Brad De Long writes: >>the continued taint of Enlightenment thought, primarily an >>epistemological foundation that guarantees certainty and a >>transparent theory of language. > >_What_ Enlightenment epistemological foundation guarantees certainty? _Who_ >in the set of Enlightenment thinkers ever thought that language is >"transparent"? Good questions indeed. Although I do have some sympathies for what some post-modernists are doing (and even more for McCloskey's work), I do think it's about time that those of us who do think something good and important came out of "the Enlightenment" start to question the caricature of those thinkers that is frequently the target of post- modernist criticisms. The term "straw man" frequently seems all too appropriate. And...if the term "post-modern" lumps together a variety of different ideas, what about the term "*the* Enlightenment"? Which enlightenment are we talking about, French, Scottish, which? It goes without saying that Decartes and Hume might both be called "Enlightenment" thinkers, especially by the enlightenment's critics, but it is equally true that their differences are at least as great as their commonalities. I should add that question "which enlightenment" could also be turned into "which liberalism" in the face of post-modern type critiques of liberalism, as if that term referred to one homogenous lump of ideas. Steven Horwitz Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 379-5731 FAX (315) 379-5819 EMAIL [log in to unmask]