What do you think?
Rate this book
丌賱丕賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷: 賮賴賲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賲鬲 亘氐賷丕睾丞 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲
賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賰鬲丕亘 丌賱丕賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷 : 賮賴賲 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賲鬲 亘氐賷丕睾丞 賳馗乇鬲賳丕 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 爻亘毓丞 兀噩夭丕亍 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賮賷 賳馗乇丞 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賮賷 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱丨賯亘丞 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷丞貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賮賷 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱乇丕亘毓 賮賷 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱丨賯亘丞 丕賱賯乇賵爻胤賷丞貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱禺丕賲爻 賮賷 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻丕丿爻 賮賷 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱丨賯亘丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻丕亘毓 賮賷 匕賷賱...
635 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
587 people are currently reading
6,207 people want to read
About the author
Richard Tarnas
13听books155听followersRichard Theodore Tarnas (born February 21, 1950) is a cultural historian known for his books The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View and Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View. Tarnas is professor of philosophy and psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and is the founding director of its graduate program in Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 197 reviews
June 19, 2013
I really can鈥檛 remember how this book ended up on my to-read shelf. As I recently wanted to read a book on the history of thought like that of Bertrand Russell鈥檚 History of Western Philosophy, I picked this up since it is relatively recent and thus it would give an idea of some modern schools of thought like those of Postmodernism and Deconstructionism, something Russell鈥檚 book lacked since it is written in 1945.
As a history of western thought, this book is excellent. I would highly recommend it if you are seeking to understand how the modern mind developed from the Greeks all the way to the present era. It is erudite and beautifully written. The author is extremely intelligent and observant (up to a point anyway) that I was aghast at the thought trajectories he cleverly traced and by which he connected thinkers from diverse periods and contexts with one another.
However, as the book drew to its end, I became more and more surprised by the claims Tarnas started making. What these boil down to is that it is inconceivable that the world we live in is materialistic and without meaning. Why it is inconceivable we are unfortunately not told. Also, he believes that our mere understanding of the world implies that there is meaning in it and the subject-object duality (separation between us as observers and the world) is an illusion. That how someone who wrote a history of western thought (including empiricism) that is so eloquent and perceptive is making such insupportable claims is really beyond me. Consider for example the following excerpt:
" Why do these myths ever work? If the human mind has no access to a priori certain truth, and if all observations are always already saturated by uncertified assumptions about the world, how could this mind possibly conceive a genuinely successful theory? Popper answered this question by saying that, in the end, it is 鈥渓uck鈥濃€攂ut this answer has never satisfied. For why should the imagination of a stranger ever be able to conceive merely from within itself a myth that works so splendidly in the empirical world that whole civilizations can be built on it (as with Newton)? How can something come from nothing?
I believe there is only one plausible answer to this riddle, and it is an answer suggested by the participatory epistemological framework outlined above: namely, that the bold conjectures and myths that the human mind produces in its quest for knowledge ultimately come from something far deeper than a purely human source. "
This is certainly amazing, especially if you read what he had to say about Galileo, Kepler and Newton in his rendering of some of their mistakes resulting from their flawed assumptions and worldviews, let alone Popper's notion that whenever a theory is non-falsifiable it is outside the purview of science. This certainly is the most peculiar author I came across. I read in incredulity the extraordinary claim he made that the modern materialist scientific worldview (which supposes that humanity may very well be an accident that is very likely not to occur if we rewind and replay the tape) is, wait for it, anthropomorphic since it presupposes that the human mind can understand the Cosmos in a mechanistic framework, whereas the participatory epistemological framework (outlined in the excerpt agove) is not anthropomorphic at all (!!!). I really, really kid you not.
As a history of western thought, this book is excellent. I would highly recommend it if you are seeking to understand how the modern mind developed from the Greeks all the way to the present era. It is erudite and beautifully written. The author is extremely intelligent and observant (up to a point anyway) that I was aghast at the thought trajectories he cleverly traced and by which he connected thinkers from diverse periods and contexts with one another.
However, as the book drew to its end, I became more and more surprised by the claims Tarnas started making. What these boil down to is that it is inconceivable that the world we live in is materialistic and without meaning. Why it is inconceivable we are unfortunately not told. Also, he believes that our mere understanding of the world implies that there is meaning in it and the subject-object duality (separation between us as observers and the world) is an illusion. That how someone who wrote a history of western thought (including empiricism) that is so eloquent and perceptive is making such insupportable claims is really beyond me. Consider for example the following excerpt:
" Why do these myths ever work? If the human mind has no access to a priori certain truth, and if all observations are always already saturated by uncertified assumptions about the world, how could this mind possibly conceive a genuinely successful theory? Popper answered this question by saying that, in the end, it is 鈥渓uck鈥濃€攂ut this answer has never satisfied. For why should the imagination of a stranger ever be able to conceive merely from within itself a myth that works so splendidly in the empirical world that whole civilizations can be built on it (as with Newton)? How can something come from nothing?
I believe there is only one plausible answer to this riddle, and it is an answer suggested by the participatory epistemological framework outlined above: namely, that the bold conjectures and myths that the human mind produces in its quest for knowledge ultimately come from something far deeper than a purely human source. "
This is certainly amazing, especially if you read what he had to say about Galileo, Kepler and Newton in his rendering of some of their mistakes resulting from their flawed assumptions and worldviews, let alone Popper's notion that whenever a theory is non-falsifiable it is outside the purview of science. This certainly is the most peculiar author I came across. I read in incredulity the extraordinary claim he made that the modern materialist scientific worldview (which supposes that humanity may very well be an accident that is very likely not to occur if we rewind and replay the tape) is, wait for it, anthropomorphic since it presupposes that the human mind can understand the Cosmos in a mechanistic framework, whereas the participatory epistemological framework (outlined in the excerpt agove) is not anthropomorphic at all (!!!). I really, really kid you not.
December 18, 2015
For a book that describes itself as one the encompasses the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View, there was very little mention of the roles women played. I took a class with the author, and when we brought up the invisibility of women in history, and in his book, he became defensive and told us we had an "allergy" towards him...still not sure what that means. As he explained throughout the three day course, he understands what it means to be a woman because he's experienced childbirth during LSD and breathwork trances. I have never met anyone who was so neatly able to usurp the role of women,(he says he felt the pain of childbirth in the crowning of the birth of the world) while at the same time, misunderstand our experience so completely. He was utterly clueless in regard to how offensive his assumptions of what it means to be a woman.
March 9, 2016
This is a very important, well written and dense treatise about the history of ideas in Western Civilization.
The author manages to condense, in a single book, all the major stepping stones of the intellectual history of the West, and he manages to achieve this result without seriously compromising on depth and accuracy.
The great drama of the evolution of the Western Mind is described passionately and in a gripping and enjoyable book, where the critical concepts and world-views, as expressed by the major philosopher throughout history, are beautifully expressed in a concise but scholarly valuable way. Remarkable.
Let me highlight some of the points made by the author that I found particularly worth discussing:
- The author remarks that the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece did not happen in a vacuum, significantly owing to the cultural substrate existing at the time (where the mythological structure of the Olympian world presented the Universe as an ordered and structured whole, a cosmos rather than a chaos, where the natural and the human world are not distinguishable domains).
In particular, Hellenic culture attained a delicate and fertile balance between the ancient mythological tradition and a more 鈥渕odern鈥� secular rationalism. The temples to Zeus, Athena and Apollo are clearly a celebration of mathematical elegance and human rationality as much as a celebration of the divine.
- The author manages to express the beauty and complexity of Plato's philosophical system, stressing how for Plato the ultimate reality is not only rational and mathematical in nature, but also profoundly aesthetic. In Plato, the Good, the True and the Beautiful are united. In this, Plato represents the pinnacle of the unique synthesis of "eros" and "logos" 鈥� of passion (love of wisdom), and rational mind. For Plato (and for most of the ancient Greek philosophers), the direct apprehension of the world' deeper reality satisfies not only the mind but also the soul.
- The Greek fundamental concept of 鈥渓ogos鈥� (that incredibly beautiful and quintessentially Greek concept representing mind, reason, intellect, organizing principle, word, wisdom and meaning) is also nicely explained as developed and enriched in history by the Western philosophical thought.
- Finally, here we have one author who does not follow the politically correct current trend of negating the important part played by the legacy of the Classical Era in the subsequent evolution of the Western Mind and of the Western World, which ultimately was one of the causes and enablers of the revolutionary developments of the Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution. It is good to see an author who is not scared to stress the uniqueness of Western intellectual thought and civilization, and its debt to the Classical World legacy - even if he correctly recognizes the also very important contribution of the Eastern Civilizations to the formation of the Greek civilization.
- Neo-Platonism is briefly explained by the author, who recognizes that it became the final expression of classical Pagan philosophy. Unfortunately, I must say that here I was disappointed by the lack of depth with which the author treats the amazingly beautiful and very important philosophical system of Plotinus, system which left a very important intellectual legacy influencing, directly or indirectly, many subsequent important Western systems of thought (including Christianity).
- No sufficient recognition is given by the author to the intellectual developments of the Roman Civilization which, while being substantially influenced by the Greek Civilization, nevertheless (and contrary to what many may think) actually did develop its own peculiar and unique culture.
- The author beautifully conveys the inner tensions between the different ideologies, approaches and world-views of what is called 鈥淐hristianity鈥�, which has never been a monolithic system of thought. The great tension between the Judaic and the Hellenistic legacies of the Christian Creed is compellingly highlighted.
The intimacy between the 鈥淗ellenistic鈥� side of Christianity and (Neo)Platonism is clearly highlighted: after all, Augustine regarded Plato's thought as the 鈥渕ost pure and bright in all philosophy鈥� and he also posited that the Platonic Forms existed within the creative mind of God. On the other hand, while God was seen by the Hellenic Christian perspective as the universal Mind, the Logos, the Neoplatonic One, the Judaic conception leaned towards a jealous, almost capricious, almost nationalistic, completely transcendent entity to be feared as much as loved.
The Hellenic Christian God was quite different to the Judaic God promising a political victory for "Israel" and the physical destruction of the political enemies of the Judaic State.
- I really liked how the author highlights how the Christian world view, even in its most 鈥渕edieval鈥� form, was not as simple or one-sided as many may think. And the great scholastic awakening which happened in the late Middle Ages is a testament to this, as represented in its most magnificent form by the intellectual quest of Thomas Aquinas.
The greatness of the intellectual synthesis accomplished by Aquinas is beautifully expressed by the author. I also like how the author dispels the myth that Aquinas' philosophical system is purely Aristotelian in character: Aquinas quintessentially Neoplatonic notion of participation in 鈥渂eing鈥� is an example of the influence of Neoplatonism in Aquinas thought.
- The author very nicely demonstrates how the 鈥淣eoplatonist mathematics, added to the rationalism and nascent empiricism of the late Scholastics, provided one of the final components necessary for the emergence of the Scientific Revolution.鈥�
It was Copernicus and Kepler's tenacious Neoplatonic faith that the Universe was regulated and structured according to simple, elegant and beautiful mathematical forms that allowed them to go beyond any form of na茂ve empiricism and trigger the Scientific Revolution.
- The extremely important role played by the Classical Legacy (and in particular, Neoplatonism) in the explosion of the Renaissance intellectual revolution is nicely explained. The multifaceted complexity of this period is also conveyed very effectively.
- I really enjoyed how the author lucidly and compellingly explains, without trying to be politically correct, the profoundly contradictory and ambivalent character of the 鈥淩eformation鈥� triggered by Luther. The Reformation was as much a reactionary counter-revolution against the relaxed cultural syncretism displayed by the Renaissance Church's embrace of the Classical pagan culture, as it was a quest for the Church purification (undoubtedly needed at the time) and return to its "pure" roots.
It was the Reformation which was pushing for a literal, word-by-word interpretation of the Scripture, which was pushing for a Bible-based Christianity ontologically dualistic and very pessimistic in relation to the rational capabilities of the human mind. It was first Protestants who initially reacted almost violently against the Copernican world-view revolution.
But, on the other hand, the focus on the individual freedom from institutional constraints, and the breach of the monolithic, potentially suffocating spiritual an intellectual power of the Church, proved in the longer term very positive developments for the evolution of the modern Western Mind.
- Jumping now to more modern philosophers, I did like how the author explains the Cartesian-Kantian thought revolution. However I am not sure that I fully agree with some aspects of the author's interpretation of the Kantian thought, in particular I think that the stress on Kant's subjectivism is not warranted. I also think that the author should really have explained the absolutely critical Kantian concept of 鈥渟ynthetic a-priori鈥�, without which the Kantian system cannot really be fully appreciated.
-The Romantic sensibility is nicely explained in its important philosophical implications, and I really liked how the author manages to highlight the most important features of Hegelian's thought. Hegel has been always misunderstood and underestimated in the post-modern thought, and the author renders him justice.
- On the other hand, I disagree with the author's view of post-modern existentialism, which the author perceives as being profoundly pessimistic. I actually think that this is a profoundly misguided perspective of existentialism, whose main message is, in my opinion, profoundly optimistic and liberating, a deeply Promethean cry for the power of man to choose, to radically self-define and create the meaning of himself and his own role in the Universe: 鈥渆xistence precedes essence鈥�.
- I also profoundly disagree with the author's myopic view of the aims and character of the scientific inquiry: the author has a quite restricted and one-sided view of the scientific enterprise, which he tends to see as a purely quantitative, reductionistic and reductive approach to the understand of the Universe, and as such not spiritually fulfilling.
This is simply NOT what science is about: science is as much about an holistic, passionate approach to the understanding of the Universe as it is about a rigorous and structured approach based on mathematical consistency and experimental accuracy and confirmation. The author probably never took the time to read the likes of Penrose, Bohm, Wheeler, Davies, Einstein or Feynman. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is an attitude that can be seen in many individuals who had an education only in the so-called humanities and who had never been seriously exposed to the beauty of mathematics and of the sciences on general, and who simply do not understand them.
- Finally, the author believes that the missing key in the philosophical quest can be found in depth psychology and the exploration of the unconscious. He uses Freud and Jung as compelling examples and he also believes we have to 鈥渆mbrace the feminine in all its various forms鈥� as well as ecological, mystic, and other counter cultural and multicultural perspectives.
Well, to be honest I find this mumble-jumble, out-of-the-70's, LSD-driven approach deeply unsatisfactory and obsolete (Freud in particular has been discredited and even within the psychologists confraternity his views are not widely popular either).
Overall, it is a really important, provocative, insightful book worth reading and well deserving a 4 stars. Highly recommended.
The author manages to condense, in a single book, all the major stepping stones of the intellectual history of the West, and he manages to achieve this result without seriously compromising on depth and accuracy.
The great drama of the evolution of the Western Mind is described passionately and in a gripping and enjoyable book, where the critical concepts and world-views, as expressed by the major philosopher throughout history, are beautifully expressed in a concise but scholarly valuable way. Remarkable.
Let me highlight some of the points made by the author that I found particularly worth discussing:
- The author remarks that the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece did not happen in a vacuum, significantly owing to the cultural substrate existing at the time (where the mythological structure of the Olympian world presented the Universe as an ordered and structured whole, a cosmos rather than a chaos, where the natural and the human world are not distinguishable domains).
In particular, Hellenic culture attained a delicate and fertile balance between the ancient mythological tradition and a more 鈥渕odern鈥� secular rationalism. The temples to Zeus, Athena and Apollo are clearly a celebration of mathematical elegance and human rationality as much as a celebration of the divine.
- The author manages to express the beauty and complexity of Plato's philosophical system, stressing how for Plato the ultimate reality is not only rational and mathematical in nature, but also profoundly aesthetic. In Plato, the Good, the True and the Beautiful are united. In this, Plato represents the pinnacle of the unique synthesis of "eros" and "logos" 鈥� of passion (love of wisdom), and rational mind. For Plato (and for most of the ancient Greek philosophers), the direct apprehension of the world' deeper reality satisfies not only the mind but also the soul.
- The Greek fundamental concept of 鈥渓ogos鈥� (that incredibly beautiful and quintessentially Greek concept representing mind, reason, intellect, organizing principle, word, wisdom and meaning) is also nicely explained as developed and enriched in history by the Western philosophical thought.
- Finally, here we have one author who does not follow the politically correct current trend of negating the important part played by the legacy of the Classical Era in the subsequent evolution of the Western Mind and of the Western World, which ultimately was one of the causes and enablers of the revolutionary developments of the Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution. It is good to see an author who is not scared to stress the uniqueness of Western intellectual thought and civilization, and its debt to the Classical World legacy - even if he correctly recognizes the also very important contribution of the Eastern Civilizations to the formation of the Greek civilization.
- Neo-Platonism is briefly explained by the author, who recognizes that it became the final expression of classical Pagan philosophy. Unfortunately, I must say that here I was disappointed by the lack of depth with which the author treats the amazingly beautiful and very important philosophical system of Plotinus, system which left a very important intellectual legacy influencing, directly or indirectly, many subsequent important Western systems of thought (including Christianity).
- No sufficient recognition is given by the author to the intellectual developments of the Roman Civilization which, while being substantially influenced by the Greek Civilization, nevertheless (and contrary to what many may think) actually did develop its own peculiar and unique culture.
- The author beautifully conveys the inner tensions between the different ideologies, approaches and world-views of what is called 鈥淐hristianity鈥�, which has never been a monolithic system of thought. The great tension between the Judaic and the Hellenistic legacies of the Christian Creed is compellingly highlighted.
The intimacy between the 鈥淗ellenistic鈥� side of Christianity and (Neo)Platonism is clearly highlighted: after all, Augustine regarded Plato's thought as the 鈥渕ost pure and bright in all philosophy鈥� and he also posited that the Platonic Forms existed within the creative mind of God. On the other hand, while God was seen by the Hellenic Christian perspective as the universal Mind, the Logos, the Neoplatonic One, the Judaic conception leaned towards a jealous, almost capricious, almost nationalistic, completely transcendent entity to be feared as much as loved.
The Hellenic Christian God was quite different to the Judaic God promising a political victory for "Israel" and the physical destruction of the political enemies of the Judaic State.
- I really liked how the author highlights how the Christian world view, even in its most 鈥渕edieval鈥� form, was not as simple or one-sided as many may think. And the great scholastic awakening which happened in the late Middle Ages is a testament to this, as represented in its most magnificent form by the intellectual quest of Thomas Aquinas.
The greatness of the intellectual synthesis accomplished by Aquinas is beautifully expressed by the author. I also like how the author dispels the myth that Aquinas' philosophical system is purely Aristotelian in character: Aquinas quintessentially Neoplatonic notion of participation in 鈥渂eing鈥� is an example of the influence of Neoplatonism in Aquinas thought.
- The author very nicely demonstrates how the 鈥淣eoplatonist mathematics, added to the rationalism and nascent empiricism of the late Scholastics, provided one of the final components necessary for the emergence of the Scientific Revolution.鈥�
It was Copernicus and Kepler's tenacious Neoplatonic faith that the Universe was regulated and structured according to simple, elegant and beautiful mathematical forms that allowed them to go beyond any form of na茂ve empiricism and trigger the Scientific Revolution.
- The extremely important role played by the Classical Legacy (and in particular, Neoplatonism) in the explosion of the Renaissance intellectual revolution is nicely explained. The multifaceted complexity of this period is also conveyed very effectively.
- I really enjoyed how the author lucidly and compellingly explains, without trying to be politically correct, the profoundly contradictory and ambivalent character of the 鈥淩eformation鈥� triggered by Luther. The Reformation was as much a reactionary counter-revolution against the relaxed cultural syncretism displayed by the Renaissance Church's embrace of the Classical pagan culture, as it was a quest for the Church purification (undoubtedly needed at the time) and return to its "pure" roots.
It was the Reformation which was pushing for a literal, word-by-word interpretation of the Scripture, which was pushing for a Bible-based Christianity ontologically dualistic and very pessimistic in relation to the rational capabilities of the human mind. It was first Protestants who initially reacted almost violently against the Copernican world-view revolution.
But, on the other hand, the focus on the individual freedom from institutional constraints, and the breach of the monolithic, potentially suffocating spiritual an intellectual power of the Church, proved in the longer term very positive developments for the evolution of the modern Western Mind.
- Jumping now to more modern philosophers, I did like how the author explains the Cartesian-Kantian thought revolution. However I am not sure that I fully agree with some aspects of the author's interpretation of the Kantian thought, in particular I think that the stress on Kant's subjectivism is not warranted. I also think that the author should really have explained the absolutely critical Kantian concept of 鈥渟ynthetic a-priori鈥�, without which the Kantian system cannot really be fully appreciated.
-The Romantic sensibility is nicely explained in its important philosophical implications, and I really liked how the author manages to highlight the most important features of Hegelian's thought. Hegel has been always misunderstood and underestimated in the post-modern thought, and the author renders him justice.
- On the other hand, I disagree with the author's view of post-modern existentialism, which the author perceives as being profoundly pessimistic. I actually think that this is a profoundly misguided perspective of existentialism, whose main message is, in my opinion, profoundly optimistic and liberating, a deeply Promethean cry for the power of man to choose, to radically self-define and create the meaning of himself and his own role in the Universe: 鈥渆xistence precedes essence鈥�.
- I also profoundly disagree with the author's myopic view of the aims and character of the scientific inquiry: the author has a quite restricted and one-sided view of the scientific enterprise, which he tends to see as a purely quantitative, reductionistic and reductive approach to the understand of the Universe, and as such not spiritually fulfilling.
This is simply NOT what science is about: science is as much about an holistic, passionate approach to the understanding of the Universe as it is about a rigorous and structured approach based on mathematical consistency and experimental accuracy and confirmation. The author probably never took the time to read the likes of Penrose, Bohm, Wheeler, Davies, Einstein or Feynman. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is an attitude that can be seen in many individuals who had an education only in the so-called humanities and who had never been seriously exposed to the beauty of mathematics and of the sciences on general, and who simply do not understand them.
- Finally, the author believes that the missing key in the philosophical quest can be found in depth psychology and the exploration of the unconscious. He uses Freud and Jung as compelling examples and he also believes we have to 鈥渆mbrace the feminine in all its various forms鈥� as well as ecological, mystic, and other counter cultural and multicultural perspectives.
Well, to be honest I find this mumble-jumble, out-of-the-70's, LSD-driven approach deeply unsatisfactory and obsolete (Freud in particular has been discredited and even within the psychologists confraternity his views are not widely popular either).
Overall, it is a really important, provocative, insightful book worth reading and well deserving a 4 stars. Highly recommended.
May 9, 2012
丕賱鬲丨丿賷孬 丕賱兀賵賱:
亘丕賱兀賲锟斤拷 亘丿兀鬲 亘賴貙 賱丕 孬賯丞 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賱 孬賯丞 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿丕乇 丕賱賳丕卮乇丞 賱賴貙 賵兀噩丿賴 賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿丕賸 賵賱丕 夭賱鬲 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞貙 毓乇賾賮賳賷 毓賱賶 廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賰丕賳鬲 鬲卮賰賱 毓賱賷 賲孬賱 毓賱丕賯丞 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱丌賱賴丞 毓賳丿 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 亘丕賱噩賵丕賴乇 丕賱賲賮乇丿丞 賱丿賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳.
賱賰賳 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 賳爻賾賱賲 賱賲丐乇禺 睾乇亘賷 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱睾乇亘 賵賱丕亘丿 賲賳 鬲匕賰乇 賯賵丞 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 賮賷賴賲 .
鬲賵賯賮鬲 毓賳 賰鬲丕亘 夭賰乇賷丕 丕亘乇丕賴賷賲 丨鬲賶 兀丨氐賱 毓賱賶 賳爻禺丞 禺丕氐丞 兀鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 兀賳 兀毓賷孬 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲禺胤賷胤丕賸 賵鬲毓賱賷賯丕賸.
丕賱鬲丨丿賷孬 丕賱兀禺賷乇 :
丌賱丕 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷
乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 鬲丕乇賳丕爻
" 丌賱丕賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷" 賱丕 鬲鬲賵賯毓 兀賳 鬲噩丿 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丌賱丕賲丕賸 亘卮賰賱 賰丕賲賱 廿賱丕 賮賷 賳賴丕賷鬲賴 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 毓賳丿 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 ( 賲丕 亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 )貙 兀賲丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賱丕 兀賳賰乇 兀賳賴 兀噩亘乇賳賷 毓賱賶 鬲乇賰賴 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞 亘爻亘亘 丕賱鬲亘噩賷賱貙 賵丕賱丕賳丨賷丕夭 賱賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞貙 賵賰兀賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賴賵 ( 丕賱睾乇亘 ) ! 賵兀賳 賲賷夭丕賳 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵鬲丨乇賰 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賲賳 兀噩賱 賵亘爻亘亘 丕賱睾乇亘! 賴匕丕 禺丕胤乇 賱丕亘丿 賲賳 賯賵賱賴 賱鬲乇鬲丕丨 賳賮爻賷 賯賱賷賱丕賸 夭丕毓賲丞 丕賱廿賯丿丕賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 亘卮賷亍 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩乇丿.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賳賯爻賲 廿賱賶 爻亘毓丞 兀賯爻丕賲貙 亘丿兀 亘賲賯丿賲丞貙 賮丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱丕賵賱 賲鬲丨丿孬丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷丞 賵賲丕 賯亘賱賴丕貙 賵 乇丐賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇賶 兀賳賴丕 賲丨賵乇賷丞 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賯爻丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨鬲賶 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱兀禺賷乇貙 賮賱賱鬲賷爻賷乇 賵乇亘胤 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 兀賯鬲乇丨 兀賳 賷鬲賲 賮賴賲 乇丐賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 賵 兀乇爻胤賵 亘卮賰賱 賵丕囟丨 賵亘賷賾賳貙 孬賲 丕賱廿賲爻丕賰 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賯乇丕亍鬲賴.
鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賳賯胤丞 賲賴賲丞 丨賵賱 毓賱丕賯丞 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲孬賱 賱丿賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 亘鬲毓丿丿 丕賱丌賱賴丞 賱丿賶 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯貙 賵丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱鬲毓丿丿 廿賱賶 噩賵丕賴乇貙 賵丕賱噩賵丕賴乇 廿賱賶 賲孬賱貙 賮丕賱卮賰賱 賵丕丨丿 賱兀卮賷丕亍 禺丕乇噩 丕賱毓丕賱賲 鬲鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵亘丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賵賱賰賱 噩賵賴乇 賵馗賷賮鬲賴 賵賲毓賳丕賴 丕賱禺丕氐
亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 賳賯胤丞 賲丨賵乇賷丞 兀禺乇賶 賵賴賷 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賳馗乇 廿賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵丕賱丕賳賯賱丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賷丞 賲賳匕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷丞 丨鬲賶 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘賳丕亍賸 毓賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱賳馗乇丞貙 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賵爻賷胤 ( 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 ).
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賳賷 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱丨賯亘丞 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷丞
賵丕賱孬丕賱孬 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賰賱 鬲賯賱亘丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賲賵丕賯賮賴丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲乇丕孬 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷貙 賵丕賱鬲賳馗賷賲丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱乇丕亘毓 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賲丿乇爻賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓賱賵賲責
賵丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱禺丕賲爻 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳賴囟丞 賵丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞貙 賵賲丨賵乇賷丞 丕賱賳馗乇丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵丿毓賵賶 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賰丕賲賱丞.
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻丕丿爻 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 : 毓賳 丕賱丌賱丕賲 貙 賵賲賳 賴賳丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳爻賲賷賴 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱丌賱丕賲貙 賵毓賳 丕賱卮賰 丨鬲賶 賮賷 丕賱毓賱賲 賵賮賷 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賲毓 賴賷賵賲貙 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賲丕 亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 賵丕賱毓丿賲賷丞 丕賱亘丕卅爻丞.
孬賲 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻丕亘毓 賰匕賷賱 賱賰賱 賲丕 賲乇 賲賳 賮氐賵賱 賵鬲毓囟賷丿賴 亘乇丐賶 賲毓賷賳丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 丨賯賷賯丞貙 賵賮賷賴 賮賵丕卅丿 賳賮賷爻丞貙 賵廿賳 賰丕賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 賲賳丕 賱賱鬲賮胤賳 賱賲丿賶 丨囟賵乇 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 丕賱胤丕睾賷丞貙 賵毓丿賲 丕賱丕爻鬲爻賱丕賲 賱賵氐賮 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賲賳 匕賱賰 丕賱賲賳馗賵乇 賱賲丐賱賮 睾乇亘賷 匕賵 賯賱亘 睾乇亘賷 .
賴匕丕 亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇.
亘丕賱兀賲锟斤拷 亘丿兀鬲 亘賴貙 賱丕 孬賯丞 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賱 孬賯丞 亘丕爻賲 丕賱丿丕乇 丕賱賳丕卮乇丞 賱賴貙 賵兀噩丿賴 賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿丕賸 賵賱丕 夭賱鬲 賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞貙 毓乇賾賮賳賷 毓賱賶 廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賰丕賳鬲 鬲卮賰賱 毓賱賷 賲孬賱 毓賱丕賯丞 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱丌賱賴丞 毓賳丿 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 亘丕賱噩賵丕賴乇 丕賱賲賮乇丿丞 賱丿賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳.
賱賰賳 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 賳爻賾賱賲 賱賲丐乇禺 睾乇亘賷 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱睾乇亘 賵賱丕亘丿 賲賳 鬲匕賰乇 賯賵丞 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 賮賷賴賲 .
鬲賵賯賮鬲 毓賳 賰鬲丕亘 夭賰乇賷丕 丕亘乇丕賴賷賲 丨鬲賶 兀丨氐賱 毓賱賶 賳爻禺丞 禺丕氐丞 兀鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 兀賳 兀毓賷孬 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲禺胤賷胤丕賸 賵鬲毓賱賷賯丕賸.
丕賱鬲丨丿賷孬 丕賱兀禺賷乇 :
丌賱丕 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷
乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 鬲丕乇賳丕爻
" 丌賱丕賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷" 賱丕 鬲鬲賵賯毓 兀賳 鬲噩丿 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丌賱丕賲丕賸 亘卮賰賱 賰丕賲賱 廿賱丕 賮賷 賳賴丕賷鬲賴 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 毓賳丿 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 ( 賲丕 亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 )貙 兀賲丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賱丕 兀賳賰乇 兀賳賴 兀噩亘乇賳賷 毓賱賶 鬲乇賰賴 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞 亘爻亘亘 丕賱鬲亘噩賷賱貙 賵丕賱丕賳丨賷丕夭 賱賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞貙 賵賰兀賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賴賵 ( 丕賱睾乇亘 ) ! 賵兀賳 賲賷夭丕賳 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賵鬲丨乇賰 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賲賳 兀噩賱 賵亘爻亘亘 丕賱睾乇亘! 賴匕丕 禺丕胤乇 賱丕亘丿 賲賳 賯賵賱賴 賱鬲乇鬲丕丨 賳賮爻賷 賯賱賷賱丕賸 夭丕毓賲丞 丕賱廿賯丿丕賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 亘卮賷亍 賲賳 丕賱鬲噩乇丿.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賳賯爻賲 廿賱賶 爻亘毓丞 兀賯爻丕賲貙 亘丿兀 亘賲賯丿賲丞貙 賮丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱丕賵賱 賲鬲丨丿孬丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷丞 賵賲丕 賯亘賱賴丕貙 賵 乇丐賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇賶 兀賳賴丕 賲丨賵乇賷丞 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賯爻丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨鬲賶 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱兀禺賷乇貙 賮賱賱鬲賷爻賷乇 賵乇亘胤 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 兀賯鬲乇丨 兀賳 賷鬲賲 賮賴賲 乇丐賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 賵 兀乇爻胤賵 亘卮賰賱 賵丕囟丨 賵亘賷賾賳貙 孬賲 丕賱廿賲爻丕賰 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賯乇丕亍鬲賴.
鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賳賯胤丞 賲賴賲丞 丨賵賱 毓賱丕賯丞 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲孬賱 賱丿賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 亘鬲毓丿丿 丕賱丌賱賴丞 賱丿賶 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯貙 賵丕賳鬲賯丕賱 丕賱鬲毓丿丿 廿賱賶 噩賵丕賴乇貙 賵丕賱噩賵丕賴乇 廿賱賶 賲孬賱貙 賮丕賱卮賰賱 賵丕丨丿 賱兀卮賷丕亍 禺丕乇噩 丕賱毓丕賱賲 鬲鬲丨賰賲 亘丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵亘丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賵賱賰賱 噩賵賴乇 賵馗賷賮鬲賴 賵賲毓賳丕賴 丕賱禺丕氐
亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 賳賯胤丞 賲丨賵乇賷丞 兀禺乇賶 賵賴賷 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賳馗乇 廿賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵丕賱丕賳賯賱丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賷丞 賲賳匕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷丞 丨鬲賶 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘賳丕亍賸 毓賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱賳馗乇丞貙 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賵爻賷胤 ( 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 ).
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賳賷 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱丨賯亘丞 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷丞
賵丕賱孬丕賱孬 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賰賱 鬲賯賱亘丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賲賵丕賯賮賴丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲乇丕孬 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯賷貙 賵丕賱鬲賳馗賷賲丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱乇丕亘毓 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賲丿乇爻賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓賱賵賲責
賵丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱禺丕賲爻 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 廿賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賳賴囟丞 賵丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞貙 賵賲丨賵乇賷丞 丕賱賳馗乇丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賵丿毓賵賶 丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賰丕賲賱丞.
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻丕丿爻 鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 : 毓賳 丕賱丌賱丕賲 貙 賵賲賳 賴賳丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳爻賲賷賴 賰鬲丕亘 丕賱丌賱丕賲貙 賵毓賳 丕賱卮賰 丨鬲賶 賮賷 丕賱毓賱賲 賵賮賷 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賲毓 賴賷賵賲貙 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賲丕 亘毓丿 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 賵丕賱毓丿賲賷丞 丕賱亘丕卅爻丞.
孬賲 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻丕亘毓 賰匕賷賱 賱賰賱 賲丕 賲乇 賲賳 賮氐賵賱 賵鬲毓囟賷丿賴 亘乇丐賶 賲毓賷賳丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 丨賯賷賯丞貙 賵賮賷賴 賮賵丕卅丿 賳賮賷爻丞貙 賵廿賳 賰丕賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 賲賳丕 賱賱鬲賮胤賳 賱賲丿賶 丨囟賵乇 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 丕賱胤丕睾賷丞貙 賵毓丿賲 丕賱丕爻鬲爻賱丕賲 賱賵氐賮 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賲賳 匕賱賰 丕賱賲賳馗賵乇 賱賲丐賱賮 睾乇亘賷 匕賵 賯賱亘 睾乇亘賷 .
賴匕丕 亘丕禺鬲氐丕乇.
December 22, 2010
This was a very interesting book about cultural philosophy. 95% of the book is a survey from Plato to Postmodernism. In the last 5% of the book, Tarnas uses the entire trajectory of western thought to present his reflections regarding the direction in which culture may be headed. Although my comprehension of what he describes remains incomplete, I'll attempt a brief review of only the epilogue:
Tarnas shows that the Scientific Enlightenment created a paradigm shift in the collective human psyche, which resulted in a disenchanted worldview and the modern characteristic of existential alienation. The inner tension between the quest for meaning and a cold impersonal world tends to lead to an entire spectrum of psychological distortions and disorders. The solution to the modern predicament is to be found in epistemology.
The counter cultural response to the Enlightenment was expressed by the Romantics who turned inward to discover the mysteries of life. Rather than relying on the scientific method, the Romantics placed more emphasis on the emotions, imagination, and intuition to explore a vast array of human experience. But it was the scientific mind that dominated the cultural paradigm.
Tarnas believes that the missing key in the philosophical quest can be found in depth psychology and the exploration of the unconscious. Drawing upon powerful psycho therapeutic methods that serve as catalysts to reveal the realms of the unconscious, Tarnas identifies numerous implications with respect to religion, psychology, and philosophy. But the most important implication has to do with epistemology. Particularly the subject-object dichotomy that has defined modernity.
According to Tarnas, the dualistic shift that began with Descartes and the Enlightenment was not just a fractured way of seeing the world nor the opposite of the Romantics, but rather an archetypal birth process in the evolution of the human mind. All of cultural history can be seen not just as random events, but an evolving process where every contraction and death provides for an expansion and birth; the mind participates in this archetypal process.
Modernity begins in a movement toward freedom and individualism, but inevitably evolves into existential alienation leading to a 'deconstructive frenzy'. Yet this existential crisis is necessary for new birth. This archetypal process found in culture and every aspect of nature is the same potentially unfolding process found within us.
Tarnas suggests that a very different epistemology is called for, which has its roots in thinkers like Goethe, Hegel, Schelling, Coleridge, Emerson, and Rudolph Steiner. What these thinkers have in common is the understanding that mankind's relationship to the cosmos is not dualistic, but participatory.
A participatory epistemology implies that these archetype processes within us are in fact an expression of nature itself. And it is through the inner life of the mind (using a plurality of faculties) that the deeper truths of nature can be revealed. Thus, the mystical experience is not just a private distorted experience of an isolated ego, but rather the emergence of nature herself, a direct intuitive apprehension of reality itself. Or in Tarnas' words, the "imaginal intuition is the human fulfillment of that reality's essential wholeness, which had been rent asunder by the dualistic perception."
Tarnas claims that this is not a regression to a naive participation mystique, but rather an evolution through dualistic alienation. It incorporates postmodern thought, but transcends it. "The human spirit of nature brings forth its own order through the human mind when that mind is employing its full complement of faculties - intellectual, volitional, emotional, sensory, imaginative, aesthetic, epiphanic. Then the world speaks its meaning through human consciousness."
Finally, Tarnas reflects on the past several decades, with its deconstruction of so many cultural components suggesting that a new birth is emerging. This new birth can be seen in the holistic approach now seen in nearly every field of study (social ecology, feminism, going green, alternative medicine, etc.). Culture is beginning to discover a more holistic ecological worldview that sees the interconnectivity among all living systems and that the mechanical worldview may turn out to be an ironic projection of man's alienated condition.
Last, Tarnas shows how this trajectory of the Western mind "has been driven by a heroic impulse to forge an autonomous rational human self by separating itself from the primordial unity with nature." To achieve this, the Western mind has repressed the feminine. Western culture tends to be characterized by rationalism, masculinity, individualism, contractual relationships, colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, and science. It is an imbalance. Eastern culture (that has not been westernized) has been the counter balance to the west. It鈥檚 characteristics tend to be collective, passive, intuitive, feminine, and mystical.
Tarnas believes it is time to embrace the feminine in all its various forms as well as ecological, archaic, and other countercultural and multicultural perspectives. The social and environmental problems we now face are rooted in dominatory political and social systems. The hope for western culture is a synthesis between the east and west, mysticism and science. When the masculine is balanced with the feminine, not only are they complimentary to each other, but the balance also enables each to transcend themselves.
Tarnas shows that the Scientific Enlightenment created a paradigm shift in the collective human psyche, which resulted in a disenchanted worldview and the modern characteristic of existential alienation. The inner tension between the quest for meaning and a cold impersonal world tends to lead to an entire spectrum of psychological distortions and disorders. The solution to the modern predicament is to be found in epistemology.
The counter cultural response to the Enlightenment was expressed by the Romantics who turned inward to discover the mysteries of life. Rather than relying on the scientific method, the Romantics placed more emphasis on the emotions, imagination, and intuition to explore a vast array of human experience. But it was the scientific mind that dominated the cultural paradigm.
Tarnas believes that the missing key in the philosophical quest can be found in depth psychology and the exploration of the unconscious. Drawing upon powerful psycho therapeutic methods that serve as catalysts to reveal the realms of the unconscious, Tarnas identifies numerous implications with respect to religion, psychology, and philosophy. But the most important implication has to do with epistemology. Particularly the subject-object dichotomy that has defined modernity.
According to Tarnas, the dualistic shift that began with Descartes and the Enlightenment was not just a fractured way of seeing the world nor the opposite of the Romantics, but rather an archetypal birth process in the evolution of the human mind. All of cultural history can be seen not just as random events, but an evolving process where every contraction and death provides for an expansion and birth; the mind participates in this archetypal process.
Modernity begins in a movement toward freedom and individualism, but inevitably evolves into existential alienation leading to a 'deconstructive frenzy'. Yet this existential crisis is necessary for new birth. This archetypal process found in culture and every aspect of nature is the same potentially unfolding process found within us.
Tarnas suggests that a very different epistemology is called for, which has its roots in thinkers like Goethe, Hegel, Schelling, Coleridge, Emerson, and Rudolph Steiner. What these thinkers have in common is the understanding that mankind's relationship to the cosmos is not dualistic, but participatory.
A participatory epistemology implies that these archetype processes within us are in fact an expression of nature itself. And it is through the inner life of the mind (using a plurality of faculties) that the deeper truths of nature can be revealed. Thus, the mystical experience is not just a private distorted experience of an isolated ego, but rather the emergence of nature herself, a direct intuitive apprehension of reality itself. Or in Tarnas' words, the "imaginal intuition is the human fulfillment of that reality's essential wholeness, which had been rent asunder by the dualistic perception."
Tarnas claims that this is not a regression to a naive participation mystique, but rather an evolution through dualistic alienation. It incorporates postmodern thought, but transcends it. "The human spirit of nature brings forth its own order through the human mind when that mind is employing its full complement of faculties - intellectual, volitional, emotional, sensory, imaginative, aesthetic, epiphanic. Then the world speaks its meaning through human consciousness."
Finally, Tarnas reflects on the past several decades, with its deconstruction of so many cultural components suggesting that a new birth is emerging. This new birth can be seen in the holistic approach now seen in nearly every field of study (social ecology, feminism, going green, alternative medicine, etc.). Culture is beginning to discover a more holistic ecological worldview that sees the interconnectivity among all living systems and that the mechanical worldview may turn out to be an ironic projection of man's alienated condition.
Last, Tarnas shows how this trajectory of the Western mind "has been driven by a heroic impulse to forge an autonomous rational human self by separating itself from the primordial unity with nature." To achieve this, the Western mind has repressed the feminine. Western culture tends to be characterized by rationalism, masculinity, individualism, contractual relationships, colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, and science. It is an imbalance. Eastern culture (that has not been westernized) has been the counter balance to the west. It鈥檚 characteristics tend to be collective, passive, intuitive, feminine, and mystical.
Tarnas believes it is time to embrace the feminine in all its various forms as well as ecological, archaic, and other countercultural and multicultural perspectives. The social and environmental problems we now face are rooted in dominatory political and social systems. The hope for western culture is a synthesis between the east and west, mysticism and science. When the masculine is balanced with the feminine, not only are they complimentary to each other, but the balance also enables each to transcend themselves.
February 25, 2015
The subject matter is fascinating. I can't say the same thing for Tarnas' writing style, however. Tarnas seems to think his book is a game of Scrabble. But you don't win points with readers when you employ unnecessary extended metaphors every other page, write the same thing over and over in different ways, and use complicated words when simpler ones would suffice. With a good editor, this book could be condensed into a more readable form- one that allows the average person to engage the material a bit better. That said, the material itself is interesting, and Tarnas does make good points here. I just wish I didn't have to plow through a pile of sludge to get to them.
August 30, 2016
Though this book was written in 1991, it still serves as an excellent analysis of the paralysis of the modern world. Richard Tarnas is primarily focused on philosophers and philosophy, but a glance at the present political situation reveals how strong the connection is between the loss of a common paradigm (or even two or three) and the confusion that confounds the global society.
Tarnas, though, grounds that grasp of the present in the intellectual traditions that shaped the modern world, and begins in ancient Greece. Though he is distilling numerous complex philosophical and religious views into a (relatively) few pages, he does so with grace and precision. His long analysis of Christian thought, and how it affected our ways of thinking, is excellent, and he also shows how the cracks in the iron theology of the middle ages allowed the light of the Renaissance to seep in.
And though his lining up the Copernican revolution (which removed man from the center of the cosmos), the Darwinian revolution (which removed man from the crown of creation), and the Freudian revolution (which removed reason as the master of humanity's future) is far from new, he clearly states the postmodern dilemmas, and makes it clear why it is so hard to reach consensus on any aspect of 21st century life.
Tarnas' semi-mystic embrace of Stanislav Grof's theory about how an infant's passage through the birth canal echoes the constrictions of our culture, and how human culture can be saved by the masculine domination of the past 5,000 years returning to the feminine (womb) that it left so long ago seems like the product of a few too many psychedelics, it cannot detract from Tarnas' achievement. And who knows? Maybe he's right, and maybe we will, as a culture, step back from the dangerous excesses of our male-dominated culture. As Leonard Cohen said, "I wish the women would hurry up and take over" -- and twenty years on from the publication of "The Passion of the Western Mind," I feel safe in saying Tarnas would agree.
Tarnas, though, grounds that grasp of the present in the intellectual traditions that shaped the modern world, and begins in ancient Greece. Though he is distilling numerous complex philosophical and religious views into a (relatively) few pages, he does so with grace and precision. His long analysis of Christian thought, and how it affected our ways of thinking, is excellent, and he also shows how the cracks in the iron theology of the middle ages allowed the light of the Renaissance to seep in.
And though his lining up the Copernican revolution (which removed man from the center of the cosmos), the Darwinian revolution (which removed man from the crown of creation), and the Freudian revolution (which removed reason as the master of humanity's future) is far from new, he clearly states the postmodern dilemmas, and makes it clear why it is so hard to reach consensus on any aspect of 21st century life.
Tarnas' semi-mystic embrace of Stanislav Grof's theory about how an infant's passage through the birth canal echoes the constrictions of our culture, and how human culture can be saved by the masculine domination of the past 5,000 years returning to the feminine (womb) that it left so long ago seems like the product of a few too many psychedelics, it cannot detract from Tarnas' achievement. And who knows? Maybe he's right, and maybe we will, as a culture, step back from the dangerous excesses of our male-dominated culture. As Leonard Cohen said, "I wish the women would hurry up and take over" -- and twenty years on from the publication of "The Passion of the Western Mind," I feel safe in saying Tarnas would agree.
March 21, 2015
Nine-tenths or so of this book is a very conventional, albeit prolix, survey of the history of philosophical thinking in the West from the pre-Socratics to the present. As a brief introduction to the history of ideas it is to be recommended. Even the wordy repetitiveness of Tarnas' exposition may function as an aid to retention and understanding for beginners.
Having devoted decades to such studies myself, I found most of the book to be a rehash of familiar ideas and would never have gone through the whole thing were it not given me as a gift by a distant friend I'll be seeing soon. As it was, however, I did have the satisfaction of finding its very familiarity a confirmation that I have obtained a decent philosophical education. Furthermore, I had the satisfaction of seeing some of my own judgments (my prejudices), such as regards the vital centrality of Kant, reinforced by the author.
What surprised me was the emphasis that Tarnas puts on C.G. Jung. Again, I had the satisfaction of reading his claim that Jung was a thoroughgoing Kantian, the very topic of my textually definitive master's thesis on that topic. But beyond that Tarnas goes further than I would, seeing Jung as propounding a synthesis and resolution of conflicting worldviews much as Kant (at least temporarily, as he puts it) reconciled the physical sciences to ethics and religion.
Tarnas doesn't so much focus on Jung, though, as he does on the psychotherapist Stanislas Grof, seen substantially in terms of Jungian archetype theory. Here, building on a weak foundation, a conceptual structure is built in the last tenth of the book which I found unsupportable.
Basically, the idea is that we, in this 'post-Modern' era, are alienated from the world, that, in fact, the history of philosophy is a history of successive alienations via the thought of such figures as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche and Darwin, all of whom overturned old certainties while attempting to posit new models of understanding. In other words, its the old (simplistic and, according to Walter Kaufmann, unfair) Hegelian three-step of thesis/antithesis/synthesis-at-a-higher level. Jung and Grof, to Tarnas' thinking, offer the next step in this evolution toward the Absolute with the archetypes of birth and the feminine.
Here Tarnas gets too fuzzy for me to appreciate his thinking. First of all, neither Jung nor Grof were/are philosophers. Second, archetype theory itself is (like, admittedly, Kant's table of categories), in its detail (the shadow, the anima/us, the wise old man, the puer aeternas, the Self and so on indefinitely), poorly evidenced, some of the archetypes having more, some much less, evidential basis, some of them having more, some much less, logical necessity, some of them having more, some much less, biological correlation. Grof, he tells us, offers the ultimate achetype, 'ultimate' for this era at least, in the rediscovery of what Otto Rank called 'the birth trauma'--the progressive from uterine bliss, to the trauma of passing through the birth canal, to the awakening in the greater world. Here one isn't sure if Tarnas wants his readers to believe that one can actually remember the experience, an outrageous claim on the face of it, or is he's simply offering a metaphor which Grof, his clients and Tarnas himself have found to be fruitful. If it's just a metaphor, fine, fuzzy as it is, especially as Tarnas doesn't go into the fundamental difference between birthing-as-a-mother and being birthed, irrespective of gender--a difference one would expect to be emphasized given the weight he gives otherwise to gender differences. But that, very weak interpretation isn't clearly distinguished from the stronger, existential one that we, all of us, collectively and at the very core of our experience, KNOW its truth.
Where he is stronger, as regards Jung-think applied to civilization and its discontents, is in reference to Jung's observation that the universe becomes conscious in us. That makes some sense, but he hardly develops the idea, spending much more time with Grof's birth business than with Jung's rather commonplace, but potentially profound, observation (some of the implications of which are explored by Heidegger and other phenomenologists hardly even mentioned in the text.
Still, all my objections to Tarnas' concluding fuzziness aside, the bulk of this book is a worthy introduction to the history of philosophy in the West...
Having devoted decades to such studies myself, I found most of the book to be a rehash of familiar ideas and would never have gone through the whole thing were it not given me as a gift by a distant friend I'll be seeing soon. As it was, however, I did have the satisfaction of finding its very familiarity a confirmation that I have obtained a decent philosophical education. Furthermore, I had the satisfaction of seeing some of my own judgments (my prejudices), such as regards the vital centrality of Kant, reinforced by the author.
What surprised me was the emphasis that Tarnas puts on C.G. Jung. Again, I had the satisfaction of reading his claim that Jung was a thoroughgoing Kantian, the very topic of my textually definitive master's thesis on that topic. But beyond that Tarnas goes further than I would, seeing Jung as propounding a synthesis and resolution of conflicting worldviews much as Kant (at least temporarily, as he puts it) reconciled the physical sciences to ethics and religion.
Tarnas doesn't so much focus on Jung, though, as he does on the psychotherapist Stanislas Grof, seen substantially in terms of Jungian archetype theory. Here, building on a weak foundation, a conceptual structure is built in the last tenth of the book which I found unsupportable.
Basically, the idea is that we, in this 'post-Modern' era, are alienated from the world, that, in fact, the history of philosophy is a history of successive alienations via the thought of such figures as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche and Darwin, all of whom overturned old certainties while attempting to posit new models of understanding. In other words, its the old (simplistic and, according to Walter Kaufmann, unfair) Hegelian three-step of thesis/antithesis/synthesis-at-a-higher level. Jung and Grof, to Tarnas' thinking, offer the next step in this evolution toward the Absolute with the archetypes of birth and the feminine.
Here Tarnas gets too fuzzy for me to appreciate his thinking. First of all, neither Jung nor Grof were/are philosophers. Second, archetype theory itself is (like, admittedly, Kant's table of categories), in its detail (the shadow, the anima/us, the wise old man, the puer aeternas, the Self and so on indefinitely), poorly evidenced, some of the archetypes having more, some much less, evidential basis, some of them having more, some much less, logical necessity, some of them having more, some much less, biological correlation. Grof, he tells us, offers the ultimate achetype, 'ultimate' for this era at least, in the rediscovery of what Otto Rank called 'the birth trauma'--the progressive from uterine bliss, to the trauma of passing through the birth canal, to the awakening in the greater world. Here one isn't sure if Tarnas wants his readers to believe that one can actually remember the experience, an outrageous claim on the face of it, or is he's simply offering a metaphor which Grof, his clients and Tarnas himself have found to be fruitful. If it's just a metaphor, fine, fuzzy as it is, especially as Tarnas doesn't go into the fundamental difference between birthing-as-a-mother and being birthed, irrespective of gender--a difference one would expect to be emphasized given the weight he gives otherwise to gender differences. But that, very weak interpretation isn't clearly distinguished from the stronger, existential one that we, all of us, collectively and at the very core of our experience, KNOW its truth.
Where he is stronger, as regards Jung-think applied to civilization and its discontents, is in reference to Jung's observation that the universe becomes conscious in us. That makes some sense, but he hardly develops the idea, spending much more time with Grof's birth business than with Jung's rather commonplace, but potentially profound, observation (some of the implications of which are explored by Heidegger and other phenomenologists hardly even mentioned in the text.
Still, all my objections to Tarnas' concluding fuzziness aside, the bulk of this book is a worthy introduction to the history of philosophy in the West...
November 18, 2023
The author had the ability to write the story of the development of understanding our place in the universe and how we fit in it as if he were writing a novel. The narrative flows that well. He's a very good writer.
The author steps the reader through the development of how we think about knowledge. The heavens above, the home of the Gods, are first thought of as perfect: universal, necessary, and certain. Overtime, through rational thought and coupling with experience we start to understand the world around us antithetically namely as particular to the data, contingent to our current understanding and never certain but probable.
I would recommend this book to anyone. Unfortunately, in that recommendation I would have to give a couple of caveats. He gives this bizarre extra place in our understanding of the world to Freud and Jung and he sprinkles it throught the whole text. It amazes me that we ever really got out of the 80s (yes, the book was published in 1993, but he thinks in 80s paradigms) with its non refutable pyshoanalytical thought and its archetypal forms ("I know you're repressed because you deny your own repression").
If the reader ignores the author's obvious bias towards pyschobabble, the reader will have one of the best written surveys of human thought and progression they'll ever read within one book.
The author steps the reader through the development of how we think about knowledge. The heavens above, the home of the Gods, are first thought of as perfect: universal, necessary, and certain. Overtime, through rational thought and coupling with experience we start to understand the world around us antithetically namely as particular to the data, contingent to our current understanding and never certain but probable.
I would recommend this book to anyone. Unfortunately, in that recommendation I would have to give a couple of caveats. He gives this bizarre extra place in our understanding of the world to Freud and Jung and he sprinkles it throught the whole text. It amazes me that we ever really got out of the 80s (yes, the book was published in 1993, but he thinks in 80s paradigms) with its non refutable pyshoanalytical thought and its archetypal forms ("I know you're repressed because you deny your own repression").
If the reader ignores the author's obvious bias towards pyschobabble, the reader will have one of the best written surveys of human thought and progression they'll ever read within one book.
May 11, 2020
亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱讴鬲丕亘 賳丨賲丿 丕賱賱蹠 毓賱蹖 賳毓賲丞 丕賱賵丨蹖 賵 亘賱丕睾 丕賱丿蹖賳 丕賱蹖賳丕 賵 丨賮馗蹠 賲賳 丕賱囟蹖丕毓貙丕賱讴鬲丕亘 賴蹖 賲毓丕賳丕鬲 賵 丌賱丕賲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱亘毓蹖丿 毓賳 鬲賵噩蹖賴丕鬲 丕賱賵丨蹖 賵 丕賱亘毓丿 毓賳 丕賱賴丿丕蹖丞 丕賱爻賲丕亍 丕賱賲鬲毓孬乇 賮蹖 囟賱丕賱 丕賱丿賳蹖賵蹖
April 30, 2016
賰鬲亘 賲賴賲 噩丿丕 賱賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賰乇 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丞
賲賵爻賵毓賷
賵賲丨鬲丕噩 丕賰鬲乇 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞
賲賵爻賵毓賷
賵賲丨鬲丕噩 丕賰鬲乇 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞
March 30, 2020
賱丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賷 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賷 賯乇兀鬲 毓賲賱 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賯丿乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賵 丕賱卮賲賵賱賷丞 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱睾乇亘賷.
May 6, 2024
A rather good, if flawed, history of ideas. An ambitious book that sets out to trace the history of ideas of the west (never really defined, but I assume it means Europe and latterly America), from the time of the ancient Greeks to the modern day. I think it mostly achieves this.
For anyone with philosophical training, there is nothing particularly deep in the analysis of the ideas, but you probably should not expect that in a one volume history. It nicely covers the period. It takes, mostly, a traditional line focusing on the same big name thinkers most readers will be familiar with. But the synthesis shown and the relationships between the ideas is well explored. If you want a reasonably thorough and yet accessible history of ideas covering that period, then I think this does it rather well and is worth reading.
Two niggles. I think it is a little repetitive at times. This is not a big deal as it covers a lot of ground and a little reinforcement helps. The second is the ending. This tries to bring the book up to date and gives the authors ideas of where we go next. This was written over 30 years ago, and reading it now it all seems a little speculative and biased to the author's personal views and experiences. He never asks the one question I would have had at this point is that in the modern world is there really any place for the concept of the "western mind" as a living and developing train of thinking. Historically yes, it was important and interesting. In future - I am not really that convinced.
For anyone with philosophical training, there is nothing particularly deep in the analysis of the ideas, but you probably should not expect that in a one volume history. It nicely covers the period. It takes, mostly, a traditional line focusing on the same big name thinkers most readers will be familiar with. But the synthesis shown and the relationships between the ideas is well explored. If you want a reasonably thorough and yet accessible history of ideas covering that period, then I think this does it rather well and is worth reading.
Two niggles. I think it is a little repetitive at times. This is not a big deal as it covers a lot of ground and a little reinforcement helps. The second is the ending. This tries to bring the book up to date and gives the authors ideas of where we go next. This was written over 30 years ago, and reading it now it all seems a little speculative and biased to the author's personal views and experiences. He never asks the one question I would have had at this point is that in the modern world is there really any place for the concept of the "western mind" as a living and developing train of thinking. Historically yes, it was important and interesting. In future - I am not really that convinced.
December 1, 2016
Tarnas aptly delineates the trajectory of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic era to postmodernism: a long laborious journey from Homer, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Greek era); to Jesus Christ, Paul, Augustine and Aquinas (Christian Medieval era); and then Copernicus, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Goethe, Hegel, Freud and Jung (Modern era); and finally a quick turn at Nietzsche and (Postmodernism). Of course, these figures are central; the narrative encompasses more. Yet it neglects other influential figures 鈥攕ome of my favorites鈥� for brevity鈥檚 sake.
The style and structure of Tarnas鈥檚 narration is circular, repetitive and overlapping, with constant reiterations, summaries, and rewordings of issues and thinkers previously described. This helps immensely in imbibing central ideas and developments in the course of history. The wording is often literary鈥攕ometimes even 鈥減oetic鈥� and metaphorical; nothing like scientific dryness: this will sure keep any reader engaged.
An important thing to note is that in the section, 鈥淭he Transformation of the Medieval Era鈥�, the narrative becomes too eclectic, drawing forth from different figures in a synoptic integrative fashion. Hence, Tarnas here does not elaborate thoroughly on some philosophers and contributions. Nietzsche鈥檚 influence, for example, is not delineated fully, and so is the case for other individuals. In addition, other important thinkers are overlooked, like Henry Bergson and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Anyway, this book serves as an indispensible primer that will make branching out and zooming in for deeper study on specific figures or periods more congenial. I highly recommend it for those new to philosophy or just want to get a wholistic overview of western thought.
The style and structure of Tarnas鈥檚 narration is circular, repetitive and overlapping, with constant reiterations, summaries, and rewordings of issues and thinkers previously described. This helps immensely in imbibing central ideas and developments in the course of history. The wording is often literary鈥攕ometimes even 鈥減oetic鈥� and metaphorical; nothing like scientific dryness: this will sure keep any reader engaged.
An important thing to note is that in the section, 鈥淭he Transformation of the Medieval Era鈥�, the narrative becomes too eclectic, drawing forth from different figures in a synoptic integrative fashion. Hence, Tarnas here does not elaborate thoroughly on some philosophers and contributions. Nietzsche鈥檚 influence, for example, is not delineated fully, and so is the case for other individuals. In addition, other important thinkers are overlooked, like Henry Bergson and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Anyway, this book serves as an indispensible primer that will make branching out and zooming in for deeper study on specific figures or periods more congenial. I highly recommend it for those new to philosophy or just want to get a wholistic overview of western thought.
June 11, 2022
賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 丕爻丕亍鬲 賱賴 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀噩夭丕卅賴貙 賵賮賷 乇兀賷賷 賱丕 賷氐賱丨 賰賲賯丿賲丞 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞貙 賮丕賱亘乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲氐賲賳 亘丕賱賮毓賱 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱睾乇亘賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷貙 賵賱賰賳賴 噩丕亍 賰囟乇賵乇丞 賱禺丿賲丞 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賱丕 賵賴賵 鬲兀孬賷乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕貙 賵賱匕賱賰 賷賮囟賱 賱賯丕乇賷亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲毓乇賮丞 毓丕賲丞 亘鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘賷 丨鬲賶 賷爻鬲賮賷丿 兀賯氐賶 廿賮丕丿丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩丕亍 賲鬲爻賱爻賱丕貙 賲賳鬲賯賱丕 廿賳鬲賯丕賱丕 賲賳胤賯賷丕 賵夭賲賳賷丕 爻賱爻丕 賱丕 賷卮毓乇賰 亘丕賱廿賳賮氐丕賱貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴 廿囟丕亍丕鬲 賲賴賲丞 毓賳 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵鬲賳丕賯丕囟丕鬲賴丕 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷丞貙 賵賱丕 賷禺賮賶 毓賱賶 兀賷 賯丕乇賷亍 兀賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲鬲兀孬乇 鬲兀孬乇丕 毓賲賷賯丕 賱丕 丨丿 賱賴 亘丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱賴亘噩賱賷 丕賱匕賷 賷乇賶 兀賳賴 爻賷賳鬲賴賷 亘賳丕 廿賱賶 睾丕賷丞 賳賴丕卅賷丞 鬲鬲囟丨 賮賷賴丕 賰賱 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 毓亘乇 鬲噩賱賷(丕賱乇賵丨 丕賱賲胤賱賯) 兀賵 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱賰賱賷丞 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵廿丿乇丕賰賴 毓亘乇 丕賱賵毓賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷.
兀禺賷乇丕貙 賱丕 兀乇賶 爻亘亘丕 賲賯賳毓丕 賵丕丨丿丕 賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賰賱賲丞 (passions) 亘丕賱丌賱丕賲! .... 賮賴匕賴 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賱丕 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 亘賲毓賳賶 (丕賱丌賱丕賲) 廿賱丕 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賮賯胤 丕賱丕 賵賴賷 丕賱廿胤丕乇 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷 賱賵氐賮 丌賱丕賲 賵毓匕丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賲爻賷丨 丕賱賲氐賱賵亘 賵丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱賵丕氐賮丞 賱賴匕賴 丕賱丌賱丕賲.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩丕亍 賲鬲爻賱爻賱丕貙 賲賳鬲賯賱丕 廿賳鬲賯丕賱丕 賲賳胤賯賷丕 賵夭賲賳賷丕 爻賱爻丕 賱丕 賷卮毓乇賰 亘丕賱廿賳賮氐丕賱貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴 廿囟丕亍丕鬲 賲賴賲丞 毓賳 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵鬲賳丕賯丕囟丕鬲賴丕 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷丞貙 賵賱丕 賷禺賮賶 毓賱賶 兀賷 賯丕乇賷亍 兀賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲鬲兀孬乇 鬲兀孬乇丕 毓賲賷賯丕 賱丕 丨丿 賱賴 亘丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱賴亘噩賱賷 丕賱匕賷 賷乇賶 兀賳賴 爻賷賳鬲賴賷 亘賳丕 廿賱賶 睾丕賷丞 賳賴丕卅賷丞 鬲鬲囟丨 賮賷賴丕 賰賱 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 毓亘乇 鬲噩賱賷(丕賱乇賵丨 丕賱賲胤賱賯) 兀賵 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱賰賱賷丞 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵廿丿乇丕賰賴 毓亘乇 丕賱賵毓賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷.
兀禺賷乇丕貙 賱丕 兀乇賶 爻亘亘丕 賲賯賳毓丕 賵丕丨丿丕 賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賰賱賲丞 (passions) 亘丕賱丌賱丕賲! .... 賮賴匕賴 丕賱賰賱賲丞 賱丕 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲 亘賲毓賳賶 (丕賱丌賱丕賲) 廿賱丕 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賮賯胤 丕賱丕 賵賴賷 丕賱廿胤丕乇 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷 賱賵氐賮 丌賱丕賲 賵毓匕丕亘丕鬲 丕賱賲爻賷丨 丕賱賲氐賱賵亘 賵丕賱賳氐賵氐 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱賵丕氐賮丞 賱賴匕賴 丕賱丌賱丕賲.
March 8, 2014
I am glad I read this book, but, woo, am I glad I'm done with it. It took me 6 weeks to read and was very intellectually challenging. It is a very well-done history of Western thought, just at the right level for me. It gets a little depressing when he gets to the post-modern era. Bottom line: after centuries of the best minds trying to understand ourselves and the world we live in, we can know nothing with certainty. Then the epilogue gets kind of woo-woo, with the hypothesis that our collective consciousness is the co-creator of reality. Definitely don't read this book if you are a religious fundamentalist or if you love certainty for some other reason. But if you are intellectually curious, it is like a vigorous walk in a mental garden.
June 25, 2022
4.5. This book is truly a liberal (Classical liberalism not Leftist liberalism) education in a single volume. I understand it was part of the curriculum for several university courses and I can see why. The book traces the Western world view from the early days of ancient Greece through the Middle Ages and up to our current postermodernist insanity (my word). The book elicits the feeling of traveling throughout history following a single thread that explains how one Epoch or zeitgeist impacted the next (for better or worse).
I struggled a bit through the first few chapters. Even though I was familiar at a high level with many of the Greek concepts (i.e. Plato鈥檚 Forms) some took longer to wrap my head around (i.e. Aristotle鈥檚 potentiality and actuality). This book is definitely not a fast read. Seemed like most pages are replete with deep and abstract concepts.
I really enjoyed reading about some of my favorite philosphers and great thinkers and where they fit into the overarching arc of history. I had recently read books from both Goethe and Jung and had no clue that Jung had been so influenced by Goethe and German Romanticism.
The book left me with so many mixed feelings. I felt exultant reading about the inspired discoveries that opened new vistas for mankind. I also felt despair as the world left behind a more innocent, humble and simple perspective and became more secular. The events throughout history that brought about the death of God and loss of faith were in many ways simultaneously commendable and regrettable (鈥淕od became an unnecessary hypothesis鈥�). In the early days of Christianity mankind was humble and life was full of meaning and purpose. It was also tragically obsessed with guilt and desperately proving one鈥檚 worthiness for the assurance of rescue from perdition because of the fall. Even during the reformation Luther had hearkened back to Augustine鈥檚 mindest and viewed any act of human will (other than worshipping God) as sinful just in varying degrees. This mindset devalued life on this earth and was the antithesis of Humanism. After God had been killed (Nietzsche) by events such as, among others, the discovery that the Earth was not the center but a just a spec in an inhuman vast Universe, that man was not special and apart from animals but evolved from apes, and that man is not even really in control of his thoughts (Freud, Jung) the West abandoned it鈥檚 Christianity (not completely obviously) and transitioned to a secular age. As I read and the transitioned unfolded, it was hard not to feel a yearning for the more spiritual, meaningful and simple times of the past. The upshot was obviously the shift away from superstitious belief (surprised how long Astrology was viewed as legitimate science) to illuminating light of reason, scientific advancement and the unbounded potential of man.
I was surprised by the many paradoxes throughout history. Especially how the goals of a viewpoint in one era would sow the seeds for it鈥檚 own destruction in another era. For example the ancient Greek Pythagorean-Plato mindset that there is some universal pattern and order in the Universe propelled later scientific thinkers (i.e. that the cosmos must move in a particular pattern) but those scientific advances led to rejecting the same ancient Greece concepts as viable explanations of the physical world. Similar with the Reformation. Luther鈥檚 goal was to reacquaint man to the more pure Christianity but by going against the massively powerful monolithic Catholic Church it opened the door to question authority and take a unique, individualistic stance which helped contribute to secularism. I enjoy the rationalism of Kant (at least of what I can understand) and admire his attempt to provide a way to look at the world in a rational, empirical way but also to pave a way for a rational mind to maintain a hope that a God could exist. That said, the byproduct of his views probably helped to pave the way to Radical Perspectivism (Nietzsche) and our postmodern world.
The book did not put forth a very optimistic always-advancing linear progression of history. Essentially with events such as new revolutionary scientific discoveries (Quantum Physics, Relativity) that gave credence to Kuhn鈥檚 concept that science is really just one paradigm winning over another (not necessarily better), the promise of the enlightenment devolved into our current madness of post modernism. Post modernism is the most ridiculous and dangerous viewpoint in history. More dangerous than Communism in my opinion. Essentially the claim is that there is no objective truth because one cannot perceive without subjective interpreting. This means that truth is really what those in power want it to be, nothing less or nothing more. The democracy and liberties, while not perfect, we enjoy in America are not based on a progression of enlightened ideals, inspiration or sound principles but just the colonialist self-serving sophistry of slave-owning old white European men. Moreover, capitalism and technological advancements might have brought an entire world out of poverty it is destroying the environment. When you compare the West鈥檚 progress to something like the pseudo-science (Popper) of Lysenkoism under Stalin by which tens of millions died of famine, post modernism looks pretty ridiculous. Steven Pinker, (I鈥檇 recommend his book Enlightenment Now) states:
"If scientific beliefs are just a particular culture鈥檚 mythology, how come we can cure smallpox and get to the moon, and traditional cultures cannot? And if truth is just socially constructed, would you say that climate change is a myth? It鈥檚 the same with moral values. If moral values are nothing but cultural customs, would you agree that our disapproval of slavery or racial discrimination or the oppression of women is just a western fancy?"
I was a bit surprised that the book didn鈥檛 really even gloss over Adam Smith and Capitalism (brief mention of Puritan Work Ethic) as well as how the Western ideals shaped modern democracies especially in America.
Common words/concepts to familiarize yourself with prior to reading:
Syncretism, immanent (not imminent), unitary, numinous, teleological, controvert, entailment, sine qua non, reify, vitiate, pluralistic, anthropomorphic, ontological, tautological, promethean, dialectic, Archimedean, Dionysian
I struggled a bit through the first few chapters. Even though I was familiar at a high level with many of the Greek concepts (i.e. Plato鈥檚 Forms) some took longer to wrap my head around (i.e. Aristotle鈥檚 potentiality and actuality). This book is definitely not a fast read. Seemed like most pages are replete with deep and abstract concepts.
I really enjoyed reading about some of my favorite philosphers and great thinkers and where they fit into the overarching arc of history. I had recently read books from both Goethe and Jung and had no clue that Jung had been so influenced by Goethe and German Romanticism.
The book left me with so many mixed feelings. I felt exultant reading about the inspired discoveries that opened new vistas for mankind. I also felt despair as the world left behind a more innocent, humble and simple perspective and became more secular. The events throughout history that brought about the death of God and loss of faith were in many ways simultaneously commendable and regrettable (鈥淕od became an unnecessary hypothesis鈥�). In the early days of Christianity mankind was humble and life was full of meaning and purpose. It was also tragically obsessed with guilt and desperately proving one鈥檚 worthiness for the assurance of rescue from perdition because of the fall. Even during the reformation Luther had hearkened back to Augustine鈥檚 mindest and viewed any act of human will (other than worshipping God) as sinful just in varying degrees. This mindset devalued life on this earth and was the antithesis of Humanism. After God had been killed (Nietzsche) by events such as, among others, the discovery that the Earth was not the center but a just a spec in an inhuman vast Universe, that man was not special and apart from animals but evolved from apes, and that man is not even really in control of his thoughts (Freud, Jung) the West abandoned it鈥檚 Christianity (not completely obviously) and transitioned to a secular age. As I read and the transitioned unfolded, it was hard not to feel a yearning for the more spiritual, meaningful and simple times of the past. The upshot was obviously the shift away from superstitious belief (surprised how long Astrology was viewed as legitimate science) to illuminating light of reason, scientific advancement and the unbounded potential of man.
I was surprised by the many paradoxes throughout history. Especially how the goals of a viewpoint in one era would sow the seeds for it鈥檚 own destruction in another era. For example the ancient Greek Pythagorean-Plato mindset that there is some universal pattern and order in the Universe propelled later scientific thinkers (i.e. that the cosmos must move in a particular pattern) but those scientific advances led to rejecting the same ancient Greece concepts as viable explanations of the physical world. Similar with the Reformation. Luther鈥檚 goal was to reacquaint man to the more pure Christianity but by going against the massively powerful monolithic Catholic Church it opened the door to question authority and take a unique, individualistic stance which helped contribute to secularism. I enjoy the rationalism of Kant (at least of what I can understand) and admire his attempt to provide a way to look at the world in a rational, empirical way but also to pave a way for a rational mind to maintain a hope that a God could exist. That said, the byproduct of his views probably helped to pave the way to Radical Perspectivism (Nietzsche) and our postmodern world.
The book did not put forth a very optimistic always-advancing linear progression of history. Essentially with events such as new revolutionary scientific discoveries (Quantum Physics, Relativity) that gave credence to Kuhn鈥檚 concept that science is really just one paradigm winning over another (not necessarily better), the promise of the enlightenment devolved into our current madness of post modernism. Post modernism is the most ridiculous and dangerous viewpoint in history. More dangerous than Communism in my opinion. Essentially the claim is that there is no objective truth because one cannot perceive without subjective interpreting. This means that truth is really what those in power want it to be, nothing less or nothing more. The democracy and liberties, while not perfect, we enjoy in America are not based on a progression of enlightened ideals, inspiration or sound principles but just the colonialist self-serving sophistry of slave-owning old white European men. Moreover, capitalism and technological advancements might have brought an entire world out of poverty it is destroying the environment. When you compare the West鈥檚 progress to something like the pseudo-science (Popper) of Lysenkoism under Stalin by which tens of millions died of famine, post modernism looks pretty ridiculous. Steven Pinker, (I鈥檇 recommend his book Enlightenment Now) states:
"If scientific beliefs are just a particular culture鈥檚 mythology, how come we can cure smallpox and get to the moon, and traditional cultures cannot? And if truth is just socially constructed, would you say that climate change is a myth? It鈥檚 the same with moral values. If moral values are nothing but cultural customs, would you agree that our disapproval of slavery or racial discrimination or the oppression of women is just a western fancy?"
I was a bit surprised that the book didn鈥檛 really even gloss over Adam Smith and Capitalism (brief mention of Puritan Work Ethic) as well as how the Western ideals shaped modern democracies especially in America.
Common words/concepts to familiarize yourself with prior to reading:
Syncretism, immanent (not imminent), unitary, numinous, teleological, controvert, entailment, sine qua non, reify, vitiate, pluralistic, anthropomorphic, ontological, tautological, promethean, dialectic, Archimedean, Dionysian
May 15, 2013
Joseph Campbell called this book "the most lucid and concise presentation I have read of the grand lines...of Western thought." High praise from someone who would know! Tarnas' greatest achievement, to my mind, is the lucidity of his prose which makes this an enormously readable survey of the Western Mind from the Greeks to the Post Moderns.
Tarnas' objective for creating this opus is similar to what Campbell wished to do: that is, to create the possibility for an integration of all cultures and all peoples into a new holistic consciousness. In his Epilogue, he says that "[a]s the plant at a certain stage brings forth its blossom, so does the universe bring forth new stages of human knowledge." His effort in this book is to show the stages that have led up to where we are now, and to contribute to our discovery of the next stage.
This next stage largely involves synthesizing the masculine nature of Western philosophy and science with a feminine, holistic understanding of the unity of all living things. For Tarnas, doing this involves delving deep into consciousness, where we find that "the bold conjectures and myths that the human mind produces in its quest for knowledge ultimately come from something far deeper that a purely human source. They come from the wellspring of nature itself..."
One of our favorite things about this book is the way it builds upon itself. When Tarnas describes the ideas and influence of any particular philosopher, event, or innovation, he does so in such a way that he can refer to it again later on and you will understand the connections.
For example, in medieval times, scholars working within the Church -- the only institution capable of supporting scholars -- went through a transition in thought similar to the transition from Plato to Aristotle. Plato believed that truth took the form of otherworldly ideals, and that this world was but a poor reflection of them. Augustine seized upon this concept to reinforce the Christian emphasis on life after death. Plato was followed by Aristotle, who elevated the importance of this world and the importance of this life to the center of his philosophy, and something similar happened in Europe in the Middle Ages:
Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury who created Scholasticism, a means of dialectical reasoning that he used to prove the existence of God. He also openly opposed the Crusades, which means he was incredibly bold and defiantly compassionate. From here, and in the same snowballing, story-telling mode, Tarnas goes on to describe Thomas Aquinas in one of my favorite parts of the book.
Tarnas' objective for creating this opus is similar to what Campbell wished to do: that is, to create the possibility for an integration of all cultures and all peoples into a new holistic consciousness. In his Epilogue, he says that "[a]s the plant at a certain stage brings forth its blossom, so does the universe bring forth new stages of human knowledge." His effort in this book is to show the stages that have led up to where we are now, and to contribute to our discovery of the next stage.
This next stage largely involves synthesizing the masculine nature of Western philosophy and science with a feminine, holistic understanding of the unity of all living things. For Tarnas, doing this involves delving deep into consciousness, where we find that "the bold conjectures and myths that the human mind produces in its quest for knowledge ultimately come from something far deeper that a purely human source. They come from the wellspring of nature itself..."
One of our favorite things about this book is the way it builds upon itself. When Tarnas describes the ideas and influence of any particular philosopher, event, or innovation, he does so in such a way that he can refer to it again later on and you will understand the connections.
For example, in medieval times, scholars working within the Church -- the only institution capable of supporting scholars -- went through a transition in thought similar to the transition from Plato to Aristotle. Plato believed that truth took the form of otherworldly ideals, and that this world was but a poor reflection of them. Augustine seized upon this concept to reinforce the Christian emphasis on life after death. Plato was followed by Aristotle, who elevated the importance of this world and the importance of this life to the center of his philosophy, and something similar happened in Europe in the Middle Ages:
That shift was sparked in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries with the West's rediscovery of a large corpus of Aristotle's writings, preserved by the Moslems and Byzantines and now translated into Latin. With these texts, which included the Metaphysics, the Physics, and De Anima. (On the Soul), came not only learned Arabic commentaries, but also other works of Greek science, notably those of Ptolemy. Medieval Europe's sudden encounter with a sophisticated scientific cosmology, encyclopedic in breadth and intricately coherent, was dazzling to a culture that had been largely ignorant of these writings and ideas for centuries. Yet Aristotle had such extraordinary impact precisely because that culture was so well prepared to recognize the quality of his achievement. His masterly summation of scientific knowledge, his codification of the rules for logical discourse, and his confidence in the power of the human intelligence were all exactly concordant with the new tendencies of rationalism and naturalism growing in the medieval West -- and were attractive to many Church intellectuals, men whose reasoning powers had been developed to uncommon acuity by their long scholastic education in the logical disputation of doctrinal subtleties. The arrival of the Aristotelian texts in Europe thus found a distinctly receptive audience, and Aristotle was soon referred to as "the Philosopher." This shift in the wind of medieval thought would have momentous consequences.
Under the Church's auspices, the universities were evolving into remarkable centers of learning where students gathered from all over Europe to study and hear public lectures and disputations by the masters. As learning developed, the scholars' attitude toward Christian belief became less unthinking and more self-reflective. The use of reason to examine and defend articles of faith, already exploited in the eleventh century by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, and the discipline of logic in particular, championed by the fiery twelfth-century, dialectician Abelart Ranidlv ascended in both educational popular and theological importance. With Abelard's Sic et Non (Yes and No), a compilation of apparently contradictory statements by various Church authorities, medieval thinkers became increasingly preoccupied with the possible plurality of truth, with debate between competing arguments, and with the growing power of human reason for discerning correct doctrine. It is not that Christian truths were called into question; rather, they were now subject to analysis. As Anselm stated, "It seems to me a case of negligence if, after becoming firm in our faith, we do not strive to understand what we believe."
Moreover, after a long struggle with local religious and political authorities, the universities won the right from king and pope to form their own communities. With the University of Paris's receipt of a written charter from the Holy See in 1215, a new dimension entered European civilization, with the universities now existing as relatively autonomous enters of culture devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. Although Christian theology and dogma presided over this pursuit, these were in turn increasingly permeated by the rationalist spirit. It was into this fertile context that the new translations of Aristotle and his Arabic commentators were introduced.
Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury who created Scholasticism, a means of dialectical reasoning that he used to prove the existence of God. He also openly opposed the Crusades, which means he was incredibly bold and defiantly compassionate. From here, and in the same snowballing, story-telling mode, Tarnas goes on to describe Thomas Aquinas in one of my favorite parts of the book.
October 2, 2011
An impressive synthesis of a lot of material; excellent review of the "Greek mind" and how it persists; of the "Judeao-Christian mind" and how it persists. Perhaps most provocative is the suggestion that we are somehow mystically evolving into a new consciousness (Gaia), and that the roots of this come out of Freud, Jung, Groff, and the psychedelics, with an accompanying shift from a masculine dominated intellectual culture to a feminine one.
One HUGE omission: what about the non-Western mind? There is no attention to where the rest of the world's "world view" has come from and no mention of whether this revolution in Western thinking is visible anywhere else. It may be, but there's no case for that in this book.
One HUGE omission: what about the non-Western mind? There is no attention to where the rest of the world's "world view" has come from and no mention of whether this revolution in Western thinking is visible anywhere else. It may be, but there's no case for that in this book.
February 2, 2022
I was looking for the how Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton changed our understanding of the cosmos. Tarnas is very good on this. But there is much, much more besides.
I took off one star for his conclusion which pushes his viewpoint a bit too far -- Jung over Freud. And one star for never confronting the problem of the temporal and spatial boundaries of the "West." And for his vast understatement of the influence of Hegel and Marx. They both appear but do not get as large a role as, say, Descartes and Locke.
Still, I recommend it for a detailed overview of the "western" consciousness.
I took off one star for his conclusion which pushes his viewpoint a bit too far -- Jung over Freud. And one star for never confronting the problem of the temporal and spatial boundaries of the "West." And for his vast understatement of the influence of Hegel and Marx. They both appear but do not get as large a role as, say, Descartes and Locke.
Still, I recommend it for a detailed overview of the "western" consciousness.
April 16, 2015
Beautiful synthesis of the development of Western thinking (starting with the Greeks), but with a a very narrow focus on philosophy (metaphysics and epistomology) and strangely also on astrology. The first 400 pages seem really excellent, at times even brillant, but then Tarnas deviates into a rather psychedelic ally.
September 16, 2014
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓貙貙毓乇囟 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷 亘卮賰賱 賲乇賰夭 貙賳賯丿賷 貙 賵賲賵噩夭 ..賷毓胤賷賰 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 賱賱馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞貙 賵 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞貙 亘賱 賵 賷毓胤賷賰 賳賵毓丕賸 賲賳 丕賱囟賵亍 賱賲丕 爻賷丨氐賱 賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱..
September 12, 2018
Sweet, lucid and concise overview of western thought. I'm familiar with a fair amount of the material that Tarnas surveys here, and I'd say that he accurately and effectively conveys the essentials of their arguments. It's like the best SparkNotes ever written, except that rather than summarizing an author in isolation he integrates them in an intelligible historical narrative. I鈥檇 recommend this as resource material for anyone doing an arts degree - especially for those studying philosophy, history or psychology.
Tarnas' own thesis, which he reveals at the end of the book, is that the passion of the western mind is towards reunification with its ground. Western thought: male, directed, linguistic (phallogocentric) is ultimately animated by the purpose of the cosmos, the telos which exists in nature. It thus tends to reveal the meaning which modern thought had removed from a world conceived as disenchanted. Tarnas thus sees hope beyond the impasse and alienation of post-modern (I'd say: late-modern) thought, in the rise of the archetypal feminine, within feminism and pluralistic articulations of "the other" (e.g. ecological spirituality, minority and queer studies, etc). I largely sympathize with his thesis, with the qualification that no apocalyptic total reunification is possible, that western philosophy must be seen as participating in rather than comprehending the purpose of nature, that the pinnacle of male thought cannot be seen as encompassing an essentially passive female archetype, and that we are the children rather than the fulfillment of creation.
In sum: this brilliant survey ultimately articulates a left-feminist Jungian interpretation of western thought. It could be usefully paired with the conservative-masculine Jungian account of Jordan Peterson.
Tarnas' own thesis, which he reveals at the end of the book, is that the passion of the western mind is towards reunification with its ground. Western thought: male, directed, linguistic (phallogocentric) is ultimately animated by the purpose of the cosmos, the telos which exists in nature. It thus tends to reveal the meaning which modern thought had removed from a world conceived as disenchanted. Tarnas thus sees hope beyond the impasse and alienation of post-modern (I'd say: late-modern) thought, in the rise of the archetypal feminine, within feminism and pluralistic articulations of "the other" (e.g. ecological spirituality, minority and queer studies, etc). I largely sympathize with his thesis, with the qualification that no apocalyptic total reunification is possible, that western philosophy must be seen as participating in rather than comprehending the purpose of nature, that the pinnacle of male thought cannot be seen as encompassing an essentially passive female archetype, and that we are the children rather than the fulfillment of creation.
In sum: this brilliant survey ultimately articulates a left-feminist Jungian interpretation of western thought. It could be usefully paired with the conservative-masculine Jungian account of Jordan Peterson.
August 26, 2021
Read this for a class and just came back to read the last section that was never assigned.
This is fantastic. Full stop. This book completely restructured my world view and recentered my understanding of history. I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in philosophy, sociology, history, religious studies, anthropology, psychology etc etc.
Tarnas is a fantastic writer, the book is full and dense but easy and enjoyable to read and written with a degree of empathy (?) that i think is key to the overall success of the book. Tarnas outlines the progression of western thought from pre-socratics right up to acid dropping radical feminists but remains non-judgy and entirely unpreachy ( at least until the epilogue). Tarnas puts himself in the contexts he is writing about, approaching well known philosophical concepts from their own perspective, highlighting the social, political, scientific situation of each different individual philosopher and their theories.
This rocked my mind and I hope to re-read it many times in my life.
This is fantastic. Full stop. This book completely restructured my world view and recentered my understanding of history. I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in philosophy, sociology, history, religious studies, anthropology, psychology etc etc.
Tarnas is a fantastic writer, the book is full and dense but easy and enjoyable to read and written with a degree of empathy (?) that i think is key to the overall success of the book. Tarnas outlines the progression of western thought from pre-socratics right up to acid dropping radical feminists but remains non-judgy and entirely unpreachy ( at least until the epilogue). Tarnas puts himself in the contexts he is writing about, approaching well known philosophical concepts from their own perspective, highlighting the social, political, scientific situation of each different individual philosopher and their theories.
This rocked my mind and I hope to re-read it many times in my life.
May 20, 2008
Richard Tarnas' book, The Passion of the Western Mind, descriptively and eloquently chronicles the evolution of human discoveries and consciousness (from the time of ancient Greece to modern times). I'm a homeschooling mom and am currently using Tarnas' book to prepare myself for history lessons with my child. It provides a wonderful context by describing the leading ideas of an historical time period. In that way I can help my daughter understand the culture and motivations of a people so that she can acquire more than a stale chronology of history.
July 2, 2009
This book gave me a great overview of the history of our thinking, and tremendous respect for the long traditions we benefit from. It links the different eras in a brilliant way and gives just the right level of detail to really understand each era, including the Greeks, the Christians, the Enlightenment and modern thinking.
Only the last chapter on Postmodernism doesn't quite make it - but given that this book was published before Ken Wilber's greatest works (in 1991) so had not benefited from Integral Theory yet, I forgive Richard Tarnas!
Only the last chapter on Postmodernism doesn't quite make it - but given that this book was published before Ken Wilber's greatest works (in 1991) so had not benefited from Integral Theory yet, I forgive Richard Tarnas!
May 11, 2013
This is the best book to read in order to understand Western thought and its development. If you want to close the gap between how you and westerners tend to view much of the world around us, then this book helps you get on that track. It defines the line of thought through which they have progressed to where they are today. Very surprising stories... e.g. "Human Evolution" was actually conceived to great detail by the Pre-Socratic Greeks?
This book is currently leading me on a philosophical rampage!
This book is currently leading me on a philosophical rampage!
January 22, 2021
La mentalit脿 occidentale: idee che si scontrano, innestano, emergono e decadono, seguendo la spinta della coscienza umana e della natura a manifestarsi. Ho trovato il libro molto approfondito, una storia delle idee che culmina negli ultimi capitoli con una prospettiva originale e ispirata: l'evolversi costante delle idee come manifestazione armonica di stati archetipici della psiche collettiva. Una bellissima scrittura, avvincente, fine, che mi ha dato nuova conoscenza filosofica e infuso una sensazione di attiva speranza, come raramente mi succede dopo la lettura di un saggio.
September 6, 2021
It's not often I read a book that changes my entire world view but it's the case with this one. A thorough, fascinating, utterly engrossing look at Western philosophy, science and religion from their inception with the ancient Greeks through to the late 20th century. Although the book is academic in tone and written by an academic it's also extremely accessible to read which is quite incredible given the sheer scope of the text and the amount of things that the author ties in. It took me six months to read, on and off, purely because it's so wide-ranging and all-encompassing and a lot of the concepts and the ideas were completely novel to me so it took me a while to get to grips with them in my head.
Certainly I got a lot better understanding of the West's history and where our thoughts and ideas come from after reading this and it also serves as a great starting point from which to go into more depth into the philosophers explored. I particularly love the ending, which has almost a surprise twist in the epilogue, and the way the author veers into esotericism at certain points. A great read while I wholeheartedly recommend; not just a book of the year, but of the decade too, perhaps of my lifetime.
Certainly I got a lot better understanding of the West's history and where our thoughts and ideas come from after reading this and it also serves as a great starting point from which to go into more depth into the philosophers explored. I particularly love the ending, which has almost a surprise twist in the epilogue, and the way the author veers into esotericism at certain points. A great read while I wholeheartedly recommend; not just a book of the year, but of the decade too, perhaps of my lifetime.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 197 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.