Abstract

Diderot's atheistic materialism entailed an ideological conception of the universe that owed its originality to its dialectical opposition of the Christian world-view that, in his view, had dominated the history of Western Civilization up until the Age of Enlightenment. This opposition was carried on in the name of modernity and on behalf of posterity. Diderot sought to establish a scientific foundation for human values independently of any metaphysical integuments. ;Accordingly, in his philosophy of nature, Diderot elaborated a comprehensive view of the origins and destiny of the COSMOS based on a materialistic interpretation of universal processes that was designed to supplant the Christian account of the Creation and the concept of Dualism--notions that formalized and therefore reinforced man's aspirations for happiness only in an afterlife. ;And having divorced the origins, terms, conditions and purposes of the universe and of man from transcendental influences, Diderot went on to elaborate an ethical foundation for human values that drew on the vast resources inherent in human nature and made morality possible. In his esthetic thought, Diderot sought to define the nature and function of the man of genius and his crucial role in human civilization--to please and instruct human beings in the eternal human values and necessary truths of existence--Truth, Virtue and Beauty--and thereby contribute to their happiness hic et nunc. . . . UMI ;From a synthetic standpoint, the fundamental problem at the core of Diderot's philosophy of scientific naturalism and atheistic materialism is the moral dilemma of Freedom versus Determinism. In other words, in what sense is it possible to speak of freedom at all if human beings obey in all their thoughts and actions a general and absolute law of necessity which governs all natural processes, including the actions of men ? Is it not inconsistent to formulate moral obligations and duties if human beings are not at liberty to fulfill them, since every "ought" ought to imply a "can"? This profound ethical problem in Diderot's philosophy of man cannot be solved adequately in isolation from his philosophy of nature. And it is essentially in this comprehensive context that the paradox inherent in Diderot's philosophy and the secular humanism that emerged from this apparent contradiction can be clarified and understood