What do you think?
Rate this book
تاریخ به مثابه نظام: معرفی بنیانی نو برای معرفت تاریخی
تاریخ به مثابه نظام در ۱۹۳۴ به زبان اسپانیولی برای همایشی نوشته شد که در نهایت ارائه هم نشد. متن آن همزمان به زبانهای انگلیسی و آلمانی منتشر شد… نسخهٔ کامل متن پس از چند سال سرانجام در ۱۹۴۱ در انتشارات مجلهٔ مغرب زمین به چاپ رسید. در این فاصلهٔ هفتساله ارتگا متن را از نو نوشت، به شیوهای متفاوت بخشبندی کرد و به چاپ مجدد سپرد. این فرآیند طولانی به نظر خبر از این واقعیت میداد که مضامین مورد بحث در این کتاب جایگاهی ممتاز در اندیشهٔ او دارد. خوزه ارتگایی گاست زمان ظهور معرفت تاریخی را در معنای حقیقی و هولناک کلمه نزدیک میبیند. تا پیش از این، برخلاف باور مرسوم، معرفت به تاریخ انسان وجود نداشته است، زیرا آگاهی ما به تاریخ، که در عصر جدید در دیسیپلین دانشگاهی تاریخ نظم یافته، فاقد خصلت وحی و انکشاف بوده است. اما اکنون ساعت موعود فرا میرسد؛ این بشارت برای ارتگا، صرفاً نوید تأسیس رشتهای آکادمیک یا انقلاب در یک رشتهٔ دانشگاهی مستقر نیست، بلکه همچنین بشارت عصری نو برای انسان و اندیشهٔ فلسفی او است. علم تاریخ نزد ارتگا، قلمرو اصیل وحی نو و منادی واپسین امید انسان است. این همانا وحی سوم است ظهور عقل نو. از نظر ارتگا، عقل هر آن کوششی است که ما را در محضر چیزی جز خودمان بنشاند.
96 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1941
18 people are currently reading
997 people want to read
About the author
José Ortega y Gasset
604 books762 followersJosé Ortega y Gasset was a Spanish liberal philosopher and essayist working during the first half of the 20th century while Spain oscillated between monarchy, republicanism and dictatorship. He was, along with Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, a proponent of the idea of perspectivism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
Read
October 22, 2024Although this is a short essay (written in 1934), it is very rich in content: it contains a fundamental critique of rationalism and progressive thinking (“physical-material reason”) and the outlines of an alternative, namely "historical reason". That sounds abstract, but Ortega y Gasset clearly explains what he means by it. He starts from the observation that in his time faith in rationalism and science (both the natural sciences and the mirrored humanities) has gone up in smoke. Acccording to him that is rightfully so, because those approaches started from a wrong premise, namely that there is such a thing as an unchanging, fixed human nature, while that is absurd (because everything is changing, becoming) and since Kant we know that the intellectual categories of rationalism only are constructions and not the real thing.
The Spanish philosopher, on the other hand, puts life itself in the center: the real, concrete reality as it manifests itself in the 'now', in real people and societies. And that is certainly a susceptible reality Ortega y Gasset says, starting from the view that this 'now' builds on past experiences: the choices made by people and societies are marked by what has been tried in the past; these past experiences are abandoned but at the same time they are built upon, giving way to new experiences and so on. So, history is a system where one solidified experience leads to another. In other words: the past is essential to understand the present, "Le passé n’est pas resté là-bas, en son temps; il est ici, en moi. Le passé c’est moi – et on le comprend, ma vie». And that is how Ortega y Gasset comes to his concept of “historical reason”, as a new paradigm (he uses the term revelation) in order to better approach reality.
These are of course things that a historian likes to hear, but it sounds a bit like a very fundamentalistic kind of historicism (that the present can be fully explained from the past). Unfortunately, the Spaniard hasn’t further developed this historical theory, so we will never know whether he really saw this in the fundamentalistic terms that I formulated above. That’s a pity, of course. But anyway, this booklet is a very interesting and well written essay about the value of history for real life.
The Spanish philosopher, on the other hand, puts life itself in the center: the real, concrete reality as it manifests itself in the 'now', in real people and societies. And that is certainly a susceptible reality Ortega y Gasset says, starting from the view that this 'now' builds on past experiences: the choices made by people and societies are marked by what has been tried in the past; these past experiences are abandoned but at the same time they are built upon, giving way to new experiences and so on. So, history is a system where one solidified experience leads to another. In other words: the past is essential to understand the present, "Le passé n’est pas resté là-bas, en son temps; il est ici, en moi. Le passé c’est moi – et on le comprend, ma vie». And that is how Ortega y Gasset comes to his concept of “historical reason”, as a new paradigm (he uses the term revelation) in order to better approach reality.
These are of course things that a historian likes to hear, but it sounds a bit like a very fundamentalistic kind of historicism (that the present can be fully explained from the past). Unfortunately, the Spaniard hasn’t further developed this historical theory, so we will never know whether he really saw this in the fundamentalistic terms that I formulated above. That’s a pity, of course. But anyway, this booklet is a very interesting and well written essay about the value of history for real life.
July 2, 2018
Very interesting, short essay, by the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset, written in 1934. With a critique on rationalism and science, and a plea for a more historicist approach. In many aspects, it contains previews of what later became systems thinking, and even of postmodernism and narrativisme. See my review in my Senseofhistory-alias: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
Read
August 15, 2012In the last chapter of the book, the writer at last, had written what he meant to be the redemptive topic of the whole book. Argentina is a representative of the whole world historical, pace and also the personality of the people whose lives were much alike being in the mechanical worldiness. People, in Argentina, were leading a life much like a robot without much emotional personel. It is all referred to be a life of a robot without personal disposition allowed. They all neglected the importance of personality as a personal thing. The people had had their personality neglected along with the modern lives which allowed no personal contact of the immanent selfhood. As the condition of Argentina was much the same as those of the Greco and the Roman, they had exprienced much historical stage of paces without personal selfhood allowed and the historical pace was much the same as today's global condition.
Humanity is depended on the technology to transcend towards the future. Technology is much resembling a kind of wrenching a state of ignorance from the nature to make a necessity of humanity. History is made up of paces of gradual developement in technology. Technology is a representation of humanity's mindedness , wrenching away from the primordial ignorance which was not regarded as ignorancein the beginning but a kind of ready to be embarked enses of transcendence towards the future. Humanity needs technology to consummate tthe granted mansonry to be a kind of perfection to serve the worldliness in the lacking state.
The world, in its gravest tragedy, has repected the tautology of gravest sentences of being a play of trgedy which will continue its gravest outcome into the future and to imbue the latter generations with gravest fate. Pople have never been awakened from the deepest sleep with its dreaming as a kind of tragedy. History has thus, been made up of gravest sober with ears and it will continue into the perpetual future if people will have never been awakened from its tragic dreams.
People have made up the History with tears and gravest tragedy with so many people's matyrdom. History is made up of paces of technology with its origin as apromordial ignorance. The ignorance was of embedded consciousness upon much degree of mansonry with its lacking state at the beginning.
To imbue the people from being inflicted with ignorance, people have to have their consciousness reverted back and forth the reminiscence of the historical events.
Humanity is depended on the technology to transcend towards the future. Technology is much resembling a kind of wrenching a state of ignorance from the nature to make a necessity of humanity. History is made up of paces of gradual developement in technology. Technology is a representation of humanity's mindedness , wrenching away from the primordial ignorance which was not regarded as ignorancein the beginning but a kind of ready to be embarked enses of transcendence towards the future. Humanity needs technology to consummate tthe granted mansonry to be a kind of perfection to serve the worldliness in the lacking state.
The world, in its gravest tragedy, has repected the tautology of gravest sentences of being a play of trgedy which will continue its gravest outcome into the future and to imbue the latter generations with gravest fate. Pople have never been awakened from the deepest sleep with its dreaming as a kind of tragedy. History has thus, been made up of gravest sober with ears and it will continue into the perpetual future if people will have never been awakened from its tragic dreams.
People have made up the History with tears and gravest tragedy with so many people's matyrdom. History is made up of paces of technology with its origin as apromordial ignorance. The ignorance was of embedded consciousness upon much degree of mansonry with its lacking state at the beginning.
To imbue the people from being inflicted with ignorance, people have to have their consciousness reverted back and forth the reminiscence of the historical events.
July 11, 2024
تنها آنی ترقی میکند که به آنچه دیروز بوده وابسته نیست، آنی که برای همیشه زندانی این هستیای که پیشاپیش بوده نیست، بلکه میتواند از این هستی به هستی دیگری مهاجرت کند. اما کافی نیست: انسان طبیعت ندارد، بلکه آنچه او دارد تاریخ است. تاریخ یک نظام است، نظام تجربیات انسانی که زنجیرهای پایان ناپذیر و بیهمتا را شکل میدهد. صرفا تحت فشار هولناک چیزی استعلایی است که شخص ما فشرده و جامد میشود و این تحولی است که تمایز نهادن را میان آنچه ما عملا هستیم و آنچه صرفا خیال میکنیم هستیم ممکن میکند.
August 21, 2013
The difference between a How-To book and philosophy is philosophy is timeless. Ortega skillfully addresses technology as a means of gauging human progress, but also gives cause for reflection. Most technology has made our lives easier, so his question of gauging the worth of the individual by asking what people do with all the time they have saved, bears answering by everyone. I've used quotes from his books to illustrate content within mine. The first one was, "That is why our time, being the the most intensely technical, is also the emptiest in all human history." And this was written long before video games and action (only) movies.
April 19, 2024
He leído este libro dos veces para tratar a entender mejor el tema principal de Ortega y Gasset aquí. Todavía no estoy completamente seguro, especialmente sobre la segunda parte del ultimo ensayo (qué es leer), pero adelante!
En el ensayo titular, Ortega y Gasset propone que cada sociedad tenga una creencia central, una ley fundamental que gobierna todo actividad y moralidad en la sociedad. En la edad medieval, esta fue una fe en dios y en la revelación. Desde el renacimiento al siglo XX, esta fe en dios fue remplazado por una fe en razón. Pero ahora (la ahora de Ortega y Gasset: 1930), esta fe está muriendo, ya no es fe vigente. ¿Pero, qué va a reemplazarla? Ortega y Gasset sugiere que necesitemos un sistema narrativo, un entendimiento histórico sobre nuestros mismos. ¿Qué significa esto? Pienso que sea relacionado con la idea central de Ortega y Gasset: Soy yo y mi circunstancia. La circunstancia de una persona no es solamente el entorno de aquí y ahora, también su pasado y su futuro. Realmente no hay datos aislados todo tiene contorno que contexto histórico. Eso me parece genial y verdadero. Si los siglos pasados fueran los siglos de la física, nuestro tiempo sea de la biología. Nuestras metáforas centrales vienen de la biología: evolución, desarrollo, crecimiento, cambio. Nuestro conocimiento aún De Dios y la narrativa de la Biblia sea así (ver la respuesta de Job de Jung).
Los otros ensayos no son tan interesantes para mi. Hay algunos sobre el tema favorito de Ortega y Gasset, la decadencia de la inteligencia y la nobleza y la falta de interés por sociedad en general por aprendizaje y el interrogatorio. Y el ensayo final de la obra, en dos partes sobre el tema de qué es leer, termina completamente en la ciénaga más amplia de la filosofía: la insuficiencia de palabras para describir nuestro mundo.
En el ensayo titular, Ortega y Gasset propone que cada sociedad tenga una creencia central, una ley fundamental que gobierna todo actividad y moralidad en la sociedad. En la edad medieval, esta fue una fe en dios y en la revelación. Desde el renacimiento al siglo XX, esta fe en dios fue remplazado por una fe en razón. Pero ahora (la ahora de Ortega y Gasset: 1930), esta fe está muriendo, ya no es fe vigente. ¿Pero, qué va a reemplazarla? Ortega y Gasset sugiere que necesitemos un sistema narrativo, un entendimiento histórico sobre nuestros mismos. ¿Qué significa esto? Pienso que sea relacionado con la idea central de Ortega y Gasset: Soy yo y mi circunstancia. La circunstancia de una persona no es solamente el entorno de aquí y ahora, también su pasado y su futuro. Realmente no hay datos aislados todo tiene contorno que contexto histórico. Eso me parece genial y verdadero. Si los siglos pasados fueran los siglos de la física, nuestro tiempo sea de la biología. Nuestras metáforas centrales vienen de la biología: evolución, desarrollo, crecimiento, cambio. Nuestro conocimiento aún De Dios y la narrativa de la Biblia sea así (ver la respuesta de Job de Jung).
Los otros ensayos no son tan interesantes para mi. Hay algunos sobre el tema favorito de Ortega y Gasset, la decadencia de la inteligencia y la nobleza y la falta de interés por sociedad en general por aprendizaje y el interrogatorio. Y el ensayo final de la obra, en dos partes sobre el tema de qué es leer, termina completamente en la ciénaga más amplia de la filosofía: la insuficiencia de palabras para describir nuestro mundo.
January 28, 2018
I loved Man the Technician; it's insightful and compelling, and easy to read as a series of provoking lectures. History as a System was slower for me, but it actually seems to build really nicely from the arguments in the Technician piece. A few unnecessary or distracting digressions I could have done without, but I feel like I get his argument for historical reason nonetheless.
July 6, 2019
"Gerçeği belirsiz bir yarına erteleyen ilericilik insanı uyuşturan afyon oldu. Gerçek bugün gerçek olan şeydir, belirsiz bir yarında keşfedilecek olan değil."
September 8, 2020
Dice Ortega que " para persuadir primero hay que seducir" y a mi no me ha seducido.
Read
March 19, 2021Exponer planteamientos ambiguos es difícil, ya que consiste en deshacer el nudo. La historia es una ambigüedad, ya que es un relato que describe la realidad sin nuestra participación entonces esto podría con facilidad dejarnos fuera de la misma, simples fichas de acontecimientos previos. Ortega y Gasset acata el reto, y explica como la historia siempre nos tiene por centro, el esfuerzo es nuestro, ya que tenemos que llegar a él, entender que todo acontecimiento expuesto en la historia no es más que una descripción técnica de nuestro comportamiento, pedagógico más no edificante. Esto para el perezoso no es más que un norte, un desvelamiento. Para el osado, una plataforma ante la incertidumbre, la totalidad, un instrumento para forjar la historia.
Leer a Ortega es un gusto, su prosa es seda. Clara y profunda. Otro maestro.
Leer a Ortega es un gusto, su prosa es seda. Clara y profunda. Otro maestro.
July 8, 2019
Oldum olası sevmediğim kelimeleri silip atan o berrak bakış Gasset sayesinde tekrar yayında. Bir İspanyoldan beklenmeyecek derecede bir ciddiyet. Bir yerden gelip bir yere gitmeyen insana insan demiyoruz. Gasset de demiyor. Tarihi yoksa insan da yok demektir, bir müessiriyetin dile dökülüşüyle yazanlar için iyi bir bakış açısı.
January 18, 2024
me encanta este libro y me encanta leer a Ortega, ojalá no fuese un hombre jolines😭💗
Read
September 5, 2021İspanyol Filozof Jose Ortega Gasset'nin çok önemli bir kitabı "Sistem Olarak Tarih", İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları'nın yayını ile Türkçe'de! "Sistem Olarak Tarih" kitabında Gasset, tarihyazımının bilim olma niteliği üzerine yazdıklarıyla Türkçe'de tarihyazımı literatürüne ciddî bir katkı yapıyor, tarihçiliğin gelişmesi için yararlı bir kaynak kitap "Sistem Olarak Tarih". Tarihyazımı üzerine geçmişte, Braudel, Hobsbawm, Carr, Collingwood, Tosh gibi Tarihçilerin kitapları Türkçe'de yayınlanmıştı, Gasset'nin "Sistem Olarak Tarih" kitabı ile bu dizide yeni bir kitap daha okuyoruz tarihyazımı ile ilgili! Türk yazarların tarihyazımı üzerine kitaplarının çoğalması için de bir esin kaynağıdır "Sistem Olarak Tarih", daha önce Kütükoğlu, Togan, Berktay, Tekeli, Eldem gibi Tarihçilerin Türkçe'de tarihyazımı ile ilgili kitaplarını okuduk, "Sistem Olarak Tarih" kitabı ile Gasset tarihyazımı tartışmalarında hâlâ önemli bir eser ürettiğini kanıtlıyor! İspanya gibi, yazının, tarihyazımının geliştiği bir ülkeden, Gasset gibi 20. Yüzyıl'ın dünyaca saygın bir filozofunun, tarihyazımı ile, tarihyazımının bir sanat olduğu kadar, bir bilim olarak dünyanın kültür tarihindeki gelişmesini tartıştığı "Sistem Olarak Tarih" kitabını okumak şansına sahip oluyoruz!
September 23, 2025
"¿Qué fue lo que nos hizo comprender, concebir nuestro ser? Simplemente contar, narrar que antes fui el amante de esta y aquella mujer, que antes fui cristiano; que el lector, por sí o por los otros hombres de que sabe, fue absolutista, cesarista, demócrata, etcétera. En suma, aquí el razonamiento esclarecedor, la razón, consiste en una narración. Frente a la razón pura físico-matemática hay, pues, una razón narrativa. Para comprender algo humano, personal o colectivo, es preciso contar una historia. Este hombre, esta nación hace tal cosa y es así porque antes hizo tal otra y fue de tal otro modo. La vida sólo se vuelve un poco transparente ante la razón histórica.
Las formas más dispares del ser pasan por el hombre. Para desesperación de los intelectualistas, el ser es, en el hombre, mero pasar y pasarle: le «pasa ser» estoico, cristiano, racionalista, vitalista. Le pasa ser la hembra paleolítica y la marquesa de Pompadour, Gengis-Khan y Stephan George, Pericles y Charles Chaplin. El hombre no se adscribe a ninguna de estas formas: la atraviesa —las vive— como la flecha de Zenón, a pesar de Zenón, vuela sobre quietudes."
Las formas más dispares del ser pasan por el hombre. Para desesperación de los intelectualistas, el ser es, en el hombre, mero pasar y pasarle: le «pasa ser» estoico, cristiano, racionalista, vitalista. Le pasa ser la hembra paleolítica y la marquesa de Pompadour, Gengis-Khan y Stephan George, Pericles y Charles Chaplin. El hombre no se adscribe a ninguna de estas formas: la atraviesa —las vive— como la flecha de Zenón, a pesar de Zenón, vuela sobre quietudes."
Read
May 2, 2020First, historical ontology can only exist in realising memories as technology. Then the focus of this book is not comprehending the possibility of history as representation, instead of absolute existence, that pushes historicism into metaphysics.
Second, in the chronological timeline of technological progress, it is normal to categorise the past as ignorant and natural, in comparison to modern and order. Leave aside the critique from postmodern theory, it is also true that a linear timeline is a technological imagination bounded by the last century.
Third, in the critique towards human-centric approach, this book cannot keep up with the urgency in learning from the past, as climate change suffering alongside with ineffective anti-biotics for pandemics, is the proof of merely remembering suffering in the past is not enough.
I'd say this is a horrible Hegelian historicism.
Second, in the chronological timeline of technological progress, it is normal to categorise the past as ignorant and natural, in comparison to modern and order. Leave aside the critique from postmodern theory, it is also true that a linear timeline is a technological imagination bounded by the last century.
Third, in the critique towards human-centric approach, this book cannot keep up with the urgency in learning from the past, as climate change suffering alongside with ineffective anti-biotics for pandemics, is the proof of merely remembering suffering in the past is not enough.
I'd say this is a horrible Hegelian historicism.
October 31, 2020
Ortega y Gasset, filosofo español del siglo XX, nació en Madrid en 1883 y murió en 1955, en el seno de la burguesía Madrileña, escribió varias obras importantes como “Vieja y nueva política”, “Meditaciones del Quijote”, “Ensayo de estética a manera de Prólogo”, ensayos con temas variados relacionados con la actualidad de su época, tanto de filosofía como política, arte y literatura. Este libro afronta la crisis de la razón occidental y la critica que de la misma hace Ortega, inicia su critica al racionalismo, al fisicismo y al naturalismo positivista, a ideas de progreso y utopía. El hombre desafía su existencia como un drama y encuentra en la historia, su razón original. “La vida guía a la razón y la verdad se descubre en la historia, que es un factor de inteligibilidad, de comprensión y explicación de la realidad.
February 10, 2019
Es una explicación muy clara sobre el porque la historia de la filosofía no es un compendio cronológico constructivo de un estado del arte, sino más bien una ciencia de la historia del hombre en la cual se debe tener en cuenta al hombre como núcleo, dado que sus circunstancias son de una influencia decisiva en la horma de la filosofía.
Ortega y Gasset presenta de igual manera otros ensayos que ratifican su punto de vista en el cual humaniza la historia de la filosofía como lo propuso inicialmente Hegel.
Ortega y Gasset presenta de igual manera otros ensayos que ratifican su punto de vista en el cual humaniza la historia de la filosofía como lo propuso inicialmente Hegel.
October 26, 2024
Mis comentarios en video: https://youtu.be/vU26vTmD9ms
Reflexiones sobre la obra de pensamiento del filósofo español. ]Acá expongo las ideas que más me gustaron y realizo algunas críticas sobre ellas. Destaco principalmente la inclinación del hombre hacia la autodeterminación, la importancia de la reflexión histórica para conocernos y a los otros, así como las creencias como el sustrato sobre el cual se desarrolla el existencialismo circunstancial del autor.
Espero sus comentarios
Reflexiones sobre la obra de pensamiento del filósofo español. ]Acá expongo las ideas que más me gustaron y realizo algunas críticas sobre ellas. Destaco principalmente la inclinación del hombre hacia la autodeterminación, la importancia de la reflexión histórica para conocernos y a los otros, así como las creencias como el sustrato sobre el cual se desarrolla el existencialismo circunstancial del autor.
Espero sus comentarios
November 19, 2019
Quite good
April 15, 2024
Used for a project
August 8, 2024
FOUR ESSAYS BY THE ESTEEMED SPANISH PHILOSOPHER
José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) was a Spanish philosopher and essayist; he also wrote 'An Interpretation of Universal History.' He wrote in the "Author's Foreword" to this 1940 publication, "I should have liked to present to American readers the yield of my endeavors during these last ten years; but my last ten years have not been favorable to a manuscript's tranquil occupation... The reader must therefore approach this volume with unwonted good will. Except for 'History as a System,' the essays it contains are either a university course... or pages that have been written in my country's difficult times." (Pg. 11)
He suggests, "Human history seems to proceed with a double rhythm: the rhythm of age and the rhythm of sex. In some epochs the youthful influence prevails; others are ruled by mature men." (Pg. 26) Presciently, he says, "I predict---somewhat boldly, in view of the present appearances---a possible, a probable unification of the states of Europe." (Pg. 52)
He says, "When I was a child I was a Christian; now I am one no longer. Does this mean... that I do not go on being a Christian?... Of course not; of course I am still a Christian, but in the form of having been a Christian." (Pg. 208)
He notes, "If we do not know what [man] is going to be, we know what he is not going to be. Man lives in view of the past. Man, in a word, has no nature; what he has is... history." (Pg. 217) He adds, "History is a system, the system of human experiences linked in a single, inexorable chain. Hence nothing can be truly clear in history until everything is clear." (Pg. 221) He admits, "Man stands in need of a new revelation. And whenever man feels himself in contact with a reality distinct from himself, there is always revelation. It does not matter what the reality be..." (Pg. 223)
The final essay ('History as a System') and Ortega's 'Universal History' book are of considerable interest to students of the philosophy of history.
José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) was a Spanish philosopher and essayist; he also wrote 'An Interpretation of Universal History.' He wrote in the "Author's Foreword" to this 1940 publication, "I should have liked to present to American readers the yield of my endeavors during these last ten years; but my last ten years have not been favorable to a manuscript's tranquil occupation... The reader must therefore approach this volume with unwonted good will. Except for 'History as a System,' the essays it contains are either a university course... or pages that have been written in my country's difficult times." (Pg. 11)
He suggests, "Human history seems to proceed with a double rhythm: the rhythm of age and the rhythm of sex. In some epochs the youthful influence prevails; others are ruled by mature men." (Pg. 26) Presciently, he says, "I predict---somewhat boldly, in view of the present appearances---a possible, a probable unification of the states of Europe." (Pg. 52)
He says, "When I was a child I was a Christian; now I am one no longer. Does this mean... that I do not go on being a Christian?... Of course not; of course I am still a Christian, but in the form of having been a Christian." (Pg. 208)
He notes, "If we do not know what [man] is going to be, we know what he is not going to be. Man lives in view of the past. Man, in a word, has no nature; what he has is... history." (Pg. 217) He adds, "History is a system, the system of human experiences linked in a single, inexorable chain. Hence nothing can be truly clear in history until everything is clear." (Pg. 221) He admits, "Man stands in need of a new revelation. And whenever man feels himself in contact with a reality distinct from himself, there is always revelation. It does not matter what the reality be..." (Pg. 223)
The final essay ('History as a System') and Ortega's 'Universal History' book are of considerable interest to students of the philosophy of history.
May 9, 2014
The more I read of Gasset, the more I identify and appreciate his philosophy. The Sportive Origin of the State is a fascinating idea and I'd love to investigate it further. Often one only hears moral judgements of states, or some nonsense of Social Contracts and such, but the idea that age is the prominent class-divider, and that the young (men) create the state as kind of an extension of the bachelor house or casino - in all its hubris and cruelty - seems a bit more likely.
Unity and Diversity in Europe is admittedly a bit hard to fully appreciate as an American, but given what I know of European history, I believe I can understand what he's getting at, particularly in the necessity of different circumstances of existence, the most appropriate analogue for the U.S. being I believe the necessity of differences between a New Yorker and a Georgian, or a Mainelander's existence compared to a Californian's existence. These differences of circumstance are important, and to avoid the 'stale air' of one state or nation, one needs to be able to go somewhere different- and presumably breath their stale air, ha. The implication of this I believe that the push of power-politics inevitably leads to cultural stagnation due to the 'leveling' of continental experience through bureaucratic-imperialist politics.
Man the Technician is probably one of the best essays towards an understanding of man, technology, and nature. Before this, I never gave technology much thought, assuming it to be important of course - Revolt of the Masses stresses its necessity for modern existence - but I believed it to be something of man's nature, rather than man's revolt against nature. A brief summary doesn't give it justice. Ultimately, I believe this essay is my favorite of the four in this book, though all are excellent.
History as a System sneaked up on me. Gasset starts of with his ontology, proceeds to talk of the historical procession of ideas, the necessity of prior thought for the thought of later philosophers, man's relation to his history, etc. After going through all this, I was shocked I had reached the end of the book - this is supposed to be a philosophy of history and historical reason, where did it go? Why did he stop? Why is he not spelling it out for me? It took me a minute but I realized the entire essay *was* an example of the historical reason he was getting at... which made me feel a little stupid, but I least I didn't miss it entirely. In total, Gasset's philosophy reminds me almost suspiciously of Hegel and Nietzsche, the former he seems to have borrowed from but criticizes justly for its false spiritualism, and the latter he references from time to time, but always neutrally and never at length. Gasset seems to pull the idea of value-degradation and of the necessity of a revaluation of values straight from Nietzsche. But this isn't a criticism of Gasset, almost any philosophy can be improved with a bit of Nietzsche, and Gasset seems very much like one of the "philosophers of the future" Nietzsche prophesied.
Unity and Diversity in Europe is admittedly a bit hard to fully appreciate as an American, but given what I know of European history, I believe I can understand what he's getting at, particularly in the necessity of different circumstances of existence, the most appropriate analogue for the U.S. being I believe the necessity of differences between a New Yorker and a Georgian, or a Mainelander's existence compared to a Californian's existence. These differences of circumstance are important, and to avoid the 'stale air' of one state or nation, one needs to be able to go somewhere different- and presumably breath their stale air, ha. The implication of this I believe that the push of power-politics inevitably leads to cultural stagnation due to the 'leveling' of continental experience through bureaucratic-imperialist politics.
Man the Technician is probably one of the best essays towards an understanding of man, technology, and nature. Before this, I never gave technology much thought, assuming it to be important of course - Revolt of the Masses stresses its necessity for modern existence - but I believed it to be something of man's nature, rather than man's revolt against nature. A brief summary doesn't give it justice. Ultimately, I believe this essay is my favorite of the four in this book, though all are excellent.
History as a System sneaked up on me. Gasset starts of with his ontology, proceeds to talk of the historical procession of ideas, the necessity of prior thought for the thought of later philosophers, man's relation to his history, etc. After going through all this, I was shocked I had reached the end of the book - this is supposed to be a philosophy of history and historical reason, where did it go? Why did he stop? Why is he not spelling it out for me? It took me a minute but I realized the entire essay *was* an example of the historical reason he was getting at... which made me feel a little stupid, but I least I didn't miss it entirely. In total, Gasset's philosophy reminds me almost suspiciously of Hegel and Nietzsche, the former he seems to have borrowed from but criticizes justly for its false spiritualism, and the latter he references from time to time, but always neutrally and never at length. Gasset seems to pull the idea of value-degradation and of the necessity of a revaluation of values straight from Nietzsche. But this isn't a criticism of Gasset, almost any philosophy can be improved with a bit of Nietzsche, and Gasset seems very much like one of the "philosophers of the future" Nietzsche prophesied.
November 22, 2023
Geniales ensayos, recomiendo la edición de editorial Austral, que contiene otros escritos de Ortega, que complementan esta obra maestra.
¡Lamento no haber leído antes la advertencia de Ortega contra el continuismo y la búsqueda delirante de "coincidencias" que ha enfermado la ciencia histórica de los últimos siglos!
Por el contrario: Ortega señala, con gran acierto, que la misión de la ciencia histórica futura es la de encontrar la singularidad irrepetible, las "indominables diferencias" entre los distinos hechos históricos.
¡Ya es hora de acabar con esa manía de los historiadores y de los "filosofastros de la historia", de pretender encontrar supuestos paralelismos entre hechos históricos tan disímiles y alejados en el tiempo y el espacio y buscar en cada hecho histórico, aquello que es irrepetible!
¡Lamento no haber leído antes la advertencia de Ortega contra el continuismo y la búsqueda delirante de "coincidencias" que ha enfermado la ciencia histórica de los últimos siglos!
Por el contrario: Ortega señala, con gran acierto, que la misión de la ciencia histórica futura es la de encontrar la singularidad irrepetible, las "indominables diferencias" entre los distinos hechos históricos.
¡Ya es hora de acabar con esa manía de los historiadores y de los "filosofastros de la historia", de pretender encontrar supuestos paralelismos entre hechos históricos tan disímiles y alejados en el tiempo y el espacio y buscar en cada hecho histórico, aquello que es irrepetible!
August 9, 2008
No other reviews of this so far, probably because a discussion of these remarkable essays, or even an overview of Ortega y Gasset's work, is beyond the scope of this little text box.
The identity of humankind, argues Ortega, is the history of mankind. The simplicity of his view is deceptive and sophisticated, written in a conversational style with much wit.
There is much I could say in refutation of his peculiar projections about "bodhisattva culture" but, again, a review here is not the place.
The identity of humankind, argues Ortega, is the history of mankind. The simplicity of his view is deceptive and sophisticated, written in a conversational style with much wit.
There is much I could say in refutation of his peculiar projections about "bodhisattva culture" but, again, a review here is not the place.
April 12, 2016
He tries a bit hard to create a very concrete, rigorous system for performing historical analysis. Ultimately, that's not where one should or will find much value in these essays. His thoughts on technology, its role in human personal philosophy, and the malaise of our time are all phenomenal.
November 20, 2023
Cuesta entrar y recompensa con un aviso de catástrofe cultural como buen filósofo post siglo XIX. Es fiel a su premisa de la importancia de la circunstancia y su idea de la historia, aunque choque con Hegel, está bien argumentada.
Want to read
February 15, 2014such an amazing, must read book
February 29, 2016
3'5.
Un ensayo filosófico fácil de entender, de mano de uno de los más famosos pensadores y escritores españoles.
Un ensayo filosófico fácil de entender, de mano de uno de los más famosos pensadores y escritores españoles.
January 20, 2020
No solo soy yo y mis circunstancias, sino los multiples intentos de ser, de ser de alguna forma distinta del pasado. El hombre necesita una revelación, una nueva forma de ser.
Read
June 5, 2018İlerde bir ara dönüp tekrar okumam iyi olabilir.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews