This paper examines the trends in Enlightenment studies after J. G. A. Pocock and other Cambridge contextualists. The most influential and controversial figure representative of recent scholarship is Jonathan Israel. His conception of the “radical Enlightenment” suggests the shared universalistic project of a certain group of intellectuals of the age, diverging from Pocock’s emphasis on a variety and diversity of “Enlightenments” in plural. Israel’s view is thus atavistic rather than revisionistic, and is vigorous in absorbing and responding to contextualist studies as well. His argument is particularly notable in that it endeavours to reinterpret Pocock’s demonstration of distinct characteristics of “Enlightenments” outside of France（with further implications of stressing the moderate tendencies of non-Parisian Enlightenments）, in order to justify his thesis that the fundamental controversy and dichotomy between major moderates and minor radicals could be detected anywhere in Enlightenment Europe. After elucidating these rival framings of Enlightenment thinking, this paper also scrutinizes other discussions dubious of the definition of plural “Enlightenments”, focusing on John Robertson and Ryu Susato. Both consider David Hume a touchstone for assessing the tenability of conceptions of Enlightenment as an analytical tool. While Robertson tends to focus on（empirical） neo-Epicureanism as a core of Enlightenment thought, bringing about a modern science of political economy, Susato situates Hume as an innovative thinker in the neo-Epicurean sceptical tradition, in whom seemingly moderate political thinking and perilously radical metaphysics are oddly accommodated together.

一橋大学全学共通教育センター

2021-03-25

Japanese(jpn)

departmental bulletin paper

VoR

10.15057/71650

1882-4625

AA12204025

人文・自然研究

15

1

37

15号 (2021)

https://hdl.handle.net/10086/71650