Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity

238 Pages·1992·17.52 MB·English

by  Stephen Edelston Toulmin

COSMOPOLIS
TheH idden
Agenda of Modqniq)
StephenT oulmin
Tbe Uniuersityo f Cbicago Press
This edition is reprinted by arrangement
with the Free Press, a division of
Macmillan, Inc.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 6O637
Copyright o 1990 by Stephen Toulmin
All rights reserved. Published 1990
University of Chicago Press edition 1992
Printed in the United States of America
99
ISBN 0-226-80838-6(p bk.)
Library of CcngressC ataloging-in-PublicationD ata
Toulmin, StephenE delston.
Cosmopolis : the hidden agenda of moderniry / Stephen Toulmin. -
Universiry of Chicago Presse d.
p. cm.
Originally published: New York : Free Press, cl99}.
Includes bibliographicalr eferencesa nd index.
1. Civilization,M odern-History. 2. Philosophy,R enaissance.
3. Philosophy,M odem-History. 4. Europe-Intellectual life.
5. Rationalism. I. Title.
1c8357.T64 79921
909.82-4c20 92-1,8478
CIP
@ fne paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
of the American National Standard for
Information Sciences-Perrnanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, !\NSI 239.48-1984
For Donnn
'Tis
all in peeces,a ll coberance gone;
All just supply, and all Relation:
Prince, Subject,F atbu, Sonne, are tbingsf orgot,
For euay man alone tbinkes be batb got
To be a Pbenix, and that tbqe can bee
None of tbat kinde, of wbicb be is, but bee.
-JOHN DONNE
Contents
Preface / ix
PROLOGUE
Backing into the Millennium /
CFIAPTERO NE
\flhat Is the Problem About Modernity? / 5
Dating tbe Start of ModunitY
Tlte Standard Account and lts Defects
TbeM odunity of the Rmaissance
Retreatf rom tbe Renaissance
From Humanists to Rationalists
CFIAPTERT \(O
The 17th-CenturyC ounter-Renaissance/ 45
Henry of Nauarre and tbe Crisiso f Belief
1610-1611: YoungR enda nd the Henriade
1610-1611:J obn Donne Grieuefso r Cosmopolis
1640-1650: TbeP olitics of Cutainty
Tbe First StepB ack from Rationalism
CFIAPTER TFIREE
The Modern \florld View / 89
Fasbioning tbe New "Europe of Nations"
16 60-1 72 0 : Leibniz Discouqs Ecumenism
1660-172O Newton and tbe New Cosmopolis
1720-178O TbeS ubtexto f ModrnirY
Tbe Second StepB ac! from Rationalism
un
Contents
CFIAPTERF OUR
The Far Side of Modernity / 139
TheH igb Tide of Souueign Nationhood
1 75 0-1 9 14 : Disvnantling tbe Scaffolding
19 2 O- 19 6O: Re-renaissanceD eferred
19 65-1 975 : Humanisrn Reinumted
Tbe Twin Tralectories of Modemity
C}IAPTER FI\E
.Vay
The Ahead / 175
TbeM ytb of tbe Clean Slate
Humanizing Moderutity
Tbe Recouetyo f practical pbilosoplry
From Leuiatban to Lilliput
The Rational and tbe Reasonable
EPILOGUE
Facingt he Future Again / 203
BibliographicalN otes / 211
Index / 221
yrerace
T\f
lhis book chronicles a changeo f mind. The discoveriesi t repofts are
I as much personal as scholarly. After training in mathematicsa nd
physicsi n the late 1930sa nd early'40s,I was introduced to philosophy at
Cambridgea fter Vorld \Var II, and learned to see Modern Science-the
intellectual movement whose first giant was IsaacN ewton-and Modern
Philosophy-the method of reflection initiated by Descartes-as twin
founding pillars of modern thought, and prime illustrations of the strict
"rationality" on which the modern era has prided itself.
The picture our teachers gaveu s of l7th-century Europe was a sunny
one. For the first time, Humanity seemedt o haves et asidea ll doubts and
ambiguities about its capacityt o achieve its goals here on Earth, and in
historical rime, rather than deferring human fulfillment to an Afterlife in
Eternity-that was what had made the proiect of Modernity "1'21i6n21"-
and this optimism led to major advancesn ot iust in naturals cienceb ut in
moral, political, and social thought as well. In retrospect,h owever, that
picture was roo uniformly bright, at least if we take seriously the other
thingst hat historianso f early modern Europe haves hown us since Roland
Mousnier'sp ioneer work in the 1950sA. realisticp icture of 17th-century
life must now include both brilliant lights and dark shadows:b oth the
successeso f the new intellectual movements,a nd also the agonieso f the
religious wars that were their historical background.
For mysell in the late 1960sI began to be uneasya bout the received
account of 17th-centuryi deas.T he cultural changest hat began around
I965were (it seemedt o me) cuttingi nto our traditionsm ore deeplyt han
was widely appreciated.I tried to capture this point in a draft essayf or
Daedahn, dealingw ith changesin the philosophy of sciencef rom 1945u p
tot97}: understandablyt,h e editor urged,met o produce a lessa mbitious
text for publication, but the centralp erceptionsr emained,t o be presented
here in Chapter 4. My doubts v/er: reinforced by an essayb y Stephen
pc
Preface
Shapin,p ublishedi n 1981,o n the correspondenceb etweenG . \f. Leibniz
and Newton's ally, Samuel Clarke; having taught the same text from a
narrower point of view at Oxford in the early'50s,I wasw ell placedt o see
the originalitya nd force of Shapin'sr eading,w hich I discussin Chapter3 .
During ayeari n SantaM onicaa t the GettyC enterf or the Historyo f Art and
the Humanities,I had a welcome chancet o pursue thesed oubts in the
ResearchL ibrary of the Universityo f California at LosA ngeles,a nd also at
the BibliothBqueN ationalei n Paris and at other libraries: my debts to
colleaguesa t SantaM onica,a nd to the GettyT rust,c an be seeni n Chap-
ter 2.
In the end, the most powerful influence in changingm y view of the 17 th
century was the experience of reading Michel de Montaigne's with
"&saa
my students in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of
Chicago.M ontaigned oes not often figure in the curriculum of Englisha nd
Americanp hilosophyd epanmentss: till lessa reh is booksl istedo n reading
lists in the natural sciences.A s we worked through the essaysI, was
delighted to find how congenial he was to readers in the late 1970s.I n
arguing a casef or the classicasl kepticismo f SextusE mpiricus and $rrrho,
, for instance,h e came closer than I thought possible to the ideas of my
&teacherirfif iig,wltBenstein,:snil I ended by wondering whetherg,he
opening gambit in the chessg ame of Modern Philosophyh ad been, hor
Descartesm' ethod of systematicd oubt, but the skepticala rgumentso f
, Montaigne himself.
Conversationws ith Avner Cohena nd Phillip Hallie encouragedm e to
pursuet his suspicion,a ndh elpedm e to seeM ontaigne'sc entralr elevance
to the presentc risisw ithin philosophy.T hatm ove led me in turn into the
largerw orld of l5th-centuryR enaissancheu manism,a nd showedh ow far
the failureso f understandingb eween Sciencea nd the Humanities,a bout
which C. P. Snow was so eloquent, began earlyi n the 17th century,w hen
Descartesp ersuadedh is fellow philosopherst o renouncef ields of study
like ethnographyh, istory,o r poetry,whicha rer ich in contenta ndc ontext,
and to concentratee xclusivelyo n abstract,d econtextualizedfi elds like
geometry, dynamics,a nd epistemology.F rom then on, the focus of my
researchw as the LTth-centurym ove from a panly practical to a purely
theoreticalv iew of philosophy,a nd that is my central concernh ere.
In choosing as the goals of Modernity an intellectual and pracrical
agendat hat set aside the tolerant, skeptical attitude of the 16th-century
humanists,a nd focussedo n the 17th-centuryp ursuit of mathematical
exactitudea ndl ogicalr igor, intellectuacl ertaintya ndm oral purity,E urope
seti tselfo n a culturalandpoliticalr oadt hath asl ed both to its mosts triking
technicals uccesseasn dt o its deepesth umanf ailures.I f we havea nyl esson
Preface xt
'70s,
to learn from the experienceo f the 1950sa nd this (I havec ome to
believe) is our need to reappropriate the wisdom of the 16th-century
humanists,a nd develop a point of view that combines the abstractr igor
and exactitude of the l7th-century "new philosophy" with a practical
concern for human life in its concrete detail. Only so can we counter the
currentwidespreadd isillusionw ith the agendao f Modernity,a nd salvage
what is still humanly important in its proiects.
By this stage,m y inquiries covered so broad a canvasth at I could not
hope to present them in fully documented scholarly form in part of a
lifetime,o r in a book of manageables ize.I nstead,I havec hosent o write
an essayt hat may enable readerst o recognize,and even follow, the steps
that led me both to a more complex picture of the birth of Modernity, and
to more sanguinei deaso f how the 17thc entury'sa chievementsc ould be
humanized,a nd so redeemed.R athert han encumber my essaywith a full
scholarly apparatus,I am therefore adding a bibliographical appendix in
which I describe my sourcesa nd give any indispensabler eferences:f or
instance,t o the 1611 sonnetw hich (asI arguei n Chapter 2) mayb e the first,
unacknowledgedp rintedwork of Ren€ DescartesH. ere, let me add aword
about the fine codperation of M. Peyrauda nd his fellow workers in the
cataloguer oom at the BibliothdqueN ationale,in helping hunt down and
documentt he "missingv olume" in which that sonneta ppears.
In all these investigations,I have learned from my discussionsw ith
colleaguesa nd friends.L et me here thank those who, at various stages,
helped to keep my reinterpretation on the rails: as well as those already
mentioned,G enevidveR odis-LewisR, ichard\ fatson, David Traqr,Julian
Hilton, ThomasM cCarthy,a ndJohnM cCumber.A bove all, I am grateful to
Klaus Reichert of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitdt, FranKurt-
am-Main,a nd to the Presidento f the University,f or askingm e to inaugurate
in Maya ndJuneo f 7987t he visiting professorshipg enerouslye ndowedb y
DeutscheB ank, with a serieso f lectureso n "Beyond Modernity". The
chance to airmy ideas in public before the heirs to the scholars who
createdt he sociolory of knowledge in the 1930sg ^ve me the confidence
to present them here. Partso f my argument have been presented at the
University of Michigan, as the Hayward Keniston Lecture;a t Vashington
University,S t.L ouis;N ortheastI llinois University,d e Kalb;t he University
of lllinois, Champaignt;h e Centref or Working Life in Stockholm;M on-
mouth College, as the inaugural Sam Thompson Lecture; and Loyola
MarymountU niversityL, osAngelesL. ynnC onnerh asb een agreathelp in
the sheer production of a tort, while my friend Daniel Herwiz has been
a welcome and helpful sounding board at every stagei n the work. Only
Joyce Seltzer,m y editor at the Free Press,k nows how much the whole
xii Preface
conception of this book owes to her own imaginative commentary, or how
far her taaful criticism has shaped its execution. Finally, let me thank Rudi
Weinganner and the electors to the Avalon Foundation Chair in the
Humanities at Northwestern universiry, who gave me the chance to com-
plete it around the normal duties of an academic life.
An investigation with the scope I have chosen here cannor hope to be
equally convincingatall points; but about one thing I am certain enough.
In the reappropriation of the humanist tradition, our political or cultural
future is not the only thing at stake. Striking a better balance berween the
abstract exactitude needed in the physical sciences and the practical
wisdom typical of fields like clinical medicine can also be a matter of
personal importance. If we reach the Gates of Heaven, and are given the
chance to take up our eternal residence on the same cloud as Erasmusa nd
Rabelais,s hakespeare and Montaigne, few of us (I suspect) will demand
that we be cloistered permanently, instead, with Ren€ Descartes, Isaac
Newton, and the exact-thinking but darker-souled geniuses of the 17th
century.
Euanston, Illinois
May 1989 StephenT oulmin