Blumenberg and The Modernity Problem (Pippin)

Blumenberg and the Modernity Problem Author(s): Robert B. Pippin Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 40, No.
3 (Mar., 1987), pp. 535-557 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20128488 . Accessed: 27/05/2013 17:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 181.112.216.98 on Mon, 27 May 2013 17:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CRITICAL STUDY
BLUMENBERG AND THE MODERNITY PROBLEM

ROBERT B. PIPPIN
C'est curieux comme le point de vue diff?re, fruit du crime ou de la l?gitimit?. suivant qu'on Andr? est le
Gide1
J.
here
IS A GREAT
and
confusing
irony
in what Western
many
regard
as tra half
the culmination dition, of the nineteenth suddenly
the culmination
of the post-Enlightenment of "modernity." century, surprisingly the
Sometime
European in the latter
seemed
self-satisfied, unjustifiably or of a premodern, consciousness gious or of an ancient of Being. forgetting "modern" to have fulfilling composer, of a great
new rather the radically story goes, "outdated" because old, self-deceived, an expression of an older, reli "really" will to power, primitive In such a context, to be truly of or side the even
to be "modernist," and the irony) was (here the confusion seen modernity to its conclusion and to find it incapable its promise or thinker, historical of a new one could across beginning. stand resolutely from which As painter, on the could or poet, other now see
or Augustine of say, and Bacon, and Descartes, continuity of the option the historical and could they all represent, collapse to the whole say goodbye territory. In the long aftermath of such modernist the about suspicions still dominant "official" Enlightenment culture, the very title of the
abyss, Socrates
one
recently
invitation Blumenberg,
translated
book by Hans
Blumenberg
is a bluntly direct
For Age. at the stake
to controversy?The when Giordano
of the Modern Legitimacy to burn condemned Bruno,
was from Les Faux?Monnayeurs the epigram to quotation 1966 of Die version der Neuzeit not does Blumenberg's Legitimit?t (and All quotations cited in the text are from appear inWallace's translation). Robert N. Wallace's translation of Hans Blumenberg's The Legitimacy of The Modem of Technology Institute Age (Cambridge: Massachusetts Press, 1983).
Review Metaphysics of Metaphysics 40 (March 1987): 535-557. Copyright ? 1987 by the Review of
1 This
536
in 1600, defiantly
last chance heroic that, the Incarnation, "The thought. modernity the other menberg at redemption, and historically and Nolan" the the heroic decisive,
ROBERT B. PIPPIN turned his face from a crucifix offered him as a

should be seen as just gesture a rejection of the reality of a decisively threshold new that form of
separates on Bruno his from (and counterpart pre-modernity a of Cusa). The new, for Blu side of such line, Nicolas more is new, not belated, and what's heretical still in our from better than the old. world, post-Heideggerean a in of modernity is, "legitimate." simple word, from and wrote others The
of expression cross a did real
post-Nietzschean, "self-assertion"
When
such or spirited indirectly has
his book first appeared

responses criticized L?with, in it, that for
it provoked so much debate, and

Gadamer, Blumenberg directly an altered and
expanded
Wallace ogy Press
second edition
translated Studies series
(1976), and it is this version

the Massachusetts Institute German in Contemporary moves creates natural from a kind audience,
that Robert
of Technol Thought.
Social
Much of the book still supports the weight

exchange, with his for which or Europe. of modern but once Blumenberg he almost opponents, there He is no clear not only wants
of such a heavy academic

the details of issue of his dispute and argument in America
whether
(already he wants Ideengeschichte), This latter he uses. gitimation speculative" philosophy philosophy of history,
science
to legitimate of the heroes the motives a task beyond of standard the scope to define and defend the criterion of le
an "anti leads him to propose goal an of history that is, nevertheless, ambitious one no with clear although again precedents.
At his most
ambitious:
from the idea that there is a We are going to have to free ourselves that throughout and with firm canon of 'the great questions' history an unchanging and motivated urgency have occupied human curiosity to world and self-interpretation, the pretension (p. 65) If this pendent serlian claim way, is correct, and, a priori, either as it seems to imply, there is no inde
or naturalistically,
or pragmatically,
or through a methodological
or Heideggerean us not variety)
phenomenology
to determine
(of a Hegelian,
which questions
Hus
must
be asked and so which are "legitimate,"

to show answered convince
then it falls to Blumenberg
one that needs to be becomes only how a question should that need but also how and why in some epoch, a criterion us that the question that seems is legitimate,
BLUMENBERG ON MODERNITY
to imply far more than historical urgency. These are the two
537
issues
Iwant to discuss
narrative, and
in the following, Blumenberg's

more philosophic
sweeping historical
strategy."
his much
"legitimation
I shall argue that, for all of its value in challenging much modernist
dogma, Blumenberg's To make such of his he wants historical to say Strauss book, now a case famous does not succeed. justly project a good deal to review it will be necessary since much the of for what itself, proof And when one does begin to digest Blu can look
narrative
is in the details.
these details, particularly

Gadamer, menberg's for all
in the intimidating
even Nietzsche and its six hundred
context of L?with and

and Heidegger, seventy pages,
and Arendt,
modest. deceptively His approach to defending mitted looks academic
to the "problem" the progressive narrow
while of modernity, nature of the modern with such
clearly
com
and
compared and his
colleagues.
enterprise, His
focus is for the most part on the late Scholastic

philosophic-scientific that demonstration were tradition the very if not goal particular autonomous there one questions
and early modern

throughout during this a asked
remains
new, period were "legitimate." Again, though, and implied by such an approach the modern historical, sisting intellectual tradition
even
and that they questions, a larger dimension is always often discussed i.e., explicitly;
the firm rejection of any "holism" that would

in some or ontological) that the question
engulf the origins of

(either social, or
larger
is quite in origin. Blumenberg clearly or of the modern of the significance meaning or progress, nature, rationality, context limited than "dialogic"
of knowledge, point of view, whether a more can only be asked in much There is often assumed. are, his only only as a result such questions, his argument) these kinds
to show, tries approach always in of questions this context asked being (and these of those, earlier), these difficulties encountered within and only likes possible of Horkheimer these Or, (I infer from responses.2 were wrong and Adorno to
the
look for the "dialectic" Enlightenment
of Enlightenment within the concept of rationality; they could not have possibly understood
2 was pictured Cf. "In a cartoon by Jean Effel in L'Express, DeGaulle 'Gentlemen! Now will you please opening a press conference with the words, to my answers!' give me the questions Something along those lines would serve to describe the procedure that would have to be employed in inter the logic of a historical to the ones preceding it" preting epoch in relation p. 379.
538
that concept without
veloped.3 In sum,
ROBERT B. PIPPIN the details of the dialogue out of which

attack on perennialist, intellectual the "great speculative revolution
it de
phi
Blumenberg's does not defend
losophies
mation comparing
of history
it to other
obligates
attempts an a-historical and his
him to defend a criterion

the modern to answer test
of legiti
by
that
applying by simply and premodernity), plies an interpretation
isolation
of rationality of the scientific tradition that
questions" (or to modernity revolution insists on im iden
of the modern
at stake the particular of opposition" in each sphere "dialogue tifying or a plurality in modernity, and resists such of reducing collapsing no set of great questions There is that spans all of history, questions. Geist or totality within which modern and there is no modern science is a subsidiary phenomenon. Or summed up more simply, and much of
Blumenberg's
able
legitimation
of modernity
will come down to his being

"modernity,"
to justify his own notions of "legitimation" even if often that are challenging notions elusive. Of equately course, without these more attention Iwant four "The issues systematic to Blumenberg's on the most study, parts of his cannot
lowing sections in each of the larization," Theoretical
to focus
be pursued ad In the fol analysis. controversial components I will "Secu designate "The Liberation of
parts Christian
Curiosity,"
and
Contradiction," "The Epochality
of Modernity."
I Secularization. its own theory, owes The entire in a way nicely to a specific consistent 1962 with
book, genesis
its own
"dialogue"
with Karl L?with concerning

3
the origin and significance
of the mod
It is this aspect of Blumenberg's de that, if successfully approach some what of Richard would Rorty has recently been fended, help support intellectual saying about how we ought to read the story of the modern "Those of tradition. Rorty has gone so far as to write about Blumenberg, us who agree with Nietzsche and Heidegger that the philosophical tradition that the arts and the is pretty well played out, with Carlyle and Foucault and with Marxists that we should sciences have not been unmixed blessings, not believe what the lying capitalist press tells us about the modern world, but whose hopes are still those of Mill, now have a champion." highest London Review (16 June-6 July 1983) p. 3. of Books
ern more idea of "progress," concerning specifically and that such is infinite tion that there progress of human history. not At the heart of that the modern progress dispute
539
no is the is the
"meaning"
question of whether
respects progressive,
the modern belief that history

static, cyclical or chaotic,
is in all decisive
is a "seculariza
tion" of Christian eschatology; whether the centrality of the modern belief that present effort will become one day "redeemed" by future
success a version doctrines menberg progress practices themes. could of of only come the linear Incarnation as that meaning and centrality of the required interpretation history by as Blu and Last Moreover, Judgment. out throughout this section, the problem of to acquire
rightly is only often From
points one example of a large array of modern views and to attributed the secularization of Christian casually Western Civilization one can hear to sociology seminars, and authoritatively frequently success is a secularization of Ref courses, and salvation, self-denial that and the modern the ethics
to intellectual that the
chit-chat,
ormation work ethic
capitalist doctrines
on emphasis of predestination
is a secularization
of Christian
that modern, self-disclosive literature of saintliness, that the modern confessional version of pietistic, literature, quest a is at secure sal for epistemological secularized attempt certainty a view of is that the modern secularization vation, political equality of Christian hears are not that equality many before God. Or, in a different context, one of modern notions of political aspects authority from modern of contract, and right, principles as secular be regarded versions of divine author of a Communist millenium that rep science
is a secularized
derivable and must
freedom
Judgment, perhaps all this represents, of course, And, religion. a quite at first glance, natural much of modernity. of explanation us few "sacred" We do see around and much things, yet "devoutly" us sources toward of belief when believed, vestigial religious pointing we realize that the modern tradition has not produced philosophical itself is simply "our" remotely resembling anything of the modern Moreover, project. founding, a complete to the suspension connections a universal the Cartesian of all prior with "foundation" for much of modernity's myth belief and an autoch
notions ity, or even that Marxist a secularization resent of the Last
thonous beginning,
pointing myth, inevitable.
is so extreme that historicist

premodern
debunkings
religiosity,
of this
were
540
But progress allow ularization author focuses argument Blumenberg's and on L?with's secularization a very theme for whom one wide range within a good thesis.4
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
deal This on the focus the he issue does large selects is a secular of not sec an
him
which
Concentrating that a modern demonstrating
itself.
to pursue on L?with notion
is, ipso facto, of modernity's aspect self-understanding are several secularization theorists for whom There that not way the case the obvious (Hegel being example). of Blumenberg's he does approach,
ized Christian
to "de-legitimate"
it, to show that is a self-delusion. is decidedly in a Nevertheless, manage to say a that
typical
with L?with (and later number of things in his Auseinandersetzung von in this section, with Weizs?cker, Carl Schmitt and others), that
are clearly intended to address the is simple. He presents not have provided the basis could ogy simply it is incorrect that and he argues progress, argument that notions issue. His general that Christian evidence for modern in general particular eschatol notions to suggest of
a grow of history somehow "entered" eschatological in that con and were transformed exogenously ingly secular world of Secularization of Eschatology, Seculariza "Instead text. Rather tion by Eschatology"; or, notion the eschatological salvation internal from view secularized itself.
In support of the former, he argues for disanalogy

the idea eschatological of progress future of an without,
by pointing
whereas
to
the
to the
with
and the ories; of the transfer the makes ends up secular
generation; required eschatology not the hope of progress the fear or foreboding, a not of "infinite could have been notion progress" divine attribute infinite that of of an with history infinity or even task more "divine" In support eschatology It was but to human indefinite history, historical not since task
looks
notion
a reconciliation not form out rendering of
difficult, an occasion of the
it easier; for a de claim, he
pressing points
that New
resignation. Testament
latter itself
is not
translatable
into any concept of history since its true impact is to devalue history
completely idence that in favor Christ of salvation. was not returning only with soon anytime the growing that a new ev view
4 introduction and his article Cf. Wallace's Secu "Progress, helpful The L?with/Blumenberg larization and Modernity: debate," New German in a moment, I do not agree As will be apparent Critique 22 (1981): 63-79. has answered with Wallace that Blumenberg all of L?with's criticisms. 15 (1968): Cf. L?with's review of Blumenberg, Rundschau Philosophische 195-201.
BLUMENBERG ON MODERNITY of the world

Christian
541 had to develop

under Blumenberg the pressure
and human history

and that
(internal
means of
to the
tradition), ing that the eschatological view, fulfilled "secularized" prophecy, to reconcile within that tradition a fallen What world.
is what
by claim its own un was made of
that an attempt itself, man to the continued
existence
is surprising, though, I of the book, is that Blumenberg what is at stake in this critique disanalogies views should that just between cause
about
all of the arguments makes clear After
in Part exactly the
only rarely of secularization.
all,
the eschatological and modern progressive no great concern to L?with. He is not claiming the modern of progress notion is Christian but eschatology, that no explanation the idea of progress of why became such a one in Western intellectual on a Christian
can dispense a with history as a whole that human assumption history some redeeming must mere to have it. The fact of progress point or physics in astronomy to explain is insufficient that assumption; powerful reliance
it is hardly a perennial
have it), and so must Christian tradition. schean
human presupposition
be due somehow with
(the Greeks did not
L?with, assume does often that pointing agenda, breezily Christian to "horizon" is necessary enough delegitimate, the claim that the modern belief in progress self-deceived, rational, tique really goes to the core of what rather like marginal qualifications. More the when surprisingly, agrees all his with and therewith but not much L?with
Now
to a lingering effect of the his own Greek and Nietz out expose this as
modern
is wholly of Blumenberg's cri wants to say; they seem
enough, Blumenberg others claim. For of progress of sorts as the of the one,
criticism,
are expressed issues carefully a good deal of what L?with and he agrees that the modern view as a whole is an is a remnant even inappropriate, its parentage to modernity is no secularization of a pre of a territory that the Chris
"significance"
illegitimate itself. He modern
premodern one that
of history and tradition, trace
cannot
argues,
content, not resist
that there though, a just "re-occupation" to invade
tian tradition had mapped

could trying
out, and that modernity

in a new way.
("tragically")
to decline to age found it impossible Thus, as we know, the modern answer questions about the totality of history. To that extent the of history is an attempt a medieval to answer philosophy question with the means to a post-medieval available In this process, the age.
542
is driven to a level of generality idea of progress and objectively circumscribed regionally (pp. 48-49)
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
that overextends its limited range as an
original, assertion, Given be a stake
a reader might what could wonder this, however, versus in "secularization" models, "re-occupation"
possibly or just
what
inmodernity
is being "legitimated"
is, it is admitted, turns real on what issue
if so much of the territory

not its own. But again,
modernity since or a very
"re-occupies" deal The
this problem exemplifies much of what

great issues. semantic has
is so interesting
seem to be little The to do, nature
in this book,
such microscopic I think, with of, and moti more at a is much
L?with, vation stake
or von Weizs?cker for, conceptual for Blumenberg. internal how the
or Schmitt. change As noted within
a tradition
completely that shows possible
narrative "assertions" to the deep,
he earlier, of one decisive of the modern contradictory
is out change, epoch problems
to construct a narrative were the only created
responses
by
the Christian intellectual tradition, and he is out to assert (mostly to imply) that his approach is the only way that questions about
continuity, looking account formal at or paradigms, can things" own or legitimation, or even just "our way of be posed. this sense, (In recalling Hegel's or "external," of the possibility denial of a priori, and critiques, or narrative one could call Blumenberg's of "epochal"
of his
epistemologies an internal narrative
to me that to some expla It seems change.) it impossible to answer of why "the modern nation age found ques or what means of history," tions about the totality Blumenberg by of certain inherited and why the "non-negotiability" he questions,
phenomenology this will commit him
thinks the intellectual tradition can be isolated in an almost pristine independence. But for the moment, his task is to show the Christian
tradition prelude here a variety generated to a modern "solution." itself of hopeless dilemmas, all as a
The Christian Contradiction.

is as fascinating as
The story Blumenberg

to summarize,
has to tell
sum
it is difficult
or rather
marize
whole metic
adequately.
theory claim:
He begins
the section himself

concise, is the
by stating
his
in a wonderfully "The modern age achievements
her although intriguingly of second Gnosti overcoming
cism" (p. 126). What

of the great
could this possibly mean?

of the book to make
Indeed, it is one
this bizarre thesis
quite plausible
though the extremely detailed evidence for the claim
cannot into be summarized two parts. First, challenging it is more tradition difficult the Blumenberg heresy, consistent than here. Roughly, Gnosticism the argument as
543
can be divided
most Christianity's for all of its own problems, because, primarily tenets of the early Christian with essential treats officialdom. God's and absolute others Given the enormously as creator with theo
"nonheretical"
of reconciling problem of evil, Marcion existence
power an enviable enjoyed
retical advantage
for the evil of viously, in order
by arguing
to reconcile
that God simply was not responsible

world; God the the demiurge creator omnipotent "bad" was. with Ob God
the material
the Redeemer (with a God who "needed" to redeem the world he had himself omnipotently erected), official Christianity had to hold
on to the notion of God of evil. explanation and his "first" overcoming or the demiurgos responsible and "supreme," enormous the Hence of Gnosticism for evil and come up with an alternate of Augustine not God his freedom. importance by making this through absolute to grow
man,
But, as Blumenberg
price of continuing and omnipotence,
tells it, this was a resolution bought at the high

to hold to the notion notion of God's that came an explosive sovereignty more and
more unstable
especially "divine" of divine and
as it worked
the
its way
of
through the Middle Ages;

this notion of omnipotence
this
and
because
correlate
human evil is the beginning

order in the world.
of the disappearance
When the
of the idea of any
any comes to be regarded
of the notion implications are worked to their logical conclusion, through omnipotence or plan or point to the world coherence claim for a rational as an unacceptable limitation on God's power,
then this Ordnungschwund

modern made him "self-assertion." for the first time
has prepared
("The destruction a creatively active
the possibility
of trust being, freed
for the
him from
in the world
a disastrous
This issues are
lulling of his activity"

raises several the most important,
[p. 139]).
account
of the scholarly questions. Many to discuss and the most difficult
briefly. Did the legacy of the Gnostic challenge "live on" within the Christian intellectual tradition in as dominating and infecting a
as Blumenberg ments of the notion way Did suggests? of an omnipotent of God and the God ever play accelerating as decisive require a role in
the destruction
nalism, the
of the possibility
of teleology,
the
the growth of nomi

character of
"hiddenness"
"abandoned"
544 the world?

modern assertion"? ence, relation and
ROBERT B. PIPPIN Did all of this contribute

of the world much of this a kind Many under How how much of issues?
decisively
the banner
to the origin of the

of human historical of the interpretive "self influ logical issues
"retrieval"
is a story of actual of "ideal" phenomenology speculative
of the more
are so compressed
on them.
that it would be difficult to engage Blumenberg
Is he portraying the origin of the modern directly concept as mere in to of nature motion, material, (matter eventually Stoff, or a as to be controlled tied such theological "mastered") tradition, that the notion represents, or can only be understood as a "re-oc
cupation" of, a theologically defined territory is located at the dead end of that tradition)?
most interesting, though undiscussed issues
(even if that territory I find this one of the

in the book. There are
hints
of how Blumenberg
argument that
would
respond
in his
brief
use
of
Nietzsche's
the modern
scientific
enterprise
could
not free itself from its Christian, (See pp. 139-43.)

But, question assuming in keeping with that can be asked scholarly of the decisive his general (of a Cartesian its the here
especially teleological assumptions.

above, developed is whether Blumenberg's contribute the central
context
account? to an under
standing he can defend the epochs
plausibility?can of the modern origins claim that there or Kuhnean thematic.
point is neither
of view, whether a "gap" between kind), this nor a
or Foucaultean To advance second
repetition an intriguing he adopts in the strategy section. He tries to show the importance the issue of why problematic by raising world-view we now associate with
of the Christian
large claim, claim of this major of this Christian-Gnostic and goals, to arise prior
the motivation, did not modernity
the Christian
have arisen,
project;
indeed, when
it might
seem most
likely to
as a consequence atomism and, and was
of Epicurus's
atomism.5
What
mocritean
he tries to show is how very different
the revival of De
of Epicurus absolutism, tra
and Lucretius, voluntarism,
the context in, on the one hand, on the other, in the context of divine uncertainty that the
the world's
theological
5 in a much more focused example of Blumenberg's interested Readers Welt (Frank method should consult his Die Genesis der Kopemikanischen also tries to show how Coper furt: Suhrkamp, 1975). There Blumenberg and illusions, nicus did not simply revolt against a tradition full of mistakes itself created the "possibility" of Copernicus but that that tradition (and as opposed so can explain the impact of Copernicus to, say, Aristarchus).
dition had created. Without the latter context, Epicurus man's could,
545
in
to "neutralize" to attempt to relation "afford" effect, simply was a nature His view that of the cosmos. would goal legitimate to nature, of indifference the stoic ataraxia. This the possibility a was if that mechanistic atomism that assumed correct, clearly would that be all nature or make to promote be required reasonable "neutralizable" enough intellectually unthreatening to "exclude to do was all Epicurus needed uncertainties," that would was certainties" (p. 182). However in, for example, (as well far more Descartes'
so that not
"create
case, the historical

tional connection
developments
between the world
that had led to a lack of any ra

and God as the expec
tation that there ought to be) had rendered the insecurity, uncer
and potential of nature deceptiveness than in the Stoic context. Thus, threatening mean to of the world had something teriality tainty duction of the world which would and pressing for Descartes, the ma In fact, "Re a theoretical
different.
proposition, but rather
to pure materiality is not primarily a traditional to compete with have itself of
a postulate of reason assuring in the world?a of self-assertion" postulate
truth, its possibilities
(p. 205-10).
The theological
anything the explicit "indifferent" had master to protect was possible postulate to the himself
tradition
had in effect created

world, could and not, now,
the fear that

asserted to be afford
in the material of materiality practical from this fear
one who
consequences and
of that materiality; he He to had uncertainty.
in that context it is only that a mechanistic nature, and, or any potentially scientific view of the world, atomism, generates a research is for a continuing that there any motivation project, inquiry All into the details creates of material an unusual events. I think, welcome of picture It does not take his foun value, and many grounds he argues of this
especially early modernity, dationalist metaphysical of Descartes' theoretical
but, of Descartes. at face
project claims
in a practical
intention; the surface
that that intention, understood

gitimation for such ture.6 of Descartes'
in its historical
rather than
context,
is the le
candidates
project, a foundation, the cogito-clear and distinct struc ideas-God It would here to compare be interesting account Blumenberg's
6 and theoretical the practical issues are not inconsistent, but Clearly, the important issue is that of priority, on the and given some decision of the Cartesian texts. issue, how one reads the totality
546
with of Leo a similar Strauss. emphasis
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
on the practical of modernity?that origins the issues are in some cases complicated Although in Strauss and Straussean of esotericism, interpre intention for which post is often a kind of political scientism, or first of any philosophy or otiose. However, the origin and insistence suf on and for
by the problem that practical tations, a "will" kind often, to mastery wholly the is either within
metaphysics facto, a Trojan des anciens
"quarelle
horse, et des modernes,"
of that "will" is explained

antiquity, ficient condition as if the
by Strausseans
of antiquity Blumenberg's as more Ages that
just by contrast with

is the necessary forceful than a mere
rejection of this "will."
of the Middle the importance so on the intellectual problematic a return and blocked modernity to that interpretation. for all to attribute
generated to antiquity, is an
middle, the motivation
important
contrast
However, this section
its value, Blumenberg's enormous power and more resulting than
and
approach influence within
continues to the the as com intel if he
in
contradictions, plications, lectual perhaps tradition, and voluntarism contribute
solutions it can bear.
It's not
is
simply trying to argue that the contradictions
of divine absolutism
to motivation something It is the only source of motivation in a different view nature way. a question comes to credit.7 Why to be a question to want he appears or most a good needs have that needs may answering, answering, deal seems social, a role. to do with strikingly political One does the questions odd to suggest not that that were asked "before" of other factors it; but historical, do not play a sociologist archaeolo it a variety
to the modern
or even
personal, psychological to be a crude have reductionist, that the
a Nietzschean of knowledge, genealogist, or to be at least sceptical whatever, gist, tions" and "answers" can account for
a Foucaultean
so much
of "ques interplay of the motivation
that went
aspects the
into the founding of modernity.

court culture, will Bildung
Surely the problematic

(to refer have to Hegel's role account
of medieval
of the origin of modern Geist), both social and political,

influence of personal and genius, some
as well as
to play. It
7 cf. his explanation of Ockham's nominalism Among many examples, or his argument that of Heidegger, criticism (p. 188-89), his subsequent can be explained to the in history much of what by attention happens and not to any hidden human beings ask and try to answer, "questions" agenda (pp. 191-92).
has to know how to put such pieces been difficult always can even to be "put together"), whether and ought they (or account to me it seems that Hegel's least on this issue, Geist" a full in his Phenomenology be is more on the
547
together but, at of "sich track
entfremdte towards But Given means
right
explanation. this line would pursuing is often
the way
to an unwieldly metaphysical in time, "necessary" itself "cosmic revealing spirit" towards wisdom, and the destruction torical march
Hegel to be committed
a major digression to pursue his interpreted,
indeed.
approach with apparatus
in a his stages of difference and
individuality within
a "closed"
identity
theory.
This
become
theological
and metaphysical reading voice and so Hegel's again Blumenberg's than
of Hegel has recently is even less often heard However, showing
popular in contexts like his relevance
it might.
baggage) is quite another story. (without the metaphysical The Liberation of Theoretical Curiosity. This section, called the is the longest in the book and "Trial" of curiosity by Blumenberg,
ranges Feuerbach how, within over to Voltaire, and Epicurus from Socrates Kant, figures In this next and Freud. the issue is stage of the story, context detailed the prepared theoretical above, modern understand, thing in a way to be and legitimate itself. indeed Why intently,
came to define, curiosity a worthwhile did it become almost tions
not curious assump obsessively of knowledge? If the paradoxes of divine about the "value" so uncertain and voluntarism rendered the world absolutism and so "absconditus" as to create a pressure and explanation then how did the modern for
"curious," tied to traditional
God
that "faith" alone could not handle, security come to relieve of curiosity notion that pressure? And again, Blumenberg's narrative has a Proto-Hegelian, dialectical, ring for destruction the potential is to say to it: "In
that
the perfection of Scholasticism, is already latent" In this case (p. 336).
the perfection/destruction
tempts argue more faction this to argue against for an unrestricted more
dialectic
"economy" curiosity comprehensive
involves how the history of at

of theoretical in favor goal curiosity, i.e., to of a higher good or a than curiosity's satis The for argument accounts. First, our knowledge,
important, could achieve,
progression he denies the claim sense
contradicted itself. finally a dual denial involves of alternate that the motivation originates have historically for scientific in "natural" made
of its significance, Science may necessity.
a survival necessity, itself indispensable
548
but that survival, and is no explanation for of modern curiosity. of fact is no argument specific such for and
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
its natural necessity does
of the Moreover, from
origin a naturalistic
self-understanding pragmatism it would make
no justice to the original promise of those who pleaded for the lib
eration better, denies Blumenberg Secondly, just "possible." an for all knowl "desire" of any postulation eternal, comprehensive natural that mathematics, science, incorporates philosophy, edge desire was It was not the case that such a natural art, etc. religion, curiosity not happier, external restraints: men
arbitrarily suppressed against these chains

"renaissance"
by the Middle Ages, constantly struggling until finally freed in the of superstition
to know and human beings wanted (cf. p. 233). What more to know than it were much always specific they wanted why no of the to the and motivation is done and significance that; justice off as superstition, if almost all of it is written medieval enterprise ignorance, and faulty argument. account is a fine example he of what an to that an epoch was the questions struggling an are behind swer. it is not clear Sometimes questions just what a case it and in this takes great Blumenberg enterprise, "epochal" alternative of space and detail to sketch would the context have had within which He the pro of modern to stand.
Blumenberg's for calls looking
deal
begins curiosity too I deuteros much of Socrates' far think, pious, much, by making of from the natural "second famous his away philosophy sailing" For Blumenberg, this "the human towards things." Anaxagorous, the value of the traditional argument against independent begins ponents theoretical for practical cism, dition, goals. curiosity curiosity ends. and He the simultaneous sees this argument assertion of a higher through Christian to all value Stoi tra other extending of the and much of salvation more
scepticism, given
its emphasis
Augustinianism on might even modern
the
Blumenberg
priority have made Augustinian,
of the case Heidegger.
against There is
by the greatest
much in this story that is valuable, and much in the tensions it makes for itself that contribute persuasively to what Blumenberg
wants than ways of to claim anywhere that raise For example, about else modern in the curiosity, book, much of questions. so abstractly in favor perspective but that there is also, here more in is forced together
a number to speak
about
Socrates'
"rejection"
"natural"
quickly
philosophy a crude Ciceronean
of human
too adopts pragmata It could, I think, (cf. p. 248).
be more easily
549
but challenged ing that their
into nature did not reject that Socrates argued inquiry notion of aitia, claim of the naturalist the sufficiency were not accounts and re simply wrong, incomplete,
a completion in speculative it could Moreover, philosophy. quired so turn not that did much Socrates also be more away argued easily as to argue in favor of self-knowledge that from naturalistic inquiry that what is recovered in anamnesis is the issues are inseparable, not "the" self, or even the when soul, but the "natural." Socratic to note and so the really Ideas, notes this other side of the
Ironically, enterprise, it) he chooses
Blumenberg it is so prominent he could not fail (and indeed, to rest content his categories with and blame
the Platonic Socrates for violating them. "Still the foundation of the visible world in the world of Ideas, which remains [in the Platonic
Socrates] exclusion that his the cannot be easily of cosmological reconciled theory" have with (p. 254). the Socratic have pause the position's thought about of I would
this unreconcilability might of Socrates inclusion hasty
given Blumenberg in this narrative of
history
of theory. "economy" line in Blumenberg's This narrative with through the Socratic insistence priority on of the Epicurean
story
is clear
ginning edge, over
the priority indifference
Be enough. of self-knowl to nature, on such the
sceptical
and generally Hellenistic
priority of philosophic
insistence
therapy
to the early and late medieval theory, as God's to the secret of his own "right" restriction of the value of knowledge and the salvation, the material world
general suspicion risks the loss of one's on curiosity created
creation, to those relevant for things that the temptation to know soul, a highly the ancient problematic and in the and me self
things the Tertullian
dieval
restrictions
understanding.
This problem
is visible first in the heresy problem

speculation secondly, purposes investigation growing the date de for the tries
amount of theoretical (i.e., a certain to answer is necessary the heretics); on science, even for religious pendence Easter); physical to avoid and
is especially clear when Augustine to an unbeliever of eternal punishment possibility an ad hoc invocation of omnipotence.
(fixing tries to explain and
of Augustine's is itself very signif The inconsistency argumentation icant: on the one hand he can provide himself with a basis on which to deal with unbelievers and with their concept of the cosmos only by a point of holding to the regularity of the world and regarding making as appearances to us; due to regularities unknown supposed miracles on the other hand, he fears a lawfulness to which appeal can be made,
550
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
drive to the human which would give legitimacy inquisitive on rationality, leave behind it, on account of its insistence stricted acknowledged (p. 320) part of God's free will. and would only a re
This
is only
one must
of many be known
examples in order
of
the
ironic how
problem: insignificant
What, and
theoretically,
to know
potentially
Moreover, ical
dangerous
the very
is the need for theoretical

the
enlightenment?
of theoret an adequate itself.
knowledge much
to denigrate attempt to challenge the and in arguing
importance of possibility theoretical
knowledge
expend
of the fallen world makes

energy against
it that much more difficult to

activity
(Why bother
if reason is so impotent?)
reason had over against to its maximal pretension theology Raising the role in explaining result of reducing the unintended theology's of reason the competence and thus of preparing world to a minimum, as the organ of a new kind of science that would liberate itself from the tradition, (p. 347) But none of this pressure for the liberation The uninhibited but of curiosity meant lack of co growing
was that curiosity simply in the arguments herence possible criterion to Descartes to repeat the the "self-assertion"
self-justifying. an against of curiosity, of utility. utility was
made curiosity the modern epoch still
required its positive

in the
legitimation
of that assertion,
In contexts capable
and it found that
concept to Voltaire, scholastic
from Bacon ranging of safely invoked being
and speculation, reduced pretension tion
idle, metaphysical vain, against charges like a greatly seemed of what to offer a defense restric of the story to know. Here modernity's real power over with
for the sake of infinite of speculation pretension as Blumenberg one. nature is a familiar However,
proceeds To
his explanation
is much extent, edge he less seems
of how this legitimation

than in the secularization to regard any demand as itself a re-occupation
unfolded his own attitude

discussion. some that a pretension to knowl a of scholastic problematic,
clear
be justified
as ifmodernity could not forget its Socratic and Christian heritage (although it should have) and had to try to defend itself in their
terms which were inappropriate to the rest of modernity. That is,
Blumenberg seems to think that the epoch illegitimately committed itself to beliefs in the possible finality of the scientific enterprises,
towards progress are dangerously that goal, anachronistic. and its utility, When etc., exposed and as that these beliefs or exaggerated
double-edged,
551
science and this itself? they can seem to de-legitimate as in is demand anachronistic that the justification given unfairly, answer as will the how wondering modernity modernity question own As noted, the point of human about Blumenberg's history. position finished. He ation hard argued forming is not as clear here as in the former case, but he is also not
points
out how created kind
the
claims
of curiosity to see what for in this
their of limits as
own
for an enlightened, useful liber one was For it problems. thing, on unrestrained could be curiosity about per suggestions For the another, beings. were to be scientific activity and the exact could relation not but
context, on experiments which the
in Maupertuis's human of
live
within spheres useful became between become
results harder politics
progressingly morals,
to define,
problem. In short, set for Kant. the stage was discussion Blumenberg's was is brief, but quite it Kant who of Kant For, important. "brought to a close the 'trial' of theoretical that, as a systematic curiosity or revised was not to be superseded again" explication, (p. 433).
medicine, a serious
and metaphysics,
Presumably,
of the easy what status to agree
this means
of reason's in a broad That
that Kant's
"need"
(finally dualistic) understanding

is still ours, and while it is
to know
is involved.
such a claim, it is not clear exactly way with one of the in the Kantian is, great ambiguities and theoretical-scientific a satisfaction
project
the losophy with
is that the same book that looks to be a radical critique of

of both that promises speculative this limitation can phi (Befriedi is also
pretensions
gung) of our knowledge-desire

the promise that we
(Wissbegierde).
achieve
The book concludes
before the end of the present centuries have not century what many been able to accomplish, to secure for human reason complete namely, satisfaction in regard to that which its appetite for knowledge has itself at times, though hitherto in vain. occupied (A856/B884) Kant satisfied thus argues that both that a fundamental of that human satisfaction restricts the can be reason
and
the very that
pursuit
curiosity involves
in a self-critique pretensions; Augustinean gerous
or, Kant terms or
and completely has successfully inwardness
finally
for the whole
curiosity,
rejected either problem: and self-knowledge.
metaphysical old Socratic and dan Blumen
outward For
berg, part of the early modern
difficulty
in legitimating
theoretical
552
curiosity somewhat It was was its acceptance defenses apologetic who broke of those of common of this
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
alternatives?hence sense, utility, the early, practicality. and showed
Kant
the hold
assumption,
at all but instead that the motive that these are not the alternatives for the totality of curiosity itself, consistently pursued, by reaching its nec of objectively, of the conditions self-knowledge finally makes essary This entific tition its subject, made (p. 434) possible the unrestricted of sci pursuit was not in compe pursuit as a kind of self-knowledge be perceived as a meta actual
argument
that that knowledge by showing with but self-knowledge, required and could not condition legitimating threat to our moral Blumenberg again, To issues together.
physical Here arate
autonomy. seems to me associate
to run
a number
of sep
Augustinean
self-knowledge
with
quite
the formal self-knowledge

anachronistic, and misses
of the Transcendental
a crucial point in Kant's
Analytic
transfor
is
mation
tasks
there is little room left at all for the pos of the issue?that self-knowledge. Certainly the sibility of traditional humanistic
of empirical bear in as the "Anthropologie," psychology, to what resemblance little Socratic, or even moral was considered self so
examination important Moreover, metaphysical autonomous
Blumenberg pretensions and unrestricted
and Romantic traditions. Christian, Kant's of the himself notes, critique renders of science ironically completely our investigation na of phenomenal try to tie Kant's subject of Feuerbach and Freud sources of inquiry, only
later chapters ture. Although Blumenberg's the later investigations with of knowledge and psychological into the historical subjective later Kant far too quickly with he is associating
developments
loosely tied to his. Itmight be more accurately said that the Kantian its goal by neu legitimation of scientific curiosity accomplished tralizing the origin and practice of such inquiry, not by tying that self-knowledge (hence the great practice to a kind of self-limiting
as I have argued on the formality of the critical enterprise, of Feuerbachean and the later discussions Thus elsewhere).8 in the Kantian incoherent Freudian is, strictly speaking, subjects emphasis context, and would require a great deal more detail from the Fi
8 R. Pippin, Kant's 1982).
Theory
of Form
(New Haven:
Yale University
Press,
chtean wants avoided and Hegelian be drawn. of Kant before critique In sum, Blumenberg theoretical the
553
line Blumenberg that Kant has
could
is right
salvation, edge, this framework the two themes. Indeed, he avoided by even necting more the realms, the subjective decisively by "detaching" separating for knowledge from the human, and that "conditions" acting subject, more to his the world. is far contemporary legacy separation The Epochality of Modernity. The core of Blumenberg's case is
an opposition between or between and science
and self-knowl curiosity but he did not do so by con
given manent
own and imate
in Parts
II and III, in the story he tells about how the "im rigorism" (p. 465) of the Christian tradition provoked its
over scientific context. the of omnipotence and worldliness came to understand and legit curiosity a recapitulation IV is mainly Part and issue
self-destruction how modern itself in that He
reassertion. how Nicholas old," began created and failed. examines By
thesis his historical by examining recapitulates on the medieval side of the modern of Cusa, "thresh to see clearly the problems which that had tradition tried to solve them without account, Bruno he that threshold. He crossing he failed Then necessarily. those problems, but only
Blumenberg's how Giordorno
resolved
by rejecting
he reasserts
that tradition and being wholly modern.

this methodological claim by criticizing
Throughout,
again "histor
ical substantialism" the true epochality

epochality does mensurability. that (a) there change lasts (though avoids (I think
(p. 466) and any other view that would deny of modernity, and by again insisting that this
radical this novelty, discontinuity he discusses Kuhn point, conditions" questions" in the that even or and incom claims
not mean To make are he means or not
"reference-frames "common
span epochal an if different
swers); (b) that these questions

transformations they are perennial of any kind
have a kind of durability

content are of and eventually new
that out
thought as il
revolutions
perceived arise.
legitimate,
as not needing
to be answered);
for why
and (c) that Kuhn

paradigms
just
Note
explanations
how odd it is to hear Blumenberg,

that something analogous to Kant's
of all people, argue against Kuhn

"first analogy" is a necessary
condition for the possibility

asserts the permanence
of historical
explanation.
That principle
the heart
of substance
(cf. p. 466).
Of course,
of Blumenberg's
the Cusan's dieval world view
disagreement
to hold had
with Kuhn is the former's claim that

elements was not of the me an example
attempt
various together to fail, that his failure
554
of the problems any "research one that rendered that project project" continually incoherent.
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
encounters, but
The details of the story Blumenberg tells about this failure are intriguing, though I doubt that they will convince any Kuhnean that
were so devastating as to make theology the continuance of that tradition What is of more in impossible. is the way this last section and finally makes terest, though, nicely the dimensions of explicit methodological Blumenberg's challenging inconsistencies in academic picture and his of the modern point of view. As suggested earlier, the most
important elements of his project, his account of legitimation

isolation on view of scientific in this last clearly rationality and section,
itself,
as "die Neuzeit," are both a final comment. prompt
II
As indicated throughout, Blumenberg's intention is to isolate a specific historical dialogue: the way in which the demand for a
the need and right to inquire into "self-assertion," freely was resisted and His is arose, nature, prevailed. finally argument that this epochal event is not a revolutionary break with the as of premodern culture. That sumptions and is the criterion demand by virtue culture of which is what the the produced demand is "le certain
is a "better" resolution of various late scholastic gitimate," problems; a a new set of answers?so it does propose new that, yet it is break, in some the a respects, enterprise illegitimately "re-occupies" framework of assumptions that these very solutions will eventually invalidate. As demonstrated, this involves a somewhat tortuous
dialectic
challenging
(or occasionally,
aspect
a hedging of bets), but the philosophically

case is his insistence on the
of Blumenberg's in his
specificity of the issue of legitimation,

Somewhat Blumenberg tion" of the assessment made has ironically, produced attempt a book that since he
and so of progress.
to carry out this program, a "legitima is just as much is always that any claiming can and only be in terms
world, jwemodern of the progressive comparison
in specific such
of modernity qualities with preceding options,
of the criteria of that preceding

shown a legitimation for theoretical etc. But, curiosity, of course,
tradition.
the modern
Thus he claims to have

version progress with of independent in research, a specific
utility, self-knowledge, a legitimation that remains
quite
accusative. and those research this It is and historically can
555
legitimation program
to the pre-modern world, only be directed a context de facto of implies acceptance at those criteria. where the Moreover, points bound and astronomy with the assumptions to does begin physics of the prior epoch, because the new of the questions
of modern
where
discontinuous look wholly some old questions cannot be answers to other old questions entail
"answered" the rejection
(the "point" of history,

gears, changes to admit that legitimated demonstrable legitimates if that But the
the justification
of curiosity), Blumenberg
in effect, his re-occupation invokes and seems thesis, new cannot those discontinuous, elements be wholly to believe He appears in the same way. that the progress on so many in issues is this kind of case, what, specific
the rejection of such re-occupied "question-frameworks." is so then many of the most about interesting questions of modernity is to count to offer seem to be avoided.
legitimation of what and
This is just to suggest that Blumenberg

issue as a central, the suspicion and those and why,
leaves rather hazy the
or defining feature of modernity that he picks those phenomena
that fit his own theory of the internal self-destruction

tian, scholastic tradition that To tradition don't elements by do not the of the are marginalized I finally another way,
of the Chris
early modern
of Gnosticism." Of course, overcoming if it is, a has done deal towards that it is then Blumenberg great showing that problem. that it does overcome "legitimate," as for "legitimation" the claim is as puzzling Further, finally If the book had been called the claim about modernity. "The His torical to quarrel with what Blumenberg does here. prise," of Modern is matter. But "The Legitimacy With Age" quite another case is vulnerable to two that announced intention, Blumenberg's Appropriateness it would be hard of Some Elements of the Modern Enter
put all this itself is "the second
re-occupation theory. see why "modernity"
very different kinds of attack.

strange bedfellow, in the is involved Nietzsche) for claim
Someone
like Strauss
(or, to pick a
to know how much clearly want we are no After all, while legitimacy. would
where yet close to realizing, to thinking through to the end, what it means for the "scientific image" to be the dominant force in "official
culture," that whether we do know that there are several possible to be assessed that have (because centrality are vast to pursue them or not). These areas. other and many education, law, medicine, of implications we must decide issues in politics, In that context,
556
when the full implications of with late of the modern project
ROBERT B. PIPPIN
are considered, it
does not seem helpful

of one its resolution is talking and
to hear that modernity

scholastic contradictions encouraging
is legitimate
because
someone
a return
of course, (unless to a premodern,
theological
about issues, covered price
culture).
Blumenberg may demur that he's only talking

a narrow range of scientific restrict and philosophical the domain properly
legitimating but this would by these
unreasonably and would "issues," In more Straussian
of triviality.
them only at the "legitimate" of mod terms, a legitimation
ernity,
if successful, must
project, for some must
legitimate
demonstrate
the kind of life promised

that it is a good or worse
by
the modern
life, not just life is an
better than that implied by Nicolas

a demand anachronistic or that narrow oldest if the conversation
of Cusa.
Simply to assert that

of premodern issues, be raised in a except like one of the
about
a better
"re-occupation" by modernity it cannot issue can be discussed, dialogue, begins
historical specific in the new stories
to sound
someone Secondly, the theological accept
enterprise?positivism.9 want would like Hegel as a necessary tradition The
to know
how we
can
component of the not
in our
legitimation
motivation between of
of modernity
that tradition. and any
if we do not know the full story of the

story particular crisis does premodern tradition wants answers relation legitimate is itself, somehow, legit to tell that story by isolating be that defined the relation But of some at some question point in
anything imate. Blumenberg Predictably, of questions and the dialogue tween the ancient fruitless and it becomes early to look
modernity that unless
premodern
Christian for
traditions.
the motivation
in Blumenberg's notion of "sufficient points to another danger can only be a of modernity his claim that any assessment rationality," This it and the "ancient" and "modern" between options. comparison one can into either textbook lead using facile, categories easily approach or it can restrict one to the epoch in dealing with these epochal options, as historically to the way its "questions" have been made a appropriated, one might some In that be able of case, historically specific agenda. part that the historical to show, for example, the ones in terms of "Greeks," tradition intellectual whom the medieval began to define itself, are not the If that is so, Blumenberg's ancient the Greeks who might represent option. And one does not have to be a mem legitimation procedure will not work. that the ber in good standing of any ideology-critique camp to suspect or a Plato historical may represent Descartes, Hegel) only portion of, (or or distortion the ancient of, the Plato, say, who represents epoch.
9 This
question. can be how much that that another Blumenberg learned exhausts has done an ingenious I see no
557
job in showing reason to think about or Christian the
approach and historical significance ity, or the Enlightenment. his claim that the or the self-images inadequate much more bases
by doing various authority Hegel's
so, but
culture, to this issue, contribution great historical of individual agents, self-understanding can be shown to be historical of various cultures, various if we assume actions and events and that pro a common historical
important of Greek
questions
for explaining
can be explained have
ject in which
acknowledgment
individuals and societies

may been much
participate without
abused
explicit to
in later manifestations
(or by Hegel
speculation or Nietzsche's,
himself)
about
and may always be a dangerous

hands." But in Hegel's
invitation
or Marx's,
hands, or Heidegger's, or Gadamer's, or Freud's, the in us an recover to allow and of such does power assumption terpretive our own as a tremendous amount of render past culture intelligible our own "motivation." our own, as something that can illuminate At least about strategy than ourselves that can potentially tell us more of interpretation a set of questions. to answer that we failed these book does not engage large issues Blumenberg's given the claims about how he does make explicit one worry to make is enough there that, some and its intimidating scholarship,
"hidden
Of course, often. But
again,
to "legitimate" modernity, its many splendors despite and abuses
of those convinced by the book, particularly

of more
those frustrated by the
will take speculative approaches, ambiguities of modernity? of another familiar from it a justification phenomena and all other ages?willful myopia.
University
of California,
San Diego.

Blumenberg and The Modernity Problem (Pippin)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blumenberg and The Modernity Problem (Pippin)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blumenberg and The Modernity Problem (Pippin)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What are some of the criticisms raised against Blumenberg's views?

What are some of the criticisms raised against Blumenberg's views?

Blumenberg and the Modernity Problem Author(s): Robert B. Pippin Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 40, No.

BLUMENBERG AND THE MODERNITY PROBLEM

the culmination dition, of the nineteenth suddenly

of the post-Enlightenment of "modernity." century, surprisingly the

European in the latter

to controversy?The when Giordano

of the Modern Legitimacy to burn condemned Bruno,

ROBERT B. PIPPIN turned his face from a crucifix offered him as a

of expression cross a did real

his book first appeared

it provoked so much debate, and

(1976), and it is this version

Much of the book still supports the weight

of such a heavy academic

be asked and so which are "legitimate,"

then it falls to Blumenberg

in the following, Blumenberg's

these details, particularly

context of L?with and

modest. deceptively His approach to defending mitted looks academic

to the "problem" the progressive narrow

while of modernity, nature of the modern with such

compared and his

focus is for the most part on the late Scholastic

and early modern

the firm rejection of any "holism" that would

engulf the origins of

look for the "dialectic" Enlightenment

ROBERT B. PIPPIN the details of the dialogue out of which

Blumenberg's does not defend

him to defend a criterion

applying by simply and premodernity), plies an interpretation

of rationality of the scientific tradition that

questions" (or to modernity revolution insists on im iden

will come down to his being

lowing sections in each of the larization," Theoretical

Contradiction," "The Epochality

with Karl L?with concerning

the origin and significance

the modern belief that history

rightly is only often From

to intellectual that the

ormation work ethic

derivable and must

notions ity, or even that Marxist a secularization resent of the Last

is so extreme that historicist

Concentrating that a modern demonstrating

to pursue on L?with notion

it, to show that is a self-delusion. is decidedly in a Nevertheless, manage to say a that

In support of the former, he argues for disanalogy

and the ories; of the transfer the makes ends up secular

a reconciliation not form out rendering of

difficult, an occasion of the

it easier; for a de claim, he

BLUMENBERG ON MODERNITY of the world