"Revolution of Thought: The Radical Enlightenment and the Origin of Modern Values",[English] by Jonathan Israel, translated by Sang Hai/Jiang Wentao/Wang Heng, Commercial Press, August 2024 edition, 244 pages, 75.00 yuan

According to the famous British historian Jonathan Israel in "The Revolution of Thought: The Radical Enlightenment and the Origin of Modern Values"(Translated by Sang Hai, Jiang Wentao and Wang Heng, Commercial Press, 2024)The view in the book is that the Radical Enlightenment is closely related to the origin of modern values. The basic principles of radical enlightenment can be summarized succinctly as follows: "Democracy; racial and gender equality; individual freedom in lifestyle; full freedom of thought, expression and publication; removal of the authority of religion in the legislative process and in the field of education; complete separation of church and state." At the practical level, radical enlightenment thought believed that "the goal of the state is to move towards complete secularization, promote the secular well-being of the majority, and prevent a privileged few from controlling the legislative process." In other words, on the basis of equality, the government of a country should treat all citizens equally: everyone should have the same basic rights regardless of their religious beliefs, economic status, or ethnic affiliation.

Israel traces the origin of the above radical enlightenment ideas back to the 17th century Dutch philosopher Spinoza, and praises him as "the primary pioneer of the radical enlightenment movement"-compared with other enlightenment philosophers, Spinoza "created a more acute confrontation between philosophy and theology." The people armed by his theories and teachings "became more resistant to the control of religious authority, dictatorship regimes, powerful oligarchs and dictatorship." The whole society also moved towards "more democratic, Freedom and Equality "is moving forward steadily. At the same time, Israel also pointed out the negative impact of the radical enlightenment's "naive" optimism and abstract humanity theory on real life. As a representative figure in European rationalism, Spinoza also encountered his biggest opponent in this book-David Hume (1711-1776), the British empirical philosopher known as the "mitigated skepticism".

Hume was the successor and, to some extent, the terminator of Locke and Berkeley's empiricist philosophy (Russell claimed that Hume had led British empiricist philosophy into a "dead end"). Hume claimed that human knowledge can be divided into two categories: statements about ideas, which belong to the transcendental category; statements about the world, which belong to the empirical category. Hume's dichotomy of knowledge is called "Hume's fork" because the thorough skeptic defined the self as a collection of "bundles of perceptions"(modern psychology calls it the "bundle theory of mind"), a mixture of sensory impressions that make it difficult to distinguish between true and false without division, thereby achieving a correct understanding of the person himself and the external world. To a certain extent, Hume's fork can be seen as a strong response to the European rationalist philosophical tradition (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz): the latter believed that certain knowledge could be obtained solely by reason (reasoning), while Hume asserted that all knowledge must be based on experience-anyone who advocates that knowledge need not be based on experience "is either deceiving himself, deceiving himself, or deceiving himself and deceiving others."

With the help of Hume's fork, the philosopher, who was regarded as a "heretic", actually drew boundaries for philosophical inquiry. Since the two categories of transcendental and experience are completely different, the correct research method should be "Caesar's return, God's return"(that is, Kant later said,"leave space for faith")-as Hume said at the end of "The Study of Human Understanding": Following the above principle,"When we pick up a book, such as a book of theology or a book of scholastic philosophy, we can ask whether it contains any abstract reasoning in terms of quantity and number? No. Does it contain any empirical reasoning about facts and existence? No. Then we can throw it into the fire, because it contains nothing else but sophistry and fantasy." As a result, the religious theology that has bound the human mind for more than a thousand years was cut off in the middle by Hume's fork (its effect is no less than the "Occam's razor" based on the principle of "don't add substance if it is not necessary"). Hume's writings were subsequently confiscated and he himself was severely condemned by the Church of Scotland.

Of course, Hume did not blindly reject traditional metaphysics. As it is said, just as there is no perfect circle in the real world, there is no denying that the concept of a perfect circle exists in our concepts; because such concepts belonging to transcendental categories do not depend on, nor can they be deduced by, sensory cognition. Through this argument, Hume's philosophy actually "suspends" metaphysics (but does not fundamentally deny metaphysics), and "everything that cannot be said must be silent about it." From this, Hume not only emphasized the limitations of human knowledge, but also questioned the principle of causality that people have believed in for thousands of years: knowledge comes from experience, experience is composed of impressions, and impressions are vague and chaotic. Therefore, in the final analysis,"there is actually no clear constant unity" that can be called a "person"-it is just a "fragmented continuous impression." For a long time, people have always tended to project their feelings, habits, emotions, etc. into the external world and thus assume that these things are real. Hume called this assumption "spiritual bias." For this reason, Hume concluded that the belief in the causal relationship of "constant conjunctions" between all things must be based on arrogance, if not on stubbornness and ignorance-"the mind cannot, through any knowledge of their nature, form the conclusion that there is a constant and regular connection between them." Kant once lamented in his "Introduction to Future Metaphysics" that it was Hume who awakened him from his "dream of dogmatism"(and gave him "a new direction for his research in the field of speculative philosophy"). This may be the reason.

According to the conclusion of philosophical historians, Hume's fork is a "relatively difficult philosophical problem" in the history of Western philosophy-it makes "the cognitive model of causality that people are accustomed to face unprecedented challenges." Like his friend Adam Smith, Hume has always been happy to apply his research to the field of moral philosophy, and from this he has concluded that morality does not come from causal reasoning: "Yes" does not lead to "Should", and any "Should" does not come from "Yes". As we all know, Hume lived in the so-called "Age of Reason", when most people believed that the nobility of human beings lay in reason. But Hume believed that humans were just another animal-an animal driven and dominated by emotion or passion. Hume noticed that people do not base their judgments on reasoning, but more commonly base their own rights and wrongs on their own likes and dislikes (and then use reason to justify their actions in various ways). In fact, according to Hume, what really drives people to make moral choices is never the "powerless" or "inert" reason, but the "vibrant" emotion. For example, under cold rational calculations,"people usually have limited generosity and are not easy to do anything for strangers unless they want some kind of mutual benefit." On the contrary, only driven by passionate compassion can one make astonishing acts of generosity-"Reason is and should be a slave to passion," which means it.

In Israel's view, questioning reason is what sets Hume apart from the radical enlightenment. The radical Enlightenment who believed in Spinoza's philosophy believed that philosophical reason was the only guide to human life and advocated that philosophy, science and morality should be completely separated from theology-in other words, morality should be based on secular standards (especially the principle of equality), rather than on religion or theology. It is precisely out of their excessive admiration for pure reason that they even loudly advocate that "institutions, politics and legislation must be based on pure reason." As Ernst Cassirer said in "The Philosophy of the Enlightenment", the Enlightenment, who believed in pure reason (or absolute reason), firmly believed that the ultimate purpose of all knowledge was to obtain "eternal truths"-because it represented the "universal inevitable connection" between ideas, and believed that once the truth was in hand, grand blueprints such as world peace and social progress would be within reach. Richard Price, the leading representative of British radicals, declared: "So far, the world has been gradually improving... Comparing current human life with the past is like comparing young people who are fast reaching adulthood with babies." Progress will continue. This is the essence of the development of things." Price's close friend, chemist Joseph Priestley, and Price's most famous disciple, feminist theorist Mary Wollstonecraft, are equally convinced that God has formulated a plan for the gradual improvement of the world, and implemented accordingly, mankind will gradually enter a paradise on earth where the world is unified.

Compared with the optimists who believe that "reason can promote infinite perfection of mankind", Hume is a complete pessimist. He started with the theory of personal identity and focused on breaking the myth of rational worship. This theory mainly answers the question of "Who am I?"-it believes that human reason is far-reaching and can not only understand the world, but also understand the self. Hume pointed out that there is no such thing as a "core self" or abstract humanity. Reason claims that we are clearly definable people, but the contrary is true. We are difficult to define clearly. Instead, we are in a state of "perpetual flux" where good and evil cannot distinguish between good and evil-"in the eyes of philosophers and historians, human madness, stupidity, and evil are ordinary things," because reason plays a negligible role in guiding people's motivations for behavior compared with emotions. In Hume's words, reason "can never dream of other functions, but only obey and serve emotions." Of course, reason cannot be neglected, because it is particularly important for us to overcome prejudice-in Hume's view, prejudice is often nothing more than a negative emotional response based on erroneous ideas. Therefore, the correct attitude is to "use reason rather than be governed by reason" and in the process is committed to cultivating "natural emotions"-according to Hume: "Emotions and reason are not completely separated, and many of our emotions contain rational judgments."

It is worth mentioning that the enlightened philosopher who sided with Hume on the issue of reason (and later turned against him) was Rousseau. In the late 1750s, after parting with the encyclopedic school, Rousseau largely abandoned his earlier radical views (especially in the field of moral theory). He insisted that morality could not be "placed in reason or separated from religion" as Diderot, Holbach and the like pretended to be. Instead, he believed that only the "voice of nature"(not reason) expressed in human sentience was the guide for us in moral matters. Perhaps influenced by Hume, Rousseau in his later period is said to have often been proud of his rejection of "pure reason"-"Wherever radical enlightenment philosophers promoted their erudition and knowledge of the history of science and civilization, he boasted of his anti-intellectualism and almost complete non-reading."

On religious issues, Hume and the French radicals are also very different. Although he was vilified as an atheist in England (and was therefore unable to get a job at Glasgow University), Hume seemed "too pious" compared with French enlightened philosophers with firm atheistic positions such as his friends d'Alembert and Elvaus. In "The Natural History of Religion"(1757), Hume argued that religion is essentially a superstition, stemming from the unfounded fear of our ancestors due to their lack of understanding of the outside world. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there have been frequent wars in the history of Western Europe, most of which were caused by sectarian disputes-especially the monotheism represented by Christianity."It is more oppressive than the ancient Western polytheism and is more likely to cause division among people"(Later, Edward Gibbon sent "The History of the Decline and Decline of the Roman Empire" to Hume and expressed his deep gratitude in an enclosed letter, which demonstrates the originality and influence of Hume's religious skepticism). Like Martin Luther more than 200 years ago, Hume was saddened by the corruption of church organizations-just as contemporary writer Swift wrote in his satirical "The Argument Against the Abolition of Christianity"（“An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity”）"Corrupt religion"... destroys all wisdom and half of the learning in the kingdom; breaks the framework and rules of everything; destroys trade, destroys art and science, and related experts. In short, it can turn our courts, exchanges and shops into ruins."

Based on an examination of the religious situation in Western European countries, Hume concluded: "Frankly speaking, every religion is extremely morally harmful." At the same time, however, Hume found it extremely ridiculous to try to persuade others to believe or not to believe through rigorous arguments. In this sense, Hume is the primary defender of "religious tolerance"-we should not regard those who disagree with us on religious matters as rational people who have made mistakes in reasoning and need our correction. On the contrary, we should regard them as passionate and emotionally driven people, and as long as both sides are peaceful, there is no need to trouble each other. Interestingly, although Hume, a fellow historian, did not speak highly of Voltaire in terms of historical works-"We find that his narration is not so much true as novel; more trustworthy than informed; and he is not so much a historian as a poet. We can appreciate his talent, but we should not ignore his notorious errors." However, on the issue of religious tolerance, Hume and Voltaire agreed highly. In "Philosophical Letters", Voltaire once said,"If only one religion is allowed in England, the government is likely to become arbitrary; if there are only two religions, people will slit each other's throats; but when there are a large number of religions, everyone can live happily and live in harmony."

Not only that, Hume further clarified the huge role that religious tolerance plays in maintaining the British political system and shaping the national character in his article "On Nationality": the British government is a mixed political system composed of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, and various religious sects are represented, and everyone is free to "show their own unique ways of behavior." Therefore, the British are the most distinctive of all ethnic groups in the world-because they are "the least ethnic." In the future, the United States included the separation of church and state in the amendment to the Constitution, which was not only an inevitable trend of religious secularization, but also influenced to a certain extent by Hume's doctrine (through Madison).

In addition, Hume also advocates the supremacy of human rights, and there is a fundamental difference between the radicals: the latter advocates putting equality first, while he always insists on the principle of freedom first. In his political treatise "On the Rise and Progress of Art and Science" published as early as 1742, Hume claimed,"First of all, among any nation, if it has never enjoyed the benefits of a liberal politics, it cannot produce art and science." In his view, art and science develop slowly, so they need a permanent and stable government to develop to a mature stage. Later, in "The History of England" published in the 1750s and 1760s (from which the young Winston Churchill claimed he had begun studying British history, nicknamed "Hume's protege"), Hume sang praises for the British bourgeoisie's "Glorious Revolution"(1688):"Thanks to this revolution, the people of this island nation have since enjoyed the most perfect system of freedom in the history of mankind." In contrast, Hume was deeply skeptical about the freedom enjoyed by citizens of continental Europe, and inferred from this that the European Renaissance, which was born in Italy in the 14th century, was accidental-at best an "unconscious revolution." Even when he wrote "Autobiography" in his later years, Hume was still thinking about the issue of freedom: "Freedom is a prerequisite for the development of spiritual life"-this was the creed he adhered to throughout his life. In 1776, when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. Hume would rather offend his British compatriots than speak out to allow the American colonial people to enjoy freedom and oppose British military intervention. It was precisely out of this belief.

It should be pointed out that the freedom Hume refers to is not the abstract freedom that radicals talk about, but the personal freedom that actually exists in daily life. The latter is neither a favor from the royal court nor a blessing from the sky, but the result of social and economic progress and the evolution of habits. In a certain sense, without the material support of social progress and the public opinion constraints of traditional customs, even a sacred constitution may not be a guarantee of freedom: an equally liberal constitution may be able to guarantee freedom in mature societies (such as England), but the opposite is true in immature societies. It was at this point that Hume was worried about the "General Revolution" theory advocated by the radical enlightenment and aimed at "liberating all mankind", and worried that this revolutionary theory would lead mankind to an abyss of eternal destruction.

In my opinion, this is also the most exciting part of this book. As Ismail said in the "Conclusion" section, his original intention of writing was inspired by contemporary British historian Keith Michael Baker's book "Inventing the French Revolution"（Inventing the French Revolution，1990）The conclusion in the book: "In recent years, there has been relatively little clear or systematic attention to the ideological origin of the French Revolution"-through "Revolution of Ideas", Ismail clearly attributed the ideological origin of the French Revolution to radical Enlightenment ideas (and in response to Daniel Morne's assertion in "The Ideological Origins of the French Revolution: 1715-1787","In part, it was ideas that caused the French Revolution"). In Ismail's view, this "revolution of ideas" that took place in Western Europe in the 18th century can be called a "decisive turning point in the history of modern West and even all mankind." Whether it was Lessing and Held of the German Radical Enlightenment, Diderot, Elmaintenance, Holbach and Condorcet in France, and Price, Priestley, Godwin and Bentham in England, although they may not all survive the French Revolution, they ignited the fire of the revolution by spreading their respective ideas and doctrines. In 1791, Thomas Paine, a radical enlightenment who was expelled from his mother country but also played an important role in the revolutions of the United States and France, strongly called on Britain to follow the example of the United States and France and implement representative democracy. Because according to rational deduction, if "representative system is grafted onto democracy," Paine wrote,"you can obtain a system of government that can accommodate and unite all different interests and different sizes of territories and different numbers of people; you will obtain a much better advantage than a hereditary government, just as a literary republic is far superior to hereditary literature."

However, soon, Robespierre, who once believed that he had the truth and regarded himself as an enlightened philosopher, issued an expulsion order to the revolutionary hero Paine. In April 1793, Robespierre transformed and began to publicly condemn the enlightened philosophers, calling them "subservient to the court and the aristocracy." As the Jacobins "rule of terror" escalated, so did the anti-Enlightenment purge. In July 1793, the Jacobin-controlled National Convention ordered the arrest of Condorcet, the last surviving Enlightenment philosopher (who later died tragically in prison). In fact, the revolutionary storm not only swallowed up millions of innocent people, but also spared his own people (including Condorcet, known as the "chief architect of the Great Revolution", and Robespierre himself). As Israel said in another famous historical book,"A History of the Thought of the French Revolution: From" Human Rights "to Robespierre's Revolutionary Concepts","Reason and good intentions are not enough in themselves to change the destiny of mankind. When the accumulated experience of generations was abandoned as stereotypes, prejudices, blind obedience and superstition, mistakes were made... The vision of the French Revolution was both noble and inspiring, sad and shocking. Whether from a political level or a human perspective, the French Revolution was a tragedy."

This also fulfilled Hume's conclusion. When British radicals advocated the conversion of a constitutional monarchy into a republic, the skeptical philosopher publicly opposed it. He believed that one cannot literally infer that a democratic republic must be superior to a constitutional monarchy based on enthusiasm alone. On the contrary, one should make a choice in practice based on a country's historical, cultural traditions and people's customs. He stubbornly believed that a republic was only suitable for small countries (such as Greek city-states), because its leaders could easily transform into tyrants; while under the strong constraints of parliaments (such as England), constitutional monarchs were often not easily transformed into autocrats. Unlike philosophers in the age of reason, Hume undoubtedly valued the latter more between the so-called principles of reason and practical effects (hence he was revered as the originator of pragmatism by William James).

In the historical masterpiece "The Age of Enlightenment", American cultural historian Peter Gay declared that Hume was "the most isolated and representative of the Enlightenment philosophers", while the famous Canadian historian Laurence L. Bongie even regarded Hume as the "Prophet of the Counter-revolution"-Israel, who took defending the Enlightenment as his own responsibility, always emphasized "the foresight of the Enlightenment Thought to criticize future generations."(Jin Wenyu), his choice to use Hume's fork to counter the radical ideas of the "Grande Rérevolution" is appropriate.