Widely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96). He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
The Meaning of Life: 賻A Very Short Introductions (Very Short Introductions #186), Terry Eagleton
Terence Francis Eagleton is a British literary theorist, critic, and public intellectual. Eagleton has published over forty books, but remains best known for Literary Theory: An Introduction.
We have all wondered about The Meaning of Life. But is there an answer? And do we even really know what we're asking?
Terry Eagleton takes a stimulating and quirky look at this most compelling of questions: at the answers explored in philosophy and literature; at the crisis of meaning in modern times; and suggests his own solution to how we might rediscover meaning in our lives.
The meaning of life is that which we choose to give it.
Kendimizi her 艧eyin 枚n眉ne koyacak 艧ekilde 枚nceliklendirmemiz gerekti臒i ve en 枚nemli 艧eyin fit ve uzun bir hayat ya艧amam谋z oldu臒u konusunda bilincimizi sorgulamam谋za sebep olan ki艧isel geli艧im (!) kitaplar谋, her ge莽en g眉n artmakta ve bir umudun pe艧inde debelenen insanlara, matbu hayaller olarak sat谋lmakta.
Bu girizg芒h谋 yapma sebebim, bu kitapta bunlar谋n hi莽birini bulamayaca臒谋n谋z谋 s枚ylemek.
Akademisyen ve yazar Terry Eagleton'谋n, zihni yeni bir a莽谋yla tan谋艧t谋ran, edebi arg眉man ve referanslar y枚n眉nden zengin ve rasyonel kitab谋 "Hayat谋n Anlam谋", neden anlam arad谋臒谋m谋z谋 irdeleyerek, baz谋 soru ve cevaplara ili艧kin ipu莽lar谋 veriyor.
"Godot'yu beklemek bir olay m谋d谋r yoksa bir olay谋n ertelenmesi mi? Bekleme edimi bir 莽e艧it hi莽lik, anlam谋n s眉rekli gecikmesi ve 艧imdiki zamanda bir ya艧ama bi莽imi de olan bir gelecek 枚ng枚r眉s眉d眉r."
Tamamen zihinsel ve g枚receli bir kavram olan anlam, hepimizin k谋z谋l elmas谋. Onu bulmak, ona eri艧ebilmek ve sonunda bir tatmin ve huzura ermek varolu艧umuzun en yang谋l谋 ve dermans谋z arzusu.
Kendimi bildim bileli soran, sorgulayan ve cevaplar arayan biri olarak, bana e艧i臒inden ge莽mem gereken yeni kap谋lar a莽an ve ruhuma biraz da olsa esinti veren bu eserden b眉y眉k fayda g枚rd眉臒眉m眉 ink芒r edemem.
"Hayat谋n anlam谋n谋 bulmay谋, ger莽ekle艧tirmeye de臒er bir 艧ey gibi d眉艧眉nmeye e臒ilimliyiz, ama ya bu bir hataysa? Belki de hayat onun temel anlam谋 konusundaki bilgisizlikle s眉rd眉r眉len bir 艧eydir."
Kitab谋n, somut bir cevap vermek veya mutlak bir anlam tarif etmekten ziyade aray谋艧谋m谋zdaki sorular谋n anlaml谋l谋klar谋n谋 sorgulatmas谋, bir y枚nden mu臒lak bir resim 莽izerken, di臒er bir y枚nden tamamen bireysel bir 莽谋kar谋ma ula艧mam谋z谋 sa臒l谋yor.
"E臒er hayatlar谋m谋z谋n bir anlam谋 varsa bu anlam bizim onlara kazand谋rd谋臒谋m谋z bir 艧eydir."
Cevap ne? Belki hi莽bir zaman bilemeyece臒iz veya kavrayamayaca臒谋z. Belki de ger莽ekten "42". Cevaplar aramaya pek tabii devam... Ama 艧imdi sorulacak yeni bir soru var: Soru ne?
"Hayat谋n Anlam谋"n谋, hayat ak谋艧lar谋n谋n temelinde aray谋艧 olan, kesin bir cevap olmasa da soran ve sorgulayan ve edebiyat tarihinde bize bizi anlatan 莽ok de臒erli anlar oldu臒una inanan t眉m yeti艧kin okurlara 枚neririm.
This book is quite fun 鈥� as long as you don鈥檛 take it too seriously, and, let鈥檚 face it, it is almost impossible to take seriously a book called 鈥榯he meaning of life, a very short introduction鈥�. There is something paradoxical about the meaning of life being an introduction 鈥� surely we are after conclusions.
This has a nice pace and enough jokes to keep you smiling between ideas. My favourite joke in the whole thing (one I鈥檇 never heard before and feel very surprised that I never thought of it myself) was the reported t-shirt that reads, 鈥榃hat if the hokie-pokie really is what it is all about?鈥�
He covers a lot of ground here 鈥� none of it all that unfamiliar, although, I don鈥檛 really mean that as a criticism. Lots of stuff on Aristotle and Schopenhauer, Kant and Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Jesus. So that a lot of this was also a nice and quite easy introduction to philosophy too and its relationship to theology and aesthetics and other things along the way 鈥� post-modernism, mostly.
Like I said, this is a quick and amusing little book and such are both its failings and successes. He is always clear and that has to be a good thing.
"E臒er hayatlar谋m谋z谋n bir anlam谋 varsa bu anlam bizim onlara kazand谋rd谋臒谋m谋z bir 艧eydir;" (s.45)
陌ddial谋 ismine bak谋p da, "hayat谋n anlam谋n谋 bu kitapta bulabilirim" diye d眉艧眉nmemek gerekir. Bu kitap do臒al olarak, ba艧ka kitaplar da; hayat谋n anlam谋n谋 herhalde 莽at diye s枚ylebilecek de臒ildir ama bu kitab谋n 枚zelli臒i "hayat谋n anlam谋"ndan 莽ok, bunu neden arad谋臒谋m谋z, neden sorgulad谋臒谋m谋z ve bu sorgulaman谋n ger莽ekte ne oldu臒u 眉zerinde duruyor. Yani kitap, "hayat谋n anlam谋"n谋n anlam谋n谋n izini s眉r眉yor da diyebiliriz.
Of the many subjects covered in the Oxford University Press "Very Short Introductions" series, few can be as diffuse and difficult to understand as "The Meaning of Life" as explored in this 2008 volume by Terry Eagleton. Many readers believe that philosophers explore and address the question of "the meaning of life" and are frustrated when the philosophers appear to back away. The question persists in study, among many people whether religious or non-religious, and in popular culture. It is a subject for serious people and for cranks and charlatans. Although his short book shows wide philosophical reading, Eagleton is not a professional philosopher but rather the John Edward Taylor Professor of English at the University of Manchester and a Fellow of the British Academy. He has written many books on literary criticism.
Eagleton takes his subject seriously but writes in an accessible, peppery style with considerable humor and irony. The book shows erudition in its discussion of philosophers and psychologists, but Eagleton is most at home with literature. Discussions of Shakespeare, Conrad, Beckett, Joyce, Sophocles, and others abound in its pages. The philosophers discussed include Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, among others, but the emphasis among the philosophers considered is on Ludwig Wittgenstein. The short book is loosely organized. Discussion moves back in forth among the chapters from topic to topic and ranges from discussion and formulation of issue to history to consideration of the views of various writers almost in free-flow.
A book on "the meaning of life" must first discuss whether this much-raised question makes sense and if so what kind of sense. Eagleton devotes the larger part of the book to analyzing the question. As he points out, none of the words in the question is easy, and it is far from obvious that the question is well-formed. The word "the" seems to presuppose a single, one-size-fits-all answer. The notoriously slippery word "meaning" most usually applies to propositions rather than to things ( There is no sense to "What is the meaning of an apple", say)there are a variety of understandings that can be teased out of meaning. Finally, "life" is a diffuse term for purposes of the question, covering perhaps all life, all human life, an individual life, or stages in a life. Eagleton explores the difficulties but bravely pushes on.
Together with understanding and formulating the question, Eagleton also explores its history. I found the historical discussion valuable but brief. While the question about "the meaning of life" has a long history, Eagleton argues that it tended to be raised less often and with less urgency in earlier times when people were more likely to think they had a ready answer. Thus in times and places of devout religious faith in God, there would be less tendency to raise the question or when it was raised to answer it immediately with theology. For Eagleton, the question assumed its force in modern times with its breakdown of religious belief and with the development of a competing, plurality of values, none of which commands a consensus.
The question of "the meaning of life" is a question of modernism. Eagleton states: [w]hat marks modernist thought from one end to another is the belief that human existence is contingent -- that it has no ground, goal, direction, or necessity and that our species might quite easily never have emerged on the planet." Late in the book he says, [m]odernity...is the epoch in which we come to recognize that we are unable to agree even on the most vital, fundamental issues." Eagleton distinguishes modernism from its more radical successor, post-modernism, which with its sharp distrust of abstractions declines even to raise the question.
Most of the book explores the difficulties of the question and a variety of approaches to it. Eagleton moves towards accepting the question but reformulating the way to answer it. He wants to move away from an individualistic answer to the question such as "meaning is what one makes of it in one's own life" and away from a theoretical answer. He proposes instead an approach based on ethics and on the shared character of human life. He sees the question of meaning as the question of a goal, and he relies heavily on Aristotle and his concept of the good life and the Christian concept of agape as providing ways towards understanding the question.
Serious books and considerations of the question of "the meaning or life" continue to be written, perhaps at an increased pace. Before reading Eagleton's book, I read a new book by the late legal philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, "Religion without God" (2013) which explores the question eloquently in Dworkin's own terms. Eagleton offers a learned and provocative if brief "very short introduction" to a "very difficult question".
Hayat谋n anlam谋n谋 bilmemenin hayat谋n anlam谋n谋n bir par莽as谋d谋r. Ve bu t眉r sorular谋 yan谋tlamak yerine onlar谋 莽枚z眉mlemeyi yerinde bulan Eagleton'dan bu bilmeme halini dinliyoruz. Dinliyoruz diyorum 莽眉nk眉 ger莽ekten konu艧ur gibi yaz谋yor yazar. Okumas谋 o sebeple 莽ok keyifli bir sohbete d枚n眉艧眉yor. Wittgenstein, Shopenhauer, Aristoteles, Samuel Beckett ve daha nicelerinden farkl谋 ama k谋sa k谋sa bak谋艧 a莽谋lar谋 yakalayan yazar bu kafa yormas谋na bizleri de dahil ediyor ve hayat谋n anlam谋n谋 bulmu艧 olsayd谋k ya艧am谋yor olurduk sorunsal谋na dek g枚t眉rebiliyor. Ki艧isel tatminle 莽evrili, toplumsal 莽er莽evesinden m眉zdarip, insan谋n dert edindi臒i haliyle ve olageldi臒i haliyle hayat, bir d眉艧眉nme evreni ayn谋 zamanda...
Eagleton'dan okudu臒um ilk kitap. Hani, arada s谋rada Bauman okumak istememe, Eagleton da eklendi diyebilirim rahatl谋kla. Kitap Fuar谋'nda Ayr谋nt谋 Yay谋nlar谋'n谋 talan ederken yeni 莽evrilmi艧 Bauman'larla bu kitab谋 ke艧fetmem tesad眉f de臒ildi demek ki :)
Farkl谋 y枚nlerden soruya bakm谋艧. Ve hi莽 biri de 鈥渂irbirinizi sevin. Hayat sevince g眉zel鈥� seviyesinde de臒il. Gayet mant谋kl谋 ve teknik yakla艧m谋艧 konuya. Soruya cevap vermemi艧. Sadece bu soru o kadar da kolay bir soru de臒il demi艧. Bunu 莽ok net a莽谋klam谋艧. Sormas谋 kolay ama cevap vermesi 莽ok zor. Hatta 艧uanda bu sat谋rlar谋 okudu臒unda 鈥渉eralde zor. Bu da yorum mu yani 艧imdi?鈥� dedi臒inden daha zor. Hayat谋n anlam谋 nedir? 脟ok basit. Bu sorunun cevab谋 yok. 脟眉nk眉 bu soru asl谋nda yok. Hayat谋n anlam谋 de臒il ama sorunun anlam谋 莽ok b眉y眉k. Dolay谋s谋yla cevap vermek imkans谋zla艧谋yor. Cevap ne kadar imkans谋zla艧la艧谋rsa soru da o kadar sa莽mala艧谋yor. Burada yazar谋n kitapta uzun uzun anlatt谋臒谋 detaylar谋 anlatamayaca臒谋m ancak soruda ki her bir kelime olduk莽a a臒谋r. Hayat ne demek? Anlam ne demek? Nedir ne demek?
This starts off reasonably well - the first dozen or so pages demonstrate a gratifying precision, setting up the prospect of a brief but rigorous analysis. And then... crash! It all falls apart.
What ruined it for me? Several things. Literary tangents that went on far too long. Grating political biases that had no place here and became all too frequent (he's not keen on liberals - and yes, his attack is always on liberals rather than liberalism; he seems to favour that approach. Eagleton's modus operandi seems to be that of tired contempt, of sneering and scoffing and preceding the objects of his scorn with the word "dreary" to remind us that not only does he disagree but he's oh-so-seen-it-all-before.)
Worst of all, the meaning of life question seems to peter out less than halfway through the book, and morphs into what is essentially "How can I find meaning in my life?" - at which point we are subjected to the kind of woolly reasoning of theology rather than the solid analytical tools of philosophy. It all culminates in a somewhat predictable Aristotelian answer (happiness... virtue... life is what you make it...) that left me wondering what was the point of the book when we could - and probably have - reached the same conclusion from those giants of philosophy, Walt Disney and Steven Spielberg. (Sorry - sneers are surely more forgiving in reviews than in a book on the meaning of life!)
I was obviously (to put it mildly) not expecting the ultimate metaphysical question to be wrapped up - but I really was hoping that the journey in that direction would at least be an enjoyable and somewhat enlightening one. As I say, the first few pages were great, and highly quoteworthy. After that? A deeply irritating read and a wasted opportunity.
Marksist edebiyat kuramc谋s谋 T. Eagleton bu kez felsefi bir konuyu, hayat谋n anlam谋n谋n ne anlama geldi臒ini sorguluyor, bu nedenle kitab谋n ad谋 hi莽 uygun de臒il, ticari bir se莽im. Postmodernist ve liberallere bolca 莽atan, teolojik g枚ndermelerden kendini alamayan Eagleton ba艧ta Beckett olmak 眉zere edebiyattan yard谋m alarak s枚z oyunlar谋 ile kitab谋n谋 s眉rd眉rm眉艧. Sonu莽ta Wittgenstein鈥櫮眓 d眉艧眉ncesi do臒rultusunda e臒er hayat谋n anlam谋 diye bir 艧ey varsa bu ne鈥漡iz鈥漝ir ne de 鈥溍秡眉m鈥�. Kitab谋n isminin okuyucuyu yan谋ltmas谋na duydu臒um k谋zg谋nl谋k ile bir y谋ld谋z谋n谋 da ben k谋rpt谋m.
How can an English professor and literary critic write a philosophical brief on the meaning of life? Well, Terry Eagleton did, and did it well. He takes us through the end of Victorian certainty and shows how Hardy and Conrad raised questions with a sense of urgency that Jane Austin never had. In the early decades of the 20th Century, T.S. Eliot and Camus and Sartre brought challenges to all our values, beliefs and institutions.
Most in the West (that is outside of the US) have now accepted the view that life is an accidental evolutionary phenomenon with no intrinsic meaning. Rather than lament the loss of being part of God鈥檚 design, which was often impenetrable, this clears the ground for us to give life whatever meaning we choose.
A starting point is realizing life is not a problem to be solved; if we are being practical, it really becomes more an ethical issue than metaphysical. We should be more concerned about what makes life worth living, what adds quality, depth, abundance, and intensity.
Eagleton鈥檚 suggestions point us towards a direction we have heard before, caring for others, compassion, becoming truly engaged. And, that is what has occupied the great novelists, poets and artists of all ages.
Ah ke艧ke s枚yleyiverseydi hayat谋n anlam谋n谋n ne oldu臒unu Eagleton bu kitab谋nda! Elbette safdillik olur b枚yle bir beklenti i莽inde olmam谋z bile... Arka kapak yaz谋s谋nda kitab谋n neyi nas谋l anlatt谋臒谋na dair 莽ok iyi bir 枚zet ge莽ilmi艧. Kolay bir okuma beklentiniz olmas谋n. En az谋ndan benim i莽in kolay olmad谋. Sat谋rlardan 莽ok sat谋r aralar谋n谋n 枚nem kazand谋臒谋 kitaplardan 鈥淗ayat谋n Anlam谋鈥�.
Terry Eagleton , a long time literary critic of Marxist training (Marxist Literary Criticsm, Literary Theory, Illusions of Post Moderism) and Catholic church moral rigor and one of the best explicators of the dually condensed and convoluted intersections of literature, philosophy and political action, has give us all a small, witty, tersely choice gift with his new book, more correctly an essay, called The Meaning of Life. Eagleton's intent, despite what one might assume, isn't to cast a disparaging glare at what has to be simultaneously the most over- asked and least answerable question issued forth, continually, but the swelling ranks of the Middle Brow readership.
Eagleton is one of the few truly fine stylists in Leftist literary criticism, an intellectual who is able to translate the most involuted and deferring theoretical quagmires in elegant, comprehensible English, and who is likewise able, and blessedly inclined to make the murky suppositions of other academics sweat by insisting that notions of reading deal , finally, with a book's perceptible idea, and that analysis of the workings have something to do with a reader's experience of the text they've finished and seek to fruitfully ponder. He steers clear of the stalling abstractions of Frederick Jameson, and more clearly addresses the same idea advanced by the increasingly oracular Harold Bloom--the investigation into how Literature helps us think about ourselves and our deeds in the world.
The author does not sneer, deride, nor deride the question, although more than a little of his prickly wit bubbles up from under the surface of his elegantly poised writing. It's a question he takes seriously--it must be important,since queries into grander, greater (or lesser) significance in our existence have been debated for as long as humans could write and record their knowledge and history-- but he is one who is rather tired of the various sophistries that have absorbed the question and tried to force it into submission. He is short fused with the New Agers, who's dreamy capitulation of personal responsibility to whispering drives are useless to most of us who find ourselves denied celestial epiphanies in ruthless material plain, and Eagleton is equally contemptuous of post-modernist theorizers who would argue, abstrusely, thickly, blockheadly, that the Meaning of Life is a merely a social construction and that one is finely better off, by implication, attempting nothing to change one's state and purpose and instead enjoy the spectacle of observing the culture collapse upon itself. An attractive aspect of Eagleton's progressive dissections of concepts and the language that gives them form is a tangible humanity; he refuses to slide into pessimism with the false assurance that the population is too stupid or deluded to do better by themselves and their fellows, or that the quest for meaning of our deeds is delusional. There is a series of skewerings , interrogations and elucidations of the basic elements of the need to define the life worth living-- the rise of the need for metaphysical certainty as expressed in religion, philosophy and political thought, and the latter day "eclipse of meaning" as modernism and postmodernism seem to fragment phenomena into a incoherent multi-verse that could be be authoritatively unified under banner of general noble purpose.
The thrust of the book, we find, is that seeking the answer to what The Meaning of Life is is less an attempt to find that patch of wise and fertile soil on which one may advance their lives with a given purpose, but that that it is a way of life. Far from being static, the genuine quest for coherence, meaning, a means by which to measure one's best intentions and making them effectively congruent with their actions, is in itself the purpose of being alive and productive, above and beyond the biological imperative.
The species is quite capable of much nastiness and unmistakable evil, but we are likewise capable of great works of art , compassion, charity. That capacity, after the pseudo systems of philosophical side streets have been blocked off, the sweetness of new age thought turns into a fouling stench, and the apocalyptic ravings of religious extremes reveal themselves as useless to the question to what one does in this life that's useful, Eagleton considers the open mind interested in the ongoing need for the good to be the thing which we must prize over all.