Abstract: The statement to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends the better to chose means" made by Landes concerning the trend of the past 600 years is only half right. Support for this essay comes of knowedge from The World Is Flat by Friedman, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Landes, and wikipedia.com. The importance of this is to show that countries do follow a trend, but do not see the "ends".
From the beginnings of Humanism, through the Reformation, The Scientific Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, and now in the Flattening or the World, change is constant. But is the trend of all those years, as Landes says in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, that we should "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends the better to chose means"? More simply, is the tendency in attempting betterment and progress to never trust someone else's Truth, to challenge, to be aware of others success, and finally to first look at the consequences of actions before acting on them, so as to find the best way to get to the desired outcome.
Humanism started the close of the Middle Ages and was the beginning of the Renaissance. Humanism began with the belief that although God and getting to heaven were important to them, their lives on earth could have meaning and purpose as well. People began focusing more on the sensual human experience, most drastically expressed through art and its change from the middle ages to the Renaissance.
Eventually Humanism developed into not just believing that the individual life has meaning of its own, but it caused people to begin to question The Church's authority. The humanistic Revolution pushed "skeptical faith". Humanism made people wonder about other aspects of life besides religion and caused them to question long held beliefs; "avoiding dogma". People began to learn from Greek literature and philosophies, and they became even more skeptical of the ways in which they had been living and The Church which had taught them these things. Humanism seems to follow (Middle Ages to the left, Renaissance to the right)
most of Landers definition of the "trend", in that it caused questioning; but were the people basing their questions and actions on an end goal? Were they planning ahead and using the best means to get to a predestined outcome? Could they have for-see the Reformation and Scientific Revolution? Or did they happen as an unpredicted affect?
Erasmus was a Humanist who, although he did not want division in the church, played a part in bringing about the Reformation. He made editions of The Old Testament, and added into it Humanistic touches, and would criticize the Catholic Church. Though he played his part in causing people who read his works to question some of the practices of their Catholic religion he remained a catholic himself, and it was Martin Luther who really made the Reformation happen. Luther wrote his 95 theses, or criticisms of The Church which were printed, distributed, and read by hundreds. Eventually Luther broke away completely from The Catholic Church, with a religion or his own, and many followed him. Among many of Luther's ideas, was his institution of "solo scriptora" meaning that the truth is in the text and you find it yourself, what you find is truth for you, and only you can find it. Luther challenged The Church and it's dogma, the Reformation gave many people a more skeptical faith in their superiors, but was Martin Luther planning for the end outcome of his revolt? Was it really his plan for hundreds of religions to break off of each other after his example? Could he possibly have been thinking that the shake in Catholic authority would help bring about the Scientific Revolution?
Humanism through the Reformation brought questioning, skepticism, and rebellion from The Church, there wasn't a better time for science to follow suite then while the flame for answers was flaring. The Scientific Revolution came about and tested Faith, tradition, The Church, and formerly believed science. The publication of Diderot's Encyclopedia created conflict with some of it's articles that contradicted Church doctrine. Galileo, following the Copernican idea of a sun centered universe, shook Europe with his work to prove heliocentricism over the traditionally believed earth centered universe theory. As science pulled away from tradition and The Church people were put in a place where they would have to believe science that said it had proof, or their religious faith that said it had Truth. Was the Scientific Revolution testing other's truths, learning from others, and challenging dogma and faith? Yes. But was the plan of the scientists and those who followed them to be the start of a continuing and worsening science versus religion, creation versus a godless universe battle? Was it their plan to lead into Industrializing Europe and beyond? Could they have thought all that?
Science and it's machine inventions such as the steam engine and spinning wheel fueled the Industrial Revolution. Farmers, due to new farm equipment, were able to produce more food than was needed for their family, and so were able to sell it. Because people could now purchase food, not every one needed to be a farmer. This freed people to be able to work in factories.
Britain excelled and for a long period of time led Europe at industrialization. Britain pulled ahead because they saw the benefit of producing goods in an industrialized way and how it would be good for their economy. For a long time other countries, like Spain, did not follow the example. Spain, having great wealth from the New World chose not to take part in industrializing their country and bought instead of keeping up exports to maintain their wealth. However, when countries like France and Germany finally decided they needed to follow Britain's example, they did the smartest thing they could have; they didn't start at the beginning and work their way to Britain's present position. Instead they started right with the newest ideas, forms of machinery and practices. This in turn brought them ahead of Britain who, instead of embracing the ideas and advances of other countries, clung to their secret, but old ways of doing things, falling some what behind. The Industrial Revolution is the perfect example of "listening and watching well". When Britain took the leap into industrializing they were doing just that, they realized the advantage and took it. The rest of Europe when it followed the example of Britain, and continued to push forward also was "listening and watching well". But were the owners of the factories and the inventors of the new machines and other technologies aware of the huge part they were playing in progressing the economic flatness of the world? Could they have known they were bringing about our society today?
From the beginning of industries we have moved to where we are now: an ever flattening economic world. Technology is progressing rapidly as we try to keep up with it. Out sourcing, in sourcing, off shoring, supply chaining, and automating and informing all come with it. Countries are connected, businesses are connected, ideas and information are shared and spread quickly and easily. The flattening of the world is also a good example of "listen and watch well". People who succeed in The Flat World are people who are conscious of the advances made around them and who not only keep up, but stay ahead and never let their neighbor learn something without taking advantage of the knowledge, putting it to use and building off of it. But as these technologies and advancements progress seemingly always greater, farther, and faster, are we even looking to an "end"?
Clearly, from the Humanistic Revolution to the Flat World, the trend has been, as Landes stated, to "cultivate a sceptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well". The Humanists were skeptical of faith, the men of the Reformation avoided dogma, those in the Scientific Revolution were both skeptical of faith and avoiding dogma, the Industrial Revolution and The Flat World both exemplify times of listening and watching well. The end of Landers statement however, "try to clarify ends, the better to choose means" does not really hold true. The early Humanists, the Reformists, Scientists, and Industrializers could not have seen the ends, or rather, beginnings that would eventually come of their actions, and in the flattening world in which we live, we aren't looking for ends.
