I've read the entirety of Jonathan Israel's trilogy on The Enlightenment, and they are some of my favorite history books. What are your questions?

First Maw, thanks for responding. Let's start with this one...

It seems clear to me Israel thinks some of the single substance heirs of Spinoza were actually atheists (e.g. Diderot, d"Hholbach, Helvetius) and I don't know of any historian who disagrees that those three were atheists. And, of course, an atheist would not maintain that the universe was providential in any way.

But I also take Israel as saying there were "radical" thinkers who were not atheists but still did not believe in a providential universe (I think he is clear that he holds that Deists (e.g. Voltaire, Jefferson) believed that the universe is providential. And again, I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that).

I can see how someone could maintain that applies to Spinoza himself, but I am not sure who Israel is referring to in the 18th century who was not an atheist and who also believed in a non-providential universe. At this point, do you think I am reading Israel correctly, and if so, which of the 18th century thinkers does Israel maintain were not atheists but also do not believe in a providential universe?

In addition, in A Revolution of the Mind, Israel says that Richard Price, Joseph Priestly and Mary Wollstonecraft believed that "God had a plan for the world for the world's gradual improvement, albeit not through divine action or miraculous happenings, but through the ordinary process of nature and society." I think Israel wants to call these three radicals, but certainly a belief like that includes the concept of a providential universe. So I am confused as to his exact criteria for labeling someone a radical.

Any feedback would be very helpful.

.

Jonathan Israel uses the term "Radical" (in the context of the Enlightenment, of course) to describe a set of overlapping (but not necessarily unconditional) ideas pertaining to: God (e.g. religious fundamentalism vs. atheism), political philosophy (e.g. absolute monarchy vs. democratic republic) and ethics (e.g. anti-tolerance vs. universal tolerance). He contrasts the Radical arm of the Enlightenment with the Moderate arm, and the Counter-Enlightenment arm.

Israel doesn't provide an exact, strict , or inflexible criteria for what constitutes a "radical" Enlightenment thinker, as philosophers during this time differed in the above views, sometimes inconsistently, and across a spectrum. Rather, Israel focuses on a multitude of philosophers, discusses their views within the socio-political and intellectual environment they lived and worked in, and argues where they fit within the different strains of Enlightenment thinking, while acknowledging that one can hold views from different "sections" of Enlightenment thought. For example, David Hume, while irreligious, and arguably an atheist, nevertheless believed that organized religion was necessary for society to properly function. And despite his somewhat advanced ethical views, he was nevertheless highly skeptical of democracy, preferring a mixed monarchy. Compare this with Diderot, who emphatically advocated for atheism, democracy, and universal ethics. In fact, while Diderot and Hume wrote to one another occasionally, they never really took the others' idea seriously. As such, Israel argues that Hume should be more accurately viewed as a member of the Moderate Enlightenment, rather than the Radical arm with Diderot, D'Holbach, (early) Helvetius, or, of course, Spinoza.

Israel actually devotes quite a few pages to Jefferson, who, save for Thomas Paine, is arguably the most radical of the Founding Fathers. While Jefferson was undeniably influenced by Locke (who was certainly not a Radical), much of the language of the Constitution is written in "Radical" terms (e.g. "All Men Are Created Equal" could never have been derived from Locke). In regards to Price, Priestly, and Wollstonecraft, while they did believe in a providential universe, that fact alone doesn't exclude them from holding highly radical ideas pertaining to, e.g. political philosophy, and ethics, such as women's emancipation. One can certainly be a Deist and believe in universal toleration, or democracy, both of which were certainly radical during the Enlightenment.

The Radical, Moderate, and Counter-Enlightenment placards are really just helpful guidelines in order to compare and offer resemblances, influences, etc. between philosophers and theologians during the Enlightenment. There is no rigid demarcation for who fits in where, as that would be messy and ultimately ahistorical.

I went to a book discussion when "radical enlightenment" was published with my then philosophy teacher. He didn't like Israel much and referred to work by Eric Voegelin. It's unfortunately too long ago to remember the exact argument but I do remember some of his criticism were begrudgingly accepted by Israel. One other pet peeve (he was specialised in Greek philosophy) was the use of radical where he actually meant extreme - radix meaning root and this was not a returning to the roots of something. Not very helpful, except reading Voegelin might be interesting too.

First, to some degree, you are not understanding what I am saying (because I am not being clear). I am not saying that Israel believes every atheist was a radical (Hume is a good example of one who was not). But, in regard to Jefferson, Israel says the radical elements of his thought come not from Locke, but from anti-religious thinkers like Bolingbroke, Gordon, and "perhaps" Paine (Democratic Enlightenment, p. 456.) So, even if one is a Deist, the radical thought one had was derived from non-religious thinkers (or, more accurately, non-providential thinkers; more on this below). So I probably mislead you when I referred to Jefferson's Deism, a Deist could be a radical, but would derive his radical thought from outside of Deism beliefs.

I think we are in agreement about the political and social goals of Israel's two groups of Enlightenment thinkers. The distinction between "moderates" and "radical" is that moderates wanted some "improvements" but wanted to hold on to vestiges of monarchy, aristocratic privilege, and/or ecclesiastical authority. The radicals wanted to replace all of that with egalitarianism, republican government, and full equal rights across social classes. It is in the radicals that Israel finds the development of revolutionary impulses that drove the American and French Revolutions, and not in the discourse of more well known "moderate" Enlightenment thinkers in history like Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu (although a few 'radicals" like Diderot and Paine are "well known". But d'Holbach, Helvetius and many others Israel focuses on were not mentioned in a course I took on the Enlightenment in 1990s). At the highest level, I think Israel undoubtedly succeeds in showing that previous historians who have posited all Enlightenment thinkers with the same basic goals were very wrong. There was a lot of contention between the groups Israel labels radicals and moderates. (I think every historian has recognized there were counter-Enlightenment thinkers, so I haven't read Israel's book on that yet. Right now I'm focused on understanding what Israel is saying about the two other groups).

But I think we see Israel's difference in religious distinctions differently. I think Israel does divide the two groups with a pretty specific distinction of religious beliefs, but it is not "atheist" vs. "religious fundamentalist;" it is more subtle than that: "These two fundamentally different concepts of progress - the radical democratic and, in metaphysics, materialist-deterministic. or alternately Christian-Unitarian, one one hand, and the "moderate" and positively providential (Deist or religious), championing the monarchical-aristocratic order , on the other, were diametrically opposed to each other in their social and political consequences." (Revolution of the Mind, p. 12). So it does seem to me that Israel sees a pretty strict metaphysical distinction between providential and non-providential thinkers in relation to radicals and moderates. Besides atheists, he ties Christian-Unitarians to the radicals, but Unitarians are not atheists. And he ties Deism to the moderates, but I don't think it is accurate to label a Deist a "religious fundamentalist."

It seems to me that Isreal is trying to tie (almost?) all of what he calls "radical" thought back to Spinoza. One did not have to be directly influenced by Spinoza. For instance, Jefferson doesn't seem to have read Spinoza . But I think Israel is saying the thinkers from whom Jefferson inherited his radical tendencies were influenced by Spinoza's deterministic and non-providential view of the universe.

So, to get back to my first post, while Israel wants to cast Price, Priestly and Wollstonecraft as radicals, when they clearly believed in a providential universe, to be consistent, Israel should show their radical influences were derived from some non-providential thinkers (like he shows Jefferson's were). I don't see him doing that in A Revolution of the Mind or in Democratic Enlightenment. I'm thinking perhaps he does it in Radical Enlightenment, 1680 - 1750, which I haven't read yet. I also need to find out more about the history of Christian-Unitarian thought. I knew their views on there being only one God, but never before heard that they did not see the universe as providential as Israel seems to be saying they did in the 18th century. (this has confused me because almost every historians labels Jefferson a Deist, and his belief in a provident universe is clear in several of his writings. But the one time Jefferson actually labeled his religious beliefs, he called himself a Unitarian.)

I hope that clears up how I understand Israel and why I am pursuing his distinction between providential moderates and non-providential radicals. At the core of it, I am trying to convince myself that this metaphysical / religious distinction is indeed a key factor in the revolutionary impulses of the times. So far I'm about 75% convinced that Israel has it right. I am just testing whether I can be even more convinced by his thesis than I am now.

Hi Pangloss, I have not read Israel's book, but have been eyeing it on my reading list for a while. I just have to say, your analysis here is excellent as far as I see (from not reading the book yet), and a welcome addition to the forum. I am interested in replies by others like Maw who have read the book as I think that the thesis that "radical" or extreme Enlightenment thinkers were influenced by Spinoza or Spinozas non-providential metaphysics is an interesting one.

I'll have to pick up Voegelin work sometime, but I've seen a mostly welcoming response from historians regarding Israel's work. Of course, there's bound to be criticism here and there. It's curious that your philosophy teacher found Israel's use of "Radical" a pet-peeve, given that the original Greek meaning isn't much in play nowadays, whereas radical is understood to mean revolutionary. But even so, Israel dedicates a few chapters on the "Recovery of Greek Thought"; how proponents of the radical Enlightenment were influenced by ancient atomists, materialists, and atheists such as Lucretius, Epicurus, Strato, among others. So in a (stretched) sense, the Greek etymology is viable here, too.

My point is that a philosopher working during the Enlightenment could have one foot firmly in radical thought pertaining to certain issues, while the other foot is set firmly in moderate thought on others, which Israel himself acknowledges. I haven't read Revolution of The Mind, but I think, in the quote you offered, Israel is merely generalizing. I think it is very safe to say, from what I've read in his other work, that believing in a providential universe, by itself, does not necessarily entail a commitment to monarchism contra democracy. To some extent, you are right that for the radical Enlightenment philosophers, a particular metaphysics provides a consistent basis, or extension towards an egalitarian and democratic socio-political society, and I believe Israel does mention that somewhere. So, as you said, it is a "key factor", to an extent. But, as with Hume, (and Pierre Bayle, if I recall correctly), among a few other lesser names, that's not always the case.

It should also be noted that while the French Revolution had leaders influenced by the radical philosophers, other, more influential leaders, and who ultimately grabbed the reins of the revolution, such as Marat and Robespierre, were influenced by "moderate" enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, not by Diderot et al.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that believing in a providential universe entails a commitment to monarchy. Obviously Jefferson held the universe was providential, but Israel is saying that his commitment to anti-monarchical, republican government was inspired not from his Deist views, but from the non-providential thinkers I named in the previous post. So it was Spinoza influences through others, that influenced Jefferson."radicalism," not the Deistic side of his thought.

Also, certainly someone can have his foot in some aspects of "revolutionary thought." Israel calls all of the Enlightenment thought "revolutionary" in the sense it menat "sweeping away the past." But here he is specifically talking about revolution for democratic / republican government, and whether or not someone is in this sense "revolutionary," he says only comes from the Spinozist influence (with only a few notable exceptions, like Kant)

And I disagree that Israel was "generalizing" in the quote from A Revolution of the Mind. The book, only about 1/4 the size of the previous three, was an attempt to clarify his thesis against criticism that came from reading his 3 earlier and much longer books. So I see it as an exact statement of his thesis. I definitely see that thesis in Democratic Enlightenment. Just sorting out who specifically were atheists, Unitarians, Deists who had some Spinozian radical influence, and Deists who did not, and how this no-providential influence spread, takes some work.

I'll try (hopefully by tomorrow) to post some quotes from Democratic Enlightenment[/] to try to show you what I mean.

Hi Schepoenhauer1, you wouldn't be a pessimist, would you? Dr. Pangloss might not like that :love: Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

I think you'll enjoy reading Israel's take on the Enlightenment. But he has not one, but a series of books on the subject. I've listed them below in chronological order, though the years may be off slightly because I am not sure if they are the dates are first or second printings.

My advice would be to read A Revolution of the Mind first. Less than 300 pages, it was published after the first two massive volumes (each 800 pages or more), to clarify his main thesis. In that one you'll get the most succinct statement of what he is arguing in the rest. Then, if you're still interested, there are 4 more to tackle (and also very recent one on the American Revolution which I don't know much about).

Israel, Jonathan I. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750 (2001) 832 pages

Israel, Jonathan I. Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity and the Emancipation of Man, 1670 - 1752 (2009) 1,024 pages

Israel, Jonathan I. A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy (2011) 296 pages.

Israel, Jonathan I. Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750-1790 (2013) 1,066 pages

Israel, Jonathan. Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from the Rights of Man to Robespierre (2014) 888 pages

If you read one, let me know what you think!

I should have spoken to this, too. "It should also be noted that while the French Revolution had leaders influenced by the radical philosophers, other, more influential leaders, and who ultimately grabbed the reins of the revolution, such as Marat and Robespierre, were influenced by "moderate" enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, not by Diderot et al."

Absolutely true that Robespierre, with his "moderate" Rousseau influence, "grabbed the reigns" of the Revolution, but Isreal is condemning of Robespierre for doing just that, in effect saying he betrayed the egalitarian nature of the original revolution and infected it with authoritarianism. So Israel sees Robespierre as the enemy of the revolution of the radicals Mirabeau, Cloots, Condorcet, Paine et al.

My point is that a philosopher working during the Enlightenment could have one foot firmly in radical thought pertaining to certain issues, while the other foot is set firmly in moderate thought on others, which Israel himself acknowledges. I haven't read Revolution of The Mind, but I think, in the quote you offered, Israel is merely generalizing. I think it is very safe to say, from what I've read in his other work, that believing in a providential universe, by itself, does not necessarily entail a commitment to monarchism contra democracy. To some extent, you are right that for the radical Enlightenment philosophers, a particular metaphysics provides a consistent basis, or extension towards an egalitarian and democratic socio-political society, and I believe Israel does mention that somewhere. So, as you said, it is a "key factor", to an extent. But, as with Hume, (and Pierre Bayle, if I recall correctly), among a few other lesser names, that's not always the case. — Maw

I was sure I posted a reply to this earlier, but I don't see it in the thread. In that reply I disagreed w/ Maw that Israel was just "generalizing" and said it was explicitly his thesis. I said I was going to provide some quotes from his book Democratic Enlightenment to support my claim.

I won't rehash the points of my lost post, because they don't seem relevant to me know because, since then, I have been reading the introduction to Democratic Enlightenment and the way I read it, I see in one way I was correct, but in another Maw is correct.

As I maintained, It is very much a specific thesis that Israel promotes and the distinction between thinkers who were providentially minded and non-providentially minded is the distinction between the radical Enlightenment group and the moderate Enlightenment group. But the radical group was only made up entirely of one substance thinkers from between 1680 to around 1750.

But here is where Maw is right... After 1750, Israel says, more traditional religious people, (regular Deists,Christians, Jews and Muslims), gradually embraced the egalitarian nature of the radicals revolutionary ideology. So while it is a very specific thesis, the central one to Israel's view, after 1750 you can find those who embraced the idea of a providential universe joining the one-substance radicals. So by the time of the French revolution the radical movement was made up of both one-substance & two substance proponents.

To demonstrate this by quoting Israel would have been too much typing. Instead I built a simple website with clips from Democratic Enlightenment pages 7 - 13 and I annotated the main points. If anyone is interested, you can go to the first website page with the link below (its clips from pages 7 & 8) and then proceed through it sequentially by clicking the page tabs moving towards the right to "Isreal 12 & 13"

http://forumshadowblog.blogspot.com/p/israel.html