What do you think?
Rate this book
La era del ingenio: El siglo XVII y el nacimiento de la mente moderna (Ariel)
La mentalidad de los tiempos modernos se estableció en el siglo xvii mientras, en medio de guerra e injusticia, tuvo lugar un período de revolución intelectual. Pero ¿qué le sucedió a la mente europea entre 1605 —cuándo la audiencia que asistió a la primera función de Macbeth pensaba que el regicidio era tal aberración del orden natural que haría que fantasmas se alzarán de las profundidades de la tierra— y 1649, cuándo una gran multitud, quizás algunos de los que habían visto Macbeth cuarenta años atrás, podían quedarse a contemplar tranquilamente la ejecución de un rey?
En este agitado período, la ciencia se movió desde la alquimia y la astrología de John Dee hasta el minucioso trabajo y la astronomía de Galileo, desde el clasicismo de Aristóteles hasta la investigación basada en la evidencia de la Royal Society. A pesar de eso, los usos antiguos aún persistían y afectaban la nueva mentalidad: Newton, el hombre que entendía la gravedad y las leyes del movimiento estuvo fascinado hasta el final de su vida por la alquimia.
El siglo xvii fue un período de progreso y descubrimiento que fue testigo del cambio más grande en la mentalidad humana. La era del ingenio es una examinación detallada de los problemas, crisis, y desarrollos de la Ilustración que fueron fundamentales en la creación del mundo que conocemos hoy.
645 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 8, 2016
111 people are currently reading
1097 people want to read
About the author
A.C. Grayling
95 books666 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
March 11, 2019
The Age of Genius is a strange book, the arguments are layered in enormous amounts of detail, whether it be the troop movements in the Thirty Year war or the particulars of a Rosicrucian treatise. Ultimately Grayling asserts it was the defeat of Catholicism and other static, autocratic tendencies which allowed skeptical discourse to improve upon science and government. Grayling lifts the possibility that this trend continued into the arts but abandons it almost immediately. Grayling appears to echo Niall Ferguson in noting the significance of certain networks of people who proliferated these liberal ideas and (mostly) avoided the ultimate punishment. I enjoyed great parts of this text and yet groaned throughout entire chapters.
June 15, 2025
Disappointing. He starts by wasting a third of the book on a too-detailed history of the Thirty Years War. He fails to demonstrate that more than a few of the details mattered to his main point. The general reason for and outcome of the war yes, but not the endless battles, treaties, and realignments. If you want an engaging history of the war, read Wedgewood.
Then he spends the rest of the book describing the move toward rationalism and scientific method. Finally in the conclusion he claims that he has demonstrated that these changes occurred because the upheavals of the century meant authorities were too distracted to prevent them. I said to myself “Huh?” Not so that I noticed. The bulk of the book is a description of changes; this last, tacked-on chapter claims victory in an argument about causality that I don’t think he engaged in at all.
It also took me forever to read. I found it very hard to follow the course of the narrative. It just seemed to tackle pieces of each topic without any logical flow. There are needlessly long tangents on individuals who could have done with a page or two. And the last chapter takes a personal tirade tone that undermines the exercise. As I said, a disappointment.
Then he spends the rest of the book describing the move toward rationalism and scientific method. Finally in the conclusion he claims that he has demonstrated that these changes occurred because the upheavals of the century meant authorities were too distracted to prevent them. I said to myself “Huh?” Not so that I noticed. The bulk of the book is a description of changes; this last, tacked-on chapter claims victory in an argument about causality that I don’t think he engaged in at all.
It also took me forever to read. I found it very hard to follow the course of the narrative. It just seemed to tackle pieces of each topic without any logical flow. There are needlessly long tangents on individuals who could have done with a page or two. And the last chapter takes a personal tirade tone that undermines the exercise. As I said, a disappointment.
August 12, 2017
This book is basically the non-fiction backstory to Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle (starting with Quicksilver). Except the Baroque Cycle manages to cover a lot more of the world. But this was up-front about its restrictions of location and scope: it was going to cover (Western) Europe in the 17th century and the changes that society underwent.
And it does it hard. It's a solid (both sturdy and dense) history book. It's often somewhat opaque (not assisted by the author's fondness for somewhat old-fashioned syntax and construction) especially when the author digs enthusiastically into the nitty-gritty of philosophy (obviously a favourite of his; not so much of mine), but in general it does a great job of laying out the moving and shaking elements of the period, with lots of interesting asides. (The power of postal services! Sweden's stint as a world power! The self-defeating stupidity of the Holy Roman Emperor!) It was, all in all, a good overview of the many ways in which 17th century mindset change manifested.
And then the conclusion of the book tacks on the compulsory "looking forward" bit about the ease of myth and the challenge of education that honestly made me wish that was the point of the book. But oh well.
(I didn't power through 20% of the book in one sitting; a lot of that page-length was the notes section.)
And it does it hard. It's a solid (both sturdy and dense) history book. It's often somewhat opaque (not assisted by the author's fondness for somewhat old-fashioned syntax and construction) especially when the author digs enthusiastically into the nitty-gritty of philosophy (obviously a favourite of his; not so much of mine), but in general it does a great job of laying out the moving and shaking elements of the period, with lots of interesting asides. (The power of postal services! Sweden's stint as a world power! The self-defeating stupidity of the Holy Roman Emperor!) It was, all in all, a good overview of the many ways in which 17th century mindset change manifested.
And then the conclusion of the book tacks on the compulsory "looking forward" bit about the ease of myth and the challenge of education that honestly made me wish that was the point of the book. But oh well.
(I didn't power through 20% of the book in one sitting; a lot of that page-length was the notes section.)
March 2, 2016
"Building a book-length argument around his contention that 'the seventeenth century is the moment when one world-view was displaced by another because the scientific displaced that of faith,' Grayling paints a picture of astronomers, mathematicians, medical doctors, and even alchemists often reaching conclusions that even they dearly hoped weren't true – because the answers meant opposing Christian doctrine, unwise if you wanted to keep your job, freedom or head...To my ear, though, the tone of the Grayling's prose is rather flat – think "textbook" and you've pretty much got it – so many of these unexpected sidelights are not presented as compellingly or dramatically as one might hope. But on balance, Grayling has put forward a powerful argument for independent thinking as a vehicle of salvation, and if he gets lost in the weeds from time to time, at least it's nice to be in the presence of someone who hasn't mistaken the grasslands of the earth for the fabled Garden of Eden." - James Broderick, BookBrowse.com. Full review at: https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/in...
April 19, 2019
History extends the period of Renaissance from 14th to 16th century. Renaissance marks the transition from middle ages to modernity where the seeds of reason were sown in human mind and it attempted to gain the freedom of thought and religion. This period was marked by man’s strides in the fields of arts, architecture, poetry and drama. What follows after Renaissance was the Age of Enlightenment between 17th and 18th century. Where Renaissance focused on the artistic side of human mind, Age of Enlightenment concentrated on its intellectual side where the focus was more on science and logic. Enlightenment was marked by skepticism where every aspect of human life became subject to scrutiny.
In this book, Grayling argues that 17th century merits its own unique place in the history. Instead of just lumping it in the Age of Enlightenment, we need to single out 17th century because no era or epoch have the greater influence on humankind than the Seventeenth century. Grayling says that so profound seventeenth century’s influence was that the world before and since can arguable be claimed as two different worlds.
Though the list of influential figures of Seventeenth century is long, Grayling singles out four key individuals that helped the transition of mind from old ways of thinking to modernity. These were Marin Mersenne, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and John Locke.
The transition from Renaissance to Enlightenment contained an important element – influence of magic and occultism. Many great scientists of the seventeenth century, including Newton and Boyle, were also involved in magical or occultist practices. According to Newton’s Papers that J. M. Keynes bought in 1963, a great number of Newton’s writings were concerned with alchemical and magical speculations. Both Newton and Boyle were extensively involved in alchemy and believed that alchemy can help acquire wealth and immortality. However, many of these last of occultists also helped to remove science from the entanglement of occultism by focusing more on empirical and methodical investigations.
Grayling says that Rosicrucian movement in the early 17th century was the end point of the incubation period of modern mind – a period that started with the Renaissance. At that point, critical thinking started escaping from religious and occultist influences. Whether or not natural philosophy (science) was born out of occultist philosophy, or was always separately coexisting, the first decades of 17th century saw the disentanglement of the two. This disentanglement was done by means of a focus on method, and there were three key figures behind it: Bacon, Descartes and Mersenne.
Grayling calls Marin Mersenne as the internet server of 17th Century. Mersenne used to receive letters from the great thinkers of his time and then copied and disseminated them across Europe to spread news, opinions and discoveries. Moreover, he also made available the copies of his correspondence in his lodgings for any visitor to read. This way, he created the reputations of many great minds – Descartes, Hobbes, for example – with Descartes became famous in Paris circles long before his first publication. In 1635, Mersenne gave its circle of acquaintance with whom he corresponded regularly a semi-formal name of Academia Parisienne which consisted of nearly 150 philosophers, scientists and mathematicians including the likes of Descartes, Hobbes, Galileo, Pascal, Gassendi, Beekman, Toricricelli etc. Academia Parisienne was arguably the inspiration for Academia de Science that Jean-Baptiste Colbert setup in 1666, and Royal Society of London that was founded in 1660.
Francis Bacon’s life spanned an era in which England started the course to become a superpower for several centuries to come. This was the time of agricultural reforms and industrial development and Bacon played his part in this changing world as a lawyer, statesman, author and philosopher of the new ways of thinking. Bacon’s significant contributions lie in his concept of science as a cooperative enterprise (and not just the work of lonely and secretive scientists) which can ensure institutional exchange of ideas. This was revolutionary thinking at that time . Through his novel The New Atlantis in 1627, he suggested the idea of Solomon’s House – idea of an institute for collaborative scientific works. This was the idea that directly inspired the founding of Royal Society in 1662.
Bacon was of the view that science must be based on observation of facts from which theory can be obtained via inference. His method, which is known as Baconian Method, is an example of inductive reasoning. Baconian Method consists of a series of steps, which allow for systematic collection of facts and careful induction from those facts in order to support or refute a hypothesis. A striking feature of Baconian Method is its insistence on the collection of facts bottom-up; i.e., strictly through investigation of the works of practical crafts and trades – the works of farmers, sailors, butchers, cabinet makers who have practical knowledge of how things work. Bacon rejects top-down a-priori reflections. He was of the view that the foundation of scientific enquiry must be based on how things actually work, not how we fancy them to.
Before Bacon, the standard view was to review with awe the achievements of ancients and think of progress as the improvement upon what has already been done by the ancients. Bacon rejected this view and believed that science is not just reviving the past but to start afresh. Therefore, Bacon’s significance also lies in his thinking that scientific knowledge is not confined to just rediscovering and copying; it means discovering and making new and practical advancements.
René Descartes’ method was the method of doubt. His method is to proceed from one clear idea to the next until you reach the truth. Descartes’ method instructs one to start from the most clear, doubtless and absolutely certain idea and then to remove the doubts each step of the way. Moreover, despite his skeptical arguments, he was not a skeptic. Descartes’ skepticism is investigative skepticism, not problematic skepticism. He doubts not for the sake of denying per se, but to get to the ideas that are free from doubts.
In the late 16th century, a combination of Christian theology and Aristotelian view was the acceptable view of the nature – acceptable because Church was comfortable with it. The major author of this viewpoint was Thomas Aquinas, who brought the material and spiritual together by combining Aristotalian science & Ptolemaic astronomy with Church’s teaching in an attempt to make science a servant of theology – and a very successful attempt at that time. Any scientific attempt that disagree with orthodox view of nature was punishable by the Church; the trial of Galileo was an example of that kind. This trial was also important because it was the last significant attempt of the Church to suppress the free thinking of science.
Grayling argues that, as the trial of Galileo shows, there was a pressing need to free the science from slavery of religion. It was the need of that time to show that the spheres of science and religion are different and that science can progress without inflicting any moral damage to the religious teachings. This matter is personally important for Descartes who wished that his teachings and research became acceptable for the Church and are taught at Jesuits’ schools. So, science was facing two battles: to free itself from the clutches of occultism; and to free itself from religion. Both of these challenges were accepted by the same persons: Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes.
The solution to the problem of different spheres of religion and science lays in Descartes theory; in his Meditations on First Philosophy he argued that mind and matters are essentially two different things (though this created problem as to how mind and matter interact). Descartes point was that the God Himself laid down the laws of science, which the material realm is following. Therefore, separation of matter from mind (or science from religion) is perfectly acceptable to God. Francis Bacon, on the other hand, gave rise to the view that the ultimate aim of scientific knowledge must not be the subjugation of faith but the servitude of humanity through improvement in practical applications.
Emergence of scientific revolution also changed wars. Demand for new types of weaponry and better logistics forced the craftsmen to improve their skills. In addition, Thirty Years War and its outcome also forced thinkers to rethink the role of states, institutions and governance structures in a society. 17th century was the time when world started shifting from the love of monarchy to the rejection of absolutism – one of the key architect of this shift was John Locke.
Absolute monarchy was the passage between feudalism and democracy. In the medieval period, there were feudal lords with absolute control over a part of the land. As their power grew, conflicts arose among the feudal lords. From there came the need for absolute monarchy to maintain the order. A central question in political theory is: what determines the right of a ruling government or ruler to govern? From fifteenth century onward, a new kind of governing authority was needed; might or power wasn’t enough to justify the rule. That justification was found in the seal of approval of the Church – the ‘divine right’ of a ruler to govern. I think that was a turning point, a decisive moment. Before the need of backing a ruler, Church’s own claim on the authority based on religion was absolute. However, as soon as Church started involving into governance politics, fragmentations occurred within it, making its authority weaker. Soon came a time when absolute monarch’s power exceeded that of the Church. Soon the need was felt for a new system of governance, which must reject the concentration of power in one or few hands. Locke’s influential anti-absolutist, pro-liberal political philosophy was the answer to that need.
Grayling culminates his book on the note that, despite the evolution of human mind, there are two major twists. First, with the advancements of science and technology, the world view has become more and more complex, often out of the reach of an average mind. The average mind thus find solace in old world-view of pre-seventeenth century; old world view that contains simpler religious explanations and simple to-do and not-to-do lists. Second, the architect of chaos are using the fruits of mind’s evolution, namely technology, to revert people back to the old world-view in order to gain control. Grayling argues that the solution to both the problem lies in the uplifting of average mind through education; despite the fact that this solution sounds clichéd, this is true like most of the clichés.
In this book, Grayling argues that 17th century merits its own unique place in the history. Instead of just lumping it in the Age of Enlightenment, we need to single out 17th century because no era or epoch have the greater influence on humankind than the Seventeenth century. Grayling says that so profound seventeenth century’s influence was that the world before and since can arguable be claimed as two different worlds.
Though the list of influential figures of Seventeenth century is long, Grayling singles out four key individuals that helped the transition of mind from old ways of thinking to modernity. These were Marin Mersenne, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and John Locke.
The transition from Renaissance to Enlightenment contained an important element – influence of magic and occultism. Many great scientists of the seventeenth century, including Newton and Boyle, were also involved in magical or occultist practices. According to Newton’s Papers that J. M. Keynes bought in 1963, a great number of Newton’s writings were concerned with alchemical and magical speculations. Both Newton and Boyle were extensively involved in alchemy and believed that alchemy can help acquire wealth and immortality. However, many of these last of occultists also helped to remove science from the entanglement of occultism by focusing more on empirical and methodical investigations.
Grayling says that Rosicrucian movement in the early 17th century was the end point of the incubation period of modern mind – a period that started with the Renaissance. At that point, critical thinking started escaping from religious and occultist influences. Whether or not natural philosophy (science) was born out of occultist philosophy, or was always separately coexisting, the first decades of 17th century saw the disentanglement of the two. This disentanglement was done by means of a focus on method, and there were three key figures behind it: Bacon, Descartes and Mersenne.
Grayling calls Marin Mersenne as the internet server of 17th Century. Mersenne used to receive letters from the great thinkers of his time and then copied and disseminated them across Europe to spread news, opinions and discoveries. Moreover, he also made available the copies of his correspondence in his lodgings for any visitor to read. This way, he created the reputations of many great minds – Descartes, Hobbes, for example – with Descartes became famous in Paris circles long before his first publication. In 1635, Mersenne gave its circle of acquaintance with whom he corresponded regularly a semi-formal name of Academia Parisienne which consisted of nearly 150 philosophers, scientists and mathematicians including the likes of Descartes, Hobbes, Galileo, Pascal, Gassendi, Beekman, Toricricelli etc. Academia Parisienne was arguably the inspiration for Academia de Science that Jean-Baptiste Colbert setup in 1666, and Royal Society of London that was founded in 1660.
Francis Bacon’s life spanned an era in which England started the course to become a superpower for several centuries to come. This was the time of agricultural reforms and industrial development and Bacon played his part in this changing world as a lawyer, statesman, author and philosopher of the new ways of thinking. Bacon’s significant contributions lie in his concept of science as a cooperative enterprise (and not just the work of lonely and secretive scientists) which can ensure institutional exchange of ideas. This was revolutionary thinking at that time . Through his novel The New Atlantis in 1627, he suggested the idea of Solomon’s House – idea of an institute for collaborative scientific works. This was the idea that directly inspired the founding of Royal Society in 1662.
Bacon was of the view that science must be based on observation of facts from which theory can be obtained via inference. His method, which is known as Baconian Method, is an example of inductive reasoning. Baconian Method consists of a series of steps, which allow for systematic collection of facts and careful induction from those facts in order to support or refute a hypothesis. A striking feature of Baconian Method is its insistence on the collection of facts bottom-up; i.e., strictly through investigation of the works of practical crafts and trades – the works of farmers, sailors, butchers, cabinet makers who have practical knowledge of how things work. Bacon rejects top-down a-priori reflections. He was of the view that the foundation of scientific enquiry must be based on how things actually work, not how we fancy them to.
Before Bacon, the standard view was to review with awe the achievements of ancients and think of progress as the improvement upon what has already been done by the ancients. Bacon rejected this view and believed that science is not just reviving the past but to start afresh. Therefore, Bacon’s significance also lies in his thinking that scientific knowledge is not confined to just rediscovering and copying; it means discovering and making new and practical advancements.
René Descartes’ method was the method of doubt. His method is to proceed from one clear idea to the next until you reach the truth. Descartes’ method instructs one to start from the most clear, doubtless and absolutely certain idea and then to remove the doubts each step of the way. Moreover, despite his skeptical arguments, he was not a skeptic. Descartes’ skepticism is investigative skepticism, not problematic skepticism. He doubts not for the sake of denying per se, but to get to the ideas that are free from doubts.
In the late 16th century, a combination of Christian theology and Aristotelian view was the acceptable view of the nature – acceptable because Church was comfortable with it. The major author of this viewpoint was Thomas Aquinas, who brought the material and spiritual together by combining Aristotalian science & Ptolemaic astronomy with Church’s teaching in an attempt to make science a servant of theology – and a very successful attempt at that time. Any scientific attempt that disagree with orthodox view of nature was punishable by the Church; the trial of Galileo was an example of that kind. This trial was also important because it was the last significant attempt of the Church to suppress the free thinking of science.
Grayling argues that, as the trial of Galileo shows, there was a pressing need to free the science from slavery of religion. It was the need of that time to show that the spheres of science and religion are different and that science can progress without inflicting any moral damage to the religious teachings. This matter is personally important for Descartes who wished that his teachings and research became acceptable for the Church and are taught at Jesuits’ schools. So, science was facing two battles: to free itself from the clutches of occultism; and to free itself from religion. Both of these challenges were accepted by the same persons: Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes.
The solution to the problem of different spheres of religion and science lays in Descartes theory; in his Meditations on First Philosophy he argued that mind and matters are essentially two different things (though this created problem as to how mind and matter interact). Descartes point was that the God Himself laid down the laws of science, which the material realm is following. Therefore, separation of matter from mind (or science from religion) is perfectly acceptable to God. Francis Bacon, on the other hand, gave rise to the view that the ultimate aim of scientific knowledge must not be the subjugation of faith but the servitude of humanity through improvement in practical applications.
Emergence of scientific revolution also changed wars. Demand for new types of weaponry and better logistics forced the craftsmen to improve their skills. In addition, Thirty Years War and its outcome also forced thinkers to rethink the role of states, institutions and governance structures in a society. 17th century was the time when world started shifting from the love of monarchy to the rejection of absolutism – one of the key architect of this shift was John Locke.
Absolute monarchy was the passage between feudalism and democracy. In the medieval period, there were feudal lords with absolute control over a part of the land. As their power grew, conflicts arose among the feudal lords. From there came the need for absolute monarchy to maintain the order. A central question in political theory is: what determines the right of a ruling government or ruler to govern? From fifteenth century onward, a new kind of governing authority was needed; might or power wasn’t enough to justify the rule. That justification was found in the seal of approval of the Church – the ‘divine right’ of a ruler to govern. I think that was a turning point, a decisive moment. Before the need of backing a ruler, Church’s own claim on the authority based on religion was absolute. However, as soon as Church started involving into governance politics, fragmentations occurred within it, making its authority weaker. Soon came a time when absolute monarch’s power exceeded that of the Church. Soon the need was felt for a new system of governance, which must reject the concentration of power in one or few hands. Locke’s influential anti-absolutist, pro-liberal political philosophy was the answer to that need.
Grayling culminates his book on the note that, despite the evolution of human mind, there are two major twists. First, with the advancements of science and technology, the world view has become more and more complex, often out of the reach of an average mind. The average mind thus find solace in old world-view of pre-seventeenth century; old world view that contains simpler religious explanations and simple to-do and not-to-do lists. Second, the architect of chaos are using the fruits of mind’s evolution, namely technology, to revert people back to the old world-view in order to gain control. Grayling argues that the solution to both the problem lies in the uplifting of average mind through education; despite the fact that this solution sounds clichéd, this is true like most of the clichés.
November 27, 2017
Disclaimer: I found this book in my local tube-station. I picked it up knowing only of Grayling as one of the apostles of new atheism, and thus expected an arrogant panegyric to the self-evident progress of rational mankind, couched under the guise of a sweepingly broad brush popular history. It turned out to be somewhat less arrogant than expected, but not quite as sweeping as I would have liked. All in all, I started prejudiced, but was quite pleased with the book.
The book endeavours to describe the seventeenth century as a whole, which the author claims to be the turning point in human history. He of course falls short of such an encyclopedic project, but does so in style. The book is divided in three sections, the first examining the politics of the Thirty Years War, a conflict of apocalyptic proportions both materially and intellectually; the second looking at the transition between 'occultism' and modern science, analysing the 'divorce settlement' between alchemy and chemistry, if you will; and the third concerned with the early history of the scientific revolution proper.
Of Grayling's three themes, that is probably the one I was most familiar: I've read some Frances Yates back in the days, and I have maintained a peripheral interest in the puzzling subsistence of older systems within modernity. Contrary to my (low) expectations, Grayling pours relatively little scorns on those beliefs, and does not overly indulge his readership with long lists of 'inane superstitions', 'solitary eccentric' and other spiritual exotica: there is a little of that, but it is the Church and the thomist / aristotelian worldview that gets the brunt of it. I know little about it so that kind of reduction bothered me less. Grayling is actually quite frank and open in his approach, acknowledging repeatedly the two theories on the relation between Renaissance science and the 'occult': that science itself evolved from such occult doctrines as astrology or alchemy, or that they were separate endeavours but intertwined since ancient times. Grayling goes for the later, and I would rather lean toward the first, but his analysis of the shift is both interesting and balanced.
With that said, there is here no escaping from the pitfalls of popular history: the terms 'occult' or 'magical thinking' are thrown around quite a bit without ever being defined, for example. To his credit he does make the crucial distinctions between 'natural magic' and 'conjuration', as well as between 'alchemy' and 'spagyria';
Similarly he contrasts Bacon's emphasis on the free circulation of learning and the need for public institutions to foster science, with the occultist emphasis on secrecy and solitude, which I'm inclined to see as one of the more determining moments of the move from 'occult' to 'science' – yet had he sought to define 'occultism', he might also have recognised that those very rosicrucians and other apocalyptic protestant groups of the earliest XVIth c., preached both secrecy while advocating 'revelation'. The dialectic of secrecy and spectacle exists on both side of the occult/science divide, and is deeply embedded in the politico-religious context of the age: this he hints at regularly, spending the first third of the book aptly chronicling the European situation, but ultimately does not do much to tie those aspects with the rest of his narrative.
The most interesting section, on the transition from occult to science proper focus on three characters, Descartes, Mersennes and Bacon. Mersennes's main contribution, of which I don't think I had heard of before, was to circulate ideas and to between European scholars, effectively laying the foundations of a republic of letters capable to transcend national boundaries in its quest for universality. Grayling evokes the relationship between science, religion and occultism as a kind of love triangle, where each sides with the one or the other according to circumstances. Mersennes frequently embodied the alliance of science and religion against occultism, but that aspect is very little explored, and more on his religious belief would have been welcome. Grayling has written a biography of Descartes, so it comes as no surprise to find him playing a central role in the process, and his account is pleasantly subtle, arguing for example that Descarte probably owed more to rosicrucian ideas than he was ready to acknowledge. More on the distinction between rationalism and empiricism would however would have been welcome, especially on their respective borrowing from the older occult traditions, but this part is still the highlight of the book.
To conclude, I was pleasantly surprised. Grayling does hold the views I expected, but argues for them in a more sensible than sensationalist fashion. The book does have some short-comings, in particular the unclear relation between the first part chronicling in some detail the political and military history of the Thirty Years War, and the other two, concerned respectively with the occult tradition and with the emergence of science proper. This, I take it, springs from Grayling's more general worldview: one in which orthodoxies, and religious orthodoxies most of all, constitute impediments to the triumphal march of progress – until, at least, arises the titular Genius, who through the sheer strength of his ascetic will, can abstract himself from the world and its prejudices toward the pure and impersonal kingdom of objectivity. This is of course a very naive account, one which might not account for Grayling's actual ideas, but which transpires from much pop-science, because the common taste, shaped as it is by hollywoodian standards, has long craved for the stories of Great Men and their Eurêka moments. Such an account conveniently obscures both the limits and internal contradictions of the scientific method(s) and the central place that ideology (political but also religious) plays in scientific discovery.
I will, to conclude, jot down a few of my own thoughts on the subject, as they arose when reading Grayling's book. This is probably incoherent and poorly written, so feel free to skip if you are not in the mood ;-)
Those limits and contradictions of the scientific method would for example include the point that the 'facts' observed at the outset of the inductive process, for example, are neither self-evident nor immediately given: they come to our consciousness already assembled into concepts, rather than as discreet sense-data, so that I see, however much I strive for objectivity, a bottle on a table, rather than a meaningless assemblage of coloured surfaces, as the bottle would be projected (upside-down!) on my retina. Those concepts are inherited, they are part of our 'culture' and for some of them, of our evolutionary make-up. Maybe more readily than the outcomes of science, we might acknowledge that they are shaped by our social, political or religious allegiances.
This inherited culture, in my view, as socio-economic processes led more and more men to invest in their time and money in the future rather than the past, came to be called 'tradition' and defined as modernity's constitutive other. In the 'dark ages', as Grayling is want to call them, this tradition was relatively monopolised by the Church by means of the revelation narrative. Both later became thoroughly hypostasised, with tradition somehow claimed, both by its defenders and modern opponents to be unitary, stable and peaceful, while modernity was painted as impersonal flux.
I suspect that the XVIth & XVIIth century constitute a transition period. The real point of contention between 'occultism' and science was the role played by 'tradition'.
Occultists understood it diversely as (biblical or apocryphal) 'revealed knowledge' in medieval fashion, as 'ancient wisdom' Renaissance-style, and maybe also as 'natural historical' – a third paradigm in which man is seen as part of the natural world, rather than observing it from the outside. Actual scientists (in that period, an ideal-type, much like the occultists) also inescapably relied on tradition, in their practice, but unlike the occultists attempted to negate the importance of tradition rather than appropriate it to their particular purpose.
As the conflict between the two became increasingly violent, everyone had eventually to take side. We ended up by the XVIIIth c. with modern science on the one hand, which claimed for itself absolute objectivity, and had developed highly efficient institutions and methods to approach this ideal. However, in order to maintain a neutral and façade of neutrality and inevitability, it had to redefine science away from the whole (including the big questions of philosophy and politics) and to rely on a fanciful liberal-humanist subject. On the other hand, we had 'occultism' (here 'rejected knowledge' would make a better term), which was eminently diverse and contradictory because it did not go through the same institutionalisation as modern science, but which was both inclined to acknowledge (and sometimes venerate) the importance of tradition, and in a good position to engage those 'holistic' issues which actual science had discarded. This heterodox branch spent much of the century underground (surfacing occasionally and unexpectedly in Leibniz, Newton or the early vitalists, and more predictably in Martinism or Mesmerism) before coming back, with romanticism in the broadest sense, to the front of the stage.
So on the whole, this is not a groundbreaking book but it does make for a nice and accessible survey of its subject. It feels a little disconnected at times, but for some readers this might be also one of its strength. Grayling is not nearly as overweening as I'd expected him to be, and I will consider reading more of his work in the future.
The book endeavours to describe the seventeenth century as a whole, which the author claims to be the turning point in human history. He of course falls short of such an encyclopedic project, but does so in style. The book is divided in three sections, the first examining the politics of the Thirty Years War, a conflict of apocalyptic proportions both materially and intellectually; the second looking at the transition between 'occultism' and modern science, analysing the 'divorce settlement' between alchemy and chemistry, if you will; and the third concerned with the early history of the scientific revolution proper.
Of Grayling's three themes, that is probably the one I was most familiar: I've read some Frances Yates back in the days, and I have maintained a peripheral interest in the puzzling subsistence of older systems within modernity. Contrary to my (low) expectations, Grayling pours relatively little scorns on those beliefs, and does not overly indulge his readership with long lists of 'inane superstitions', 'solitary eccentric' and other spiritual exotica: there is a little of that, but it is the Church and the thomist / aristotelian worldview that gets the brunt of it. I know little about it so that kind of reduction bothered me less. Grayling is actually quite frank and open in his approach, acknowledging repeatedly the two theories on the relation between Renaissance science and the 'occult': that science itself evolved from such occult doctrines as astrology or alchemy, or that they were separate endeavours but intertwined since ancient times. Grayling goes for the later, and I would rather lean toward the first, but his analysis of the shift is both interesting and balanced.
With that said, there is here no escaping from the pitfalls of popular history: the terms 'occult' or 'magical thinking' are thrown around quite a bit without ever being defined, for example. To his credit he does make the crucial distinctions between 'natural magic' and 'conjuration', as well as between 'alchemy' and 'spagyria';
Similarly he contrasts Bacon's emphasis on the free circulation of learning and the need for public institutions to foster science, with the occultist emphasis on secrecy and solitude, which I'm inclined to see as one of the more determining moments of the move from 'occult' to 'science' – yet had he sought to define 'occultism', he might also have recognised that those very rosicrucians and other apocalyptic protestant groups of the earliest XVIth c., preached both secrecy while advocating 'revelation'. The dialectic of secrecy and spectacle exists on both side of the occult/science divide, and is deeply embedded in the politico-religious context of the age: this he hints at regularly, spending the first third of the book aptly chronicling the European situation, but ultimately does not do much to tie those aspects with the rest of his narrative.
The most interesting section, on the transition from occult to science proper focus on three characters, Descartes, Mersennes and Bacon. Mersennes's main contribution, of which I don't think I had heard of before, was to circulate ideas and to between European scholars, effectively laying the foundations of a republic of letters capable to transcend national boundaries in its quest for universality. Grayling evokes the relationship between science, religion and occultism as a kind of love triangle, where each sides with the one or the other according to circumstances. Mersennes frequently embodied the alliance of science and religion against occultism, but that aspect is very little explored, and more on his religious belief would have been welcome. Grayling has written a biography of Descartes, so it comes as no surprise to find him playing a central role in the process, and his account is pleasantly subtle, arguing for example that Descarte probably owed more to rosicrucian ideas than he was ready to acknowledge. More on the distinction between rationalism and empiricism would however would have been welcome, especially on their respective borrowing from the older occult traditions, but this part is still the highlight of the book.
To conclude, I was pleasantly surprised. Grayling does hold the views I expected, but argues for them in a more sensible than sensationalist fashion. The book does have some short-comings, in particular the unclear relation between the first part chronicling in some detail the political and military history of the Thirty Years War, and the other two, concerned respectively with the occult tradition and with the emergence of science proper. This, I take it, springs from Grayling's more general worldview: one in which orthodoxies, and religious orthodoxies most of all, constitute impediments to the triumphal march of progress – until, at least, arises the titular Genius, who through the sheer strength of his ascetic will, can abstract himself from the world and its prejudices toward the pure and impersonal kingdom of objectivity. This is of course a very naive account, one which might not account for Grayling's actual ideas, but which transpires from much pop-science, because the common taste, shaped as it is by hollywoodian standards, has long craved for the stories of Great Men and their Eurêka moments. Such an account conveniently obscures both the limits and internal contradictions of the scientific method(s) and the central place that ideology (political but also religious) plays in scientific discovery.
I will, to conclude, jot down a few of my own thoughts on the subject, as they arose when reading Grayling's book. This is probably incoherent and poorly written, so feel free to skip if you are not in the mood ;-)
Those limits and contradictions of the scientific method would for example include the point that the 'facts' observed at the outset of the inductive process, for example, are neither self-evident nor immediately given: they come to our consciousness already assembled into concepts, rather than as discreet sense-data, so that I see, however much I strive for objectivity, a bottle on a table, rather than a meaningless assemblage of coloured surfaces, as the bottle would be projected (upside-down!) on my retina. Those concepts are inherited, they are part of our 'culture' and for some of them, of our evolutionary make-up. Maybe more readily than the outcomes of science, we might acknowledge that they are shaped by our social, political or religious allegiances.
This inherited culture, in my view, as socio-economic processes led more and more men to invest in their time and money in the future rather than the past, came to be called 'tradition' and defined as modernity's constitutive other. In the 'dark ages', as Grayling is want to call them, this tradition was relatively monopolised by the Church by means of the revelation narrative. Both later became thoroughly hypostasised, with tradition somehow claimed, both by its defenders and modern opponents to be unitary, stable and peaceful, while modernity was painted as impersonal flux.
I suspect that the XVIth & XVIIth century constitute a transition period. The real point of contention between 'occultism' and science was the role played by 'tradition'.
Occultists understood it diversely as (biblical or apocryphal) 'revealed knowledge' in medieval fashion, as 'ancient wisdom' Renaissance-style, and maybe also as 'natural historical' – a third paradigm in which man is seen as part of the natural world, rather than observing it from the outside. Actual scientists (in that period, an ideal-type, much like the occultists) also inescapably relied on tradition, in their practice, but unlike the occultists attempted to negate the importance of tradition rather than appropriate it to their particular purpose.
As the conflict between the two became increasingly violent, everyone had eventually to take side. We ended up by the XVIIIth c. with modern science on the one hand, which claimed for itself absolute objectivity, and had developed highly efficient institutions and methods to approach this ideal. However, in order to maintain a neutral and façade of neutrality and inevitability, it had to redefine science away from the whole (including the big questions of philosophy and politics) and to rely on a fanciful liberal-humanist subject. On the other hand, we had 'occultism' (here 'rejected knowledge' would make a better term), which was eminently diverse and contradictory because it did not go through the same institutionalisation as modern science, but which was both inclined to acknowledge (and sometimes venerate) the importance of tradition, and in a good position to engage those 'holistic' issues which actual science had discarded. This heterodox branch spent much of the century underground (surfacing occasionally and unexpectedly in Leibniz, Newton or the early vitalists, and more predictably in Martinism or Mesmerism) before coming back, with romanticism in the broadest sense, to the front of the stage.
So on the whole, this is not a groundbreaking book but it does make for a nice and accessible survey of its subject. It feels a little disconnected at times, but for some readers this might be also one of its strength. Grayling is not nearly as overweening as I'd expected him to be, and I will consider reading more of his work in the future.
October 22, 2016
To understand who we are one must first understand where we came from and how we got there. Nothing provides more insight into our current human condition than a well thought out history about a critical century of thought such as this book provides. I've noticed that my "Scientific American" during the last two issues has commented on how the two statements recently made by actual politicians: "Climate change is a Chinese Hoax", and that "philosophers are not as important as welders", show a complete detachment from reality. Critical reasoning and rational thought based on empirical facts are universally accepted by subscribers to "Scientific American" and they owe a debt a gratitude to the 17th century pre-Enlightenment age as outlined in this book.
The book provides a very good narrative for describing how we went from magic to science in such a short time. He'll bring in the elements from the 16th century which are necessary for telling the story and takes the story into the 18th and beyond when required. He never forces the reader into the artificial boundaries created by the 17th century as such.
There is one criticism I did have on this book. It was how he presented the 30 year war (1618 - 1648). He is muddled. There are much better books and lectures on the subject matter, but don't allow yourself to get discouraged by his incoherence on that most interesting of all wars and realize it does matter for understanding today. Students of understanding modern times often make the major mistake of starting their studies with the beginning of the 20th century. Today's world did not happen in a vacuum and this book provides an excellent starting point for understanding today's world.
Progress leading to critical reasoning and rational thought based on empirical methods and logical principles were not guaranteed for humanity. This book shows some of the paradigm shifts in thinking that were necessary before they became the norm. It took a confluence of different approaches to lead from the point where witches were considered real and burnt alive (after all if hell fire awaits them in the after life, they might as well enter hell through fire in this life) to the point were truth based on superstition, myth, magic, alchemy, Kabbalism and Hermeticism became ignored and irrelevant.
Overall, I'm for anything that shows the importance of critical reasoning, and I love the 17th century because of how critical it is for us in understanding who we are today. (BTW, climate change is real and is not a Chinese Hoax, and welders are valuable, but society to properly function will always provide a place for critical thinkers such as philosophers and readers of books like this one!).
The book provides a very good narrative for describing how we went from magic to science in such a short time. He'll bring in the elements from the 16th century which are necessary for telling the story and takes the story into the 18th and beyond when required. He never forces the reader into the artificial boundaries created by the 17th century as such.
There is one criticism I did have on this book. It was how he presented the 30 year war (1618 - 1648). He is muddled. There are much better books and lectures on the subject matter, but don't allow yourself to get discouraged by his incoherence on that most interesting of all wars and realize it does matter for understanding today. Students of understanding modern times often make the major mistake of starting their studies with the beginning of the 20th century. Today's world did not happen in a vacuum and this book provides an excellent starting point for understanding today's world.
Progress leading to critical reasoning and rational thought based on empirical methods and logical principles were not guaranteed for humanity. This book shows some of the paradigm shifts in thinking that were necessary before they became the norm. It took a confluence of different approaches to lead from the point where witches were considered real and burnt alive (after all if hell fire awaits them in the after life, they might as well enter hell through fire in this life) to the point were truth based on superstition, myth, magic, alchemy, Kabbalism and Hermeticism became ignored and irrelevant.
Overall, I'm for anything that shows the importance of critical reasoning, and I love the 17th century because of how critical it is for us in understanding who we are today. (BTW, climate change is real and is not a Chinese Hoax, and welders are valuable, but society to properly function will always provide a place for critical thinkers such as philosophers and readers of books like this one!).
February 4, 2017
This is a book that deserves to be studied, annotated, digested, and referenced, not just read. Grayling is an excellent and unpretentious writer and a master at distilling important and complex issues in intellectual and cultural history for amateurs (like me) and I suspect for those who are more advanced also. The first section on the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648) was hard to get through but a necessary backdrop for what follows as it puts the whole century in context and perspective. He makes a solid argument for the 17th century being "the epoch" in human history that brought us the modern mind out of, and due to, the political and social chaos and upheaval wrought by the wars that plagued 98 of its 100 years. His belief is that it was the turmoil itself that opened the way for an unprecedented exchange of ideas resulting in the development of scientific method and progress on one hand and republican democracy on another. Like all good historiography it introduced me to some obscure things, gave me a deeper understanding of things I only knew a little about, and made me want to dig deeper into some primary sources that I only had a passing knowledge of or have put off reading because they seemed too daunting. The section on Hobbes and Locke and social contract theory was especially thought-provoking in that it got me thinking more about the development of human society (and government) from our primate origins, which was not something those writers would have considered as pre-Darwinian thinkers. Like the "intelligencers" of the period that the author covers, who played a critical role in collecting and distributing ideas via letters and manuscripts (like human internet servers), Grayling brings a lot together here with the purpose of getting the reader to think deeply about our human condition and modern challenges to the scientific revolution from a pre-Seventeenth century mindset that still exists in many parts of the world and while functional in modern terms is opposed to the idea of progress. For example, he points out that with a growing gap between the knowledge of scientists and technologists and the rest of us, there is a tendency to want to fill the gap with the old stories (myths, religious fundamentalism, the way things "used" to be) that have a beginning, a middle, and an end purpose, are much easier to understand, and can be generally explained in about half an hour. I highly recommend the book.
October 14, 2016
Professor Grayling argues that the development of the modern mind was a byproduct of the times that they were part of. The questioning of authority and breakdown of what people knew and accepted for centuries was brought into light by a number of events that had no religious explanations.
For instance, a supernova came into existence and was seen by many astronomers. This called into question the idea that the sky was immutable and unchanging. So if the Bible was wrong about that, what else could it be wrong about? Not to mention the numerous wars and quarrels over land that erupted during this time. Since a lot of disasters happened, people began to doubt the Divine Right of Kings.
Although all of this was happening, many people still believed in magic and superstitious ridiculousness. Take Isaac Newton as an example. Yes, he invented Calculus and showed an explanation for many things that happened with celestial objects but he wrote a lot more about alchemy, biblical interpretation, and magic than he did on physics and math.
All these ideas are well and good, but without people to share them, they may as well not be there. That is where a number of people come in that acted as "human internet servers." Sending correspondence all across the continent of Europe, people such as Marin Mersenne helped to spread these new ideas.
Although it was interesting and very enlightening, I guess I wasn't really expecting this book to be mainly focused on history. Sure it talks about the things that people founded and did at the time, and the scaffolding of modern science and culture that was established, but these all seem to be asides to the other content of the book.
For instance, a supernova came into existence and was seen by many astronomers. This called into question the idea that the sky was immutable and unchanging. So if the Bible was wrong about that, what else could it be wrong about? Not to mention the numerous wars and quarrels over land that erupted during this time. Since a lot of disasters happened, people began to doubt the Divine Right of Kings.
Although all of this was happening, many people still believed in magic and superstitious ridiculousness. Take Isaac Newton as an example. Yes, he invented Calculus and showed an explanation for many things that happened with celestial objects but he wrote a lot more about alchemy, biblical interpretation, and magic than he did on physics and math.
All these ideas are well and good, but without people to share them, they may as well not be there. That is where a number of people come in that acted as "human internet servers." Sending correspondence all across the continent of Europe, people such as Marin Mersenne helped to spread these new ideas.
Although it was interesting and very enlightening, I guess I wasn't really expecting this book to be mainly focused on history. Sure it talks about the things that people founded and did at the time, and the scaffolding of modern science and culture that was established, but these all seem to be asides to the other content of the book.
Read
February 5, 2017A thorough and interesting account of both the political and intellectual developments of the seventeenth century, focused on Europe but aware of the whole planet. The last chapter surprised me by turning into an impassioned plea for civilization, but hey, I'm for civilization too.
May 3, 2023
I was a little perplexed when I read Grayling's The History of Philosophy, about the hostile atheism, but I found in this book, a very cogent explanation. I tend not to be as trenchant, but I am moved at times by the persuasiveness of his arguments.
This was not exactly the book I was expecting, though having read his The History of Philosophy, I guess it should have been. Not was I was expecting, but something else I admire.
Grayling is an erudite person, and there is something didactic in the way he marshals historic facts to support theses. English prejudices against Catholicism, particularly the oppression of the Irish, is given a kind of apologia here. In The Age of Genius Grayling plausibly explains the ways in which The Holy Roman Empire of the 17th Century was essentially the seat of Absolute Monarchical rule in much of Europe, and that when it came into conflict with various forms of Protestantism, the in many ways terrible disruption, caused some beneficial outcomes, at least in that it loosened the grip of religious thought upon the population, allowing a culture of superstition and conformity to be set aside amid a new scientific culture of inquiry and openness.
I had to google the meaning of 'Whig', to which position Grayling identifies himself. Fitting historic political and philosophic positions into current, often binary political constructs is not an easy nor appropriate thing. I'd like to avoid foolish characterisations based on my barest of understanding. Though Grayling's Goodread profile identifies him as a speaker of the intellectual Atheist Left.
I do feel a bit down about a contemporary author I admire taking exception to Aristotle, whom I also greatly admire. I'd like to suppose his (Grayling's) hostility on this count is due to the periods of slavish schoolmen type indoctrination by the Jesuits of admirable, yet flawed ancient Greek ideas, with the purpose of suppressing any new thought or explanations.
Some of the blow by blow descriptions of battles in the 30 years war were exhausting. I guess he was making a point about the pointlessness of violence, but it was sometimes hard to grasp the relevance.
I especially like the contextualising of philosophical ideas, like looking at them from a different facet.
4.5 stars. I would like to read more of Grayling and more writers like Grayling. I don't have to agree with everything they say. I would agree with him about education and feel that was a positive not to finish on.
This was not exactly the book I was expecting, though having read his The History of Philosophy, I guess it should have been. Not was I was expecting, but something else I admire.
Grayling is an erudite person, and there is something didactic in the way he marshals historic facts to support theses. English prejudices against Catholicism, particularly the oppression of the Irish, is given a kind of apologia here. In The Age of Genius Grayling plausibly explains the ways in which The Holy Roman Empire of the 17th Century was essentially the seat of Absolute Monarchical rule in much of Europe, and that when it came into conflict with various forms of Protestantism, the in many ways terrible disruption, caused some beneficial outcomes, at least in that it loosened the grip of religious thought upon the population, allowing a culture of superstition and conformity to be set aside amid a new scientific culture of inquiry and openness.
I had to google the meaning of 'Whig', to which position Grayling identifies himself. Fitting historic political and philosophic positions into current, often binary political constructs is not an easy nor appropriate thing. I'd like to avoid foolish characterisations based on my barest of understanding. Though Grayling's Goodread profile identifies him as a speaker of the intellectual Atheist Left.
I do feel a bit down about a contemporary author I admire taking exception to Aristotle, whom I also greatly admire. I'd like to suppose his (Grayling's) hostility on this count is due to the periods of slavish schoolmen type indoctrination by the Jesuits of admirable, yet flawed ancient Greek ideas, with the purpose of suppressing any new thought or explanations.
Some of the blow by blow descriptions of battles in the 30 years war were exhausting. I guess he was making a point about the pointlessness of violence, but it was sometimes hard to grasp the relevance.
I especially like the contextualising of philosophical ideas, like looking at them from a different facet.
4.5 stars. I would like to read more of Grayling and more writers like Grayling. I don't have to agree with everything they say. I would agree with him about education and feel that was a positive not to finish on.
April 11, 2025
Professor Grayling's 'The Age of Genius' offers a truly expansive exploration of 17th-century Europe, ambitiously traversing the realms of politics, warfare, philosophy, theology, the occult, and literature. The book convincingly argues that the 17th century marked a definitive break from previous eras, ushering in modernity through profound transformations. From the birth of modern states following the Peace of Westphalia and the burgeoning Republic of Letters fostering radical thought, to the groundbreaking ideas of Newton and Hobbes, Descartes' philosophy, the widespread acceptance of the Copernican view championed by Galileo, and the crucial emphasis on empirical inquiry distinguishing science from the occult, Grayling effectively demonstrates the century's pivotal role in shaping the world we know.
While the book's initial sections detailing the complexities of the Thirty Years' War can feel somewhat dense with information, the narrative generally flows well thereafter. The sheer volume of detail presented speaks to Grayling's impressive erudition. However, at times, I found myself slightly lost in the extensive accounts of lesser-known kings and their minor conflicts, as well as the considerable attention given to the occult – areas that seemed to receive a perhaps disproportionate amount of focus. While undoubtedly fascinating for some, this level of detail contributed to a feeling of prolixity. The core arguments of the book, though compelling, might have been even more impactful with a more concise approach.
Overall, 'The Age of Genius' is an intellectually stimulating and deeply researched work. It provides a comprehensive and persuasive account of a transformative century. While the sheer scope and occasional deep dives into niche areas might make it a demanding read at times, it will undoubtedly reward those with a strong interest in the period and a willingness to navigate a wealth of information.
While the book's initial sections detailing the complexities of the Thirty Years' War can feel somewhat dense with information, the narrative generally flows well thereafter. The sheer volume of detail presented speaks to Grayling's impressive erudition. However, at times, I found myself slightly lost in the extensive accounts of lesser-known kings and their minor conflicts, as well as the considerable attention given to the occult – areas that seemed to receive a perhaps disproportionate amount of focus. While undoubtedly fascinating for some, this level of detail contributed to a feeling of prolixity. The core arguments of the book, though compelling, might have been even more impactful with a more concise approach.
Overall, 'The Age of Genius' is an intellectually stimulating and deeply researched work. It provides a comprehensive and persuasive account of a transformative century. While the sheer scope and occasional deep dives into niche areas might make it a demanding read at times, it will undoubtedly reward those with a strong interest in the period and a willingness to navigate a wealth of information.
March 29, 2019
Interesting book, that starts with the catalyst events of the thirty years war and religious ferverence in the 16th - 17th century and how push back from occultists and scientist brought about a new way of empirical testing and scientific discoveries to create the epoch of modern society.
The authors theory is that the battle for Europe between the Protestants and Catholics created a tumultuous environment that allowed new thoughts to begin from the likes of Locke, Hobbes, Galileo, Newton etc...
In my opinion, although some people opine that Christianity was the basis for modern societal foundations, the real ingenuity stemmed from the push back of repressive methods by the church not because of it.
A bit dry at the beginning (the author says so himself ) in his meticulous breakdown of the thirty years war. I really enjoyed the book as it gained momentum.
The authors theory is that the battle for Europe between the Protestants and Catholics created a tumultuous environment that allowed new thoughts to begin from the likes of Locke, Hobbes, Galileo, Newton etc...
In my opinion, although some people opine that Christianity was the basis for modern societal foundations, the real ingenuity stemmed from the push back of repressive methods by the church not because of it.
A bit dry at the beginning (the author says so himself ) in his meticulous breakdown of the thirty years war. I really enjoyed the book as it gained momentum.
May 28, 2018
I finished this book moments ago. Two immediate reactions (simmering throughout my reading, however):
1. There is major point in the last couple of chapters, about some parts of the contemporary world failing to update their world view - allowing, in effect, theism to dominate reason, and superstition to hold off modern scientific methods. To Grayling, this means that swaths of the world are held in the kind of unenlightened mental state that characterized the world before the 17th century brought reason to the fore and relegated mysticism to its role governing religion, but not government or science. If Grayling were writing today, I imagine he'd place some of the outdated, uneducated populace right here in the good old U S of A. At least, I hope he would, because we're living in a willful Dark Ages that rejects science along with progressive democratic practice, and in its place, the uneducated among us would reassert the primacy of theist, incurious and non-rigorous thinking. This has always been true in pockets, but today those pockets include the seats of governance. This is twist that readers of Grayling can add to the two twists he describes in his final chapter. And it brings with it, fear, ignorance and intolerance that are directly damaging the principles that Locke described, which underlay the shift from the old Divine Right of Kings to a more recent Consent of the Governed, as the bases for government (chapter 19).
2. Grayling devotes the first third of this book to an overly detailed "then this happened" narrative of the Thirty Years War that adds nothing (but reading time) to the book. He does advise readers, early on, to consider skimming that part, but then really, why add it? The individual troop movements of the major armies is not critical to understanding the effects of the battles' outcomes. He could have ascended to a higher historical altitude to provide broad outlines of the trends and outcomes of the War, without the tactical information that spans at least 100 pages here.
1. There is major point in the last couple of chapters, about some parts of the contemporary world failing to update their world view - allowing, in effect, theism to dominate reason, and superstition to hold off modern scientific methods. To Grayling, this means that swaths of the world are held in the kind of unenlightened mental state that characterized the world before the 17th century brought reason to the fore and relegated mysticism to its role governing religion, but not government or science. If Grayling were writing today, I imagine he'd place some of the outdated, uneducated populace right here in the good old U S of A. At least, I hope he would, because we're living in a willful Dark Ages that rejects science along with progressive democratic practice, and in its place, the uneducated among us would reassert the primacy of theist, incurious and non-rigorous thinking. This has always been true in pockets, but today those pockets include the seats of governance. This is twist that readers of Grayling can add to the two twists he describes in his final chapter. And it brings with it, fear, ignorance and intolerance that are directly damaging the principles that Locke described, which underlay the shift from the old Divine Right of Kings to a more recent Consent of the Governed, as the bases for government (chapter 19).
2. Grayling devotes the first third of this book to an overly detailed "then this happened" narrative of the Thirty Years War that adds nothing (but reading time) to the book. He does advise readers, early on, to consider skimming that part, but then really, why add it? The individual troop movements of the major armies is not critical to understanding the effects of the battles' outcomes. He could have ascended to a higher historical altitude to provide broad outlines of the trends and outcomes of the War, without the tactical information that spans at least 100 pages here.
September 9, 2018
“In the seventeenth century Galileo, Newton and others laid the basis of modern science, Descartes and Spinoza altered the history of philosophy, Hugo Grotius founded international law, and Hobbes and Locke set the terms of modern political theory.”
Unless you happened to be part of the royal family or the elite clergy, living in the 1600s was certainly no picnic. Witch trials, witch burning and outbreaks of the plague were just some of the horrors lying in wait throughout most of Europe. All of this before we get to the horrendous Thirty Year War (1618-1648), which eventually ended in the Treaty of Westphalia. Overall, estimated deaths from the conflict range from 3 million to 11.5 million. Surprisingly the Swedish army alone, was allegedly responsible for the destruction of 1500 towns, nearly 2000 villages and 2000 castles. Rape and pillage also brought typhus, dysentery and even the plague.
But as Grayling explains that specific conflict may have ended, but peace was still far from secure throughout the continent, as the start of the Anglo-Dutch Wars proved. In fact, “The Seventeenth century saw only three years in which there was no fighting: 1669 to 1671. The year 1610 was almost war free, except that several large armies were on the march and shots were exchanged, though without turning into general conflict.”
This century saw the rampant Ottoman expansionism halted at the gates of Vienna in 1686. It also saw the decline of Spain and the rise of France as a great power. It is estimated that around 1 in 3 German speaking people died as a result of the war. We know this because he tells us at least three times. We are also told that Galileo was saved from being burned at the stake because he recanted, at least three times.
Grayling gives us some really interesting historical background into the various origins of the most powerful colonies that would later develop into global powerhouses. We learn that in May 1619 troops of the Dutch East India captured the city of Jayakarta, burned it to the ground and expelled the residents. The new town and trading post to emerge out of the ashes was named Batavia, (now Jakarta) in honour of the ancient Germanic Batavi tribe for whom the Dutch claimed descent.
In August 1639 the British East India Company bought a strip of land from the Nayaka of Vandavasi, and secured his permission to build a fort and trading post there. This was the beginning of Madras (now Chennai), the first British post in India. There were Dutch and Portuguese trading outposts further along the Coromandel Coast but it was the Brits who would stay the longest.
We learn the reason why France had one of the earliest postal services. We hear about the important influence of Mersenne, referred to by many as ‘the mailbox of Europe’, who helped spread the ideas of the likes of Hobbes, Descartes and Gassendi. This was still an era where people were being tortured or burned at the stake for daring to not believe in god, but it was also a time of Marlowe and Shakespeare and many other great writers, thinkers and doers.
I am a fan of Grayling’s work and this would be the first of his books that I have struggled to finish. This starts off so promising, but then as soon as he finishes covering the Thirty-Year War, I found that the chapters withered and slumped. I would say that the first third of this book was really engrossing and at times excellent, though after that, the book wasn’t for me at all. I found the chapters on Dr Dee and Rosicrucianism a bit of a hard slog and then for the remaining 200 pages or so I was really struggling to enjoy it.
Unless you happened to be part of the royal family or the elite clergy, living in the 1600s was certainly no picnic. Witch trials, witch burning and outbreaks of the plague were just some of the horrors lying in wait throughout most of Europe. All of this before we get to the horrendous Thirty Year War (1618-1648), which eventually ended in the Treaty of Westphalia. Overall, estimated deaths from the conflict range from 3 million to 11.5 million. Surprisingly the Swedish army alone, was allegedly responsible for the destruction of 1500 towns, nearly 2000 villages and 2000 castles. Rape and pillage also brought typhus, dysentery and even the plague.
But as Grayling explains that specific conflict may have ended, but peace was still far from secure throughout the continent, as the start of the Anglo-Dutch Wars proved. In fact, “The Seventeenth century saw only three years in which there was no fighting: 1669 to 1671. The year 1610 was almost war free, except that several large armies were on the march and shots were exchanged, though without turning into general conflict.”
This century saw the rampant Ottoman expansionism halted at the gates of Vienna in 1686. It also saw the decline of Spain and the rise of France as a great power. It is estimated that around 1 in 3 German speaking people died as a result of the war. We know this because he tells us at least three times. We are also told that Galileo was saved from being burned at the stake because he recanted, at least three times.
Grayling gives us some really interesting historical background into the various origins of the most powerful colonies that would later develop into global powerhouses. We learn that in May 1619 troops of the Dutch East India captured the city of Jayakarta, burned it to the ground and expelled the residents. The new town and trading post to emerge out of the ashes was named Batavia, (now Jakarta) in honour of the ancient Germanic Batavi tribe for whom the Dutch claimed descent.
In August 1639 the British East India Company bought a strip of land from the Nayaka of Vandavasi, and secured his permission to build a fort and trading post there. This was the beginning of Madras (now Chennai), the first British post in India. There were Dutch and Portuguese trading outposts further along the Coromandel Coast but it was the Brits who would stay the longest.
We learn the reason why France had one of the earliest postal services. We hear about the important influence of Mersenne, referred to by many as ‘the mailbox of Europe’, who helped spread the ideas of the likes of Hobbes, Descartes and Gassendi. This was still an era where people were being tortured or burned at the stake for daring to not believe in god, but it was also a time of Marlowe and Shakespeare and many other great writers, thinkers and doers.
I am a fan of Grayling’s work and this would be the first of his books that I have struggled to finish. This starts off so promising, but then as soon as he finishes covering the Thirty-Year War, I found that the chapters withered and slumped. I would say that the first third of this book was really engrossing and at times excellent, though after that, the book wasn’t for me at all. I found the chapters on Dr Dee and Rosicrucianism a bit of a hard slog and then for the remaining 200 pages or so I was really struggling to enjoy it.
June 13, 2016
Seemingly over-ambitious attempt to tie together pretty much everything that happened in the 17th century. I learned quite a bit, skipped over some sections, and enjoyed much of the writing.
March 23, 2022
This book, written by the polymath A. C. Grayling, contains a plethora of details about the history of the seventeenth century, and reflects what must have surely been countless hours of research on Grayling's part. However, the central theme of this book, which is that the 17th century was the period in history when the modern worldview definitively took shape, while arguably accurate, in Grayling's telling reveals the author's deep-seated animus against all things religious.
A central part of this book is detailing the birth of modern science, in which Mr. Grayling repeats much of the common narrative we’ve heard most of our lives about how the birth of science followed the long Dark Ages of ignorance. He also repeats the theme of how science and religion have always been in conflict with one another, together with the idea that the shift from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric universe was an act of scientific humility.
The reality is quite different. For one thing, apart from the first 500 years that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire, which truly was a Dark Age, the Middle Ages were not a long period devoid of knowledge and progress. Quite the opposite is true. Among many other inventions developed in Europe during the Middle Ages, the horseshoe, the horse collar, and tandem harnesses enabled Europeans to greatly increase the horsepower that was available for farming, which in turn eliminated the need for slave labor in Europe. And this is only one example of how technology progressed in Europe during the Middle Ages, helping to improve the quality of life for countless people.
As to the narrative that science and religion have always been at war with each other, this is another myth that simply isn’t true. Modern science was born in European universities that were under the administration of the Catholic Church, and blossomed with patronage from the Catholic Church. Many of the key scientists involved in the ongoing drama of science have in fact been devoted Christians, including Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton (despite his anti-Trinitarian beliefs), and Michael Faraday, among countless others. But even more than all these facts lies the reality that the key presuppositions of modern science, such as the trustworthiness of human observation, the dependability of the natural world, and the universality of physical nature and processes (in other words, what we observe here on Earth is equally true five billion lightyears away as it is here) all rest upon Christian theology, for Jewish and Christian theology teach us that God created an orderly world in which God, as a trustworthy deity, endowed humanity with the ability to reason and understand his creation through observation.
Furthermore, Grayling's claim that the demotion of Earth and therefore humanity from its central place in the Universe to a tiny rock circling an ordinary star in a galaxy that is one among a countless number of galaxies is an act of scientific humility is also, in the end, not so. Rather, this "demotion" of Earth is not an act of humility but rather an act of hubris, because the Enlightenment Project's real aim is actually to enthrone humanity at the center of all things. Enlightenment's slogan could well be the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras' claim that "Man is the measure of all things." The goal of Enlightenment thinkers and their successors is not to dethrone humanity, but rather to dethrone God -- to shift Western Civilization from a God-centered worldview to a secular, human-centered worldview.
This book is well-written, but A. C. Grayling's flawed analysis of the Enlightenment and his unremitting animus toward religion -- and especially toward Christianity -- lead me to give this book a rating of only three stars. Last year, I read Grayling's book On War, and enjoyed his well-argued insights on the history, nature, and ethical dimensions of human warfare, and for that reason I decided to read this book by Grayling, but I am sadly disappointed by what this incredibly smart polymath's description of the seventeenth century.
A central part of this book is detailing the birth of modern science, in which Mr. Grayling repeats much of the common narrative we’ve heard most of our lives about how the birth of science followed the long Dark Ages of ignorance. He also repeats the theme of how science and religion have always been in conflict with one another, together with the idea that the shift from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric universe was an act of scientific humility.
The reality is quite different. For one thing, apart from the first 500 years that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire, which truly was a Dark Age, the Middle Ages were not a long period devoid of knowledge and progress. Quite the opposite is true. Among many other inventions developed in Europe during the Middle Ages, the horseshoe, the horse collar, and tandem harnesses enabled Europeans to greatly increase the horsepower that was available for farming, which in turn eliminated the need for slave labor in Europe. And this is only one example of how technology progressed in Europe during the Middle Ages, helping to improve the quality of life for countless people.
As to the narrative that science and religion have always been at war with each other, this is another myth that simply isn’t true. Modern science was born in European universities that were under the administration of the Catholic Church, and blossomed with patronage from the Catholic Church. Many of the key scientists involved in the ongoing drama of science have in fact been devoted Christians, including Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton (despite his anti-Trinitarian beliefs), and Michael Faraday, among countless others. But even more than all these facts lies the reality that the key presuppositions of modern science, such as the trustworthiness of human observation, the dependability of the natural world, and the universality of physical nature and processes (in other words, what we observe here on Earth is equally true five billion lightyears away as it is here) all rest upon Christian theology, for Jewish and Christian theology teach us that God created an orderly world in which God, as a trustworthy deity, endowed humanity with the ability to reason and understand his creation through observation.
Furthermore, Grayling's claim that the demotion of Earth and therefore humanity from its central place in the Universe to a tiny rock circling an ordinary star in a galaxy that is one among a countless number of galaxies is an act of scientific humility is also, in the end, not so. Rather, this "demotion" of Earth is not an act of humility but rather an act of hubris, because the Enlightenment Project's real aim is actually to enthrone humanity at the center of all things. Enlightenment's slogan could well be the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras' claim that "Man is the measure of all things." The goal of Enlightenment thinkers and their successors is not to dethrone humanity, but rather to dethrone God -- to shift Western Civilization from a God-centered worldview to a secular, human-centered worldview.
This book is well-written, but A. C. Grayling's flawed analysis of the Enlightenment and his unremitting animus toward religion -- and especially toward Christianity -- lead me to give this book a rating of only three stars. Last year, I read Grayling's book On War, and enjoyed his well-argued insights on the history, nature, and ethical dimensions of human warfare, and for that reason I decided to read this book by Grayling, but I am sadly disappointed by what this incredibly smart polymath's description of the seventeenth century.
June 29, 2017
This is not a bad book. It is a well-informed, scholastic piece that chronicles the early 17th century. But it's over-ambitious by trying to summarise the whole enlightenment era into a 300-page book.
The book starts with the wars of the 17th century. The reader is briefed about the relevance of war towards the advancement of science. But the first part goes too far to detail the exact treaties, edicts, battles, and generals. It feels like I'm reading a book about the 30 years war instead. Was detailed analysis about science and war given here? No, the reader has to wait for another 250+ pages before the chapter on 'War and Science' even appears. So up to this point, there was not one mention of science or of great thinkers. It's war, war, war and more war.
I specifically dislike the first 100 (or so) pages on war. It wasn't done well. Random rulers, generals, advisors, treaties, and edicts pop up into existence. None of them were well-known 17th century leaders. It was as though Grayling expected the reader to do independent research. Sure, readers are perceptive, well-informed -- but they read books like 'The Age of Genius' without an encyclopedic understanding of the times. Grayling doesn't engage us in the quirky delights of the personalities of the rulers. Nor does he dice up information into understandable bite-sized chunks. My computer was constantly flipping through Wikipedia pages, trying to figure out who ruled what, what battle took place where, which religions and armies belonged to which kingdom... And the reader waits...and waits...and at this point his patience is starting to wear, 'cause he still doesn't know how war leads to science.
Generals, communities, religions, groups, and states are introduced in such rapid succession. The reader can't keep up. Protestants, Catholics, Habsburg, the French, Ferdinand II, Frederick V, Calvinist, Palatinate. Who knows what's what? The only reason why I was able to understand (the majority) of this imponderable, convoluted description of the conflict was because I had prior knowledge of the 30 years war. But otherwise, I imagine most people -- even those with prior knowledge -- will be hard-pressed to keep up. This is what I see in many reference books written by amateur authors; read 'Attila, King of the Huns' for an extreme example.
The description of the war: bland and dull. 'War is hell', William Tecumseh Sherman said. Grayling makes few attempts to instigate the feeling of hell in war. The whole book feels very...academic-ish. Rigid, formal: brushing aside sympathies and horrors.
And finally, finally, finally!, we get to the actual Enlightenment itself. The first chapter of Part III starts off with the postal service. Then the narrative switches to Descartes, Galileo, and Giulio. But little analysis given leads to an example-driven book. In a sense, the narrative -- if there is one -- is one-dimensional. Readers don't 'feel' events leading up, one to another. Instead each great thinker evolves independently. Cause and causation -- the main thing mission from this book is a solid timeline that leads the progression of events from one to another. The introduction primes the reader for a narrative of interwoven events leading up to this age of genius, how the mind of the times evolve, triggered by one successive event after another, not sporadic instances of genius bursting out of life without cause.
All in all, this book focuses on the wrong topics. The focus -- and the main reason why people read this book -- is the slow, progressive evolution of the mind. People want to see why the intellectual climate of the 17th century changed. Why art, science, and culture evolved. This book focuses more on the cultural scene more than anything else; there are limited attempts to tackle the 'how' and 'why' of things change.
The book starts with the wars of the 17th century. The reader is briefed about the relevance of war towards the advancement of science. But the first part goes too far to detail the exact treaties, edicts, battles, and generals. It feels like I'm reading a book about the 30 years war instead. Was detailed analysis about science and war given here? No, the reader has to wait for another 250+ pages before the chapter on 'War and Science' even appears. So up to this point, there was not one mention of science or of great thinkers. It's war, war, war and more war.
I specifically dislike the first 100 (or so) pages on war. It wasn't done well. Random rulers, generals, advisors, treaties, and edicts pop up into existence. None of them were well-known 17th century leaders. It was as though Grayling expected the reader to do independent research. Sure, readers are perceptive, well-informed -- but they read books like 'The Age of Genius' without an encyclopedic understanding of the times. Grayling doesn't engage us in the quirky delights of the personalities of the rulers. Nor does he dice up information into understandable bite-sized chunks. My computer was constantly flipping through Wikipedia pages, trying to figure out who ruled what, what battle took place where, which religions and armies belonged to which kingdom... And the reader waits...and waits...and at this point his patience is starting to wear, 'cause he still doesn't know how war leads to science.
Generals, communities, religions, groups, and states are introduced in such rapid succession. The reader can't keep up. Protestants, Catholics, Habsburg, the French, Ferdinand II, Frederick V, Calvinist, Palatinate. Who knows what's what? The only reason why I was able to understand (the majority) of this imponderable, convoluted description of the conflict was because I had prior knowledge of the 30 years war. But otherwise, I imagine most people -- even those with prior knowledge -- will be hard-pressed to keep up. This is what I see in many reference books written by amateur authors; read 'Attila, King of the Huns' for an extreme example.
The description of the war: bland and dull. 'War is hell', William Tecumseh Sherman said. Grayling makes few attempts to instigate the feeling of hell in war. The whole book feels very...academic-ish. Rigid, formal: brushing aside sympathies and horrors.
And finally, finally, finally!, we get to the actual Enlightenment itself. The first chapter of Part III starts off with the postal service. Then the narrative switches to Descartes, Galileo, and Giulio. But little analysis given leads to an example-driven book. In a sense, the narrative -- if there is one -- is one-dimensional. Readers don't 'feel' events leading up, one to another. Instead each great thinker evolves independently. Cause and causation -- the main thing mission from this book is a solid timeline that leads the progression of events from one to another. The introduction primes the reader for a narrative of interwoven events leading up to this age of genius, how the mind of the times evolve, triggered by one successive event after another, not sporadic instances of genius bursting out of life without cause.
All in all, this book focuses on the wrong topics. The focus -- and the main reason why people read this book -- is the slow, progressive evolution of the mind. People want to see why the intellectual climate of the 17th century changed. Why art, science, and culture evolved. This book focuses more on the cultural scene more than anything else; there are limited attempts to tackle the 'how' and 'why' of things change.
May 30, 2020
Todo periodo de la Historia merecedor de tal denominación ha sido, de un modo u otro, un periodo de cambio. Se podría argumentar que unos han sido más dramáticos que otros, estos más decisivos que aquellos. Pero pocos más concluyentes que el siglo en el que nos despertamos medievales y nos acostamos modernos. Para el inglés A. C. Grayling, el XVII fue, de hecho, la llave en la cerradura que abrió la puerta al universo que hasta ahora reconocemos como nuestro.
Entre cierta corriente de historiadores actuales se ha impuesto la idea de que la historia moderna no ha acontecido tanto en torno a grandes hitos de progreso (Renacimiento, Reforma o Ilustración) sino, más bien, en torno a múltiples movimientos plurales que han ido produciendo cambios a pequeña escala, pero de una manera inconexa y complejamente ramificada que solo adquieren sentido histórico en una visión a posteriori. Grayling no está entre ellos. Ortodoxo, se alinea con su compatriota Anthony Pagden (La Ilustración y por qué sigue siendo importante para nosotros) en la defensa de que, precisamente, la Ilustración fue el gran proyecto del hombre moderno, y que supuso el nacimiento de una manera de entender el mundo aún vigente.
Si Pagden arrancaba en el XVIII, Grayling retrocede un siglo hasta la Guerra de los Treinta Años (1618-1648), que devastaría Europa Central, pero que provocó la innovación en el pensamiento y la creatividad cultural en su sentido más amplio. A partir de entonces aparecen algunos de los pensadores claves de la Ilustración temprana: Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Hobbes, Pascal, Descartes o Locke. Y no trabajando de una manera autónoma, sino fértilmente conectados en un cruce de ideas que resultó clave.
Los cambios acontecidos fueron de tal calado y profundidad que Grayling se atreve a sostener, incluso, que las regiones más dañadas por la desigualdad y la injusticia hoy en día son, precisamente, aquellas donde se conserva una mentalidad anterior al XVII, incluyendo el fundamentalismo religioso. Tampoco titubea en afirmar que, después de todo, fue Occidente la que triunfó, y que su forma de pensar “impulsa casi todo lo importante que ocurre en nuestro mundo”. Con ese espíritu osado, una prosa aguda y oportunas pinceladas impresionistas, Grayling sostiene que, a pesar de tratarse de un periodo profundamente convulso en lo político y lo social, fue posible una notable revolución intelectual. El resultado de esta fue la mente «europea», es decir, moderna, que ya es decir, purgada de magia y repleta de ciencia, aunque aún salpicada de espigados pensamientos newtonianos: alquimia, astrología o numerología.
Es probable que grandilocuencias poco libres de sospecha, como el «gran hombre», y, en general, la confianza en la existencia de mentalidades colectivas, sea una ficción reconfortante, al igual que ocurre con el nacionalismo, al operar como comunidades imaginadas que se fundamentan más en la retórica que en componentes empíricos. Del mismo modo, estudiar las mejores mentes de una época no es estudiar una época, sino sus epítomes, apenas una abreviación. Y, sin embargo, el paso del tiempo demuestra que ideas aparentemente contradictorias circulan con relativa alegría, incluso de manera rentable, mucho más a menudo de lo que racionalistas como Grayling pudieran admitir. Pese a la confianza del autor en sí mismo, y la fuerza, por momentos, del libro, desplaza algunos de los ejes acordados acerca de la época. El alumbramiento de estos hombres y mujeres no estuvo basada en la certeza, pues supondría abrazar el viejo dogma, sino en la esperanza, donde los métodos utilizados fueron la hipótesis, la observación, el experimento y el debate, y solo así se logró dar un paso tan definitivo en el intento de vislumbrar los eternos misterios de la existencia.
Entre cierta corriente de historiadores actuales se ha impuesto la idea de que la historia moderna no ha acontecido tanto en torno a grandes hitos de progreso (Renacimiento, Reforma o Ilustración) sino, más bien, en torno a múltiples movimientos plurales que han ido produciendo cambios a pequeña escala, pero de una manera inconexa y complejamente ramificada que solo adquieren sentido histórico en una visión a posteriori. Grayling no está entre ellos. Ortodoxo, se alinea con su compatriota Anthony Pagden (La Ilustración y por qué sigue siendo importante para nosotros) en la defensa de que, precisamente, la Ilustración fue el gran proyecto del hombre moderno, y que supuso el nacimiento de una manera de entender el mundo aún vigente.
Si Pagden arrancaba en el XVIII, Grayling retrocede un siglo hasta la Guerra de los Treinta Años (1618-1648), que devastaría Europa Central, pero que provocó la innovación en el pensamiento y la creatividad cultural en su sentido más amplio. A partir de entonces aparecen algunos de los pensadores claves de la Ilustración temprana: Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Hobbes, Pascal, Descartes o Locke. Y no trabajando de una manera autónoma, sino fértilmente conectados en un cruce de ideas que resultó clave.
Los cambios acontecidos fueron de tal calado y profundidad que Grayling se atreve a sostener, incluso, que las regiones más dañadas por la desigualdad y la injusticia hoy en día son, precisamente, aquellas donde se conserva una mentalidad anterior al XVII, incluyendo el fundamentalismo religioso. Tampoco titubea en afirmar que, después de todo, fue Occidente la que triunfó, y que su forma de pensar “impulsa casi todo lo importante que ocurre en nuestro mundo”. Con ese espíritu osado, una prosa aguda y oportunas pinceladas impresionistas, Grayling sostiene que, a pesar de tratarse de un periodo profundamente convulso en lo político y lo social, fue posible una notable revolución intelectual. El resultado de esta fue la mente «europea», es decir, moderna, que ya es decir, purgada de magia y repleta de ciencia, aunque aún salpicada de espigados pensamientos newtonianos: alquimia, astrología o numerología.
Es probable que grandilocuencias poco libres de sospecha, como el «gran hombre», y, en general, la confianza en la existencia de mentalidades colectivas, sea una ficción reconfortante, al igual que ocurre con el nacionalismo, al operar como comunidades imaginadas que se fundamentan más en la retórica que en componentes empíricos. Del mismo modo, estudiar las mejores mentes de una época no es estudiar una época, sino sus epítomes, apenas una abreviación. Y, sin embargo, el paso del tiempo demuestra que ideas aparentemente contradictorias circulan con relativa alegría, incluso de manera rentable, mucho más a menudo de lo que racionalistas como Grayling pudieran admitir. Pese a la confianza del autor en sí mismo, y la fuerza, por momentos, del libro, desplaza algunos de los ejes acordados acerca de la época. El alumbramiento de estos hombres y mujeres no estuvo basada en la certeza, pues supondría abrazar el viejo dogma, sino en la esperanza, donde los métodos utilizados fueron la hipótesis, la observación, el experimento y el debate, y solo así se logró dar un paso tan definitivo en el intento de vislumbrar los eternos misterios de la existencia.
April 1, 2019
History is written by the winners….This saying really came to mind as I was reading this extremely frustrating book. The opening chapters in particular were so problematic for me that the first time I picked up this book, I put it back on the shelf. I really like Grayling’s essays in the Guardian and I thought I was a fan—but I realized that, in fact, this is my first time to read a book-length work by him.
Negatives:
He says his aim is to show the way in which the 17th century —the age of genius— was the "most important epoch in the history of the human mind.” That is quite a statement, isn’t it?
It never ceases to amaze that thinkers continue to look back at history through the lens of their own cultural achievements to conclude somehow that their age is the culmination of all history. Maybe this is even particularly so of British thinkers? And it is no surprise that he would see the very century where the Anglo tradition had its modern roots—anglo-style religion, capitalism and rationalism—as the age of great genius… why not? Right? For a Descartes expert, it would have been nice to see some kind of critical detachment with one’s own age! Until the advent of scientific instruments—am thinking in particular of the telescope, the Ptolemaic system did “work” —it made accurate predictions, such that the system is still used in maritime navigation today. It “works”—but sadly it is wrong. Likewise, we now have many “cracks” in our own standard model in cosmology, such that placeholders are used to make the calculations work. I guess dark matter will be understood someday but if it is not and a new instrument is invented which explains better to us how the universe functions, future astronomers might look back onto our day and laugh.
It seems we live in an age of very simplistic narratives. There are good guys and bad guys in the history of human progress. Within this kind of Hollywood movie understanding, Grayling’s book unfolds. Never mind that many of the martyrs for science were also very devout religious believers not to mention religious nutcases-- and never mind that progress comes in fits and starts and depends on who is telling the story.
For me, the biggest negative of all is the way he presents opinions without argument. For example, to suggest that all of this intellectual ferment occurred BECAUSE it was a time of war and authorities relaxed their stranglehold on control of the “truth” is simply anti-historical—or at best, he would really need to give concrete example for this functioned. Or his repeated suggestion that intellectuals before Descartes were like the religion fundamentalists of today. This is a very dodgy statement from a philosopher.
Positives: Despite being incredibly put off by his narrative program, some of the details in this book were wonderfully told. I loved his discussion of the way intellectual history was conducted during that age by letters exchanged by a small number of super intellectuals. There were great portraits in this book—Descartes and Elizabeth, Mercenne, Queen Christina, Hobbes, Francis Bacon….
Great introductions to the great minds of the 17th century but annoying historical revisionism.
Negatives:
He says his aim is to show the way in which the 17th century —the age of genius— was the "most important epoch in the history of the human mind.” That is quite a statement, isn’t it?
It never ceases to amaze that thinkers continue to look back at history through the lens of their own cultural achievements to conclude somehow that their age is the culmination of all history. Maybe this is even particularly so of British thinkers? And it is no surprise that he would see the very century where the Anglo tradition had its modern roots—anglo-style religion, capitalism and rationalism—as the age of great genius… why not? Right? For a Descartes expert, it would have been nice to see some kind of critical detachment with one’s own age! Until the advent of scientific instruments—am thinking in particular of the telescope, the Ptolemaic system did “work” —it made accurate predictions, such that the system is still used in maritime navigation today. It “works”—but sadly it is wrong. Likewise, we now have many “cracks” in our own standard model in cosmology, such that placeholders are used to make the calculations work. I guess dark matter will be understood someday but if it is not and a new instrument is invented which explains better to us how the universe functions, future astronomers might look back onto our day and laugh.
It seems we live in an age of very simplistic narratives. There are good guys and bad guys in the history of human progress. Within this kind of Hollywood movie understanding, Grayling’s book unfolds. Never mind that many of the martyrs for science were also very devout religious believers not to mention religious nutcases-- and never mind that progress comes in fits and starts and depends on who is telling the story.
For me, the biggest negative of all is the way he presents opinions without argument. For example, to suggest that all of this intellectual ferment occurred BECAUSE it was a time of war and authorities relaxed their stranglehold on control of the “truth” is simply anti-historical—or at best, he would really need to give concrete example for this functioned. Or his repeated suggestion that intellectuals before Descartes were like the religion fundamentalists of today. This is a very dodgy statement from a philosopher.
Positives: Despite being incredibly put off by his narrative program, some of the details in this book were wonderfully told. I loved his discussion of the way intellectual history was conducted during that age by letters exchanged by a small number of super intellectuals. There were great portraits in this book—Descartes and Elizabeth, Mercenne, Queen Christina, Hobbes, Francis Bacon….
Great introductions to the great minds of the 17th century but annoying historical revisionism.
July 22, 2018
This is the second book I’ve read by Grayling, a British historian and professor. The style is erudite and detailed and, to be honest a bit of a slog at times…but I must admit I learned a lot about how science emerged from magic, Aristotle, and the Church in this amazing period in European history. The Thirty Years’ War is gone into in great detail, as a sort of backdrop for the figures that presage the birth of modern science (Francis Bacon and Copernicus were major) and then emerge as we progress through the 1600’s (Descartes, Kepler, Galileo and Newton). I found the details of the battles and carnage of the war to be difficult to focus onto, but necessary to understand the full story. For relief, there is an account of William Crabtree and Jeremiah Horrocks, who observed a transit of Venus by working out from Kepler’s laws of motion the time and place (Crabtree’s darkened attic) to observe this wonder…this by ‘two guys in an attic’, interested amateurs, in 1639 in the midst of war and turmoil in Europe and Britain. The Rosicrucian movement (25 long pages!), astrology, and the Inquisition also play into the story. Descartes lay the groundwork for the scientific method (observe, be skeptical and discard that which cannot be objectively verified) which was the key to unlocking the title’s ‘age of genius’ which really begins with Galileo and leads to, among others, Newton and Locke. The author also touches upon the synergy between technical advances and scientific progress, and how war can play into this synergy (Huygens’ mastery of lenses led to the telescope, which enabled Galileo to observe Jupiter’s principal moons (which got him noticed by the Inquisition), which led to telescopes for observing the enemy in battle). All in all, a very educational read which explains the history of 17th century science with enough depth and breadth to satisfy the somewhat-more-than-casual reader.
April 29, 2016
This book was sent to me by the publisher at no cost.
This was a really interesting book; I'm just not sure it's entirely the book that AC Grayling thinks it is.
I adore the concept of exploring a century as a turning point; in fact for Grayling, the seventeenth century was "the epoch in the history of the human mind" (p3, his italics). Obviously other historians have disagreed, as he acknowledges, but even if there are strong arguments for other times - or even suggesting that such a claim is ridiculous - it nonetheless should make for an interesting book.
Don't get me wrong, this is definitely an interesting book and I'm not sad I read it. But Grayling spends the first one hundred pages talking about the Thirty Years War, which I really hadn't expected. I did actually enjoy that aspect because it's one of those areas where I had Zero Knowledge (it's modern; it's politics with a veneer of dust) and I quite liked the exploration of the twisty deals and politicking and battles. But I'm not great with spatial visualisation so I got pretty lost trying to figure out where all the armies were (the one map at the start of the book? It places the Germanic states right in the fold, so it's nigh impossible to use for this section of the book). Also there are a lot of players, so a dramatis personae would have been useful. And why did Grayling include it? Well, part of his thesis is that the drama and disruption of these wars (and other issues elsewhere) helped to encourage the flourishing of minds and science. So fair enough I guess. But a hundred pages seems unnecessary.
Anyway. THEN Grayling gets into the meat of his 'the seventeenth century changed everything' bit. Basically what he's doing is showing how ideas and perceptions altered over the course of the century: for example, from John Dee (awesome alchemist and ALSO mathematician and scientist) to Isaac Newton (awesome scientist and ALSO devoted alchemist-type). One of the things that often staggers me is when I realise who's active at the same time, or which events are concurrent; I'm very good at compartmentalising (French Revolution and white colonisation of Australia! At the same time!). Grayling does this quite well. His main focus is on science, with just a short section on language (which even then is tied into 'belief') - I would have liked more here. I would also have liked a lot more acknowledgement of women, since he acknowledges their existence in the beginning and then seems to forget to follow through.
The most awesome new thing I learned from this book: a bit of the history of the postal service. I am now desperately in need of a good book about the history of the postal service, and fortunately there is one referenced in his notes. Couriers in the service of the Signoria of Venice, basically all of them from one extended family, ends up extending the service to other parts of Europe to the point of becoming Imperial Court Postmaster (that was Baptista Taxis) who was rich enough to loan money to the Holy Roman Emperor, who also just btw ennobled him: thence 'von Taxis'. Hans Holbein painted the portrait of the Taxis who did the post for England; they became barons, counts, marquises, dukes and princes; when France signed a treaty with the family in 1844 the parties were "His Majesty the King of the French and His Most Serene Highness the Prince de la Tour and Taxis" (126). A postie signed a treaty with a king!!
Swoon.
Two... well, warnings, I guess. The first is that this is almost entirely Eurocentric. I noticed this throughout the Introduction where the focus was on Europe; then you get phrases like "... the world under the Romans or, in China, the Tang dynasty" (8). Alternatives: "[Italy/Europe] under the Romans or, in China, the Tang dynasty" OR "life under the Romans or the Tang dynasty". The opening of Part II states that "To get a general sense of an historical period one learns much by looking at what generated its legacy, which in the case of the seventeenth century is nothing less than the world - apart from China and Japan - that we know today."
There are five references to China in the index. Now of course I am not saying that this book needed to be enlarged to include non-European contexts. However I do think there needed to be greater acknowledgement of its Eurocentrism (and, frankly, western Eurocentrism), and at least a passing condescension that perhaps this is a thing that needs greater thought - or that his claims for changing the human mind need a bit of refinement or addition or something. I don't know exactly what because I'm no scholar of Asian history. And then there's the Islamic world and African societies....
The other thing is Grayling's anti-religion stance. When I looked at the About the Author, after finishing the book, I nodded and said "ah". His other books include The God Argument and The Good Book: A Secular Bible. So it won't be a surprise to those who know his work that Grayling takes this view. But even given this I don't think that bringing your personal views into a book like this, to the extent of making references to the modern world, is appropriate. For example: governments after the Thirty Years War: "rejected religion as an object to fight for... This applies to Europe and the world it influenced; alas it is not true for the more zealous among today's devotees of Isalm, and perhaps never has been" (27). Or, talking about the change to a more 'scientific' mindset and world view: "it is not by far the world-view of everyone even today... but it is the world-view that drives almost everything of significance that happens in our world... with the resulting impact on the social and political organisation of almost all societies, even the ones where the majority of people still hold to a version of the pre-seventeenth-century mind-set" (321). For a start, class, shall we interrogate the idea of significance?
And then there's: "The second twist is that the active reassertion of the old stories and beliefs is under way in parts of the world where they never fully or even partially lost their hold. The reasserts are happy to use the technologies that the new mind has created in order to reassert the old mind's dominion: terrorists use anti-aircraft missiles and mobile phones to communicate with each other..." (323). His solution, by the way, is education, although teachers have to do better.
I was able to read around the anti-religion comments, mostly, although I did sticky-note them; I'm also white so the European bias wasn't fundamentally offensive on a personal level. Your mileage, as they say, may well vary.
This was a really interesting book; I'm just not sure it's entirely the book that AC Grayling thinks it is.
I adore the concept of exploring a century as a turning point; in fact for Grayling, the seventeenth century was "the epoch in the history of the human mind" (p3, his italics). Obviously other historians have disagreed, as he acknowledges, but even if there are strong arguments for other times - or even suggesting that such a claim is ridiculous - it nonetheless should make for an interesting book.
Don't get me wrong, this is definitely an interesting book and I'm not sad I read it. But Grayling spends the first one hundred pages talking about the Thirty Years War, which I really hadn't expected. I did actually enjoy that aspect because it's one of those areas where I had Zero Knowledge (it's modern; it's politics with a veneer of dust) and I quite liked the exploration of the twisty deals and politicking and battles. But I'm not great with spatial visualisation so I got pretty lost trying to figure out where all the armies were (the one map at the start of the book? It places the Germanic states right in the fold, so it's nigh impossible to use for this section of the book). Also there are a lot of players, so a dramatis personae would have been useful. And why did Grayling include it? Well, part of his thesis is that the drama and disruption of these wars (and other issues elsewhere) helped to encourage the flourishing of minds and science. So fair enough I guess. But a hundred pages seems unnecessary.
Anyway. THEN Grayling gets into the meat of his 'the seventeenth century changed everything' bit. Basically what he's doing is showing how ideas and perceptions altered over the course of the century: for example, from John Dee (awesome alchemist and ALSO mathematician and scientist) to Isaac Newton (awesome scientist and ALSO devoted alchemist-type). One of the things that often staggers me is when I realise who's active at the same time, or which events are concurrent; I'm very good at compartmentalising (French Revolution and white colonisation of Australia! At the same time!). Grayling does this quite well. His main focus is on science, with just a short section on language (which even then is tied into 'belief') - I would have liked more here. I would also have liked a lot more acknowledgement of women, since he acknowledges their existence in the beginning and then seems to forget to follow through.
The most awesome new thing I learned from this book: a bit of the history of the postal service. I am now desperately in need of a good book about the history of the postal service, and fortunately there is one referenced in his notes. Couriers in the service of the Signoria of Venice, basically all of them from one extended family, ends up extending the service to other parts of Europe to the point of becoming Imperial Court Postmaster (that was Baptista Taxis) who was rich enough to loan money to the Holy Roman Emperor, who also just btw ennobled him: thence 'von Taxis'. Hans Holbein painted the portrait of the Taxis who did the post for England; they became barons, counts, marquises, dukes and princes; when France signed a treaty with the family in 1844 the parties were "His Majesty the King of the French and His Most Serene Highness the Prince de la Tour and Taxis" (126). A postie signed a treaty with a king!!
Swoon.
Two... well, warnings, I guess. The first is that this is almost entirely Eurocentric. I noticed this throughout the Introduction where the focus was on Europe; then you get phrases like "... the world under the Romans or, in China, the Tang dynasty" (8). Alternatives: "[Italy/Europe] under the Romans or, in China, the Tang dynasty" OR "life under the Romans or the Tang dynasty". The opening of Part II states that "To get a general sense of an historical period one learns much by looking at what generated its legacy, which in the case of the seventeenth century is nothing less than the world - apart from China and Japan - that we know today."
There are five references to China in the index. Now of course I am not saying that this book needed to be enlarged to include non-European contexts. However I do think there needed to be greater acknowledgement of its Eurocentrism (and, frankly, western Eurocentrism), and at least a passing condescension that perhaps this is a thing that needs greater thought - or that his claims for changing the human mind need a bit of refinement or addition or something. I don't know exactly what because I'm no scholar of Asian history. And then there's the Islamic world and African societies....
The other thing is Grayling's anti-religion stance. When I looked at the About the Author, after finishing the book, I nodded and said "ah". His other books include The God Argument and The Good Book: A Secular Bible. So it won't be a surprise to those who know his work that Grayling takes this view. But even given this I don't think that bringing your personal views into a book like this, to the extent of making references to the modern world, is appropriate. For example: governments after the Thirty Years War: "rejected religion as an object to fight for... This applies to Europe and the world it influenced; alas it is not true for the more zealous among today's devotees of Isalm, and perhaps never has been" (27). Or, talking about the change to a more 'scientific' mindset and world view: "it is not by far the world-view of everyone even today... but it is the world-view that drives almost everything of significance that happens in our world... with the resulting impact on the social and political organisation of almost all societies, even the ones where the majority of people still hold to a version of the pre-seventeenth-century mind-set" (321). For a start, class, shall we interrogate the idea of significance?
And then there's: "The second twist is that the active reassertion of the old stories and beliefs is under way in parts of the world where they never fully or even partially lost their hold. The reasserts are happy to use the technologies that the new mind has created in order to reassert the old mind's dominion: terrorists use anti-aircraft missiles and mobile phones to communicate with each other..." (323). His solution, by the way, is education, although teachers have to do better.
I was able to read around the anti-religion comments, mostly, although I did sticky-note them; I'm also white so the European bias wasn't fundamentally offensive on a personal level. Your mileage, as they say, may well vary.
November 6, 2017
The topic of how the mind of history, the period up until the 16th century, changed to become the modern mind, is an interesting one, and Grayling tackles the subject, but while I’d hoped for more from such an esteemed author, I was disappointed in the book.
I guess an author who has devoted so many titles to religion would be inclined to look for the answer in the changes to religion in this long century, and this indeed is what he does. To an extent it is a valid point. The familiar story of Galileo pinpoints a period in which the Catholic Church sought to maintain its hegemony as the only source of truth and facts.
He refers to the constant state of war in Europe, and the splits into Protestantism, following Martin Luther, as the basis for allowing free minds to flourish.
However, in a 324 page book, the first 200 or so pages are overkill and could have been dealt with in 20 pages. The book would have benefited from a good editor. But without those pages it would be a slim volume, which in itself highlights the difficulties in finding the “aha!” Moments that illustrate the thesis. Even so, far too much space is devoted to the hundred years’ war, and the role of religion.
I guess an author who has devoted so many titles to religion would be inclined to look for the answer in the changes to religion in this long century, and this indeed is what he does. To an extent it is a valid point. The familiar story of Galileo pinpoints a period in which the Catholic Church sought to maintain its hegemony as the only source of truth and facts.
He refers to the constant state of war in Europe, and the splits into Protestantism, following Martin Luther, as the basis for allowing free minds to flourish.
However, in a 324 page book, the first 200 or so pages are overkill and could have been dealt with in 20 pages. The book would have benefited from a good editor. But without those pages it would be a slim volume, which in itself highlights the difficulties in finding the “aha!” Moments that illustrate the thesis. Even so, far too much space is devoted to the hundred years’ war, and the role of religion.
January 13, 2023
Grayling has a clear depth of understanding of the period. He combines history, science, philosophy and religion in his narrative, which is an approach I often like. Unfortunately, there was too much focus on the details of the wars of religion and to little explanation of why the horrendous time of war changed the "mind" of Europeans. There was too much detail on micrographia and too little explanation of how it caused science to evolve. I could go on.
I concur completely with his premise - pre-1600 we were mired in the occult, magic and alchemy with a ridged Aristotelian educational structure. How we treated an understanding of our world and each other was based on magical thinking and an unquestioning loyalty to Aristotle. Post -1600 the idea we could question assumptions whether it be the divine right of kings or what spun about what in the solar system was possible and actually happened. Like most of us I wanted someone to confirm my view and I had thought Grayling would do that adroitly. He didn't.
This experience won't keep me from picking up a second Grayling book. He is, after all, very intelligent and a generally fine writer.
I concur completely with his premise - pre-1600 we were mired in the occult, magic and alchemy with a ridged Aristotelian educational structure. How we treated an understanding of our world and each other was based on magical thinking and an unquestioning loyalty to Aristotle. Post -1600 the idea we could question assumptions whether it be the divine right of kings or what spun about what in the solar system was possible and actually happened. Like most of us I wanted someone to confirm my view and I had thought Grayling would do that adroitly. He didn't.
This experience won't keep me from picking up a second Grayling book. He is, after all, very intelligent and a generally fine writer.
April 19, 2019
While witty and informative, this book is all over the place, literally and figuratively. It reads as a related collection of essays on situations and historical happenings that set the ground for the Enlightenment. Some of the essays seem more appropriate, some seem like fun rabbit-hole pursuits of obscure but interesting people and events. He makes a few stunning factual errors, which is surprising for a book of this much intelligence. For example he states that only 6 women and 2 men were executed in the famous Salem Witch hysteria. I think we all know that 19 people were hanged, one person was pressed to death with stones, and many more died in prison of exposure, hypothermia, starvation, and disease. I have no idea out what hat he got his misinformation. That makes me a bit wary of the whole book. Factcheckers out there? Let me know. Otherwise, for anyone interested in the History of Science, the Reformation, and the dramatic shifts of value in the Early Modern, this is a good addition to that shelf.
April 26, 2018
The book, unfortunately, is not so much of a deep dive into the 17th century but rather a patchwork of different topics written in different styles and probably over a period of many years. Feels like it was a very long project finally brought to light but not really edited to be coherent. The thread that connects the chapters is the ever-burning fire of righteous fight against religion (any form of) and magical thinking. In his zealous struggle, the author sacrifices what he praises most: scientific progress and integrity.
- No, positivism is not the True and Only epistemological school. No, inductive method is not the only existing one, deductive and abductive (both kinds) ones are equally scientific.
- Almost 400 pages of the 17th century and the Great Change of Mind and Society yet it's only 1 paragraph each for Fronda, the Levellers and the Diggers? How does this even work?
- Explaining Hobbes through Locke is like explaining Marx through Lenin. Please, don't do it.
- No, positivism is not the True and Only epistemological school. No, inductive method is not the only existing one, deductive and abductive (both kinds) ones are equally scientific.
- Almost 400 pages of the 17th century and the Great Change of Mind and Society yet it's only 1 paragraph each for Fronda, the Levellers and the Diggers? How does this even work?
- Explaining Hobbes through Locke is like explaining Marx through Lenin. Please, don't do it.
February 27, 2017
There is an exceptional amount of first-rate scholarship in this book, and it's about time there was some kind of singular analysis of the 16th century available. In this aspect, the book succeeds very well, as it reminds the reader that there wasn't a century-long gap between the Renaissance/Reformation & the Enlightenment. However, I'm not a fan of the organization and structure -- it reads like a book on the 30 Years War, followed by a book that can best be titled "The 1600s Without the 30 Years War". Too mutually exclusive for my taste, and a few of the passages gently wander into too-much-information territory. That said, there is no denying the usefulness of this book, and the enthusiasm of the author for his subject matter.
January 12, 2018
A frustrating read. Grayling initially spends the first section of the book with a detailed exposition of the many conflicts in seventeenth century Europe. Only after this Segue is there consideration of the history of ideas and this the birth of the modern mind. The chronological accounts in the book are confusing as the author goes back and forth with respect to the timeline. Nevertheless the section of the book that describes the development from occultists such as John Dee through to the first proto scientist Francis Bacon was very well communicated. The latter sections on the influence of these nascent ideas on politics and literature was deficient and IMHO boring and superfluous.
April 11, 2022
Very interesting appraisal of the 17th century. Grayling’s hypothesis is that the 17th century is THE century that changed everything for humanity. Looking at the world at the dawn of that century - Elizabeth is still on the English throne, and the end of that century - a Dutch prince is king of Great Britain (not just England). He points out that this is because of the array of thinkers who were at work during this time. He ascribes the rise of the first postal services as of key importance to this advancement. He also points out - and this was of the greatest interest to me - that all of this intellectual advancement occurred during one of the most violent centuries on record (at least to that time).
December 29, 2018
This book can be summarised into the following points.
1) The thirty years war caused so much destruction that it made people question religion and become disillusioned.
2) The invention of the postal service as well as cheaper printing methods (as oppose to hand writing) allowed for the dissemination of ideas.
3) The rejection of the occult, alchemy and biblical scripture and the adoption of science and the scientific method.
4) The rearrangement of feudal societies and the creation of secular politics (the separation of church and state).
5) The simplification of the English language so that lay people could understand academia.
1) The thirty years war caused so much destruction that it made people question religion and become disillusioned.
2) The invention of the postal service as well as cheaper printing methods (as oppose to hand writing) allowed for the dissemination of ideas.
3) The rejection of the occult, alchemy and biblical scripture and the adoption of science and the scientific method.
4) The rearrangement of feudal societies and the creation of secular politics (the separation of church and state).
5) The simplification of the English language so that lay people could understand academia.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews