Davey Neubauer

After reading the introduction I came away really intrigued with the comparison of the old monarchy system opposed to the new enlightenment system. In the monarchy systems the people were ruled over by kings or emperors and had no say in anything in their society the ruler or the ruler highest advisers made all the decisions. Going into the enlightenment era people were the ones with the power. Enlightenment stresses equality and freedom two things that were radically different in the 17Th century and what is now taken for granted most of the time.

Another point that was mentioned in the intro of the book, was the question of wither to treat everyone equally, or recognize every ones differences and working around those differences so that everyone gets a fair chance. After thinking about these two sides i believe the letter of the two is more efficient and therefore more successful. I believe that many people have differing opinions on issues and therefore should be allowed to express those opinions. The best way to do this is to listen attentively to their points and not to lash out at them emotionally if they say something that is not quite in line with what you are trying to say. It seems to me that the first point is a bit closed minded and if someone is already set in their ways they will not really listen to the other person viewpoint. I think the most important aspect of the public sphere is to allow everyone to have a voice, that is allow equality to take shape so that the closest thing to a solution can be formed