What do you think?
Rate this book
The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy
The question of where ultimacy lies should be central to the Christian. It is easy to see the social implications of allowing priority to fall to either the one or the many. This volume examines in-depth the Christian solution to the problem of the one and the many—the Trinitarian God. Only in the godhead is this dilemma resolved. Only in the Trinity does there reside an equal ultimacy of unity and plurality. Rushdoony examines the history of Western thought from the standpoint of the one and the many and demonstrates clearly that the most astute thinkers were unable to resolve this philosophical conflict. What is needed now is a complete return to the Trinitarian view of God and its implications for a Christian social order.
Audible Audio
First published January 1, 1971
32 people are currently reading
267 people want to read
About the author
Rousas John Rushdoony
136 books147 followersRousas John Rushdoony was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of both Christian Reconstructionism and the modern homeschool movement. His prolific writings have exerted considerable influence on the Christian right.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
November 22, 2012
This book was a revelation.
Throughout history, philosophers have wrestled with the question: Which is more important, the individual or society? In this erudite, scholarly, and magisterial work Rushdoony discusses the solution provided by the Trinitarian God of Scripture. In God, both the One and the Many are equally ultimate. Neither the individual nor the collective can claim sole ultimacy.
With this presupposition, Rushdoony then gives an overview of the history of Western philosophy from Sumer to Sartre.
I was astounded by the author's erudition. The book is carefully researched, quoting liberally from original sources as well as historical commentaters. I've heard tales of Dr Rushdoony's remarkable erudition--something like a book a day for decades?--and "The One and the Many" sure reads like the work of a man with a library inside his head.
But most of all I was surprised by how easy the book was to read. Written in a lucid, engaging style, this book remained page-turning all the way through the stodgiest of the German philosophers.
It has been six years now since I read The One and the Many and it's become my go-to reference book on just about every question of history and philosophy. I mine it for quotes, perspectives, and sources.
A page-turning history of Western philosophy that also functions as a valuable reference book. I can't recommend it enough.
Throughout history, philosophers have wrestled with the question: Which is more important, the individual or society? In this erudite, scholarly, and magisterial work Rushdoony discusses the solution provided by the Trinitarian God of Scripture. In God, both the One and the Many are equally ultimate. Neither the individual nor the collective can claim sole ultimacy.
With this presupposition, Rushdoony then gives an overview of the history of Western philosophy from Sumer to Sartre.
I was astounded by the author's erudition. The book is carefully researched, quoting liberally from original sources as well as historical commentaters. I've heard tales of Dr Rushdoony's remarkable erudition--something like a book a day for decades?--and "The One and the Many" sure reads like the work of a man with a library inside his head.
But most of all I was surprised by how easy the book was to read. Written in a lucid, engaging style, this book remained page-turning all the way through the stodgiest of the German philosophers.
It has been six years now since I read The One and the Many and it's become my go-to reference book on just about every question of history and philosophy. I mine it for quotes, perspectives, and sources.
A page-turning history of Western philosophy that also functions as a valuable reference book. I can't recommend it enough.
March 4, 2012
I've wrestled with what I thought on this book for a while. It's fashionable to critique Rush along the lines of oversimplifying things and simply getting the facts wrong. He certainly does that. However, the more I reflect on it the more I suspect he was on to something. He makes the connection between Thomas Aquinas and secularization, even hinting that Thomas' ontology is directly culpable.
There are fascinating parts on Dante and Kantorowicz's thesis.
I balk at his Van Tillian "equal ultimacy of the One and Many." This is logically absurd and philosophical deleterious. If the "One" is "ultimate" then the Many, by very definition of the categories, cannot be. True, if there is an Ultimate "One," then there *must* be a (subordinate) Many. Plotinus 101. Unfortunately, Rushdoony never clarifies.
There are fascinating parts on Dante and Kantorowicz's thesis.
I balk at his Van Tillian "equal ultimacy of the One and Many." This is logically absurd and philosophical deleterious. If the "One" is "ultimate" then the Many, by very definition of the categories, cannot be. True, if there is an Ultimate "One," then there *must* be a (subordinate) Many. Plotinus 101. Unfortunately, Rushdoony never clarifies.
August 7, 2017
Wow. Wow. Wow. Mind blowing read. It's a seminary education so be sure to diet accordingly. This is not for the faint of heart, but it is a devastating critique of our current state of affairs that needs to be applied.
November 5, 2017
This is the first thing I have read by R.J. Rushdoony, but in many ways I felt that I had read some of it before because of my familiarity with Francis Schaeffer. Both men were influenced deeply by the Calvinist Cornelius Van Til.
It was an interesting book in that it presented philosophy throughout history as a struggle in determining the preeminence of either the One or the Many - Unity of being or particularism. It seems that societies struggle with this by leaning toward statism or anarchy. The solution, according to Rushdoony, is that neither is superior, and that this coexistence of the importance of the One and the many can be seen in the Triune God himself: One cannot say any particular of the three persons of the Trinity is supreme, nor can we look at the One God as being more elevated than any of the three persons. And so in a worldview that sees our world as created to bear this same equal value of the one and the many, neither the society nor the individual holds center stage at the expense of the other.
Having introduced the topic, the author takes us on tour of Western philosophy to observe how each society dealt with this issue and with philosophy as a whole. This was interesting to read, though at times it came across as overly critical or over-simplified. His dismissal of Scholasticism seemed a bit unfair, and his rejection of the theology of theosis was interesting because it treated this as a deviation from orthodoxy on the part of St. Athanasius and one other scholar whom he saw as otherwise without error.
The parts dealing with modern philosophy were interesting, but again perhaps a bit simplistic. I would think many modernists would take issue with the ease with which he looks down on the theology of the last two centuries.
Van Til's theology is placed in opposition to the modernists and gets Rushdoony's approval as winner in the contest. I still did not find his presuppositional argument convincing, but in fairness that was not the object of the chapter. The ease with which he places faith above reason to me seems to put the entire edifice of Christian theology on a foundation that for the world must seem unstable and unreasonable.
The book did open my eyes to a wider perspective when thinking of some issues in modern society, things that have happened since this book was published. I didn't feel strongly drawn to it (thus the full month it took me to finish it), but I did benefit from it.
It was an interesting book in that it presented philosophy throughout history as a struggle in determining the preeminence of either the One or the Many - Unity of being or particularism. It seems that societies struggle with this by leaning toward statism or anarchy. The solution, according to Rushdoony, is that neither is superior, and that this coexistence of the importance of the One and the many can be seen in the Triune God himself: One cannot say any particular of the three persons of the Trinity is supreme, nor can we look at the One God as being more elevated than any of the three persons. And so in a worldview that sees our world as created to bear this same equal value of the one and the many, neither the society nor the individual holds center stage at the expense of the other.
Having introduced the topic, the author takes us on tour of Western philosophy to observe how each society dealt with this issue and with philosophy as a whole. This was interesting to read, though at times it came across as overly critical or over-simplified. His dismissal of Scholasticism seemed a bit unfair, and his rejection of the theology of theosis was interesting because it treated this as a deviation from orthodoxy on the part of St. Athanasius and one other scholar whom he saw as otherwise without error.
The parts dealing with modern philosophy were interesting, but again perhaps a bit simplistic. I would think many modernists would take issue with the ease with which he looks down on the theology of the last two centuries.
Van Til's theology is placed in opposition to the modernists and gets Rushdoony's approval as winner in the contest. I still did not find his presuppositional argument convincing, but in fairness that was not the object of the chapter. The ease with which he places faith above reason to me seems to put the entire edifice of Christian theology on a foundation that for the world must seem unstable and unreasonable.
The book did open my eyes to a wider perspective when thinking of some issues in modern society, things that have happened since this book was published. I didn't feel strongly drawn to it (thus the full month it took me to finish it), but I did benefit from it.
April 22, 2024
It goes without saying that Mr. Rushdoony was well-read. His understanding of western history, philosophy, and theology is on full display in this classic, philosophical work.
Motivated by Cornelius Van Til’s contributions to Reformed theology and apologetics, Rushdoony impeccably shows the former’s profound insight that folly (theoretical and practical) would follow if Man isn’t wise to root his triune Creator at the heart of his thinking.
Rushdoony examines the philosophical tension between monism and atomism throughout western thought revealing their influence and manifestation in the political tensions between totalitarianism and anarchy within its history.
Ranging from an analysis of Greek philosophical thought, the political ideologies of the Roman emperors, and early, heretical Christian theology to the predecessors and successors of modern thought, Rushdoony poignantly surmises the failures of any and all non-Christian positions in theory and practice.
Without having a concrete vision of Christ’s power in reclaiming all areas of life to him, and without placing the triune God and his law at the centre of one’s world and life view, the natural Man is cursed into either elevating the One (tyranny) or the Many (chaos) in those areas instead, resulting in the abysmal bankruptcy and vanity of today’s modern age.
Motivated by Cornelius Van Til’s contributions to Reformed theology and apologetics, Rushdoony impeccably shows the former’s profound insight that folly (theoretical and practical) would follow if Man isn’t wise to root his triune Creator at the heart of his thinking.
Rushdoony examines the philosophical tension between monism and atomism throughout western thought revealing their influence and manifestation in the political tensions between totalitarianism and anarchy within its history.
Ranging from an analysis of Greek philosophical thought, the political ideologies of the Roman emperors, and early, heretical Christian theology to the predecessors and successors of modern thought, Rushdoony poignantly surmises the failures of any and all non-Christian positions in theory and practice.
Without having a concrete vision of Christ’s power in reclaiming all areas of life to him, and without placing the triune God and his law at the centre of one’s world and life view, the natural Man is cursed into either elevating the One (tyranny) or the Many (chaos) in those areas instead, resulting in the abysmal bankruptcy and vanity of today’s modern age.
June 16, 2023
I’m a very simple man so I appreciated Rushdoony giving a historical study of the one and the many, and how various philosophers dealt with it.
What I had difficulty with was the following: 1) Why the world must have been created by a being where the one and many have equal ultimacy. Is this ontologically necessary or epistemologically necessary. I may be obtuse but I never felt this was accounted for; and 2) Rushdoony gives multiple instances where a society’s emphasis on the one, or the many, lead to statism or anarchism. I suppose I came away from the book wondering how the state and individual having equal ultimacy plays out practically in any intelligible way. In any civil issue where the good of society may conflict with the good of an individual, which ultimately yields?
It’s definitely a book I’ll need to chew on.
What I had difficulty with was the following: 1) Why the world must have been created by a being where the one and many have equal ultimacy. Is this ontologically necessary or epistemologically necessary. I may be obtuse but I never felt this was accounted for; and 2) Rushdoony gives multiple instances where a society’s emphasis on the one, or the many, lead to statism or anarchism. I suppose I came away from the book wondering how the state and individual having equal ultimacy plays out practically in any intelligible way. In any civil issue where the good of society may conflict with the good of an individual, which ultimately yields?
It’s definitely a book I’ll need to chew on.
October 31, 2021
This book engages but is not a casual read. It covers broad swaths of history, philosophy, theology, etc. but with a different angle than other surveys. As such, there are generalizations and also opportunities to quibble with the details. But the overall work is impressive and connects a lot of dots that needed connecting.
February 24, 2018
A historicophilosophical excursus. The appendix is worth the price of the whole book.
January 10, 2014
Rushdoony's work is heavily predicated upon the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, as most readers of Rushdoony know. "The One and the Many" is an extension of Van Til's philosophy on the philosophical term which Van Til recognizes as the central question facing philosophy--how does the one relate to the many? Or how do universals relate to particulars? The question is ultimately one of authority. What is the final source of authority--metaphysical, governmental, relational, etc.?
Rushdoony argues from the beginning that Van Til's solution to the dilemma is the only solution. Rushdoony quotes Van Til:
"Using the language of the One-and-Many question we contend that in God the one and many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity. The persons of the Trinity are mutually exhaustive of one another. The Son and the Spirit are ontologically on a par with the Father." p. 10-11
The book is Rushdoony's posing the problem of the one and the many, a brief introduction to Van Til's answer, and then how various philosophers, schools of thought, and thinkers have answered the question throughout history.
The book is largely an examination of how thinkers have begun their arguments from human autonomy--a false premise and found themselves with answers that fail to satisfy. Subsequent thinkers show the failure of the previous thinker. C. Gregg Singer calls this process in a very similar book, "From Rationalism to Irrationality." Each thinker believes they are acting rationally, but they ultimately find they have fallen into irrationality.
As autonomous human philosophy has developed, the consequences are worked out through the culture. As Van Til writes, "Culture is religion externalized." And so it is. Successive generations find misery, despair, and alienation as they persist in their covenant-breaking.
Toward the end, Rushdoony argues that we find ourselves at the "end of an age." He compares our civilization to that of Rome right before their collapse. He writes:
"The Roman world was given to a sick appetite for amusement. As Salvian observed, ‘It is dying, but continues to laugh.’ The Roman theatre and circus catered increasingly to a depraved taste, and the ‘impurities of the theatre,’ Salvian noted, ‘are singular in that they cannot be honestly denounced in public.’ Salvian was an eyewitness to the fall of Trier, and he saw the crowds continuing to cheer at the games while the raped and dying cried out in the streets. But their ‘madness’ was such that, ‘A few nobles who survived destruction demanded circuses from the emperor as the greatest relief to the destroyed city.’" p. 384
Many have made the comparison, and it seems a fair one. He sums up Roman society as being "oppressed by welfarism, without faith, over-taxed, immoral, and without sufficient will to defend itself properly." p. 385 I don't think we're there yet, but we're much closer than when Rushdoony wrote this. The day rapidly approaches. But this is not a cause for despair, but excitement.
This is one of my favorite quotes in the book, so I quote it in full:
"Every age has its problems, and many eras have had more difficult problems than the modern age, but the test is the ability of a culture to cope with its problems. The modern age has lost even one of the most elementary abilities of any culture, namely, the ability to discipline its children and maintain its authority. Without this elementary ability, a culture is very soon dead. The modern age gives every evidence of approaching death. This is a cause, not for dismay, but for hope. The death of modernity makes possible the birth of a new culture, and such an event is always, however turbulent, an exciting and challenging venture. The dying culture loses its will to live. A new culture, grounded in a new faith, restores that will to live even under very adverse circumstances." p. 389-390
As he concludes, he warns against keeping our religion "isolated from its world." To do so is to make it "irrelevant" and give over the world to a different "motive force." To make Christianity irrelevant to society is to surrender "culture to the enemy." We've already done this, as he demonstrates. The work we have to do is bring Christianity to cultural relevance. This is not done overnight, but is done by small steps of obedience and cultural transformation.
Rushdoony argues that the world will soon be looking for new answers, and we must faithfully and prophetically deliver the Word of God to a lost people.
Rushdoony argues from the beginning that Van Til's solution to the dilemma is the only solution. Rushdoony quotes Van Til:
"Using the language of the One-and-Many question we contend that in God the one and many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity. The persons of the Trinity are mutually exhaustive of one another. The Son and the Spirit are ontologically on a par with the Father." p. 10-11
The book is Rushdoony's posing the problem of the one and the many, a brief introduction to Van Til's answer, and then how various philosophers, schools of thought, and thinkers have answered the question throughout history.
The book is largely an examination of how thinkers have begun their arguments from human autonomy--a false premise and found themselves with answers that fail to satisfy. Subsequent thinkers show the failure of the previous thinker. C. Gregg Singer calls this process in a very similar book, "From Rationalism to Irrationality." Each thinker believes they are acting rationally, but they ultimately find they have fallen into irrationality.
As autonomous human philosophy has developed, the consequences are worked out through the culture. As Van Til writes, "Culture is religion externalized." And so it is. Successive generations find misery, despair, and alienation as they persist in their covenant-breaking.
Toward the end, Rushdoony argues that we find ourselves at the "end of an age." He compares our civilization to that of Rome right before their collapse. He writes:
"The Roman world was given to a sick appetite for amusement. As Salvian observed, ‘It is dying, but continues to laugh.’ The Roman theatre and circus catered increasingly to a depraved taste, and the ‘impurities of the theatre,’ Salvian noted, ‘are singular in that they cannot be honestly denounced in public.’ Salvian was an eyewitness to the fall of Trier, and he saw the crowds continuing to cheer at the games while the raped and dying cried out in the streets. But their ‘madness’ was such that, ‘A few nobles who survived destruction demanded circuses from the emperor as the greatest relief to the destroyed city.’" p. 384
Many have made the comparison, and it seems a fair one. He sums up Roman society as being "oppressed by welfarism, without faith, over-taxed, immoral, and without sufficient will to defend itself properly." p. 385 I don't think we're there yet, but we're much closer than when Rushdoony wrote this. The day rapidly approaches. But this is not a cause for despair, but excitement.
This is one of my favorite quotes in the book, so I quote it in full:
"Every age has its problems, and many eras have had more difficult problems than the modern age, but the test is the ability of a culture to cope with its problems. The modern age has lost even one of the most elementary abilities of any culture, namely, the ability to discipline its children and maintain its authority. Without this elementary ability, a culture is very soon dead. The modern age gives every evidence of approaching death. This is a cause, not for dismay, but for hope. The death of modernity makes possible the birth of a new culture, and such an event is always, however turbulent, an exciting and challenging venture. The dying culture loses its will to live. A new culture, grounded in a new faith, restores that will to live even under very adverse circumstances." p. 389-390
As he concludes, he warns against keeping our religion "isolated from its world." To do so is to make it "irrelevant" and give over the world to a different "motive force." To make Christianity irrelevant to society is to surrender "culture to the enemy." We've already done this, as he demonstrates. The work we have to do is bring Christianity to cultural relevance. This is not done overnight, but is done by small steps of obedience and cultural transformation.
Rushdoony argues that the world will soon be looking for new answers, and we must faithfully and prophetically deliver the Word of God to a lost people.
April 30, 2023
Mind blowing.
Rushdoony explores the fact that Western philosophy has always been damaged by dialectical thought (from Ancient Greek "form-matter," to Medieval "nature-grace," to Enlightenment "nature-freedom") manifesting itself in the two societal extremes of "The One" (aka, absolute monarchy, divine emperors, statism, communism, the utopian ideals of Platonism) and "The Many" (aka, democracy, hyper individualism, libertarianism, anarchism).
Because of the dialectical root of these ideas, they're always bound to fail as a result of their inner tension, producing sporadic or accidental periods of liberty, license, or totalitarianism back and forth ad infinitum without a non-dialectical philosophical solution, found only in Trinitarian Biblical Christianity. The dialectical view of history is cyclical and contradictory, whereas Christianity offers a linear, progressive, and stabilised view.
The Ontological Trinity, being One God ("The One") and Three Co-Equal and Divine Persons ("The Many") represents an Equal-Ultimacy model for free society, and has been the foundations of Western Civilization from the Council of Chalcedon onwards. Anti-subordinationist Christology is thus the foundation for true (non dialectical) liberty.
Our temporal One and Many, when modelled off the eternal One and Many, we can experience an equal ultimacy as derived from God. The knowledge of man is thus found in the knowledge of God. It is not man as self created, nor state created, but as God created, that man finds himself, with an emphasis upon unity of being co-existent with his uniqueness (as created) with transcendental limits (God's Law), not a conflict of interests or inner dualism (as dialectically defined), with an unlimited license nor liberty (thus anarchism/libertinism as per "the many") nor unlimited oppression (statism, cultism or socialization as per "the one").
Without returning to our Christological and Trinitarian foundations, the West will only further remove itself from its greatness and engross itself continually in a dialectical struggle between the One and the Many, creating not only more unrest for man divided against man, but man divided against himself.
Will be re-reading this again one day.
Rushdoony explores the fact that Western philosophy has always been damaged by dialectical thought (from Ancient Greek "form-matter," to Medieval "nature-grace," to Enlightenment "nature-freedom") manifesting itself in the two societal extremes of "The One" (aka, absolute monarchy, divine emperors, statism, communism, the utopian ideals of Platonism) and "The Many" (aka, democracy, hyper individualism, libertarianism, anarchism).
Because of the dialectical root of these ideas, they're always bound to fail as a result of their inner tension, producing sporadic or accidental periods of liberty, license, or totalitarianism back and forth ad infinitum without a non-dialectical philosophical solution, found only in Trinitarian Biblical Christianity. The dialectical view of history is cyclical and contradictory, whereas Christianity offers a linear, progressive, and stabilised view.
The Ontological Trinity, being One God ("The One") and Three Co-Equal and Divine Persons ("The Many") represents an Equal-Ultimacy model for free society, and has been the foundations of Western Civilization from the Council of Chalcedon onwards. Anti-subordinationist Christology is thus the foundation for true (non dialectical) liberty.
Our temporal One and Many, when modelled off the eternal One and Many, we can experience an equal ultimacy as derived from God. The knowledge of man is thus found in the knowledge of God. It is not man as self created, nor state created, but as God created, that man finds himself, with an emphasis upon unity of being co-existent with his uniqueness (as created) with transcendental limits (God's Law), not a conflict of interests or inner dualism (as dialectically defined), with an unlimited license nor liberty (thus anarchism/libertinism as per "the many") nor unlimited oppression (statism, cultism or socialization as per "the one").
Without returning to our Christological and Trinitarian foundations, the West will only further remove itself from its greatness and engross itself continually in a dialectical struggle between the One and the Many, creating not only more unrest for man divided against man, but man divided against himself.
Will be re-reading this again one day.
December 12, 2012
I really enjoyed this volume... I think it can be distracting to some to engage some of what he says with a wooden literalism. yes, Rushdoony did want to be taken seriously and at face value... but it seems to me, some of his critics ultimately use a "biblicist" hermeneutic on him and then find an error or two then dismiss him. You can't approach a text like Rushdoony the way a fundamentalist/dispensationalist approaches the book of Daniel or the Revelation of Christ by St. John. To do this is to their own loss.
Rushdoony was human, he was fallible.. And he knew it! Yes, some of his criticism or conclusions may be short sighted or hastily drawn (though I believe the latter to be less true), And YES, being Orthodox, I do take *significant* issue with this text, and his text on the Creeds (Foundations for Social Order), BUT and its a BIG BUT, this book is still very important. Few people if any, *especially at the time when he was writing this*, had any concept of a robust Trinitarianism, much less one that was so vibrant and comprehensive. In that sense, for the english speaking world, especially in the US, this book is an epic landmark in theology in general and the western and reformed traditions in particular.
Very much worthy of time and study... yes, double check his work... but by all means don't let that little bit of extra work turn you away from reading this... if you just wanna be spoon fed and not have to engage your texts, then bigger problems await for you.
Rushdoony was human, he was fallible.. And he knew it! Yes, some of his criticism or conclusions may be short sighted or hastily drawn (though I believe the latter to be less true), And YES, being Orthodox, I do take *significant* issue with this text, and his text on the Creeds (Foundations for Social Order), BUT and its a BIG BUT, this book is still very important. Few people if any, *especially at the time when he was writing this*, had any concept of a robust Trinitarianism, much less one that was so vibrant and comprehensive. In that sense, for the english speaking world, especially in the US, this book is an epic landmark in theology in general and the western and reformed traditions in particular.
Very much worthy of time and study... yes, double check his work... but by all means don't let that little bit of extra work turn you away from reading this... if you just wanna be spoon fed and not have to engage your texts, then bigger problems await for you.
June 17, 2014
Excellent study!
July 8, 2013
Deep, valid scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews