Hicks 1

Paula Hicks Dr. Vigliotti Paper 1 The Enlightenment Legacy of Darwin, Freud and Marx The Age of the Enlightenment refers to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe. It is marked by a rejection of the medieval world view, replacing it with an emphasis on empirical scientific study and a strong reliance on human reason. The medieval world relied heavily on the philosophy of Aristotle, and employed Ptolemy’s geocentric design of the universe. The philosophical focus was on metaphysics, the study of how we can know that things exist. When studying the natural world, the medieval mind employed Aristotle’s teleological world view, and his notion of final causality.1 However, the discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus’ helio-centered order of the universe began to cause a change in outlook. Amazed at what could be learned with the development of new tools and the sheer power of observation, the Enlightenment is marked by a huge shift toward scientific thinking and questioning. Only knowledge through rational thought and by empirical study was valued. No longer were men concerned with how a thing came to exist, but rather, the focus shifted to understanding how it worked through careful observation. This led to the adoption of the view that the world operates in a machine like fashion, running according to “natural and predictable rules.”2
1 Dr. Tina Baceski, “Medieval World View” (Class lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, January 22, 2010). 2 The European Enlightenment: Seventeenth Century Enlightenment Thought, World Civilization, ed. Richard Hooker, in the Washington State University online catalog, http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/PREPHIL.HTM, (accessed January 26-March 10 2010).

This led to another very clear shift in the spirit of the era, particularly an overwhelming sense that by employing rational thought, man was unstoppable. In an ironic shift, as Copernicus and Galileo assisted in shifting the earth, and by extension man, from its long held place in the center of the universe, the enlightenment was the time when man really came to own himself, to be his own ruler. Enlightenment thinkers espoused the idea that as members of a world which was seen in terms as a rational mechanism, human were constructed this way as well, and that with the proper training, we could come to understand this system.3 Consequently, this shift towards rational empirical study also had an effect on religion. Enlightenment thinkers felt as though religious doctrine called upon one to suspend reason, and they could not reconcile the notion that god would give man rationality, then deny him the ability to use it while engaged in spiritual contemplation.4 This prompted many to adopt the ideology of Deism, which sees god as a creator, as the watchmaker of the great watch that is the world.5 Arguing the rational superiority of Deism, Thomas Paine states, “[t]he Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than creation itself, and his own existence.”6 Furthermore, many Enlightenment thinkers, most notably, Marquis de Condorcet, predicted that the harnessing of rational thought would lead mankind to a utopian future. In his book, Outlines of an historical view of the progress of the human mind, he clearly states that he views human history as one of intellectual progress eventually ending in utopia. He predicts the development of rational thought will lead to three things, “the destruction of inequality between
3 Ibid. 4 Thomas Paine: On the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion, Modern History Sourcebook, ed. Paul Halsall, in Internet Modern History Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-deism.html, (accessed January 26-March 10 2010). 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

Hicks 3

different nations; the progress of equality in one and the same nation; and lastly, the real improvement of man.”7 At the heart of his theory is the notion universal education can resolve all inequality. He writes that “instruction, properly directed, corrects the natural inequality of faculties, instead of strengthening it; […] in societies whose institutions shall have effected this equality, liberty, though subjected to a regular government, will be more extensive, more complete , than in the independence of savage life.”8 He sees education, the cultivating of the mind, as the true liberating force. For Condorcet, education will create the overall betterment of the world in terms of a trickle down model: if an individual man recognizes his own worth, so he recognizes this in others and works for the equality in his state, as each other state reaches this point, the peace and equality shall be extended to the entire world.9 The legacy of the Enlightenment thinkers is two-fold. On the one hand, they radically changed the entire outlook and focus of the world. Modern scientific methods and attitudes can trace its roots to this period. Yet, the optimistic predictions of a utopian future, driven by rational thought set the standards of achievement very high for future generations. We shall now examine three notable scholars from the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx. As the next generation of scientists and scholars, these men inherited these Enlightenment ideals and goals. As such, we shall examine to what extent each personifies the Enlightenment spirit, yet simultaneously unraveled it. It shall be made clear that Darwin undermined the uniqueness of humanity; Freud showed that a utopia is not possible, while
7 Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas-Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet: Outlines of an historical view of the progress of the human mind, In Rockhurst University’s WebCt8 Internet System, https://webct8.rockhurst.edu/webct/urw/lc2044122001.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct, (Accessed January 26-March 10 2010), 3. 8 Ibid., 5. 9 Ibid., 5-10.

Marx shifted the driving force of development away from rational thought and replaced it with economic model of development. Of the three thinkers, it is Charles Darwin, primary author of the theory of evolution and one of the most influential modern scientists, who is the best example of dedication to Enlightenment ideals. This is because Darwin was a biologist who spent his life engaged in empirical study of the natural world. Yet, ironically, Darwin’s dedication to the scientific process of observation and empirical study, the champion of the Enlightenment, as well as his findings served to undermine the role of man and the utopian goal the most. In 1831 the young Darwin set out on a five year journey around the world.10 Over the course of those years he saw many things that amazed him, such as huge fossil remains of extinct animals, rain forests and volcanic islands.11 Most noted of these travels, is the time he spent on the Galapagos Islands, as the wide array of flora and fauna would contribute significantly to his later writings, in particular his observation of finches. He noted that each “island had its own species […] [and] each bird’s anatomy and behavior was suited to exploit specific food sources available in its habitat.”12 Over the course of the next forty years, Darwin dedicated himself to further study and observation, and trying to explain his findings. Using the knowledge he learned from Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population as a guide, that “organisms have the potential to produce far more offspring than can actually survive,”13 Darwin began theorizing about the way life developed. Darwin was able to deduce that overtime organisms changed and responded according to their environment. Very simply, his
10 William P. Cunningham and Mary Ann Cunningham, Environmental Science: A Global Concern, 11th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010), 75. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.

Hicks 5

theory states that some organisms will possess certain features, or mutations that better prepare them for survival in a particular environment. They can then pass these traits onto their offspring. Over time, those better suited for their environment survive and multiply. This leads to species variation and the extinction of certain species that are unable to adapt to their environment. These findings had enormous impact. On the one hand, they were most influential in maintaining the Enlightenment ideal that rational thought was superior to religious dogma. Darwin had explained the process by which all life came to exist the way it does and thus challenged religious dogma on this subject. The rationalist thinkers of the day thought that “he epitomized the scientist’s ability to penetrate areas of knowledge once obscured by religious dogma.”14 On the other hand, his concept of survival of the fittest, “served as a factor in legitimizing political and economic liberalism.”15 Economic liberalism is one which strongly supports laissezfaire economics, as developed by Adam Smith. The system favors free markets with little or no government regulation. The underlying principle is that companies should be free to serve their own interest, and this process will naturally encourage competition, thus creating a situation where the best goods are produced at the least cost. Yet it was the final implication of his theory that all evolutionary developments resulted from random gene mutations and adaptations, served to be the most instrumental in unraveling Enlightenment ideals. Despite the fact that the Enlightenment view dislodged the earth and humans from the center of the universe, it still placed a very high value on man, and saw the

14 Lecture 26 The Age of Ideologies (4): Charles Darwin and Evolutionary Theory, The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History, ed. Steven Kreis, in The History Guide, http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture26a.html, (January 31-March 10, 2010). 15 Ibid.

reasoning ability as that which really set humans apart from the animals. The human mind was viewed as the key to understanding the universe and the perpetual betterment of our minds was our history and our goal. The critical underlying point is that there was a goal. Darwin erased that. Not only were all developments random, but it became “impossible to pick out one modern species – like the human race and say that it is the goal toward the whole process has been working.”16 What was once man’s glorious gift and power had been reduced to nothing more that genetic chance, and the advancement of useful adaptations to the environment. Furthermore, humanity, by all probability, will continue to evolve and grow. Not, however, by the meticulous design of perfect human reasoning, but rather by the ascension of certain members of the species who randomly happen to posses certain traits that allow them to better survive in various environments. The next thinker we shall examine is Sigmund Freud, who lived during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and is considered to be one of the pioneers of modern psychology. His dedication to Enlightenment methods and ideals are also readily apparent. First and foremost, he was a scientist. His passion for the sciences led him to enter the medical school at the University of Vienna. While there he developed an interest in physiology and dedicated “his research to the study of the nervous system.”17 After graduation he went onto work in a hospital in Vienna, focusing his research on “brain anatomy and neurology”18 and later he studied under one of “Europe’s leading neurologists,”19 Martin Charcot. However his greatest achievement and legacy is the method of psychoanalysis which he
16 Ibid. 17 John Deigh, “Freud,” in A Companion to Continental Philosophy , ed. Simon Critchley and William R. Schroeder (Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 1998), 162. 18 Ibid. 19Ibid., 163.

Hicks 7

developed. This came after years of private practice. During this time, while still interested in the working of the human mind and human behavior, he switched his focus from the study of the brain itself to that human behavior. After working with patients displaying symptoms of hysteria, such as “compulsions, obsessive thoughts, [and] excessive fears”20 he noticed that after long periods of discussing the events in patients lives, slowly the symptoms subsided. Simultaneously, the information that the patients gave him regarding their dreams, previous experiences and memories, helped Freud to develop a theory of how the brain worked.21 Essentially, this theory asserts that the human mind operates on conscious and unconscious levels, and is motivated by two instincts the Eros or sexual energy and the death or destructive energy. According to Freud, the conflicts between these opposing levels and energies manifest as psycho-neurotic illnesses. The unconscious level serves to store unpleasant and harmful memories and experiences, such as physical trauma and abuse. The unconscious also houses what Freud termed the id, “the source of instinctual energy”22. Freud corresponds this instinctual energy with that of the libido or sexual energy; i.e. self survival, the Greek Eros. It is our instinctual, unconscious drive to sustain life through such things as eating, drinking and primarily sexual activity. The conscious mind, what Freud termed the ego, essentially serves as the means by which these unconscious drives and motivations are dealt with. As humans grow and develop, it becomes clear that all of our instinctual desires cannot be met. In order to adapt to our environment and to work with others, the ego develops as “the agent of such conscious activities as deliberation and

20 Ibid., 164. 21 Ibid., 163. 22 Ibid., 167.

decision-making”23 The ego is that which decides when and how we act upon our urges, it also decides what memories and experiences to repress. This process of repression, which is needed for our health and well being, caused Freud to extend the libidinal energy to the ego as well, despite the fact that the ego seems to work against the libido of the id.24 He saw this process as necessary for survival, and therefore linked it to the instinct of self-preservation. The super ego then rises to become the human conscience and system of morals, it oversees the ego by judging whether an action either meets or fails these standards. However, the superego is not originally a self-created facet. The super ego usually begins as the internalization of our parents’ demands and expectations, and then as we grow we adopt religious and moral guidelines of our own.25 In order to maintain his theory of conflicting instincts, the death instinct was assigned to the superego. John Deigh, explains that “the ego, in effecting repression, act[s] under the direction of the pressure of the superego.”26 The aggressive demand of the superego to conform to an established set of moral rules thus becomes the figurative death of the id and its Eros instinct. This is not the self-persevering feature of the ego, which represses harmful memories, but rather the aggressive repression of urges in order to conform to external norms. This theory allowed Freud to explain the aforementioned symptoms of hysteria. The id becomes frustrated by the continual repression of its desires and the repressed memories cannot completely disappear. The regulation of these by the ego and superego manifest as tension and aggression; quite simply “the psychic energy with which unconscious thoughts and wishes are
23 Ibid., 167. 24 Ibid., 168. 25 Dr. Robert Vigliotti, “Freud” (Lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, Mo, February 4, 2010). 26 Deigh, “Freud,” 167.

Hicks 9

invested is communicated and reinvested in new thoughts and wishes such as those that lie behind the symptoms of psycho-neuroses.”27 It is this theory which firmly places him in line with Enlightenment thinkers; in fact, he actually justified and proved their ideals. They were convinced that the world operated according to knowable and understandable rules and procedures, in a very mechanistic fashion. This theory served to provide the blueprint of the mind that they postulated. Because Freud argued that thoughts and behaviors result from clash between the Eros and death instincts, he continued the naturalistic philosophy of Enlightenment thinkers, Hobbes and Hume.28 He also effectively deals with the problem of morality, as presented by Immanuel Kant, who separated the instinctual side of man from the rational and moral side. He furthered this separation by concluding that it meant that humans “belong to two worlds […] in virtue of possessing desire, to the natural world […] [and] in virtue of possessing reason, to the intelligible world”29 Kant had posed an interesting question of which the naturals had to deal with; if morality restricts and goes against our instinctual desires, how can it simultaneously come from these instincts? By placing morality in the hands of the superego, which derives “its power from the aggressive instincts- more exactly the death instinct,”30 Freud provided an answer. Yet, this simultaneously destroyed the Enlightenment vision of a peaceful utopia, free from conflict and war, as his theory not only why explained tension and aggressive actions occur, but also maintained that they were necessary to be healthy. This in his work, Civilization and Die Weltanschauung, Freud clearly iterates this usurpation of a peaceful utopia; “the inclination to

27 Ibid., 168. 28 Ibid., 168. 29 Ibid., 170. 30 Ibid., 171.

aggression is an original, self-subsisting instinctual disposition in man, and I return to my view that it constitutes the greatest impediment to civilization.”31 Finally, we arrive at Karl Marx, a nineteenth century German philosopher and economist whose writings center upon his concern for the plight of the proletariat, the working class of industrial Europe. The conditions for the industrial worker in cramped European cities were indeed grim. Historian, Eric Brose, in his work, A History of Europe in the Twentieth Century, describes the life of the workers as “poor, packed in unsanitary housing [with] long working hours in unsafe conditions […] [and] a disabling injury or accidental death to the breadwinner [could plummet] the surviving wives and children into society’s underclass.”32 Dismayed by their exploitation by the bourgeoisie, the property owning, economic upper class, Marx was inspired to write a revolutionary new economic model, which he called communism. It is through an analysis of his writings his attachment to the Enlightenment and simultaneous destruction of it becomes apparent. However, of the three his connection to the Enlightenment is the least distinct. This is because unlike Freud and Darwin, he was not a scientist, nor did he develop a theory which only attacked the Enlightenment by means of an unintentional consequence. Rather, his theory directly attacked the bourgeoisie, who were also the intellectual elite and the direct successors of the Enlightenment thinkers, for their role in causing the suffering of the worker. Furthermore, his theory radically restructures the Enlightenment vision, as he viewed human history not in terms of the development of rational thought, but in terms of economic development. Yet, there are ways that he was aligned with Enlightenment thought. While not directly
31 Sigmund Freud: Civilization and Die Weltanschauung, Modern History Sourcebook, ed. Paul Halsall, in Internet Modern History Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1918freud-civwelt.html, (accessed January 31-March 10 2010). 32 Eric Brose, A History of Europe in the Twentieth Century, (USA: Oxford University Press, 2004), 27-28.

Hicks 11

writing about the glory of rational thought, his lament of the proletariat’s alienation from the ability to cultivate this faculty implies his view of its importance. He also envisioned a utopian state marked by the eventual collapse of private ownership, called communism; many of the hopes and dreams for the future he predicted of communist society parallel Condorcet’s vision. However, before delving into his theory, there is yet another way in which Marx embodied the spirit of the previous centuries, like most Enlightenment thinkers, Marx was critical of religion. However, Marx’s criticism went beyond the normal attacks, which include that religion, namely blind faith, stifles reason, but he went further, focusing on the societal effects of this faith. Marx felt that religion was a crippling tool, as “the more people place faith in God, the less they retain in themselves.”33 Thus, this lack of belief in oneself encouraged complacency and obedience, which kept the proletariat from improving their conditions.34 He felt that people would never reach for a better life in the here and now if they were content to wait for it in heaven. Furthermore, he saw the way the upper classes frequently used their political power to influence religion, thereby exploiting the people’s obedience. He felt that religion was used to justify social, political and economic regimes that cause the proletariat class’ alienation.35 Precisely what he meant by this alienation, and the remedy for it became the foundational point of his economic theory. Alienation of the worker, or alienated labor, results from the process of one spending so much time and effort working towards producing an object that one actually looses oneself; this was the norm in the factory life of industrial Europe. The schema shifts from that of a person making something, to things demanding people in order for them to be made. The
33Karl Marx: Scientific Socialism, 1844-1875, Modern History Sourcebook, ed. Paul Halsall, in Internet Modern History Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/marxsummary.html, (accessed January 31-March 10, 2010). 34 Dr. Robert Vigliotti, “Marx’s Economic Base” (Lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, February 4, 2010). 35 Ibid.

sense of self becomes lost in this process, “the laborer places his life in the object; but now it {his life} belongs less to him than to the object;”36 thus, individuals realize they have forfeited their identity to an object which bears no relation to their identity at all. Marx points out that, “he does not grow physically or mentally, but rather tortures his body and ruins his mind.” 37 This in turn, creates a situation where man is alienated from himself, for at no part of the day does he really engage in activities that reflect his interests or passions (i.e. his self), yet at the same time that which he has produced is not him either. Furthermore, this alienation from the self leads to the “estrangement of humans from humans,”38 simply because if one can no longer recognize the self, then recognition of others becomes impossible. Finally this alienation gives rise to private property. This is because labor is the process of making use of resources and money can be said to be accumulated labor.39 Meaning the wage one is paid should reflect the labor expended and the price of a good should reflect the value of the labor put in. However, Marx noticed that private ownership of industry, the bourgeois making money from workers’ labor, while not actually expending labor themselves, requires this system to be skewed. This is because, quite simply, “labor is the source of all wealth,”40 yet, in industrial Europe, those laboring were denied access to the wealth, while those who owned the object of the proletariat’s labor of received it. Marx asserted that the only way private ownership can function is by the alienation and degradation of the worker, thus, “if one falls, the other must fall.”41 Marx became outraged at this degradation of the proletariat, calling them in is 1848 work, The
36 Karl Marx: Scientific Socialism, Modern History Sourcebook. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Dr. Robert Vigliotti, “Industrialization and Political Economy” (Lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, February 2, 2010). 40 Karl Marx: Scientific Socialism, Modern History Sourcebook. 41 Ibid.

Hicks 13

Communist Manifesto, “slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the foreman, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself.”42 This is an example of Marx’s embodiment of Enlightenment ideals, for although he doesn’t directly champion the use of reason, it is implied by his lament of the proletariat’s loss of this. However, by directly speaking out against the bourgeois, identifying them as the source of this alienation, he also simultaneously broke with and challenged the Enlightenment. This is because their prevailing ideology liberalism, was the embodiment of Enlightenment thought. Brose points out those liberal thinkers “tended to believe that all phenomena in the universe were knowable, that science and rational investigation represented the keys to understanding, and that these tools, hard work and virtue cleared a path for the ineluctable progress of mankind,”43 clearly a recitation of Enlightenment ideals. Yet, they fell far short of the benevolence and commitment to equality that Condorcet envisioned. Again, Brose points out that these intellectual heights were only available for the elite, white males of Europe.44 Furthermore, as they were in fact the owners and were the architects and motivators behind industrialization they used their political sway to ensure policies were enacted which furthered the rights of the owner over the worker.45 It was not their attachment to reason and science which Marx was critical of, but rather their apparent selfishness and greed. Marx saw that the elite of society who embraced the ideals of rational thought and recognized its great potential as a learning tool, were not embodying Condorcet’s vision of equality and social justice. Thus, his final break with Enlightenment vision becomes apparent, in his reformulation the history of human progress. Rather than seeing history
42 Ibid. 43 Brose, A History of Europe in the Twentieth Century, 21. 44 Ibid., 21. 45 Ibid

as the progression of the development of the human mind and rational thought, Marx viewed it a “history of class struggles”46. Marx traces the bourgeois back to the feudal system. He observed that “[f]rom the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns, [f]rom these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.”47 From there society continued to grow and flourish, new lands were discovered, thus creating new opportunities for trade and wealth. The guilds which built up Medieval Europe, “no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets,”48 thus “[t]he manufacturing system took its place.”49 The central underlying message is that the stratification of the classes, the oppressed worker versus the wealthy land owner is the base of the means of human progression. The gross oppression of the industrial worker is the only natural result. Furthermore, he also attacked the Enlightenment notion that the faculty of rational thought defines humans and renders all mankind as equals. Rather, he writes that “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”50 This social being is determined at birth, as one enters either the upper or lower class. It is this social structure, not ideal of social justice or equality which guides politics.51 However, Marx still thought the end result of the Enlightenment, the utopian state was possible. He believed that horrific conditions set by the “factory owners had begun an inevitable revolutionary process,”52 as the proletariat would eventually be unable to continue to exist in
46 Karl Marx: Scientific Socialism, Modern History Sourcebook. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Brose, A History of Europe in the Twentieth Century, 25.

Hicks 15

suffering. This process of revolt would eventually enable the alienated worker to triumph over the bourgeois and thus the system would collapse. It is worth noting that the Enlightenment thinkers were not oblivious to this economic stratification, they just felt that it would be resolved in another fashion. Condorcet placed great hopes in the power of universal education to empower people and liberate them53, yet Marx disagreed. He felt that the social class system could only by changed through the proletariat’s revolt. Marx called the system that would develop communism and defined it as “the positive supersession of private property as humans self –estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the humans essence through and for man.”54 The logic is quite simple, if private property thrives off of the alienation and estrangement of the worker, then the eradication of such private property will serve to alleviate this suffering. Communist society is marked by “common ownership of the means of production,”55 where a worker receives compensation for his labor in direct proportion to the amount he has invested. Marx describes life under the communist system as a utopian dream. Everyone enters the workforce on equal footing, “it recognizes no class differences.”56 Compensation is given according to need and ability; meaning one could only do as much work as one was able and that those who have more dependents, would receive more compensation to care for those dependents.57 Furthermore, general conditions will improve. This includes such basic things prohibiting child labor and placing limits on what female laborers could do. He noted that certain
53Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas-Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet: Outlines of an historical view of the progress of the human mind. 3 54 Karl Marx: Scientific Socialism, Modern History Sourcebook. 55 Ibid. 56Ibid. 57 Ibid.

tasks may beyond their physical ability.58 From this we see that these thinkers did indeed simultaneously espouse Enlightenment and anti-Enlightenment ideals. Yet, they seemed to more than that, it was as if they all attempted not to destroy ideal, but rather remodel it to fit current discoveries. Marx pointed out that we erred in thinking that benevolence would prompt us towards equality. Rather, he maintained the goal, but rechanneled the path. While scientists Freud and Darwin taught mankind about the inner workings of the mind and species development. Thus by changing the basic understanding of the natural world upon which the built Enlightenment ideals were based, the outcome of the theory must change accordingly.

58 Ibid.

Hicks 17

Bibliography Baceski, Tina. “Medieval World View.” Class lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, January 22, 2010). Brose, Eric. A History of Europe in the Twentieth Century. USA: Oxford University Press, 2004. Cunningham, William P. and Mary Ann Cunningham. Environmental Science: A Global Concern, 11th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010. Deigh, John. “Freud.” in A Companion to Continental Philosophy. edited by Simon Critchley and William R. Schroeder, 162-172. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 1998. Internet Modern History Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1918freud-civwelt.html. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/marx-summary.html. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-deism.html. Rockhurst University’s WebCt8 Internet System. https://webct8.rockhurst.edu/webct/urw/lc2044122001.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct, The History Guide, http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture26a.html. Vigliotti, Robert. “Freud.” Class lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, Mo, February 4, 2010.

“Industrialization and Political Economy.” Class lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, February 2, 2010. “Marx’s Economic Base.” Class lecture, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, February 4, 2010. Washington State University online catalog. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/PREPHIL.HTM.