Good point, I agree that it did not. Were those ideas however progress, or a tool that the Committee of Public Safety used because it fit their agenda?

Was this philosophy finding truth that guided policy, or was it making up rhetorical arguments in a power struggle on behalf of the rising middle class and its policy?

In absence of criteria of non empirical truth that are independent of the very non empirical truths they are criteria for I tend to believe the latter.

In addition to this inherent weakness philosophical arguments are not for the masses anyways. Not even philosophers usually agree what they mean or entail. How could those idea(l)s have guided the revolution as more than just superficial self justification?

Remember that the enemies of the French Revolution had their philosophers too, they just lost.

Historical events usually have very mundane reasons, class struggles, geopolitics etc. Ideas may play a part too. But I believe not in the sense that they are the horses in front of the cart.