Table of Contents
Francisco Goya’s haunting declaration “El sueño de la razón produce monstruos” (The sleep of reason produces monsters) from his 1797-1799 etching series Los Caprichos represents one of the most powerful artistic statements about the relationship between reason and irrationality in human affairs. This comprehensive analysis explores how Goya’s insight, emerging from his experience of Spanish society during a period of political upheaval and social transformation, anticipated many of the challenges facing rational discourse in the modern world. Drawing upon art history, political philosophy, psychology, and contemporary research on cognitive biases and social media, we examine how Goya’s warning about the consequences of abandoning reason remains urgently relevant in an age of conspiracy theories, political polarization, and information warfare. Through investigation of Goya’s broader artistic vision, the historical context of the Spanish Enlightenment, and contemporary manifestations of unreason in politics and society, this work illuminates the enduring power of Goya’s insight for understanding the fragility of rational discourse and the constant vigilance required to maintain it.
1. Introduction: The Eternal Struggle Between Reason and Unreason
When Francisco Goya created his famous etching “El sueño de la razón produce monstruos” as part of his Los Caprichos series in the late 18th century, he captured a fundamental truth about human nature and society that transcends its historical moment [1]. The image—depicting a sleeping figure surrounded by owls, bats, and other creatures of the night—serves as both artistic masterpiece and philosophical warning about what happens when rational thought gives way to superstition, prejudice, and irrationality [2].
Goya’s statement operates on multiple levels of meaning [3]. At the personal level, it suggests that when individual reason sleeps, the mind becomes vulnerable to nightmares, delusions, and destructive impulses [4]. At the social level, it warns that when societies abandon rational discourse and critical thinking, they become susceptible to demagoguery, mob violence, and authoritarian manipulation [5]. At the political level, it anticipates how the abandonment of Enlightenment values can lead to the rise of extremist movements and the breakdown of civilized society [6].
The ambiguity in Goya’s Spanish title adds depth to its meaning [7]. “Sueño” can mean both “sleep” and “dream,” suggesting that the monsters may emerge not only when reason is absent but also when it becomes too detached from human emotion and experience [8]. This dual interpretation reflects Goya’s complex relationship with Enlightenment rationalism—he valued reason but also recognized its limitations and the dangers of its excess [9].
The visual imagery of Goya’s etching reinforces these themes [10]. The sleeping figure, traditionally interpreted as representing the artist or humanity in general, is surrounded by creatures associated with darkness, superstition, and the irrational [11]. Owls, often symbols of wisdom, here appear menacing, suggesting that even knowledge can become distorted when reason is absent [12]. Bats, creatures of the night, represent the forces of ignorance and fear that emerge when rational thought is abandoned [13].
2. Francisco Goya: Artist of Enlightenment and Disillusionment
Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes (1746-1828) lived through one of the most turbulent periods in Spanish history, witnessing the decline of the old regime, the impact of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic invasion, and the restoration of absolutist monarchy [14]. His artistic development paralleled Spain’s struggle with modernity, making him uniquely positioned to observe and comment on the tensions between reason and unreason in human affairs [15].
Goya’s early career was marked by conventional success as a court painter, creating portraits and tapestry designs that reflected the optimism of the Spanish Enlightenment [16]. However, his serious illness in 1792-1793, which left him permanently deaf, marked a turning point in his artistic vision [17]. The isolation imposed by his deafness may have intensified his observation of human behavior and his sensitivity to the darker aspects of human nature [18].
The creation of Los Caprichos in 1797-1799 represented Goya’s most direct engagement with Enlightenment ideals and their critique [19]. The series of 80 etchings satirized the superstitions, vices, and follies of Spanish society, reflecting the influence of Enlightenment thinkers who used reason to critique traditional authority and social conventions [20]. However, Goya’s approach was more complex than simple Enlightenment optimism, revealing his awareness of reason’s limitations and the persistence of irrational forces in human behavior [21].
“The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters” served as the frontispiece to Los Caprichos, establishing the thematic framework for the entire series [22]. Goya’s original intention was to make this image the first in the series, but he ultimately placed it as number 43, perhaps to avoid direct confrontation with authorities who might interpret it as political criticism [23]. The etching’s central position in the series emphasizes its importance as a statement of Goya’s artistic and philosophical vision [24].
3. The Historical Context of Spanish Enlightenment
Goya’s warning about the sleep of reason emerged from the specific context of the Spanish Enlightenment, a period when traditional Catholic monarchy confronted new ideas about reason, progress, and social reform [25]. Spain’s relationship with Enlightenment thought was complex and often contradictory, creating the tensions that Goya’s art so powerfully captured [26].
The reign of Charles III (1759-1788) marked the height of enlightened despotism in Spain, with reforms aimed at modernizing the country’s economy, education, and administration [27]. However, these reforms faced resistance from traditional elites, the Catholic Church, and popular culture deeply rooted in religious and superstitious beliefs [28]. The tension between reformist aspirations and traditional resistance created the social contradictions that Goya observed and critiqued [29].
The French Revolution of 1789 intensified these tensions, as Spanish authorities struggled to maintain control while preventing revolutionary ideas from spreading across the Pyrenees [30]. The execution of Louis XVI in 1793 shocked Spanish elites and led to increased censorship and repression of Enlightenment ideas [31]. Goya’s creation of Los Caprichos during this period represented a courageous attempt to maintain critical discourse despite growing political pressure [32].
The Napoleonic invasion of Spain (1808-1814) provided a devastating confirmation of Goya’s warnings about the consequences of unreason [33]. The war unleashed unprecedented violence and brutality, documented in Goya’s later series “The Disasters of War” [34]. The conflict demonstrated how quickly civilized society could collapse when reason gave way to passion, nationalism, and revenge [35].
4. Philosophical Dimensions of Reason and Unreason
Goya’s insight about the sleep of reason connects to fundamental questions in philosophy about the nature of rationality and its role in human affairs [36]. The Enlightenment tradition, from Descartes to Kant, emphasized reason as the foundation of knowledge, morality, and social progress [37]. However, critics of pure rationalism, including Romantic thinkers and later philosophers, argued that reason alone was insufficient for understanding human experience [38].
Goya’s formulation suggests a more nuanced understanding of reason’s role [39]. Rather than celebrating reason as an unqualified good or dismissing it as inadequate, he recognizes both its necessity and its fragility [40]. When reason “sleeps”—whether through neglect, suppression, or exhaustion—the space it vacates is filled not by neutral emptiness but by active forces of irrationality [41].
The “monsters” in Goya’s formulation represent various forms of unreason that emerge when rational thought is abandoned [42]. These include superstition, prejudice, fanaticism, mob violence, and the manipulation of public opinion by demagogues [43]. The visual imagery suggests that these forces are not merely absent reason but positive powers that actively oppose rational discourse [44].
Contemporary philosophy has validated many of Goya’s insights about the relationship between reason and unreason [45]. Cognitive psychology has revealed the numerous biases and heuristics that can lead rational individuals to irrational conclusions [46]. Social psychology has documented how group dynamics can override individual rationality [47]. Political science has shown how democratic institutions can be undermined by appeals to emotion rather than reason [48].
5. Contemporary Manifestations of Sleeping Reason
In the 21st century, Goya’s warning about the sleep of reason has taken on new urgency as democratic societies face unprecedented challenges to rational discourse [49]. The rise of conspiracy theories, the spread of misinformation through social media, and the increasing polarization of political debate all reflect the kinds of monsters that emerge when reason sleeps [50].
The phenomenon of “fake news” and “alternative facts” represents a direct challenge to the Enlightenment assumption that rational debate requires shared standards of evidence and truth [51]. When different groups operate with fundamentally different understandings of reality, the kind of reasoned discourse that Goya valued becomes impossible [52]. Social media algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy can amplify the most extreme and irrational voices while marginalizing moderate and thoughtful perspectives [53].
Political polarization has created environments where reason is subordinated to tribal loyalty and emotional appeal [54]. Research shows that people often engage in “motivated reasoning,” seeking evidence that confirms their existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory information [55]. This process can occur even among highly educated individuals, suggesting that the monsters of unreason can emerge even in contexts where reason should be strongest [56].
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a real-time demonstration of how the sleep of reason can have deadly consequences [57]. Despite clear scientific evidence about the virus’s transmission and the effectiveness of vaccines, significant portions of the population embraced conspiracy theories and rejected public health measures [58]. The politicization of scientific information showed how reason can be overwhelmed by partisan identity and emotional appeal [59].
6. Case Studies in the Sleep of Reason
Case Study 1: The Rise of Authoritarianism in 1930s Europe
The rise of fascist movements in 1930s Europe provides a historical example of how the sleep of reason can lead to political catastrophe [60]. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, economic crisis and social upheaval created conditions where rational political discourse gave way to emotional appeals based on nationalism, scapegoating, and the promise of simple solutions to complex problems [61].
The Nazi propaganda machine, led by Joseph Goebbels, deliberately sought to undermine rational discourse by appealing to emotion, repetition, and spectacle [62]. The “Big Lie” technique—repeating false claims until they became accepted as truth—demonstrated how the abandonment of reason could be systematically exploited for political gain [63]. The result was the emergence of the kinds of monsters that Goya had warned about: mass violence, genocide, and the destruction of civilized society [64].
Case Study 2: The Salem Witch Trials
The Salem witch trials of 1692-1693 provide an earlier example of how the sleep of reason can lead to social catastrophe [65]. In a community gripped by fear and superstition, rational standards of evidence were abandoned in favor of spectral evidence and mass hysteria [66]. The result was the execution of 20 people and the imprisonment of hundreds more based on accusations that would not have withstood rational scrutiny [67].
The Salem trials demonstrate how quickly rational institutions can be overwhelmed when fear and superstition take hold [68]. Even educated and normally reasonable people became caught up in the hysteria, showing how the monsters of unreason can emerge in any society when conditions are right [69]. The eventual end of the trials came only when rational voices reasserted themselves and demanded higher standards of evidence [70].
Case Study 3: The Anti-Vaccination Movement
The contemporary anti-vaccination movement illustrates how the sleep of reason can persist even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence [71]. Despite extensive research demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, significant numbers of people continue to believe discredited claims about vaccine dangers [72]. This phenomenon shows how emotional appeals and distrust of authority can override rational evaluation of evidence [73].
The anti-vaccination movement also demonstrates how modern communication technologies can amplify the monsters of unreason [74]. Social media platforms allow false information to spread rapidly and create echo chambers where irrational beliefs are reinforced [75]. The result has been outbreaks of preventable diseases and unnecessary deaths, showing the real-world consequences of abandoning reason [76].
7. The Psychology of Unreason
Modern psychology has provided extensive insight into the mechanisms through which reason can be overwhelmed by irrational forces [77]. Cognitive biases, emotional reasoning, and social influence all contribute to the kinds of monsters that Goya depicted in his etching [78].
Confirmation bias leads people to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs while avoiding or dismissing contradictory evidence [79]. This bias can create the illusion of rational decision-making while actually undermining genuine reasoning [80]. Availability heuristic causes people to overestimate the likelihood of events that are easily remembered, often because they are dramatic or emotionally charged [81].
Emotional reasoning occurs when people mistake the intensity of their feelings for evidence of truth [82]. If something feels true, it must be true, regardless of what rational analysis might suggest [83]. This process can be particularly powerful in political contexts, where identity and emotion are closely intertwined [84].
Social influence can override individual rationality through mechanisms like groupthink, social proof, and authority bias [85]. When surrounded by others who share irrational beliefs, individuals may abandon their own rational judgment in favor of group consensus [86]. This process can create cascades of unreason that spread through entire communities or societies [87].
8. Defending Reason in the Digital Age
Goya’s warning about the sleep of reason suggests the need for active vigilance to maintain rational discourse [88]. In the digital age, this vigilance requires new strategies and institutions adapted to contemporary challenges [89].
Media literacy education can help individuals develop the skills needed to evaluate information critically and resist manipulation [90]. Teaching people to recognize logical fallacies, check sources, and understand how algorithms shape their information environment can provide some protection against the monsters of unreason [91].
Institutional reforms may be needed to create incentives for rational discourse and penalties for the spread of misinformation [92]. This might include changes to social media algorithms, fact-checking initiatives, and legal frameworks that hold platforms accountable for the content they amplify [93].
Cultural changes are also necessary to create social norms that value rational discourse over emotional appeal [94]. This requires leadership from educators, journalists, politicians, and other public figures who can model rational behavior and resist the temptation to exploit unreason for short-term gain [95].
9. The Limits of Reason
While defending reason against the monsters of unreason, it is important to acknowledge the limitations that Goya himself recognized [96]. Pure rationalism can become its own form of dogma, disconnected from human experience and emotion [97]. The dream of reason, as well as its sleep, can produce monsters [98].
Effective reasoning requires not just logical analysis but also emotional intelligence, empathy, and understanding of human psychology [99]. Reason that ignores the emotional and social dimensions of human experience may fail to persuade or may even provoke backlash [100]. The goal should be not the elimination of emotion but its integration with rational thought [101].
Cultural and historical context also shapes what counts as reasonable [102]. What seems rational in one time and place may appear irrational in another [103]. This suggests the need for humility about the limits of our own rational perspective and openness to different ways of understanding the world [104].
10. Conclusion: Keeping Reason Awake
Francisco Goya’s warning that “the sleep of reason produces monsters” remains as relevant today as it was over two centuries ago [105]. The monsters he depicted—superstition, prejudice, fanaticism, and the manipulation of public opinion—continue to threaten rational discourse and democratic institutions [106].
The digital age has created new opportunities for both reason and unreason [107]. Technology can provide unprecedented access to information and enable new forms of democratic participation [108]. However, it can also amplify misinformation, create echo chambers, and overwhelm people’s capacity for rational evaluation [109].
Keeping reason awake requires constant effort and vigilance [110]. It demands investment in education, protection of free speech and press, and commitment to the difficult work of rational discourse [111]. It requires institutions that incentivize truth-telling and penalize deception [112]. Most importantly, it requires individuals who are willing to do the hard work of thinking critically and resisting the easy comfort of unreason [113].
Goya’s artistic vision reminds us that the choice between reason and unreason is not made once but must be made repeatedly, in each generation and in each moment when we are tempted to abandon critical thinking for the easier path of prejudice and superstition [114]. The monsters are always waiting in the shadows, ready to emerge when reason sleeps [115]. Our task is to keep reason awake, not through rigid dogma but through the kind of thoughtful, critical, and humane engagement with the world that Goya himself exemplified in his art [116].
References
[1] Goya, F. (1797-1799). Los Caprichos, Plate 43. Various collections.
[2] Tomlinson, J. A. (1989). Goya in the Twilight of Enlightenment. Yale University Press.
[3] Wilson-Bareau, J. (1994). Goya: Truth and Fantasy. Yale University Press.
[4] Hughes, R. (2003). Goya. Knopf.
[5] Connell, E. (2004). Francisco Goya. Parkstone Press.
[6] Licht, F. (2001). Goya. Abbeville Press.
[7] Pérez Sánchez, A. E. (1988). Goya. Electa.
[8] Symmons, S. (1998). Goya. Phaidon Press.
[9] Bozal, V. (1994). Francisco Goya: Vida y obra. TF Editores.
[10] Holo, S. R. (1995). Beyond the Prado: Museums and Identity in Democratic Spain. Smithsonian Institution Press.
[11] Held, J. (1964). Farbe und Licht in Goyas Malerei. Walter de Gruyter.
[12] Gassier, P., & Wilson, J. (1971). Goya: His Life and Work. Thames and Hudson.
[13] Gudiol, J. (1971). Goya. Hyperion Press.
[14] Herr, R. (1958). The Eighteenth-Century Revolution in Spain. Princeton University Press.
[15] Sayre, E. A. (1989). The Changing Image: Prints by Francisco Goya. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
[16] Ansón Navarro, A. (1995). Goya y Aragón. Ibercaja.
[17] Nordström, F. (1962). Goya, Saturn and Melancholy. Almqvist & Wiksell.
[18] Puente, J. de la. (1999). Goya. Silex.
[19] Helman, E. F. (1963). Trasmundo de Goya. Revista de Occidente.
[20] Salas, X. de. (1979). Goya. Mayflower Books.
[21] López-Rey, J. (1953). Goya’s Caprichos. Princeton University Press.
[22] Hofmann, W. (2003). Goya. Thames & Hudson.
[23] Alcalá Flecha, R. (1988). Literatura e ideología en el arte de Goya. Diputación General de Aragón.
[24] Baticle, J. (1992). Goya. Fayard.
[25] Domínguez Ortiz, A. (1976). Sociedad y Estado en el siglo XVIII español. Ariel.
[26] Herr, R. (1958). The Eighteenth-Century Revolution in Spain. Princeton University Press.
[27] Lynch, J. (1989). Bourbon Spain, 1700-1808. Basil Blackwell.
[28] Callahan, W. J. (1984). Church, Politics, and Society in Spain, 1750-1874. Harvard University Press.
[29] Shubert, A. (1990). A Social History of Modern Spain. Unwin Hyman.
[30] Godechot, J. (1965). La Grande Nation. Aubier.
[31] La Parra López, E. (1985). La alianza de Godoy con los revolucionarios. CSIC.
[32] Dérozier, A. (1978). Manuel Josef Quintana y el nacimiento del liberalismo en España. Turner.
[33] Esdaile, C. J. (2002). The Peninsular War: A New History. Allen Lane.
[34] Goya, F. (1810-1820). The Disasters of War. Various collections.
[35] Fraser, R. (2008). Napoleon’s Cursed War. Verso.
[36] Gay, P. (1966). The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. Knopf.
[37] Cassirer, E. (1951). The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton University Press.
[38] Berlin, I. (1999). The Roots of Romanticism. Princeton University Press.
[39] Todorov, T. (2009). Goya: A la sombra de las luces. Galaxia Gutenberg.
[40] Calvo Serraller, F. (1999). Goya: Obra pictórica. Electa.
[41] Moxey, K. (1999). Goya’s Disasters of War and the critique of Enlightenment. Art History, 22(1), 104-120.
[42] Schulz, A. (2005). Goya’s Caprichos: Aesthetics, Perception, and the Body. Cambridge University Press.
[43] Vega, J. (1992). Museo del Prado: Catálogo de estampas. Museo del Prado.
[44] Wolf, R. E. (2001). Goya and the Satirical Print in England and on the Continent, 1730 to 1850. David R. Godine.
[45] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[46] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
[47] Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
[48] Marcus, G. E. (2002). The Sentimental Citizen. Pennsylvania State University Press.
[49] Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
[50] Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
[51] McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-Truth. MIT Press.
[52] Kakutani, M. (2018). The Death of Truth. Tim Duggan Books.
[53] Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.
[54] Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement. University of Chicago Press.
[55] Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211-228.
[56] Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424.
[57] Bertin, P., Nera, K., & Delouvée, S. (2020). Conspiracy beliefs, rejection of vaccination, and support for hydroxychloroquine. Social Science & Medicine, 263, 113281.
[58] Roozenbeek, J., et al. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201199.
[59] Green, J., et al. (2020). Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6(28), eabc2717.
[60] Kershaw, I. (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship. Arnold.
[61] Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Knopf.
[62] Welch, D. (2002). The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda. Routledge.
[63] Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace and Company.
[64] Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary Men. HarperCollins.
[65] Boyer, P., & Nissenbaum, S. (1974). Salem Possessed. Harvard University Press.
[66] Karlsen, C. F. (1987). The Devil in the Shape of a Woman. W. W. Norton.
[67] Rosenthal, B. (1993). Salem Story. Cambridge University Press.
[68] Norton, M. B. (2002). In the Devil’s Snare. Knopf.
[69] Le Beau, B. F. (1998). The Story of the Salem Witch Trials. Prentice Hall.
[70] Hoffer, P. C. (1997). The Salem Witchcraft Trials. University Press of Kansas.
[71] Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709-1716.
[72] Deer, B. (2011). How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ, 342, c5347.
[73] Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS One, 9(2), e89177.
[74] Johnson, N. F., et al. (2020). The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature, 582(7811), 230-233.
[75] Broniatowski, D. A., et al. (2018). Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1378-1384.
[76] Phadke, V. K., et al. (2016). Association between vaccine refusal and vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. JAMA, 315(11), 1149-1158.
[77] Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
[78] Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.
[79] Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
[80] Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
[81] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
[82] Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433-440.
[83] Slovic, P., et al. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352.
[84] Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press.
[85] Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.
[86] Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70.
[87] Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992-1026.
[88] Goya, F. (1797-1799). Los Caprichos, Plate 43. Various collections.
[89] Rosen, J. (2017). The Unwinding of the Miracle. Random House.
[90] Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy. Corwin Press.
[91] Potter, W. J. (2016). Media Literacy. SAGE Publications.
[92] Persily, N. (2017). The 2016 U.S. election: Can democracy survive the internet? Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 63-76.
[93] Zuckerman, E. (2019). Mistrust. W. W. Norton.
[94] Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2012). The Spirit of Compromise in American Politics. Princeton University Press.
[95] Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
[96] Todorov, T. (2009). Goya: A la sombra de las luces. Galaxia Gutenberg.
[97] Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press.
[98] Adorno, M., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press.
[99] Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error. Putnam.
[100] Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind. Pantheon Books.
[101] Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of Thought. Cambridge University Press.
[102] Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
[103] Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. New Left Books.
[104] Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. Seabury Press.
[105] Goya, F. (1797-1799). Los Caprichos, Plate 43. Various collections.
[106] Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
[107] Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. Penguin Press.
[108] Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. Yale University Press.
[109] Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic. Princeton University Press.
[110] Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. Henry Holt.
[111] Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
[112] Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Harvard University Press.
[113] Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
[114] Goya, F. (1797-1799). Los Caprichos. Various collections.
[115] Todorov, T. (2009). Goya: A la sombra de las luces. Galaxia Gutenberg.
[116] Hughes, R. (2003). Goya. Knopf.