On Human Identity: 1680-1780

Ideas of "the" Enlightenment(s) appeared more as a conversation

and discussion than a discourse or lecture. They asked certain similar
questions, but one can hardly find any "universal" agreements.
What I found most interesting in last week's readings centered
on the roundabout discussion of human identity. They discussed what
is best for humanity, but each author held certain presuppositions left
mostly un-discussed.
Is Enlightenment thinking guilty of patricide? Yamamoto. Rather
than defacing the monuments, we might add to that collection by
relying upon them. T.S. Eliot as presented by Sales in line with
Hamann.
We must note Barhdt's communal authority quote on 104. But
what came first, the individual or the community?
Fichte: Thou art no god, O prince.
Hume comes almost in support of Hutcheson (275-80) on 202
final line and elsewhere in the piece, also in "Of Luxury" (495-6).
Smith argues that there is "no self without society and other"
Edwards. Even self-criticism roots itself in the other. Contra Barhdt.
Furgeson (380-2) no static "human nature." It must be
understood as if in process: legitimates custom/tradition. Sales
disagrees with historical optimism, and challenges the "progressive"
model. Manzer takes the progress not as part of human nature, but as
a tool used by humanity.
Wollstonecraft (618-29) shoves a steel-toe boot so far up
Rousseau's anatomy.