The Interviews - Professor Anthony Pagden on 'The Enlightenment and Why it Still Matters'.

Welcome to Beyond the Text: The Interviews! In today's episode, we're privileged to host Professor Anthony Pagden, a distinguished scholar whose work on the Enlightenment sheds light on its relevance in our modern world.

Professor Pagden's academic journey spans continents, from Oxford to Santiago, Chile, and prestigious institutions like King's College, Cambridge, and UCLA. His research delves into the intellectual history of empire, cosmopolitanism, and the Enlightenment's impact on contemporary society.

With over a dozen books, including The Enlightenment – and why it still matters, Professor Pagden's insights have reached global audiences. He explores how Enlightenment ideals emerged amidst challenges to religious authority, emphasising reason and social bonds over traditional frameworks.

During our conversation, we'll explore the Enlightenment's departure from religious dogma, the influence of thinkers like Montaigne and Descartes, and the diverse perspectives that shaped this transformative era. We'll also discuss the legacy of Enlightenment ideals in today's liberal democracies and global institutions.

Join us as we uncover why the Enlightenment matters now more than ever. Welcome, Professor Anthony Pagden!

Transcript

Speaker 0 | 00:00

Welcome to a special series of Beyond the Text, the interviews. I'm your host, Samuel Woodall, and in this podcast series, we'll embark on a captivating exploration of ideas in intellectual history and political thought through in-depth conversations with former colleagues, esteemed academics, and influential public figures. Whether you are an academic, a history enthusiast, or simply curious about the world of ideas, each episode provides a unique opportunity to engage with brilliant minds who have left an indelible mark on our intellectual landscape. Join me as we journey through intellectual history and political thought guided by the insights of my guests. Welcome to another episode of Beyond the Text, the interviews. Today we are honored to have Professor Anthony Pgan joining us to delve into his extensive work on the enlightenment and its enduring relevance in contemporary society. Professor P's academic journey has taken him across continents, from Santiago, Chile to London, Barcelona, and Oxford, educated at the prestigious University of Oxford.

Speaker 0 | 01:06

He has held esteemed positions at institutions such as Merton College, the European University Institute in Florence, Kings College, Cambridge, and Johns Hopkins University. Apparently, he serves as a distinguished professor of political science and history at the University of California Los Angeles. Throughout his illustrious career, professor Pgan has been deeply engaged in the intellectual history and political theory of empire, exploring how the West grappled with its dominance over vast parts of the world and the repercussions of its erosion. His scholarly interests extend to cosmopolitanism nationalism, internationalism, the history of international law in the European Union. With more than a dozen books to his name, professor Pgan is a prolific author whose works have been translated into multiple languages. His recent publications include The Enlightenment and Why It Still Matters, the Burdens of Empire 1539 to the Present and the Pursuit of Europe, uh, history Beyond Academia, professor P'S Insights have graced the pages of esteemed publications such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and New Republic, and more. His expertise spans courses in the history of political thought, international relations, theory, imperialism, and nationalism. Today, we have the privilege of delving into Professor P's profound understanding of the enlightenment and its enduring significance. So join us as we explore why the enlightenment matters now more than ever. Welcome Professor Anthony Pgan.

Speaker 1 | 02:28

Thank you very much indeed.

Speaker 0 | 02:30

Um, and we'll go straight into the questions on the Enlightenment and why it still matters.

Speaker 1 | 02:35

Mm.

Speaker 0 | 02:36

In your book, you argue that the Enlightenment marks a departure from traditional religious frameworks toward a new understanding of humanity. How did this shift manifest in the philosophical and intellectual landscape of this time?

Speaker 1 | 02:51

It's a difficult question to answer. I mean, only in the fact that we're dealing with, of course, always a, a very small number of people, um, a very influential number of people, and, um, very, the each of them was very influential. Uh, and we're dealing with a phenomenon which is always alluded, uh, clear definition. I think that's the first thing to mention, that there was a period in the eighties and nineties where there was a lot of debate about whether there was enlightenment at all, and, uh, an insistent that the Enlightenment had a national framework and so on. Now, this seems to be, um, perfectly reasonable. I mean, people writing in English were different from those writing in Latin or from those writing in French or German and so on, and different intellectual formations, different intellectual backgrounds. But one of the importance about the book, I wanted to insist, so I'll come to the Bridges question in a second, but one of those in the book I wanted to insist was that this actually was as the contemporary German philosopher yoga Hamas insists a project.

Speaker 1 | 03:49

And it was a project that was recognized by contemporaries as being a project. And, and so that yes, they also recognized there was differences between peoples. Um, but there was no real national concern. There was no suggestion that, um, you know, a David Hume, who was a good friend of an, a good friend of Dior and an enemy of Russos people became an enemy <laugh>, um, was, saw himself as, as engaged in something entirely different. Um, there's also, as you may know, been a very influential series of books by Jonathan Israel who tries to insist that the enlightenment is nothing other than a legacy of the, of the, of, of Spino Bar Spinoza. And that there's, there's, um, there's an enlightenment and a counter enlightenment. So the world must be invited to these two parts. They're very powerful books, very forcefully written, but I think they're entirely wrong because if you look at the figures on each side of this wall, you'll find that often, um, you'll find condor sin and Hume, for instance, were good friends, um, to the extent that hu actually left condor say, a large sum of money in his will, and these are, these are two people according to, uh, Jonathan Israel's suggestions, which should be on different sides of the, of the, of the, of the fence.

Speaker 1 | 05:03

So there are, and I just quote this, not to take a stab at Israel, but because simply because there is this highly contentious, what is this thing that you called enlightenment? So, what I tried to do in the book was to actually, you know, find an answer, so to speak, and therefore, and hence the subtitle, which incident was not mine, that was my publisher's, but it's been quite successful <laugh>. Um, which was say, what is the enlightenment? And, um, why does it matter? And what manifestations, as you put it in your question, did it have, now, as far as the religious con concept is concerned, this of course is, is crucial to the whole understanding because of course, what, what all of these, what this project was about was, um, in a sense, you put it in a nutshell, it comes down to, you know, it, what what was meant was one other thing.

Speaker 1 | 05:53

But what it, what it was about was what Ken said in 1784. You know, dare to know, um, free yourself from yourself, incur immaturity, mankind has to think for itself, or, and these claim meant that you had to, not that you had to abandon religion, or you had to reject British belief, but you had to reject the claim that those beliefs, that religious orders, the religious structure of the world would determine the way that you should think and act. So I think that's the, that is the important, uh, the important claim I was trying to make. So how it's manifest in the philosophical intellectual landscape. I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. I mean, this was, uh, I'm not sure quite, quite what you're trying to get at because, but, but I mean, one way of answering this question, and one way of interesting answer to this question would of course be to say that this is a multifaceted project, that it operates at very, very many different levels.

Speaker 1 | 06:47

So we have the can at one end who is straightforward, a moral philosophy, um, political philosophy, very, very much legal philosophy, something that's often, often forgotten about Kant, uh, on the one hand. And then you have people like Voltaire, we mentioned later on, uh, and so on, who are much more liter literary figures whose approaches via the theater. 'cause Voltaire don't forget, his lifetime is known largely as a playwright via the theater, via poetry, uh, via the short essay, for instance, in the case of, of Hume. There are all kinds of ways in which this has manifested in the world. And, um, you know, there, there's, so that's, that would be my answer to your question. As far as, as I say, the, there's no, there's, there is an attempt, certainly with people like Hume to sort of tear away un the, the, the, the, the structure of the religious world, so to speak, um, to tear away it's influence upon the decision making process we might have.

Speaker 1 | 07:48

But there isn't an attempt really to undermine, as, let us say, its cultural implications, or indeed it's, um, its moral implications in many ways. You can think about as many in the 19th century said, you know, that this is a, there's a, there's a, there's a form of, of secularized religion at the bottom of this, or not secularized religion, because it's not religion from Christianity. What I mean, a form of secularized Christianity, what is under attack all the time is as well the, the parly of, of, of myth that goes with it from everything from, of course, all of these phenomena which are inexplicable in, in scientific terms, that's to say the trinity, the transubstantiation, and so on and so forth, and the stories behind it. Um, that's the point of attack someone like Aire, for instance. Um, and on the other hand, the, um, and the claim, the claim made by the institutions, namely the church, so small one, um, to, as it were, dictate the terms of one's daily life. So that would be the you argument.

Speaker 0 | 08:47

Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, um, it's, that's perfectly laid out as you were saying, that sort of like idea of a secularized Christianity in Mozart's magic flute, that it's a move from the temple of Christ to the temple of reason, that it's, yeah. Um,

Speaker 1 | 09:02

Yes, yes, yes. Um, you know, one of, one of the, one of the targets of this book is Alistair McIntyre, um, and, uh, for whom I should say, obviously I have great respect, but, um, and he makes of course, the point about the, the role of music in the enlighten, which I've left out. But it was, that's also another aspect of it that, um, he doesn't prove the enlightenment, of course, but he sees it as being essentially one of the things slightly eccentric in, in, in way that he manifests it, but brilliantly eccentric. But this is a form of, um, uh, that music plays a crucial role. So that, that, that, I mean, not you are talking about the music, talking about the plot, but I mean, nevertheless, it's certainly true that that is a, is a crucial element in

Speaker 0 | 09:42

Cent centrifugal. And, and

Speaker 1 | 09:44

Yeah, is, is a key, I mean, is when you think of I quintessentially in a sense, enlightenment figure, guess. Mm.

Speaker 0 | 09:50

And the same, yeah, the magic marriage of Figaro and the, uh, yes. Sort of class dynamic there. Um, yeah. But another centrifugal thing in, in, in terms of, in terms of the establishment of enlightenment is religion. So could you elaborate on how the reformation and subsequent challenges to religious authority contributed to the intellectual climate that gave rise to enlightenment ideas?

Speaker 1 | 10:11

Well, as I tried to set out in the book, I don't think that the, the, the doctrinal elements of these two are not to the point. I mean, nobody was really interested in, in, in the distinct, no one was really interested in the trans debate over trans substantiation or the, or much between the distinction between grace and nature. Although that that does come into occasionally the real impact of the Reformation, uh, was, was that it shattered the, the consensus that you, up until the middle, the middle of the 16th century, say you had a, uh, a single church which provided a single authority, that whatever you did within the terms of that authority, that was the authority. You could, you could contest it or not, but there was a single authority to which you could refer. Um, what happens after that is that that goes, so there are no, there's no longer a single Christianity no longer speaks to the single voice.

Speaker 1 | 11:04

And, um, this is sig highly significant because it's not true of either of the other two monotheisms. There are, yes. I mean, you could say that Islam is divided as Sunni and Shia. That is true, but they're not, they're not, it's not quite the same fracture. Um, neither of them says, you know, is, is setting out to, um, in a sense completely reinterpret, uh, the what, what the religion itself might mean. There are variations. It's true, but it's not quite the same thing. Then you have a, you have a complete division, and the authority of the church, uh, disappears. And at the same time, and this is, I mean, it's different, but it's related. You have the discovery of America, and that shatters in, in another sense, the reliance, which is closely related to the, the authority of the church on the ancient cannon of basically Aristotle.

Speaker 1 | 11:54

Um, so, you know, you have this, there's, there's a, there's a moment I always think of as a moment, but when in which a, a Spanish, a Jesuit is sailing to the, uh, new world, and he sits on his, the PR of the ship and says, I, according to Aristotle, I should not be here <laugh>. Um, and so I thought of this, and then I laughed at all of Aristotle and all his work. So again, so this was the idea. So once this, and Rasmus makes a similar claim about, you know, why should I believe anything the ancients say, whether they knew nothing about this, this of America. So there's this idea that this is a challenge to the consensus. Now, of course, you know, this is, these are the exaggerated statements. It's like lock's claim, you should throw your books out the window lock had a very extensive library read extensively and ung, but the idea that you should dispense with, you know, the world that had, the world that preceded you, which had of course had been embedded in this, in this cannon of, of, of classical text.

Speaker 1 | 12:54

Um, and that was, you know, that was scia, that was knowledge. Um, these two, that plus the uncertainty. Now, the lack of any authorial voice from the church meant that you were, as it were on your own <laugh>. I mean, you could think of it in a world, a world which was fractured, and a world, which of course, you know, the, the immediate response to this is, is someone like Monte. It's, it's skepticism. It's a skepticism, or, you know, you can, you can go in different directions of skepticism. Monte ends up being, being highly conservative, but it's certainly whatever, whatever, whatever it does, it presents. And this is important to thing about concern. Skepticism presents a challenge, you know? Mm-Hmm. You know, skepticism knows the challenge of caries after this Greek orator who came to Rome and preached, um, stoicism one day and epicureanism the next.

Speaker 1 | 13:40

And everyone applauded on both occasions. So, I mean, you have this idea, what is the, what is the answer to this challenge? And that was in a sense, what, you know, the whole of that generation of the 17th century, which goes under the heading of the, uh, scientific revolution, another phenomenon, which in my undergraduate days was under much attack. And I still think it's a valid conception. I think that the, I mean, they thought there was a scientific revolution. So, um, who's to question what they thought, so that they were aware of being involved in something which was turning the world upside down. And it's outta that the skepticism is born of that, that the enlightenment comes. It's also, of course, of that the claim that what the enlightenment is, is about the pursuit of science and reason. Yes.

Speaker 0 | 14:26

Yeah. And, and progress, and yeah.

Speaker 1 | 14:28

It's too simple. Yeah.

Speaker 0 | 14:30

Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, um, and yeah, no, that, that point about the battle of ancient and moderns is obviously something that then carries through so prominently in enlightenment, um, thought. And you mentioned skepticism as a guiding principle of enlightenment thinkers like Monta and Dakar. How did skepticism shape their views on the nature of humanity in its place in the world?

Speaker 1 | 14:55

Well, as I say, the, the, the, the, the first point about this is, is, is skepticism off a challenge doesn't offer a solution. Yeah. Um, and so you have to come. Now, one of the cha, one of the ways of doing that is, is the way that monta self respondent to say that, you know, I, I can't believe in change because I've seen what damage it can do as I have no certainty about anything in the world. Better to stick with what you have, what you, what you have, and try and get to something else, which may turn out to be much worse. So, certainty, uncertainty can lead to revolution on the one hand, and deep conservatism on the other. So, but I think what, what, it's a challenge and what the, what both the, the thinkers of the 17th century, if you think of this, you can think of the whole process of enlightenment begins in roughly speaking, I suppose you, you, you talk to Montana as a member and enlightenment thinker. I mean, it's not normally thought of that because our ca our periodization is much more rigid. But in a way, you are right, because you can think of the whole process of it going from the middle of the world wars of religion in France, where you have this beginning of the collapse of the consensus through to, you know, haal really, and the whole, uh, so mon

Speaker 0 | 16:07

It's very difficult to find bookends ever, particularly going back to your point earlier, that was essentially what the first chapter of my PhD writing last term was on. And the only, uh, you know, I think Norman Amp puts it the best when he says he doesn't even see any, uh, point in trying to tackle what, what the dates of the moment are, because everyone comes at it with a slightly different one. The only person I've spoken to who, uh, had a clear one was Professor Dominic, a 1648 to 1848. But even that, I think, brings so many issues with it.

Speaker 1 | 16:42

<laugh>, it's interesting. You should choose, you should choose a, an international treaty on the one hand and a period Democratic revolution on the other. So that, that, I mean, I can see it, it's an interesting, it's an interesting bracketing <laugh> of dates. But, um, but I think the other ways of looking at it, you can see it as on the other hand, on the other hand, I wanted to make a, I did want to make a claim, if I may say, yes, of

Speaker 0 | 17:05

Course,

Speaker 1 | 17:06

Do it. Um, but, uh, that the, the, the, there is a distinction. And I think that the enlighten, you can see the enlightenment as trying to, um, reestablish as it was. So, 1648 might be a nice state to reestablish, not a, not a political order in the world, obviously, but to reestablish some kind of, um, intellectual philosophical order as a response to what had happened in the previous generation. So again, you can see it as a response to the skeptical challenge, but it's a different kind of response. So if you look at it very, very crudely, um, if you take somebody, um, like Hobbes as as say, or bacon as being central to this scientific revolution, it could take Decart as well. But Decart is much more, much more, uh, subtle about it. And Hobbes is subtle. Hobbes very, is very straightforward, uh, rather, um, un unrelentingly dogmatic about certain points.

Speaker 1 | 18:06

And one of them, of course, is that, you know, we, we, um, we really can't accept any kind of sociability. This is completely unacceptable, but there is no sociability in the world. Um, now of course, you know, like everything that Hobbes has written, or anybody anybody has written, you can find passages which contradict this, but basically forget what, in the sense what he said, that's how he is. He is read here, as Hume says, is an out and outright epicurean, right? The only thing that counts is pleasure and pain. Now, I think that, um, what you find is that, and therefore what happens, and we're trying to argue in the book, is the whole idea of innate sociability, the whole idea, human beings of sociable animals, all of that goes. And what then happens in the enlightenment, and this is again, where 60 48 or 70% comes into play, um, is that, um, we are, and Siren, Oracle course Leviathan is published, um, in 51, but still, we are coming, we are, we are seeing a return, which in, in, in my book, identifies beginning with Podo, seeing a return to a more moderate version of what this might mean.

Speaker 1 | 19:17

So yes, you want to get rid of what Hobbes called the Schoolmen. Um, you want to get rid of this whole tradition of antiquities, whole reliance upon antiquity and so on. Yes, you want to get rid of the idea, um, that there's a single dominant set of religious beliefs in the world that have to be debate at all times, and so on. So you wanna get rid of all that. Yes, you want to diminish at least the conception of sociability, but you don't want to take it quite so far that all you have in common with your fellow creatures is a desire to stay alive at any cost. Uh, and so you want to introduce something else, and you want to make it a more subtle, so that away is what, um, is, is what I say, that one of the aspects of the enlight is to try and flaw back.

Speaker 1 | 20:00

You know, what, someone like <inaudible>, when he is, he critic criticizing Locke, says, you know, basically that you, Locke was, Locke was his tutor. So he hadn't, he didn't have very not good relationship with him, but so you have, you know, thrown out. He didn't say the baby with the bath water, but that's, that's the implication. You've thrown out everything. And in the process you've left us, you know, you produced a image of humanity, which is too dire to, to contemplate. So what we've got to do is not go back to the sources, not go back to Aquinas and Aristotle and so on, but go back to some conception of innate sociability, but something that's not, which, in a way, but not so reductive as to think that it's just a desire for self preservation. But it can be much more than that. And so you, how you get this whole question of sympathy or empathy, as we would call it, which of course becomes the dominant features of which is what I'm trying to argue, is in a sense, the dominant feature of what becomes the enlightenment.

Speaker 0 | 21:00

And, and how do you think that that's reconciled by enlightenment thinkers in terms of that binary of, as you said, competitive survival versus social bonds, and Yeah, you talk about puff andor and yeah, that idea of natural law and, uh, and that it's this kind of, you know, essentially human thing to come together. How, how, how is that reconciled by these enlightenment fingers?

Speaker 1 | 21:26

Well, I'd say most of them, because you come up to the, yes, there is a hu there is a human sociability. I mean, and it is in the recognition of the other. Yeah. So that's the, that is what I have. I don't have, you know, I'm not, I'm not driven by some kind of law that's embedded in nature that tells me what I have to do from the clothes I have to wear to people I should marry and so on. And as the church would've maintained as the, as the tone is maintained, right, that I'm driven by this innate set of the ideas, course my reason plays a role in interpreting those ideas. But basically, I'm driven by these innate set of ideas, which God has implanted in me, which allows me to interpret the natural world as it is. And it's a very complicated set of arguments.

Speaker 1 | 22:07

And of course, it's often, you know, dismissed, particularly by the jurist as being a lot of nitpicking essentially, that what you're talking about is God's command. Um, so, but you, you, you, you, you dispose of that complicated epistemological structure to, to is put in place and you reduce it to, as Hobbes reduced it to simple self preservation, you reduce it to, um, recognition. So I recognize you because you look like me. Um, well, I'm more or less, I mean, you look like me in the sense that you obviously belong to species that I belong to, um, and you therefore can be presumed to share, you know, a lot in common with me, and the, certainly the sort of basic things you might show needs, love, um, hatred, um, all of these things. So I can, I can emphasize with you, you know, there, this, there's this passage in, uh, in Smith's, um, um, theory of moral sentiments where, you know, the, the, he talks about, which is a commonplace in, in that sense, and it's not a commonplace antiquity too, but it's really, really elaborating it that you see my, he calls it my brother on the rack, you know, that you are not, um, when you see my brother on the rack, you don't feel anything in the physical sense, but you can project yourself into that experience because that person belongs to the same species as yourself.

Speaker 1 | 23:31

And, and therefore that gives you a bond with that, however, however fragile it might be. But that bond is absolutely vital for the survival of species. Now, Hobbes claim that that doesn't exist. I mean, if you are seeing someone on the, he doesn't, of course use this example, but if you were to see someone on the rack, what you would be saying is, oh God, thank God, that's not me. Right. You know, and nothing else who says, there's a passage in deve where Hobb says, you know, even if you think you are making friends with people are not actually making friends. And what should doing is trying to get the better, rather than to show how much clever you're than they're, so, you know, if you were to see something that you say, well, thank God that's not me, and I can go away and I can spend the rest of my day drinking or something calmly because, um, I don't have to worry that I'm not being tortured.

Speaker 1 | 24:14

Whereas in fact, Smith is claim is you wouldn't do that at all. You'd be extremely upset and extremely worried about, because you recognize, um, now it comes down at the end of this to, to, um, the Hobbs in response to this would probably be to say, well, you know, you are just sent in our sense of the word, not smith sense of the word. You are a sentimentalist. You know, you think this is the case. Actually, most people would really see that just, just go away saying, thank God, that's not me. Okay. But I think that's, that's the argument. The argument is that there exists this thing which, um, you know, and, and you find, as I tried to argue the book, you find this in every single author, you can think of, um, what, what, what ruso called sympathy, you know, I mean, um, so what they call sympathy and what ruso calls pity, right?

Speaker 1 | 24:59

Pt, A PTA is the, because we start with this idea of pity. We start with this sentiment of feeling, you know, hurt in a sense. So it's a sense, you know, it has something in common with Hobbes in claim, in that we're starting with something that's essentially a negative passion, if you like, or a negative sentiment, right? The feeling of pity, um, the feeling of which is, doesn't involve an element of, thank God, that's not me, but it also involves an element of, of, of, you know, by implication something I could perhaps do something about this, and I should do something about this if I can. And so that is the basis of my connection with that other person.

Speaker 0 | 25:43

Doesn't, he doesn't russoe in the discourse and inequality have a very similar anecdote to Smith to do with, I think a horse or something like that, that it can't pass another dead a horse without crying. And

Speaker 1 | 25:55

That's right. I mean, all, all animals feel this. So many, and all animals feel this. Smith doesn't, I mean, Smith is, tempera is much more complicated than that. But yes, Smith would agree. I mean, all animals feel this association. One, all animals have this speed, what they call time species recognition. Okay? So we recognize the species, but human beings go one step further because they have this cognitive apparatus, which allows them to put myself in my brother's position if it were me, but without actually suffering. So that's the, that's the crucial step takes a, that step for.

Speaker 0 | 26:30

And on the point of cosmopolitanism, as you discussed in your book, um, it was central to the enlightenment understanding of humanity as a whole. How did, in enlightenment thinkers conceptualize that idea of a shared human nature, uh, that we've been talking about and the impulse towards the social life?

Speaker 1 | 26:49

Well, I mean, you can think about it. You extend that outwards. It, uh, it means that it carries with it an implication that we have some kind of, um, you know, obligation towards our fellow beings, and that we, above all, we have an obligation not to think of them as being divided up into artificial units for preservation. If you think about, I mean, the, again, going back Hobbes is sort for me, always the test of what, what they're talking against everyone, everyone is replying to Hobbes in some sense, you know? Um, and, and particularly de which is, which is different from Aya in this respect, is much more emphatic about these things. Um, so the, that, you know, that the, so that there's this sense that you, you can, you, you'd have to do something about it in, in the sense that you have to make an effort to communicate with other beings, human beings.

Speaker 1 | 27:54

Now, what that leads to is this sense of, you know, that there must be some common, common denominator we all share in common. I, you know, a common language, if you like, a common language of humanity that we can all speak, it takes different natural forms, but we can all speak this common language. We all can all understand each other at some level. Okay? It doesn't matter whether we're, you know, Swedish or Chinese. We still have this capacity. We may not be able to literally understand each other, but we can understand each other quite human beings. So in that case, it makes nonsense to think of divisions between human beings into, into nations. And of course, this is also the period when, again, 1640 eight's important day, um, when nation building in is becoming important. So if you take, if you look at the politics of the enlightenment, what you are looking at precisely as the world where the nation state is beginning to, uh, manifest itself in all, its, um, uh, in many ways, you know, it's still, it's still an international, larger international community than would it's going to be, say in 1848.

Speaker 1 | 28:57

But it's, um, it's nevertheless a community which is beginning to be divided up into these, these separate entities, these separate holes. Um, having, of course, in that sense, in one sense, that's also a replacement, um, for, um, going back to what you were saying about religion earlier replacement for this idea of a unified Christianity. Mm-Hmm.

Speaker 0 | 29:19

Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean interrupt. No, I was just gonna say, um, um, which Belamine, who Hobbs responds to as well, has been arguing about in the procedures entry on that split between spiritual and temple power, and it's massively moving in that direction, which he'd been trying to defend again.

Speaker 1 | 29:34

Yes. Yes, exactly. Exactly. So you have this concept to be unified Christianity, which book disappears. And with it, the disappears the idea of a a a a possible, um, you know, single community of humanity based in Christ, so to speak. Okay? Um, and that, uh, that Ian vision, so to speak, disappears completely as a consequence of this corruption. So you have is a re which comes at mean treat of burg, but it's still emphasized and established as an international legal principle, um, uh, in and in Alia. And then that then, you know, is in a way the kind of intellectual, spiritual, whatever you like to call it, um, manifestation of the Newt Nation state. You can certainly see it that way. If all the, all the historical quibbling about the actual terms of the treaty. Um, I think that perhaps the consequence, the long term consequences of that.

Speaker 1 | 30:31

So what you need then is something to replace that. If you think of all of this is a way of trying to, um, to humanize the c you could say the enlightenment, trying to humanize this, this destructive project of the 17th century, trying to, and so in a sense, trying to humanize the nation state, you might say. So what you would have is not that people, you know, cosmopolitan is not, uh, just a, I mean, well put it this way. It's not a as as as they understood it. It's not a rejection of the the need. It's not as we also try to c characterize it, you know, a preference for, for Turks over your, over your next door neighbor. It is a de desire to try and put your Turks and your next door neighbor on the same intellectual and moral footing. That's to say, um, you know, Smith has this passage about, you know, why should we care for the peoples of China?

Speaker 1 | 31:21

Well, we should care for the peoples of China because they belong to the same species as ourselves, because they're part of this larger human, this larger cosmos, which may belong. Now, of course, as you know, there's the other, the other way it's often been represented is precisely in the, the terms that Cruin describes it, for instance. And, and, and Russo describes it, um, as being a, a kind of, oh, and someone like, um, you know, gi Matina, for instance, as being really just a way of, uh, sort of sloppy fuzzy way of privileged people to say, you know, I don't, I don't need these na they don't need these attachments, first of all, 'cause I'm rich enough not to care about them. You know? Mm-Hmm. Cosmopolitan's, the people who meet in the front end of aircraft and airplanes, they're the business class, right? First class.

Speaker 1 | 32:09

Um, and the people who are stuck in the back in, in, in, uh, economy, they have to have this, uh, sense of unity to keep them going. Hmm. And that, that attitude seems that that claim, which of course, you know, is, is part of the, part of the nationalist response to co cosmopolitanism, um, throughout the latter part of the 18th and third part of the 19th century, is something that is, is, is simply not what is intended here. I mean, what is intended here is not that you should not have a, and this is why, uh, the passage I quote, which is, which I like so much, is, is Montesquieu one about I, if I, and it's interesting. It's always put in the negative, you know, if I were to do something that was offensive to my fa family, I would despise myself. If I were to do something which is offensive by nation, my pat, I would reject it.

Speaker 1 | 32:58

If I were to do something, puts interestingly Europe in here. If I would do something that was offensive to Europe, I would reprehensible. If I would do something offensive to humanity, I would then, so, so you build up, these is what I said, these stoic circles, right? You start from the, the beginning and you move outwards. But the point about the stoic circles is always that, or at least Montesquieu interpretation of it, and this is I think generally true of the enlightenment, is that it is that these, doesn't it, it not that you move outwards, leaving the others behind, which is the sort of traditional scrutiny view, sub scrutiny, views of enlightenment, right? You, these are all part of the story. Yeah. You have to care for your family. You have to care, and you put those first. If there's a conflict between your family and humanity, your family comes first.

Speaker 1 | 33:43

But you should never lose the sight of the ultimate rim, the ultimate circle, which is humanity. And that's what a cosmopolitan really is. Like when Russo says to, sorry, when, when Dior says to hu You like me, are a citizen of the world. It's, it's a sort of general phrase, mean, doesn't really have this, that implication. But the implication behind it is you are someone who is Scots, you know, yes, you speak French with a terrible Scottish accent. Um, and, but, but you are so nevertheless, you know, has, um, this sense of the world as a world of human beings united together, uh, at some level without, at the same time losing track or sighted. Your scottishness,

Speaker 0 | 34:28

Professor Anthony, will return shortly. And on that, when your book highlights the di di the very diverse background and perspectives of enlightenment thinkers, how did this diversity contribute to the development and exchange of ideas during this period?

Speaker 1 | 35:17

Well, I think, uh, as I'm trying to say, I mean, you know, if you think about you are dealing with different genre, you are dealing with people who, for the most part are of course not professional university teachers. The only one who really fits into this ca category, I stand to be corrected. But, um, 'cause hu never, never got a, never was never given a position, is cunt. Cunt is the only one who's a straightforward down the road university professor. Um, so none of them are Hobson school men, or they're, they're heirs, um, all of them, most of them with a few honorable, you know, really striking exceptions like condor say, are not aristocrats either. So they're not self-funding. Um, so, you know, and they come from, you know, mixed as, you know, very, very mixed backgrounds. So across the spectrum, all the way from Sweden, the through to, to Ireland, so to speak.

Speaker 1 | 36:07

Um, but, um, and they work in different genre all the time. So we mentioned this earlier, this idea of being, you know, poets and so on. This is a way that a, a, a movement that manifests itself out at very many different levels. 'cause precisely, if you're talking about things like, uh, human sensibilities, um, um, sympathy, all of these terms that are so crucial to this idea of a unified human, uh, human psyche, so to speak, a human, uh, a human entity, a humanity, humanize, seem as a, a single whole. All of that, you know, is something that can be played out in different levels, as you've mentioned, music being one of them, or the opera anyway, being one of them to play music. And, and the text together. The, the idea that this is, this is much more than just a philosophical, uh, debate.

Speaker 1 | 36:53

So I think the diversity in the sense and the true sense of the term, um, is, uh, is something that is, is is again, very unusual because if you look backwards that what we're talking about in the 17th century, almost all of those people who are working on this, doing, working on intellectual subjects, so can say in the 17th century, come from, um, either university backgrounds or like bacon, for instance, are aristocrats themselves, themselves. So there's, there's a much broader, but, you know, it has this thing that you have a must talks about, you know, the, the ideal speech situation. You have this talk about everybody can involved in this discussion that this is a bourgeois society, if you like. This is the, the blossoming of the bourgeois society. So it extends well beyond, um, this, uh, what, um, what Hume calls cells and chapels, you know, that, I mean, Hume's idea, Hume's very idea is saying what we have to have, and his preference for the dialogue, for instance, over the treatise, was to say, we have to have a language which we can go beyond, you know, the, the, the, this this little elite, um, which of course is associated in the past with the church, which could then dominate our way of thinking.

Speaker 1 | 38:08

We have to broaden out, and even nun know, as you probably know, I mean, even count has this project of always involved in this project of what was called popular philosophy. And this idea of a popular philosophy. And this, this great thing on the Enlightenment, of course, it's published in this thing called the Berlin in the Monarch Shift, which is a popular journal in popular in the sense we wouldn't recognize possibly. But nevertheless, it's certainly far broader. It's a far broader in, in sort of range of things. So we're trying to bring in new, you know, I mean, obviously from a historical point of view, you are trying to bring in a new class of people who are wealthy, uh, and literate and of course, and also, you know, um, very, very energetic and concerned with change and learn it in their own way, but their own way isn't that of the previous sort of monastic can put it in terms generation.

Speaker 1 | 39:02

So I think there's, there is, as those historians have always pointed out, you know, what you're talking about is a phenomenon, which is not just intellectual, uh, it's also economic and, and, and socialism. And I don't, there's no space for that in my book. I don't mention that. But I mean, I think it's important to, to, I think it would be to rewrote it. Again, I'd probably have to say more about that because I think it's, it is important that we're dealing with Mar Marx thought of as the revolution. I mean, the, the, the bourgeois revolution, of course leads up to the French Revolution. And that without that element, um, this enlightenment wouldn't have had an audience. It has an audience and a very successful audience. You think that Russo's, um, and Neil, uh, you know, sold so many copies that they had to rent it out by the hour. Um, he didn't make any money from it. 'cause in those days, authors didn't make money, didn't have royalties. But the, the popularity of these books goes far beyond anything that was, you know, uh, happened a hundred years earlier. I dunno what the numbers of copies were talking about, but certainly, you know, that there was this huge readership suddenly by comparison with what existed.

Speaker 0 | 40:07

Which is interesting because on a point that I always sort of, well, I'm certainly looking at the moment. There's obviously quite a large middling class in England. So you'd think that England would be, I'm not including Scotland in a Britain idea, but just specifically England. And with London, you'd think that with the number of books being published in London because of, uh, the bands and everything on the continent, you'd think that that would be the place for enlightenment to be flourishing. And I know commentators like Voltaire and, uh, Montesquieu do comment on it, but in terms of our sort of scholarship around England specifically is quite limited in terms of saying that there's an enlightenment uniquely taking place in England.

Speaker 1 | 40:52

Well, Roy Porter thought that was not true. I mean, he thought that this was, this was tried to argue. Um, and that, I mean, I don't agree with him. I mean, I, I don't, I don't think he succeeds in making the case quite as forcefully as he wanted to make it. Um, but he had a point. I think there's, uh, if you look precisely, if you look at what people are saying in Europe about England, um, and if you think of what the position that, I mean, England starts to occupy a position as a, a central point in the European perspective of, you know, um, the intellectual world with, of course, bacon and Hobbs and Locke. And so, 'cause Locke is a key figure in this, um, that, uh, massive and the treatise on human understanding is something everybody reads so well. Everybody, everybody in the new classes reads. So there, there is this sense that England is a powerhouse of thought and so on, so forth. I don't think, that's not what you, what I think happens is, I don't know. I mean, you could, you could say that there's, um, there's been an attempt, there's been a historiography.

Speaker 1 | 42:00

Uh, I mean this is in a sense what Porter was trying to argue. There's been a historiography, which is trying to put the focus on France all the time. Yeah. Um, and uh, if you read, you know, back in Ty after virtue, his claim, 'cause it's all German and that France don it at all, France is just this frivolous stuff on the side. The real, the real. 'cause he doesn't, he doesn't believe in them, but he recognizes the, the force of, of, um, the schlegel and the, and and the cunts and, and the hairs and so on. But the, the, uh, uh, so it's really the perspective you take. We, there tends to be a conception of, uh, of France as being the focal center, or Fr and French being the, but there's partly because I think French is, uh, still in the 18th century thought of as a universal language.

Speaker 1 | 42:47

Secondly, I think probably has a lot to do with the answer could be Mm-hmm, <affirmative>, you know, this creation of a, of a, of a massive undertaking. It's attempt to say, this is the textbook of learning. Right? And it starts off with his incredible introduction, which course where I start my book, um, where he, you know, where Lon Bear sets out what he thinks enlightenment actually is using that terminology, you know, so if you want a description of the project, it's that introduction you go to. So I think that there are various reasons why the historiography has thought about it in these terms. You know, why the English have tended to be, uh, slightly modernized. The other thing is, of course, that after the 17th century, most English authors write in English, and English is not a very widely read language. So that you think that, I mean, that Russo is reading Hobbes in reading de Kiva because it's in Latin.

Speaker 1 | 43:45

Yeah, yeah. The attack on Hobbes in, in the later part of the 18th century is being made against his Latin books. No one reads Levi, or I'm saying, but I mean, it's, that's going too far. But because that's not the language you write in. Uh, so that, um, you know, there's this, there's this very amusing anecdote when Avi comes back and bringing this Tahitian with him, one of the, um, uh, uru who then becomes a figure in Ro um, you know, little treatise. But, um, that, uh, voyage, uh, <inaudible> says, you know, I was constantly being asked by members of the aristocracy, by the, you know, the, the literary world. Why is it that this Polynesian cannot, hasn't learned, he's been here for year and he hasn't learned any French. After all, the English can do it in three months. Surely he can do it in a year.

Speaker 1 | 44:43

So I mean, the idea that, you know, <laugh>, the one thing you have to do, of course, mate said hasn't changed this day, but the one, certainly in the 18th century, the one thing you had to do if you were to go, was to learn French. 'cause French is the common, you think about all of the, the, I mean, you know, you think about the stories of, of, of these, of, of, of all of the, all of them spoke French, um, or had at least, we dunno how well they spoke it. But certainly, I mean, you talk this, Hume had these long conversations and spent a lot of time in France, had a long conversation. So it's a way in a sense that if you were an inter English intellectual of any standing, you had to, uh, know French, you had to be connected to the French intellectual scene.

Speaker 1 | 45:26

So in a way they're, they themselves in, but, you know, you think of hu, I mean Hu I'm sorry, Smith Smith translates half great chunks of Russo into English to demonstrate that Russo has nothing to say that he's merely a a rhetorician. I mean, that's the way he is trying to get, and they're brilliant translations too. It's so that you have this, this conception of French still being in some sense, the language in which you have to communicate, but you don't write in French, you write in English. So you are writing for an English audience, and you'll say already writing for one in the terms of those. And that I think then remains. But this is merely a historical claim. I think. It's not to say that there aren't, um, the, now the great figures of the, of the Scottish Enlightenment. It's the Scott, the Scots, who are really the ones matter and, and, uh, Smith, but are of course, you know, considered to be part of the canon everywhere that are in fact, Smith Hume is, I think you could generally say in the 18th century, say, by the end of the 18th century, if you wanted somebody who asks someone in Sweden to nominate the two greatest philosophy of the 18th century, they would say cant.

Speaker 1 | 46:35

And Hume, these are the two major figures that count

Speaker 0 | 46:39

And that, and very close to that. But you mentioned Voltaire and David Hume as influential figures in the Enlightenment. Yeah. What specific contributions would you say they made to the advancement of Enlightenment ideals, and particularly around secular ethics and the science of math?

Speaker 1 | 46:57

Well, as I say, I think that the, the one of the, uh, one of the, the project, the sort of core you could define, and this was turned to be the title of the book originally. You can define the, uh, the enlightenment as that project making the science of math <inaudible>. Okay, that's the thing. That's what it says in the, then the introduction to the encyclopedia. Okay. So I'm just nothing new about, so you think about it as that, right? Mm-Hmm. And hu certainly is, um, it's not the only one to do course, you know, starts with lock and so goes forth, but is certainly trying, that's, that's the basic project, um, to make it, make us understand human beings in terms, which is a <inaudible>. And, and the, there's Latin sense that a real form of, of knowledge independent of dogma, independent of, you know, things have been handed down to us based upon our observation, based upon our learning and understanding of other cultures.

Speaker 1 | 47:50

And so this is what the science of man is. Now, Voltaire is a very different character because Voltaire is working in a, as I said, in, I mean, in a different idiom and a different medium. I mean, this is, this is, uh, in a way you can think about VoLTE as a highly influential, um, figure who for the most part role is, is demolition, right? It's to undo all these <inaudible>, you know, smash the infamy, get rid of the prejudice. That's the, that's the sort of, that's the Arian model. Hume is less, I mean, obviously you are order to build, you have to destroy what you have to take down what was there before order to build. But Hume is, and Hume skepticism, the skeptical part of Hume is part of that demolition job, so to speak. But the, the Hume that we associate with the <inaudible> on human understanding and also with the various essays on, on, on, on say religion and so on, uh, is a human that's trying to rebuild a conception of the human as a, as a, as a as essentially a scientific understanding.

Speaker 1 | 48:57

And that, that I think is what, um, you know, that is what is in the, the, the core of this. And also what, when, when, you know, cant, makes this famous remark about him weight, weight, humor, waking him from his dogmatic slumber. It's not just the, the, the, the, um, skepticism of humor which he could have got from anyone. Um, least not the skepticism could have got skepticism of anyone. Um, it's the, um, it's this conception, um, you know, which goes into, um, the writing of the first treaters, the, the first critique. And if you think about, it's a point that Po Nora o' Neil made very forcefully that, you know, the first critique starts off with a quotation from Baker, right? So you have this conception, you know, and it's in commune consult, we con consult together, right? So it's a, it's a precisely this commun.

Speaker 1 | 49:49

So I'm making a critique of pure reason, but I am doing as a common activity. And that that is part of the, the human that's also, you can see a continuation of the human project and such. So Volta, I think is, is, is a very, I mean, I, I mentioned him quite a lot, but I mean, he's a, he's a different source of character. He's a pragmatist. He's a, sorry, a propagandist. Um, he dispen, you know, he, he, because of, of this magnificent prose, but also, as I said, because he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a famous figure. He's an extremely important figure who people listen to, you know, uh, much more so than someone like humans after, after all just a librarian basically. As far as the, as far as the, the, the bourgeoisie is concerned, Hume is, sorry, Aire is this great figure who know lives in this magnificent house on the Swiss border, and so on and so forth.

Speaker 1 | 50:40

And so has this, has the range of, uh, of, of the attachments has this ability to reach audiences that go well beyond, uh, well beyond the salon. I mean, it's a salon air as well, but it goes well beyond the salon. So that is, um, whereas, you know, Hume is, you know, when Hume said about, you know, the first treaters had fallen sy and from the presses, I mean, you know, you can see that this is, this is an important fact. I mean, these, this didn't, I mean, eventually it became a, a, a something, I wouldn't say a bestseller, but eventually it became very widely read and very widely distributed. But, you know, whereas, but there's the immediate impact isn't there. The what you get on a Volta is an immediate impact at,

Speaker 0 | 51:20

And

Speaker 1 | 51:21

I think that if you want to choose those two figures, they're very different. And they represent, in a sense, you could say different aspects of enlightenment. Here is the, here is the philosopher, uh, the real philosopher who's going to the heart of the problem, who is asking him to think, and, but is also a great stylist. Uh, never, never forget that. But that stylist, of course, is also, again, what we're saying earlier is written in writing in English, not in French. And then the other hand, you have this great stylist who is not really a great thinker. Um, no one called Voltaire that, I mean, he's not a, by no means trivial, but I mean, he's no means frivolous or anything, but he is this great, um, stylist, and that is what carries the words, so to speak, particularly if we're talking about this new bourgeois society that's emerging.

Speaker 0 | 52:05

Exactly. And someone directly contributing to what I wanted to ask next, which is how did enlightenment thinkers engage with the broader, hang on.

Speaker 1 | 52:14

Sorry. Sorry, say go on on, go on. Oh, yeah.

Speaker 0 | 52:17

Um, I was just going to say, how did enlightenment thinkers engage with the broader cultural scene of their time, particularly in terms of the things we've mentioned already in terms of art and music, and did these engagements influence their philosophical and intellectual pursuits? Rousse, I know composed Opera Volta likewise, you know, was well versed in music, you know, how was it influencing the, the, um, crucible of ideas at the time?

Speaker 1 | 52:46

Well, I think that, yes, I think that we have a, I was gonna say that all of the major figures you can think of, the enlightenment have multiple, um, strings to their bows, so to speak. I mean, they have multiple, multiple, they work in multiple different, in different fields. But then that's not, in a sense, very unusual if you think about it, that all of the, their predecessors in a sense in the 17th century did. It's, it's a stark contrast to the university curricula people, the theologians and, and the doctors and the jurists and so on, who worked in the universities to use Hobbes, again, phrase the school men, right? The scholastics in the true sense of the term. They didn't, I mean, if you were a jurist in the 16, 17, and you worked on law, and that's all you did, and you might, you know, write things on the side if you wanted to, but basically that's what you did.

Speaker 1 | 53:39

Um, and, uh, uh, take someone like Gentille, who's this Italian, you know, renegade, converts to Cathar, converts to, um, Protestantism, comes to England, becomes the, um, Regis professor of, uh, of law in, in, in Oxford. Um, you know, this is a, a great intellectual figure. Never wrote anything. It wasn't law, I mean, never occurred to him that he had to write something else. So, I mean, this is, and these, he's the most sophisticated of them all. Um, but if you go, then you move forward to take someone like Locke is writing, you know, basically Locke is writing in, in, in, in one, in a restricted in, but a much more varied one, then you, then you would then even Hobbs, Hobbs translates after all. Um, despite his hatred of, uh, of Aris Dool translates Aris do's rhetoric into, into, into English. He translates the Acidities into English magnifi, he's a magnificent stylist after Locke is not, I should be say, but Hobbes is a, um, uh, uh, really astonishingly, astonishing crows writer.

Speaker 1 | 54:42

So you, you've got this, these, these are, uh, all have this trend. I think what you find in, in the called the 18th century is it because of this much broader, uh, market, much more intellectual space, um, becomes, um, much more varied. So you have this, this conception that the intellectual, I know that phrase isn't come into being until much, much later, but this, these figures work in different domains at once. And, um, and this gives their writings a, um, a, a, a far greater diffusion than it would be if, I mean, as I keep saying this is, the point about this is a far greater diffusion than it would be if it was simply, um, uh, you know, work working within a traditional university framework. You know, if you think of today, if you go back, you think of this constant, um, uh, attempt by university presses to reach a large audience.

Speaker 1 | 55:45

This is the frame, right? So this, my book, you know, it came out, it was published in the United States by a commercial press published by a, published by the, the, the, uh, commercial division of Oxford, of University Press, so called. And the idea was to meet, to reach. But, you know, compared with what compared, I mean, obviously comparison's difficult because the population size is smaller, the presses are smaller. And so, but if you think about what someone like a, a Russo or ro riches, it's, it's ridiculous. You know? I mean, I mean, it's, my publisher used to say in Yale, when I published Yale, you know, the general public is an academic in another field. And, uh, this is, whereas when someone like Russo writes, now, he's slightly of, somewhat of an exception. You might say Deroy somewhat of an exception. Um, these are figures who write in very different, different, have this gift, uh, for writing in these different modes, um, and use it all the time. We don't, I mean, it's difficult to find anybody from the 19th century onwards who, who writes treatises as well as plays as well as, you know, poetry as well as music. And in case of Ru Rus very extreme. 'cause he was offering, as, you know, not only was clearly, or in music, not only a a a, a wrote music, but wrote music was extremely popular and wrote about music in a way that was extremely influential too. So, sorry,

Speaker 0 | 57:03

I was just gonna, and yeah. Tried to come up with his own, um, uh, musical, uh, sort of tablature rival, the established.

Speaker 1 | 57:13

No, I mean, he's a, he's a, he's an extraordinary figure in that respect. So, and a wide range. And his French is astonishing, you know, but it, it's simply that, you know what he says, and it's not the matter, but <laugh>, but the actual language is very incredible. So you have this sense of, you know, which, which act for a modern, a modern indeed contemporary readership, you know, is always something that's always slightly difficult to actually, not, difficult is not the right word, but I mean, it's something that has to be, I find my students always have to press impress upon them, you know, because so many academics today, university professors, they think that writing is just putting something down on a page, essentially, you know, long as it makes sense, it doesn't, you know, it's gotta make sense. It's gotta be coherent. The argument's got to be there, but the way that the argument is stated is irrelevant.

Speaker 1 | 58:01

And, um, it's not a form of literature. Whereas, of course, if you think in the 18th century philosophy is a form of literature, I mean, it's thought of as a form of literature. So, and you know, you would find people reading it. Um, you know, the common, the common man, there's a, i, I think I mentioned it in the book. There's a, there's a, there's, um, a, a, a popular, uh, play, 18th, uh, 18th, early 18th century, uh, French play, in which a young woman, it's interesting, it should be a woman, of course. 'cause it's part of this idea's education broadened now out beyond the traditional spheres, uh, to demonstrate that she is, she's pretended to be mad in order not to be married to the wrong man. To, to claim that, demonstrate that she's actually entirely sane, stands up and gives an account an account of the content of Locke's essay on human understanding.

Speaker 1 | 58:49

Now, you know, that the, the, but what is striking by is not only that this is what she does. She doesn't give an account of the latest novel, right? And the audience, which is a popular audience, is supposed to recognize this. Um, you know, that there's a, there's this, there's this goes the reaches there. Um, when you think that somebody, even somebody as arcane as Pandor who writes in Latin, who writes this, you know, not very rather torturous Latin must we say, but he is also, also, of course, a historian. And, uh, but if you think that someone, like, um, in Tristan Shandy, he's referred to as if the readership would know who he was. It doesn't need to be explained who he is. Um, so there's, and this is a book intended for a popular audience. I mean, okay, not a, not a very popular, this may be, it's not a, it's not a piece, not a piece of gutter gutter writing, but it's, but it's nevertheless a popular piece of writing.

Speaker 1 | 59:47

So I think the, the, the spread, the what that, um, uh, the, is the public sphere to use hammer MAs is term, which of course, when he's talking about the enlightenment, that's also what he's talking about that is so much broader than anything that existed before in the 17th century. And much more than anything which exists today, despite the fact that, you know, that there are many more books being published, many, many more books being published than there were in the 18th century. And there are many more copies. And therefore, theoretically, there are potentially many more readers. But in terms of technology is there, but readership is not. I think that, that this, the, the dis distribution was much, much wider than, I dunno if that really answers your question or not, but, uh, and

Speaker 0 | 01:00:30

I think, I think so, and I think it leads on to this sort of next point about how those ideas were being communicated beyond the intellectual elite and how these ideas were shaping broader societal attitudes and, and the institutions as well.

Speaker 1 | 01:00:47

Well, I think, I think that we've, I touched on a bit about them, and I think because they find their way into plays, they find their way into popular novels, they find their way into, um, uh, you know, treatises, which are intended, again, to use Hume's nice phrase, beyond the cells and, and chapels. Um, so beyond religious stones, beyond the universities, um, the means that you are, you have a broad intellectual readership, sorry, learning readership or semi learn unlearn, put it this way, no. So I don't wanna use the word learning. So that suggests university people who are not university professors, who are not, um, professionally concerned with these things, um, so that this is, you know, they're, they're highly intelligent people who've been well trained and so on. We don't know exactly who they were. 'cause the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the fact that women now become an in and part of the readership as well is also an insignificant fact.

Speaker 1 | 01:01:45

Something that, that, that, that human comments on. And so that we have, um, this idea that you've got a, a far broader readership than you had before because of the diversity of types. And that has an impact on, I think it has an impact on the way that people come to think about everything from how they ought to be governed to how they ought to live their lives, um, to, um, you know, to what kinds of religious beliefs they should have or have not, um, in the way that the only analogy in previous generations would be the preacher, the oral presentation of a set of doctrines. But then that, again, goes back to a world in which there was a, a recognized center of Tita, which in this world, there is not. So if you are dealing with, you know, when Ka says this is a, not as an enlightened century, it's a century of enlightenment.

Speaker 1 | 01:02:41

So it's a century of progress, right? It's a century of change that these are people who are looking for answers. And if you think that the, eventually, of course, in, in the French cons where you can think about that, the, the general view, the view taken by some of, of after the event, by such conservatives of domestic, that the enlightenment had paved the way for the, uh, for the, uh, for the revolution is often taken by his joints as being nonsense. But I don't think it is nonsense at all. I mean, I think that it, you can think about it as a way of saying it's not that, I mean, it did not d mess didn't mean that what was happening was that people were taking up these ideas and enlightenment, turning them into revolutionary principles. I mean, the closest you come to that is the use that, uh, the jacobins made of the contrast.

Speaker 1 | 01:03:32

So, um, which was true doing that, although they had a very specific reading of, of, of, um, of Russo justice. The American revolutions have a very specific reason reading of Locke and, and, and Montesquieu. But, but there's a general sense in which, you know, you have a, a now a, an audience which isn't, isn't the the San <inaudible>, because the people who make the revolution are not that, they're the provincial lawyers like Monte Robby, and so, right? And those provincial lawyers are the people who are reading de or who are reading, uh, and who are reading these figures. They're not okay. They turn against them because they're not, they're not ferocious enough. They're not, um, revolutionary enough. But the, the, the way of the, the things that they read as children or as young adults, um, led them, I think created this environment, uh, this public sphere, if you like, to use how musts phrase that made it possible for them to come to these much more radical conclusions later on. So in that sense, I think someone like Mess is quite right that he saw this as being, as being the destruction of the vast vestiges of what he saw as an, an authoritative structure of order in the world, um, that then created a vacuum. And that vacuum is filled by the revolutionary principles of the, of, of the revolution, the principles of the Revolution.

Speaker 0 | 01:04:56

Um, and pro uh, professor Ritchie Robertson, who's also written on, um, the like in line and the sort of, uh, seeking happiness, I'm interviewing him next week, um, I suppose similar to what you are saying, that sort of almost in that gap, the sense of fear in the public, uh, I mean, he refers to the 17th century as kind of like the persecuting society century into the 18th century, where there's hope. Um, perhaps that's why the public is so receptive as well, because they are desperately looking for something to quell their fear of plague and pestilence of war <laugh>, you know? Yeah. Um, I think, yeah, I think it's an interesting, interesting social analysis at least of why perhaps they're so receptive. Um, but finally, I mean

Speaker 1 | 01:05:45

That, sorry, sorry.

Speaker 0 | 01:05:46

No, no, no, please, please.

Speaker 1 | 01:05:47

That, that, that aspect is true. I just think of, you know, Montesquieu claim that, um, after the death of Louis 14th and you, the, the, the world opens up. I mean, it's a particularly French view, is it? But I mean, the sense that you've got this to this, you the end of the, roughly speaking towards the end of the 18th century, there's a, um, there's, there's a new hope because there's, there is this thing that then they call in like taking beginning to take place in this period that starts in the early, the 1730s, 1740s. And so begins then goes through to the, to the end of the century. So, and yes, I think the, the, the, the, I think your, I think in his, his analysis has a nice feel to it, if you like. I mean, there's a, his so is far too sharp and crude, but I mean, there is a sense that you have this, um, you move, you are moving towards, um, from absolutism to enlightened absolutism. You're moving outta this period of, you know, again, you could look at it from the, the starting with, with the, with the creation of the nation state. You're moving, moving into the, you of course, constantly. This, this nation state is becoming more and more coherent, more and more emphatic, but it's a, it's a process by which it's also changing its purposes and identity. And in that sense, this is part of that, that shift.

Speaker 0 | 01:07:06

Yeah. Well, exactly. And in terms of shifts, looking at the present day, how do you see the legacy of the Enlightenment continuing to influence contemporary society, particularly in liberal democracies and global institutions like the United Nations?

Speaker 1 | 01:07:23

Well, um, this is where the, the book ends. And, um, the, uh, I think that, uh, that the influence is, I mean, I think first of all, it's an unfinished project. Um, it's still with us. Um, it's still ongoing. Um, and, and if you think about it in terms of, um, the bringing together of peoples, the not the destruction of the nations, if you think about the nation state is a, is a, a creation of the 19th century, of course not. It has its roots in 1648 has roots in the 17th century, um, that this, the, the nation stages, it's emerged, um, um, in its most caricature form, let's say Brexit. Um, it's the most caricature form this thing which shut shuts itself off from the outside world, which sees people as being determined by their place, by their identity, by their ident, their social identity, um, by their, their family liaisons, by their political allegiances and so on.

Speaker 1 | 01:08:28

That is something that the Enlightenment has tried to break down, um, that was, is much, uh, earlier than this. And to see things as being, yes, these things are important. No one's not denying that they exist in the world, they have to continue to exist in the world. But, um, their mo what, but what the Enlightenment has, what did or is doing because it's still continuing, is to, is to force people to recognize that you don't live alone on this planet. Um, and you don't live in the, the states in which you live are not just states in which you carry out a se conduct a series of friendly or not so friendly international relations to other states. But that's where it ends, right? This is a, this is, uh, uh, this is a cosmopolitan order, whether we, we already exist in a cosmopolitan order and that cosmopolitan order is becoming more and more, uh, cosmopolitan if you like, more and more international as we move forward in time.

Speaker 1 | 01:09:23

So I would say that yes, that the Enlightenment, the enlightenment as I tried to set out in this book, and as I understood it, as they understood it, I hope I, I was tried to give an account really of what was, it's an intellectual history after all. It's also a piece of, um, political dogma, um, understood this cosmopolitan, this internationalization to be. And that, you know, one of the manifestations of that which you mentioned, you mentioned the United Nations, um, uh, liberal democracies, global institutions, these have massively increased not only since the 18th century, but since 19 47, 19 45, 19 46, 19 4 7, 19 48, you know, take 1948, which is the Declaration of Human Rights. That as a point, just as a point, just as a date. Um, and, um, so 1648 to 1948, and you have this, this, this, um, huge, you know, globalization, not just of institution, not just of the economy, this is all part of it also of human understanding, if you like.

Speaker 1 | 01:10:25

This sympathy or pity as ru, which extended toward human beings or was believed in that day, has now taken institutional form. And if I may, um, plug something you had mentioned my last book, which was on, um, indeed on the European Union and the attempt to create a European Union, as it was, it was partly as a response to the Brexit crisis, of course, but um, which was the last published one in English. But there's one that came out up after that in Italian, uh, which is going to be published in September by Pol Press called Beyond States. And that tries to take this story precisely down, not just to today, but in some, some projected hypothesis into the future.

Speaker 0 | 01:11:10

Fantastic. Well, yeah, I'm certainly reading, I've got your paperback here of the Enlightenment White Skill Matters, um, which I've been utilizing. And yeah, it's just please me to say thank you so much for joining us, professor Anthony Pag and for sharing so much with us.

Speaker 1 | 01:11:25

Thank you very much for having me.