D’Holbach has one thing to offer that would make him a great addition to his counterparts on the syllabus, which is being a hardheaded atheist. Throughout the course we’ve encountered philosophers who seem atheist by trying to explain the existence of God. What I think is beneficial to any class is having a counter, which should be Baron D’Holbach. He shares similar metaphysical views to explain the world, but he also uses that to form his basis of why God isn’t real. His criticisms of organized religion veiling the population that God can explain everything frustrates him. He then uses this to form his basis on how governments and society should function and introduces his views on moral philosophy.
Besides his writings content wise, they are very enjoyable to read and I have no doubt that if college students were to be assigned them, they could get easily invested. Since he wrote his works intending for them to be spread to the uneducated public he limits his flowery language and gets straight to the point. However, this meant he was incredibly blunt and offensive to those whose ideas he was attacking. This also plays into how parts of the public such as the church and other philosophers hated him. From what I remember, a couple of the philosophers from the syllabus were able to be in discussion and disagree on particular views. But aside from Spinoza, D’Holbach was attacked by Christians and deists everywhere for his blasphemy. Despite being in a period where the only acceptable religion was that including a God, D’Holbach continued to publish works criticizing their beliefs, promoting a collective acknowledgement of the truth of the world which is that without a God.
Baron D’Holbach also deserves a position in the philosophical canon once again from being a special case from other enlightenment thinkers. He established the foundation for the perseverance of atheism for the rest of the enlightenment movement and into today. A lot of the things he believed were ahead of his time and would have flourished if more technological advancements were present to confirm such beliefs. I would say that he deserves the same appreciation that’s given to other notable philsophers from the same period, but has been neglected and obscured by his atheism.