Moses Mendelssohn

When attempting to capture the concept of enlightenment that underlies and motivates philosophical (and political and scientific) developments in the 18th century, historians of philosophy frequently rely upon a needlessly but intentionally exclusive account. This, namely, is the conception of enlightenment first proposed by Kant in his famous essay of 1784, which takes enlightenment to consist in the “emergence from the self-imposed state of minority” and which is only possible for a “public” to attain as a result of the public (...) use of reason, a privilege enjoyed by citizens and exemplified in the activity of the scholar. That women, among other groups, did not hold the status of citizens and did not enjoy access to the institutions or training that might gain them recognition as scholars is apparently not a concern for Kant, as he notes that the enlightened condition is likely out of reach anyway for “by far the greatest part of humankind (including the entire fair sex)” (AA 8:35). This naturally leads one to wonder what a history of this period could look like when considered from the perspective of a different, more inclusive conception of enlightenment, and in this chapter I propose to conduct an experiment of sorts just along these lines. As opposed to Kant’s exclusionary conception, I will instead take that proposed by his distinguished contemporary, Moses Mendelssohn, as my starting point. In addition to offering a conception of enlightenment distinctive both for its wide scope and progressive character, Mendelssohn’s has the advantage, or so I will show, of bringing the manifold intellectual contributions of a diverse set of women into focus, though it does more than this in that it also reveals these women to actively and critically engage with key aspects of Mendelssohn’s and others’ philosophical views. (shrink)

The chapter replies to Paul Guyer’s (2020) account of the debate between Mendelssohn and Kant about whether humankind makes continual moral progress. Mendelssohn maintained that progress can only be the remit of individuals, and that humankind only “continually fluctuates within fixed limits”. Kant dubs Mendelssohn’s position “abderitism” and explicitly rejects it. But Guyer contends that Kant’s own theory of freedom commits him, malgré lui, to abderitism. Guyer’s risky interpretive position is not supported by examination of the relevant texts in their (...) intellectual context. I first identify the historical origins of the term abderitism, which here signifies the independence of individual progress from social conditions. By contrast, Kant argues that individual progress cannot be independent of the progress of the species, acting as a corporate agent. This arresting position, I argue, must be understood in light of the Stoic ethical-teleological presuppositions generally accepted in eighteenth-century German discussion of human progress. (shrink)

L’obra Somnis d’un visionari, il·lustrats mitjançant els somnis de la metafísica (1766) d’Immanuel Kant presenta un tractament juxtaposat i obertament irònic de dues temàtiques a primera vista heterogènies: la manera de fer metafísica habitual al context germànic del s. xvii i les visions sobrenaturals d’Emmanuel Swedenborg. Aquest article revisa una ambivalència interpretativa interna a l’obra, inicialment identificada per Moses Mendelssohn, que sorgeix d’aquesta juxtaposició temàtica. Segons les dues postures oposades de l’ambivalència pot classificar-se la recepció històrica de l’obra. Seguidament, es (...) mostra la insuficiència d’algunes estratègies habituals d’interpretació del text, i se’n proposa una de nova basada en dues nocions del text, a saber, la voluntat d’assegurar un món comú i la noció de saviesa. A partir d’aquestes nocions i d’una carta que Kant escriu a Mendelssohn s’aporta una lectura del text que, finalment, se situa en referència a les dues lectures de l’ambivalència interpretativa presentada inicialment. -/- Immanuel Kant’s Dreams of a spirit-seer elucidated by dreams of metaphysics (1766) presents a juxtaposed and openly ironic treatment of two apparently heterogeneous subjects: the way of doing metaphysics common in the Seventeenth-Century German context and Emmanuel Swedenborg’s supernatural visions. This article reviews an interpretative ambivalence internal to the work originally identified by Moses Mendelssohn, which springs from its thematic juxtaposition. One may classify the work’s historical reception according to the two stances on the ambivalence. Furthermore, the insufficiency of some common strategies for interpreting the text will be shown, and a new one is proposed on the basis of two notions that appear within the text, that is, the will to ensure a common world and the notion of wisdom. As a result of these notions and on the basis of a letter that Kant wrote to Mendelssohn, a reading of this work is proposed, which is finally situated with respect to the two readings of the interpretative ambivalence initially presented. (shrink)

The idea that virtue can be profitably conceived as a certain sort of skill has a long history. My aim is to examine a neglected episode in this history — one that focuses on the pivotal role that Moses Mendelssohn played in rehabilitating the skill model of virtue for the German rationalist tradition, and Immanuel Kant’s subsequent, yet significantly qualified, endorsement of the idea. Mendelssohn celebrates a certain automatism in the execution of skill, and takes this feature to be instrumental (...) in meeting an objection against perfectionist, agent-based ethics: namely, that a virtuous person would seem to act for the sake of realising his own perfection in everything that he does, thereby taking a morally inappropriate interest in his own character. Kant rejects the automatism featured in Mendelssohn’s account, on grounds that it would make virtue mindless and unreflective. But he does not reject the skill model of virtue wholesale. Rather, he calls for considering how reflection can be embedded in the expression of certain kinds of skill, enabling him to endorse, and arguably adopt, the model on his own terms. (shrink)

Текст Десяти заповедей Библии предписывает поклоняться только единому Богу и запрещает создавать изображения Бога и изваяния. Цель данной статьи исследовать взгляды Мендельсона, Когена и Кассирера на связь между предписанием поклоняться единому Богу и запретом идолопоклонства в иудаизме. В статье рассматривается вопрос, почему Мендельсон и Коген определяют запрет на изображение Бога как запрет, характеризующий сущность иудаизма как религии разума. Анализируя понятие знака, Мендельсон объясняет поклонение идолам как непонимание указывающей функции знака; подобное непонимание ведет к ошибочному восприятию. Коген раскрывает с помощью этого (...) запрета уникальность истинного Бога иудаизма. Понятия знака и символа в текстах Мендельсона стали ключевыми для философии Кассирера. Посредством этих понятий он создает свою философию культуры и теорию восприятия. Мой аргумент состоит в том, что в свете философии Кассирера, идолопоклонство (как ошибочное восприятие) характеризует не только ушедшие в прошлое этапы развития религиозного сознания, но также является необходимым моментом в структуре восприятия. Abstract: The text of the Decalogue in the Bible orders to worship the one God and forbids creating images of God and any cultic statues. The aim of this paper is to inquiry the views of Mendelssohn, Cohen, and Cassirer - the Jewish German-speaking rational philosophers - regarding the link between the precept to worship the one God and the prohibition of the idolatry in Judaism. Why idolatry was identified with making images of God? The article will investigate the arguments, according to which Mendelssohn and Cohen define the prohibition of God’s images in Judaism as the essential law for religion based on reason. Mendelssohn’s understanding of idolatry is a result of his theory of sign. Analysing the concept of sign, Mendelssohn explains idol worship as misunderstanding of the sign’s function to denote things. Idolatry, in his terms, is an erroneous perception. For Cohen the prohibition of God’s images reveals the uniqueness of the true God of Judaism. The unique God has no image, and to make image of him is the same as to create another god. Mendelssohn’s concepts of sign and symbol became key concepts for Cassirer’s philosophy of culture and theory of perception. My final argument is that in light of Cassirer's philosophy, idolatry (defined previously as erroneous perception) characterizes not only past stages of religious consciousness, but also constitutes necessary moment in the structure of perception. -/- . (shrink)

This Element considers Kant's account of the sublime in the context of his predecessors both in the Anglophone and German rationalist traditions. Since Kant says with evident endorsement that 'we call sublime that which is absolutely great' and nothing in nature can in fact be absolutely great, Kant concludes that strictly speaking what is sublime can only be the human calling to perfect our rational capacity according to the standard of virtue that is thought through the moral law. The Element (...) takes account of the difference between respect and admiration as the two main varieties of sublime feeling, and concludes by considering the role of Stoicism in Kant's account of the sublime, particularly through the channel of Seneca. (shrink)

The aim of this paper has been to present a new reconstruction of Kant’s Refutation of Idealism. I have considered several different targets of the Refutation, five of them mentioned by Kant himself. I believe that I have shown that the Refutation of Idealism is best considered only as a sound argument against Mendelssohnian subjectivist idealism, against Mendelssohnian immaterialism, and against Mendelssohnian realist idealism. First, Kant’s Refutation is a sound argument in favor of the claim that the outer things represented (...) in our minds are real rather than ideal; that is, they exist mind-independently as noumena. And second, Kant’s refutation is a sound argument for a fundamental ontology of noumena: the ultimate nature of reality and of our minds is neither material nor mental but made up of things in themselves. (shrink)

Moses Maimonides was a rare kind of radical. Being a genuine Aristotelian, he recommended following the middle path and avoiding extremism. Yet, within the sphere of Jewish philosophy and thought, he created a school of philosophical radicalism, inspiring Rabbis and thinkers to be unwilling to compromise their integrity in searching for the truth, regardless of where their arguments might lead. Both Spinoza and Salomon Maimon inherited this commitment to uncompromising philosophical inquiry. But of course, such willingness to follow a philosophical (...) argument to any length is a fine prescription for getting into trouble with community and political leaders. In this paper I will trace the story of one such collision, which took place between the radical philosopher Salomon Maimon and the bourgeois Enlightenment politician, Moses Mendelssohn. (shrink)

Eric Watkins has argued on philosophical, textual, and historical grounds that Kant’s account of causation in the first Critique should not be read as an attempt to refute Hume’s account of causation. In this paper, I challenge the arguments for Watkins’ claim. Specifically, I argue (1) that Kant’s philosophical commitments, even on Watkins’ reading, are not obvious obstacles to refuting Hume, (2) that textual evidence from the “Disciple of Pure Reason” suggests Kant conceived of his account of causation as such (...) a refutation, and (3) that none of Hume’s early German critics provided responses to this account that would have satisfied Kant. Watkins’ reading of Kant’s account of causation is thus more compatible with traditional views about Kant’s relationship to Hume than Watkins believes. (shrink)

While there is good reason to think that Mendelssohn's Morgenstunden targets some of the key claims of Kant’s first Critique, this criticism has yet to be considered in the appropriate context or presented in all of its systematic detail. I show that far from being an isolated assault, Mendelssohn’s attack in the Morgenstunden is a continuation and development of his earlier criticism of Kant’s idealism as presented in the Inaugural Dissertation. I also show that Mendelssohn’s objection was more influential on (...) Kant than has previously been suspected; not only did Kant respond to it in a brief review and a set of remarks published along with a disciple’s examination of Mendelssohn’s text but, as I will suggest, Kant’s Refutation of Idealism is intended (at least in part) to undermine the Cartesian starting-point Mendelssohn had presumed throughout his campaign against Kantian idealism. (shrink)