Question

Is the debate between the Enlightenment philosophy and the Rousseauist, or anti-Enlightenment philosophy, be boiled down on a debate concerning the nature of the human in relation to science and technology: the Enlightenment philosophy considering that the human species is intrinsically dependent on and motivated by technical and scientific progress, while Rousseauist/anti-Enlightenment philosophy considering it is not*? *not going to much into detail here, but basically the argument being the human species has not much to see with scientific and technological progress, but everything to see with other things such as group identity, or collective reciprocity, etc.; some anti-Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau positioning themselves explicitly against science and technology. make mcq What is a key point of contention in the debate between Enlightenment philosophy and Rousseauist/anti-Enlightenment philosophy?

A) The role of religion in society
B) The nature of human dependence on science and technology
C) The interpretation of historical events
D) The definition of political sovereignty

Answer 1

The key point of contention in the Enlightenment philosophy vs. Rousseauist/anti-Enlightenment philosophy debate is the nature of human dependence on science and technology.

Step-by-step explanation:

The key point of contention in the debate between Enlightenment philosophy and Rousseauist/anti-Enlightenment philosophy is The nature of human dependence on science and technology. Enlightened thinkers believed that human progress and improvement were intrinsically tied to scientific and technological advancements. They saw reason and empirical study as the foundation for human improvement. On the other hand, Rousseauist and anti-Enlightenment thinkers argued that human progress was not solely dependent on science and technology, but on other factors such as group identity, collective reciprocity, and natural human instincts. They positioned themselves explicitly against science and technology.