The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers

by Carl Lotus Becker

Based on the Storrs lectures delivered at Yale University
A distinguished American historian challenges the belief that 18th century was essentially modern in its temper. In crystalline prose Carl L. Becker demonstrates that the period commonly described as the Age of Reason was, in fact, very far from that. Voltaire, Hume, Diderot & Locke were living in a medieval world. They "demolished the Heavenly City of St. Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials."
Preface
Climates of Opinion
The Laws of Nature & of Nature's God
The New History: Philosophy Teaching by Example
The Uses of Posterity

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, Essays, Religion

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1932

About the author

Carl Lotus Becker was an American historian. He is best known for The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (1932), four lectures on The Enlightenment delivered at Yale University. His assertion that philosophies, in the "Age of Reason," relied far more upon Christian assumptions than they cared to admit, has been influential, but has also been much attacked,

Cornell has recognized his work as an educator by naming one of its five new residential colleges the Carl Becker House.

Reviews

[Ahmed Oraby · Rating 1 out of 5]

في فيديو، ذو لونين، أبيض وأسود، وكاميرا تبدو للعيان بأنها عريقة، وصورة منغبشة، وصوت غير واضح وخفيض، جاءت بضعة كلمات للفيلسوف الألماني "مارتن هيدجر" (الذي ينتابني الخوف والعار بمجرد ذكر اسمه) تلخّص أزمة البشرية جمعاء، منذ آلاف السنين، حتى الآن.
بصوت أجش، ووجه جامد، وملامح متغضنة، ونظرات ثابتة توحي بالقلق، والتعب، والإرهاق، بدأ هيدجر يلقي بكلمات بسيطة جميلة، توضح ولا شك مأساتنا، مأساة بدأت منذ قرن مضى، ولا زالت إلى الآن تعرض لنا بكل وقت وحين
قال هيدجر، متنبئًا، بأنه، وإن كان الإنسان، فيما مضى، يهوى تقديس كل شيء، كل غامض، كل صعب، كل ما لا يفهم، ويسميه "الدين" ويضيف عليه هالة من الاحترام والتقدير، تحت اسم المقدس والله، فإن أزمة العصر الحالي، والقادم، ستكون - لا بخلع هالة التقديس عن الدين - أو التبشير بعصر العقل والإلحاد - وإنما ستكون بخلق مقدسات جديدة. وهاهنا، كان يرمي هيدجر بكلماته إلى العلم، والعلم الطبيعي، والفيزياء تحديدًا
ويبدو أن كلماته، ورؤاه، كانت سليمة. فما إن انتهى عهد الفلاسفة، بالمعنى الكلاسيكي للكلمة، حتى أتى "العلمويين" أو من يسمون نفسهم رعاة المنهج العلمي، ونبذوا كل ما لا يمكن إقامة قواعد العلم عليه، حتى مررنا بعصر مشؤوم بغيض ينذر بهدم كل القيم تحت ذريعة " احترام العلم" وهكذا
ولكن يبدو أن تلك العصبية، تجاه العلم، لم تكن مقصورة على علم الفيزياء فقط، فيبدو أنها وصلت حتى للتاريخ، أدنى العلوم وأحطها (في نظر البعض) فالتاريخ، الذي يعرفه البعض بأنه "مجموعة أكاذيب قد اُتفق عليها" قد صار له متعصبين ودعاة أيضًا، تصل بهم البجاحة لدرجة الكفر بالفلسفة واحتقارها، ونبذها، ووضعها بحانب اللاهوت والدين، بصفتها صنوًا لهم.
في هذا الكتاب لن تجد شيئًا، تحديدًا لن تجد شيئًا له علاق بالعنوان، سوى كلام وتخاريف شبيهة بتخاريف المثاليين في العصر السابق، أو تخاريف العلميين في العصر الحالي.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always been attracted to books which challenge the received truths taught in the public schools I have attended. We've all the tendency to view the past in terms of the present, be it from our personal or social histories. Becker particularly challenges, albeit indirectly, many of the myths held dear by Americans about our founders and their beliefs.

[احمد عبد الفضيل · Rating 5 out of 5]

مدينة أفلاطون الفاضلة
كيف السبيل إليها عن طريق الكهنوت الدينى ؟أم السيطرة الكاملة للعقل
من اصدار المركز القومى للترجمة (ميراث الترجمة )
للأكاديمى كارل لوتس بيكر الامريكى
بترجمة المصرى الاكاديمى أيضاً محمد شفيق غربال
كتاب المدينة الفاضلة عند فلاسفة القرن الثامن عشر
العصور المظلمة فى اوربا هى تلك التى سادت فيها السيطرة الدينية من قِبل الكنيسة
وسط اختفاءشبه تام للفلاسفة والفلسفة
القرن الثامن عشر مثل عصر التنوير وازدهار الفلسفة وانتشار افكار الفلاسفة وسيادة العقل
الكتاب اربع محاضرات القاها الكاتب فى جامعة بيل كلية القانون فى عام 1931
تركيز الكاتب الاكبر كان على الثورة الفرنسية لانها خاتمة فكرة القرن الثامن عشر ولبيان صلتها بفكرة القرن الثامن عشر كما اوضح المترجم
لا وجود للمتعة او التسلية فى هذا الكتاب اكاديمى من الطراز الاول
عند بداية قراءتك كل ماتحتاج اليه ورق وقلم لتدوين المصلحات والاسماء المختلفة لتبدأ فكرة البحث على حدة لكن شخص او مصطلح
يوم الباستيل الذى يتم الاحتفال به فى فرنسا 14 يوليو 1789 رمز سقوط الهيمنة والاستبداد اليوم الفاصل فى حركة الثورة الفرنسية
الكتاب لايمكن تقييمه من الناحية اللغوية او انتقاد السرد
فلاسفة ورد ذكرهم بصورة مكثفة فى الكتاب
توماس الاكوينى - فيلسوف ايطالى
فولتير - اديب فرنسى
كانط - فيلسوف المانى
جون لوك _ انجليزى
ديفيد هيوم - اسكتلندى
ديدرو - فيلسوف فرنسى
إبيقور - فيلسوف يونانى
توماس مور صاحب اليوتوبيا
ادوار جيبون صاحب كتاب تاريخ افول وسقوط الدولة الرومانية
فونتينيل - اديب فرنسى
يوهان هردر - فيلسوف المانى
مدام رولان - الفرنسية التى تم اعدامها
كل مصطلح تم ذكره او كاتب او فيلسوف ذكر اسمه يحتاج الى مراجعة خاصة به والتعرف عليه بشكل اكبر وهذا ماميز الكتاب اكثر
ثلاث محطات استوقفنى فى الكتاب
الأولى للمفكر والمؤرخ الفرنسى دى توكفيل عندما وصف الثورة الفرنسية قائلاً : قد يقال عنها انها ثورة دينية من نوع ناقص فهى الاله لها _ ولا عبادات ولا حياة اخرى ولكنها وعلى نحو مافعل الاسلام ملأت العالم جنداً ورسلاً وشهداء
المحطة الثانية من ادوارد جيبون الذى وصف العصور المظلمة بالف سنة من الهمجية فهو هنا يرثى الحضارة القديمة ويذكر بموتها قائلاً اكتب لكى اعلم الاجيال القادمة كيف انتصرت البربرية والديانة .
المحطة الثالثة وهى وصف الاديب فولتير للتاريخ قائلاً ماهو سوى حاصل احتيال الأحياء على الأموات
الكتاب ينصح به لمحبى الفلسفة ولهواة التاريخ
بين العقل والنقل
بين المسيحية والانسانية
بين التعاليم الدينية ومبادىء الثورة الفرنسية
جاءت الدراسة من الكاتب
وفى النهاية اقتبس من الكاتب كلمات تصف الوضع الحالى واخص بالتحديد مصر : الشىء الثابت الذى تبينه الناس هو أن ازالة الظلم القديم لم تؤد فى الواقع أكثر من الافساح لظلم جديد وجور جديد ، وأن الناس لما تحققوا من ان الحكومة الديمقراطية على ماهى عليه من تلويث وقهر لاتزيد على ان تكون نوعا من الحكم اقرب الى السوء منه الى الجودة ، أصبح الراضون منهم عن عيشهم عديمى التاثر بما كان لتلك الكلمات الخلابة فيما سلف من الزمان " الحرية ، الإخاء ، والمساواة "
من قوة على بعث الرجاء فى النفوس .
وفى النهاية يقول أمل دنقل لاتحلموا بعالم سعيد .
#المدينة_الفاضلة
#كارل_بيكر
#فلسفة

[davidalromany · Rating 4 out of 5]

.جيد جدا لمن يعشقون الفلسفه وغير سلس لمن يبدا في الفلسفه
-لتفهم عصر من العصور يجب ان تري لغته أو مردفات الكلمات التي تم نطقها في العصور المظلمة مثل (النعمه والاثم والفردوس والجحيم ). حيث اعتقد الفلاسفة حينها ان الأنسان يكون ورقه بيضاء ثم يتولي المجتمع نقش افكاره الخيرة والشريره واعتقد ان هذا المبدا من الممكن الاتفاق عليه مع الفلاسفة.
- لفهم فلاسفة هذا العصر الحالمين بالمدينة الفاضلة وضعوا مجموعه من القوانين التي تحدد تلك المدينة :من ضمنها ان الانسان قادر بهدي العقل والتجربة فقط ان يبلغ الحياه الطيبة حد الكمال .وان شرط الحياه الطيبة هي اطلاق العقول من سلطان العقل والاجساد من قهر السلطات الاجتماعيه .
-وان الغرب الباحث عن الحرية المتغني بتقدم التكنولجي لا يحتاج للحريه بقدر ما يحتاج لتوجيه والنصح,مثلما حدث مع الثورة الفرنسيه التي تحولت لثورة دينيه متخذه اساليب وشعارات مختلفه هذا الي جانب المانيا التي توهمت ان لها صاداقات بامريكا فما هي الا صديق اعمي , فلا ثورات تاتي بحريه وهميه ليس في عالمنا الخطير علي الأقل .
- لكن ما اعجبني في هذا الكتاب هو النظر الي الحقيقية من وجهه نظر كل فرد فليست الحقيقه حقيقيه لانها اعترفت بها الاغلبيه في المجتمع ووافقت عليها .فالحقيقة تتحول لوهم حينما لا يستمع الانسان لها ويصر علي الاختيار للحقيقه التي تريحه من الم معرفتها .لكن الحقيقه الاخري هل الدين يثبت العلم ام العلم يثبت الدين؟ الحقيقة اننا نحتاج لاثنين بشرط المرونه . نحتاج للعلم لانه متغير ونحتاج لدين لانه ثابت ومرن . فنحن نحتاج لاثبات العلم عند طريق باقي العلوم .
- لكن كان هناك فكر جدلي عند الملحد هولباك أن الاخلاق تستمد من طبيعه الانسان ؟ فالكثير من الملوك والحكام اعتبروا واعطوا للرق تبريرا انه من طبيعه الانسان .فهنا فكرت بانه ان كان تبرير لكل انسان ان طبيعته فاسده هذا يتناقض مع الانسان الخير المحب للعطاء ويلغي فكره الاراده الحرة المزروعه بداخل الأنسان سلفا .
- هناك فكره جميله تستحق ان اكتبها في الرفيو هل نكته الفيلسوف فولتيرحقيقيه بان التاريخ حاصل احتيال الاحياء علي الموتي ؟ لكني اري ان التاريخ يفيد الانسان لتعلم من ماضيه القاسي ويحاول تحسينه .فلنتعلم الفضائل الحقيقيه ونحاول تغير المستقبل من تاريخ , التاريخ لا يتكرر لانه تعلم من اخطاءه فيكرر اخطاءه دائما .
الحقيقه الكبري التي ستخرج بها من هذا الكتاب المتواضع كم من الفلاسفه القدماء الذين وضعوا بصمه في مواضيع جدليه قديمه ,لكني وضعت في الرفيو الخاص بي ابسط الافكار الفلسفيه في الكتاب لعلها تكون مشجعه لكم لقراءه الكتاب
الاقتباسات
-اني اومن بما يحسبه العقل سخيفا (ترتوليان )
-اني أومن لكي أعلم (القديس أنسلم )
- القانون الطبيعي انه النظام المطرد الثابت للحقائق الذي يدير الله به الكون (فولني )
-الي ان يصبح الفلاسفه هم الملوك فلن ينقطع للمدائن فساد( أفلاطون )
-التاريخ الجديد أو الفلسفة تعلم الناس بضرب الامثال فتاريخ يطلعنا علي الانسان تفصيلا –أن صح القول – بعد أن تطلعنا الأخلاق عليه جملة (فونتيل )
-من يروم السعادة يحتاج لنسيان أشد الي التذكرة . فان الغايه الكبري التي يسعي اليها المستنيرون هي أقامة صرح العقل فوق حطام الظنون (شتلو )
-يولد الانسان حرا , ولكنه اينما كان مكلل بالأغلال (روسو –كتاب عقد الاجتماع

[AC · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just gave this a cursory read - it is not interesting (to me). Better accounts of the thought of the period in Bury's The Idea of Progress and such books.

Becker's view that "climate of opinion" plays such a dominating role is doubtful - it may *seem* to be what makes Dante or Thomas nearly unreadable (-- though they are not, in fact, unreadable when one reads them slowly....); but then, if that were so, one couldn't explain the utter clarity one gets from reading Plato -- where there is no obscuring "climate of opinion" to blame for one's incomprehension. The problem with Thomas and Dante is simply that their presuppositions -- which *can* be grasped and rationally apprehended, if one has the requisite philosophical background - are unfamiliar to the modern reader. But so what...?

The broader implication -- though I didn't read the volume closely enough to be sure that the author actually does draw it - viz., that 18th cen. rationalism is ultimately a matter of faith - is either false or trite. It is trite, if it means to suggest that rationalism rests on unproven metaphysical assumptions. Of course, it does! The foundations of rationalism in Plato, for example, are the Ideas -- which Plato states *repeatedly* are merely hypotheses (-- just as the Categories of Kant are themselves merely hypothesized; that is, there is no deduction of them). In fact, it is *precisely* in this context of discussing the theory of Ideas that Plato develops the so-called 'hypothetical method' in the Meno, the Phaedo, and in Republic. If on the other hand, the claim is that rationalism has no rational basis -- that it is pari passu the same as Christian Faith -- then this statement is, imo, simply nonsense.

[Mohammad Fouad Hussein · Rating 5 out of 5]

سادس قراءات العام
المدينة الفاضلة عند فلاسفة القرن الثامن عشر ل كارل بيكر
إصدار سلسلة آفاق عالمية التابعة للهيئة العامة لقصور الثقافة..

كتاب يتناول فكرة واحدة أمعن في مناقشتها وهي المقارنة بين فكر فلاسفة القرن الثالث عشر وإخوانهم - أو فلنقل أعدائهم - من فلاسفة القرن الثامن عشر.. من حيث ما وراء الطبيعة من الإلهيات ومنشأ الكون ومصير الإنسان ومعنى وجوده وقيمة مساعيه، وتأثير كل ذلك على الأخلاق وعلى إمكانية الوصول للمدينة الفاضلة..
فكر القرن الثالث عشر المبني على اللاهوت، والدين المسيحي، وسيطرة الكنيسة والدولة، وفي مقابله فكر القرن الثامن عشر المستمد من العقل والاكتشافات العلمية وفهم الكون فهما فيزيائيا مجردا وفهم الإنسان فهما تطوريا محايدا، وما تبعه من تنكر للدين ودُعاته، وما أدى إليه السير وراء العقل من إلحاد وإنكار لفلسفة الأخلاق.. وعجز عند كثير من فلاسفته عن تشييد عالمٍ أخلاقيٍ، ذي معنى ومغزى، وعن تفسير لمعاني الشر والخير، ثم إخفاء بعضهم للناتج الإلحادي لأفكارهم، خوفا من نقد المجتمع، ولجوئهم للبحث التاريخي للاستعاضة عن البحث اللاهوتي للوصول لهذه الأهداف.. والذي كان غير موفق في المجمل...
كتاب وجدته مفيدا وممتعا، وتيقنت فيه من صحة فلسفة الإمام الجليل عبد الحليم محمود رحمه الله التي تناولت البحث التاريخي لفلسفة الأخلاق والماورائيات في الكتاب العظيم الذي قام بترجمته والتقديم والتعليق والتذييل له، كتاب (المشكلة الأخلاقية والفلاسفة) ل أندريه كريسون، ذلك الكتاب الذي كان أول قراءاتي الفلسفية، والذي حببني في هذا اللون من القراءة، والذي كان بمثابة الأرض الصلبة التي يمكن أن ينطلق منها أي قارئ للفلسفة غير هيابٍ لدياجيها المتوقعة..

التقييم (5/5)..

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a dispassionate intellectual history but rather a strongly felt and well-articulated argument that the Eighteenth Century was not an age of reason but rather the time when philosophers "demolished the Heavenly City of St. Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials." Like the later "Wicked Company" (which I recently reviewed), Becker points out the contradictions in the supposedly "tolerant" and "open minded" positions of the philosophes. "They defended toleration valiantly, but could with difficulty tolerate priests."

"Their faith, like the faith by which any age lives, was born of their experience and their needs; and since their experience and their needs were in deadly conflict with the traditional and the established and still powerful philosophy of church and state, the articles of their faith were at every point opposed to those of the established philosophy."

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brief, blistering book that deconstructs and dismantles the typical Enlightenment narrative that the Age of Reason thoroughly expelled superstition and religion; rather, Enlightenment thinkers merely replaced Christianity with their own ideal utopia. This is witnessed in the optimism surrounding the idea of progress - just like Christians set their hopes on Heaven, the Enlightenment confidently declared that humanity was always improving. The French Revolution, virulently anti-Christian, created its own "priests" and "holy days," etc...In the end, the Enlightenment is just as guilty of "dogmatism" as the Middle Ages. This is a book I will need to re-read, especially if I ever work through some of the philosophers frequently mentioned by Carl Becker such as Hume, Voltaire, and Diderot.

[Jonathan Norton · Rating 2 out of 5]

From 1931, this is an example of what we might call Enlightenment-Dismantling: the style of intellectual history that tries to undermine glib "rationalist" generalities by putting the 18th century in to context, showing the religious origin of various strands, etc. John Gray has now found his niche purveying a pop version.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just outstanding.

[Jason Farley · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a remarkable and helpful little book. You could read it in a couple of sittings. But it is so meaty that I would recommend reading it slow.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 4 out of 5]

2010 Review: Becker's theme is that the heavenly city of St. Augustine was replaced with the religion of humanity and the Age of Reason in the 18th Century, and that reason proved just as futile as faith in perfecting humanity and creating a perfect world. This did not stop Hegel and Marx in the next century from projecting a new world in which conflict would be eliminated. One interpretation of Becker's' theme is that the world is cyclic, not linear, and that conflict, not perfection, is our legacy and our future. Becker's book suffers from too much obscure filler material.

I re-read the book (2022). My rating changed from 2 to 4. Here is my new review:

Becker’s thesis is that the 18th century renaissance philosophers (1) were determined to replace a hidebound Christian worldview (e.g., a personal god who intervenes in this world; the beliefs in heaven and hell; the mystical angel figures who connect heaven and earth; and various nonsensical, ritualized practices) with one that comported with the best science of the time.

The modern view was built on old foundations, and Deism was the compromise. God set things in motion and then retreated to the shadows. Newtonian science took it from there. Deterministic cause and effect, not God in the direct interventionist sense, governed the world. As to what was beyond, the deists were silent, agnostic or atheistic. (2)

If a transcendent world was no longer likely, the task was to create a heavenly world on earth and to replace faith with reason. Reason’s function was to discern the laws of nature, God’s design for the world, and then to use them for human betterment. Humanism, not pleasing God per se, was the good, reason was its means, and progress was the result.

Christianity was a problem for humanism. It was other-worldly, not this-worldly. Its preoccupation was to curb animal desire and to prepare the self for its ascension to a perfect, transcendent world. Humanistic thinkers needed to reorient the self by casting aside such thought as ignorant, superstitious, and silly. In its place, these thinkers promised progress - a steady, stepwise movement away from Christianity’s tradition-confining past and toward this-world human benefit. (3) This was to be, in Becker’s words, “the religion of the Enlightenment, where “the love of God” became the “love of humanity.” Elaborating, Becker goes on to say that “The essential articles of the religion of the Enlightenment may be stated thus: (a) man is not natively depraved; (b) the end of life is life itself, the good life on earth instead of the beatific life after death; (c) man is capable guided solely by the light of reason and experience of perfecting the good life on earth; and (d) the first and essential condition of the good life on earth is the freeing of men’s minds from the bonds of ignorance and superstition, and of their bodies from the arbitrary oppression of the constituted social authorities.”

There are two problems with this worldview. It is hard not to wonder whether this was the juncture point where Plato’s other-worldly philosophy of the dialogues was transformed to the this-world secular philosophy where the Good was seen as the universal, objective moral standard, accessible by reason, that stood out as humanity’s aspired-to End, and by which all human activity, good and bad, was to be evaluated. Good in effect was God, secularized. (4) Hence, the presumption among the elite was that (a) such a moral standard existed, universally and objectively, and (b) that men of reason could know right and wrong and could judge all other actions accordingly. (5)

Yet, there is a danger in this mode of thought. Is there, really, a universal, objective standard? Rather, is it that a highly subjective and suspect standard is used under its guise? And does a straight line run from the Enlightenment mental frame to the rational certainty of today, infected with intolerance and the lack of humility about one’s own subjectivity? For the era that Becker wrote about, Plato’s Good became ready-made “for Reason’s crusaders” and judgmental elites who presume their own superiority vis-a-vis others who don’t see the world in quite the same way. And, in the extreme, there were problems. (6)

If no longer other-worldly, God now became the God of humanity. But what of this god of humanity? How is it to be defined? This is the second problem with the Heavenly City concept, as Becker terms these 18th century philosophes. In the new Newtonian world (though Newton himself was highly religious), all was determined. What was, what is, was and is meant to be. For the obvious evil in the world, that was not tolerable. One rational school (Rousseau, Locke, Hume) believed that humanity was good by nature and that civilization was the corrupter. (7) Nurture was at odds with the law of nature and must be changed - by radical measures (Robespierre, Marx, Lenin) - if need be. But this begs the question, for if the culture (civilization) was the problem, how did it get to that point if ‘man’ by nature was good? The seeds of sin must have been there in some form, always, from the beginning. The other rationalist school (the deist founding fathers in the USA) recognized that man’s nature in general was not so good and needed checks and balances to keep the heavenly city in order. A third school, only alluded to by Becker, took the imperfect-to-perfect thesis in a different direction. Social Darwinism saw the law of nature as the perfecting of humanity in which only the best and strongest were to survive. That idea was extended by the eugenics movement when enlightened reason would overtly guide the elimination of the unfit from the pool of humanity. In both cases, evolution, as the law of nature, was nothing but the beneficent unfolding of Reason.

It would be a mistake to see Becker’s book as just a commentary on 18th century philosophical thought. Its relevance is in full swing today. (8) If God is dead, it’s a free for all (there are no divine consequences one way or another for one's behavior), in the struggle for survival and well-being, and that's the fight seen throughout history, including today. In Becker's words, “It’s the cosmic forces of good and evil, between the City of Light and the City of Darkness - the eternal conflict for the soul of man.”

There are then basically two scenarios for humanity’s future. In one, it’s the survival of the fittest. In the other, it’s respect for the interests of the whole as well as the self. From a Darwinian perspective - and not that of the social Darwinism kind - the motive force for both versions is consistent with evolutionary survival and well-being. It’s how one is disposed to view one’s own interest. The self serves itself at the expense of the other if need be, or the self’s interest is seen as part of a larger whole. Both work for the evolutionary survival. This is about underlying character differences that are also consistent with Darwinian variability (Hume’s “man in general” does not exist, other than as a generalized species designation in the sense that humans are not dogs, elephants or reptiles), as accentuated by the highly variable nurturing and cultural practices. Enlightenment helps for some to see the error of one’s ways, but reason is powerless to move toward an enlightened path if the motivation is not there in whole or large part, i.e. the dictate of the “rationalist project,” to know the good is to do the good, is powerless to move the self and its aggrandizing forces if the motive force is not there.

1. Philosophes suggests the well-known public intellectuals in France (e.g. Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot), but Becker points out that these Enlightenment figures were not only French but also included Leibnitz, Goethe, Locke and Hume, Adam Smith, Priestley, Jefferson and Franklin.

2. Becker writes that “The Creator as a mere first premise no longer needed those rich and all too human qualities of God the Father. Having performed his essential function of creation, it was proper for him to withdraw from the affairs of men into the shadowy places where absolute being dwells. Thus withdrawn, he ceased to be personal and inconvenient. no longer demanding propitiatory sacrifices, he could be regarded merely as that Omniscience or Beneficence which men of sense could serenely contemplate with respect untempered with fear or adoration. Yet, even men of sense needed some word for this necessary thing, some suitable substitute for God the Father. Supreme Being? Author of the Universe? Great Contriver? Prime Mover? First Cause? Surely, any of these would serve. We know at least, to our great discomfort, that all of them were freely used.”

3. Becker writes. “From this high point of the eighteenth century, the Philosophers survey the past and anticipate the future. They recall the miseries and errors of the past as mature men recall the difficulties and follies of youth, with bitter memories it may be, yet with a tolerant smile after all, with a sigh of satisfaction and a complacent feeling of assurance: the present is so much better than the past. But the future, what of that? Since the present is so much better than the past, will not the future be much better than the present? To the future the Philosophers therefore look, as to a promised land, a new millennium.” Priestley, Becker writes, makes the break with the past as more of a continuity thing, in which “God realizes himself in humanity, and that all good men, in working for the happiness of posterity, are furthering the divine purpose, and may here and now anticipate the heavenly reward.”

4. “Saints of all ages,” Becker writes, “have aspired to become one with whatever gods there be.”

5. In the face of “tyranny, superstition, intolerance,” was the “‘idea of the just and the unjust’”... to apply to them the ready-made judgments of the age of reason.”

6. Of these believers, Becker writes, “Emancipated themselves, they were conscious of a mission to perform, a message to deliver to mankind; and to this messianic enterprise they brought an extraordinary amount of earnest conviction, of devotion, of enthusiasm. We can watch this enthusiast, this passion for liberty and justice, for truth and humanity, rise and rise throughout the century until it becomes a delirium, until it culminates, in some symbolical sense, in that half admirable, half pathetic spectacle of June 8, 1794, when Citizen Robespierre, with a bouquet in one hand and a torch in the other, inaugurated the new religion of humanity by lighting the conflagration that was to purge the world of ignorance, vice, and folly.”

7. For this benign view of human nature, “Design in nature was thus derived a priori from the character which the Creator was assumed to have; and natural law, so far from being associated with the observed behavior of physical phenomena, was no more than a conceptual universe above and outside the real one, a logical construction dwelling in the mind of God and dimly reflected in the minds of philosophers.” For Locke, in particular, his “epoch-making book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” became “the psychological gospel of the eighteenth century….What Locke aimed at no doubt, what the eighteenth century acclaimed him for having demolished, was the Christian doctrine of total depravity, a black, spreading cloud which for centuries had depressed the human spirit….Locke made it possible for the eighteenth century to believe with a clear conscience what it wanted to believe, namely, that since man and the mind of man were shaped by that nature which God had created, it was possible for men, ‘barely by the use of their natural faculties,’ to bring their ideas and their conduct,and hence the institutions by which they lived, into harmony with the universal natural order. With what simple faith the age of enlightenment welcomed this doctrine! With what sublime courage it embraced the offered opportunity to refashion the outward world of human institutions according to the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

Still, the problem of “evil” was a cloud over humanity’s presumed goodness. As Becker writes, “There was then - the ugly dilemma, emerging from the beautiful premises of the new philosophy: if nature is good, then there is no evil in the world; if there is evil in the world, then nature is so far not good.” Some of these eighteenth-century thinkers (Hume, Smith) found a way to skirt through the problem: they tempered self-interested seeking “with sentiment,” with fellow-feeling of one or another sort. To move forward in the rebuilding of a this-world human edifice, Hume looked to “the study of history” for those “universal principles” that applied to “man in general.” Philosophers “knew instinctively that ‘man in general’ is natively good, easily enlightened, disposed to follow reason and common sense; generous and humane and tolerant, more easily led by persuasion than compelled by force; above all a good citizen and a man of virtue, being well aware that, since the rights climbed by himself are only the natural and imprescriptible rights of all men, it is necessary for him voluntarily to assume the obligations and to submit to the restraints imposed by a just government for the commonweal.”

8. Becker wrote his book in 1932, at the height of Marxism and eugenics, and before the rise of Hitler and his “rationalist” project to perfect humanity.

[Louis Devine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shortly after publishing our podcast episode on Saint Augustine’s fourth century text, Confessions, a rather engaged listener commented that we ought to read Carl L. Becker’s book ‘The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers’ (1932). Becker argues that the philosophers of the eighteenth century were far closer in their philosophical worldviews to the theologians of the thirteenth century than is commonly supposed. Far from being a radical break between the theological past and a modern, secular future, the Enlightenment was a transitionary moment in which philosophers “demolished the Heavenly City of St Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials”. Yet more evidence of the modern Western worldview’s indebtedness to Christianity – how could I not be intrigued? You won’t believe me – though it is absolutely true – when I say that I found Becker’s book the very next day at a second-hand bookstore for less than five dollars. My disbelief in fate is being sorely tested.

The Heavenly City was a surprisingly easy-going read. Becker delivers his arguments in a narrative style which makes for a seamless reading experience. Of course, being written in 1932, the language is sometimes a bit dated and indirect. But push through and you will be rewarded.

Becker begins with a chapter on ‘Climates of Opinion’. He notes that our modern worldview, though seemingly unproblematic and obvious to us today, is actually very peculiar from an historical perspective. Today, we regard humanity as the creation of impersonal material forces. The universe is indifferent to our plight. We must make our own way, create our own meaning, using our limited intelligence. Nothing could be further from the prevailing climate of opinion in the deeply religious thirteenth century. To the medieval theologians, human existence is but a cosmic drama “finished in idea before enacted in fact” and “unalterable either for good or evil”. Our earthly existence was seen as a temporary waystation, something to be endured before God’s final judgement in which the elect would be united forever in the Heavenly City. This narrative of fall and eventual redemption gave meaning to a temporal existence that was marked by disease and suffering. Becker argues that the promise of a hereafter which made humanity’s suffering intelligible largely explains Christianity’s appeal.

God’s existence enabled humanity to rest assured that the natural world, despite its vagaries and indifference to human life, was underwritten by a divine logic that would deliver eventual salvation. God made nature intelligible. Becker’s illuminating observation is that the eighteenth-century philosophers reversed this relationship. Driven by advances in science, a worldview began to emerge which did not require the postulation of God’s existence. Humans were suddenly able to explain the happenings of the natural order without explanatory recourse to some divine order. However, most philosophers shied away from the atheistic implications of these developments. Instead, they made the genius move to assert that God must exist because of the rationality found in nature. The regularities found in nature were taken as evidence of a supreme, benevolent creator.

This emerging worldview of the eighteenth century is brilliantly summarised by Jeremy Waldron, who wrote that “The Enlightenment was characterized by a burgeoning confidence in the human ability to make sense of the world, to grasp its regularities and fundamental principles, to predict its future, and to manipulate its powers for the benefit of mankind.” Becker claims that this worldview began to undermine the Christian notion that earthly suffering was to be tolerated in anticipation of the heavenly hereafter. Philosophers began to see humanity’s task as actively creating a better world in the here and now. Still, this was not a wholesale break with Christian interpretations of history. Becker argues that the eighteenth-century philosophers developed a new teleological account of human history, one that was still overwhelmingly religious in its structure.

Future generations replaced God as the judges of human action. ‘Posterity’ became the Other to which all human endeavours must be in service of. Humanity was now on a quest to improve its life on earth for the benefit of posterity. As Becker argues, this argument – epitomised by liberalism and Marxism – frequently displays a religious fervour. Any amount of suffering and tragedy can be justified provided that it will bring about a better future for posterity. The excesses of the French and Russian revolutions were both justified in this way. Having grasped the universe’s ordering principles, these religious zealots set about reconstituting society along more rational grounds.

It is easy to see how modern progressive politics is indebted to a religious understanding of history. Secular progressives believe in the promise of a better future, they just think that it will be constituted on Earth, not Heaven.

[S M H · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The essential articles of
the religion of the Enlightenment may be stated
thus: (i) man is not natively depraved; (2) the end
of life is life itself, the good life on earth instead of
the beatific life after death; (3) man is capable, guided solely by the light of reason and experience,
of perfecting the good life on earth; and (4) the first
and essential condition of the good life on earth is the freeing of men's minds from the bonds of ignorance and superstition, and of their bodies from the
arbitrary oppression of the constituted social authorities.

"What these "universal principles" were the
Philosophers, therefore, understood before they went
in search of them, and with "man in general" they
were well acquainted, having created him in their
own image. "

"It is apparent that, in professing with so disarming
an air of candor to be studying history in order to discover the constant and universal principles of human
nature, they are deceiving us, these philosopher-historians. But we can easily forgive them for that, since
they are, even more effectively, deceiving themselves."

In this book, a case is made for the insanity of the enlightened. The case is such: If everything in nature is right, then that cannot be so because evil exists. Either evil exists or it does not. If evil does not exist then that means everything in the natural world is in harmony. The inquisition and the university, reason and Luddite stupidity. All in harmony, all natural, all good.

Faced with this contradiction, the whole thing collapses. It is incorrect. Stupid, even. And thus either they persist in their delusion, or flee to the fortress of atheism.

Frankly in my opinion that exodus to atheism has long since happened. The great natural philosophers destroyed themselves in their stupidity. Only the smoking wreckage of their works remain. A terrible reminder of those duplicitous, naive, hypocritical, morons.

[Mohamed Abdel Maksoud · Rating 3 out of 5]

اسم الكتاب: المدينة الفاضلة عند فلاسفة القرن الثامن عشر

اسم الكاتب: كارل بيكر

ترجمة: محمد شفيق غربال

عدد الصفحات: ٢٢٣

يتألف هذا الكتاب من أربع محاضرات تم إلقاءها في جامعة كورنيل في أوائل الثلاثينيات.
تركز محاضرتا بيكر الثانية والثالثة - أفضل أجزاء الكتاب - على مفاهيم القرن الثامن عشر المنقحة جذريًا عن الطبيعة والتاريخ. الطبيعة، بالمعنى الواسع للمصطلح، تشمل الجنس البشري والنظام المادي ككل.
هدف الفلسفة في القرن الثامن عشر هو تفكيك المؤسسات المدنية والدينية الفاسدة والمفسدة وإعادة تشكيل الفرد والمجتمع وفقًا لمعايير موضوعية للطبيعة. بدلاً من مدينة القديس أغسطين البائدة، بنى الفلاسفة مدينة سماوية خاصة بهم، لا يترأسها الدين وقديسيه، بل بالعقل المجيد والدينونة الطاهرة للأجيال القادمة المستنيرة.

في المدينة السماوية لفلاسفة القرن الثامن عشر، كارل بيكر (أستاذ التاريخ السابق في جامعة كورنيل، المتوفى عام 1945) يجادل بأنه على الرغم من أن الروح المتحركة في تلك الفترة لا تزال، إلى حد ما، محسوسة اليوم، فإن فلاسفة عصر التنوير كانوا في الواقع أقرب في افتراضاتهم ومثلهم إلى العصور الوسطى، ولكنهم بنوا مدينتهم بما لديهم من مواد.
". يشير بيكر إلى التناقضات في المواقف المفترضة "المتسامحة" و "المنفتحة" للفلاسفة. لقد دافعوا عن التسامح ببسالة، لكنهم أخذوا موقفاً مختلفاً من الدين المسيحي والكنيسة.
إيمانهم، مثل الإيمان الذي يعيش على أساسه أي عصر، ولد من خبرتهم واحتياجاتهم، وبما أن خبرتهم واحتياجاتهم كانت في صراع مميت مع فلسفة الكنيسة والدولة التقليدية فكان هناك بون شاسع بينهم.
أيضاً تناول بيكر الثورتين الفرنسية والروسية موضحاً وجه التقارب والمتشابهات بينهم رغم أنه قد يظهر خلاف ذلك من أول وهلة.

[Musaadalhamidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

مثَّلَ القَرنُ الثَّامنَ عَشَرَ مَنارةً فِكريةً وَسطَ القُرون؛ لحَملِه فِكرتَي «الخَير» و«الإنسَانِية»؛ فقَدْ كانَ رَبيعًا مُزهِرًا، تَركَ وَراءَهُ مشاريعَ إصلاحيةً عِدَّةً كانَتِ الثَّورةُ الفَرنسيةُ آخِرَها. و«كارل بيكر» هنا يُعالِجُ الفِكرةَ السِّياسيةَ والاجتِماعيةَ السَّائدةَ في هذا القَرن، مُعتمِدًا على مَنهجِهِ التاريخيِّ الذي يَتميَّزُ بالتماسُكِ والانسِجامِ إلى أقْصَى الحُدود. وقَدْ كَانتْ فِكرةُ «الاسْتِنارَة» وانتِشارِ قِيَمِ السَّعادةِ والحُريةِ والإخاءِ والمُساواةِ غايةَ الفلاسفةِ في هذا العَصْر؛ حَيثُ كَانتِ «المدينةُ الفاضِلةُ» فِكرةً تَسرِي في عُقولِهم، وإنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ وَليدَةَ القَرنِ الثَّامنَ عشر. ويُعَدُّ الكِتابُ مِن أهمِّ الكُتبِ التي ناقَشتْ أفكارَ هذا القَرن، ووضَّحَ المُؤلِّفُ مدى تَأثُّرِ فِكرِ فلاسفةِ هذه الفَتْرةِ بالتأصِيلِ التَّاريخي. وقد قدَّم بيكر كتابَه في أربعِ مُحاضَراتٍ عَرَضَ فيها بإتْقانٍ الإطارَ الفلسفيَّ والاجتماعيَّ والسياسيَّ للقَرنِ الثَّامنَ عَشَر.

الكتاب متوفر مجانا على موقع هنداوي
https://www.hindawi.org/books/60973575/

[rebonkles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but sometimes excessively meandering, likely due to its time period or origin as a series of lectures. Does fall prey to pseudo-argumentation at times. I likely would have liked it more had I been more familiar with the thinkers and notable figures constantly referenced. Took me a second to get into the book and understand each argument, but once understood, was usually at least somewhat compelling. Would have been most interested in Becker’s response to WW2, especially with his conclusion that communism would replace enlightenment in his proclaimed “heavenly city created by idealized posterity.” Will likely become a book I may steal some argumentation from, but nothing that substantive.

[Awyxm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Becker argues that the Enlightenment thinkers, rather than being the first stirrings of modern thought, share more in common with the Medieval philosophy.

It is interesting to compare Becker's views of the Enlightenment thinkers to Tomas Sowell's presentation of the unconstrained vision in his book A Conflict of Visions. What Sowell considers as an ongoing worldview (in conflict with the constrained worldview from the Enlightenment to now) Becker considers a typically Enlightenment viewpoint (with little conflict within Enlightenment circles) which has in many places been phased out for the modern worldview.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Becker seeks to show that the intellectual breakthrough of the eighteenth century was really an illusion; that is, although the philosophes believed themselves to be breaking down the foundations of faith-in-the-intangible, they merely replaced the “City of St. Augustine” with another form of religious belief revolving around Nature and Reason.

Becker qualifies his criticism of the philosophes—he views them as naive, an accusation that might have irritated Voltaire or Hume—by noting that “climates of opinion” change like everything else. That is to say, that which is an epistemological given in one era is laughable in the next. Because of this, the thin ice over which the philosophes thought they were crossing is for us either solid ground or a wasteland. In either case, twentieth-century thought clearly has its roots in the philosophy of the eighteenth.

[Ahmed Yousri ataweyya · Rating 3 out of 5]

هدم فلاسفة القرن الثامن العشر جنة (رب الطبيعة ) و لم يستطيعوا اقامة (جنة الطبيعة )

الكتاب يعبر عن بؤس الفلسفة ولذا لن يعجب محبي الفلسفة
برغم وجود شذرات من الحكمة في ثناياه ..

كتاب عسر القراءة …عسر الأسلوب لكنه مفيد .

[Brooks · Rating 2 out of 5]

“All historical writing, even the most honest, is unconsciously subjective, since every age is bound, in spite of itself, to make the dead perform whatever tricks it finds necessary for its own peace of mind.”

[Asia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to read this book for one of my classes and surprisingly it wasn’t as bad as I thought.
I would definitely enjoy it more if it was a bit shorter but it’s probably because philosophy is not my main topic of interest.

[Dirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

good read, could make arguments a bit clearer

[Twlogos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little eclectic and a bizarre conclusion but overall very good

[Graychin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The goal of philosophy in the eighteenth century was to dismantle corrupted and corrupting civic and religious institutions and to reshape the individual and society according to objective standards of nature. In place of St Augustine’s defunct city of God, the philosophers would build a heavenly city of their own, presided over not by an enthroned Christ and his saints, but by glorified Reason and the immaculate judgment of enlightened posterity.

In The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers, Carl Becker (former professor of history at Cornell University, deceased in 1945) argues that although the animating spirit of the period is still, to a degree, felt today, the philosophers of the Enlightenment were actually nearer in their presuppositions and ideals to medieval precursors than to ourselves. I think he’s only half successful in demonstrating this, but the book hardly suffers for it, thanks to the author’s nimble synthesis and pleasant William-Jamesian prose.

The four lectures that make up the book were originally delivered at Yale in the early 1930s. The first and fourth of them haven’t aged so well. Becker’s sense that religion has definitively spent itself as a moral and social force in the West seems premature and weakens the first lecture. In the fourth, his speculations about the future history of the Communist Revolution, and what it may come to mean for future generations when its lessons are generalized across western society, also feels flat.

Becker’s second and third lectures – the best parts of the book – focus on the eighteenth century’s radically revised notions of nature and history. Nature, in the broad sense of the term, encompassing mankind and the material order as a whole, is no longer approached by way of metaphysics. It is no longer things as God intended them to be but as they are not due to sin and the devil. Instead, nature becomes things as they actually are and as they reveal themselves to empirical examination. History, severed from sacred myth and the burden of a transcendent, unified narrative, becomes an object of critical inquiry.

By looking to nature (things as they are) to discover the essential elements of human identity, and by reading history as a long cautionary tale, what aspects of society do not invite revision? The past, for Enlightenment thinkers, becomes a story of mostly Greek curiosity smothered under two thousand years of superstition. Nature, encountered in the unfamiliar cultures of the Americas, Asia and the South Pacific, shows us the arbitrariness of our own institutions and customs. What’s to stop us from turning the whole cart over and starting again? God may not condemn us for our failure, but posterity will honor our success.

There are problems, of course. If there is no God, and if man is inescapably a product of nature, then Christianized western culture is a product of nature too. It could hardly be otherwise. How can we therefore accuse it of deforming man? Whatever is must be according to nature. And then by what measure is any cultural status quo, or any particular innovation, to be judged? Becker teases out these ironies rather effectively. “They denied that miracles ever happened,” he says of the philosophers, “but believed in the perfectibility of the human race.”

[Coyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

An enjoyable little book about the thought of secular 18th century writers on heaven. Becker writes (well, "speaks," since these are transcribed lectures) in a clear and compelling tone, leaving me in the rare position of wishing that a non-fiction book was longer. Becker's main argument is that for all their atheism and anti-Christian (even intentionally anti-Christian) beliefs, the rationalist philosophers of the 18th century had just as much hope in a redeeming future as any fundamentalist Christian.
Also useful was Becker's description of the fundamental beliefs of the Enlightenment thinkers, who held that
1) Man is not innately depraved (as against the Christian doctrine of original sin);
2) life is its own end in this world, we do not need a heaven to define the value of life on earth (Becker's main point is that an idealized "future" takes the role of heaven for these philosophers);
3) Man is capable of perfecting a good life on earth through reason and practical experience (again, against the Christian idea that the good life will only be achieved in heaven, or at least only when heaven is brought to earth at the end of the world);
4)the good life can be achieved only by letting go of supersitition and oppression (which are embodied by Christianity, especially by the Catholic church, according to these philosophers).

Also interesting are Becker's predections that someday we might look at Soviet Communist ideas the same way we (in his day) look at the ideas of these Enlightenment philosophers: that is, despite the horrors and bloodshed their ideas lead to when applied to society, we will refuse to let them go and hold on to them as if they are absolutely necessary, whatever their consequences.

Overall, an excellent and worthwhile little volume.

[Cypress Butane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about Eighteenth century philosophers, with Enlightenment ideals, coming out of the superstitious times where religion ruled, trying, with varying degrees of self-consciousness, to replace the sovereignty of God, religion and the afterlife as the defining motivations, teleology, and philosophical underpinnings of mankind's development and artistic integrity. The book has a lot of good information on this thesis, especially on how certain philosophers were actually trying to not just replace God and religion, but turn new secular filler philosophies into religious placeholders, so that they could hold the exact same place. As in, trying to deify concepts that might fill the gap, like knowledge, philosophy, revolutionary ideals, even posterity. It's a quick read and even though the copy I had was falling apart while I read it, it was worth a reading and I highlighted a bunch of pages for future reference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has a pretty specific thesis and I picked it up because I was looking for something to relate to a theme in my writing of Angels interacting in a Sci-fi scenario. I wanted some background story in history to set up a kind of meta-narrative of how the fall of the Angels and the fall of man is still an incomplete story, and this book helped fill in some ideas in that concept, along with another book I'm reading at the moment called 'Natural Supernaturalism' by M.H. Abrams, which is amazing.

[Mason Hanrahan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Even beyond Becker's oversimplified representation of enlightenment discourse (not all rationalists were atheists), I find the logic of his arguments highly problematic. He argues that the philosophes are both a) quintessentially theistic and b) quintessentially scientific (and therefore atheistic). In the first argument, Becker claims the philosophes are not scientists at all, but mere theologians in scientists’ clothing who appropriated Christian structures of thought, crudely replacing the word "God" with the word "nature." The scintific atheism of enlightenment philosophes is therefore illusory and naive. Science, therefore, does not really exist, except as a theft of the Christian intellectual legacy. However, when criticizing science at large, Becker claims that the philosophes are so representative of science that any inadequacy of a philosophe is necessarily an inadequacy of science itself. In taking this line of reasoning, Becker fails to distinguish between a failure of science as a whole and failure to be scientific on the part of a practitioner. He also fails to acknowledge his previous argument that science was quintessentially Christian.

Perhaps these points could have been compatible as a paradox, but Becker does not address the tension between them, nor does he nuance their presentation in a way that is not directly self-contradictory. It is this self-contradiction that makes me think that the book's argument is a failure.

[Samar Hassan · Rating 3 out of 5]

قضية من أهم القضايا الفلسفية التي شغلت بل نقول أرهقت عقول الفلاسفة لكثرة التفكير و التعمق فيها و تضارب الأفكار، و هي الوجود و محاولة الوصول للكمال للوصول إلى المدينة الفاضلة التي ظل يبحث الفلاسفة عن الطرق على مر العصور و القرون للوصول لها و العيش فيها.
لا يتوقف الفلاسفة عن التفكر و سؤال أنفسهم من خلق الوجود؟ و يعتقد بعضهم أنهم إذا عرفوا أصل الوجود و من خلقه فإنهم في منتصف الطريق للمدينة الفاضلة التي كانت حلم جميع الفلاسفة.
أرجع بعضهم إلى أن الوجود ما هو الا نتاج عن التاريخ الذي جعلنا ما نحن عليه الآن و منهم من يؤمن أن الدين هو الذي خلق الحياة و آخرين قالوا الحكام و بعضهم اعتقدوا أنها قوة خفية لا يعلم أحد من أين قامت بخلق العالم.
الكتاب فلسفي لأبعد الحدود يمكن تصنيفه على أساس أنه كتاب مرجعي معلوماتي و ليس رواية أو سرد . هو مجموعة من محاضرات الدكتور كارل بيكر. شعرت بجانب القراءة أنني أحتاج من يقوم بشرح بعض المعاني العميقة الكامنة خلف بعض الجمل و الصفحات. من يفقه بالفلسفة و من قام بدراستها جامعياً يستطيع الإستمتاع بالقراءة و بكل سهولة أن يفهم كل ما هو مذكور في الكتاب.