period of the enlightenment and Enlightened despotism

Science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was concerned not only with an increase of information about the universe- the evolution, physical and biological development - it was also deeply involved with other questions pertaining to the speculation about the nature of being, and God and also metaphysics which implies something beyond or above the physical. Throughout the Christian period prior to the seventeenth century metaphysics had been intimately connected with theology and whatever was determined by the scientists had been closely related to the metaphysics of the Christian revelations. From this time onwards metaphysics became associated with natural science and this new knowledge was increasingly identified in the words of Hayes, ''with a philosophy which in its questioning of any supernatural revelation was nonchristian if not anti-Christian. In the 17th and 18th centuries natural science itself underwent a development rather than a revolution, it was accompanied by a philosophy, a metaphysics which was amply revolutionary.

The 17th and 18th centuries witnessed a few first rate philosophers - Descartes, Gassendi, Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant. All of them, though they differed in details were all under the contemporary spell and development of the physical science. To quote Hayes ''All scientists were inclined to be philosophical and all philosophers scientific''. The philosophers ignored if they did not attack the religious inclinations of their intellectual predecessors. They would not have wished to be known as the metaphysical but they certainly were metaphysical in the sense that they were deeply interested  in obtaining the "Higher truth" , from their knowledge of the material universe and they revealed in their systems that modern natural science could be as meta-physical as mediaeval Christian theology.

What the philosophers and scientists of the age thought themselves to be was ''enlightened ''. They  were without doubt more enlightened than the scholars of the earlier age regarding the operations of nature and consequently tended to be sceptical of previous explanation of natural phenomena.

It was not only the philosophers and scientists who were enlightened but also intellectuals and also they would be intellectuals. Even the absolute rulers who believed in Divine Right of Kings were also becoming enlightened. 

To the majority of the 18th century thinkers, the development of natural science was associated with a metaphysics which involved four concepts. First it involved the substitution of the natural for the supernatural, of Science for theology, and the assumption that the whole universe of matter and mind is guided and controlled by the natural law ; secondly , it exalted and almost defied human reason, which could and according to the rational moral sense should be utilized by the individual to discover the laws of nature and to enable him to conform his life to them thirdly assuming that man would use his reason and obey the natural law human race; Fourthly it included a tender regard for the natural rights of the individual and a predication for the social blessings of an enlightened humanitarianism.

In the light of the above institutions and practices which through age had acquired any degree of popular respect in the field of religion , politics and society were ruthlessly dissected by the enlightened in order to discover if they were rational,  if they were in harmony with natural law, if they promoted human progress, guaranteed individual rights and conferred immediate benefits on the world. Enlightenment touched the hearts of contemporary emperors and rulers who became progressive in their views as other members of the eighteenth century European society. Rulers like Frederick the Great of Prussia, Joseph II of Austria and Catherine the Great of Russia had a deep sympathy with the intellectuals of the times. The rulers did more than philosophers to make enlightenment a reality. These rulers sought to satisfy the demand for reform in government and society, in Church and education. These rulers not only openly sympathised with the intellectual revolution but felt that they were the most qualified people to work for the true national interest of the population. They were determined to work for the betterment of their subjects and people. The kingdom of these rulers were ideally suited for the theory of enlightened despotism but also for the whole reform programme of  Enlightenment. 

 ENLIGHTENED DESPOTISM - AND REFORM

The Enlightened despotism as practised by Frederick the Great and other rulers suffered from certain inherent weaknesses. One such weakness was the prevailing dynastic character of the European state system of the period. No matter how enlightened these rulers were they could seldom carry and policy of reform to complete. Secondly, these enlightened rulers were not willing to devote their energy to internal reform. All of them engaged in wars which in a sense were destructive of their progressive measures. Thirdly these rulers had an attitude of supreme contempt for their unenlightened subjects. Lastly the perpetuation of enlightened despotism on every able ruler being succeeded by an equally able ruler. This seldom happened. 

However, the Enlightened despots were able to introduce many reform which beneficial for their subjects. They introduced reforms in government and society for which the philosophers of the age clamoured. They did succeed in reforming a few bad features of the ancient regimes though they could not strike worthwhile balance enlightenment and despotism.