Talk:American Enlightenment

message: I didn't write this. It was originally the whole article at "American Enlightnment" (sic), straight up, no jokes: haha--66.193.131.48 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many believe that the American revolution was directly linked to the enlightenment and that is was an enviable outcome. I find no supporting evidence of such a statement. While it can be said that a child will eventually leave their parents there is nothing that states that the child will rebel against those parents. This is something done by the childed based on the way they are treated and shown how to treat issues. I believe that the American colonies can be seen as such a child. America was destined to leave her mother country, enland, however it was not inevitable that she do so with such violence and rebellion. Much of the reasons behind the rebellion were based on the way Britain began treating the colonies, much as a mother would as she becomes menopausal. Based on the way the relationship began with the conlinoines and Britain , the things could very well have reqmined as they were for a lot longer. Eventually the Americans could have separated themselves as a free nation, but without all the violence that ensued.
I think I have an idea for a PhD thesis: Great Britain as Post-Menopausal Mum: A Canadian Perspective! Teehee. QuartierLatin1968 00:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I didn't write this

message: This is a very good start! Here are my comments - they might seem overwhelming at first, but I really do think that this is an excellent beginning!
;The Enlightenment in America, Britain and France
*I would add a few more sentences explaining the moderate Enlightenment and the revolutionary Enlightenment as well as what in particular American thinkers took from both. For example, rather than just saying the "pluralist constitutional politics" of Hume, perhaps you could discuss the impact on Madison and the constitution?
*This section needs citations to the historians you cite in the text.
;Republicanism
*The first paragraph is not very intelligible to those who haven't read Pocock, Bailyn, Wood, and Kramnick. I agree that the narrative you are telling is the most common one told, but the terms of that narrative need to be explained more fully to the reader. I would give a paragraph to each theory. Pocock's view, in particular, is difficult to explain, as the words "republican" and "liberal" mean different things in his argument than they do to the average American reader - and here we have to consider readers all over the world.
*Rather than quoting large swaths of text, I would urge you to paraphrase. It is easier for a reader to follow one style of prose.
::I think this paragraph needs to be changed. As it is written, it implies that republicanism and liberalism were opposing sets of ideas. Republicanism (as the word meant at the time) was more *related* to liberalism (as the word meant at the time) than opposed to it, because it was about a form of self-rule as opposed to monarchy. Republicanism and liberalism were different ideas but mainly because they were about different things. Republicanism referred to the way a government should be formed, and liberalism referred to a philosophic outlook and a political philosophy that flowed through it. Republicanism was the form of government that liberals tended to like. Bailyn's point had to do with what set of priorities most strongly motivated people in bringing about the Revolution, not that Revolutionaries would agree with one set of ideas and not the other. As it is written most readers would associate the terms with Republicans and Democrats, which they have nothing much to do with. Rlitwin (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with these comments.  Even after adding a section on the dates of the enlightenment that discusses other areas briefly, the article is heavily weighted towards political philosophy, neglecting the above and other major areas.  I propose that the outline be restructured to put the several political philosophy sections under one heading as subsections, and include sections on Religion (subsections on Rationalism and The Great Awakening, The Religion of Nature and Deism, Religious tolerance, Natural Philosophy (science), Educational Reform,  and one section on Art, Architecture, Music, Drama, and Literature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrycroswell (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Awadewit 

message: I deleted long passages on Europeans (like Locke and Deism) not tied directly to the American Enlightenment.  They are covered in their own articles.  I alse emphasize that republicanism has a long American history before 1776 (says Bailyn, Wood, Pocock). Rjensen (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Europeans have their own articles