What do you think?
Rate this book
Misanthropy: The Critique of Humanity
This book is the first major study of the theme of misanthropy, its history, arguments both for and against it, and its significance for us today. Misanthropy is not strictly a philosophy. It is an inconsistent thought, and so has often been mocked. But from Timon of Athens to Motörhead it has had a very long life, vast historical purchase and is seemingly indomitable and unignorable. Human beings have always nursed a profound distrust of who and what they are. This book does not seek to rationalize that distrust, but asks how far misanthropy might have a reason on its side, if a confused reason.
There are obvious arguments against misanthropy. It is often born of a hatred of physical being. It can be historically explained. It particularly appears in undemocratic cultures. But what of the misanthropy of terminally defeated and disempowered peoples? Or born of progressivisms? Or the misanthropy that quarrels with specious or easy positivities (from Pelagius to Leibniz to the corporate cheer of contemporary `total capital`)? From the Greek Cynics to Roman satire, St Augustine to Jacobean drama, the misanthropy of the French Ancien Regime to Swift, Smollett and Johnson, Hobbes, Schopenhauer and Rousseau, from the Irish and American misanthropic traditions to modern women`s misanthropy, the book explores such questions. It ends with a debate about contemporary culture that ranges from the `dark radicalisms`, queer misanthropy, posthumanism and eco-misanthropy to Houellebecq, punk rock and gangsta rap.
There are obvious arguments against misanthropy. It is often born of a hatred of physical being. It can be historically explained. It particularly appears in undemocratic cultures. But what of the misanthropy of terminally defeated and disempowered peoples? Or born of progressivisms? Or the misanthropy that quarrels with specious or easy positivities (from Pelagius to Leibniz to the corporate cheer of contemporary `total capital`)? From the Greek Cynics to Roman satire, St Augustine to Jacobean drama, the misanthropy of the French Ancien Regime to Swift, Smollett and Johnson, Hobbes, Schopenhauer and Rousseau, from the Irish and American misanthropic traditions to modern women`s misanthropy, the book explores such questions. It ends with a debate about contemporary culture that ranges from the `dark radicalisms`, queer misanthropy, posthumanism and eco-misanthropy to Houellebecq, punk rock and gangsta rap.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
288 pages, Paperback
Published June 15, 2017
5 people are currently reading
176 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 9, 2023
It's not a review as much as cryptic, oblique observations about life.
A little humorous, and a little informative, and includes some valid arguments, but it's not philosophy; erratic and inconsistent thoughts maybe. Self-contradictory sometimes. Antinatalism, nihilism, error theory...but this just reminds me of cohle's captivating worldview.
Human existence is a tragedy that need not have been, it not for the intervention in our lives of a single, calamitous event: the evolution of consciousness—consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect separated from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law.
We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self. This accretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed, with total assurance, that we’re each somebody. When, in fact, everybody’s nobody.
When for you there is only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the felt in reference to the felt, only the cognized in reference to the cognized — there is no you here. When there is no you here, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor there nor between the two. That, just this, is the end of suffering.
We've all got what I call a life trap. There's gene deep certainty that things will be different. That you'll move to another city and meet people that will be the friends for the rest of your lives. That you'll fall in love and be fulfilled. Fucking fulfillment. And closure. Whatever the fuck those two fucking empty jars to hold this shit storm...Nothing's ever fulfilled! Until the very end. And closure. No. Nothing is ever over...
A little humorous, and a little informative, and includes some valid arguments, but it's not philosophy; erratic and inconsistent thoughts maybe. Self-contradictory sometimes. Antinatalism, nihilism, error theory...but this just reminds me of cohle's captivating worldview.
Human existence is a tragedy that need not have been, it not for the intervention in our lives of a single, calamitous event: the evolution of consciousness—consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect separated from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law.
We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self. This accretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed, with total assurance, that we’re each somebody. When, in fact, everybody’s nobody.
When for you there is only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the felt in reference to the felt, only the cognized in reference to the cognized — there is no you here. When there is no you here, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor there nor between the two. That, just this, is the end of suffering.
We've all got what I call a life trap. There's gene deep certainty that things will be different. That you'll move to another city and meet people that will be the friends for the rest of your lives. That you'll fall in love and be fulfilled. Fucking fulfillment. And closure. Whatever the fuck those two fucking empty jars to hold this shit storm...Nothing's ever fulfilled! Until the very end. And closure. No. Nothing is ever over...
February 12, 2025
Not quite a thorough an examination of the topic and like many it cannot answer the questions brought up by misanthropy. Yet, there are good observations here and like misanthropy they are not given to easy political identification. The parts on Houellebecq and English subjugation of Ireland are particularly good.
October 16, 2017
A difficult book to review as I am not as well-versed on the subject as the author, but an interesting toss-up between content, style and enjoyabilty. Not what I was expecting, but would what I was expecting have made it "better"? Would it have been a better work were he a misanthrope? Does it take a misanthrope to write a book about misanthropy?
I eagerly awaited this book’s release but as I am not an academic and do not possess a degree in philosophy or literature, I found it heady, dense and rather hard to get through. But who knows, maybe that's the nature of the subject.
Not as entertaining as I was hoping, but it's not really a subject which naturally lends itself to that?
Gibson has a certain writing style that I don't recognize which I found cold, dry, aloof, a bit pretentious and not particularly inviting, entertaining or fun (again, is misanthropy fun?), but it's certainly informative and well-researched. He has his credentials in the research department, just maybe not in the writing department? I don't know.
At times my engagement with the work, which waxed and waned, was like trying to have a conversation in a language in which you are not fluent. You don't get all of it and it's a struggle. There were times when I quite simply had no idea what he was talking about, and I am ashamed to admit there were a lot of words I don't know. What does that say about me?
It’s obviously not for a general audience. A philosophical background would help.
The author claims that the book will not "stall in misanthropic griping." Well why not? I wouldn't have minded.
What was Gibson’s motivation for writing this book? He is not a misanthrope (I can't tell if that's good or bad) and remains objective/dispassionate on the subject, which is I suppose one of the hallmarks of proficient writing, but I rather wanted him to be. I found myself wanting more scathing cynicism about people. Bring it on.
For me it lacked a satisfying, visceral punch, but that's more to do with personal catharsis rather than substantive research. Although making me aware of (to me) previously unknown figures, I felt he spent too much time indulging in philosophical masturbation and not getting down with some good old-fashioned misanthropic funk/grit/muck.
He says that he does not offer a comprehensive historical account of its subject as that would take several volumes. Well despite his dense writing style I would read all of them.
He's a tad lazy in that he doesn't introduce certain writers and philosophers. He expects you to know them (who is Lessing's son? Who is Walter Benjamin?). He also fails to translate some things, forcing us to.
I found the de Sade discussion lacking and I was disappointed in the omission of Maldoror, Celine, No Exit, Bill Hicks, others I am no doubt missing, and discussion of the idea that we might be a disease ("a virus with shoes" [Hicks] or Agent Smith's monologue in The Matrix).
For me, the juicy, enjoyable quotes ("shrill and unnecessary people," after 164 pages: "people, in fact, are idiots") were the cathartic highlight of the book which I could relate to viscerally and intimately. They made me laugh. I wanted more.
As I said, it's not a complete history of the subject. Rather than observations of the negative and aspects of humanity, it's commentary, discussion and critique of select philosophical and literary misanthropes (or as he calls them "misanthropists") from Timon of Athens to Lemmy of Motorhead, along with other other historical figures (some well-known, some not), and ideas.
But his sources seem a tad random. I feel he missed some people.
The genre is philosophy yet he says we should not think of misanthropy as philosophical. Why not?
So is misanthropy justified? I’m not sure whether he knows. He is sympathetic to it yet critical of it. He writes, "Misanthropy seems unable to persuade us of the full reach of its generalizing claims." I don't know about that. I've read a lot of "claims" that seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Personally, I wanted Gibson to be a misanthrope so I could be there right with him. I wanted a complete compendium of misanthropic thought and sentiment, including a discussion of the very things people do which prompt misanthropy in the first place. There is petty misanthropy (people are idiots), and psychotic misanthropy (I want to kill you). While I am pretty much in the former camp, a bit more general discussion of the (albeit vast) subject of human nature would have been appreciated. If Leibniz thinks this is the best of all possible worlds, well I often think the best of all possible worlds is a world without people.
I eagerly awaited this book’s release but as I am not an academic and do not possess a degree in philosophy or literature, I found it heady, dense and rather hard to get through. But who knows, maybe that's the nature of the subject.
Not as entertaining as I was hoping, but it's not really a subject which naturally lends itself to that?
Gibson has a certain writing style that I don't recognize which I found cold, dry, aloof, a bit pretentious and not particularly inviting, entertaining or fun (again, is misanthropy fun?), but it's certainly informative and well-researched. He has his credentials in the research department, just maybe not in the writing department? I don't know.
At times my engagement with the work, which waxed and waned, was like trying to have a conversation in a language in which you are not fluent. You don't get all of it and it's a struggle. There were times when I quite simply had no idea what he was talking about, and I am ashamed to admit there were a lot of words I don't know. What does that say about me?
It’s obviously not for a general audience. A philosophical background would help.
The author claims that the book will not "stall in misanthropic griping." Well why not? I wouldn't have minded.
What was Gibson’s motivation for writing this book? He is not a misanthrope (I can't tell if that's good or bad) and remains objective/dispassionate on the subject, which is I suppose one of the hallmarks of proficient writing, but I rather wanted him to be. I found myself wanting more scathing cynicism about people. Bring it on.
For me it lacked a satisfying, visceral punch, but that's more to do with personal catharsis rather than substantive research. Although making me aware of (to me) previously unknown figures, I felt he spent too much time indulging in philosophical masturbation and not getting down with some good old-fashioned misanthropic funk/grit/muck.
He says that he does not offer a comprehensive historical account of its subject as that would take several volumes. Well despite his dense writing style I would read all of them.
He's a tad lazy in that he doesn't introduce certain writers and philosophers. He expects you to know them (who is Lessing's son? Who is Walter Benjamin?). He also fails to translate some things, forcing us to.
I found the de Sade discussion lacking and I was disappointed in the omission of Maldoror, Celine, No Exit, Bill Hicks, others I am no doubt missing, and discussion of the idea that we might be a disease ("a virus with shoes" [Hicks] or Agent Smith's monologue in The Matrix).
For me, the juicy, enjoyable quotes ("shrill and unnecessary people," after 164 pages: "people, in fact, are idiots") were the cathartic highlight of the book which I could relate to viscerally and intimately. They made me laugh. I wanted more.
As I said, it's not a complete history of the subject. Rather than observations of the negative and aspects of humanity, it's commentary, discussion and critique of select philosophical and literary misanthropes (or as he calls them "misanthropists") from Timon of Athens to Lemmy of Motorhead, along with other other historical figures (some well-known, some not), and ideas.
But his sources seem a tad random. I feel he missed some people.
The genre is philosophy yet he says we should not think of misanthropy as philosophical. Why not?
So is misanthropy justified? I’m not sure whether he knows. He is sympathetic to it yet critical of it. He writes, "Misanthropy seems unable to persuade us of the full reach of its generalizing claims." I don't know about that. I've read a lot of "claims" that seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Personally, I wanted Gibson to be a misanthrope so I could be there right with him. I wanted a complete compendium of misanthropic thought and sentiment, including a discussion of the very things people do which prompt misanthropy in the first place. There is petty misanthropy (people are idiots), and psychotic misanthropy (I want to kill you). While I am pretty much in the former camp, a bit more general discussion of the (albeit vast) subject of human nature would have been appreciated. If Leibniz thinks this is the best of all possible worlds, well I often think the best of all possible worlds is a world without people.
May 22, 2021
This is less of a philosophical treatment of the subject of misanthropy and more of a historical and literary analysis of the specific texts of misanthropists and texts with misanthropic inclinations produced in various times/eras. As a result, there is only some insight into the nature of misanthropy (i.e, that it is an incomplete form of thought, it is quite often based in a revulsion of the body, it often emerges with emancipation and disillusionment with progress, the specificities of colonial and women misanthropy and so on) but most of the book is very centered on authors and their texts (short stories, (auto)biographies, novels, memoirs etc) and the characters in their writings which is not that interesting.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews