Introduction

Dennis Rasmussen articulates one particular strand of Enlightenment discourse, what he calls "the pragmatic enlightenment". By putting Montesquieu, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Voltaire into lively conversation with one another on questions of rationality, universalism, and sociability, Rasmussen argues against those critics of the Enlightenment – from both the right and the left – who would interpret the tradition monolithically. More specifically, he argues against a reading of the Enlightenment as a static intellectual movement committed to the rational implementation of moral and political universals, premised on a notion of the unencumbered individual. Keegan Callanan offers a provocative argument that Montesquieu might be a more heroic critic of rationalism than even Voltaire, and he resists the claim that Montesquieu is an antifoundationalist thinker. Michael Frazer seeks to temper Rasmussen's claim that Hume resists moral universals, arguing that while "Hume is a descriptive moral pluralist; he is still a normative moral universalist".