meaning in context - "Enemies of something"

Hopefully you are fine!

When we say about someone is an "enemy of something", it means that he or she is an enemy of that something and is against it.

But, here are two passages where it is difficult to perceive this meaning.

The first is:

He was, however, a vigorous defender of a conception of natural
science that served in his mind as the antidote to vain and fruitless
philosophical investigation. In clarifying this new distinction
between science and philosophy, and especially in fighting vigorously
for it in public campaigns directed against the perceived enemies of

fanaticism and superstition, Voltaire pointed modern philosophy down
several paths that it subsequently followed.

The second is:

This apparent victory in the Newton Wars of the 1730s and 1740s
allowed Voltaire's new philosophical identity to solidify. Especially
crucial was the way that it allowed Voltaire's outlaw status, which he

had never fully repudiated, to be rehabilitated in the public mind as
a necessary and heroic defense of philosophical truth against the
enemies of error and prejudice. From this perspective, Voltaire's
critical stance could be reintegrated into traditional Old Regime
society as a new kind of legitimate intellectual martyrdom.

Both passages are from an article on Voltaire.

Apparently, it seems that, in the first passage, the perceived enemies of

fanaticism and superstition are those traditionalists who Voltaire fought against. So, it is something like the perceived warriors of fanaticism and superstition who were enemies of Enlightenment. In other words, "fanaticism" and "superstition" are in fact properties of the "enemies".

The same is the case in the second passage.

I want your view on it. As I was not able to find any such meaning in the online dictionaries, I want confirmation or correction of my perception of the meaning of "enemies" in the aforementioned two passages.

Answer

Your question raises the very important issue of ambiguous language used within such a precise and exacting field of study as Philosophy should be. It is the author's use of the preposition of which has caused the problem in proper comprehension of the article.

Of can refer to different types of associations between different entities. In this case the association is between enemies and certain traits like fanaticism, superstition, error, and prejudice. So it could be read in one of two different ways:

• people [enemies] who are against those particular traits


• negative traits which happen to be viewed as enemies

To clarify the ambiguity, the author could have improved his sentence structure with several methods. Using the first example for demonstration, I would consider striking out of, and using a colon there instead:

In clarifying this new distinction between science and philosophy, and especially in fighting vigorously for it in public campaigns directed against the perceived enemies: o̶f̶ fanaticism and superstition, Voltaire pointed modern philosophy down several paths that it subsequently followed.

Or, strike out of and use a comma instead:

In clarifying this new distinction between science and philosophy, and especially in fighting vigorously for it in public campaigns directed against the perceived enemies, o̶f̶ fanaticism and superstition, Voltaire pointed modern philosophy down several paths that it subsequently followed.

Or, strike out of and use parentheses to set off the undesirable traits to be viewed as enemies:

In clarifying this new distinction between science and philosophy, and especially in fighting vigorously for it in public campaigns directed against the perceived enemies o̶f̶ (fanaticism and superstition), Voltaire pointed modern philosophy down several paths that it subsequently followed.

It is just unfortunate that the author of such an interesting article on a subject of philosophy made such a poor choice of wording their sentences with respect to the use of the associated words, enemies and of. The preposition only introduced unnecessary confusion.