Christian Thomasius claims for himself the label of ‘eclectic philosopher.’ This claim first regards the emancipation of reason from any other authority, which not only allows him to claim new juridical rights but also to determine philosophy as a wisdom-for-the-world. This claim is, however, narrowed by both the limits of scholastic knowledge and the undue generalizations Thomasius finds in it. The claim is intended to make room for belief, and for a faith purified of all philosophical-theological confusion, i.e., for a wisdom-outside-the-world. Despite being an anti-dogmatist and anti-syncretist, Thomasius’ eclectic claim never proved to be—contrary to a common statement—anti-systematic nor anti-religious.

The standard interpretation of Diderot’s article “Éclectisme” in the Encyclopédie emphasizes the idea that Diderot is setting out the program for modern philosophy, thereby making himself its illustrious representative and promoter. In this paper, I complement this interpretation by showing that “Éclectisme” also contains an influential reflection on continuity in the history of philosophy and, consequently, on what constitutes philosophical discourse itself, both methodologically and politically.

Jean Bernard Mérian is one of the main representatives of empiricism at the Academy of Berlin. This article seeks to show how Mérian articulates both his critique of systematic metaphysics, which is based on a synthetic method borrowed from mathematics, and his defence of a new philosophical ethos: an academic or eclectic spirit. I point out a relation of interdependence between terms like “empirical,” “academic” and “eclectic” in Mérian, and I examine how the eclectic approach to philosophy provides him with a method for comparing and critiquing the pretensions of philosophical systems, opening up the possibility of an eclectic conception of the history of philosophical debates.

In the Traité des systèmes, Condillac analyses a plurality of systematic metaphysical doctrines, specifically, those of Spinoza, Malebranche and Leibniz. Commentators have mainly interpreted this plurality as a way for Condillac to illustrate his criticisms and to raise doubts about the main contemporary systems while using the same criteria for interpretation. However, I note that his analytic tools differ according to which philosopher or philosophical system he analyses. This paper focuses on the criticism of Leibniz’s system, and aims to show that Condillac operated from subsequent reconstructions. In order to raise criticisms against the Leibnizian system, Condillac gave it an architectonic structure that is borrowed mainly from Wolff.

This article examines the relationship between blindness and the Enlightenment concept of the system, arguing that blindness is used as a weapon to discredit 17th-century metaphysics, as well as a tool through which thought can take shape or even systematize itself apart from dogmatism. Philosophers use blindness metaphorically, thus equating systematics within the obscurity of ignorance; yet, with Diderot, they also demonstrate that philosophy, for better or for worse, is literally an affair of blindness.

This paper focuses on the link between systems criticism and anti-mathematicism in the French-speaking philosophical literature of the mid-18th century. Moving from Condillac’s omissions to the exemplary cases of Diderot and Buffon—as well as considering Formey’s crucial remarks—I reconsider the complex relationship that the authors of the French Enlightenment have with the Newtonian model. Finally, I inquire into the fate awaiting both mathematics and systems in this context after 1750.

This paper is a study of the way D’Alembert envisioned error and the right to make mistakes (the verb ‘errer,’ in French, also means ‘to wander’) in science. By reading two texts (D’Alembert’s Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia, and Diderot’s Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature), I explain the epistemological issues of the debate between empiricism and rationalism, especially those involving the concepts of fact, hypothese, and system. It turns out that D’Alembert’s reflections on error, on the right to wander in science, and on the function of hypotheses stem directly from a great scientist Lady.

In the third Critique, Kant claims that beauty is the symbol of morality and that the consideration of this relation is a duty. This paper declares Kant’s argument to be twofold: firstly, experience of beauty strengthens our moral feeling. Secondly, in judging the beautiful, we assume some indeterminate purpose underlying nature, based on which we can conceive of nature as cooperative with our practical pursuit. Hence, for the sake of moral cultivation and moral motivation, it is our duty to regard beauty as the special symbol of morality.

In recent decades, speech act theorists began analyzing discourses in order to describe the logic that governs the use and understanding of language in the context of interlocutions. This paper is in the wake of those studies. It questions the fruitfulness of the notion of speech acts in literary pragmatics, analyzes some literary genres and proposes a discourse typology containing eight generic categories that reflect the possible links between factual and fictional discourses. In doing so, it offers a response to a question raised many years ago by a literary theorist that is directed to speech act theorists.