Abstract

Through a careful reconstruction of Condorcet's highly fragmented historical thought I analyze the political implications of his philosophy of history. I argue that the specific historical tendency developed in Condorcet's philosophy of history links progress with collective self-interpretation rather than material productivity. I contend that Condorcet's philosophy of history does not represent a symbolic glorification of the domination of nature by reason. His philosophy of history does not purport to offer a science of futurology that can quantify the conquest of the external world by transforming the prediction of the future into an empirical matter. It is not a disguised sociology. Finally, the purpose of history does not consist in the glorification of the discrete individual's domination of the external world--posing as an accurate collective mirror of the heroic mastery and acquisition of nature by society. Rather the purpose of history lies in a form of self-understanding as a culture that occurs through the active collective participation in its creation. The latter can only be facilitated through the emancipation of the intellect. ;Condorcet's attempt to free the intellect entails a process of subversion. He tries to "redirect" political and cultural identity by subverting or "refashioning... intelligence." This fundamental alteration in thinking represents "a type of revolution in the mind," as he argues. Through a process of public instruction that reflects a re-conceptualization of the meanings, uses, and purpose of history, the individual's relationship to the "nation" is redefined. His/her political identity is displaced by a broader cultural consciousness. Condorcet liberates knowledge and the intellect through this process. ;His re-conceptualization of history functions to subvert traditional political and social institutions and the modes of thinking that underlie them in order to focus upon the open building of knowledge. Condorcet's philosophy of history is underlaid by an epistemology. In essence, the former is, in part, constructed to illuminate and support this theory of knowledge and its transformative political implications. The underlying purpose of knowledge itself is redefined. It is circumscribed by what I argue signifies the humanization of the subject--the self's recognition of its "sentient-rational" nature. It represents what I call a knowledge that humanizes. ;To view history as an expression of self-interpretation through which greater self-understanding is possible reflects a substantive philosophy of history. This view has not been acknowledged in Condorcet's work, in particular, or as a theme in Enlightenment historical thinking, in general. The re-conceptualization of the meaning, uses, and purpose of history pushes into prominence the introspective dimension of knowledge in which knowledge transforms the subject rather than knowledge being used to master and/or acquire an object external to the subject. The inward looking or introspective nature of this form of consciousness provides the foundation for a free society in which knowledge enhances rather than oppresses the human spirit