In The Enlightenment in Europe and the Americas, both sides of the “old vs. new”, or “ancients” and “moderns”, debate are fleshed out and talked about in a philosophical sense. The “ancients” side argue that it is important to preserve the past mainly because of fear of isolation and the potential for lack of responsibilities. Proponents of the ancients believed that there were standards placed that provided models of achievement that just could never be excelled. Proponents of the moderns basically argued that old is old and new is new and the only way we should move is forward. They believed in broad autonomy, the education of women, exploring the unknown and human rights. A bipartisan agreement between both ancients and moderns relied on the ability to use reason as a guide rather than blindly following the will of some divine force that was clearly not present but only seen as a “watchmaker”. Slowly, the shift from God’s will to the people’s will occurred and, arguably, modernists took the helm in getting the world from where we were to where we currently are today. It’s worthwhile noting that, in my opinion, modernists can be looked at the modern-day Democrats or Liberals and ancients can be looked at as modern-day Republicans or Conservatives. Republicans strive for tradition while Democrats works in a similar fashion to the “moderns” described in this text. Moving away from the aspect of a “God” also made room for humans to seek out their own truths. Enlightenment thinkers used their own authority rather than relying on the word of a priest who was traditionally seen as someone “appointed by God”. In a sense, humans slowly became their own God.

Carlos Montoya