The Politics of Skepticism: Montaigne and Zhuangzi on Freedom, Toleration, and the Limits of Government by Lincoln Edward Ford Rathnam A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Lincoln Edward Ford Rathnam 2018 ii The Politics of Skepticism: Montaigne and Zhuangzi on Freedom, Toleration, and the Limits of Government Lincoln Rathnam Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science 2018 Abstract: Contemporary political discourse often centers on a shared set of normative commitments: freedom, toleration, and limited government. This dissertation examines the theoretical basis for these commitments, through a comparative study of two eminent skeptics: Michel de Montaigne and Zhuangzi. Both develop forms of skepticism that are rooted in analyses of the phenomena of diversity and disagreement. They contend that our inability to reach convergence on central philosophical questions demonstrates the fundamental limitations of human knowledge. I argue that both offer novel and powerful arguments connecting these skeptical epistemological theses with the relevant normative commitments. In particular, both take skepticism to advance human freedom, by clearing away obstacles to effective action. As beings who are raised within a particular community, we inevitably acquire certain habits that constrain the forms of thought and action open to us. Skepticism helps us to recognize the contingency of those forms. In the interpersonal realm, both writers contend that skepticism generates an attitude of toleration towards others who live differently. This is because it undermines the theoretical claims upon which most forms of intolerance are constructed. I defend this claim with reference to the various forms of intolerance that existed in each writer’s context, Warring States era China and France during the Wars of Religion. iii Later chapters examine the political implications of these forms of skepticism. I argue that both writers suggest that skepticism helps to eliminate potentially dangerous political passions, notably personal ambition and the desire for glory. This leads to a more constrained view of government that encourages us to focus our attention on avoiding extreme cruelty and violence rather than pursuing grand political projects. iv Acknowledgements Were it not for my teachers, friends, and family, this dissertation could not have been written. Clifford Orwin, my supervisor, gave me invaluable support throughout the many iterations of this project. He has also provided a powerful model of the academic life for me, both as a scholar and as a teacher. The care and seriousness with which he approaches a text set the standard to which I aspire here. His concern for his students is truly exemplary, even, or especially, when they decide to venture off onto unfamiliar terrain. I am grateful to Melissa Williams for combining robust support for my project with trenchant criticisms of the particulars. At each stage, she urged me to aspire to a higher standard of argumentation. This dissertation is the better for my attempts to meet these standards. I have also benefitted tremendously from her efforts to think seriously about what it means to theorize in a comparative and cosmopolitan manner, from my first exposure to comparative political theory at a conference she organized in Seoul, to the completion of this dissertation. My intention to work on classical Chinese thought could not have come to fruition were it not for the support of Vincent Shen. He graciously accepted my request to join the dissertation committee, although I was a student in a different department and we had no prior contact. This was a turning point in my graduate education, as it led me to his wide-ranging courses on Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. He also made possible my year as a M.A. student in the Department of East Asian Studies, which played a formative role in my training and intellectual development. His generosity throughout this process has been truly remarkable. Ryan Balot joined the committee as the departmental reader. I had already profited tremendously from my studies with him earlier in the program and, unsurprisingly, his comments v on the dissertation were extremely valuable. Stephen Angle served as my external examiner, and I could not have asked for a more thorough and helpful engagement with my work. Their challenges will contribute significantly to my efforts to refine this research. My work is also deeply indebted to my many teachers and mentors at Davidson College. I am grateful, in particular, to Peter Ahrensdorf, for introducing me to classical political theory and encouraging me to pursue graduate work. Since then, he has been a constant source of mentorship and friendly encouragement. I am also thankful for the guidance of Lance Stell, who provided me with a fateful introduction to the Zhuangzi while supervising a seemingly unrelated thesis on bioethics. I consider myself fortunate that my time in the Department of Political Science introduced me to many wonderful friends and colleagues: Andrew McDougall, Evan Rosevear, Chris LaRoche, Cam Cotton-O’Brien, Joe MacKay, Jonas Schwab-Pflug, Mauricio Suchowlansky, Nate Gilmore, Scott Dodds, Daniel Schillinger, Jaby Mathew, Matt Lesch, Amanda Arulanandam, Cáit Power, Taylor Putnam, David Polansky, Craig Smith, Emma Planinc, Zak Black, Laura Rabinowitz, Binfan Wang, Dorina Verli, Xunming Huang, Larissa Atkison, Seth Jaffe, and many others. Abe Singer has been a good friend, a stimulating interlocutor, and an astute co-instructor. Kiran Banerjee has provided all manner of advice, personal and professional, and hosted too many memorable celebrations to count. The same could be said of Abouzar Nasirzadeh, who has always stepped up to help with everything from getting our son a passport to organizing Thanksgiving dinner. Constantine Vassiliou has been a wonderful travel companion and a great source of insight into French political thought. Stephanie Murphy kept Lindsay and I sane throughout many marathon sessions of grading. vi I am grateful to my oldest friends, Conor McGrath and Ben Bryant, for all of the good times and good conversations that we have shared. They have helped me to stay on track throughout this process. I have also benefitted immensely, both as a person and as a scholar, from my friendship with Ashish George. Our conversations at Waffle House have, in the years since, provided me with assurance that reasonable discourse is possible even in the face of serious disagreement. It is my family who played the most significant role in making this work possible. My parents, Lincoln Y. and Deborah F. Rathnam, have always provided unfailing love and support. They created a home in which I was encouraged to pursue my intellectual interests, whatever they might be. I am grateful for their support through the twists and turns that inevitably result from the pursuit of an academic career. My sisters, Sarah and Hope, have been constant sources of love and encouragement throughout this process, and indeed throughout my life. My deepest gratitude belongs to my wife, Lindsay Mahon Rathnam. Since our first year of graduate school together she has been a perfect partner, and an exemplar of love, friendship, and scholarship. The birth of our son, Peter, during the final stages of our graduate work both challenged and delighted us, and he could not have a better mother or role model. Peter, too, deserves thanks for improving every day of our lives. His irrepressible spirit inspires us and keeps us moving forward. vii Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vii Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1: Overview of the Dissertation 1 1.2: Contemporary Pluralism 1 1.3: Post-Enlightenment Defenses of Freedom and Toleration 7 1.4: Comparative Political Theory and Traditional Foundationalism 16 1.5: Varieties of Comparative Political Theory 19 1.6: Why Zhuangzi and Montaigne? 25 1.7: The Problem of Context 31 1.8: Overview of the Subsequent Chapters 38 A Note on the Composition of the Texts 41 A Note on Sources and Translations 46 Chapter II: Zhuangzi’s Skepticism 2.1. Zhuangzi on Freedom and Skepticism 47 2.2. Confucius and the Authority of the Past 53 2.3: The Mohist School 56 2.4: Mencius, Confucianism, and Human Nature 61 2.5: Knowledge and Skepticism in the Zhuangzi 69 2.6: The Significance of Difference 70 2.7: The Argument from Change 73 2.8: Theories of Perspective 79 viii 2.9: Zhuangzi’s Skeptical Arguments I: Naturalizing Disagreement 83 2.10: Zhuangzi’s Skeptical Arguments II: Against the Self 88 2.11: Zhuangzi’s Skeptical Arguments IV: Authority in the Body 91 2.12: Zhuangzi’s Skeptical Arguments V: The Authority of the Completed Heart 93 2.13: Zhuangzi and the Significance of Language 95 2.14: Is Zhuangzi’s Position Self-Contradictory? 102 2.15: Zhuangzi on Knowledge: Local and Universal 109 2.16: Zhuangzi and the Two Kinds of Knowledge in the “Happy Fish” Story 113 2.17: Conclusion 116 Chapter III: Montaigne’s Skepticism 3.1: Introduction 118 3.2: Montaigne and the Wars of Religion 122 3.3: Philosophy, Faith, and Skepticism: The “Apology for Raymond Sebond” 123 3.4: The Question of Faith 126 3.5: Humbling Reason 132 3.6: Skepticism and Philosophical Disagreement 140 3.7: Culture and Ethnocentrism 147 3.8: The Search for Tranquility 152 3.9: Experience as a Standard for Thought and Action 158 3.10: Achieving Freedom: The Fear of Death 171 3.11: Conclusion 187