Early Enlightment
HC1:
Enlightment (end 17th century, beginning 18th century): Enlightment turned into a social political
movement in the last quarter of the 18th century. Protagonist all over Europe, which by the final
quarter quite suddenly acquired a political edge: The American Revolution (French revolution 1789).
Biggest mistake we make is to regard these revolutions as the outcome of the history of enlightened
Philosophy. Most experts will agree that Philosophy took a very minor part in these revolutions.
What remains true is that in their attempt to justify the revolution highjacks lots of what has gone on
in the time of philosophers. Justify their acts. Claiming to act on behalf of Philosophy (Kept
Rousseau’s and Voltaires’ body in the Pantheon in Paris: we act out of their ideas).
Second problem is that we have to concern its unity. We have to question if there was something
called the European Enlightment. It makes much more sense to distinguish between different kinds.
There were national differences. France is different than Germany of Scotland. They are so
fundamental that it is dangerous to discuss one single Enlightment.
1. Modern Enlightment:
2. Radical Enlightment:
3. Counter Enlightment (first half 18th century France): Major Authors opposing the claims made
on behalf of these Modern and Radical Enlightment Ideas.
Enlightment is no particular period or event, many 20 th century philosophers have started using the
word as a summary of modernity. As soon as you find a Philosopher (MacIntyre, He talks about the
project of Enlightment, also meant as The Modern World in his eyes). Most of the time when
someone uses the concept ‘’The project of Enlightment’’, he or she is against it, critical about it. This
presents us with a complication. Comparing Enlightment with the Middle ages, from a human point
of view it makes no sense to be against the Middle Ages. It’s odd because no one who lived at that
time had no clue that they were experiencing the Middle Ages, why? Because the concept was
invented after the event. Looking back, thinking they had gone to a rough page, they called it The
Middle Ages. During the Enlightment they were aware that they were a part of the Enlightment.
In 1784: was ist aufklerung? (what does Enlightment mean?)
Fourth and final problem: concerning its chronology. This is the Early Enlightment. There is an
essential difference between Early and High Enlightment. In British context there is no difference but
in the French culture there is. Something is really changing.
1. The temperature rises. There is a moderate start that acquires a radical edge: We know as a fact
that by the middle of the 18th century, French state censorship comes into trouble. Radical ideas,
pornography, were effectively banned. We know that after 1750 the French censorship, the
marketplace is being flooded. The state gives up, they can’t stand the tide.
2. By the middle of the 18th century Voltaire gets pissed. There is a change of tone in his writing.
Enough is enough.
3. 1747 in Leiden, a book is being Published (Verplichte literatuur voor het tentamen), Julien Offray
the la mettrie: L’homme Machine. He is unable to publish it in France, so he publishes it in Leiden.
The first published work of a complete and utter materialist. Basic message: There is no material God
or soul, only matter in motion. Clandestinely similar ideas have been circulated for years.
4. 1751, temperature rises. Publication in Paris, after a while, in close corporation with the French
censor with the first volume of the encyclopaedia, it aims to bring together everything we now know.
1
,In the French context it makes sense to make distinction between Early and High Enlightment which
is much more radical. What we learn from believers of the counter Enlightment, who start
complaining, in the middle of the 18 th century all sorts of priests, quite suddenly all sorts of
Philosophers who can’t stop talking about Enlightment start taking over the domain. They now
occupy all sorts of editorial chairs and major journals. There friends are being appointed to major
chairs of Universities (Montesquie, Les immortel), they take over, start receiving state pensions. They
start to take over the public domain.
Initially the Enlightment in France takes off pretty moderately and gradually it becomes a
revolutionary movement. If there is one major French philosopher who should be called the first
exponent of the European Enlightment it is Pierre Bayle.
Pierre Bayle: Born 1647, son of a protestant minister, south-west of France.
Why do we start with a French philosopher? The French language. Educated Europeans, almost
unanimously, considered French to be the most civilized language available. If you had a proper
education you would receive it in Latin, and next you went to university, where you learned French,
the language of civilization. But from the end of the 18 th century it was already weird to still write in
Latin.
Pierre Bayle spent most of his academic career in Rotterdam. Major Enlightment philosopher. He
arrived here in 1681. He was a protestant and during the late 1670’s the existence of protestants in
France was difficult. They were a minority. But in 1685, France provokes the radication of the verdict
of Nantes, and now all protestants have a choice. You abandon the reformed religion, or you leave.
Lot of people get killed, but many flee. To Britain, South Africa, to the Dutch Republic.
Bayle arrived in Rotterdam, he was a professor at a French university where he had a student whose
uncle was de major of Rotterdam, that’s how he came here. He was the first professor of Philosophy
in the Netherlands but when he arrived, he was an utter nobody and knew nobody. But in a few
yearstime he will become one of the most prominent intellectuals in Europe. He meets up with
Reinier Leers, he was a book seller. He produced all of Bayle’s work and got very rich doing so, but
also supported Bayle. A few months after Bayle’s arrival he writes his first book: Lettre sur les
comètes. Against the beliefs that comets were messages from above. When the first comet landed
people started preaching, saying that major catastrophes were on the way unless you mended your
ways. But Bayle starts studying the history of comets, he tries to link them with the happening of
major catastrophes because there had been comets before. He writes one of the first scientific
journals published in Europe. He edits it single-handedly all besides his job as a professor. It contains
short reviews of books and is very successful. In 1691, one decade after his arrival orthodox
protestants within the French reformed community have made a list of complains about Bayle’s
views. They send this list to the major of Rotterdam and they want him suspended. And indeed a few
years later he is robbed from his position and fired.
But this had a huge advantage, now he was no longer responsible for the lecture, he could focus on
the publication of the ‘dictionnaire, 1697’. And it became a smash hit throughout Europe. Three thick
volumes, 6 million words. Incredible he could do this on his own.
But what made him such a special figure, why was he fired?
Arguments in favour of religious toleration: the fact that he published in 1687 a radical plea in favour
of religious toleration of Catholics, protestants and Jews was highly unusual.
2
,Locke did this as well, but he only tolerated other protestants. Not the Catholic or atheists. It’s too
dangerous because you can never trust a Catholic can you? He always has two princes to obey, his
own prince and the Pope. You can’t tolerate atheists either because they are amoral. If you do not
believe in God, why would you act moral? No judgement will be called.
Bayle felt differently, it included Catholics and also included Atheists. He thought of them in a whole
new way. In the summer of 1685 while he is safe and sound In Rotterdam, his brother Jacques, had
died in a French prison under suspicious circumstances. Bayle has felt guilty about this. Bayle was
making a name for himself, but his brother was beaten to death. By the end of the 80’s protestants
have the opportunity to learn the king of England a lesson. William III was powerful in England,
Stakeholder in Holland and had a lot of power, wanted to start a war. But Bayle will not have it, he
was a passivist.
- First argument in favour of toleration: he picks up a much-quoted phrase by Saint Augustin
from the new testament: Christ had actually taught his disciples: ’compel them to come in, so
that my house may be filled’. This was an obvious demonstration of Christ to forcefully
convert the pagans. Now Bayle argued that this could not be the meaning of Jesus’ words
because converting someone who does not want to, is criminal behaviour. False conversion
will result in organised hypocrisy, that is what you create. It is also criminal because the right
of the individual conscience is sacred. What you call your religion is something between you
and your maker. You cannot pass judgement on that. Now he turns Saint Augustin (the first
true philosopher of the Christian church) against himself. Augustin always said: Under no
circumstances an interpretation of a biblical text can be true if it inspires us to commit
crimes. So that means his interpretation must be wrong. We can’t assume the possibility that
God wants us to be criminals. (this was no reason to be upset for the orthodox Calvinists)
- Second argument, every human being has the right to make mistakes. Faith is a matter of
conscience. It’s a relationship between you and the God. No power on earth have the right to
intervene. People are responsible for their own conscience and who is to say who is actually
mistaken. Who is in a position to pass judgement about the mistakes someone makes in his
or her conscience? This was dangerous because it implies a scepticism. It decides what in
matter of faith is right and wrong. Who’s to know. We are not God, only he is to pass
judgement, and he does after we have gone.
Why is it that Bayle is one of the biggest philosophers: The profile of the Enlightened Philosopher?
They all shared his idea that religious toleration is indispensable, you cannot be a major poet,
philosopher, and be against toleration. If you are in favour of Enlightment you are in favour of
tolerance. Europe is tearing itself apart in behalf of religion, but we have to find a new way of coping
with confessional diversity. You can live next to each other; you don’t have to kill them.
His scepticism is nowhere more event than in the ‘dictionaire historic et critique’, one of the
highlights of philosophical scepticism. A big entry in this dictionary is dedicated to Perot, a famous
Greek sceptical philosopher. What does scepticism tell us? Human reason is unable to reach any firm
conclusions on the major issues it wants to address. That is why we have to suspend judgement.
Bayle loved Evil: How can God be only good, and life sucks? We have to suspend our judgement. The
most basic question we want answered, are actually unanswerable. We have to live with this, this is
the life of the sceptic. There are all sorts of puzzles I want to solve but I can’t.
3
, If this is true, how can you make anyone a believing Christian? Including Bayle? Because of
faith. He has faith and he is not a devoted protestant. I see the advantages, I do so because I
have faith, I make this irrational leap of faith. Some questions cannot be answered and that is
why it is a matter of believe. I don’t need rational arguments for the existence of God. I just
believe. It is very irrational by heart. ‘I believe because it is so absurd, it has to be true. No
one can make this up’.
A lot of Catholics say: a rational argument for God to be real is because everywhere on the world
people believe in some kind of God. But Bayle says: The fact that the most people believe X to be
true, hardly ever shows X to be true. The main reason why he was distrusted and fired was not to be
found in ‘la letter des comètes’. He launches the idea that there is such a this he calls virtuous
atheism. Being superstitious is worse than being an atheist because a society of atheist is thinkable,
possible. One of the fundamental mistakes people make is that people act on account of reason,
ideas. This can’t be true because look at the history if Christianity. It is supposed to be a peaceful
religion, but it is everything but. That shows us people do not act on behalf of ideas, systems,
convictions. They act on behalf of their instincts, habits and interests. So, a society of atheists would
be perfectly imaginable. This was a very dangerous idea. However, Bayle was not a closeted atheist,
the fact of the matter is, we don’t know how he in the end felt. For most of the time we have no idea
which views were his. This has a lot to do with the lay-out of the ‘dictionnaire’ in particular. On the
top you find a few lines that are part of the entry and then you have footnotes. They are
accompanied by further footnotes and clarifications. You and up in a jungle of quotations and you
don’t know who is saying what. He hides his personal conviction. This is very good news, it makes
him an enigma.
End note, Bayle: The history of philosophy does not consist of answers, it consists of questions.
Du Châtelet: I am not going to make a habit of this, but as I understand some of you had a hard time
making sense of the Du Châtelet fragments in the anthology, here's a brief summary:
The Principle of contradiction may look confusing, but it simply means that you cannot call a thing,
say x, y and not-y simultaneously. Only one of the two propositions can be true. This goes back to
Aristotle and the early days of logic. I cannot point to my son and say ‘You are my son’ and ‘You are
not my son’ without contradicting myself.
Du Châtelet claims that the truth of this principle ‘is the foundation of all certainty’. It alone suffices
to establish the truth of ‘necessary truths’: ‘all bachelors are unmarried’ is true because denying it
would result in a contradiction, that is: a logical fallacy. The truth of the PSR allows us to conclude
that certainty is possible – the skeptics are mistaken.
Next, Du Châtelet argues that ‘contingent truths’ need another principle. ‘Contingent truths’ are
truths dependent on empirical states of affairs. They are dependent on the Principle of sufficient
reason (PSR). We may not be aware of the validity of this principle, but we follow it all the time: we
constantly assume there is a reason for the things that happen.
According to Du Châtelet the PSR is true because denying it results in absurdities. As a consequence,
the PSR is itself a necessary truth. As an example of the absurdities or contradictions resulting from a
denial of the PSR Du Châtelet draws attention to our confidence that things do not change without a
reason.
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sannekuijpers. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.96. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
