Reason and fanaticism

Use in the book

Gamelin combines belief in a good creator, the Supreme Being and a future cult of Reason in one appeal for republican religion. The chapter preserves that combination instead of converting it into a single neatly consistent historical programme. Brotteaux answers by distinguishing love of reason from fanaticism for it. A faculty that guides and illuminates can blind once treated as a divinity.

The distinction matters in action. Brotteaux continues reasoning with his feet in a gutter, translating former philosophical sociability into poverty; but he abandons the argument when it yields too little pleasure. His scepticism and sensuality are companion tendencies, not proof that his reasoning is always disinterested.

His later irony about a tribunal “less fallible perhaps” than others turns on a different rule of correctness: if satisfying passion counts as a good verdict, the court can never fail its own test. The argument attacks self-confirming judgement, not reasoned inquiry as such.

Places to read

1. Chapter VI, paragraph 49Frenchle culte de la Raison: The cult of Reason. Gamelin anticipates a religion to which he expects Brotteaux to adhere.
2. Chapter VI, paragraph 50FrenchJ’ai l’amour de la raison, je n’en ai pas le fanatisme: I love reason without fanaticism for it. Brotteaux marks the distinction explicitly before reversing light into blindness.
3. Chapter VI, paragraph 51Frenchcontinua de raisonner: Went on reasoning. His gutter setting comically recalls the gilded philosophical salon.
4. Chapter VIII, paragraph 39Frenchpourvu qu’il contente les passions: Provided it satisfies the passions. Brotteaux’s conditional definition exposes the court’s supposed infallibility.

Translation in this edition

“Reason guides and enlightens us” is paired with “it will blind you” in the English. Neither term alone represents the whole claim. “Perhaps” in the later judicial compliment and “provided” in its verdict test are essential qualifications, not ornamental words.