Godwin's treatise, akin to the spirit of the time in which he is
writing--the Enlightenment period and just after the French Revolution, argues
a seemingly anarchist perspective, elevating reason and rendering the
traditions of the past just that: of the past and highly antiquated with regard
to the furtherance of society in a positive, intellectual direction. He
recounts the "evils" of the established norms and conventions such as
those of co-habitation and property, regarding them as wholly immoral and
deprecating. He, in my opinion rather too optimistically, prophesies that
if society were to truly take to reason above all else, they could achieve
immortality and a state of utopia. While his points aim essentially to make his
readers more aware of the political and moral developments of the age and how
they are counterproductive, he appears to succumb to an overambitious tenor in
his ardor to reveal the constraint of current institutions.
I agree, Godwin was far too optimistic in his promotion of reason. Pascal said something to the effect of "The heart has its reasons that reason knows not," and I think this really captures the flaw in Godwin's argument... he leaves no room for emotion or feeling. Firstly, you cannot abolish emotional reaction or though. Seondly, if if his utopian society is truly one without emotion, running entirely on reason, then it is bound for a quick doom. After all, some of the greatest tragedies in history have operated under the disguise of rationality.
I agree, Godwin was far too optimistic in his promotion of reason. Pascal said something to the effect of "The heart has its reasons that reason knows not," and I think this really captures the flaw in Godwin's argument... he leaves no room for emotion or feeling. Firstly, you cannot abolish emotional reaction or though. Seondly, if if his utopian society is truly one without emotion, running entirely on reason, then it is bound for a quick doom. After all, some of the greatest tragedies in history have operated under the disguise of rationality.
ReplyDelete