Denis Diderot was a prominent figure of the French Enlightenment, an avid writer, and a rather subversive public figure. Much of his work and prominence has been lost to the annals of history, leaving his name a largely forgotten remnant of a bygone era. Diderot worked tirelessly throughout his life to create something new, to escape the doctrines of his time, and forge his own path. He was incessantly harassed by authorities as he tried to make a name for himself, and, though he became a well-known name at the time, a few decades after his death, he was ripped from his grave and thrown into a mass pile of bodies without a second thought to his mark on society.
I believe this is a disgraceful shame. Diderot’s Encyclopédie alone should at least be enough to preserve his name through the ages as it represents his tireless effort to himself preserve the knowledge and social current of the Enlightenment era. This is not even to mention the extensive breadth of his oeuvre including novels, plays, dialogues, and even some of the first works of art criticism which should surely earn him a spot in the history books.
In regards to his place on the syllabus, I believe he would have fit perfectly into our discussion of Spinoza and Cavendish in week 6. With all three of these philosophers rejecting substance dualism and Cavendish even offering her own version of materialism, I think it would have been very interesting to compare the ways in which these figures approach a universe devoid of external mediation. As already discussed, Diderot’s materialism bears interesting similarities and differences with Spinoza’s metaphysics, and I think a comparison of his materialism with Cavendish’s perspective would be rather interesting. Cavendish still attempts to incorporate God into her picture of things while adopting a more mechanistic materialism that leans on causal relations while Diderot’s rejects such a notion while still incorporating his concept of sensibilité, which bears some striking resemblances to Cavendishes notions of perception. Overall I think this would be a rather intriguing discussion that would offer more options and possibilities for people looking to reject substance dualism but not willing to commit to idealism.
With all this in mind, I acknowledge that I have failed to mention the other philosopher that we discussed during week six and that is because I believe that Sir Isaac Newton should no longer be included on the syllabus. I remember thinking Newton’s place on the syllabus was a bit odd when we first talked about him in class. He seemed to primarily be included in week six to contrast some of Spinoza’s views, mainly his denial of final causes, as well as give an example of a philosophy that incorporated God into science rather than taking him out of it. Overall I don’t believe this contributed much to the discussion and found the comparisons between Spinoza and Cavendish much more interesting. Now, I acknowledge that Newton did come back in week eight as he had a great influence on Clarke as well as our discussion on Clarke and Leibniz’s opposing views. I think Newton’s philosophy contributed to this discussion much more than in week six as his views played an active role in Clarke’s arguments against Leibniz’s belief that space is relative among others. I think this is the extent that Newton’s philosophy truly needs to be included in the syllabus, through the work of Clarke in the discussion of Leibniz, rather than through a brief excerpt of his General Scholium that I think contributed very little to the discussion of Spinoza.
As such, I believe the work of Diderot would fit very nicely in his stead. Specifically, the first dialogue of D’Alembert’s Dream, “A Conversation Between Diderot and D’Alembert” is a great short introduction to Diderot’s materialism that does a good job at asserting why Diderot believes no supernatural power is needed to dictate the makeup of the universe and lays out his concept of sensibilité, which I think would fit perfectly into week six on the syllabus along with the readings on Spinoza and Cavendish.
home
biography
Sensibilité and Matter
comparison with Spinoza
closing arguments
bibliography