Customer Reviews

Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752
This is the second volume of Israel's planned three-volume intellectual history of the Enlightenment. It follows his Radical Enlightenment (2001). These are works aimed primarily at specialists and will hold the attention of lay readers only if they have a strong interest in the subject matter plus hearty endurance.

It doesn't help that Israel is not a good stylist and that the editors apparently were lenient. Lengthy sentences composed of murky subordinate clauses populate nearly every page. Those who do not read French, Latin, Dutch, or German will have to guess the meaning of substantial paragraph-length (or longer) quotations that are not translated from the source language.

Nevertheless, Enlightenment Contested, like its predecessor volume, is rich both in its thesis and in its impressive offering of expansive, indeed overwhelming, supporting detail. The bibliography of this volume alone covers 180 small-print pages.

Israel proposes that a set of "radical" core ideas drove the intellectual conversation in Europe in this period, with Spinoza as the central figure and with Bayle, Diderot, and others later assuming key roles. Against the radicals stood the "moderates," notably including Locke, Newton, Hume, Montesquieu, Turgot, and Kant. These are just a few of the major players in Israel's cast of dozens (even hundreds) of thinkers engaged in the contest of European ideas in this period.

Israel concludes that the radical party ultimately won out. Their core ideas, nearly all of which can be traced to Spinoza in some form, included, for example, one-substance materialism (versus Cartesian mind-body dualism); the adoption of philosophical reason as the exclusive criterion of what is true; a rejection of the supernatural, tending toward atheism (as opposed to Deism or theism); secular "universalism" in ethics; religious and political tolerance; and democratic republicanism in politics.

One of Israel's most important contributions is his exhaustive documentation of who read whom when, and of how they reacted. He convincingly demonstrates how ideas were disseminated and why certain ideas either did or did not take hold. This is how good intellectual history should work.

Actually, I would give it 4.5/5 but Amazon won't let me. Overall it's a fascinating book. The highlights for me are Israel's comments about Locke and Newton. Certainly in my education, Locke has always been presented as, if not the absolute originator of our liberal notion of tolerance, at least its more important forerunner, and Israel arues convincingly something fellow students and I couldn't articulate well enough: that there is a lot lacking from Locke's notion of toleration. The Newtonian dominance at the time and subsequently; especially when one learns of a thinker developing what sounds like the genesis of the theory of relativity only to be forgotten for 200 years. It's a shame that, at least in Canadian universities, we tend to not even think about Spinoza in terms of political theory, to pick just one example of how Israel shows we have missed a lot of what actually went on. His research seems very thorough and though he repeats himself on a number of occasions (in particular with regard to Spinoza and Balye, whom he seems to adore), the argument is significant and definitely worth your time if you're interested in the history of ideas, like I am. My one problem with the book is a matter of personal politics, as I believe that the 'moderate mainstream' wasn't wholly out to lunch. In any case, it is something that is well worth your time and it would be nice if this argument would have some affect on the odd department.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the history of the French Revolution. Jonathan Israel's Enlightenment Contested is the best in depth analysis of the Enlightenment, which was an eighteenth century intellectual movement in Europe that emphasized reason, knowledge, science in philosophy, and the study of human culture and the natural world. To be Enlightened a person had to know themselves. One way to do this in the eighteenth century was through the arts. Enlightened philosophes believed that science contained universal truths, and progress was a process of discovery; with perfection at the end of linear progress. The kaleidoscope of Enlightenment ideas played a crucial role in the eighteenth century in general and in the French Revolution in particular. Although the Enlightenment did not give birth to the French Revolution, it certainly served as "midwife" to the Revolution. Thus, Israel, an eminent Enlightenment scholar, understood its importance to the French Revolution best.

Israel in his book, laid out the framework for the changing interpretive methodologies historians have employed since the 1960's regarding the Enlightenment. In particular, he disagreed with Roger Chartier's reliance on "the `new' social history's way of ordering historical studies, focusing on changes in attitude and practice in society while marginalizing intellectual history" (20). Israel, while not diminishing "cultural sociology," has devoted many years to studying the intellectual initiatives of the Enlightenment. To that end, he advocated a fusion of several schools of thought that will be "...of considerable importance not only to historians but also philosophers, social theorists, political analysts, and the lay leader. The result may usefully be termed the `controversialist' approach to intellectual history, a methodology envisaging the interaction between society and ideas..." (23). Israel posited that the pressures of religious and intellectual intolerance throughout Europe was a critical factor in making the very tolerant Dutch Republic, "...the hub of the Radical Enlightenment" (28). Israel placed Baruch Spinoza at the hub's center because his atheistic writings made him "the most feared philosopher in eighteenth-century Europe" (36).

Israel theorized that there were two enlightenments that emerged from the late seventeenth century. The "Conservative Enlightenment" was a mixture of "reason" with tradition and religion. This is the philosophy that was gaining support by many functionaries of state and in the Janesist movement of the Church. Conservative Enlightenment ideas advocated needed improvements in the existing socio-political order, such as relief for the poor and judicial reforms. However, the danger was that although Conservative Enlightenment philosophy did not teach revolution or democracy, it succeeded in transforming people's minds to lose respect for tradition. "Radical Enlightenment" propelled by "reason" alone encompassed a plethora of values, such as democracy, equality, and toleration of personal freedoms, which included freedoms of speech and both sexual and racial liberties. Thus, most Radical Enlightenment writings were about wholesale destruction of the current order and the rebuilding of a new society. Radical Enlightenment writers used Rousseau's ideas to teach French citizens that all men are equal, men by nature are good and noble, and thus, society must return to a state of nature by using reason to rebuild society again. Since society was poisoned, there was no need to care about tradition. The danger was that the revolutionary fervor persuaded citizens that it was simple to demolish and rebuild society as commonplace as it was to speak about it in the salon.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in political philosophy, enlightenment history, and the French Revolution.

No number of stars is enough for this book. The scholarship is amazing, the narrative clear and fascinating from start to finish, the topic more relevant than ever. This book and its predecessor (Radical Enlightenment) are two of the best books I have read in many years, and by far the best on this subject. I am very seldom so enthusiastic about any product. So many books come with the lure of an interesting title or an impressive review, and yet disappoint. Not this one. This was an extremely enjoyable and rewarding read, and a book I shall return to, many times.

Jonathan Israel zet de lijn van Radical Enlightenment onverminderd voort. Iemand die zich ten doel stelt om de Verlichting te redden van de hedendaagse neiging om de verworvenheden (o.a. tolerantie, kritische houding, rationele argumentatie) ervan te ontkennen, kan niet genoeg gelezen worden. Het leuke van Enlightenment Contested is de verrassende (en verfrissende) debunking van een groot aantal heilige huizen. Israel zet de Gematigde Verlichting neer voor wat het is; een onhoudbare (en afgemeten aan de criteria die heden als richtinggevend worden beschouwd, onsuccesvolle) poging om rationaliteit en welke vorm van religieuze openbaring dan ook met elkaar te verenigen. Onder de mokerslagen van zijn kritiek sneuvelen een aantal reputaties die voorheen onaantastbaar leken. John Locke's gematigde tolerantie wordt verworpen als onhoudbaar ten faveure van tolerantie volgens m.n. Spinoza, Bayle en Diderot. Israel toont aan dat op Newton's natuurkundig-theologisch systeem na 1700 al fundamentele radicale kritiek was (ook bijvoorbeeld door de gematigde Leibnitz), in weerwil van de bijna onaantastbare status van Newton op het continent. Ook de grote pleitbezorger van Newton, Voltaire, wordt door Israel in het rijtje van de Gematigden geplaatst. Dat Voltaire zich in de strijd om de publicatie van Diderot's Encyclopedie zich gedwongen zag dit radicale project licht knarsetandend te verdedigen, doet niet af aan de fikse deuk die het imago van deze voorheen exemplarische Verlichter oploopt. Israel is ook in dit 2de deel van de geplande triologie weer volstrekt helder wat zijn agenda is. In Enlightenment Contested polemiseert hij met hedendaagse anti-verlichters als MacIntyre, Taylor en Gray en toont aan waarom hun opvattingen over de Verlichting als legitimering van intolerantie en kolonialisme getuigen van weinig historische kennis, gedateerde interpretaties en vooral het nalaten een onderscheid tussen de actuele geldigheid van de ideeen van de radicale Verlichting en die van de gematigde Verlichting te maken.
De voornaamste kritiek op dit boek is dan ook vooral redactioneel van aard. In zijn ijver en streven naar volledigheid is er teveel overlap in het boek zelf en met Radical Enlightenment. Het wordt wel eens vermoeiend om bij elke theologische of filosofische haarkloverij die door Israel wordt opgevoerd weer die hele lijst van namen langs te zien komen. Dit gezegd hebbend, ben ik erg benieuwd naar deel 3. Hopelijk wordt daarin voldoende plaats ingeruimd voor de gedeelde wortels van de Verlichting en de Romantiek. Israel kennende zal daarin ruim voorzien worden. Deel 3, bring it on!"