Personalistic overtones in the realization of Enlightenment ideas (based on the history of the Illuminati Order)

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

Immanuel Kant, describing the Enlightenment, wrote the following. "ENLIGHTENMENT is a person's way out of the state of underage, in which he is through his own fault. Underage is the inability to use your mind without guidance from someone else.<…>Enlightenment requires only freedom... <...> the public use of one's own mind should always be free and only it can give enlightenment to people. But the private use of reason must often be very limited, but in such a way that it does not particularly hinder the development of enlightenment. <...> No epoch can commit itself and swear to put the next epoch in a position where it would be impossible for it to expand its (primarily urgently needed) knowledge, get rid of mistakes and generally move forward in enlightenment. This would be a crime against human nature, the original purpose of which is precisely this movement forward." ^{[4, pp. 29, 31, 33]}.

As we can see, Kant focuses on personality and the development of reason and society, while he understands personality in two ways: on the one hand, it is "freedom over natural necessity", on the other ? voluntary adherence to duty, morality and reason, which were backed by law and the national state. "This," Kant writes, "is nothing but personality, that is, freedom and independence from the mechanism of all nature, considered at the same time as the ability of a being who is subject to special, namely, given by his own mind, pure practical laws…The moral law is sacred (inviolable). Man, however, is not so holy, but humanity in his person should be sacred to him" ^{[5, pp. 509, 511]}.

Speaking about the enlightenment, Kant is referring to the pan-European process of the formation of modernity, first of all, reforms in education, the constitution of national states, the formation of law and culture, but believes that the leading role is played by the individual, despite his natural selfish desires. "Kantian ethics,? explains Piama Gaidenko, ?set strict requirements for the individual: he had to enter into a difficult struggle with his inclinations…For Kant, freedom was defined as the opposite of the natural principle, measured by the measure of resistance to nature" ^{[3, pp. 95-96, 99]}.

The main part

While agreeing with Kant, who points to the role of the individual, it is necessary, nevertheless, to pay attention to the fact that during this period the individual was opposed by two institutions ? the weakening, but still powerful Catholic Church and the rapidly developing, gaining strength national state. The latter moves from the role of a tax collector, protection from external enemies, and maintenance of internal order to universal control and management, including for individuals. "Summing up," writes Martin Kreveld, "it should be noted that the period under consideration is characterized by the creation of an apparatus that allowed the state to do without intermediaries and exert unprecedented pressure on its citizens. "The transformation of the state from an instrument into an ideal," Creveld writes, "would never have happened if it had not strengthened control over society, far surpassing everything that its predecessors had only tried to do in the early Modern period… Every European, and subsequently any other, state after 1789 wanted to be sure that the daily activities of the population were under its control and, as far as possible, served the purposes of this very state. The most important means of achieving this were the police and the prison apparatus, the education and social security systems" ^{[7, pp. 124, 165-166]}.

Individuals and personalities, as subjects incommensurable in strength with the church and the state, begin to organize themselves in order to control these institutions, on the one hand, into Society, on the other ? into local communities (parties, unions, orders). If Society represents the citizens of the nation?state as a whole, then communities are separate groups of citizens, including individuals. The relations between these three subjects and social forces (institutions of church and state, Society and communities) were far from blissful, there was a struggle between them, the result of which, on the one hand, was the demarcation and separation of zones of influence, on the other ? the suppression of the enemy, which often turned out to be communities and individuals. At the same time, a variety of means were used ? power, laws, philosophy and science, art, etc. It is in this context that the conspiracy discourse develops, whose followers accused the Illuminati of plotting against religion and the state, discourse as a tool using both rational arguments, for example, scientific and artistic. To better understand the complex transformation of sociality and personality indicated here, consider one example ? the formation and evolution of the movement and the Order of the Illuminati.     

They arose precisely in the wake of the implementation of the Enlightenment project, which is clearly seen in the goals of the first union and the first Order of the Illuminati ("Union of those Striving for Perfection", Bund der Perfektibilisten; "Order of the Illuminati", Illuminatenorden). Its ideologist, Adam Weishaupt, a lecturer at the university Department of Canon Law, put forward the main goal of the union as "the fight against clericalism in the German education system, especially the influence of the Jesuits on it. “My goal is to demonstrate the advantage of reason," Weishaupt wrote in his policy statement in May 1776. It was planned that his society would 'gradually pin down the enemies of reason and humanity', which is necessary to 'improve our economic, political, philosophical and religious system'" ^{[8, p. 122]}.

"The teaching of the order, based on the idea of universal enlightenment and through it the spiritual salvation of mankind, bore the imprint of the worldview of Weishaupt himself, who was influenced by ... the preachers of rationalism. Weishaupt taught that human nature is inherently good and inclined to goodness, but external conditions, primarily oppression by tyrants and lack of access to education, make it evil…The primary task of the ruler is enlightenment; with universal enlightenment of people, all states will come to harmonious peaceful coexistence and thereby bring the salvation of mankind closer in a religious sense" ^{[8, pp. 124-125]}.

These provisions are worth commenting on. As we can see, the conversation is not only about education and science (enlightenment), but in general about the formation of European culture (economy, state, values of the new social order, etc.). And what is meant by saving humanity? It is clearly not a medieval understanding of the second coming of Christ and the task of turning an old man into a new one, living in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. Rather, salvation is understood as the construction of a new world based on the ideas of reason and freedom, guaranteeing the European personality well-being and power, provided that he masters nature and his passions. As Francis Bacon wrote: "Let the human race only seize its right to nature, which has been assigned to it by divine grace, and let it be given power" <...> but before it can approach the more remote and intimate in nature, it is necessary to introduce a better and more perfect use of the human spirit and mind<...> the way to this was opened to us by no other means than the just and legitimate belittling of the human spirit" ^{[1, pp. 192-193; 2, 68-69]}.    

The next question that arises when reading the Weishaupt manifesto is, what is an order, how does it differ from a social institution such as a church or a state? On the one hand, the order, as well as the social institution, is focused on solving certain problems in well-defined ways, fixed through the organization of the Order and the rules (charter) ^{[9, pp. 101-109]}. For example, the structure of the Illuminati Order "consisted of primary cells-lodges united into prefectures under the control of the general order council, modeled on the chivalric German Masonic statutes, primarily Strict obedience <...> members of the order were taught both the spiritual teachings of the founder and the basics of social sciences: philosophy, social studies, history and law <...> ^{[8, pp. 124, 125]}. The activities of another Illuminati Order, the New Israel, were joint prayer, ecstatic religious practices of purification and repentance, meditation ("silent prayer"), alchemical experiments, the practice of theurgy and prophetic sessions, when questions were asked to "Heaven" and answers were received, in turn interpreted according to biblical texts using a special digital code" ^{[8, p. 128]}.    

On the other hand, if a social institution was open to any social individual on the territory of a national state and was closely connected with other social institutions ^{[9, pp. 109-116]}, then the Order served only members of a certain community and was in difficult relations with social institutions. For example, the Templar Order was created for such a community, which included knights monks who were striving with all their soul for salvation, but at the same time did not let go of their sword. "The mission of the Templar Order was formulated by St. Bernard as a double ministry: fighting the devil in heaven and his minions on earth, protecting Christ and helping all those who walk the path of salvation. A knight monk is a warrior of Christ in heaven and on earth, beloved of the Mother of God" ^{[9, p. 119]}. Successfully competing with the royal power and the church, the Templars aroused the envy and anger of the latter, which, in the end, resulted in the persecution and defeat of the Order. "The destruction of the Templars in 1312 by Philip IV," writes L. Karsavin, "was an act of brute force caused by the centralized aspirations and financial desires of the royal power" ^{[6, p. 119]}

There is nothing surprising here: since the Orders focused on individual communities and a certain type of personality, they often sought either to get out of control of the state and its institutions or to direct their activities in a direction desirable for the Order, a direction that usually did not coincide with the goals and mission of the state, which, in Creveld's words, sought to control everyone and everything is on their territory. One of the tools of the state (and the church) in the fight against independent Orders were conspiracy discourses and art. A striking example is the fight against the Illuminati.

"Due to the widespread coverage of the Illuminati Order in the European press and the scandals associated with it, by the end of the XVIII century. a number of conspiracy theories about the activities of the Illuminati were formed <...> the Illuminati, ? writes J. de Mestre, who influenced M.M. Speransky, who was accused, among other things, of "illuminating", is called those malicious persons who nowadays dared to conceive and even form a criminal society in Germany with the terrible goal of exterminating Christianity and legitimate power in Europe. [pp. 130, 131 And here is an example of the reminiscences of this struggle against the Illuminati already in our time in art. "In this regard, it should be noted the fantastic-satirical trilogy by Robert Shea and R.A. Wilson "Illuminatus!" (1975-1984) and several of its sequels, in which their authors created them as an anthology of world conspiracy theories…The book contains many excerpts from sources from different years telling about the "Illuminati conspiracy", as well as a number of their own inventions" [8, p. 136].    

Conclusion

Of course, the artists, I think unconsciously, not only worked for the state and the church, they were attracted by the wide possibilities of a conspiracy plot, as well as the mystery and esoteric nature of the Illuminati's activities ^[10]. However, from the point of view of the latter, it was just a style and protection, allowing, on the one hand, to preserve their freedom, on the other ? to hide from the pervasive control of the state, on the third hand, a condition for passage into the reality of a proper life and salvation. The activities of the Illuminati and other Orders (communities) were directed by a New European personality who, as Kant wrote, aspired to adulthood, the desire to "use his mind without guidance from someone else," which was in contradiction with the desire of the state and the Catholic Church to direct and control the mind and actions of a person. This dilemma and contradiction persist and have not been resolved to this day, although they exist and operate in other social and cultural conditions and forms.