Pascal the Philosopher: An Introduction by Graeme Hunter (review)

Graeme Hunter’s argument in this book is that Blaise Pascal should be taken seriously as a philosopher, and on that point he is undoubtedly correct. His intention is not simply to interpret Pascal’s thought but rather to make us see Pascal as a comprehensive philosopher as opposed to (merely) a religious thinker or insightful aphorist. Preferring to skip the superficial task of simply summarizing Pascal’s positions on some of the traditional questions of philosophy, Hunter adopts the somewhat more difficult – though admirable – tack of expounding Pascal’s conception of philosophy itself, which he calls Pascalian inquiry.

He locates the impetus behind Pascal’s philosophical mission in his diagnosis of philosophical failure, or the regrettable fact that “substantive philosophical arguments of any kind … persuade us at best momentarily.” Hunter uses contemporaries Robert Nozick and Peter van Inwagen to shed light on the reality of philosophical failure while ultimately concluding that Pascal surpasses them by providing an explanation of such failure, namely, by invoking the Catholic doctrine of the Fall. One of the results of the Fall is that the will takes on an inordinate role in belief formation, such that “our intellect rationalizes for public display what passion whispers to the will.” After a somewhat parenthetical interlude in which he explores Pascalian lines of response to objections to this anthropology of wretchedness – specifically from Voltaire, Nietzsche, and proponents of palliative therapy – Hunter devotes a long chapter to the (in)famous wager argument. He expertly saves Pascal’s wager from the gross misunderstandings that have often followed in its wake, and sets the record straight on its purpose, namely, to alleviate the skeptical inquirer’s fear of religion by making him mindful of the happiness it promises. Chapters 5 and 6 bring the argument to a close by answering objections to Pascal’s status as a philosopher and clarifying the way in which he is one.

This is a wonderful book, and any complaints I have about it are eminently friendly. However, Hunter’s case could have been strengthened by grounding Pascal’s method in a thicker description of the content of his thought. For example, the themes of failure and fall, which are central to the book’s argument, are explicitly dealt with in Pensees L110/S142, L131/S164, L199/S230, and others, yet there is no sustained examination of how Pascal develops his own argument for failure and fall in these or other relevant fragments. The unfortunate result is that because Hunter does not give much detail on Pascal’s epistemology, what he means by Pascalian inquiry ultimately remains slightly ambiguous.

There is a sense, in Hunter’s interpretation, in which Pascalian inquiry goes beyond the modern conception of philosophy as the task of reaching a set of true propositions. Instead, it is concerned with turning the entire person, as Hunter marvellously demonstrates via his exposition of the wager argument in chapter 4.

However, this critique of the tendencies of modern philosophy is offset by Hunter’s apparent wish to limit the criteria of philosophy according to seemingly modern standards of naturalism, transparency (what he means by this is not made entirely clear), and the like. Yet this is arguably the conception of philosophy that Pascal sought to overcome. For example, the argument of fragment L131/S164 is that the human condition cannot be accounted for by naturalistic and philosophically transparent means, or, as Pascal puts it, it is “beyond all human philosophy.” More consideration of Pascal’s epistemological insights themselves, particularly on the role of intuition, faith, and custom, would have allowed for a less ambiguous statement of Pascal’s conception of philosophy.

This need not force Hunter to abandon the method of outlining Pascal’s philosophical mission; indeed, it would seem that that very mission cannot be adequately understood without sustained reference to his philosophical insights themselves. Pascal is indeed a philosopher, but his conception of philosophy was radically different from both the burgeoning rationalism of his day – with its emphasis on...