加入VIP
  • 专属下载特权
  • 现金文档折扣购买
  • VIP免费专区
  • 千万文档免费下载

上传资料

关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 [英]乔纳森·I·以撒:启蒙论争:哲学、现代性与人之解放 1670—1752(牛津大学2006)

[英]乔纳森·I·以撒:启蒙论争:哲学、现代性与人之解放 1670—1752(牛津大学2006)

[英]乔纳森·I·以撒:启蒙论争:哲学、现代性与人之解放 16…

Stlnz
2008-08-30 0人阅读 举报 0 0 暂无简介

简介:本文档为《[英]乔纳森·I·以撒:启蒙论争:哲学、现代性与人之解放 1670—1752(牛津大学2006)pdf》,可适用于人文社科领域

ENLIGHTENMENTCONTESTEDThispageintentionallyleftblankEnlightenmentContestedPhilosophy,Modernity,andtheEmancipationofMan–JONATHANIISRAELGreatClarendonStreet,OxfordOXDPOxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxfordItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,andeducationbypublishingworldwideinOxfordNewYorkAucklandCapeTownDaresSalaamHongKongKarachiKualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityNairobiNewDelhiShanghaiTaipeiTorontoWithofficesinArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzechRepublicFranceGreeceGuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingaporeSouthKoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnamOxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountriesPublishedintheUnitedStatesbyOxfordUniversityPressInc,NewYork©JonathanIIsraelThemoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenassertedDatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)FirstpublishedAllrightsreservedNopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographicsrightsorganizationEnquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressaboveYoumustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcoverandyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirerBritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataDataavailableLibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataDataavailableTypesetbyNewgenImagingSystems(P)Ltd,Chennai,IndiaPrintedinGreatBritainonacidfreepaperbyClaysLtd,StIvesplcISBN–––––––PrefaceWastheEnlightenmentinessenceasocialoranintellectualphenomenonTheanswer,arguably,isthatitwasbothandthatphysicalrealityandthelifeofthemindmustbeseentobegenuinelyinteractinginakindofdialectic,atwowaystreet,ifwearetoachieveaproperandbalancedapproachtothisfundamentaltopicDoesitreallymatterhowweinterprettheEnlightenmentSurely,itdoesForwhileithasbeenfashionableinrecentyears,aboveall(butnotonly)inthePostmodernistcamp,todisdaintheEnlightenmentasbiased,facile,selfdeluded,overoptimistic,Eurocentric,imperialistic,andultimatelydestructive,therearesound,evenratherurgent,reasonsforrejectingsuchnotionsasprofoundlymisconceivedandinsisting,onthecontrary,thattheEnlightenmenthasbeenandremainsbyfarthemostpositivefactorshapingcontemporaryrealityandthosestrandsof‘modernity’anyonewishingtoliveinaccordwithreasonwouldwanttosupportandcontributetoItisconsequentlyofsomeconcernthatwealmostentirelylackcomprehensive,generalaccountsoftheEnlightenmentwhichtrytopresenttheoverallpictureonaEuropeanandtransatlanticscaleandalsothattherestillremainsgreatuncertainty,doubt,andlackofclarityaboutwhatexactlytheEnlightenmentwasandwhatintellectuallyandsociallyitactuallyinvolvedFormuchofthetime,inthecurrentdebate,boththefriendsandfoesoftheEnlightenmentarearguingaboutahistoricalphenomenonwhichinrecentdecadescontinuestobeveryinadequatelyunderstoodanddescribedInfact,sincePeterGay’sambitioustwopartgeneralsurveyTheEnlightenment:AnInterpretation,publishedin,therehavebeenhardlyanyseriousattempts,asGayputsit,to‘offeracomprehensiveinterpretationoftheEnlightenment’Especiallydisturbingisthatitremainsalmostimpossibletofindareasonablydetailedgeneralaccountofthecruciallyformativepreperiodandthatthereisnowadaysamonggeneralhistoriansoftheeighteenthcentury,asdistinctfromphilosophersandspecialistsinpoliticalthought,rarelymuchdiscussionoftheEnlightenment’sintellectualcontentasopposedtotheaccordingtomostcurrenthistoriographysupposedlymoreimportantsocialandmaterialfactorsThepurposeofthispresentaccountistoattempttoprovideausableoutlinesurveyandworkofreference,enablingthegeneralreader,aswellasthestudentandprofessionalscholar,togetmoreofagriponwhattheideasoftheEnlightenmentactuallywere,andonewhichatthesametimedeniesthatthesocial,cultural,andmaterialfactorsareofgreaterconcerntohistoriansthantheintellectualimpulsesbutdoessowithoutsimplyreversingthisandclaimingideaswere,therefore,morecrucialthanthesocialprocessRather,myaimistostriveforagenuinebalance,showinghowideasandsociopoliticalcontextinteractwhileyetapproachingthisinterplayofthephysicalandintellectualfromtheintellectualside,thatisrunningagainstthenowadaysusualandgenerallyreceivedpreferenceThereasonforthiscontraryemphasisisthattheintellectualdimension,itseemstome,isbyfarthelesswellunderstoodsideoftheequationandhenceatpresentmuchmoreinneedofreassessmentthanthesocialandculturalaspectsOneofthemostcontroversialquestionsabouttheEnlightenmentinrecentyearshasbeenthatconcerningitspreciserelationshiptothemakingofrevolutions,aquestioncloselytied,inturn,tothatconcerningitsrelationshipto‘modernity’moregenerallyOddthoughthismayappeartoday,itwasoftenclaimed,fromthelateseventeenthtothemidnineteenthcentury,inbooks,pamphlets,sermons,andnewspapers,that‘philosophy’hadcaused,andwasstillcausing,a‘universalrevolution’intheaffairsofmenAfter,itwasusualtolinkthisnotiontotheFrenchRevolutioninparticularandviewthatvastupheavalasthe‘realizationofphilosophy’¹Buttherewasnothingnewaboutbracketing‘philosophy’withmodern‘revolution’intheearlynineteenthcentury,orindeedearlier,anditisvitaltobearinmindthatinthedecadesbeforeandaftertherewereallkindsofother‘revolutions’besidethatinFrancenotallviolentandnotallpolitical,butallverycloselyassociatedwiththeunprecedented,andtomanydeeplyperplexing,impactofphilosophersandphilosophyForsometimeafter,theFrenchRevolutionanditsoffshootupheavalsacrosstheEuropeancontinentandintheAmericas,includingbythesthemajorrevolutionsinGreeceandSpanishAmerica,wereusuallythoughtofasessentiallypartsofamuchlargerandmore‘universal’revolutiongeneratedby‘philosophy’or,tobemoreexact,whatinthepreviouscenturyhadcometobeknownasl’espritphilosophiqueorsometimesphilosophismeForl’espritphilosophique,asaFrenchrevolutionarystatesmaninterestedinthisquestion,JeanÉtienneMariePortalis,pointedoutin,wasactuallysomethingverydifferentfromphilosophyingeneralFormostphilosophers,includingthoseembracingastrictempiricismandconfiningthemselvestowhatcouldbededucedfrom‘l’observationetl’expérience’,aswellasthoseadheringtotheGermanidealistsystems,hadlongsoughttocurtailphilosophy’sscopeandreconcilereasonwithreligiousbeliefL’espritphilosophique,bycontrast,whilealsoa‘résultatdessciencescomparées’,wasdefinedpreciselybyitsrefusaltolimitphilosophy’sscopetospecifiedpartsofreality,itssweepingaspirationtoembraceandredefinethewholeofourreality:revolutionary‘espritphilosophique’,inotherwords,claimed,asPortalisputsit,tobe‘applicableàtout’²Aboveall,asagainstothersortsofphilosophy,philosophismewas‘unesorted’esprituniversel’Postattributionofthe‘revolution’tol’espritphilosophiquewasfrequentbutinessencenodifferentfromthemanyexamplesofprecomplaintsaboutdangerousnewformsofthoughtinfiltratingreligion,socialtheory,andpoliticsinsuchawayastothreatenthebasicstructuresofauthority,tradition,faith,andprivilegePrefacevi¹McMahon,EnemiesoftheEnlightenment,²Portalis,Del’usageetdel’abus,i–onwhichancienrégimesocietyrestedModernhistoriansandstudents,ofcourse,areapttodismissthissortofthingasafigmentofthecollectiveimaginationofthetime,anillusionpowerfullyfedbyideologicalobsessionsandbiaswhichonlyveryvaguelycorrespondstothehistoricalrealityInrecentdecades,ithasbeendeeplyandmoreandmoreunfashionableamonghistorians,inbothEuropeandAmerica,toexplaintheFrenchRevolution,thegreatesteventonthethresholdof‘modernity’,asaconsequenceofideasMarxistdogmawithitsstressoneconomicrealityandculturalsuperstructurehelpedgeneratethisnearuniversalconvictionButanothermajorjustificationforthisinsomewaysdistinctlypeculiararticleofthemodernhistorian’screedisthegrowingdemocratizationofhistoryitself:studentsespecially,butprofessorstoo,readilytaketotheargumentthatmostpeople,thenasnow,dothingsforexclusively‘practical’reasonsandhavenointerestinmattersintellectualAnyattempttostresstheimpactofthephilosophesisnowadaysroutinelyobjectedtoonthegroundthatthevastmajorityknewnexttonothingaboutthemortheirbooksandcaredevenlessThis,ofcourse,isperfectlytrueButthereisanimportantsenseinwhichthisfashionableobjectionmissesthepointForthosewhoinveighedmostobsessivelyagainstnewideasbeforeandafteralsoinsistedthatmostpeoplethen,asnow,neitherknewnorcaredanythingabout‘philosophy’Yetpracticallyalllateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturycommentatorswereconvinced,andwithsomereason,thatwhilemostfailedtoseehowphilosophyimpingedontheirlives,andalteredthecircumstancesoftheirtime,theyhadallthesamebeenruinouslyledastrayby‘philosophy’itwasphilosopherswhowerechieflyresponsibleforpropagatingtheconceptsoftoleration,equality,democracy,republicanism,individualfreedom,andlibertyofexpressionandthepress,thebatchofideasidentifiedastheprincipalcauseofthenearoverthrowofauthority,tradition,monarchy,faith,andprivilegeHence,philosophersspecificallyhadcausedtherevolutionThrone,altar,aristocracy,andimperialsway,accordingtospokesmenoftheCounterEnlightenment,hadbeenbroughttothevergeofextinctionbyideaswhichmostpeopleknowabsolutelynothingaboutMostofthosewhohadsupportedwhatconservativeandmiddleoftheroadobserversconsideredcorrosiveandperniciousdemocraticconceptshadallegedlydonesounwittingly,orwithoutfullygraspingtherealnatureoftheideasonwhichtheringingslogansandpoliticalrhetoricoftheagerestedYetifveryfewgraspedorengagedintellectuallywiththecoreideasinquestionthisdidnotalterthefactthatfundamentallynewideashadshaped,nurtured,andpropagatedthenewlyinsurgentpopularrhetoricusedinspeechesandnewspaperstoarousethepeopleagainsttraditionandauthorityIndeed,itseemedobviousthatitwas‘philosophy’whichhadgeneratedtherevolutionaryslogans,maxims,andideologiesofthepamphleteers,journalists,demagogues,electeddeputies,andmalcontentarmyofficerswho,intheAmerican,French,Dutch,andItalianrevolutionsofthes,s,ands,aswellastheotherrevolutionswhichfollowedproclaimedandjustifiedafundamentalbreakwiththepastPrefaceviiThekindof‘philosophy’theyhadinmind,likeitssocialandpoliticalimpact,wasplainlysomethingfundamentallynewWhatwasnotatallnewwastheturmoil,violence,andfanaticismaccompanyingtherevolutionaryprocessForifthecommonpeoplewereperfectlycapableofcausingallsortsofagitation,instability,anddisruptionwithoutanyhelpfromphilosophers,theconceptualoverthrowofaltar,throne,andnobilitywasconsidered,surelyrightly,somethingpreviouslywhollyunimaginedandinconceivablewhich,consequently,hadlittleinherentlytodowitheconomicneed,socialpressures,ortheallegedlyinnateunrulinessoftheplebsRather,suchupheavalcouldonlystemfromarevolutionarytransformationinthepeople’swayofthinkingNotonlywasthefoundationalroleof‘philosophy’heavilystressedbycontemporariesintheearlynineteenthcentury,buttherewasalsoacleargraspofthelaterobscured,yetperhapsratherobvious,factthatitmakeslittlesensetoseekthecausesofthe‘revolution’inthedecadesimmediatelyprecedingforagreatrevolutioninthoughtandculturetakestimeOnemustlookbacktothecenturybeforetolocatetheintellectualoriginsandearlydevelopmentofwhattranspiredintherevolutionaryeraItwasnotpopulargrievances,economiccauses,obsoleteinstitutions,lackofliberty,oranymaterialfactor,accordingtoAntonioValsecchi,inabookposthumouslypublishedinVenicein,butspecificallyspiritofilosoficowhichinItaly,asinFranceandtherestofEurope,hadvirtuallydestroyed‘society,commerce,discipline,faith,andthrone’,arevolutionofthemindculminatinginVoltaireandRousseaucertainlybutwhoserealoriginslayfurtherback,intheseventeenthcenturyThetrueoriginatorsoftheFrenchRevolution,hesays,werenotRousseauorVoltairebut‘TommasoHobbesd’Ingilterra,eBenedettoSpinosadiOlanda’,trulyworldshakingandsubversivephilosopherswhosedeadlyworkofcorrosionhadbeencontinued,againinHolland,bythenolesssubversive‘PietroBayle’³YetthisinterpretationoftherevolutionaryupheavalsofthelateeighteenthcenturyinessencescarcelydifferedfromthatofanotherItalianprofessor,TommasoVincenzoMoniglia(–),atPisa,whooverseventyyearsearlier,in,warnedtheItalianreadingpublicthatrecentintellectualtrendsinFrance,inspiredbytheEnglish‘Deists’AnthonyCollinsandJohnToland,usingideasintroducedbySpinoza,wereproducinganewanddangerouskindofphilosophy,onewhichoverturnsallexistingprinciples,institutions,codesofcustom,androyaldecreesTheirideas,heargued,entaila‘totalrevolutioninideas,language,andtheaffairsoftheworld’,leadingtoadrasticallychangedsocietyinwhichSpinosismo,orasanotherItalianwriteroftheperiod,DanieleConcina,putit,‘questamostruosadivinitaSpinosiana’thismonstrousSpinozistdivinity,wouldreignsupreme,meaningthatinplaceoffaith,hierarchy,andkingshipeverythingwouldhenceforthbebasedonphysicalrealityaloneand‘ontheinterestsandpassionsofindividuals’⁴Prefaceviii³Valsecchi,Ritrattiovite,–⁴Moniglia,Dissertazionecontroifatalisti,ii–Israel,RadicalEnlightenment,–Moniglia’sandConcina’sadmonitionsaboutSpinosismoand‘universalrevolution’inthemideighteenthcentury,inturn,differedlittleinsubstancefromotherwarningsissuedstillearlierAtthebeginningofthecentury,theAngloIrishHighChurchdivineWilliamCarroll,inthesecondpartofhispamphletSpinozaReviv’d(London,),maintainedthatphilosophybasedonwhathecalls‘Spinozaprinciples’,meaningmilitantDeismbasedononesubstancephilosophy,‘fundamentallysubvertsallnaturalandreveal’dreligion,andoverthrowsourconstitutionbothinchurchandstate’⁵TheearliestavowalsalongtheselinesindeedreachbacktothelateseventeenthcenturyIn,forexample,aprominentGermancourtofficialofwideexperience,theFreiherrVeitLudwigvonSeckendorff(–),thoughtitquitewrongtosuppose,asmanytheologiansdid,that‘atheistic’philosophyofthekindpropagatedbySpinozaunderminesonlyreligionandtheologyforbymakinglifeinthisworld,andindividualexpectations,thebasisofpoliticsSpinozismequallythreatenedtoliquidateallroyalty,andtheircourtsandcourtiers,aswell⁶In,similarly,theFrenchCalvinistPierreYvon(–)avowedthatSpinozanotonlydestroystheologyphilosophically,reducingmoralitytoamerecalculusofindividualadvantage,butthathispoliticaltheoryauthorizeseveryonetoinstigatepoliticalrebellion⁷AcrossEurope,theradicalminded,aswellasmanyreligiousthinkers,werequicktograspthatafundamentalrevolutionofthemindmusteventuallytranslatealsointopoliticalrevolutionThethreattothepolitical,religious,andsocialstatusquoposedby‘Spinozaprinciples’wascolourfullyalludedtobytheanonymousauthorofthetractRencontredeBayleetdeSpinosadansl’autremonde,publishedininHollandthoughwith‘Cologne’declaredonthetitlepageaworkdesignedtotightenthereadingpublic’sassociationofBaylewithSpinozabyimplyingthesetwogreatthinkerssharednotjustparallelsintheirlives,bothbeingrefugeesfromCatholic,monarchicalintoleranceinquestofindividualfreedomofthought,butalsocommonphilosophicalaims⁸Intheimaginarydialoguebetweenthetwo,setinthenextworld,‘Bayle’assures‘Spinosa’thatwhilesomeapprovedthelatter’sselfportrayal(inhissketchbook,foundafterhisdeath)inthefisherman’sgarbofthenotoriousseventeenthcenturyinsurgentMasanielloasymbolinSpinoza’sdayofpopularrevoltagainstmonarchicaloppression⁹hisenemiesfearedthismightimplythat‘whatMasaniellohadbroughtaboutinfifteendaysieademocraticrevolution,inNaples,youwouldlikewiseaccomplishinashorttime,inthewholeofChristendom’¹⁰LaterCounterEnlightenmentaccusationsassociatingphilosophyandthephilosopheswithrevolution,then,oncestrippedofideologicalbias,possessPrefaceix⁵Carroll,SpinozaReviv’dParttheSecond,⁶Seckendorff,ChristenStaat,i,ii–⁷Yvon,L’Impiétéconvaincue,,,,–⁸RencontredeBayleetdeSpinosa,–,⁹Meinsma,Spinozaetsoncercle,Stone,Vico’sCulturalHistory,,,¹⁰RencontredeBayleetdeSpinosa,SeealsoStewart,Courtier,–aconsiderabledegreeofcogencyanddeservemoreattentionfromscholarsthantheyhavehithertoreceivedForthetrendstowardssecularization,toleration,equality,democracy,individualfreedom,andlibertyofexpressioninwesternEuropeandAmericabetweenandwerearguablypowerfullyimpelledby‘philosophy’anditssuccessfulpropagationinthepoliticalandsocialsphereandjustastheCounterEnlightenmentaffirmed,intheendsuchideaswereboundtoprecipitateaEuropeanandAmericanrevolutionaryprocess,ofatypeneverbeforewitnessedIf,moreover,inrecentdecadesmosthistoriansofbothEnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolutionhaverepudiatedinterpretationsemphasizingtheroleofideas,claimingtherevolutionarymovementswereprimarilysocialandculturalphenomenabestunderstoodbyfocusingonsocialrelationsandmaterialfactors,thereremainformidableunresolveddifficultieswiththisconceptionFortheresultsproducedbyrecentsocialhistoricalresearchhardlyseemtojustifythecontinuingemphasisonaprimarily‘social’approachNoonehasbeenabletospecifywhattheallegedlyprofoundsocialchangeswhichlaybehindtheEnlightenmentandRevolutionactuallywereorevenhowshiftsinsocialstructure,giventheirreality,couldbroadlyandspontaneouslytranslateintoapopularlydriven‘universalrevolution’designedtotransformthecoreprinciplesuponwhichsocietyandpoliticsrestInanycase,areverseshiftofemphasisbacktothestudyofideasintheirhistoricalsett

用户评价(1)

关闭

新课改视野下建构高中语文教学实验成果报告(32KB)

抱歉,积分不足下载失败,请稍后再试!

提示

试读已结束,如需要继续阅读或者下载,敬请购买!

文档小程序码

使用微信“扫一扫”扫码寻找文档

1

打开微信

2

扫描小程序码

3

发布寻找信息

4

等待寻找结果

我知道了
评分:

/49

[英]乔纳森·I·以撒:启蒙论争:哲学、现代性与人之解放 1670—1752(牛津大学2006)

仅供在线阅读

VIP

在线
客服

免费
邮箱

爱问共享资料服务号

扫描关注领取更多福利