BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260604T235956Z
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20190906T103000
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20190906T120000
SUMMARY:“Israel\, Forst\, and the Patriarch: On Tolerance\, Deism\, and Radicalism.”
UID:20260606T202523Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm
TZID:Australia/Melbourne
LOCATION:250 Victoria Parade\, Melbourne\, Australia
DESCRIPTION:<p>Abstract</p>\n<p>One interesting feature of returning scholarly interest in the enlightenment in the last generation is that\, in several leading accounts\, the work of Voltaire--usually considered absolutely central to the French and European movement--holds a decidedly ambivalent place.&nbsp\; For Jonathan Israel\, Voltaire would lead a "moderate" enlightenment\, deistic (not atheistic)\, liberal and monarchical (not democratic)\, sceptical and empirical (not rationalist and monistic)&nbsp\;that had become institutionally accepted by the 1740s.&nbsp\; For Rainer Forst\, Voltaire' famous advocacy of tolerance\, including his most radical\, influential works of the 1760s and 1770s do not introduce new arguments for toleration\; and worse than this\, the&nbsp\;author's commitment to a post-Newtonian deism would supposedly prevent him from extending tolerance to atheists\, and so regrounding metaphysics in "la morale"\, as Voltaire would sometimes advertise.&nbsp\; This paper will critically consider Israel and Forst's presentations of "the patriarch"\, suggesting that Voltaire was far more radical than Israel (and following him\, Blum) contend\, and that his own&nbsp\;deism did not limit\, but ground\, Voltaire's radical defence of tolerance\, especially after the Calas affair.</p>
ORGANIZER:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR