Early Enlightenment
FW-WB3924
2021-2022
,Contents
Lecture 1: Bayle......................................................................................................................................4
Lecture 2: Montesquieu & Voltaire........................................................................................................6
Lecture 3: Giambattista Vico...................................................................................................................9
Lecture 4: Clandestine manuscripts & Spinoza.....................................................................................10
Lecture 5: Berkely.................................................................................................................................13
Lecture 6: Hume...................................................................................................................................15
Lecture 7: Scottish enlightenment........................................................................................................18
Lecture 8: Reid & Dutch enlightenment...............................................................................................21
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion I.................................................................................23
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion II................................................................................25
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion III...............................................................................28
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion IV...............................................................................30
Montesquieu - The Troglodyte tribes
2 unoconv_3221263828.docx
,Montesquieu was famous for his letters between two supposed Persian friends, Usbek and Mirza, and
the ideas they present. In one such letter he described a tribe called the Troglodytes, a brutish people
lacking all forms of morality and senses of justice. The letter describes how they at first tried to set up
a governing body, which was disposed of soon after. The tribe fell into disrepair, suffering under the
consequences of the selfish actions of the individuals, leaving all to fend for themselves in chaotic and
savage state.
In another letter, he described two men escaping from that tribe. These men did not carry the same
disposition as the original tribesmen, and instead were virtuous men and lovers of justice. Their
offspring was also taught these same virtues such as that the interest of the individual was bound up in
that of the community. As that community grew, and the virtues carried by it grew only stronger by
numbers, the rewards seemed uncountably infinite. However, when they turned to appoint a king, he
was deeply distraught by the idea of ruling these already free men of many virtues, saying that there is
no way the people could act more nobly under command than they already do, and there is a serious
danger that under his rule people would just become slothful by simply avoiding the gravest crimes
but having no need for any other virtue.
These letters are understood to be a critique towards theorists such as Hobbes and Mandeville, in that
it says that humanity would not be able to survive without some inherent virtues. Since humanity has
survived so far, it must then be that human nature cannot be entirely selfish.
De Châtelet – principles of contradiction and sufficient reason
De Châtelet starts her work by reaffirming the idea of contradiction as a first axiom upon which all
truths are founded. Everyone readily agrees that something that contradicts itself cannot be true, and
this idea is therefore the foundation of all certainty. It is for example the foundation of necessary
truths, those that can only be determined in a single way – think of the typical example of ‘all
bachelors are unmarried’. The fact that there is no contradiction in this means that this has to be true
since being unmarried is an inherent element to being a bachelor and there is no other way to prove
this.
However, she went on to say that if a thing can exist in various ways, as with contingent truths, we
need another principle of knowledge, as the idea of contradictions no longer applies. The idea she
speaks of is that of sufficient reason. It is a thing natural to us, as we often doubt something until we
decide that there is enough reason to support it. Furthermore, if we did not accept it as a fact, we could
never be sure of anything, as things could happen without any sort of reason.
“Without the principle of sufficient reason, one would no longer be able to say that this universe,
whose parts are so interconnected, could only be produced by a supreme wisdom, for if there can be
effects without sufficient reason, all night have been produced by accident, that is to say, by nothing”
She further states that this is the only thing differentiating sleep from being awake, as in sleep there is
no need for sufficient reason for things to happen. We should then keep a keen eye on sufficient
reason to prevent us from walking into the labyrinths of human error, and we can accept nothing that
violates this fundamental axiom. She goes on to say that for something to be possible is not sufficient
reason for it to exist, as it must first be actualised. In order for something to exist, there must be
sufficient reason for it to exist, and when this is too complex, we have to show that we cannot
demonstrate that there is no sufficient reason for it to exist.
From this, du Châtelet moves to the law of continuity, stating that things cannot possibly jump from
one state to another, and have to pass through all the different states in between these for it to end in its
final state. This also means that sufficient reason for something to be in a certain state can be found in
whatever was its previous state.
3 unoconv_3221263828.docx
, In the final part of her work, she used these ideas to say that matter must have a sufficient reason to
make its continuous changes. This is because these continuous changes are a possibility and not an
actuality. There must then be a sufficient reason for matter to move to that actuality; an element to
move them to behave in the ways that they do. This reason is something she called ‘force’. This force,
although we might not understand it now, is the motorising energy that moves particles to go through
their continuous changes and movements.
Lecture 1: Bayle
Van Bungelen, W – the concept of enlightenment is an ambiguous one. It encompasses 17 th and 18th
century philosophers, but it was much more than just another episode of philosophy, as it was a whole
sociocultural movement. At the end of the 18th century, this movement gains a political edge by means
of revolutions in America and France. Although these were not just philosophical events, they were
heavily influenced by enlightenment ideas, as the revolutionaries themselves referred to enlightenment
ideas as reasons for their revolution.
However, we are faced with 3 problems relating to the history of enlightenment:
1. Unity – many experts say there is no such thing as the European enlightenment. This is the
reason why distinguish between different types of enlightenment by area. Most prominently,
the French enlightenment. We can however differentiate in general between, conservative and
radical enlightenment.
2. Chronology – when exactly did the enlightenment start? Most often stated is between
1650/1660 with the peace of Westphalia. But maybe more so is looking at Spinoza who first
started the more radical enlightenment, after which other people took up more conservative
ideas of enlightenment. One thing is sure: the enlightenment brought with it a new kind of
sharpness, seen for example in Voltaire’s writing style or a rumbling of upcoming atheism
(which was at the time shocking). Another great invention was that of the encyclopaedia,
which became widespread. These controversial books became even more popular when they
became prohibited.
3. Critique – the counter enlightenment was a widespread development in response to the
enlightenment, critical of the causes that it inspired. Enlightenment became something to
either be in favour of or against, as if it was a political movement, not a historical
development as ‘middle ages’. This is also so because the enlightenment movement was very
much something people were aware of, unlike the ‘middle ages’. Immanuel Kant wrote a very
influential essay in 1784 about what exactly is the enlightenment and what it asks of us.
Why then is it that France’s enlightenment was the most influential? Two reasons: French as a
language was starting to replace Latin as a scholarly language, and a lingua franca. Secondly, there
was the French revolution being the first end of a European ancient regime, at the time a monumental
event. This was an open and clear achievement of enlightenment philosophy for the rest of the world
to see.
Bayle
The first major French philosopher was Pierre Bayle, nicknamed le philosphe de Rotterdam. After the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 (which promised religious freedom in France), many
philosophers were forced to go to the Dutch Republic, where they were free to publish their works.
Bayle was part of this wave of philosophers moving to the Dutch Republic. He became professor at
the Illustrious School of Rotterdam, which was supposed to prepare students for the only real
university in the Republic, Leiden University. Here he made some very powerful friends and a good
influential publisher. In a very short time, he became the unofficial president of the European
Republic of Letters (a group of intellectuals exchanging letters with philosophical ideas across
Europe and the Americas), where he established the nouvelle de la republique des lettres, as a journal
4 unoconv_3221263828.docx
FW-WB3924
2021-2022
,Contents
Lecture 1: Bayle......................................................................................................................................4
Lecture 2: Montesquieu & Voltaire........................................................................................................6
Lecture 3: Giambattista Vico...................................................................................................................9
Lecture 4: Clandestine manuscripts & Spinoza.....................................................................................10
Lecture 5: Berkely.................................................................................................................................13
Lecture 6: Hume...................................................................................................................................15
Lecture 7: Scottish enlightenment........................................................................................................18
Lecture 8: Reid & Dutch enlightenment...............................................................................................21
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion I.................................................................................23
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion II................................................................................25
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion III...............................................................................28
Hume – Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion IV...............................................................................30
Montesquieu - The Troglodyte tribes
2 unoconv_3221263828.docx
,Montesquieu was famous for his letters between two supposed Persian friends, Usbek and Mirza, and
the ideas they present. In one such letter he described a tribe called the Troglodytes, a brutish people
lacking all forms of morality and senses of justice. The letter describes how they at first tried to set up
a governing body, which was disposed of soon after. The tribe fell into disrepair, suffering under the
consequences of the selfish actions of the individuals, leaving all to fend for themselves in chaotic and
savage state.
In another letter, he described two men escaping from that tribe. These men did not carry the same
disposition as the original tribesmen, and instead were virtuous men and lovers of justice. Their
offspring was also taught these same virtues such as that the interest of the individual was bound up in
that of the community. As that community grew, and the virtues carried by it grew only stronger by
numbers, the rewards seemed uncountably infinite. However, when they turned to appoint a king, he
was deeply distraught by the idea of ruling these already free men of many virtues, saying that there is
no way the people could act more nobly under command than they already do, and there is a serious
danger that under his rule people would just become slothful by simply avoiding the gravest crimes
but having no need for any other virtue.
These letters are understood to be a critique towards theorists such as Hobbes and Mandeville, in that
it says that humanity would not be able to survive without some inherent virtues. Since humanity has
survived so far, it must then be that human nature cannot be entirely selfish.
De Châtelet – principles of contradiction and sufficient reason
De Châtelet starts her work by reaffirming the idea of contradiction as a first axiom upon which all
truths are founded. Everyone readily agrees that something that contradicts itself cannot be true, and
this idea is therefore the foundation of all certainty. It is for example the foundation of necessary
truths, those that can only be determined in a single way – think of the typical example of ‘all
bachelors are unmarried’. The fact that there is no contradiction in this means that this has to be true
since being unmarried is an inherent element to being a bachelor and there is no other way to prove
this.
However, she went on to say that if a thing can exist in various ways, as with contingent truths, we
need another principle of knowledge, as the idea of contradictions no longer applies. The idea she
speaks of is that of sufficient reason. It is a thing natural to us, as we often doubt something until we
decide that there is enough reason to support it. Furthermore, if we did not accept it as a fact, we could
never be sure of anything, as things could happen without any sort of reason.
“Without the principle of sufficient reason, one would no longer be able to say that this universe,
whose parts are so interconnected, could only be produced by a supreme wisdom, for if there can be
effects without sufficient reason, all night have been produced by accident, that is to say, by nothing”
She further states that this is the only thing differentiating sleep from being awake, as in sleep there is
no need for sufficient reason for things to happen. We should then keep a keen eye on sufficient
reason to prevent us from walking into the labyrinths of human error, and we can accept nothing that
violates this fundamental axiom. She goes on to say that for something to be possible is not sufficient
reason for it to exist, as it must first be actualised. In order for something to exist, there must be
sufficient reason for it to exist, and when this is too complex, we have to show that we cannot
demonstrate that there is no sufficient reason for it to exist.
From this, du Châtelet moves to the law of continuity, stating that things cannot possibly jump from
one state to another, and have to pass through all the different states in between these for it to end in its
final state. This also means that sufficient reason for something to be in a certain state can be found in
whatever was its previous state.
3 unoconv_3221263828.docx
, In the final part of her work, she used these ideas to say that matter must have a sufficient reason to
make its continuous changes. This is because these continuous changes are a possibility and not an
actuality. There must then be a sufficient reason for matter to move to that actuality; an element to
move them to behave in the ways that they do. This reason is something she called ‘force’. This force,
although we might not understand it now, is the motorising energy that moves particles to go through
their continuous changes and movements.
Lecture 1: Bayle
Van Bungelen, W – the concept of enlightenment is an ambiguous one. It encompasses 17 th and 18th
century philosophers, but it was much more than just another episode of philosophy, as it was a whole
sociocultural movement. At the end of the 18th century, this movement gains a political edge by means
of revolutions in America and France. Although these were not just philosophical events, they were
heavily influenced by enlightenment ideas, as the revolutionaries themselves referred to enlightenment
ideas as reasons for their revolution.
However, we are faced with 3 problems relating to the history of enlightenment:
1. Unity – many experts say there is no such thing as the European enlightenment. This is the
reason why distinguish between different types of enlightenment by area. Most prominently,
the French enlightenment. We can however differentiate in general between, conservative and
radical enlightenment.
2. Chronology – when exactly did the enlightenment start? Most often stated is between
1650/1660 with the peace of Westphalia. But maybe more so is looking at Spinoza who first
started the more radical enlightenment, after which other people took up more conservative
ideas of enlightenment. One thing is sure: the enlightenment brought with it a new kind of
sharpness, seen for example in Voltaire’s writing style or a rumbling of upcoming atheism
(which was at the time shocking). Another great invention was that of the encyclopaedia,
which became widespread. These controversial books became even more popular when they
became prohibited.
3. Critique – the counter enlightenment was a widespread development in response to the
enlightenment, critical of the causes that it inspired. Enlightenment became something to
either be in favour of or against, as if it was a political movement, not a historical
development as ‘middle ages’. This is also so because the enlightenment movement was very
much something people were aware of, unlike the ‘middle ages’. Immanuel Kant wrote a very
influential essay in 1784 about what exactly is the enlightenment and what it asks of us.
Why then is it that France’s enlightenment was the most influential? Two reasons: French as a
language was starting to replace Latin as a scholarly language, and a lingua franca. Secondly, there
was the French revolution being the first end of a European ancient regime, at the time a monumental
event. This was an open and clear achievement of enlightenment philosophy for the rest of the world
to see.
Bayle
The first major French philosopher was Pierre Bayle, nicknamed le philosphe de Rotterdam. After the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 (which promised religious freedom in France), many
philosophers were forced to go to the Dutch Republic, where they were free to publish their works.
Bayle was part of this wave of philosophers moving to the Dutch Republic. He became professor at
the Illustrious School of Rotterdam, which was supposed to prepare students for the only real
university in the Republic, Leiden University. Here he made some very powerful friends and a good
influential publisher. In a very short time, he became the unofficial president of the European
Republic of Letters (a group of intellectuals exchanging letters with philosophical ideas across
Europe and the Americas), where he established the nouvelle de la republique des lettres, as a journal
4 unoconv_3221263828.docx
