Gente peligrosa

by Philipp Blom, Daniel Najmías (Translator)

Desde la década de 1750 hasta la de 1770, el salón parisino del barón Paul Thiry Holbach fue el epicentro del debate, de la audacia intelectual y las ideas revolucionarias, y reunió a personalidades de la talla de Denis Diderot, Laurence Sterne, David Hume, Adam Smith, Horace Walpole, Benjamin Franklin y Jean-Jacques Rousseau, que después se opuso a sus amigos. Aquél fue un instante de tal radicalismo y audacia en el pensamiento europeo, que filósofos rivales se enfrentaron violentamente, y el proceso acabó finalmente sofocado por Robespierre y sus secuaces. Blom vuelve sobre los pasos y el destino de los integrantes de este excepcional grupo de amigos, y devuelve la vida a sus subversivas ideas. Mentes brillantes, llenas de ingenio, de valor y de humanidad, cuyo pensamiento creó una Ilustración radical, basada en el ateísmo, la pasión, la empatía, y una visión de la sociedad de una suprema agudeza.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, 18th Century, European History, Biography, France

472 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Philipp Blom is a German novelist who currently lives and works in Vienna, Austria. He is best known for his novel, The Simmons Papers (1995). His 2007 novel, Luxor has not yet been translated into English. He is a professional historian who studied at Vienna and Oxford with a focus on eighteenth-century intellectual history. His academic works include: To Have and to Hold: An Intimate History of Collectors and Collecting; Encyclopédie, and The Vertigo Years: Change and Culture in the West, 1900-1914. He is also the author of The Wines of Austria.

Reviews

[Lauren Albert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have quite mixed feelings about this book. Right from the Introduction, it is clear that Blom has a hobby horse to ride and it nearly ruins the book. It certainly detracts from it as I would have given it four stars otherwise. Thankfully, he gets off the horse periodically and gives the reader some excellent intellectual history with very clear expositions of different thinkers' philosophies and comparisons between them.

The weird thing is that his dislike of Voltaire and Rousseau (his hobby horse) feels so personal--weird because they are two very dead philosophers and I doubt he has had any run-ins with them. Since I dislike Rousseau intensely after having read Emile and The Confessions and The Philosophers' Quarrel, it says something that I am so annoyed by Blom's own dislike. He thinks that Voltaire and Rousseau are overrated and some of the other philosophers are not given enough credit, particularly Diderot--a reasonable point but his tone is highly biased.

The book is much stronger in the second half although he grates at me when he writes in the conclusion, that "even if the logic of the rationalist, deist, moderate Enlightenment does not NECESSARILY (emphasis mine) lead to the selection ramps of Auschwitz, it has a tendency to dehumanize, to subjugate human desires and impulses to the all-powerful needs of a system..." 316 This is an extremely biased and unfair view of the moderate Enlightenment. He makes a decent case for the negative tendencies of Rousseau's philosophy but Rousseau is not the whole of the moderate Enlightenment. The book would have been far better had he stuck to showing the importance of the more radical thinkers without having to turn the more moderate philosophers into early Fascists.

[Chaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times repetitive, this book by Austrian social historian Phillip Blom is nevertheless a terrific read. Other times it is seasoned with delicious gossip of these European luminaries, les philosphes, of the 18 Century. Above all it is a necessary read for those who would prefer to live in a country that wishes to keep the wall up between secular government and organized religion. Forgive my unmentionably irritating pun, but this is sacred to me: we musn't go back to the age when people were at best exiled for their religious beliefs, or none thereof and at worst burnt at the stake. Many, many in this country, this fruit of the Enlightenment would have us recognize a state religion.

There are few things that I would die for, but I would lay my life down to keep my country from adopting a state religion.

Also wonderful feminist beginnings, murmurs of what would become the glorious liberation of half of Humanity in the West--which we are still trying to achieve --where first tolled among the salons of Baron de Holbach and Denis Diderot. Detailed examination on the "Encyclopedie" and it glorious restructuring of human knowledge where scholasticism was dealt its first mortal blow--may we be forever saved from its belief-based hierarchy of learning, its cant and its superstition. The Rights of Man were openly discussed in the Paris salons of the 1740' - 1760's and penny (or more rightly, "sou") pamphlets were published and sold days later in the black market. They were vastly popular in Paris, but as Diderot is famous to have said: "the Enlightenment ends at the suburbs". However these would become precursors to our own sentiments on the subject: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, borrowed from John Locke and Montaigne and facilitated, made popular by the "Philosophes" ...in many ways these men and women are very familiar to us, though gloriously prophetic and far-sighted.

At a time when culture is beginning to go backwards to a time of willful, stupidity and ignorance in the guise of fundamentalism and evangelism (in the United States, above all) this is wonderfully assuring reading. We may never go back; perhaps these wonderful men and women may have helped imprint the notions of human rights irrevocably deep into our DNA--we can only hope; for those who would rather: we can also only "pray", each according to his/her own conscience.

[Giekes · Rating 4 out of 5]

- Deze bespreking verscheen in 2013 in het Tijdschrift van de Vereniging Historici Lovanienses, Tijdingen uit Leuven -

Enkele maanden geleden daagde filosoof Etienne Vermeersch politicus Bart De Wever uit om met hem in discussie te gaan over De Verlichting, de culturele en intellectuele stroming die in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw in West-Europa vorsten en Kerk irriteerde door haar pleidooi tegen bijgeloof en voor redelijkheid en (natuur)wetenschap. In de meest bekeken uitzending van Reyers Laat ooit kruisten Vermeersch en de NVA-voorzitter de degens. Omdat De Wever zo slim was het steeds beleefd te houden en sportjournalist Lieven Van Gils de discussies helaas al te vaak vroegtijdig afsloot, kon de kijker de indruk krijgen dat Vermeersch en De Wever amper van mening verschilden terwijl dit ten gronde wel het geval was. De burgemeester van Antwerpen suggereerde zo bijvoorbeeld dat een maatschappij geen voldoende sterke moraal kan hebben als ze enkel vertrouwt op een liefdevolle en redelijke opvoeding en onderwijs dat gebaseerd is op zelfontplooiing (Bildung). De Wever leek De Verlichting vooral te associëren met de opvattingen van Jean-Jacques Rousseau terwijl de Gentse filosoof er op wees dat Rousseau een buitenbeentje was in het denken van de Verlichting, een stelling die ook de aanleiding van de publieke discussie was geweest.


In 2010 schreef Philipp Blomm een heerlijk boek over de groep radicale Verlichtingsdenkers die vanaf circa 1750 wekelijks bijeenkwamen in de Parijse salon van baron Paul-Henri Thiry d’Holbach en zijn echtgenote. De ‘salonfilosofen’ kwamen bij elkaar om te genieten van culinaire en intellectuele hoogstandjes en vrij van pottenkijkers hun meest gevaarlijke en controversiële gedachten aan elkaar voor te leggen. Holbach was zelf natuurwetenschapper en schreef onder schuilnamen vooral werken die omwille van het duidelijk atheïstisch gedachtegoed berucht werden. Denis Diderot was de bekendste vaste bezoeker van het salon van Holbach en schreef een hele resem boeken en toneelstukken. Hij verwierf vooral bekendheid met zijn monumentale Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, aanvankelijk vooral in samenwerking met de wiskundige Jean le Rond d’Alembert. Andere leden waren de natuurkundige Buffon, Abbé Raynal en de diplomaat Grimm. Het salon van Holbach aan de Rue Royale werd verder gretig bezocht door buitenlandse sceptische denkers die er van hielden van gedachten te wisselen met gelijkgestemde zielen: Edward Gibbon die eeuwige roem verwierf met zijn History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, filosoof David Hume (“le bon David”), Adam Smith, die indertijd eerder gekend was als moraalfilosoof dan als econoom, en later kersvers Amerikaans burger Benjamin Franklin.


Rode draad doorheen Blomms vlot geschreven ideeëngeschiedenis is het werk aan de Encyclopédie en de verhouding tussen Diderot en Rousseau. Rousseau was op het intellectuele voorplan verschenen met een tegendraads essay waarvan het idee van zijn goede vriend Diderot kwam en schreef ook mee aan de Encyclopédie. De vriendschap vertroebelde echter door de labiele persoonlijkheid van Rousseau – hij had vaak te kampen met aanvallen van razernij en werd geplaagd door paranoia waardoor hij overal samenzweringen tegen zijn geniale zelf zag. Aan de hand van vooral de overgeleverde briefwisseling tussen de protagonisten schetst Blomm de strapatsen van Diderot, Rousseau en co waarbij geen enkele anekdote overbodig overkomt bij de lezer en de filosofen al snel naar voor komen als complexe personen van vlees en bloed. Soms heb je het gevoel een goede roman te lezen.

Een ander sterk punt van het boek is de manier waarop de filosofische opvattingen van de radicale denkers van de Rue Royale uitgelegd en gecontextualiseerd worden op een begrijpelijke toon zonder de fijne nuances te verliezen. Zo wordt de link gelegd tussen enerzijds het tamelijk onbekende Griekse epicurische denken (via de Romein Lucretius) en de wegbereiders Pierre Bayle en Baruch Spinoza en anderzijds Diderot en Holbach. Ook het historische belang van het oeuvre van René Descartes en David Hume wordt door Blomm beter geschetst dan in mening overzicht van de filosofie. De aandacht voor het hemelsbrede verschil tussen de filosofie van Rousseau en die van ‘het verdorven genootschap’ werpt bovendien een uiterst interessant licht op de westerse geschiedenis. Rousseau kon niet leven met de zware verantwoordelijkheid voor de mens om zelf een leefbare maatschappij op te bouwen waarbij ratio en emotie elkaar in balans moesten houden, een verantwoordelijkheid die ontstond door de atheïstische eliminatie van de zingeving van eeuwige ziel en hiernamaals zoals men die kende bij de Kerk. Rousseau koos net zoals Voltaire voor een soort van deïsme en zou de wegbereider worden van de Romantiek en via zijn utopisch-totalitaire denken van de decadente beschaafde mens en de volonté generale ook van het terreurbewind van Robespierre. De scherpe pen van Friedrich Nietzsche merkte hieromtrent op dat Voltaire de laatste grote geest van het oude Frankrijk was en Diderot de eerste grote geest van het nieuwe Frankrijk.


Alleen al het verhaal van de genese van de populaire overlevering van de Verlichting met Rousseau, Voltaire en Immanuel Kant als vaandeldragers – en dus niet de radicalen van de salon van Holbach – maakt Blomms boek de moeite waard, ook voor Bart De Wever. Het verdorven genootschap is een ijzersterk voorbeeld van narratieve geschiedschrijving waarin duidelijk wordt hoe de destijds non-conformistische ideeën van de Verlichting tot stand gekomen zijn in een klimaat van vorstelijk absolutisme en censuur door Kerk en staat met de constante dreiging van gevangenis en zelfs doodstraf. Blomm toont tevens aan hoe hard de strijd is om opgenomen te worden in de canon van de geschiedenis en wil zelf zijn bijdrage hieraan leveren door het moedige denken van rede en hartstocht van Diderot, Holbach en co, de vergeten radicalen van de Verlichting, te rehabiliteren.

[Noah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ein gelungener Überblick über die Welt der aufklärerischen Philosophen im Vorrevolutionären Paris. Ich kann die vielen negativen Kritiken nicht nachvollziehen. Möglicherweise kam hier der eine oder andere nicht damit klar, dass es sich um ein populärwissenschaftliches Werk handelt.

[Eduardo Rioseco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tiene algo de tragicómico el que Philipp Blom presente las tensiones entre la Ilustración moderada y la radical del siglo XVIII como si fuera un debate entre dos facciones activas hoy en día. Blom nos invita a participar -y a tomar partido- en un conflicto ideológico de hace más de dos siglos con la pasión de un analista político actual. Y aunque el tono del libro puede parecer anacrónico y pretencioso, funciona bastante bien.

En ningún momento Blom pretende asumir un tono de neutralidad: él es un portavoz de la Ilustración radical, y como tal asume la misión de redimir a un grupo específico de filósofos del siglo XVIII. El tono polemista y algo agresivo en contra de la ilustración más moderada de Kant, Hegel, Rousseau y Voltaire lleva al autor a caer en ciertas caricaturas y generalizaciones. Es particularmente llamativa la aversión a la figura de Rousseau: para Blom, Rousseau no solo es un filósofo mediocre, sino que es un ser humano despreciable. Y es ahí en donde las caricaturas entorpecen la lectura: hacia el final del libro, por ejemplo, Blom sugiere una relación de causalidad entre Rousseau y los campos de concentración nazi, afirmación temeraria que el autor no se molesta en explicar. En los momentos en que Blom deja de ser historiador para asumir el rol de polemista y provocador, el libro adquiere visos de amarillismo que le hacen perder credibilidad.

Quizás la mayor ironía del libro sea el personaje de Diderot, héroe noble y quijotesco que Blom presenta con rasgos trágicos y derechamente románticos, casi como si viniera de una novela del odiado Rousseau.

[TJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Highly disappointed with this book. I picked up this book with the hopes that it might give me some new insight for a paper I'm working on (The Enlightenment's role in church/state affairs) as well as an entertaining read.
I could not get past the introduction. About half way through I was getting pretty fed up. I'm not expert on this particular century, but the number of mistakes I picked out were embarrassing. I figured, though, hey! It's just an intro, right? Surely it will get better! Wrong. He makes the most horrendous flippant generalizations and does nothing to back up his position other than an implied "if you don't agree with me, you must be one of those radical Christians destroying our world."

Maybe someday I'll give this book a second chance, but before then I plan on doing some more research on the topic so I don't get suckered into Blom's mistakes. If you're thinking about giving this book a try, my best advice to you: don't. But if you're determined, keep your eyes open. This guy needs a fact checker.
Or maybe just skip over the introduction. For optimisism's sake, I'll hope the rest of the book is nothing like it.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blom beschreibt literarisch hochwertig die Biographien und Geschehnisse rund um Holbachs Salon in Paris. Das Buch scheint mir guten Stoff für eine Serie zu bilden!

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a profoundly atheist book and rightly so. I was blown away by this paragraph in the introduction:

"When we look into the future, we instinctively fear the Apocalypse and
or purgatory. Next to the beatific vision of a perfect
market, a science-fiction future without wars and energy problems, a perfect
Socialist society, or whatever other dreams we happen to subscribe to is the
looming prospect of an overheating planet, a nuclear World War Three, col-
lapsing ecosystems, wars about water and other natural resources, destructive
asteroids on a collision course with Earth—an ultimate, murderous clash of
civilizations. The possibility of humanity's simply muddling through for mil-
lennia to come (the most likely scenario by far), avoiding some catastrophes
while suffering others (some of them self-inflicted), is simply less instinctive
to our theologically conditioned brains than the thought of salvation or
damnation, of heaven or hell."

The point of Blom is here that we still have theologically conditioned brains, which was kind of a revelation to me. If you are troubled by climate change, for example, this is useful to keep in mind.

The wicked company this book refers to, is a company of writers, philosphers and scientists - the distinction was not that clear in the 18th century, around d'Holbach and Diderot, who ran a "salon" for some twenty years, as was then customary in Paris intellectual circles. That was a risky business, because you could be prosecuted and executed for being an atheist. Diderot was once jailed and had to promise to not write about this anymore or otherwise be jailed for life, which he promised.

Diderot was a materialist, in the sense that he doubts that there is anything spiritual, and he is convinced that human beings are governed by their emotions mostly. The point of life is to accept that and enjoy it and let other people be and do no harm.

Quite a simple strategy and quite appealing.

[Miranda Ruth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A terrific read, erudite and witty, this packs an impressive amount of information, much of it quite abstract, into a fast-moving and absorbing narrative. Blom concentrates on the Paris salon of Baron d'Holbach, which dominated philosophical and political discourse in Europe, and arguably the world, in the mid-18C. The Baron and Diderot are at the centre of events, but there is an impressive cast of intellectual worthies including Hume and Rousseau, stretching even as far as the nascent USA.

Blom argues convincingly that the uncompromisingly athiest position of the salon was not only highly explosive and dangerous at the time but ultimately too radical even for the French Revolution. He is highly critical of Rousseau, whose theist position arguing for a social contract enforced by benevolent dictatorship because the modus vivendi preferred by Robespierre and his successors. As a result, claims Blom, the remarkable achievements of the radical philosophers became sidelined and they lacked the recognition they richly deserved - so much so, in fact, that while Voltaire and Rousseau are memorialized in the Pantheon, Holbach and Diderot were buried in an obscure ossuary, later looted by rebels, and local clergy are reluctant even to admit the presence of their unidentified remains.

Blom weaves the intellectual ambitions of this exhilerating period into an absorbing narrative that will entertain the general reader with an interest in philosophy, and provide valuable insight into the genesis and development of radical political reform in Europe, and the genesis of the Romantic movement as well as the zenith of the Enlightenment.

[Jonas · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Het Verdorven Genootschap schetst Philipp Blom een meeslepende ideeëngeschiedenis. Hij reconstrueert de bijeenkomsten in de Rue Royale op zo’n levendige manier dat je als het ware zelf aanschuift aan de tafel van de baron d’Holbach. Met kleurrijke details en anekdotes over alle protagonisten zet Blom de Philosophes neer als mensen van vlees en bloed die ook hun kleine kantjes hadden. Onder meer Voltaire en Rousseau, de twee klassieke coryfeeën van de verlichting, komen zo in een ongewoon daglicht te staan. Rousseau als nukkige egocentrist, Voltaire als opportunistische en aristocratische carrièrist.

Dit boek is een historische studie over de totstandkoming van het kritisch rationalisme, maar laat zich evengoed lezen als een filosofische roman. Blom leert je de visionaire individuen van de radicale verlichting kennen en toont scherp aan dat hun ideeën tot op vandaag – zelfs in het seculiere Europa – in zekere zin ‘radicaal’ zijn gebleven.

Volledige review: https://vreemderdanfictie.wordpress.c...

[La Central · Rating 4 out of 5]

"La Il·lustració, aquell moviment filosòfico-polític que seria la base de la Revolució francesa i el món del segle XIX, tal com ens l'han explicada i s'ha transmès, no és ni la meitat d'àmplia i radical que en realitat va ser. Rousseau i Voltaire, amb el seu moderantisme, van destronar els veritables pares de la Il·lustració, Denis Diderot, i el Marquès d'Holbach, Paul Thiry d'Holbach. La història la construeixen els vencedors, i el seu discurs, cosa que queda ben palès en aquest magnífic llibre en el que descobrim un moviment (la Il·lustració) que pretenia fer veure la seva veritable essència a l'ésser humà, una essència que ni tan sols l'intelligentsia de l'època i els poders fàctics estaven disposades a admetre. D'obligada lectura." Xavi Ceresuela

[Tom D'Hauwer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks to this book I discovered what the Enlightenment stood for. Diderot and Holbach were the real philosophers, in keeping with Rousseau's erroneous romantic image, they approached a correct image of man that in their eyes could perfectly free itself from any image of God.

They embraced science even though it was still in its infancy, they resisted any form of power based on faith/heredity and they also warned against the dangers of too much rationalism. Diderot saw very well that a human being is a passionate being. Recognizing that passion and learning to deal with it wisely, that is one of the many insights of Het Verdorven Genootschap.

[Gert De Bie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ongelooflijk. De kant van de Verlichting die in de klassieke geschiedenislessen verwaarloosd wordt, beschreven door een Philipp Blom in grote vorm.
Het boek leest als een trein en als lezer voel je je bijna even thuis in de Parijse salons van Baron Thiry D'Holbach als hoofdrolspelers Diderot, D'Alembert, Hume en aanverwanten. Het conflict met Rousseau voel je zo onder de huid kruipen en het idealisme, de gedrevenheid en de intellectuele moed van de protagonisten is hartverwarmend. Topboek. Absoluut.

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author builds his narrative on one assertion after another without any reference to primary sources. The best thing I can say about the book is that the Author's bias is transparent.

[John David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting book that provides some little-known connections between the larger-known set of ideas that we largely recognize as the “Enlightenment,” and is especially aimed at the general reader. Those whose knowledge of the intellectual side of the Enlightenment is moderate to extensive will gain little from the book, but it was still interesting to learn about some of the private lives, loves, and feuds of the people involved therein.

Blom’s ultimate emphasis here is on the so-called “radical” Enlightenment, as opposed to the moderate Enlightenment of thinkers like Voltaire. The latter still flirted with the political status quo and entertained deism. After all, Voltaire made his fortune by loaning vast sums of money to European monarchs; it’s difficult to rock the boat of ideas when your financial security depends on it. Those of the radical Enlightenment were not afraid to take reason, science, and materialism to its ultimate limits: there are many of them, but the major figures include Baron Holbach, Diderot, d’Alembert, Buffon, Grimm, and Hume. One figure he decidedly excludes from his radical favorites is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, choosing to portray him, rightly or wrongly, as a paranoid megalomanic.

After giving some initial biographical information of the characters that loom the largest in the book – Diderot, Holbach, and Rousseau – we proceed to learn more about their thought and their circle of what are usually considered more minor friends. Blom intermittently keeps referring back to Holbach’s twice-weekly dinners that would often be attended some of the greatest minds in Europe. At the table at Grandval, chez Holbach, they would sit down to delectable poulets a la Reine, cold pate, and raspberry gelee (they actually give a menu from one of the gatherings in the book) and talk about the philosophy, religion (largely their intense dislike thereof), and groundbreaking science. I thought the conceit of a big dinner party was an interesting one to tell what amounts to a group biography, and certainly helped keep things both entertaining and engaging.

Not only are the lives and ideas of the current characters discussed in context, but Blom also takes the time to discuss those people that influenced their thought, some of which I only now realized I had not fully fleshed out before. He has a very interesting chapter on Spinozist monism versus Cartesian dualism, and how that argument reverberated through the eighteenth century; later in the book, he discusses how through their thorough familiarity with the classics, Lucretius’ “De Rerum Natura” and the Greek atomists Democritus and Leucippus might have been influential in a revival of materialism, too. For the first two-thirds of the book, Blom lets his sizeable bias against Rousseau get in the way of an otherwise much more objective piece of intellectual history. Because of the general nature of the book and the heavy bias toward Rousseau, I can’t in all fairness give this book more than 3 stars. For a more sophisticated and nuanced treatment of the Enlightenment, I suggest Peter Gay’s two-volume treatment, “The Rise of Modern Paganism” and “The Science of Freedom.” The first two volumes of Jonathan Israel’s trilogy, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750 and Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752 are equally wonderful.

[Frédéric Aertsens · Rating 4 out of 5]

De 18de eeuw is de eeuw van de Franse revolutie en alles wat er aan voorafging wordt secuur uitgelegd in dit boek: het verdorven genootschap is niets anders dan een groep dwarsdenkers die durven denken in een tijd waarin de kerk haar greep op de Franse samenleving stilaan verliest. De revolutie wordt gedragen door de bourgeoisie en het volk, en gevoed door een selecte elite die mijmert, twijfelt, schrijft. Het leven van Diderot en Holbach is soms wat langdradig verhaald maar best te pruimen met een goed stuk Camembert en knapperig stokbrood.

[Gustavo Hernández · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gente peligrosa es una revisión inusual y fascinante de la Ilustración, que se ubica lejos de cualquier lectura fácil o reiterativa del acostumbrado historicismo filosófico. No solo impone una distancia satírica e intrigante ante el canon filosófico tedioso al que el lector está acostumbrado, sino que lo critica abiertamente. La Ilustración es presentada al lector como un movimiento social, el cual, naturalmente, tiene diferentes matices, tanto ideológicos como políticos. Así mismo, el texto de Philipp Blom busca hacer justicia a una de las mentes más brillantes de su tiempo, la del filósofo Denis Diderot, quien por varios años ha sido eclipsado por las sociedades que le prosiguieron. Pero la atención no solo se centra en él, sino también en un grupo de pensadores y amigos que se daban cita continuamente en un salón ubicado en la Paris de la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII: el salón del Barón D´Holbach, que en su apogeo reunió a personajes como Buffon, Louise de Epinay, Galiani, Grimm, Helvetius, Marmontel, Raynal, Rousseau, entre otros reconocidos pensadores, escritores y científicos de su tiempo.

Resulta interesante comprender dicho movimiento a la luz del ajetreo intelectual y el ímpetu de las discusiones que allí tenían lugar, de los invitados y la posible influencia que ejercieron unos sobre otros, como también de la hostil relación entre el círculo intelectual disidente y el sistema absolutista monárquico francés, que da nombre y sentido al libro. De esta manera, el autor desmitifica al canon filosófico a través de un ejercicio histórico exhaustivo y minucioso, mientras propone una lectura balanceada acerca de los intereses e intrigas políticas que configuraron el decurso del siglo XIX, y que aún tienen injerencia en nuestros días. El texto también propone un relámpago genealógico sumamente útil que vislumbra una cadena de pensamiento la cual sigue teniendo gran influencia y relevancia en sistemas filosóficos contemporáneos, como es el caso del deconstructivismo y el posmodernismo.

El libro está dividido en tres capítulos, siendo el primero Padres e Hijos, un bosquejo genealógico de autores, correspondencias filosóficas, influencias y tradiciones institucionalizadas dentro de los miembros del salón. A lo largo del libro se abrirá una tensión narrativa vital para el estudio de la ilustración a partir de la relación personal y filosófica entre Diderot y Rousseau, quien se presentará posteriormente como un claro antagonista del salón y de su antiguo amigo. Se hace una clara referencia a la tradición de pensamiento holandesa heredada por D´Holbach, anfitrión del salón, en la Universidad de Leiden, en la cual un siglo antes Baruch Spinoza había movido los cimientos que sostenían el sistema filosófico teísta europeo. De igual manera, es inevitable hacer alusión al culto del salón por la obra de Descartes, la cual inauguró una corriente de pensamiento por medio de su duda metódica y generó un eco estridente en la Francia del siglo XVIII. La revisión constante por parte de los miembros del círculo a la filosofía estoica también es indispensable para trazar los horizontes de ese mapa intelectual. Se menciona de manera puntual la posible influencia del mecanicismo newtoniano y su subsecuente materialismo radical, en la concepción del mundo que se tejía en el salón del barón, y el ferviente cientificismo que se profesaba allí, casi como una nueva religión. De la misma manera, se introduce al lector en las dificultades que tuvieron los pensadores por el carácter de sus ideas ateas y revolucionarias en el seno de una monarquía absolutista. Se hace una mención constante de los censos por los cuales tenían que pasar cada una de las obras que allí se escribían, el trabajo clandestino editorial de Diderot con la Encyclopédie y, por lo tanto, el apoyo financiero por parte de los libreros acaudalados de la ciudad; un claro guiño, quizá personal, al trabajo historiográfico de Robert Darnton en Censores Trabajando.

El segundo capítulo, Maquinas Maravillosas, ahonda en los matices filosóficos de la Ilustración, profundos y excluyentes entre sí. Por un lado, los filósofos del Salón de D´Holbach representarán al movimiento radical ateo, materialista y optimista. Por el otro, Voltaire y Rousseau se podrían inscribir en un grupo que profesaba ideas moderadas y oportunistas, que no prescindían de la fe o de dios, y mantenían un carácter pesimista frente al decurso de la humanidad y la civilización. David Hume, uno de los invitados del salón, sería uno de los críticos más agudos del movimiento radical, a pesar de su correspondencia con las críticas establecidas contra el sistema monárquico del cual también era pieza y detractor. El círculo se vería inmediatamente fascinado por la retórica desafiante y provocadora del filósofo inglés al escribir su Historia de Inglaterra; razón por la cual Hume habría sido bienvenido en el salón. Las relaciones personales entre el círculo de D´Holbach y Hume fueron cercanas y afables, pero no las filosóficas. Quizá aún más radical que los filósofos franceses por su profundo y temerario escepticismo, Hume criticaba las limitaciones filosóficas que existían entre las ideas de los pensadores del salón. Su principal cuestionamiento radicaba en que, como los religiosos, los ateos habían transferido sus creencias a la ciencia. A partir de su constante preocupación por lo cognoscible, había llegado a la conclusión de que era igual criticar algo por la imposibilidad de comprobar su existencia o su inexistencia; motivo por el cual no se declaraba ateo sino agnóstico. En últimas, lo que verdaderamente intrigaba a Hume era la mente humana y sus capacidades, haciendo una antesala a la filosofía analítica inglesa. Así, el escepticismo epistemológico de Hume se construía como un posible sistema filosófico mientras que el de los filósofos franceses se limitaba a cuestionar aspectos puramente políticos, sin preocuparse o atender asuntos verdaderamente filosóficos. Los relegaba a la condición de ser filósofos políticos. “Hume reducía al yo humano a una mera ilusión nacida de las sensaciones y las costumbres, una noción que no había sido cuestionada desde la antigua Grecia” dice Blom. Hume no solamente se limitaba a cambiar el orden del mundo en manos de una alianza entre la aristocracia y la iglesia, sino que pretendía derrumbar todas las bases racionales de la creencia religiosa. Al ser profundamente escéptico, se mofaba de la posición positivista del circulo al creer que la humanidad se dirigía hacia su perfeccionamiento.

Opuestamente a lo que ocurría con Hume, las brechas que se habían abierto entre el círculo y personajes como Voltaire o Rousseau eran de otra índole. Al ser una ilustración asentada aún en la creencia en Dios y en el poder monárquico, en el caso de Voltaire, las distancias eran inevitables respecto a los pensamientos fervorosamente ateos del salón. Rousseau dirigía su crítica principalmente contra la civilización y la decadencia de la sociedad, elucubrando una filosofía con un claro eco moral, idealista o retrotópico. Su filosofía era ciertamente un llamado al estado infantil, al retorno al estado natural del ser humano y un olvido por las sofisticaciones sociales y hedonistas. El placer, para Rousseau, era algo que debía ser restringido y limitado, pues en él no existe virtud alguna. Mucha diferencia hay con el pensamiento dionisiaco de Diderot que relegaba toda su filosofía moral a la virtud que el hedonismo puede posibilitar al ser humano. Para él, sólo la ignorancia y el miedo son los grandes pilares en donde descansa la perversión humana. Los desplantes, la paranoia sociopática y el extremado narcisismo de Rousseau hablan por sí solos.

En el tercer y último capítulo, titulado Crimen y Castigo, el autor explica por qué terminarán siendo Rousseau y Voltaire los abanderados de la Ilustración y no los filósofos de la Ilustración radical, a pesar de su importante influencia. Es particularmente interesante la atención que se presta a la experiencia de Diderot en la corte de Catalina la Grande de Rusia. A pesar de que Diderot había huido constantemente no solo de sus invitaciones, sino también de la de otros grandes monarcas, como las hechas por Federico de Prusia y José II de Austria, la falta de ingresos económicos una vez hubo terminado su trabajo enciclopédico lo llevaría a aceptar hacer parte de la corte de la monarca rusa.

Su experiencia en la corte, a pesar de haber sido decepcionante para él, devela algunos de los puntos débiles en el pensamiento del filósofo y del hombre, que más allá de buscar una elucubración filosófica pretendía llevar una vida coherente con sus principios o, en sus términos, una vida virtuosa. El historiador presta especial atención a este episodio, pues su optimismo vacuo queda al descubierto después de que se enfrenta con un texto de su propia autoría, escrito durante su juventud, en el que repudia la relación entre los filósofos y el poder; un ensayo que buscaba criticar la vida de Séneca en la corte de Nerón. Su radicalización atea, anárquica y científica, a la que había sido fiel durante toda su vida adulta, se devela ante él mismo por su experiencia con Catalina. Si la finalidad de la filosofía era la búsqueda de esa virtud, entendida como una coherencia imperativa y abrumadora entre la vida y la palabra, entonces toda su vida habría sido un completo sinsentido, resultado de su experiencia en la corte rusa. Sin embargo, lo que descubre el filósofo no es una vida desperdiciada, sino el espíritu de un hombre joven que escribía desde la inexperiencia y la radicalidad de su pensamiento. “Te equivocas joven”, se gritó a sí mismo. Esa racionalidad radical, casi inscrita en el idealismo, se desvanecía inmediatamente si se buscaba al filósofo en esa coherencia inútil y exhaustiva. Es cuando la filosofía estoica de Séneca se resignifica en Diderot y elimina al espíritu joven y optimista, ese que décadas atrás habría sido objeto de críticas de Hume. Sin embargo, el carácter filosófico de Diderot no queda reducido al retorno al estoicismo, sino que también encuentra una línea constante en el hedonismo. Diderot siempre había defendió al placer como motor de la vida y sentido de sus pensamientos. Un hedonismo limitado e irresuelto, pero que dentro de sí cargaba la posibilidad de llegar a conclusiones como las pensadas por Freud y Nietzsche.

Finalmente, la tensión narrativa entre Rousseau y Diderot llega a tener sentido. Rousseau, quien habría desarrollado una especie de paranoia patológica, habría arremetido en indeterminadas ocasiones contra los miembros del Salón de D´Holbach, quienes alguna vez lo habrían considerado uno de sus mejores amigos. Rousseau escribiría hasta sus últimos días diatribas contra los miembros del círculo, siendo él ya famoso y ubicado por mucho como la cara de la ilustración. Las blanduras de sus postulados filosóficos habrían sido determinantes para darle a él, y a filósofos como Voltaire, un pedestal en la historia de la filosofía como también un lugar en el más famoso de los mausoleos. A las instituciones posrevolucionarias, y al mismo Robespierre, jamás les habría interesado la construcción de un mundo como el imaginado por Diderot; sin embargo, sí vieron una gran oportunidad en los postulados del ya famoso Rousseau para las nuevas instituciones del poder. Lacan, intervenido por un estudiante en una de sus cátedras quien le preguntaba el porqué de su desinterés por los movimientos revolucionarios estudiantiles ocurridos en 1968 en Francia, respondería que ellos nunca pretenderían la eliminación de las relaciones de poder, sino simplemente invertir el orden de quienes lo poseen y los que están bajo su sometimiento.

Con todo esto, el escritor de Gente Peligrosa no sólo resquebraja al canon filosófico e histórico en el que se ha sedimentado la literatura que trata sobre el siglo XVIII, sino que también cuestiona alguno de los grandes valores que sostienen a nuestra sociedad contemporánea, muchos de los cuales se tejieron en el seno de filósofos como Rousseau y Voltaire. Sin ser esto una tarea nueva, sí resulta novedoso el ejercicio histórico responsable y minucioso por parte de un historiador por escribir sobre la vida de un filósofo subestimado y eclipsado por el decurso político. Pareciera que en algunos momentos inesperados aparece la voz de Foucault a través de Blom, señalando, a través de la crítica a Rousseau, las ideas que posibilitarían que el poder llegase a sus condiciones subsecuentes en el siglo XX.

[Mao Zario · Rating 3 out of 5]

El ensayo se plantea como una reivindicación de la Ilustración radical, aquella que al tiempo que combatía la servidumbre religiosa y política celebraba la humanidad con un sano hedonismo y aspiraba a su verdadera emancipación, en el plano intelectual y ético. Una veta de la Ilustración que, sin embargo, fue sepultada por otras corrientes que ofrecieron a los poderes establecidos nuevos odres en los que verter el vino viejo de la autocracia y la dominación. La figura de Diderot emerge como una encarnación de esos ideales, contrapuesta en gran medida a un reprimido y paranoico Rousseau y a un cínico y avaricioso Voltaire, a la postre triunfadores de la historia.

El libro engancha cuando trata las vidas de los protagonistas (con su correspondiente ración de "salseo") y la descripción de la vida intelectual y social de los salones e invita a leer directamente las obras de los principales héroes. Sin embargo, le sobran muchas páginas que repiten con parecidas formulaciones las ideas fuerza del ensayo. Asimismo, la exposición detallada de las sutilezas de algunos planteamientos filosóficos hace, en ocasiones, la lectura fatigosa.

[Francis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Je waant jezelf deelgenoot in de salons van Holbach en Diderot in Parijs. Er wordt gefilosofeerd over religie, de ziel, (on)gelijkheid en onze plaats in de maatschappij.

Er zijn de ruzies tussen Diderot en Rousseau, wordt een mens beschaafd door een goede opvoeding, of is er sprake van de nobele wilde?

Een goed geschreven boek, dat en passant nog eens vele filosofische principes uitlegt, zonder drammerig te worden. Voor wie geïnteresseerd is in filosofie en de tijdsgeest van de 18de eeuw, is dit een aanrader!

[Liesbeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ik vond dit boek ongelooflijk saai. Het boek komt niet to the point zelfs na de helft gelezen te hebben.

[Ann Talbot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Books about the Baron d’Holbach are a rarity. Why this should be the case is the subject of Philipp Blom’s book. Blom believes that Holbach has been unjustly neglected and relegated to the footnotes of history because his materialism and atheism are rejected today.
A Wicked Company is an attempt to portray Holbach and the circle that gathered around him. The title comes from a remark by the actor David Garrick who was a frequent visitor to Holbach’s house. Blom sets out the problem at the beginning of the book.
“Holbach was not only host to some of the most brilliant minds of the century but also an important philosophical writer in his own right, author of the first uncompromisingly atheist books published since antiquity. His work is ignored … His own philosophy – so fresh, so humane, so liberating – does not even appear in many histories of philosophy. His message was too disquieting, too anarchic, too dangerous to be released into the world at large.”
In attempting to trace the development of materialist ideas in the eighteenth century Blom is performing a useful service to the reading public. Materialism is supported by more scientific evidence than ever but it is widely disparaged and regarded as a dangerous doctrine. His well written and accessible book will bring Holbach’s circle to life for many readers.
Holbach was born Paul Heinrich Dietrich, in the town of Edesheim in the Rhenish Palatinate in 1723, the son of a wine-grower. He was adopted by a wealthy uncle who had bought his title of baron from the imperial court of Vienna. His uncle provided him with his name and the best education money could buy. Holbach enrolled at the University of Leiden in 1744 where he became a friend of John Wilkes, who went on to become a notorious English radical. The two remained friends until Holbach’s death in 1789. Holbach married and settled in Paris, holding his salons from 1750 to the late 1770s. Apart from a brief stay in England and a tour of the South of France after his first wife died, this was where he remained, except for the summers, which he spent at Château Grandval at Sucy en Brie, now in the south eastern suburbs of Paris. Many of Diderot’s letters were written from this summer retreat.
Diderot got to know Holbach after he was released from prison for writing his Letter on the Blind. Rousseau, who frequently visited Diderot while he was in prison, may already have known Holbach. Diderot was about to bring out the first volume of the Encyclopédie when he was arrested. Its publication in 1751 made the previously obscure writer widely known. The second volume in 1752 contains a number of articles by Holbach, he would eventually write more than 300, and the title page pays tribute to an unnamed person who is almost certainly Holbach.
“We particularly are indebted to one person,” the editors wrote, “whose mother tongue is German, and who is very well versed in the matters of mineralogy, metallurgy and physics; he has given us a prodigious amount of articles on different subjects, of which already a considerable number is included in this volume.”
The Encyclopédie was originally planned as a translation of Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, but in Diderot’s hands it evolved into a far more ambitious work which would be lavishly illustrated and would aim to do nothing less than systematise all available knowledge. Even the form of the book would be revolutionary since its entries were arranged alphabetically giving no precedence to subjects such as theology, church history or social ranks. The Encyclopédie was in itself a testament to the principle of equality.
The Dictionnaire of Pierre Bayle provided a model for Diderot’s project and a method of defeating the censors by seeming to present simple, straightforward, strictly factual information while allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions from the material that was presented to them. Bayle’s Dictionnaire was the main conduit through which the ideas of modern materialists like Spinoza and Hobbes and ancient materialists such as Epicurus reached the reading public of eighteenth century France.
Diderot would spend most of his working life editing the Encyclopédie and it would become, as Blum writes, “a battering ram, shaking the foundations of the age.” By 1765 it would run to 17 volumes containing 20 million words and 1,900 illustrations. In 1759 the government revoked its license, but the book continued to be produced illegally. Some 4,000 complete sets were sold despite the fact that it cost the equivalent of a year’s wages for a master craftsman.
Blom connects the Encyclopédie to the discussions that went on at Holbach’s house. “At its very best,” writes Blom, “it afforded the reader a seat at Holbach’s table, allowing him to listen to the flow of argument and the sheer exhilaration of ideas out of the mouths of some of the greatest intellects of the age.” The house became a magnet for foreign visitors, but they were often startled by the range of subjects that could be discussed there and the openness with which ideas that would normally be forbidden were openly expressed.
While the encyclopedists remained a diverse group, not all of them attended Holbach’s salons and nor were they all atheists or materialists, the influence of Holbach and the protection his house offered was certainly important in maintaining the Encyclopédie’s production. His salon had a distinct collective identity and Holbach’s guests often spoke of themselves as a group. Diderot referred to Holbach’s house as the boulangerie partly in reference to the pseudonym that Holbach adopted – Boulanger – and partly, no doubt because of the work that went on there. The word conjured up the image of a busy workshop, Blom writes, “constantly mixing and kneading, and pulling dangerous books out of the oven as if they were so many hot baguettes.”
Behind the respectable façade that Holbach himself maintained, Blom writes, he “funded and ran a clandestine publishing operation from his own house, a center of intellectual resistance.” His house served as “a meeting place as well as an unofficial translation agency and publishing house of subversive ideas.”
Those subversive ideas were central to the Enlightenment and Blom shows that Holbach and the group that gathered around him played a critical role in this movement. “Nowhere was the Enlightenment battle cry ‘Sapere aude!’ [dare to know] taken more seriously and acted upon more decisively than by Diderot and Holbach, and their friends, who published, translated, wrote, and transcribed a library of intellectually audacious books while at the same time pushing forward the Encyclopédie, the most distinguished and most significant encyclopedia project in history.”
Blom is conscious that the influence of postmodernism and the various forms of poststructuralism have played a part in devaluing the Enlightenment and Holbach’s role in it. “In an academic world in the thrall of postmodern and poststructuralist literary theory,” he writes, “there was no room for the works of a plainspoken philosopher whose greatest goal had been to make himself absolutely clear.”
This is an important point, but, in his eagerness to defend Holbach, Blom makes a hefty concession to the very intellectual tendencies he is trying to resist. He distinguishes between a moderate deist Enlightenment and a radical Enlightenment. This is very much in line with the work of Professor Jonathan Israel, who has done much to revive interest in the materialist and atheistic currents of thought in the Enlightenment. Blom argues that the moderate deist Enlightenment had a tendency to “dehumanize” and to create “a world dominated by the inexorable progress of the clock and the needs of machines and factories, stock markets and corporations – the nightmare factory world of Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times.” But he wants to rescue the radical Enlightenment of Diderot and Holbach from that charge.
Rousseau was a deist who rejected materialism and atheism. For Blom this puts him squarely in the moderate Enlightenment camp. What is more he was the favourite philosopher of Maximilien Robespierre and this, for Blom, ties him to the revolutionary terror and to all forms of totalitarianism in the twentieth century. “Rousseau,” Blom writes, “was a direct inspiration not only for Robespierre but also for Lenin and Pol Pot.”
Blom is not alone in this estimation of Rousseau. Portraying Rousseau as a totalitarian has a long history. The philosopher Bertrand Russell went so far as to proclaim “Hitler is a consequence of Rousseau.” The identification of Rousseau with tyranny can be traced back to Hippolyte Taine in the later nineteenth century when France rejected its revolutionary past. It became more prevalent in liberal circles following the Russian Revolution when Rousseau was seen as an inspiration for Bolshevism. Karl Popper includes Rousseau among the enemies of the open society and in the post-war period both Hannah Arendt and Herbert Marcuse were to expand on this theme. Arendt maintained that Rousseau’s concept of the general will allowed the plurality of views that exist within society to be collapsed into one will - that of a dictator. Jacob Talmon identified Rousseau’s concept of the general will; as “the driving force of totalitarian democracy” [J.L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, New York: Norton, 1970, p. 6] of which Marxism was one variant and fascism another. The general will, Talmon maintained, was a “blank cheque to act on behalf of the people, without reference to the people’s actual will” [Talmon, 1970, p. 48].
The view that Rousseau was the originator of totalitarianism is entirely unhistorical. His ideas have to be set in the context of his writings as a whole and of the times in which he lived. In the context of ancien regime Europe Rousseau’s concept of the general will had an entirely revolutionary significance. The absolute monarchies of early modern Europe were legitimised by the Church but the general will was a secular concept that ran entirely counter to official politics. Rousseau systematically dismantled the theological framework that had been built up over centuries to maintain the power of kings and the sanctity of property.
Rousseau was not, like Diderot and Holbach, an atheist or materialist, but that did not save him from condemnation. His books were burned and banned because he was the philosopher of social equality in an epoch of gross inequality. That alone would qualify him as a revolutionary thinker. He opened his Social Contract with the words “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” As Ernst Cassirer observed “a truly revolutionary impetus emanated from him” because he sought no compromise with the existing society [Ernst Cassirer, The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963, p. 69]. The tragedy of Rousseau, and ultimately of the French Revolution, was that the most advanced thinkers which the Enlightenment produced could not, by sheer force of intellect, discover a means of ensuring equality among the citizens of the First Republic.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should probably start off by admitting that I didn't read this very carefully. Usually if I get through more than a few pages of something I force myself to read all of it but I had just read this guy's other book on the Enlightenment and found so much overlap between the two that I didn't see the point. I read the first 20 or 30 pages and every word of the last 3 or 4 chapters but basically just skimmed through the rest. Like his other one (Enlightening the World) this is very Diderot focused, tending to criticize the focus that the mainstream puts on Rousseau and Voltaire. For that reason it's probably not the best book to use if you're writing a report on the Enlightenment or the French revolution but it is an interesting alternative history. This one puts a little more emphasis on the effect this time period has had on the modern world, as well as the reasons why Voltaire's ideas were given so much more attention than Diderot's. I also like how he spent a little more time on the argument between Rousseau and Diderot on the concept of the noble savage, showing that they didn't totally disagree about the virtues of simpler cultures. Both of their views were pretty flawed, and Blom's explanation of them didn't totally impress me either, but at least it's in there. There's definitely a lot of stuff in here that I would consider pointless trivia and gossip but he does still manage to bring up a lot of important topics that are relevant to our current situation, and in my opinion he does a pretty good job with them.

[Al Bità · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Western culture, the late 17th and most of the 18th century is known as The Enlightenment — a European intellectual movement where reason was placed on centre stage and used as the basis for submitting all traditional values into question. The philosophical movement stressed the importance of reason and the critical re-appraisal of existing ideas and social institutions. Blom’s work concentrates on the twenty-year period from the 1750s to the 1770s, and specifically on the Paris salon of Baron d’Holbach and its attendees. A cast of some 24 “protagonists” (they are listed at the back in an appendix) are presented within their milieu; they represent the “Wicked Company” of the title.

The ideas expounded on by these protagonists are presented more or less historically in relation to the specific players involved; many of the ideas themselves Blom points out are not necessarily all that new at all, (some extending at least as far back as to Epicurus and Lucretius) and the author briefly presents these ideas within their own specific histories — so there is often some overlapping involved (but certainly not to the extent of creating confusion). If anything, Blom goes out of his way to be as clear and precise as possible both in relation to these ideas as well as their impact within the life and times of those reassessing them and presenting them anew. These philosophes (as they were also known) were daring and audacious. Blom refers to the injunction of the Roman poet Horace: Sapere aude! (Dare to know!) as some kind of war cry for the salon’s members. It seems the philosophes knew exactly what Horace meant. The mix of philosophical ideas, debates, personal relationships, friendships and occasional jealousies and rivalries in pre-revolutionary Paris makes for a most enjoyable, revealing and stimulating read.

Central to all the work is the creation and maintenance of the Salon (Holbach) and its facilitation for the production of the Encyclopédie (Diderot in particular) — the latter an imposing literary achievement in its own right (if nothing else): 71,818 articles on 18,000 pages in seventeen volumes, supplemented by eleven volumes containing 2,900 engravings showing eighteenth century arts and crafts, natural phenomena, and engineering feats in minute detail. It was a huge publishing success: 4,000 complete sets were sold, and by the end of the century, all in all, the Encyclopédie had been printed some 25,000 times… The intellectual world would never be the same again.

Of particular interest for me was the clarification of different types of Enlightenment that Blom outlines towards the end of his book:

Moderate Enlightenment is typified by Voltaire (still a popular influence today) whose use of reason to ridicule clericalism and other authorities with scathing and cynical humour was, unsurprisingly, not appreciated by the people targeted, and had him constantly moving to escape their wrath. While he maintained an appreciation of the Encyclopaedists, he preferred to distance himself from their atheism, and remained a Deist.

Romantic Enlightenment relates to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his followers. Perhaps to this day the most influential and popular philosopher (he is all for individualism and naturalism, a belief in the natural innocence of children) and important in his suggestions of training and education of the developing individual in society. Rousseau was initially on side with the Encyclopaedists, but became increasingly alienated from them to the point of paranoia; he particularly detested their atheism, and Blom suggests that his Deism was ultimately tainted by the controlling and humourless influence of his Calvinist background.

In contrast, the Radical Enlightenment is represented by Blom’s group (the Wicked Company that is the main subject of his book) and their implacable atheist conviction. In a godless universe, some Enlightenment philosophers, in the search for a better future for humanity, adopted Reason as the only relevant player in a kind of supreme rationalist utopia; but at the same time replicated the Christian disdain for human passions, instincts, or the yearning for beauty (which were all irrational impulses after all). Blom’s radicals argued the opposite: that Nature expressed itself through individuals in the form of strong and blind passions, the real driving force of existence; these could be directed by reason, but reason was always seen as secondary, and weaker than the basic reality of passion. They sought to have a society based on mutual respect, without masters and slaves, without oppressors and oppressed. As Blom explains in his Introduction:

While in a godless universe there is no transcendental yardstick of an absolute, revealed Truth and Goodness, it is perfectly easy to see what is beneficial and what is harmful to people here and now. This insight alone should be the principle of all morality. It was a dangerous idea, because a moral code based on the pursuit of happiness in this life had truly revolutionary implications. Without a God who has set some people above others, everybody — regardless of social station, sex, race, and creed — has an equal right to seek pleasure and, ultimately, happiness. A duchess has no higher claim to happiness than the humblest peasant, and a society in which happiness is possible not just for the privileged few can be achieved only through solidarity and cooperation. There was no place in this vision for an aristocracy, for birthright, or for social hierarchy. In ancien régime France, an absolute monarchy, this was tantamount to treason, but it also attracted an array of exceptional and courageous people to Holbach’s salon.
Even today, this vision has lost none of its persuasiveness and appeal.

To which I would append a wholehearted “Amen”.

For those who might think navigating these dangerous waters too frightening to contemplate, let me reassure you that Blom’s Wicked Company comprises some very entertaining, interesting and diverting human beings (and they’re not very frightening at all!) and I think you will find yourself very safe in Blom’s capable hands.

Sapere aude!

[Christopherseelie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting interpretation of the radical enlightenment within Pre-Revolutionary French society. I assume Philipp Blom used Holbach's dinner table as an organizing principle to talk about dispirit characters related to a movement that was more in debate with itself than affecting an agenda on society. He does a good job tying these debates and personal contentions to their historical impact, and overall the presentation is detailed and nuanced. I was moved to consider the unintentional ways I simplify my understanding of the belief in rationalism, atheism, and science within this milieu. And the book recounts how very intelligent men may have evolved in their thinking--something that gets flattened by such history class keywords as "enlightened despot".

[Chris Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book goes shows the politics and personalities that went into keeping the enlightenment acceptable for the masses. The radicals of the title are men like Baron Holbach and Denis Diderot who projected a more rational view of society, religion, and power, and how, as outliers they were tremendously important in their time (mid- to late-eighteenth century), and how, with the coming of the French Revolution they were conveniently forgotten for the likes of, get along, go along, Rousseau and Voltaire. It is an entertaining and informative read, but what might have been a drastic change withers on the vine. Mr. Blom is careful with his opinions and scrupulous in his reportage. A good read.

[Jordi Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy interesante panorámica histórica sobre unos autores de la Ilustración que, con el tiempo, fueron apartados del canon por sus ideas cuyas consecuencias sociales, de haberse llevado a la práctica, habrían resultado demasiado radicales.

El contenido es muy instructivo y está contado en un estilo que lo hace accesible a cualquier lector sin conocimientos previos en Filosofía.

Quizá lo más interesante para mí es el resumen de que otro estilo de vida, un Hedonismo Ilustrado, basado en los principios clave de Deseo, Empatía y Razón, es posible y deseable.

Y entonces resulta triste cerrar el libro leyendo sobre el olvido en le que fueron sepultados los logros filosóficos de estos autores.

Altamente recomendable.

[Jeff Carpenter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an exciting book, it’s great fun to spend time with brilliant intellectuals in glittering salon dinners in Paris and see the many different ways in which they collaborate. The story keeps up good momentum even as the author takes more a more time defining the slight differences in differing philosophies. There’s competition between the key characters and especially with the immortals, Voltaire and Rousseau. But I must confess that I started running out of enthusiasm for yet another 5-page analysis of what sounded like the same philosophy that we’ve heard time and again, and by three-quarters of the way into the book, I started skimming.

Still, I recommend diving into this whole-heartedly.

[leamara · Rating 1 out of 5]

Es ist selten, dass ich ein Buch nicht zu Ende lese, aber hier konnte ich mich wirklich nicht weiter als bis zur Hälfte zwingen. Vielleicht täusche ich mich, doch es scheint mir, dass der Anspruch eines historischen Buches in seiner Objektivität liegen sollte. Da dem Autor dies wirklich gänzlich misslingt, schlage ich vor, er sollte sich doch lieber an das Verfassen von Romanen halten. Oder noch besser, gar nichts schreiben.

* Während der Atheismus des Autoren an sich natürlich völlig gerechtfertigt ist, ist es doch komisch, dass jemand der offenkundig so wenig vom Christentum versteht, so viel dazu zu sagen hat.

[Norman S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book, the author does protest too much about Rousseau, but still a great read. I actually enjoyed the concept of the salon, and found tantalizing parallels with Capponi's An Unlikely Prince and Machiavelli's attendance at Florentine salons much earlier. Ok, off to find some socio-cultural intellectual histories of the concept of the European salon in philosophical thought from 1500 BCE to the current day. Or perhaps I need to find a salon dedicated to that discussion thread instead...

[Sasstronaut · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I very much enjoyed the subject matter and contextual, formative placement of the philosophes, I did find this a chore to read through starting about halfway.

Repetitive writing, jumping timelines, and rambling points made this less enjoyable. I also thought I was getting a more objective viewpoint of the main characters here, but that’s clearly not the case pretty soon.

I did like the extra information regarding their lives, how they changed, and the reflectivity of viewing their lives through their respective philosophies. I am not terribly invested with the subject matter however, so this book may be for those more passionate in its study. Good historical notes.