Invocations of Enlightenment, Reason, and Universalism too
often substitute the name for the thing. Trumpeting Reason is too often a substitute
for offering reasoned arguments.
Take, for instance, the recent
claim by Harrison Fluss and Landon Frim that “core Enlightenment principles”
are “the original basis for modern political emancipation,” and that the
contemporary Left should “ground” its politics in these principles once again.
According to Fluss and Frim, the “Enlightenment worldview” comprises
five essential principles: rationalism, materialism, humanism, hedonism, and
perfectionism. I am immediately suspicious. Materialism and humanism are not
obviously harmonious, insofar as humanism so often relies upon an implicit spiritualism.
Why wouldn’t a rigorous materialism undermine any strict species distinction
between humans and non-human animals, for instance? (On this, see the work of
Hasana Sharp.) Perfectionism is just as
awkward a fit. Most versions of perfectionism rely upon a teleological
conception of human nature that runs afoul of both materialism about causality
and rationalism about the order of nature.
Are these doubts just a consequence of the rough-and-ready
form of a popular presentation? Maybe this “Enlightenment worldview” just needs
to be more fully fleshed out.
Perhaps, but I also have concerns rooted in what Fluss and
Frim actually say about the implications of these principles. They claim, for
instance, that “the overriding principle of rationalism implies that people
ought to have conscious control over the greater part of their lives, the
perfection of their talents, the ways they contribute to society, and how they
cooperate with others.”
No, it doesn’t. Rationalism is, according to Fluss and Frim,
the thesis “that the universe is essentially knowable and that all limits to
knowledge are merely provisional.” The knowability of the universe does not imply
that people ought to have conscious control over their lives. The universe
remains knowable whether or not its is actually known, and whether or not that
knowledge gives any individuals actual control over their lives. The rational
explicability of all phenomena does not even secure the possibility of
conscious control. Knowledge may just as well reveal the limits of our power as
extend that power.
Fluss and Frim also claim that “Since all people are
conditioned by common, natural laws, then there can be no stark separation
between different peoples, sexes, races, etc.” As mentioned above, this claim
can just as easily undermine the stark separation between different species,
and so does not guarantee humanism. But if it proves too much, it also proves
too little, since the common conditioning of all human beings by natural laws
does not in any way entail a set of common interests. We can affirm that all
human beings are equally human and then turn around and wage war on other human
beings over scarce resources or ideological disagreements. That “diverse needs,
desires, and conditions of flourishing are ultimately translatable across all
parochial boundaries” does not mean that our needs, desires, and conditions of
flourishing are compatible. I can understand you and still want to kill you.
As Fluss and Frim would have it, “it is only a movement
steeped in Radical Enlightenment principles that will develop ever more
coherent political demands.” I don’t think this is right, and I think my
arguments above show why. Adherence to abstract principles does not produce
political demands. Politics is not derived from principles. Principles are not
foundational, but guiding. If you are committed to rationalism, then you should
keep that commitment in mind as you make your arguments, not try to make your
arguments follow from your rationalism.
My inclination is to say that the Left needs more and better
arguments, not more rationalism. It needs more and better explanations, not
more materialism. It needs more and better organizational and institutional
ties, not more humanism.