Guardian of the Enlightenment

1984 ◽  
pp. 638-759
Author(s):  
Alexander Altmann

This chapter concludes the volume with Moses Mendelssohn's final years. It provides the culmination of his conflict with Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi and how such episodes influenced his later works. Indeed, Mendelssohn's last major work, the Morgenstunden, was brought about due to Jacobi's challenge. The Morgenstunden is the most systematic of Mendelssohn's major works. It has a single, well-defined theme—the existence of God—which it expounds step by step, starting from a discussion of the first principles of epistemology and culminating in the presentation of a novel argument in the last of the 17 lectures. None of his previous writings had been as compact and methodical as this one. The chapter ends with a discussion on Mendelssohn's retirement and his final works.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Schick

This study defends the legitimacy of the Enlightenment project by way of its different realizations in the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. Today, Enlightenment as a cosmopolitan project with a global claim is often considered synonymous with Western chauvinism. The assertion of a universally binding reason is all too obviously inconsistent with the much-cited recognition of cultural differences. In contrast, it is the conviction brought forward in this book that an adequately understood Enlightenment is an unconditional right of every person taking an active interest in a self-determined way of life. Only the realization of this conception of Enlightenment can provide the required space for the reciprocal recognition of human differences to freely unfold.


Horizons ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-282
Author(s):  
Anthony M. Matteo

AbstractAt least since the Enlightenment, religious thinkers in the West have sought to meet the “evidentialist” challenge, that is, to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a rational affirmation of the existence of God. Alvin Plantinga holds that this challenge is rooted in a foundationalist approach to epistemology which is now intellectually bankrupt. He argues that the current critique of foundationalism clears the way for a fruitful reappropriation of the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition's assertion of the “basic” nature of belief in God and its concomitant relegation of the arguments of natural theology to marginal status. After critically assessing Plantinga's proposal—especially its dependence on a nonfoundationalist theory of knowledge—this essay shifts to an analysis of the transcendental Thomist understanding of the rational underpinnings of the theist's affirmation of God's existence, with particular emphasis on the thought of Joseph Maréchal. It is argued that the latter position is better equipped to fend off possible nontheistic counterarguments—even in our current nonfoundationalist atmosphere—and, in fact, can serve as a necessary complement to Calvin's claim of a natural tendency in human beings to believe in God.


Author(s):  
Patrick Rysiew

Thomas Reid (1710–96) was a contemporary of both Hume and Kant. He was born in Strachan, near Aberdeen, and was a founder and central figure in the Scottish school of common sense philosophy. Educated at Marishal College, Aberdeen, Reid served as Librarian there, and then as Minister at New Machar. While regent at King’s College, Reid cofounded the Aberdeen Philosophical Society, or Wise Club (1758), other members of which included George Campbell, Alexander Gerard, John Stewart and James Beattie. During this period, Reid published his first major work, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (1764). That same year, he succeeded Adam Smith in the professorship of Moral Philosophy in Glasgow College, where he remained for the rest of his life. Reid published two other major works, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1785) and Essays on the Active Powers of Man (1788). Reid himself claimed that his main achievement was having called into question the widely held view (‘the theory of ideas’) that the immediate object of thought is always some idea in the mind of the thinker, the sceptical tendencies of which Hume brought to full fruition. But his philosophy contains many important positive contributions beyond that, including an articulation of the first principles of common sense, which he took to be the foundation of all thought and action, philosophical or otherwise. In place of the theory of ideas, Reid defended direct theories of memory and perception. As part of his critique of Hume and his predecessors, Reid articulates a distinction between sensation and perception and provides an account of how experience extends our perceptual powers. Reid rejects a picture of the individual as cut off from the world, and as passively registering various images and feelings. Most of the mind’s operations incorporate judgment, according to Reid. And our judgments, though fallible, yield knowledge of such matters as our nature and wellbeing require, including knowledge of material things and their properties, past events, states of others’ minds, and moral and aesthetic facts. Accompanying the movement away from the excessive, idea-centred individualism of previous theories is the emphasis Reid places on our deeply social nature. This shows up in his insistence that testimony is a basic source of knowledge, that some of the mind’s fundamental operations are essentially social, that humans possess a natural language that provides a pre-reflective, preconventional means of communicative interaction, that the meaning of a term is not an idea but the typically public object to which it refers, and that most of our general conceptions are acquired in the course of learning a public language. Reid insists that the locus of causal power is the agent, and that the self is not merely a material thing being pushed about by laws of nature. Science teaches us about the latter; but such laws are merely the regularities according to which things occur, and it is no part of natural philosophy to inquire into the real, efficient causes of things – that is, the source of motion or change. Our moral and aesthetic judgments are no less objective, and no less capable of truth and falsity, than are our perceptual judgments, and they too are underwritten by first principles. In both his moral and aesthetic theories, Reid relies on comparisons with perception as part of his account of how we acquire the relevant knowledge.


Author(s):  
Mogens Lærke

This chapter is dedicated to a perplexing set of philosophical fragments today known as “De summa rerum”. Written by the young Leibniz in 1675–6, toward the end of his formative years in Paris, they deal with fundamental topics of philosophy including the first principles of philosophy, the nature of mind and perception, the nature and existence of God, the derivation of particular things from God, and modal philosophy. The “De summa rerum” fragments do not represent a unified philosophical attempt. Written at a time when Leibniz’s intellectual mindset had been both upset and profoundly stimulated by his encounter with the Parisian intellectual scene and his discovery of mathematics, they rather read like a set of philosophical test balloons flying in a great many directions. This chapter focuses on one particularly important strand of these reflections, informed by Spinoza and Spinozism via Leibniz’s exchanges with Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus.


1958 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Clive

Since the Enlightenment ennui and despair have been among the most dominant themes in western literature. In the twentieth century there scarcely exists a single major work of fiction which views man's nature and destiny under the aspect of hope or fulfillment. Why this should be so is the subject of interminable discussion which, generally speaking, locates the deeper cause in the breakdown of virtually all genuine religiousness with an attendant rise of meaninglessness and emptiness. This development in turn is linked to the various revolutions, particularly the Industrial, that have combined to undermine traditional occidental modes of thought and living. While some critics hold that it is merely a question of modern society becoming gradually accustomed to the blessings so precipitously conferred upon it by technology, thus comparing its present growing pains to those of an adolescent, few seem to disagree on the prevailing exhaustion and anxiety. In addition to the note of doom struck by the best intellectuals of our day — and its fashionableness is no argument against its truth — it would appear that the unreflecting masses independently of being exposed to this literature do not know how to redeem their leisure time, have lost a great deal of capacity for spontaneous participation, and seek despairingly if not eagerly for something vital to which they can relate themselves and through which find renewed structure in their lives.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-245
Author(s):  
German Melikhov ◽  

The article focuses on understanding some of the self-evident premises of the philosophy of the 17th–19th centuries that make up the horizon of the Enlightenment. One of these premises is Immanuel Kant’s idea of independent thinking. Based on the analysis of the polemics of Kant and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi about the “extrasensible abilities” of the reason, the question is raised about the possibility of understanding someone else’s concept based on other existential preferences. Answering this question, we distinguish between the concept of the Enlightenment and the practical principle of the Enlightenment and show that the supporter of the ideology of the Enlightenment (Kant) and his critic (Jacobi) appear in the light of the principle of independent thinking as the spokesmen of the spirit, not the letter of the Enlightenment. A condition for understanding someone else’s concept is a productive misunderstanding, which is one of the aspects of the principle of independent thinking: the acceptance of the self-evident as incomprehensible, the shift of one’s attention to one’s own how-being and the perception of thought as a gift.


Author(s):  
Abraham Anderson

Kant, Hume, and the Interruption of Dogmatic Slumber offers an interpretation of Kant’s “confession,” in the Prolegomena, that “it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber.” It argues that Hume roused Kant not, as has often been thought, by challenging the principle “every event has a cause” that governs experience, but by attacking the principle of sufficient reason, the basis of rationalist metaphysics and of the cosmological proof of the existence of God. This proposal makes it possible to reconcile Kant’s declaration about Hume with his later assertion that it was the Antinomy of pure reason that first woke him from dogmatic slumber, because the Antinomy, like Hume’s challenge, is directed against the dogmatic use of the principle of sufficient reason. The proposal put forward here also makes it possible to understand why Kant speaks of “the objection of David Hume” after mentioning Hume’s attack on metaphysics; for the “objection” that Kant has in mind, it is argued here, is a challenge to metaphysics, rather than to the foundations of empirical knowledge. This work also leads to a new view of Hume himself—as primarily interested not in the foundations of experience but in the problem of metaphysics. It thereby lets us see both Kant and Hume as champions of the Enlightenment in its struggle with superstition.


1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Wetzel

Theodicy begins with the recognition that the world is not obviously under the care of a loving God with limitless power and wisdom. If it were, why would the world be burdened with its considerable amount and variety of evil? Theodicists are those who attempt to answer this question by suggesting a possible rationale for the appearance of evil in a theocentric universe. In the past theodicists have taken up the cause of theodicy in the service of piety, so that God might be defended against libel from humans, particularly the accusation that God's reign lacks justice. Contemporary practitioners, who live in a world where the existence of God can no longer be presumed, tend to favour theodicy as an exercise in securing the rationality of religious belief. Their hope is that one crucial theoretical obstacle to responsible belief in God will have been eliminated, once the idea of God has been reconciled with the reality of evil. What has commonly united theodicists, at least since the Enlightenment, is that they must answer to a non–believing antagonist. Until relatively recently, theodicy has been a debate between apologists for theistic faith and their cultured detractors.


Author(s):  
Karin Nisenbaum

Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, a key figure in the reception of Kant’s critical philosophy, has long been regarded as a critic of the Enlightenment, who argued that philosophical reflection leads to a form of nihilism and advocated the idea that all human knowledge “derives from revelation and faith.” This chapter sheds new light on the reasons why Jacobi uses religious language to criticize the philosophical tradition. Going against a long tradition of interpreters who believe that Jacobi is an irrationalist, Nisenbaum argues that Jacobi’s concern is to restore human reason by unveiling reason’s practical foundation. In doing so, it highlights largely overlooked parallels between Jacobi’s so-called philosophy of faith and Kant’s prioritizing of the practical. Noting these parallels helps clarify both Jacobi’s philosophical contribution and the manner in which the post-Kantian German Idealists understood Kant’s conception of the relationship and conflict between theoretical and practical reason.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document