Enlightenment mechanism denied man’s historical capacity for development.

Evidence

Hobbes and later Enlightenment thinkers had assimilated man to nature in a manner that made man into an object, just as nature had been objectified in the new science. In their eyes, both man and nature were no more than machines. As a result, the assumption that nature repeated itself eternally was projected onto man, whose historical capacity for development, so closely bound to his subjectivity, was denied. For all its progressive intentions, this “scientific” view of man implied the eternal return of the present. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 776

Categorization

  • XREF: This is an early seed of the Dialectic of Enlightenment argument that enlightenment reverts to myth — the ‘eternal return of the present’ prefigures that inversion. — connects to: The idea that Eastern peoples cannot self-govern developed in the Enlightenment and persisted. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 360; Enlightenment ‘man’ served as a limit on power, not a target for correction — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 126; Orientalist discourse denies the Orient any capacity for historical development or change — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 517 (+3 more)

Broader Connections