Paul-Henri Thiry (Baron) d’Holbach
Read the SEP entry on Holbach, per which I base the following:
Biography: This Frenchman (1723-1789) has been categorized as a materialist and atheist, and was known in his time for his “parties” (for want of a word, although they are described in terms of their guests who were famous intellectuals of all sorts). Despite the revolutionary character of many of his guests, his gatherings included the conservative too, who were presumably comfortable with Holbach’s philosophy since he did not flaunt it, and published those socially offensive tendencies anonymously.
A large proportion of Holbach’s writings are (apparently) about his atheist beliefs (e.g. why there is no god), and are (again: apparently) unoriginal.
Metaphysics/epistemology: Holbach’s conception of substance is easily compared with Locke, with him he was obviously familiar. He modifies Locke’s distinction of primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are understood to be those universally found in matter, and the opposite is true of secondary qualities, i.e. not found universally. An implication that follows from this categorization is a heterogeneous matter, although he offers no mechanism for the existence of secondary qualities in their corresponding subset of matter.
“The universe, that vast assemblage of everything that exists, presents only matter and motion: the whole offers to our contemplation nothing but an immense, uninterrupted succession of causes and effects“. [System of Nature, 15]
A particular advantage to holding matter as heterogenous is that it allows Holbach to explain a materialistic account of properties of mind, namely that properties such as the capacity for thought are just secondary properties belonging to the category of matter that is responsible for it.
Ethics: Holbach’s ethics is naturalistic and based on rules of psychology. These rules can be tied to two drives inherent in human beings: (1) the drive to self-preservation, and (2) the drive towards states of happiness. These can be simplified into a single rule, insofar as happiness requires existence (and hence preservation of the being).
Where the individual’s behaviour contradicts ethics, Holbach holds ignorance to be responsible. This is the Socratic approach, and says that although the person does desire self-preservation and happiness to the greatest degree, they may misunderstand the means towards these goals, and inadvertently neglect them through unethical action.
This implies that the study of ethics should include the study of this mode of ignorance, including the mechanism of its possibility and the means to its avoidance.
Religion is one cause of unhappiness and (implicitly, perhaps) unethical behaviour.
“Man lived unhappy, because he was told that God had condemned him to misery. He never entertained a wish of breaking his chains, as he was taught, that stupidity, that the renouncement of reason, mental debility, and spiritual debasement, were the means of obtaining eternal felicity“. [System of Nature, 349-350]
Political thought: Holbach’s political thought follows from his understanding of ethics, and is based around his conception of an ethnocracy, a term he invents to mean a state whose underpinning is the goal of the general welfare. Such a state (and I am unsure whether Holbach thinks that all states begin in the manner, or whether states may, for example, come into existence via coercion or violence intended to benefit the select) comes into existence via a sort of social contract, whose being depends on two stages:
The first stage involves an acknowledgement of mutual benefit (i.e. that people can benefit each other’s desire for preservation and happiness). Relating to this theme, Holbach writes that man is (or at least can be) the greatest asset or boon to man (although I would note the converse, that man may be the greatest threat and means of harm to man).
“Man is of all beings the most necessary to man“. [Syseme Social, 76]
The first stage may be described as social, and in the same way, the second may be described political. It involves the group contracting themselves in relation to political power, for example, a king or elected representatives.
It follows from Holbach’s conception of ethics and his explanation of the social contract that where a state fails its ethnocratic obligations then it is justified for the society (or at least its comprising individuals) to enact a revolution (i.e. to recreate an ethnocracy). The author the SEP articles notes that Holbach should not be perceived as an endorser of revolutions, and is more concerned to warn societies of the obligations they must necessarily meet. In this sense, revolution is seen as a threat lying over those who would pervert their society.
