“In a letter, (Isaiah) Berlin acknowledged the virtues of the philosophes—“these thinkers . . . effectively attacked superstition and ignorance, cruelty, darkness, dogma, tradition, despotism of all kinds, and for that I truly honour them.””
(from “The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy” by Anthony Gottlieb)
Sounds like a good book. Thanks!
Cogito, is that quotation followed by a “But …”?
Berlin offers a qualification of his praise for the Enlightenment intellectuals before the quote I offered
"Thus Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997), an influential historian of ideas, suggested that the seeds of totalitarianism may be found in some of the philosophes. Although Berlin wrote that he could not accuse “any of the Enlightened thinkers . . . of directly leading to authoritarianism, bullying and in the end totalitarianism itself,” he did make much of the fact that some of “their interpreters in later times, in particular . . . Marxists, but also [Auguste] Comte [1798–1857] . . . did lead to something of the sort.”
To which Gottlieb responds: “In other words, if your ideas get mangled many decades later by people who purport to be your followers, then it is partly your fault.”
Yes, Berlin was right. Rousseau was one who seeded evil. His ideas, unmangled and in the pink of health inspired the Terror and “in the end totalitarianism itself”.
The Enlightenment was the best thing that ever happened to the human race. It had immeasurably good outcomes: the breaking of the power of the Churches, the Industrial Revolution, the Age of Science, and the United States of America. It also had a bad outcome: the Romantic Movement and its political progeny - Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and now the secular religion of Woke.
Gottlieb is right to discredit that kind of thinking.
Rousseau’s ideas had consequences. It was cause and effect.
I understand Liz’s interest in the book. The Enlightenment is an enormously interesting subject. However … I have not read Gottlieb, but frankly, Cogito, the comment of his that you quote and the title of the book do not seem to me to promise well.
The Enlightenment was real, not a dream. And the subtitle, The Rise of Modern Philosophy makes no sense to me. “Modern Philosophy” is not a monolith and did not “rise” as something new, even if new events cast new light on old questions.
Since writing the above I’ve looked up Anthony Gottlieb.
I’d bet on his being a Leftie. Writing for the NYT and the New Yorker? Was an editor of The Economist?
Am I wrong? What’s the message of his book? What does he say about Rousseau? Does he praise Marx?
I don’t want to read it myself.
I don’t know anything about his political or religious beliefs. But if he is an atheist, his name is certainly unfortunate. The Economist was a reputable magazine until it turned hard left, but I do not recall precisely when that happened. It might have been under his tutelage.
At my age, I am plagued by the thought that there are so many books to read, but so little time. So, in my nonfiction reading, I pick and choose a chapter here or a chapter there that I think I may find interesting.
I read bits of his Dream of Reason, and found his explanations of Aristotelian philosophy were very clear and understandable.
Wish I could be of further help.
I agree with you.
You’re right about the Enlightenment - it produced both the best, and the worst, of thinking, and the outcomes of that.
There is a tendency among Christians to condemn the entire Enlightenment because of the bad outcomes that arose from it. But that is to condemn Reason itself. It’s to say that, just because man’s ability to reason is imperfect, man should never have attempted to reason independently at all - we should have remained mindless sheep, obedient to the dictates of the Church.
I guess there will always be the conflict that our reasoning created, but it’s better than returning to mindlessness.
I think that what he means by “the rise of modern philosophy” is just in the sense that the philosophers he covers - mostly the Continental Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz), British Empiricists (Hobbes, Locke, Hume), and French Philosophes, were the historical departure from Medieval and Renaissance thought. That post-Renaissance period is referred to by other historians of philosophy as ‘modern’. I think that’s pretty much in keeping with the more general historical term ‘modern’ as following the Renaissance.
I found this brief interview with Gottlieb informative…
Thank you, Zerothruster, for the link and for your clarification of what he means by “modern philosophy”. .
Yes, the interview does warm me somewhat to Gottlieb. (Gosh! What a name for an atheist, as Cogito observed.)
I share Gottlieb’s admiration for Spinoza and Hume.
Here’s another interview with Gottlieb:
Thanks, Cogito.
I am persuaded now that on the whole he’s an okay guy.
Yes, I believe he is. He’s a fine writer about philosophical matters. I’ve read bits and pieces of both his books.