The Creation of the Individual.
It is no exaggeration to say that we, in the 21st century, would not be enjoying the fruits of modern living without paying homage to the Enlightenment; for it gave us science and its application, technology. It also created a lot of problems, and it posits solutions based on the (scientific) methodologies that gave rise to its success, but its supportive narrative depends on the arrogance of that success. Such arrogance justifies, to some extent, the comprehensive defeat of the knowledge base before its inception, based as it is on revealed knowledge from authority, tradition, and superstition and supported by the scholastic structures of thought.

However, this defeat of superstition does not necessarily mean total acceptance of the new knowledge. Reason may finally have emerged in independent form, but there was, and is, a transitional journey taking place from the old epoch to the new epoch. In this transition, reason did not sweep away all of the idioms of tradition, authority, and superstition; the language was not sufficiently developed to counteract all of its tenets. So it is no surprise that it has taken 400 years to get to where we are today, and the echoes of the old epoch linger on. These echoes of the old scholastic thought can still be heard and will always remain with us because humans are not what Aristotle alleged, “that man is a rational animal”. Although this is understood as that there must be a reason for doing something, instead, "man is an irrational animal," but capable of rational thought. It is this capability that enabled the Enlightenment to flourish.

Language must always be at the forefront in understanding this transition. The Latin language structured the technicalities, derived from tradition and authority to construct knowledge, which arguably limited inquiry to the knowledge base of scholasticism and thus reasonably regarded as the language of pre-Enlightenment thought. Descartes broke with this tradition, and when he started to form his inquiries, he chose to use French. It was this breaking with the language of tradition (Latin) and using the vernacular that, arguably, paved the way for the scientific method because it allowed for different and new ideas to be considered. To stress the importance of language, later, and elsewhere, Vico (p185-187) noted that language and thought were not two separate processes but are one-and-the-same. Ideas are not thought of first and then articulated in symbols and speech; there is no private language. Language and thought are not independent of one another. This is an important point to be made now because as we will see, language constructs the new science paradigm and articulates its methodologies through the various discourses of the different scientific disciplines. The various scientific disciplines highlight the reductionist methodology that is at the heart of all scientific enquiries.

The reductionist method separates components from their wholes producing the illusion that understanding is a function of how atomised components operate functionally with one another. Thus setting aside the whole, science thoughtlessly, in some cases, leaves it as a domain of the old thinking, for example, life. Language conveys a learner’s understanding of self and his/her relationships with others and things. Therefore, language as the vehicle of the Enlightenment, reduced to reductionism creates the individual and separates him/her for the whole, that is communities.