Leibniz, race, nation . . . & universal language!
I am amazed when two entirely separate interests unexpectedly intersect. In this case, I had just acquired a book on the issue of racism in early modern philosophy. (I am footnoted in the essay on Spinoza.) I turned to this essay on Leibniz:
Fenves, Peter. “Imagining an Inundation of Australians; or, Leibniz on the Principles of Grace and Race,” in Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, edited by Andrew Valls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), pp. 73-89.
The editor Andrew Valls summarizes Fenves' argument on p. 10. To add to it: Leibniz is mistakenly identified as a pioneer in the advocacy of 'race' as a concept, where in actuality he never endorsed François Bernier's work. The closest he came to advocacy of noxious distinctions was in his youthful proposal to unite the powers of Europe in a campaign of conquest of the 'semi-beasts' of the non-Christian world and even to indoctrinate them as servile conscripts in this campaign. Liebniz's views of language are relevant here, and may be damning in a way that we would not otherwise realize. The concept of race, though, is not at issue. Leibniz's mature philosophy makes the concept of race practically unworkable, as, according to the monadology the classification of individuals and their conceptual subsumption into larger groups becomes metaphysically problematic. Furthermore, he revises his notions of non-Christian non-Europeans, taking the example of 'Australians', and argues that as rational beings they could be converted to Christianity.
This is certainly interesting, and as far as the military campaign is concerned, even more damning than what most people know about Leibniz's proposal for the invasion of Egypt as a deflection from the prospect of war in Europe. But the unexpected twist here is that there is a connection to Leibniz's interest in a universal language (and his advocacy of national languages and national particularity, e.g. with respect to German) and even to the taxonomy of the most successful inventor of an a priori artificial language, John Wilkins!
Who knew? But you can read the relevant extract for yourself:
Leibniz on Language, Race, and Nation
Posts
1 comment:
La koncerna esearo temas pri la demando de raso kaj rasismo en frumoderna filozofio, aktuala temo en kelkaj universitataj rondoj, ofte stulte pritraktataj sed ĉi-foje tre interesa. (Mi aperas en piednoto en artikolo pri Spinoza, kiu senkulpas ĉi-rilate.) Mi legis la artikolon de Peter Fenves pri Leibniz. Oni kutime miskomprenas Leibniz kiel pioniron de la moderna priokupo de raso, sed fakte li neniam aprobis la koncepton en konata verko de Francois Bernier kiun li legis. Kiel junulo, kiam Leibniz elpensis skemon de imperia milito kontraŭ Egiptio kaj la neeŭropa nekristana mondo, li referencis "duonbestajn" popolojn, tamen li distingis popolojn per lingvoj kaj religio, ne rasa koncepto. La matura Leibniz esprimis malsame, kaj fakte sia metafizika monadologio malebligas la klasifikadon laŭ raso kaj emfazas, kvankam ŝovinisme kristane, la universalan racikapablon de homoj.
Surprize, la vidpunkto de Leibniz pri la rolo de lingvoj en la proponita militokampanjo, lia koncepto pri lingva diverseco, kaj lia intereso pri universala aprioria lingvo rolas en ĉi tiu afero. Fenves atentigas pri la ekzameno de Leibniz de la klasifiko de homoj en la artefarita lingvo de John Wilkins. Mi provizas ĉerpon el la eseo de Fenves ĉi-tema. Jen agrabla kunfluo de interesoj, ĉu ne?
Post a Comment