Absolutism vs. Enlightenment — What's the Difference?

Absolutism and Enlightenment are terms rooted in historical and philosophical contexts, representing two distinct concepts. Absolutism is primarily associated with the idea of a single entity, usually a monarch, wielding absolute and unchecked power over a state. In societies practicing absolutism, the ruler's word was law, often believed to be divinely ordained. In contrast, Enlightenment is a period and movement in the 18th century that prioritized reason, science, and the power of human intellect to understand and shape the world.

While absolutism generally resisted change and innovation, promoting traditional forms of governance and societal norms, Enlightenment thinkers challenged established norms. The Enlightenment believed in questioning authority, which frequently placed it in opposition to absolutist rulers. Philosophers of the Enlightenment era posited that individuals had inalienable rights and that governance should be based on rational and scientific principles, not just hereditary or divine rights.

One could argue that these two concepts are diametrically opposed. Absolutism often stifled freedom of expression and thought, supporting the idea that individuals should submit to the absolute authority of the ruler. On the other hand, Enlightenment thinkers encouraged individual thought, freedom, and rational inquiry, promoting ideas that often clashed with the tenets of absolutist governance.

However, it's crucial to understand that both Absolutism and Enlightenment evolved within specific historical contexts, influencing and being influenced by the broader social, political, and economic environments of their times. While they might be seen as conflicting ideologies, both have left enduring marks on the annals of human history and thought.