Suchergebnisse

In this paper, the author focuses on the work of Bernard Mandeville as predecessor of Scottish Enlightenment and liberal tradition of thought. Starting from the social, political and economic context of the all-embracing crisis of the society in transition of his time, special attention is devoted to his moral, social and economic views based on methodological individualism. The author argues that Mandeville's controversial thought resists one-sided labeling and unambiguous fitting into mutually opposed camps of mercantilism and market liberalism, i.e. constructivism and evolutionism. This is the reason behind the variety of interpretations, and sometimes even completely opposite readings of his work. He was a satirist, social critic, physician, philosopher and economist, who effectuated a shift and a turn with regard to the habitual perceptions of the age in all those segments of his reflection and activity, and he launched a sort of "revolution in thought", which will be given its definitive formulation and elaboration in the second half of the 18th century by the Scottish moral philosophers. The author concludes that Mandeville was, first and foremost, a man of his time and responded to the acute problems of his age. It would thus be inappropriate and wrong to apply his ideas from the beginning of the 18th century to the present time with a clearer precising of intellectual and political projects, and declare him either a mercantilist or an interventionist, or else an advocate of laissez-faire. Nonetheless, Mandeville came up with answers that would later be incorporated in the liberal tradition. One may therefore say that he greatly influenced the Scottish Enlightenment and contributed to the birth of liberalism, although he was not a consistent economic liberal himself, of the type that was familiar to the late 18th century. Adapted from the source document.

The author's starting point is the assumption that the idea of the Christian Republic, suppressed by the Enlightenment, entered the French 18th-century discourse through its two secularized versions: the "Great Plan" put forward by Duke of Sully in Royal Economies (1638) and the Project for Perpetual Peace in Europe by Charles-Irenee Castel, the abbot of Saint-Pierre (1717). While the "Great Plan" aimed at establishing a secularized European peace alliance under the hegemony of France, Saint-Pierre strove to remove all hegemonic facets of the plan and establish peace according to the principles of equality of sovereign states. In the second half of the 18th century, Gabriel Bonnot de Mably and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in reaction to the Seven-Year War, assumed different standpoints regarding the heritage of Sully and Saint-Pierre: although both deemed useful to build upon Saint-Pierre's pacifist thought, they rejected his way of establishing a Christian Republic in Europe as essentially Utopian. The former saw the only way of pacifying Europe in federalization under the hegemony of a single federal republic. The latter however rejected this solution as too risky and too difficult to carry out, preferring a return to the old theory of balance of forces, which enables small, autarchic and belligerent republics, that must always take into account the certainty that they could be attacked at any time, to establish only temporary and loose connections with other (equally small) republics within the frameworks of defensive alliances. Adapted from the source document.