Journal of the History of Philosophy

BOOK REVIEWS ~73 phrases of this could well serve to preface each of the three volumes, and Dillon's methodology is a model of how to conduct comparative studies of this sort. But since the one problem permeating all three volumes is how can we know a transcendent God, I should like to point to the clearest philosophical examination of it in "Utterance and Ineffability in Jewish Neoplatonism" by S. Katz. He distinguishes the literal negation-of-negations from the asymptotic but positive approximation to the fully transcendent. Finally he cites a humorous, incisive remark (characteristic of Jewish wisdom) on why so many sound minds are occupied by such a problem: "Pfui, I am not interested in a God that any Tom, Dick or Harry can understand!" (995). LUCAS SIORVANES Universityof London Tom Sorrell, editor. The Rise of Modern Philosophy: The Tension between the New and Traditional Philosophiesfrom Machiavelli to Leibniz. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Pp. viii + 352. Cloth, $69.oo. What characteristics make a philosopher or philosophical position "modern"? While it is easy to find numerous passages in seventeenth-century texts proclaiming a radical break from the past (particularly "Scholastic Aristotelianism"), it has proven to be extraordinarily difficult to determine what, if anything, these claims to modernity have in common. For that matter, it is also extremely difficult to clearly determine what, if anything, they all oppose. The Rise of Modern Philosophyis a collection of fifteen articles addressing this vexed issue of modernity. The text is divided into three sections. First there is a general section consisting of two articles, one on the importance of the revival of ancient scepticism for "modern philosophy," and another on the variety and importance of Aristotelian positions within the modern period. The second and longest section is devoted to nine articles on the question of modernity within the works of individual philosophers, including Bacon, Mersenne, Gassendi, Descartes, Malebranche, Leibniz and Locke. The third section offers four articles on the problem of modernity within seventeenth-century moral and political works. What are some 9f the more common ways of attempting to distinguish ancient, medieval and Renaissance thinkers from "moderns," and how do the articles in this text assess such demarcations? One suggested criterion is the presence or absence of traditional "substance metaphysics" and the explanatory framework associated with it. Such a framework is commonly considered to exemplify Aristotelian and Scholastic thought, and seems fundamentally opposed to modern approaches which allegedly eschew essences and formal causes. On the other hand, such a criterion of demarcation would compromise the "modernity" of Mersenne (93), Descartes (159), Leibniz (~5), and Spinoza. Another common criterion for demarcation would be a stress on the independence of the individual thinker as opposed to a more reverent attitude toward authority. That is, truth must be ascertained by an individual's assessment of the evidence for a ~74 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33: ~ JANUARY 199 5 claim, as opposed to relying upon the venerability of ancient opinions. In that case Descartes may come out as modern, but Bacon would not (88). Perhaps a more general distaste for scholasticism would succeed in separating the traditional categories "at the joint"? Unfortunately, the attitudes of the traditional "modern" philosophers toward scholasticism as wellas the attitude of seventeenth-century Aristotelians toward modern philosophy and science, were varied and complex (57-58, 2oo, 231 ). So, not even the nearly ubiquitous claim that the moderns and scholastics were locked in mortal combat in the seventeenth century will stand careful scrutiny. Perhaps the best perspective on "modernity" is that it represents a historically complex issue, and that such a label is "not good for every historical purpose" (l l). It would be a mistake, however, to interpret this collection of papers as being solely, or even primarily, devoted to tilting at traditional windmills. What I found most useful was the wide range of new scholarship represented. I suspect many readers will reconsider their interpretations of Bacon in light of Julian Martin's stress on the conservative royalist motivations behind The New Atlantis. Similarly, while Desmond Clarke and others have claimed this for some time, John Cottingham's essay on Descartes's "modernity " performs a valuable service in distinguishing...