Yes, Susan Neiman discusses evil within the context of the Enlightenment’s faith in reason and progress and the challenges that modernity has posed to these ideals. Her central argument, particularly in Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy, is that the problem of evil has not disappeared in modernity but has shifted its form and significance. Here’s how she situates evil in the “ruins” of Enlightenment faith:
1. The Enlightenment and the Promise of Reason and Progress
• Enlightenment Faith: Philosophers like Kant, Voltaire, and others championed reason, science, and human progress as tools for improving the world and alleviating suffering.
• Optimism about Evil: The Enlightenment framed evil as something that could be understood, mitigated, and eventually overcome through human effort and rationality.
• Natural Evil: Could be addressed through scientific understanding (e.g., preventing plagues, understanding earthquakes).
• Moral Evil: Could be reduced through education, ethical reasoning, and better governance.
2. The Lisbon Earthquake and the Enlightenment Crisis
• Neiman identifies the 1755 Lisbon earthquake as a defining event that shook Enlightenment optimism.
• Impact: The earthquake caused massive destruction and loss of life, raising questions about whether the world is governed by reason, divine justice, or blind chance.
• Voltaire’s Response: In Candide, Voltaire mocked the idea that we live in the “best of all possible worlds,” critiquing Leibniz’s theodicy and exposing the inadequacy of Enlightenment faith to explain such suffering.
This marked a transition in how evil was understood—not merely as a metaphysical or theological question but as a profound challenge to human reason and progress.
3. Modernity’s Fractured Relationship with Evil
In modernity, the problem of evil becomes more acute because:
• Rejection of Theodicy: As faith in divine providence waned, the responsibility for addressing evil shifted entirely to human beings.
• Disillusionment with Progress: Events like the Holocaust, world wars, and genocides shattered Enlightenment confidence that reason and progress could eliminate evil.
• Neiman emphasizes how the Holocaust represents a particularly modern form of evil: industrialized, bureaucratic, and systematic, carried out by individuals who appeared “ordinary” (e.g., Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil”).
4. The Ruins of Enlightenment Faith
Neiman explores how the Enlightenment’s ideals of reason and progress were both:
• Shattered by Modern Atrocities: The scale and systematic nature of 20th-century horrors exposed the limits of human reason to prevent or even explain evil.
• Necessary to Confront Evil: Despite its failures, Neiman argues that the Enlightenment project still offers tools—like critical reason and ethical principles—to grapple with evil and strive for justice.
She resists both:
• Naive Optimism: The belief that reason and progress can fully eradicate evil.
• Cynical Nihilism: The belief that human efforts are futile and that evil renders reason and morality meaningless.
5. Evil as an Existential Challenge
For Neiman, modernity must grapple with evil as a profound existential and philosophical problem:
• Evil and Meaning: The recognition of evil forces us to confront the tension between the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.
• Reason After Evil: While modernity exposes the limitations of Enlightenment reason, it does not render it obsolete. Instead, it calls for a critical, reflective reason that acknowledges the complexity of human history and moral failure.
6. Neiman’s Alternative Vision
Neiman ultimately argues for a balanced perspective:
• Acknowledging Evil: Recognize the reality of evil as a fundamental challenge to our moral and rational frameworks.
• Sustaining Progress: Retain the Enlightenment ideals of reason, justice, and progress, but temper them with humility and a recognition of human fallibility.
She sees evil not as a reason to abandon Enlightenment ideals but as a reason to engage them more critically, responsibly, and reflectively.
In Summary
Susan Neiman situates the discussion of evil in the “ruins” of Enlightenment faith in reason and progress, highlighting how modernity both inherits and critiques Enlightenment ideals. She argues that while modern atrocities have exposed the limits of reason and the fragility of progress, they also underscore the necessity of these ideals in confronting and understanding evil. For Neiman, the task is not to abandon Enlightenment faith but to reformulate it in a way that takes the reality of evil seriously without succumbing to despair or nihilism.
