Metternich's letter of 1820 implicitly attacked the thinkers of the 18th century European Enlightenment on the grounds that these thinkers helped undermine authority and traditional practices. He did not, however, clearly state that these thinkers' ideas were factually or analytically wrong. In your view should ideas about human nature, society, morality, etc. be judged more by how factually correct or false they are, or by how they influence people's behavior and ways of thinking. Clearly explain the reasons for your conclusions.

Human nature has always been one of the most interesting topics in science. Throughout the years, we have seen the various changes the human kind has passed. Ideas that were considered correct in the past, are now being criticized and questioned if they are correct or incorrect. In the other hand, we have seen the change of the mindset in people; something that was completely wrong in the past it’s now accepted by the society. I believe that the main difference is that nowadays we have educated ourselves in the topics that we knew very little. Teaching techniques have change too and now people have a possibility to think outside of what he/she is being taught and do their own research to have a more solid position in any topic. And as a conclusion, I believe that ideas about human nature, society, morality, etc…. should be judged more by how factually correct or false they are. In the modern era we live in a world that is connected by technology and everything that we need to know could be at the palm of our hands. By reading, researching and testing you can prove something is wrong or right. As stated before, people change their mind really quickly and not everybody thinks the same way; and for that reason, I don’t believe that the ideas of human nature should be on how they influence people’s behavior and ways of thinking.