The Problem of the Enlightenment: Strauss, Jacobi, and the Pantheism Controversy
2003; Philosophy Education Society Inc.; Volume: 56; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2154-1302
Autores Tópico(s)Violence, Religion, and Philosophy
ResumoDenn was die Philosophen sogar ein wenig nachsehend und parteiisch gegen Enthusiasten und Schwarmer macht, ist, dass sie, die Philosophen, am allermeisten dabei verlieren wurden, wenn es gar keine Enthusiasten und Schwarmer mehr gabe. Lessing, Uber eine zeitige Aufgabe I IN HIS FIRST BOOK, LEO STRAUSS PROVIDES reader with an interesting clue to one of sources of his groundbreaking critical study of Theological-Political Treatise. While identifying guiding question of his undertaking, he also points out its pedigree: Even if all reasoning adduced Spinoza were compelling, nothing would have been proven. Only this much would have been proven: that on basis of unbelieving science, one could not but arrive at Spinoza's results. But would this basis itself thus be justified? It was Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi who posed this question, and so doing lifted interpretation of Spinoza--or what amounts to same thing--the criticism of Spinoza on to its proper plane. (1) This statement is both literally and figuratively singular: only reference to Jacobi in whole book, unaccompanied any mention of its source, it makes us wonder about importance of this author for Strauss's endeavour. A renowned critic of Enlightenment, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743-1819) singled out Spinoza as one of main targets of his attacks. (2) Similarly, in Spinoza's Critique of Religion, Strauss casts doubt on legitimacy of Spinoza's attack against revealed religion, thereby also questioning foundations of In discerning review of book, his contemporary Gerhard Kruger noted that in Spinoza's Critique of Religion, is concealed fundamental philosophic discussion of problem of Enlightenment. (3) If this interpretation is sound, then from merely formal point of view procedure followed Strauss closely resembles that of Jacobi: to address problem of Enlightenment means of critical assessment of Spinoza. (4) However, even if Strauss's critique of Spinoza may be said to take its cue from Jacobi, it is not clear whether latter's influence reaches beyond this initial impulse, nor is it clear to what extent. Recently it has been suggested not only that Spinoza's Critique of Religion is by its own account, `Jacobian' in orientation, but also that the Jacobian dilemma and critique of rationalism [remained] fundamental for Strauss's perspective throughout his career. (5) Moreover, these assumptions carry an implicit criticism, to extent that Strauss may be said to be heir to irrationalism, conservatism, and authoritarianism attributed to anti-Enlightenment with which Jacobi is commonly associated. (6) This paper will attempt to show that such assessments are in need of qualification. It will be argued that even if certain affinity between Strauss and Jacobi can be shown to exist, this affinity is far more complex than it seems. In order to bring out this complexity, closer look will be taken at those writings in which Strauss discusses Jacobi. To begin, there is his doctoral dissertation, which, although he later disparaged it as a disgraceful performance, nevertheless merits closer investigation. (7) A comprehensive account, moreover, must broaden inquiry. After completion of Spinoza's Critique of Religion, Strauss worked as coeditor of Jubilee Edition of Moses Mendelssohn's collected works. As part of this employment, he conducted research into so-called Pantheism Controversy. This debate was launched Jacobi, with Moses Mendelssohn as its principal addressee, and initially concerned philosophical legacy of thinker and writer Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. However, it soon developed into full-blown debate concerning foundations and legitimacy of Enlightenment, involving such prominent contemporaries as Johann Georg Hamann, Immanuel Kant, Karl Reinhold, and Johann Gottfried Herder. …
Referência(s)