Marx defines social classes by capital. The bourgeois class receives most of the capital (because they own the means of production), and thus owns more private property, while the proletariat class works for the bourgeoisie, yet receives little capital and thus owns little private property.

According to Marx, a communist society will eliminate classes by eliminating 'private' capital. This means that all capital in a communist society will be owned by the government; the government will then ensure that ALL citizens receive a proportionate share of the capital. (Incidentally, the meaning of "proportionate" refers to the fact that each person will receive income that will satisfy, strictly, their needs, and nothing more.) In addition to making shared capital, all private property will be owned by the state. Together, these two ideals will cause all people to receive income proportional to "what they need".Also, no single person will be able to own more land, thus the material wealth of all people is equal. Ultimately, Marx defines social classes as categories of income, and if communism eliminates the discrepancies of income, then classes will cease to exist.

I would like to pose a question that refers to an idea set forth by Marx, in the Communist Manifesto; he says, "It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us" (86). Is Marx accurate in his declaration that a primary concern of a communist society is the resulting 'laziness' of the people? Yes, I believe that the concern is valid. This is because people will receive enough income to survive, no matter how hard they labor. In an ideal communist society, a doctor or a lawyer would make as much income as a sewage cleaner. Then, naturally one asks, what is the incentive to study rigorously at medical school or law school, when one can simply drop out after middle school? Marx seems to indicate that there is a natural desire in humans to forgo work in favor of being lazy. In the end, the equal income allows all people to survive (no matter what kind of occupation they have), and no one person can become richer, or poorer.

Even though the concern of laziness is certainly valid, the possibility of the problem, (I think) is not as likely. In an IDEAL communist society, everyone will have enough money in order to survive. Yes, people could then stop doing things that cause aggravation or work; however, this will also allow people to do whatever they want. Communism would allow people to no longer worry about money, and instead, people could actually pursue their passions. Artists could do what they love (create art) without fear of not making enough money. An avid fisherman could pursue his passion, even if in a capitalist society, his passion would yield no income. A communist society eliminates the concern of money, and allows people to do whatever they want. In fact, people would not be lazy, but instead, would be much more inclined to pursue activities. A normal human, who possesses inherent passions, would pursue his or her passions in a perfect communist society, and in fact would be much less stressed, lazt, and would not be conscious of money.

Basically, I would like to conclude with the point that an IDEAL communist society would eliminate any worries about money and would probably not cause laziness (but instead promote the pursuit of things that cause interest). However, there is no such thing as an ideal communist society, because people naturally do not want to change in order to conform.

The Industrial Revolution: A Widening Social Gap

The Industrial Revolution hardly fits the parameters that define a traditional revolution. Usually, when we think of revolutions, we think of war, riot, political upheaval, and chaos---lots of chaos. Because of this, the classical example of a revolution is the American Revolution, which features all of these qualities. However, the Industrial Revolution is not marked by war, nor fundamental political change; instead, the Industrial Revolution is distinguished by a massive, unprecedented social change. Incidentally, how did the Industrial Revolution fundamentally influence society? Specifically: did the social class "hierarchy" change?

Like the Enlightenment, or the present Information Revolution, the Industrial Revolution profoundly impacted how people lived. In England, the population skyrocketed from 9 million in 1780 to 21 million in 1851 (McKay, 725), the economic focus shifted from agriculture to factories, and most importantly, society redefined it's classes and roles. The latter of these changes is perhaps the most interesting, because of how technological advances so profoundly influenced social changes, and because of how differently the separate classes were affected. Although social classes were all impacted by the Industrial Revolution, the most progress can be seen in the middle class, while little to negative progress can be seen in the lower class; therefore, the Industrial Revolution actually widened the gap between the middle and lower classes, instead of benefitting all classes.

Clearly, the most impacted class during the Industrial Revolution was the middle class, which previously consisted of merchants and professional people. Thanks to a new economic system, "Laissez-Faire", which emphasized little government interference in terms of businesses, the somewhat wealthy and certainly comfortable middle class was able to evolve into factory owners. Not only did middle class families possess enough money in order to enter business, but also, many of them had rich networks of people that they could contact. Therefore, "Laissez-Faire" opened many windows of opportunity for people who had enough money to start up businesses because it provided the already wealthy with the freedom to use creativity in order to maximize profit. (It is important to note at this time that the previous 'noble class' remained relatively unchanged, and was still as proportionately rich as before).


Because of the new attitudes towards factories, and the combined technological advancements and high demand for product, the middle class families became incredibly wealthy. This increased wealth allowed middle class children to receive a formal education, which was expensive for the time (McKay, 734). However, a formal education was something that a lower class child could only dream of receiving. Obviously, this is because of the high cost; but also, lower class families did not earn enough money in order to advance themselves (for example, to potentially ascend the ranks and achieve a middle class status), and therefore they were never able to find a means to afford a formal education. This ultimately resulted in economical stagnation within the lower class, which saw evolution (the lower class transformed from farmers into factory workers), but little economic advancement. Because of this stagnation, the lower class watched as early capitalism (laissez-faire) led to competition among businesses, which in turn led to further progress and more wealth for the middle class. In the end, the rich became richer, and while the poor certainly did not become poorer, they did not become as proportionately wealthy as the middle class. Because of all of these factors, the economic gap, and therefore the social gap, between the middle and lower class widened during the Industrial Revolution.

"The Black Napoleon"

In 1803, there were two highly successful military-dictators in the world: Toussaint L’Ouverture of St. Domingue and Napoleon Bonaparte of France. These two figures have gone down in history as two enemies who supported contradictory ideals. One supported the equality of all humans and specifically, the abolition of slavery. The other one clearly supported slavery, and even reinstated the concept in French colonies. Obviously, the former was L’Ouverture, while the latter was Bonaparte. However, the distinction and difference between these two leaders is not as clear cut as it is commonly evidenced. While Napoleon did betray and essentially murder L’Ouverture, and did later explain himself by saying, “What could the death of one wretched Negro mean to me?” (http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm), these two men shared many common traits in their ascension to power and their leadership.


Napoleon is often referred to today as the “child of the Revolution”, in that the French Revolution resulted in a changed France, and subsequently provided a chance for a military man like Napoleon to seize power. During the Revolution, there was absolutely no way that a dictator could seize power, however, the ideals and public beliefs evolved over the course of the Revolution. In the end, France had reverted back to a mindset that favored anything reminiscent of the “ancien régime”. In essence, the French Revolution ‘produced’ Napoleon by allowing him to rule.

The same can be said about L’Ouverture’s rise to power, (that he was given a chance to rule by the circumstances of his ascension). In 1791, mass slave revolts occurred in St. Domingue that responded to the white colonist’s refusal to grant colored people their rights. Never before had there been a slave revolt like this in St. Domingue. L’Ouverture seized this incredibly emotional opportunity to take leadership over the slaves, and subsequently propel himself into a position of power. Later, L’Ouverture would seize complete control over St. Domingue, (after chasing away both the British and the Spanish from St. Domingue), and the reason why he would not experience revolt was because of the incredible amount of support he had garnered by fighting in the war, and by leading the slave army. However, L’Ouverture made a fatal mistake when he decided to write up a constitution that granted him “rule for life”. This event likened him to a monarch, and his former followers began to see this. Ultimately, L’Ouverture was defeated by the French in 1802 in part because his own troops (who had so passionately fought for him years before), could not capture the same spirit of freedom they had maintained so very well before.

Although Napoleon crushed L’Ouverture, reinstated slavery, (which L’Ouverture had so passionately supported), and imprisoned him, there were many similarities between these two. Both were military men first, and political leaders second; both overthrew their nation’s former government, both appeared as ‘hero’s to their followers, and both were exiled. In fact, L’Ouverture is sometimes known as the “black Napoleon”. If Napoleon had led St. Domingue, and L’Ouverture had ruled France, history might not have noticed the difference.

Other Sources Used:
http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm
http://www.helium.com/items/1775724-commonalities-between-napoleon-bonaparte-and-toussaint-louverture

Is Rebellion Necessary to an Effective Government?

After Shay's Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington expressed opposing views on this specific rebellion, and the nature of rebellions in general. Thomas Jefferson says, "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Jefferson supports the notion of rebellions as "learning experiences", in which the government can learn what grieves the public people enough to actively protest for change. Jefferson also says that rebellions need to be constant, and the government needs to be "mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much". He desires that governments should accept rebellions as learning experiences, and in handling the rebellion, the government should not be too harsh. Therefore, the government can always adapt to the desires of the people, and make sure that drastic revolution is never a consequence of unanswered protest. Furthermore, the public will be encouraged that their action is promoting progress, therefore they will be able to see that the government is listening to their concerns. In the end, this promotes a healthy, peaceful relationship between the government and the public which results in progress.

George Washington's philosophy, on the other hand, is to "Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once." His fundamental belief, in terms of rebellion, is that "Influence is no government"; that the people should never publicly rebel because most concerns cannot be immediately addressed. He essentially is saying that the public doesn't really influence the government, so there is no point in rebellion. Consequently, the people will become increasingly enraged, irrational and impatient (because their concerns are not being remedied) so that they're numbers will "snowball" over time and before the government knows it, revolution will be on their hands. His proposition, is to kill off the rebellion as soon as possible (before it's too late), and use force if necessary so that there is not even the slightest chance of revolt.

Personally, I tend to agree more with Jefferson's argument, because I believe that relatively peaceful rebellion (ex. protesting with signs, marches etc.) expresses public distaste to the government. An effective government is one that is based on the pillars of the "social contract"; basically, a government that serves for the people. Therefore, the government needs to be aware of the people's opinions and be able to reach compromises with the people that do not impose on the government's power, but also respect the wishes of the people (in order to avoid displeasing them, and ultimately causing them to rebel). I think that this awareness can often only be reached through protest, because the government is usually preoccupied with larger, international concerns, so that they overlook relatively lesser issues. In other words, I believe that protest and rebellion is often the only way to raise awareness of the public's concerns. Protest makes the scope of the problem seem more realistic and urgent to the government, and causes the priority of addressing the concern to increase because the issue will be in the very face of the government. Jefferson supports "a little rebellion now and then", because it is true that rebellion every so often brings the previously unknown concerns of the people to the government. The keywords are now and then, because if rebellion were to be constant, then there would always be chaos, and the government would have too much on their hands to deal with. It is also unrealistic to assume that the government can address all of the people's issues, while also dealing with external affairs such as trade, war, foreign relations etc. In conclusion, I think that progress hinges on two things, 1) the ability of the government to be understanding of any rebellion, and to be able to adapt itself to address the needs of the people (and thus avoiding future future revolution), and 2) the understanding of the people that the government cannot deal with all of their issues at once (rebellion is understandable only every now and then), and that the government cannot address ALL of their issues because some would simply be impossible within the confines of a constitution, or be a compromise to the nature of a government.

Acceptable, non violent, protest

Some Questions:

Who's argument is more convincing theoretically; Jefferson's or Washington's?

Within the the confines of a real government, which opinion is more realistic? What can the government realistically think about government?

What are your thoughts on the importance of rebellion in societies?

I believe that rebellion should never be violent (because there are always non-violent methods such as protest), and bloodshed is unnecessary, however is there justification for violent rebellion?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/408258/shays_rebellion.html?cat=37
http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2009/01/gaza-protest-170109/

Comparing and Contrasting Taverns and Salons

Colonial Tavern (up); Salon during Enlightenment (down)

After reading about taverns, I drew a parallel between the role of taverns and salons. Taverns during the American Revolution played a similar role to Salons during the Enlightenment, in that they encouraged discussion, debate and psychological progress, however there were fundamental differences in how they impacted their respective societies. Salons were hosted by wealthy, upperclass women, who invited intelligent, upperclassmen to discuss enlightenment-ideas such as "general will" or "the social contract". The actual discussion of such ideas was part of a larger public sphere, and in the process of debate, ideas were built upon or created by individuals so that ultimately there was an infinite amount of ideas being created. During the enlightenment, salons invited the upperclass to experience ideas that were formerly confined to highly intelligent philosophers during the scientific revolution. Salons allowed the upperclass to expose themselves to ideas that were thought of by philosophers, and that were formerly limited to these philosophers.

In the 1770s, taverns were a staple part of American towns, and cities. The appeal of Taverns were that they "provided alcoholic drinks,... where people could meet and talk openly in public" (Brinkley, 106). However, in addition to being a social establishment, Taverns were very similar to salons in that they played a huge role in the public sphere, because here, "taverns and pubs became the central meeting places for airing the ideas that fueled resistance to British policies" (Brinkley, 106-107). Essentially, taverns provided privacy and comfort for all colonists, where opinions could be discussed freely. Naturally, a lot of these opinions centered on politics and either outrage or content with the British government. Furthermore, just as in the salons, public resistance accumulated rapidly as ideas (about resistance) were debated, discussed and tossed around; ultimately resulting in brand new ideas that were supported by the masses. Eventually, this 'brainstorming' led to actual resistance groups such as the Sons of Liberty, who actively resisted Parliament.

Both Salons and Taverns generated an overwhelming surplus of ideas that spread because of the public sphere, however there was a major difference between the two. Taverns were entered by "educated and uneducated men alike... those who could not read---and there were many---could learn about the contents of Revolutionary pamphlets from listening to tavern conversations" (Brinkley, 107). Taverns, unlike salons, encouraged all facets of society to discuss revolutionary ideas, while the discussions in salons were attended solely by educated men (who were invited by high class women). The consequences of this disparity were that ideas created in taverns influenced the poor, the uneducated AND the upper class, while the ideas in salons only influenced the educated men and the wealthy hostesses. Perhaps, the added volume of participants in taverns led to more emotion, and subsequently more active resistance than salons, which primarily only encouraged more thinking (and not so much, active resistance). Perhaps, this is why the American Revolution was an actual, violent revolution, while the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were merely intellectual movements.

Do you agree with me that salons and taverns played similar roles in their respective revolutions? What do you think were the consequences of taverns influencing the poor and the rich alike? And the consequences of salons only being attended by the high class?

http://candiceroland.umwblogs.org/page/2/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salon_de_Madame_Geoffrin.jpg

Doubt

http://www.mesacc.edu/~yount/text/empm-v-ratm.html

This is a good explanation of the differences between empiricism and rationalism/deduction.

I already made a blog post for this grading period, but I was really intrigued in class about the concept of "doubt". Francis Bacon says, "Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature" (Novum Organum). He means that humans can only glean knowledge from experiences, senses and/or observation, which is his basic axiom and also is called empiricism. Therefore man can never assume anything or make generalizations, which Bacon calls "useless and abstract". He further goes to say that man must "Begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress" (Novum Organum). Essentially, in order to progress, we must question even the most accepted of ideas and reevaluate. For example, if someone were to use Bacon's philosophy, he/she could question the validity of gravity or even whether or not matter exists. In order to support the theory of gravity, said person would have to begin with observations about nature and then somehow support gravity through experimentation, so long as they never make any assumptions. Is this mindset backwards? Or does it result in progress?

Personally, I think that a world without doubt will not progress, and subsequently neither will a world without faith. (When I say faith, I don't mean religious faith, but I mean faith as in believing in something tangible or inherent). I agree with Bacon that we would "revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress" if we were to never question the world. This is because our potential progress would be limited to things we know, and if we never questioned former indisputable truths such as a geocentric system, or Lamarckian evolution, then we would have never arrived at modern theories (that could very well be disproven in the future) such as a heliocentric system or Darwinism. However, if we methodically and carefully followed Bacon's exact philosophy, which is, again, to doubt everything, then would we doubt even the conclusions that we reach through observation? Would we be trapped in an endless circle of doubt, starting over, observation, experimentation, and conclusion? In Bacon's ideal world, once we reached our conclusion we would not be able to proceed from there because in order to expand on our new findings, we would have to assume our conclusion to be true. Yes, this is probably a little too picky and technical but I think that empiricism is contradictory of progress, as is a society based on faith; therefore doubt must coexist with educated assumption in order to result in progress.

My solution to this problem is that every scientist should individually doubt all truths (such as color, sound, gravity etc.) ONCE and if any conclusions are drawn from subsequent experimentation then they should accept these conclusions to be true. This way, new discoveries can occur when an individual cleans their slate of all assumptions, but also forward progress can be made by expanding on any conclusions. Do you guys have any ideas of a potential "perfect" method to progress a society scientifically? Finally, some food for thought; do you guys think that Bacon could potentially be assuming too much? Because technically, his philosophy hinges on the assumption that our senses are correct. What if our eyes perceive the wrong colors? What if we see things backwards and in reverse? In conclusion, what is an official starting point for 'doubting everything'? Should we start with our senses or should we potentially start somewhere else. Perhaps I'm not articulating, but it's all very skeptical...

The end of Aristotelian Astronomy

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/jupmoon.html

Hey guys, after reading tonight's assignment about Newton and looking back on the previous' night assignment about Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo, I wanted to know if anyone had an opinion as to who definitively put an end to, or "demolished" the Ptolemaic or geocentric system. I think that the book portrays Newton's ideas as those that put an end to the old astronomic physics, specifically it reads, "The new findings had not, however, been fused together in a new synthesis, a single explanatory system that would comprehend motion both on earth and in the skies. That synthesis, which prevailed until the twentieth century, was the work of Isaac Newton" (594). The book is saying that Newton unified Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons, his law of inertia, Copernicus' heliocentric theory, and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion into one big concept that finally "disproved" Aristotelian physics. Newton apparently achieved this success by proving the notion of 'gravity' which strongly supported the heliocentric theory by making it all possible, and much more realistic than a crystal sphere-supported geocentric system.

However, I believe that the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system was damaged beyond repair much earlier, when Galileo made his discoveries about Jupiter's moons and momentum public. Together, his ideas strongly denied the existence of a crystal sphere system around earth. I think that the discovery of Jupiter's moons could have almost been sufficient in destroying the old theory, because it would have been impossible for the 'crystal sphere' idea to remain credible or impenetrable. The text says, "He quickly discovered the first four moons of Jupiter, which clearly suggested that Jupiter could not possibly be embedded in any impenetrable crystal sphere." (593). Subsequently, Galileo then throws in yet another piece of evidence, his law of intertia. Galileo proves mathematically, and this is important because by proving this mathematically he no longer requires the law of gravity to support his idea, that an object will keep in motion forever unless stopped by something. The text reads, "Rest was not a natural state of objects. Rather, an object continues in motion forever unless stopped by an external force" (593). In a larger picture, Galileo shows the world that planets do not need the assistance of 'angels' or 'crystal spheres' to keep in motion. So in one move, Galileo abolishes the impenetrability and notion of crystal spheres by sighting Jupiter's moons, and then in another body of evidence he further damages the crystal spheres, and the cornerstone of Aristotelian philosophy, by removing their function.

I think that Galileo definitely demolished the crystal sphere aspect of Aristotelian philosophy, and because this idea was so important to old Astronomy, I think that Galileo put an end to the old theory and catalyzed modern astronomy. Without crystal spheres, then the Aristotelian system is not possible, and this opened doors for new theories to take precedence. What idea or figure do you guys think demolished the old theories? Or perhaps, it was not just one person, but a chain of events that, together, put an end to them. Do you think that Galileo's ideas were not strong enough to debunk any theories until reinforced by the revelations of Newton? Or maybe it was even before Galileo, that the geocentric theory was ended.