The 18th century is rightly called the Age of Enlightenment. The ideas of the enlighteners were spread in many European countries, as well as on the North American continent. But the philosophy of the enlighteners first took shape and found its classical expression in France. As a modern researcher rightly noted, “France was the ‘showcase’ of the European Enlightenment” (9: 9). The philosophy of the French Enlightenment was generally characterized by naturalism (the desire to explain nature based on itself). In the theory of knowledge, the enlighteners adhered to sensualism (the attitude that the source of all knowledge is sensations). In addition, the representatives of the philosophy of the Enlightenment were convinced that all human knowledge could be systematized and presented in the form of a single short encyclopedic collection (the famous “Encyclopedia, or Explanatory Dictionary of Sciences, Arts and Crafts” was published in 1751-1780). A negative attitude towards existing religions was typical of the Enlightenment ideology (although not all enlighteners were atheists).
The enlighteners, who sought to rely on “common sense”, declared their important task to be the fight against prejudices (including religious ones) and ignorance. Representatives of the French Enlightenment negatively characterized the existing social reality (criticism of the feudal-absolutist system is presented in their works as criticism of “despotism”). Most enlighteners associated the improvement of social life with the reforms of a wise monarch (although some also placed their hopes on a social revolution). The thinkers of the Enlightenment (a significant part of them) adhered to the theory of a social contract. Finally, it was during the Enlightenment that the idea of inalienable human rights gained particular popularity. The greatest representatives of the French Enlightenment were Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Condillac, La Mettrie, Diderot, Helvetius, and Holbach.
François Marie Voltaire (1694-1778, real name – Arouet) was born in Paris to a notary. After graduating from a Jesuit college, he refused to pursue a career as a judicial official, contrary to his father’s wishes. Voltaire successfully debuted as a playwright; his plays enjoyed great popularity. For some time, Voltaire was at the court of Louis XV, and then of Frederick II. His hopes of becoming an adviser to the enlightened monarch were not destined to come true. At the end of his life, he settled in the town of Ferney (near the border with Switzerland), where he acquired an estate. Voltaire’s main philosophical works: “Metaphysical Treatise” (1734), “Principles of Newton’s Philosophy” (1740), “Philosophical Dictionary” (1764). Voltaire’s worldview is deism. Voltaire, considering existing religions to be false, nevertheless did not deny the existence of God. He criticized Christianity rather sharply, which, in his opinion, arose as a result of fools being deceived by swindlers. In the Metaphysical Treatise, Voltaire puts forward two proofs of the existence of God. The first is intended for “ordinary,” “gross minds.” It is based on the statement of expediency present in nature. Just as the hands of a clock point to the master who made them, so the springs of the human body speak of a rational creator of nature. The second proof, according to Voltaire, is more “metaphysical” and therefore less suitable for the perception of “gross minds.” Its starting point is “I exist, therefore something exists” (1:136). But everything that exists is either eternal or has received existence from something else. Eternal self-sufficient existence must be a necessary essence, therefore, such existence is God. A non-self-sufficient being presupposes the presence of a certain series of causes, which, however, cannot go on to infinity. Such a series must lead to the final cause of all being, and this necessary cause is God. According to Voltaire, there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, since otherwise it would turn out that there is no basis for the existence of all these causes at all (considered all together, they will not reveal any external cause of their being; considered separately, they will not reveal any internal cause for their being). According to Voltaire, the given proofs of the existence of God allow us to conclude that the creator of everything is an infinite in magnitude and power rational first cause. In his essay “On the Soul” he says that a sage should not attribute “any human feelings” to God. Voltaire’s God is an impersonal mind that created matter and gave it the ability to move. In the late period of his work, the French thinker defended the thesis on the social value of faith in God. Belief in God is useful because it gives hope, comforts some people, and keeps others from committing crimes. Therefore, “if God did not exist, he would have to be invented.”
Referring to Newton, Voltaire claimed that the created world is finite, material, and that matter is composed of primary elements – atoms. At the same time, the French thinker argued with Newton, claiming that the latter had mistakenly attributed to atoms the ability to transform one another. Atoms are immutable, indecomposable, solid bodies. Voltaire denied the substantiality and incorporeality of the soul. “This soul, which you imagined to be a substance, is in fact nothing more than a capacity… It is a property given to our organs, and not a substance at all” (1: 395). Man is matter, capable of feeling and thinking. Thinking is an attribute bestowed upon matter by the Almighty God. If the soul were an incorporeal substance, then its essence would be thinking and it would think constantly. “But I appeal here to the conscience of all men: do they think incessantly? Do they think during deep sleep? (1:152).
In his doctrine of knowledge, Voltaire sought to follow the “wise Locke.” All ideas come from sensations. There is no innate knowledge, as evidenced by the lack of identical metaphysical concepts in people. Complex ideas are a combination of simple ones; “all the vast knowledge of man flows from this single faculty of combining and arranging our ideas in this way.” (1:145). Within the framework of his socio-political concept, Voltaire puts forward the idea of progress. In his opinion, in the course of human history there has been a slow movement from “barbaric rudeness” to “civilization.” Man is a social being. An isolated person would turn into an animal and lose the ability to think. According to Voltaire, human passions have always contributed to the preservation of society. The course of history, in his opinion, is determined by people’s opinions: “opinion rules the world.” The opinions of great people, gradually taking hold of the minds of a significant part of their fellow citizens, change social life. Moreover, these opinions can be both true, promoting the public good, and false, giving rise to superstitions and prejudices. The French philosopher believed that despotic power will inevitably give way to the “kingdom of reason”; the division of people into rich and poor is inevitable and will always remain. Philosophers who always protect the public interest should act as advisers to enlightened sovereigns.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was born into a watchmaker’s family. Sent to learn the craft of an engraver, he escaped from his master and wandered for a number of years through Switzerland, Italy, and France. He worked as a servant, a music teacher, a secretary, and a music copyist. Arriving in Paris, Rousseau met Diderot and Condillac, and became an employee of the Encyclopedia for a time. After breaking with the encyclopedists, he lived in Switzerland and England. In 1770, he returned to Paris. Rousseau’s main philosophical works are: “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” (1750), “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men” (1755), “On the Social Contract” (1762).
“Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” received a prize from the Dijon Academy, which proposed a question for the competition: did the revival of science and art contribute to the purification of morals? Rousseau gives a negative answer: “Our souls have become corrupted in proportion as our sciences and arts have advanced toward perfection” (8: 30). Science and art are born of pride, vanity, idle curiosity. According to the author of “Discourse”, scholarship has always been associated with luxury and licentiousness, which led to a weakening of courage and slavery. The history of Egypt, Greece, Rome shows that the development of the arts was accompanied by the decomposition of morals and, as a result, the loss of state independence. Ignorant peoples preserved their happiness for a long time: such are the Persians, Scythians, Germans. Rousseau notes that not all scientists sincerely strive for the truth; many of them are driven by completely different passions. He condemns the sciences and arts for having served despotism for a long time: “Sciences, literature, and art… cover with garlands of flowers the iron chains with which these people are entangled; they suppress in them the feeling of that original freedom for which they, it would seem, were born; they make them love their slave state” (8:27). By accustoming to the absence of love of freedom, sciences and arts undermined courage and virtue. It is important to note that the French thinker does not at all call for the destruction of sciences. He believes that they can benefit people if true sages, striving for virtue and the common good, become advisers to kings: “Let first-class scientists receive honorable shelter at court; let them receive there the only reward worthy of them: the opportunity to contribute with their influence to the happiness of the peoples whom they will teach wisdom; “Only then will people see what virtue, science and power are capable of… acting in harmony for the good of the human race” (8: 49). Until enlightenment and wisdom (which has renounced serving despotism), on the one hand, and state power, on the other, enter into a strong alliance, the peoples will remain “vicious and unhappy.”
In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau identifies two types of inequality: physical and political. Physical inequality consists of differences in “bodily strength” and “mental qualities.” This type of inequality is unavoidable and is generated by nature itself. Political inequality is created by people and consists of the privileges that some people enjoy to the detriment of others. It is this type of inequality that Rousseau makes the object of his analysis. In his opinion, in a natural state, wild man wandered in the forests, had no permanent home, was not inclined to hard work, had little need for communication, and had very few passions. Man could have remained in this state forever if not for his ability to improve himself. He learned to overcome difficulties, used stones and sticks for this, and became more dexterous and quick. Rousseau identifies several stages in the development of political inequality. The French thinker associates the era of the “first revolution” in the life of mankind, which led to the emergence of inequality, with the construction of dwellings. During this era, families became isolated and gradually united into tribes. Moral concepts emerged. Rousseau considered this era of the “first revolution” to be the happiest in human history: people’s needs were insignificant, they were content with rough clothing made of animal skins, “poor huts,” “adorned themselves with feathers and shells,” and were generally kind, healthy, and free. True, even then, clashes and discord began to arise between people. The French philosopher associates the next “great revolution” with the beginning of metalworking. He suggested that a volcanic eruption accidentally led people to discover a way to make metal tools. The emergence of these tools created agriculture. Large-scale cultivation of the land leads to its division into plots — this, according to Rousseau, is the origin of private property. “Iron and bread — in the philosopher’s opinion — are what civilized people and destroyed the human race” (8: 114). People became ambitious and evil. Everywhere it became possible to observe rivalry, the desire to expand the size of their property, between people there arises “a state of the most terrible war”. Understanding the disadvantage of constant war, people conclude an agreement, the result of which is the formation of a state and the creation of laws that completely “destroyed natural freedom” (8: 121). The French thinker believed that initially the rulers of states were elected, but as a result of another “revolution”, state power becomes despotic, turns into unlimited tyranny. This “revolution” leads to the “extreme limit” of political inequality – subjects become slaves. Rousseau believed that this new form of political inequality was not established forever: new “revolutions” await humanity. He argued that political inequality in its current form contradicts natural law, since it does not coincide with physical inequality.Despotic power based on violence can only be destroyed by force – tyranny must end with rebellion.
In his work “On the Social Contract” Rousseau declared the basis of all legitimate power to be agreements between people. In his opinion, people do not have natural power over each other, which is why the state arises as a result of the conclusion of a social contract. A social contract is an agreement aimed at creating an association of people that would protect the person and property of each of its members. The social contract establishes political equality between citizens, guarantees their freedom, and makes it possible for the right of ownership to emerge. The articles of the original social contract were never precisely formulated, but were everywhere “tacitly recognized.” According to Rousseau, the people are the sovereign, and the sovereignty of the people is inalienable and indivisible. This sovereignty is expressed in the fact that legislative power can belong only to the people. No “representatives” can have the authority to make final decisions: a law not ratified by the general will of the people must be considered invalid. Executive power, due to the impossibility of its implementation by the entire mass of the people, must be vested in the government, the members of which are officials in the service of the sovereign. The people have the right at any time to modify, limit, and even take away the executive power from those people to whom it was previously entrusted. According to Rousseau, the social contract must be maintained by periodic popular assemblies, the timing of which does not depend on the executive power. In his opinion, such popular assemblies regularly took place in the Roman Republic. Rousseau said that in the course of human history, governments have constantly abused their powers: striving for maximum strength, they used the “faint-heartedness” of citizens, the power of the sovereign disappeared, and thus the social contract was violated. The French thinker insisted on the need for a deistic “civil religion” for the state, the essence of which boils down to faith in the sanctity of the social contract, to the recognition of the existence of God, the afterlife, and posthumous retribution. “Civil religion” prohibits religious intolerance; at the same time, atheists must be expelled from the state as “unsocial” people.
Charles Louis Montesquieu (1689-1775) was born into a noble family. He studied law at the University of Bordeaux, then served as president of the court of justice. In 1726, he left government service, concentrating on literary and philosophical work. In 1728, he was elected a member of the French Academy. In his novel Persian Letters (1721), Montesquieu criticized clericalism and despotism. He condemned religious fanaticism and violent clashes between representatives of different faiths. He contrasted absolute monarchy with the ideal of a state in which public and private interests are in complete harmony.
In his main philosophical work, “The Spirit of Laws” (1748), Montesquieu, analyzing social life, came up with a justification for geographical determinism. He did not share the view of history as a random combination of events. Montesquieu distinguished three forms of government: republic, monarchy, and despotism. Under republican government, supreme power is in the hands of the entire people or part of them; under monarchical government, it is possessed by one person who governs by means of immutable laws; under despotic government, it belongs to one person who uses it at his own discretion. To preserve republican government, political virtue is necessary, based on love for the fatherland, equality, and the desire for true glory. Monarchy cannot exist without the “principle of honor”: honor is the prejudices of an individual or an entire class that are beneficial to the sovereign (however, these prejudices are capable of inciting people to noble deeds). Despotism requires subjects to be in constant fear of punishment.
Montesquieu placed the forms of government, as well as the laws established in various states, in direct dependence on the geographical environment, the most important components of which he considered to be the climate, soil and terrain. He divided the climate into cold, moderate and hot. Montesquieu considered the cold climate favorable for the establishment of political freedom, while the hot climate, on the contrary, contributed to the “spirit of slavery”. “Excessive heat undermines the strength and vigor of people and … a cold climate gives the mind and body a certain strength that makes people capable of prolonged, difficult, great and courageous actions” (7: 235). Dividing the soil into fertile and infertile, he associated the first type with the “spirit of dependence” that prevails under despotism, since fertile soil, according to Montesquieu, leads to the accumulation of wealth among the population and, as a rule, to effeminacy, unwillingness to risk one’s life and the absence of love of freedom. “Barn” soil, in his opinion, on the contrary, cultivates inventiveness, courage, restraint in people and, as a result, contributes to the establishment of a republican form of government. “In a country with soil suitable for agriculture, the spirit of dependence is naturally established… The barren soil of Attica gave birth to popular government there” (7: 240). The relief of the area, according to Montesquieu, determines the size of the territory of the state: since mountains are the “natural border” of states, then on vast plains there arise states of great extent, and on rugged terrain – states of small and medium size. At the same time, vast states can only be governed by despotic power, while in small countries republics naturally arise. Montesquieu claimed that in addition to geographical factors, the nature of laws established by people is also influenced by trade, population size, wealth, morals, customs, and religion. Developing Locke’s ideas, he proved the need for separation of powers in the state. In his opinion, political freedom is impossible without the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers; the powers must be independent of each other, mixing them leads to despotism. The principle of separation of powers substantiated by Montesquieu was used by the drafters of the American Constitution (1787).
Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1714-1780) was born into a family of a judicial official. After graduating from the seminary, he became an abbot. For quite a long time, Condillac was the tutor of the grandson of Louis XV. Condillac was a member of the French Academy. His main philosophical work is the “Treatise on Sensations” (1754).
Condillac is rightly considered the greatest epistemologist of the French Enlightenment. He developed a sensationalist theory of knowledge. Its main idea is that “all our knowledge and all our abilities come from the senses, or, to be more precise, from sensations” (5: 2, 379). Condillac agrees with those who attribute the discovery of the famous proposition to Aristotle: all knowledge comes from the senses. But Aristotle, in his opinion, did not develop this principle in any way, and Aristotle’s followers understood the truth contained in it so poorly that “after a number of centuries it had to be rediscovered” (5: 2, 380). This was done by Locke; however, according to Condillac, the latter was unable to fully elucidate the aforementioned truth. The French thinker criticizes Locke for the fact that, in addition to sensations, he also recognized a second source of the origin of ideas: reflection. According to Condillac, there is only one source of ideas, since “reflection is fundamentally nothing more than sensation, and also because it is not so much the source of ideas as the channel through which they flow from sensations” (5: 2, 383). Locke’s second mistake is the opinion that the faculties of the soul are innate. In fact, according to Condillac, they are acquired habits. The French philosopher insists that “all mental operations are nothing other than sensation itself in its various transformations” (5: 2, 384). He substantiates this (quite innovative) thesis in detail. If a person experiences several sensations at the same time and one of them stands out for its intensity, then the soul “rushes” to this special sensation; in this way attention arises. Memory is also only a “transformed” sensation, which is retained in a person’s mind due to the impression it made. The presence of memory and attention allows the soul to perceive two ideas at once – hence the ability to compare. But comparison opens up the possibility of catching similarities and differences, i.e., of making judgments. The establishment of relations between objects enables us to form precise ideas of these objects – this is the faculty of reflection. Desire develops as a striving for a sensible object; from desire arise hope, fear, love, hatred, will.
According to Condillac, the existence of external bodies can be proven by touch. Touch gives a person a special sensation of continuity, extension, which he cannot consider only his own modification, not connected with external existence. The French philosopher recognized the existence of God and the incorporeal soul. In the “Treatise on Animals” he claimed that the existence of God is proven by natural phenomena, since the chain of causes observed by us cannot go to infinity. According to Condillac, if we admit that God does not exist – the highest first cause of everything, then we will have to agree with a contradictory conclusion: in the world there are effects that have no cause.
Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709-1751) was born into a merchant family. He studied medicine at the University of Paris; worked at the Saint-Malo hospital for eight years; and took part in military operations as a regimental doctor. In 1748, at the invitation of King Frederick II, he arrived in Berlin, where he became a member of the Academy of Sciences and a court doctor. His main work is “The Man-Machine” (1747). La Mettrie is a supporter of materialism and atheism. To substantiate the materialistic worldview, he uses sensualistic epistemology. “There are no more reliable guides than our feelings… they alone can enlighten the mind in the search for truth” (6: 65). The feelings undoubtedly testify to the existence of matter. They also indicate that matter has a special attribute – extension. This attribute presupposes three dimensions in material bodies – length, width and depth. The mechanical properties of matter, which depend on extension, are: size, figure, state of rest and position. In addition to extension, matter has two other attributes: motive power and the ability to feel. There is no evidence that matter receives movement from somewhere outside; sensitivity can only be found in specially organized bodies. Sensory experience contradicts the idea of incorporeal substances: “We know only matter in bodies and observe the ability to feel only in these bodies. On what foundation can an ideal being, rejected by all our knowledge, be built?” (6: 75). Man is a modification of matter; the immaterial soul is a “chimera”, the term “soul” can only be used to designate some of the abilities of our body. This conclusion, according to La Mettrie, is confirmed by the facts of the dependence of thinking on the structure of the brain, on illnesses, age and food. Brain defects cause feeblemindedness, diseases can significantly damage the abilities of “the most brilliant genius”, the development of the body as a person matures leads to a change in the soul, “without food the soul becomes exhausted, falls into frenzy … coarse food creates a heavy and clumsy mind” (6: 199). Man and animals are manifestations of the same substance, the difference between them is determined by organization and education. Touching on the problem of the origin of life, La Mettrie says that “matter had to go through an innumerable number of all sorts of combinations before it reached the only one on which a perfect animal could emerge” (6: 395). As one of the hypotheses, he put forward the assumption that the drying up of the primary ocean was accompanied by the development of diverse embryos, from which all types of living organisms arose. The French thinker condemned despotic rule; philosophers, in his opinion, should contribute to the improvement of public life by educating rulers.
Denis Diderot (1713-1784) was born into a family of craftsmen. He studied at the Jesuit college in Langres. Having refused to become a priest, Diderot lost his father’s financial support and earned his living for a considerable time by giving home lessons. Diderot was the initiator and director of the publication of the famous “Encyclopedia”. At the invitation of Catherine II, he visited Russia and presented the empress with a plan for the political reorganization of the country.
In his early works, Diderot adhered to deism (Philosophical Thoughts, 1746, The Skeptic’s Walk, or Alleys, 1747). In his essay Letter on the Blind (1749), he moves to the positions of atheism and materialism. He contrasted the teleological proof of God’s existence with evolutionary views on nature (the harmony and order observed in the world are the result of the long-term development of matter, so there is no need to admit the existence of a Supreme Cause). Atheistic materialism was further developed in Diderot’s works Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature (1753), Conversation between D’Alembert and Diderot (1769), Philosophical Principles Concerning Matter and Motion (1770), etc. He seeks to justify materialistic monism by referring to the fact that sensitivity and motion are universal properties of matter. In his opinion, in the process of development leading to the emergence of an animal from an egg, one can observe the transition from an inert mass to a sensible matter. But this transition is possible only if matter initially had inert sensitivity, which was transformed into active sensitivity. According to Diderot, with the help of this example, “all the teachings of theology and all the temples on earth are overthrown” (4, 1, 386). If any body has sensitivity (inert or active – it does not matter, because a transition between them is possible), then matter alone is enough to explain thinking, there is no need to assume the presence of special incorporeal entities. Consequently, “in the Universe … there is only one substance” (4: 1, 388), – material. Diderot defended the doctrine of the unity of matter and motion. In his opinion, the presence of gravity in the Universe proves the ability of matter to move. Absolute rest does not exist in nature. The doctrine of the inactivity of bodies was based on the false premise of the homogeneity of matter. In fact, matter is heterogeneous, its elements are molecules, each of which is unchanging and eternal. There is an “infinite variety” of molecules, and they are indivisible, they have an inexhaustible, unchanging, indestructible force. Since matter is set in motion by the action of internal forces, there is no need to assume a divine prime mover; “It is impossible to suppose the existence of anything outside the material Universe” (4: 1, 448). Diderot’s epistemological views are based on the idea that the source of all human knowledge is sensory perception. The senses must be controlled by reason and experiment; therefore, the three main means of studying nature are observation, reflection, experiment.
Claude Adrien Helvetius (1715-1771) was born into a family of a court physician. He graduated from a Jesuit college and served as a general tax farmer from 1738-1751, subsequently concentrating on philosophical work. His main works are: “On the Mind” (1758) and “On Man” (1770).
According to Helvetius, nature contains only material bodies, which are characterized by extension, density, impenetrability, the ability to sense, and movement. Considering the properties of man, he claimed that physical sensitivity underlies all thoughts and actions. There is no innate knowledge; all ideas come from sensations. Mental operations are reduced to observing similarities and differences between sensory perceptions, so every judgment is a certain result of experienced sensations. People by nature have the same mental abilities; mental inequality is a consequence of different education. All human life is a continuous education. By education, Helvetius understood not only the influence of teachers, but also the impact on the mind of such external factors as the form of government, the morals of the people, random events (the sensations they experience are also considered to be the educators of people). Therefore, no two people would have acquired a completely identical education. Condemning despotic government, Helvetius considered ignorance to be the source of most social disasters. The misfortune of people and nations is determined by the imperfection of laws, therefore it is necessary to adopt fair laws that would guarantee a certain minimum of property for all citizens, thereby abolishing the division of people into two classes, one of which lives in poverty, the other is satiated with various excesses. Without calling for complete equality of property, Helvetius spoke of the need to eliminate too sharp a disproportion in the distribution of wealth. He believed that the reform of social life can be carried out with the help of long-term, “continuous and imperceptible” changes in legislation. Helvetius critically assessed existing religions: the clergy always sought to appropriate wealth and power, hypocritically instilling in people an aversion to both. The only true religion is morality based on genuine principles (the first of which is to consider the good of society as the supreme law). True religion does not condemn, but strengthens in people an attachment to earthly life.
Paul Henri Holbach (1723-1789) was born in Germany (Edesheim) to a family of merchants. He studied chemistry at Leiden University. Having moved to Paris, he opened a famous salon, which became a regular meeting place for encyclopedists. His main philosophical work is “System of Nature” (1770).
Holbach is a systematizer of the materialistic and atheistic ideas of the Enlightenment. In his theory of being, he defended materialistic monism: “The Universe, this colossal combination of everything that exists, everywhere reveals to us only matter and movement” (3: 1, 66). Matter is uncreated, eternal, it is the cause of itself. According to Holbach, no solid evidence could ever be brought forward in favor of the doctrine of the creation of the world by God. In addition, such a creation is completely impossible, since the supposed spiritual origin, devoid of extension and parts, could not produce any movement (after all, movement is spatial displacement). Holbach puts forward an innovative definition of matter: “in relation to us, matter in general is everything that affects our feelings in some way” (3: 1, 84). Matter is composed of tiny particles, which he calls molecules (sometimes atoms). Elements of matter differ in their properties and modes of action, so it is wrong to consider it homogeneous. Motion is the mode of existence of matter. According to Holbach, this position is confirmed by Newton’s law of gravitation, as well as by the continuous interactions of bodies that seem to be at rest (for example, a stone lying on the ground exerts constant pressure on it). In his doctrine of causality, the French philosopher developed a unique “system of fatalism”: everything that happens in the world is necessary, subject to constantly acting laws of nature; there are no random phenomena.
In epistemology, Holbach adhered to sensualism: material objects, acting on our sense organs, cause sensations, on the basis of which thoughts and desires are formed. Mental abilities (thinking, memory, imagination) come from the ability to feel. There are no innate ideas; people consider those ideas to be innate whose origin they have forgotten.
According to Holbach, man does not have a dual nature. The doctrine of the disembodied soul and the afterlife is “fantastic” and based on “arbitrary assumptions.” An immaterial soul could not act on bodily organs. “Man is a purely physical being; a spiritual man is the same physical being, only considered from a certain angle; that is, in relation to certain modes of action conditioned by the peculiarities of his organization” (3: 1, 60). All human actions are consequences of his physical structure and the influences he receives from external objects.
Within the framework of his ethics, the French thinker defended the position that the main motive of all human actions is interests. The most important interest of man is the desire for happiness. Happiness consists in the correspondence of a person’s desires to his surroundings. Moreover, happiness cannot be completely the same for all people, since they differ in their physical organization. Hence the inevitable differences of opinion among moralists on the question of the nature of happiness. In order to achieve happiness, a person needs help from other people. Therefore, a person’s essential interest is to contribute to the happiness of his neighbors, who in this case will also contribute to his well-being. To be virtuous means to benefit people; a vicious person is one who harms his neighbors and brings them misfortune.
In his socio-political concept, Holbach defended the theory of the social contract. Government power arises as a result of an agreement between people who have united. The rulers who received power from society are its servants. Society submitted to them so that they would take care of its preservation and well-being. The purpose of concluding a social contract is to ensure freedom, property, and security of citizens. However, the rulers used their power to the detriment of the public interest, sacrificing it for personal gain: “From that time on, politics became completely perverted and turned into continuous robbery. The peoples were enslaved” (3: 1, 174). Condemning despotism, Holbach mainly associated the improvement of public life with the activities of an enlightened monarch, while also allowing for the possibility of revolution as a means of eliminating social injustice. In his opinion, society always has the right, if necessary, to remove the government and change the form of government.
Holbach considered the problem of the origin of religion from an atheistic standpoint. In his opinion, religion was created by ignorance, fear and deception. Denying the existence of God, he stated that the very concept of “God” contains a contradiction: it is obtained by combining moral (rationality, justice, truthfulness, etc.) and metaphysical (incorporeality, eternity, immutability, etc.) attributes. While moral attributes transfer human qualities to God, metaphysical attributes deny them, since they ascribe to God precisely those properties that man is completely deprived of. In addition, according to Holbach, if an incorporeal God is inaccessible to ordinary human senses, and all knowledge comes from sensations, then it follows that the subject of theology is “pure fiction.”
The French thinker spoke of the “pernicious” influence of delusions on the happiness, freedom, and morality of people. In his view, all human delusions are connected with ignorance of nature. People become unhappy when they make fictitious creatures the object of their hopes; they lose their freedom when, due to ignorance of their nature and their rights, they submit to the whims of rulers; they become vicious if they do not understand their duties towards their neighbors. Holbach calls on people to rise above the “clouds of prejudice.” The main remedy against all human disasters is reliance on “true ideas based on nature.”
Literature
1. Voltaire . Philosophical Works. Moscow, 1996.
2. Helvetius K. A. Works. T. 1-2. M., 1974.
3. Golbach P. A. Selected Works. Vol. 1-2. Moscow, 1963.
4. Diderot D. Works. T. 1-2. M., 1986-1991.
5. Condillac E. B. Works. T. 1-3. M., 1980- 1983.
6. La Mettrie J. O. Works. Moscow, 1976.
7. Montesquieu Ch. L. On the spirit of laws. M., 1999.
8. Rousseau J. J. On the Social Contract. Moscow, 1998.
9. Vasiliev V. V. History of philosophical psychology. Western Europe – 18th century. Kaliningrad, 2003.
10. Cassirer E. Philosophy of Enlightenment. M., 2004.
11. Kuznetsov V. N., Meerovsky B. V., Gryaznov A. F. Western European Philosophy of the 18th Century. Moscow, 1986.
12.Ewald O. The French Achievements of Philosophy. Munich, 1922.
13.Gusdorf G. God, nature, man in the light of the world. P., 1971.
14.Gusdorf G. Principles of Pension in the Lights. P., 1971.
15. Hazard P. The European pension of the 18th century from Montesquieu to Lessing. P., 1964.
16. Keohane N. Philosophy and the State in France, NJ, 1970.
17. Mornet G. Nature sciences in France at the age of 18. P., 1911.
18. Naville P. D’Holbach and scientific philosophy of the 18th century. P., 1967.