Routledge History of Philosophy Volume IV

80 RENAISSANCE PHILOSOPHY OUTSIDE ITALY
On the contrary, the sceptics, notably Simon Foucher (1644–97), were amongst
his keenest critics. Foucher presented himself, in Renaissance style, as an
apologist for the sceptics of the ancient Platonic Academy. His characteristic
mode of attack was to identify the underlying assumptions of the metaphysical
dogmatists (Descartes and Malebranche particularly) and then complain that
these had not been demonstrated. 54 He did believe that certain truths (e.g. the
existence of God) could be demonstrated but denied Descartes’s demonstration of
the existence of the material world. Foucher was an early critic of the distinction
between primary and secondary qualities. He played an important role in
showing how Cartesianism tended towards idealism. 55 Indirectly, through Bayle
and Berkeley, Foucher’s scepticism is linked with that of David Hume. 56
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is convenient to distinguish Renaissance from early modern philosophy. But,
in some respects, modern philosophy continued tendencies that already existed
beforehand. Humanism took philosophy out of the schoolroom and the cloister
and made it, to a degree unprecedented in the history of Christendom, a
layperson’s subject. Whereas previously Latin had been the language for
philosophy as for academic discourse generally, the development of printing and
a wider lay readership made translation into vernacular languages an increasingly
common practice. This in turn led, particularly in France, to the practice of
writing philosophical works in the vernacular. Amongst late-sixteenth-century
philosophers, Montaigne, Du Vair and Charron all wrote in French.
Another modern tendency already apparent in the late sixteenth century was to
treat philosophy as a subject independent of theology. This showed itself even in
the new scholasticism, a movement which originated amongst clergy. It is a
curious feature of the Catholic reformation that it promoted a more secular view
of philosophy. Grotius put it famously, if controversially, in his suggestion that
the obligations of natural law hold even ‘if we concede that there is no God’. In
this respect his view of natural law was no different from that of the Jesuit
Suarez, to whom he acknowledged a considerable debt. It seems clear that one
reason why Suarez and other Jesuits gave so much time to political theory was
that they wished to see a radical separation between the authority of a monarch
and the authority of the Church. Whereas the authority of a monarch was secular
and derived ultimately from the consent of the people, the Church and papal
authority was directly ordained by God.
The respect in which Renaissance philosophy is most obviously different from
that of modern philosophy is in its willingness to use arguments that rely upon
appeal to traditional authorities. Renaissance philosophers believed, or affected
to believe, that they were reviving the thought of the ancients. For some this
meant believing in an ancient wisdom that had been lost and needed to be
recovered. But ancient authorities could be found to disagree with one another.