What do you think?
Rate this book
The Love of Destiny: The Sacred and the Profane in Germanic Polytheism
The Love of Destiny: The Sacred and the Profane in Germanic Polytheism is a relatively short book by Dan McCoy, the author of the articles on Norse-Mythology.org. Written in a style that is somewhere between a philosophy essay and a prose poem, The Love of Destiny is a much fuller presentation of many of the recurring big-picture themes in the articles on this site. It attempts to articulate the heart of the indigenous Germanic worldview – the unconditional affirmation of the world as the very embodiment of the gods – and to show how the rest of that worldview is structured around that central idea. To do this, it “translates” the narratives and images that comprise the pre-Christian mythology of the Norse and other Germanic peoples into the more familiar idiom of conceptual language, and contrasts this polytheistic mythology with the mythology of four monotheistic religions: ancient Judaism, Greek rationalism, Christianity, and modern science. It argues that many of the most pressing philosophical and theological debates of the last several centuries, such as those over the “problem of evil” and the relationship between the “objective” and the “subjective,” frame the issues in counterproductive, “otherworldly” ways, and shows how Germanic polytheism offers compelling alternatives. Ultimately, it evokes a way of engaging with the more-than-human world that honors our inescapable entanglement within it.
See below for the Table of Contents and a sample section.
When you purchase a copy of this book, you help keep this site up and running, and I sincerely hope you feel that you’ve gotten your money’s worth and then some. This book was the result of several years of research, experience, contemplation, and writing. I wrote and scrapped three different versions of it before finally arriving at a version that I felt satisfied with enough to offer publicly. Hopefully that effort is apparent in the quality of the text itself.
Tables of Contents
Introduction
I. Prologue
- Polytheism and Monotheism
II. The Origins and Worldview of Monotheism
- The Hebrews
- The Greeks
- The Christians
- The Scientists
III. The Sacred and the Profane
- Spirit and Flesh
- Myth
- Reason
- Perspectivism
IV. Destiny
- The Turning of Being
- The Eternal Circle
Glossary of Old Norse Words
Bibliography
Sample Section
This is the section “Spirit and Flesh” from Chapter Three, “The Sacred and the Profane:”
From a polytheistic perspective, the visible world is not a negation of the invisible world of spirit, but its fulfillment. The words that William Blake chose to end The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “Everything that lives is holy,” apply to all that we perceive and experience, no matter how grand and luminous, no matter how vile and distressing.
In his unfinished masterpiece, The Visible and the Invisible, the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty wrote: “[Ideas] could not be given to us as ideas except in a carnal experience. It is not only that we would find in that carnal experience the occasion to think them; it is that they owe their authority, their fascinating, indestructible power, precisely to the fact that they are in transparency behind the sensible, or in its heart… [The idea] is the invisible of this world, that which inhabits this world, sustains it, and renders it visible.” The intuition and imagination, far from being “subjective” and therefore of little to no consequence where the real is concerned, have an openness upon the real that equals that of the senses. The mythical beings, realms, and events that they perceive are not false or nonexistent simply because they elude the senses, but rather dwell within an ordinarily latent – and yet ultimately deeper – modality of the world. Nor should the senses be shunned, for that which they divulge is fastened to that which is divulged by the invisible components of perception. Perception’s visible and invisible parts cannot be isolated from one another; both are integrated into a seamless whole. Such, at least, is how we are surely to understand the Roman historian Tacitus’s description of the religion of the Germanic tribes: “Their holy places are the woods and groves, and they apply the names of gods to those hidden presences seen only by the eye of reverence.”
Despite its origins in the Latin word mater, “mother,” our modern word “matter” has been invested with connotations of inertness, insensitivity, barrenness. To call it “dead” would be to impart to it too much life – it was never living in the first place. Against this Cartesian tendency, Merleau-Ponty described the visible world as flesh, within which all of us visible beings are intertwining sinews.
There is a particular resonance with Germanic mythology in his choice of words. Before the world as we today know it had emerged, there was only the primordial chaos of Ginnungagap (“Great Abyss”). Ymir (“Scream”), the animating spirit of this void of undist...
See below for the Table of Contents and a sample section.
When you purchase a copy of this book, you help keep this site up and running, and I sincerely hope you feel that you’ve gotten your money’s worth and then some. This book was the result of several years of research, experience, contemplation, and writing. I wrote and scrapped three different versions of it before finally arriving at a version that I felt satisfied with enough to offer publicly. Hopefully that effort is apparent in the quality of the text itself.
Tables of Contents
Introduction
I. Prologue
- Polytheism and Monotheism
II. The Origins and Worldview of Monotheism
- The Hebrews
- The Greeks
- The Christians
- The Scientists
III. The Sacred and the Profane
- Spirit and Flesh
- Myth
- Reason
- Perspectivism
IV. Destiny
- The Turning of Being
- The Eternal Circle
Glossary of Old Norse Words
Bibliography
Sample Section
This is the section “Spirit and Flesh” from Chapter Three, “The Sacred and the Profane:”
From a polytheistic perspective, the visible world is not a negation of the invisible world of spirit, but its fulfillment. The words that William Blake chose to end The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “Everything that lives is holy,” apply to all that we perceive and experience, no matter how grand and luminous, no matter how vile and distressing.
In his unfinished masterpiece, The Visible and the Invisible, the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty wrote: “[Ideas] could not be given to us as ideas except in a carnal experience. It is not only that we would find in that carnal experience the occasion to think them; it is that they owe their authority, their fascinating, indestructible power, precisely to the fact that they are in transparency behind the sensible, or in its heart… [The idea] is the invisible of this world, that which inhabits this world, sustains it, and renders it visible.” The intuition and imagination, far from being “subjective” and therefore of little to no consequence where the real is concerned, have an openness upon the real that equals that of the senses. The mythical beings, realms, and events that they perceive are not false or nonexistent simply because they elude the senses, but rather dwell within an ordinarily latent – and yet ultimately deeper – modality of the world. Nor should the senses be shunned, for that which they divulge is fastened to that which is divulged by the invisible components of perception. Perception’s visible and invisible parts cannot be isolated from one another; both are integrated into a seamless whole. Such, at least, is how we are surely to understand the Roman historian Tacitus’s description of the religion of the Germanic tribes: “Their holy places are the woods and groves, and they apply the names of gods to those hidden presences seen only by the eye of reverence.”
Despite its origins in the Latin word mater, “mother,” our modern word “matter” has been invested with connotations of inertness, insensitivity, barrenness. To call it “dead” would be to impart to it too much life – it was never living in the first place. Against this Cartesian tendency, Merleau-Ponty described the visible world as flesh, within which all of us visible beings are intertwining sinews.
There is a particular resonance with Germanic mythology in his choice of words. Before the world as we today know it had emerged, there was only the primordial chaos of Ginnungagap (“Great Abyss”). Ymir (“Scream”), the animating spirit of this void of undist...
97 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
20 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 18, 2015
Interesting read, enough to garner 4 stars. The ideas around morality could have been clearer and investigated with much more rigor. This part was the most interesting and also the most lacking. The author could easily add another 300 pages and not fully investigate what he terms "polytheism". As it is he left it underdeveloped and in need of more.
He also wrote about not citing references. I get how this allows for freedom in ideas, but here it smacks solidly of academic laziness. At the very least he could arrange for topical bibliography in the back of the book (for Justice, see XYZ). His ideas, though interesting, would be tossed out of any folklore class because of his lack of references. One cannot just list important sources in the back and call it good. For this, he fell from 4 to 3 stars.
He also wrote about not citing references. I get how this allows for freedom in ideas, but here it smacks solidly of academic laziness. At the very least he could arrange for topical bibliography in the back of the book (for Justice, see XYZ). His ideas, though interesting, would be tossed out of any folklore class because of his lack of references. One cannot just list important sources in the back and call it good. For this, he fell from 4 to 3 stars.
October 24, 2013
McCoy does a wonderful job of bringing the reader up to speed on other cultures regarding both the idea of what is sacred and what is profane. Unfortunately, once he gets to the Germanic portion of the book he appears to rush through it. He does not go into the same detail as the first half of the book and leaves the reader wondering whether the author is planning on expanding his ideas at a later date. There is also some question regarding his accuracy in the glossing over of a few myth stories that will need to be verified before calling him on it.
The author's writing style is clearly at a college level but not unattainable to those willing to put their minds to the task. He discusses complex theories in a simpler fashion that is accessible and enjoyable to read.
It is a good book, especially the first half, for those trying to get a basic handle of the material for monotheistic mentalities. Just prepare to be left a little disappointed with the lack of detail at the end where he should have spent considerably time with the Germanic polytheism. Perhaps the author is planning a more in-depth release at a later time which I will absolutely read.
The author's writing style is clearly at a college level but not unattainable to those willing to put their minds to the task. He discusses complex theories in a simpler fashion that is accessible and enjoyable to read.
It is a good book, especially the first half, for those trying to get a basic handle of the material for monotheistic mentalities. Just prepare to be left a little disappointed with the lack of detail at the end where he should have spent considerably time with the Germanic polytheism. Perhaps the author is planning a more in-depth release at a later time which I will absolutely read.
May 29, 2016
An interesting read with some moments of brilliance, but I can't say that I'd recommend it.
I love the authors website, and I was attracted to the title of this book. Having read it, I'm not sure who the target audience is. My philosophy friends would be better directed to Collin Cleary. My layperson friends would be better suited to something like the Burzum guy's books.
Also, I wasn't a fan of the conclusion of this book. Seems like UPG that's meant to be taken for the whole of the Germanic worldview.
I love the authors website, and I was attracted to the title of this book. Having read it, I'm not sure who the target audience is. My philosophy friends would be better directed to Collin Cleary. My layperson friends would be better suited to something like the Burzum guy's books.
Also, I wasn't a fan of the conclusion of this book. Seems like UPG that's meant to be taken for the whole of the Germanic worldview.
August 21, 2020
The author paints with a broad brush, too broad much of the time and misses the mark in some sections - especially in critique of “Monotheism” (the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example that stands out) and some parts of its analysis of objectivity in Science. But a very interesting read! I think it’s at its strongest when it is affirming the Polytheistic (as outlined) view of the world and the transcendent value and truth of myth. In that respect the later half of the essay is quite strong.
August 27, 2015
This is less a "book" and more of an essay. I found it to be useful in determining the basic differences between mono- and poly-theistic world views, but wish it had offered more depth through a more detailed look at the examples offered, along with their implications. The essay assumes a large amount of prior knowledge on the reader's part, and perhaps I am unable to make more connections as a result.
March 21, 2016
This book has some interesting ideas, but spends more time discussing the problems with monotheism (including science, which McCoy includes under the umbrella of monotheism) than with actually saying anything about Germanic polytheism. Dan McCoy's website, norse-mythology.org, has more useful information than his book, and you can read it for free.
January 12, 2021
McCoy lays out the argument that the polytheistic experience is different from the monotheistic one. His polytheism isn’t just belief in multiple gods, nor his monotheism belief in one god alone, but rather, he frames polytheism as a worldview, any worldview almost, that sees the human as being part and parcel of the wider world, whereas the various monotheisms of the world see the human as being exceptional and apart from the world.
He lays out four historical monotheisms: the Hebrews, the Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), the Christians, Science. He then contrasts these monotheisms, which all set the human experience on a pedestal above the natural world, in contrast to Germanic polytheism, but makes it abundantly clear that essentially any of the polytheisms would work for the argument precisely because polytheism is inclusive by nature. He references specifically the dreamtime of the Australian aborigines, but moves on quickly. Also, in his discourse on the monotheistic nature of Science, he does give Charles Darwin special credit as thinker.
As an aside, if we accept McCoy’s historical framework that Science developed directly from the philosophical foundations laid down by the Greeks and the Christians, then Darwin’s Origin of Species really is the first time that Science can be reconciled to polytheism. Darwin’s observation that non-human animals and humans share common ancestors puts humans back in the mix, as it were, of the wider world. Humans are part of the natural world. We’re moving around and thinking and getting degrees and building cities, but we’re doing it with the meat-limbs that grew up in this world the same as the meat-limbs of every other animal.
In short, I believe I had accepted McCoy’s premises and conclusions long before I read his book. It’s a good essay, but I did find it reaching in a few places. Having said that, am I now honor-bound to make the same argument but better? No. It’s good enough and if I were to write a similar treatise, my readership would have essentially the same reaction to mine that I had to McCoy: “Agreed! …but there’s this detail that I would have phrased differently…” and well, if we are polytheists, don’t we have room to accept several modes of expression of the same idea?
I conclude this review saying that McCoy is not in any way anti-science. He lays out very clearly that the scientific method, scientific institutions, and scientists themselves are more than capable of producing the tools we will need to continue to shape the planet as we see fit. He doesn’t necessarily agree, however, with the direction of the planet-shaping that is currently going on (who does, really?) and further believes that (1) the general consensus in the scientific community is that humans are somehow apart from nature and (2) that this is deleterious to the human experience.
He lays out four historical monotheisms: the Hebrews, the Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), the Christians, Science. He then contrasts these monotheisms, which all set the human experience on a pedestal above the natural world, in contrast to Germanic polytheism, but makes it abundantly clear that essentially any of the polytheisms would work for the argument precisely because polytheism is inclusive by nature. He references specifically the dreamtime of the Australian aborigines, but moves on quickly. Also, in his discourse on the monotheistic nature of Science, he does give Charles Darwin special credit as thinker.
As an aside, if we accept McCoy’s historical framework that Science developed directly from the philosophical foundations laid down by the Greeks and the Christians, then Darwin’s Origin of Species really is the first time that Science can be reconciled to polytheism. Darwin’s observation that non-human animals and humans share common ancestors puts humans back in the mix, as it were, of the wider world. Humans are part of the natural world. We’re moving around and thinking and getting degrees and building cities, but we’re doing it with the meat-limbs that grew up in this world the same as the meat-limbs of every other animal.
In short, I believe I had accepted McCoy’s premises and conclusions long before I read his book. It’s a good essay, but I did find it reaching in a few places. Having said that, am I now honor-bound to make the same argument but better? No. It’s good enough and if I were to write a similar treatise, my readership would have essentially the same reaction to mine that I had to McCoy: “Agreed! …but there’s this detail that I would have phrased differently…” and well, if we are polytheists, don’t we have room to accept several modes of expression of the same idea?
I conclude this review saying that McCoy is not in any way anti-science. He lays out very clearly that the scientific method, scientific institutions, and scientists themselves are more than capable of producing the tools we will need to continue to shape the planet as we see fit. He doesn’t necessarily agree, however, with the direction of the planet-shaping that is currently going on (who does, really?) and further believes that (1) the general consensus in the scientific community is that humans are somehow apart from nature and (2) that this is deleterious to the human experience.
March 8, 2023
Author spends the length of this pamphlet unpacking how he believes the following:
- citing sources in any discipline produces weak writing because he feels a philosophical argument is a battle of wills, having nothing at all to do with logic or knowledge;
- Jewish theology is absolutist (tell me you've never studied Judaism without telling me you've never studied Judaism);
- the only mystics in history were polytheists;
- science is the exact same thing as religion and therefore should be ignored entirely when considering faith;
- Christian and Jewish myths are subjective and therefore not to be trusted but polytheistic myths as they came down to us through history are objective truths preserved in their original form.
I flagged every racist and anti-Semitic red flag or dog whistle I found in the first half of the book and came up with roughly one per page. This is to say: not only does this dude proudly admit that he knows fuck all about comparative religion, archeology, and history, but he's also likely a racist shitfuck.
Do not read this book, it is a waste of paper.
- citing sources in any discipline produces weak writing because he feels a philosophical argument is a battle of wills, having nothing at all to do with logic or knowledge;
- Jewish theology is absolutist (tell me you've never studied Judaism without telling me you've never studied Judaism);
- the only mystics in history were polytheists;
- science is the exact same thing as religion and therefore should be ignored entirely when considering faith;
- Christian and Jewish myths are subjective and therefore not to be trusted but polytheistic myths as they came down to us through history are objective truths preserved in their original form.
I flagged every racist and anti-Semitic red flag or dog whistle I found in the first half of the book and came up with roughly one per page. This is to say: not only does this dude proudly admit that he knows fuck all about comparative religion, archeology, and history, but he's also likely a racist shitfuck.
Do not read this book, it is a waste of paper.
October 10, 2017
Too short
September 8, 2015
What did this book need to get five stars from me? More of it. Offered from the perspective of the pre-Christian Germanic religion it's not really about those Gods or myths, rather it's about the difference in worldview or philosophy; worldviews McCoy makes clear that we get to choose between.
This is probably the best explanation I've ever read of the core philosophies of the monotheistic/rationalist/scientific worldview that dominates our age that I've ever seen. Intrigued? Read the book. Highly recommend.
This is probably the best explanation I've ever read of the core philosophies of the monotheistic/rationalist/scientific worldview that dominates our age that I've ever seen. Intrigued? Read the book. Highly recommend.
October 4, 2014
Very interesting. Wish there would have been more of it. Interesting exploration of of monotheistic vs. pagan world view, especially the comparison of a moral world view vs. a sacred world view. Nice because it was actually readable.
January 12, 2016
A well laid out, thoughtful examination of Germanic Polytheism in comparison with modern science and monotheistic thought.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews