Enlightenment and Modernity, Historians and Philosophers

IF 0.3
J. Robertson
{"title":"Enlightenment and Modernity, Historians and Philosophers","authors":"J. Robertson","doi":"10.1163/22130624-20200002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nSince the 1990s, historians of the Enlightenment have been notably keen to emphasise their subject’s contribution to modernity. In doing so, they have not shied away from ground usually occupied by philosophers, identifying Enlightenment’s modernity with a system of values and even with specific philosophical positions. This article asks how this has come about, and what have been its consequences. It does so by offering an account of Enlightenment historians’ relations with philosophy since the 1960s, when Franco Venturi repudiated Ernst Cassirer’s philosophical understanding of Enlightenment and urged historians to adopt a different approach. Before 1989, it will be argued, historical study of Enlightenment expanded rapidly but with little reference to philosophers, or interest in demonstrating the modernity of Enlightenment. It was the challenge of Postmodernism (however intellectually chaotic it seemed) in the 1980s, and still more Jürgen Habermas’s vigorous espousal of modernity, which gave historians their cue. Three dimensions of the ensuing association of Enlightenment with modernity are identified: Enlightenment and the public sphere; Radical Enlightenment and one-substance metaphysics; and Enlightenment as cosmopolitan and global. In conclusion, it is argued that while this enthusiasm for modernity appears to be on the wane, the episode has underlined the impossibility of separating historical and philosophical study of Enlightenment.","PeriodicalId":227091,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22130624-20200002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Since the 1990s, historians of the Enlightenment have been notably keen to emphasise their subject’s contribution to modernity. In doing so, they have not shied away from ground usually occupied by philosophers, identifying Enlightenment’s modernity with a system of values and even with specific philosophical positions. This article asks how this has come about, and what have been its consequences. It does so by offering an account of Enlightenment historians’ relations with philosophy since the 1960s, when Franco Venturi repudiated Ernst Cassirer’s philosophical understanding of Enlightenment and urged historians to adopt a different approach. Before 1989, it will be argued, historical study of Enlightenment expanded rapidly but with little reference to philosophers, or interest in demonstrating the modernity of Enlightenment. It was the challenge of Postmodernism (however intellectually chaotic it seemed) in the 1980s, and still more Jürgen Habermas’s vigorous espousal of modernity, which gave historians their cue. Three dimensions of the ensuing association of Enlightenment with modernity are identified: Enlightenment and the public sphere; Radical Enlightenment and one-substance metaphysics; and Enlightenment as cosmopolitan and global. In conclusion, it is argued that while this enthusiasm for modernity appears to be on the wane, the episode has underlined the impossibility of separating historical and philosophical study of Enlightenment.
启蒙与现代性,历史学家与哲学家
自上世纪90年代以来,研究启蒙运动的历史学家一直非常热衷于强调启蒙运动对现代性的贡献。在这样做的过程中,他们没有回避哲学家通常占据的领域,将启蒙运动的现代性与一套价值体系,甚至是特定的哲学立场联系起来。本文将探讨这是如何发生的,以及它的后果是什么。该书通过描述自20世纪60年代以来启蒙历史学家与哲学的关系来做到这一点,当时佛朗哥·文丘里(Franco Venturi)否定了恩斯特·卡西尔(Ernst Cassirer)对启蒙运动的哲学理解,并敦促历史学家采用不同的方法。在1989年之前,启蒙运动的历史研究发展迅速,但很少涉及哲学家,也很少有兴趣展示启蒙运动的现代性。这是20世纪80年代后现代主义的挑战(无论它在智力上看起来多么混乱),更重要的是j根·哈贝马斯对现代性的有力支持,这给了历史学家线索。由此可以确定启蒙运动与现代性联系的三个维度:启蒙运动与公共领域;激进启蒙运动与一元形而上学启蒙运动是世界性和全球性的。总之,本文认为,虽然这种对现代性的热情似乎正在消退,但这一事件强调了将启蒙运动的历史研究和哲学研究分开是不可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书