What do you think?
Rate this book
Flesh in the Age of Reason: How the Enlightenment Transformed the Way We See Our Bodies and Souls
'As an introduction to early modern thinking and the impact of past ideas on present lives, this book can find few equals and no superiors. Porter is a witty, humane writer with an extraordinary vocabulary and a sparkling sense of fun. Whether he is quoting from obscure medical texts or analysing scabrous diaries, dishing the dirt on long-dead bigwigs or evoking sympathy for human suffering, his grasp is masterly and his erudition appealing. I wish I could read it again for the first time: you can.' Times Educational Supplement, Book of the Week In this startlingly brilliant sequel to the prize-winning Enlightenment, Roy Porter completes his lifetime's work, offering a magical, enthusiastic and charming account of the writings of some of the most attractive figures ever to write English.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
About the author
Roy Porter
224 books130 followersRoy's books cover several fields: the history of geology, London, 18th-Century British ideas and society, medicine, madness, quackery, patients and practitioners, literature and art, on which subjects (and others) he published over 200 books are articles.
List of works can be found @ wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Porter )
List of works can be found @ wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Porter )
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
June 22, 2014
A lovely examination of the philosophy of the mind, the self, and the body. Not something I'd recommend to an entirely casual reader, for the tone is rather scholarly and geared more to someone with an interest in the subject, but for anyone who enjoys Roy Porter's work and Enlightenment philosophy (though a background in the era is certainly not required), then this book is excellent. I particularly enjoyed "Edward Gibbon: Fame and Mortality", "Sexing the Self", "Unreason", "Psychologizing the Self", "Dependent Bodies", "William Blake: The Body Mystical" and "Byron: Sexy Satire."
October 5, 2011
Contrary to the way this book is presented by the publisher and framed by Porter, it is a literary study, using literary texts (broadly defined to include Locke & Shaftesbury) almost exclusively as evidence. I adore literary scholarship, but here I can't shake the discrepancy between what's promised and what's delivered. The book, although a useful synthetic study, is for me ultimately a disappointment.
July 12, 2026
Porter has written a fascinating history of how the mind-body connection was thought of, mostly during 17th- and 18th-century Britain. You'd think, given the narrow range, both spatial and temporal, that there wouldn't be much for nearly 500 pages; however, Porter, so well-versed in the period, squeezed all the water he could out of the historical sponge, showing how, in nearly every major facet of life—medicine, philosophy, fashion, literature, science, economy, and religion—a new way of thinking, one that was secular and naturalistic, began supplementing, as well as gradually replacing, a traditionally Christian one.
Whereas most intellectual historians tend to point the finger at Descartes for ushering in modernity, Porter makes the case that Locke created a bigger cultural splash in making consciousness the criterion for personality, which not only promoted the idea of a blank human nature that could be filled in, but also fitted in nicely with the emerging convention that the brain was the seat of the mind. (To be sure, without Descartes, there could be no Locke, and it was the former's dualism, and emphasis on thought, which were crucial. Thus, Descartes is still the "founder" of modernity, but in the case of Georgian England, Locke's legacy is the more palpable.) As Porter succinctly puts it, "In many departments of life, emphasis was shifted from the physical to the psychological" (472). David Hartley is shown to have formalized this to the greatest extent, setting the foundations for empirical psychology.
The most interesting sections to my mind were those on Shaftesbury, Swift, and Johnson, about whom I learned a lot, and whose concerns with embodiment, frailty, grossness, and thought were so revealing and thought-provoking. As a broader point, I found myself thinking at times about our own time, when A.I. is forcing us to reflect on what it means to be persons, to be conscious, and to be embodied, and how, arguably, the precedent was set during this period, when the brain was being probed, when personal identity was being debated, when the status of the soul was in hot water, when the nature of the afterlife was contested, and when rational-scientific utopias were envisaged. Hopes of an afterlife, humans as machines (La Mettrie and the LLM!), the uploading of consciousness, the enigma of identity—how familiar!
One of the things that occurred to me when reading the chapter on Hume was how much Nietzsche would have fit into this period. Obviously, there's no Nietzsche without Schopenhauer, etc.; but I mean that the spirit of his thought seemed very much of the period—the distrust of superstition and life-denying Christianity, the rethinking of the body, the analysis of how the mind thinks and often deceives itself, the satirical view of prevailing opinions, the antinomianism, the empirical skepticism, and the moral skepticism (viz., Mandeville). Hume, it seems to me, set a kind of precedent for Nietzsche: The Enlightenment set against itself! Truth sniffing out "Truth"!
Early on, discussing Thomas Willis, an early neurologist, Porter writes, "Just how widely read were Willis's books is unclear, nor is it relevant. What is significant is that thinking such as his was becoming ensconced and diffused" (60). While the second sentence is indisputable, the dependent clause in the first makes me raise an eyebrow. I should think the circulation of the ideas of a prominent physician, who's taken to be a representative thought leader, would be "relevant," particularly for a historian. Maybe—probably—we simply don't have the data. Alternatively, I can see the argument that, in 17th century England, an educated, literate physician, being an elite, didn't need to reach the masses directly; rather, through his practice, and through his disciples, who then go on to disseminate it, he ends up indirectly forming the national consciousness. That is, due to the structure of society, with a small elite, direct public reception is a bad measure, since "memes"—like that of the brain being the seat of our thinking—are passed down by far more diverse means.
This seems like a pedantic point, but it's worth raising in connection with, say, Locke, who's a much bigger name, influential in politics, education, and philosophy. How is it that, as Porter contends, Locke almost single-handedly shaped the English mind of the 18th century, as others contend with Descartes? Obviously, "single-handedly" is misleading; the fact is, other intellectuals read Locke, absorbed him, had their ideas and work influenced by him, and then spread this, etc., etc. Still, is it "irrelevant" how many and which people read Locke? This is the tricky thing about "reception history" and the extent to which historical causation is more idealist or materialist. I don't dispute that Lockean ideas penetrated the European psyche and shaped it definitively; but it seems dubious that the mechanism, the how of this transmission, wouldn't be treated.
In the conclusion, embracing his Foucauldian side, he declares—in "the grossest of functionalist terms," to be sure—that "the mission of the emergent lay élites of the long eighteenth century was to elbow aside the traditional clergy... and to lord it over the plebs.... The doctrine of mind over matter stood for power over the people" (474). He admits this is a "crudely reductionist" (26) take, so I wonder why he included it; I certainly find little argumentation for it in the body of the text. Hence, this sociological observation serves as a curious bookend. Perhaps it's only implied, as in the discussions of the utopists, like Godwin, or more validly in a conservative like Coleridge, who wanted Platonic rulers. Purely functionally, I suppose I can see the claim having validity; but again, there's little to no explicit argumentation.
Besides these two pedantic qualms, I really enjoyed this magisterial overview of British thought from ~1550-1850 in Britain. Much to think on about how we came to think of our bodies and minds together, and how far we've gone from a pure soul in an impure body to "incorporated minds" to computer algorithms! Perhaps the critics of Locke at the time, like Samuel Clarke, weren't too off the mark, dramatic, or fallacious in fearing that the divorce of the mind and body would entail a materialism ending in determinism ending in mechanism ending in nihilism...
Whereas most intellectual historians tend to point the finger at Descartes for ushering in modernity, Porter makes the case that Locke created a bigger cultural splash in making consciousness the criterion for personality, which not only promoted the idea of a blank human nature that could be filled in, but also fitted in nicely with the emerging convention that the brain was the seat of the mind. (To be sure, without Descartes, there could be no Locke, and it was the former's dualism, and emphasis on thought, which were crucial. Thus, Descartes is still the "founder" of modernity, but in the case of Georgian England, Locke's legacy is the more palpable.) As Porter succinctly puts it, "In many departments of life, emphasis was shifted from the physical to the psychological" (472). David Hartley is shown to have formalized this to the greatest extent, setting the foundations for empirical psychology.
The most interesting sections to my mind were those on Shaftesbury, Swift, and Johnson, about whom I learned a lot, and whose concerns with embodiment, frailty, grossness, and thought were so revealing and thought-provoking. As a broader point, I found myself thinking at times about our own time, when A.I. is forcing us to reflect on what it means to be persons, to be conscious, and to be embodied, and how, arguably, the precedent was set during this period, when the brain was being probed, when personal identity was being debated, when the status of the soul was in hot water, when the nature of the afterlife was contested, and when rational-scientific utopias were envisaged. Hopes of an afterlife, humans as machines (La Mettrie and the LLM!), the uploading of consciousness, the enigma of identity—how familiar!
One of the things that occurred to me when reading the chapter on Hume was how much Nietzsche would have fit into this period. Obviously, there's no Nietzsche without Schopenhauer, etc.; but I mean that the spirit of his thought seemed very much of the period—the distrust of superstition and life-denying Christianity, the rethinking of the body, the analysis of how the mind thinks and often deceives itself, the satirical view of prevailing opinions, the antinomianism, the empirical skepticism, and the moral skepticism (viz., Mandeville). Hume, it seems to me, set a kind of precedent for Nietzsche: The Enlightenment set against itself! Truth sniffing out "Truth"!
Early on, discussing Thomas Willis, an early neurologist, Porter writes, "Just how widely read were Willis's books is unclear, nor is it relevant. What is significant is that thinking such as his was becoming ensconced and diffused" (60). While the second sentence is indisputable, the dependent clause in the first makes me raise an eyebrow. I should think the circulation of the ideas of a prominent physician, who's taken to be a representative thought leader, would be "relevant," particularly for a historian. Maybe—probably—we simply don't have the data. Alternatively, I can see the argument that, in 17th century England, an educated, literate physician, being an elite, didn't need to reach the masses directly; rather, through his practice, and through his disciples, who then go on to disseminate it, he ends up indirectly forming the national consciousness. That is, due to the structure of society, with a small elite, direct public reception is a bad measure, since "memes"—like that of the brain being the seat of our thinking—are passed down by far more diverse means.
This seems like a pedantic point, but it's worth raising in connection with, say, Locke, who's a much bigger name, influential in politics, education, and philosophy. How is it that, as Porter contends, Locke almost single-handedly shaped the English mind of the 18th century, as others contend with Descartes? Obviously, "single-handedly" is misleading; the fact is, other intellectuals read Locke, absorbed him, had their ideas and work influenced by him, and then spread this, etc., etc. Still, is it "irrelevant" how many and which people read Locke? This is the tricky thing about "reception history" and the extent to which historical causation is more idealist or materialist. I don't dispute that Lockean ideas penetrated the European psyche and shaped it definitively; but it seems dubious that the mechanism, the how of this transmission, wouldn't be treated.
In the conclusion, embracing his Foucauldian side, he declares—in "the grossest of functionalist terms," to be sure—that "the mission of the emergent lay élites of the long eighteenth century was to elbow aside the traditional clergy... and to lord it over the plebs.... The doctrine of mind over matter stood for power over the people" (474). He admits this is a "crudely reductionist" (26) take, so I wonder why he included it; I certainly find little argumentation for it in the body of the text. Hence, this sociological observation serves as a curious bookend. Perhaps it's only implied, as in the discussions of the utopists, like Godwin, or more validly in a conservative like Coleridge, who wanted Platonic rulers. Purely functionally, I suppose I can see the claim having validity; but again, there's little to no explicit argumentation.
Besides these two pedantic qualms, I really enjoyed this magisterial overview of British thought from ~1550-1850 in Britain. Much to think on about how we came to think of our bodies and minds together, and how far we've gone from a pure soul in an impure body to "incorporated minds" to computer algorithms! Perhaps the critics of Locke at the time, like Samuel Clarke, weren't too off the mark, dramatic, or fallacious in fearing that the divorce of the mind and body would entail a materialism ending in determinism ending in mechanism ending in nihilism...
June 29, 2013
Excellent review of key thinkers in the Eighteenth Century regarding bodies, souls and the relationship between them. In addition to the usual suspects (Hume, Kant, etc.), he also has chapters on literary figures (Samuel Johnson, Byron, Edward Gibbon and others) and subtopics like illness, madness, death and sex. Not an easy read but not an obscure one either. He does an excellent job at the beginning of the book in giving the philosophical background to the debates. He also has a very good, 75 page (!) bibliography for further reading.
September 1, 2015
Covers the intellectual history of mind/soul/body in philosophy, religion, science, and literature.
Favorite quotation (from Peacock):
There are two reasons for drinking: one is, when you are thirsty, to cure it; the other, when you are not thirsty, to prevent it.... Wine is the elixir of life. "The soul," says St. Augustine, "cannot live in drought." What is death? Dust and ashes. There is nothing so dry. What is life? Spirit. What is Spirit? Wine.
Favorite quotation (from Peacock):
There are two reasons for drinking: one is, when you are thirsty, to cure it; the other, when you are not thirsty, to prevent it.... Wine is the elixir of life. "The soul," says St. Augustine, "cannot live in drought." What is death? Dust and ashes. There is nothing so dry. What is life? Spirit. What is Spirit? Wine.
July 26, 2011
extremely well researched and well written book about, as the title suggests, the mind and the body and perhaps the link between the 2. gives some very interesting opinions from well known authors like locke, swift and shaftesbury etc etc. The book focusses on the 18th century period which for many represented the beginnings of a move away from the church towards logic and facts. very interesting read with lots to take in. recommended for someone with a thirst for knowledge.
June 1, 2017
This was the book Porter was born to write. There are many books purporting to tell the 'history of the modern self'. This is surely one of the best of them. Porter was a historian of medicine, with a passion for literature and philosophy, and a stylish pen. His approach to the self is dazzling, because he takes so many different perspectives. Sometimes he considers a particular person, the life they lived, the idea of self that they governed their thoughts and actions by—e.g. Samuel Johnson. Sometimes he considers a particular book—e.g. Tristram Shandy or A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Sometimes he picks up on a debate in philosophy or medicine, tracking ideas through a host of obscure pamphlets and essays and medical tracts—e.g. his chapter on shifting ideas about death.
My favourite chapter is the last, on Byron. Perhaps this is because I have a crush on the club-footed emperor of English verse. But it also gives Porter an opportunity for his greatest flourishes of wit:
Compared to other histories of the self, this one offers concrete detail, brilliant prose and a compact conclusion of almost superhuman concision, about the major changes in big ideas about the self over the eighteenth century. It is considerably more readable than Dror Wahrman's The Making of the Modern Self: Identity and Culture in Eighteenth-Century England, but it considers a much narrower range of evidence. By contrast, it is much more wide-ranging than Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, but lacks the deep philosophical consideration of the nature and importance of the self. There could certainly have been a few more women included, and the European context was sadly lacking in most chapters. But as far as it goes, Flesh in the Age of Reason is nearly faultless. The best of Porter's excellent books I've read.
My favourite chapter is the last, on Byron. Perhaps this is because I have a crush on the club-footed emperor of English verse. But it also gives Porter an opportunity for his greatest flourishes of wit:
Not least for Byron, reincarnation was somewhat disgusting: was not temporal embodiment quite enough? Through the hundreds of stanzas of Childe Harold, Don Juan and the like, the greasy obesity of the aristocratic high life of the day, the podgy Prince of Wales and all the dowdy dowagers excited the deepest revulsion. The Christian threat of all that fat flesh further reincarnated did not merely offend Byron's reason; it turned his stomach.
Compared to other histories of the self, this one offers concrete detail, brilliant prose and a compact conclusion of almost superhuman concision, about the major changes in big ideas about the self over the eighteenth century. It is considerably more readable than Dror Wahrman's The Making of the Modern Self: Identity and Culture in Eighteenth-Century England, but it considers a much narrower range of evidence. By contrast, it is much more wide-ranging than Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, but lacks the deep philosophical consideration of the nature and importance of the self. There could certainly have been a few more women included, and the European context was sadly lacking in most chapters. But as far as it goes, Flesh in the Age of Reason is nearly faultless. The best of Porter's excellent books I've read.
November 20, 2022
Excellent overview of the milieu out of which the great 17th and 18th century thinkers spun their various takes on materialism and the promise of reason against the backdrop of the severe problems the development of science and mechanical philosophy posed for those who would attempt to hold onto ideas of the self and an incorporeal soul.
Clearly, understandings of the body and the soul would have to change with the changing philosophies, but Porter brilliantly unearths all of the minor figures that allow you to see just what the major thinkers, like Locke, Hobbes and Hume, and others into the 19th century were reacting against. The details about the lives of these people, their personal hobby horses and foibles are sketched out in brilliant detail.
Highly recommended.
Clearly, understandings of the body and the soul would have to change with the changing philosophies, but Porter brilliantly unearths all of the minor figures that allow you to see just what the major thinkers, like Locke, Hobbes and Hume, and others into the 19th century were reacting against. The details about the lives of these people, their personal hobby horses and foibles are sketched out in brilliant detail.
Highly recommended.
May 8, 2019
The concept is very interesting, but there is an overwhelming amount of perspectives. The highlighting of some disparate views on the Enlightenment body in Britain would have been ideal or else this book as a journal article. Porter was clever and engaging with his writing, but perhaps quantity overcame quality in this case.
May 5, 2012
Having been recommended this book by a professor of sociology, I had high hopes for Flesh in the Age of Reason, and I was not disappointed. Porter deftly handles multiple facets of philosophy around the time of the enlightenment, weaving together the ideas of well known theorists on the links between mind, soul, spirit and the body. From Descarte's reasoning on the duality of the mind and body, providing a vehicle for discourse still relating to religion through to later atheists' ideas, Porter never fails to bring the reader to a rounded understanding of the social, historical and philosophical contexts involved.
December 4, 2010
This is the last book written by Professor Roy Porter formerly of the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine. He died a week after completing it. It is a lively account of the philosophy of medicine during the Age of Reason/Enlightenment and contains some rather gruesome anecdotes about great doctors as well as an insight into their thinking on the subject of human suffering. A very entertaining book with an excellent overview of the history of the period, which Porter always brought to life so superbly.
Read
March 25, 2012These were the guys who "thought for our freedom"! Porter is original not only in his ability to explicate eighteenth century thinking in plain English, but especially for getting under the skin of writers and thinkers like Locke, Johnson, Goodwin, Blake and many many others. Instead of criticising from an ideological base, he empathizes with the kind of mind-wrenching psychological pain they went through to liberate consciousness from centuries of church-state dogma. We owe them so much, and Porter too for explicating it all so lucidly. Highly recommended.
May 23, 2008
I wanted so much to like this book, and cannot help but feel that my rating reflects not so much the books failure but my own. I liked the firt portion, though it could be incredibly dense. The second portion was more accessible, but I felt as though the focus wandered . . . this is when I stopped reading.
Mostly, I didn't want my rating to go unannotated as it is such a deviation from the standard rating. Mark it up to my having been away from intellectual history for so very long.
Mostly, I didn't want my rating to go unannotated as it is such a deviation from the standard rating. Mark it up to my having been away from intellectual history for so very long.
April 22, 2012
A good tour of the complexities of the subject but sadly not his best work. Roy Porter will be sadly missed as one of the most engaging lecturers I have ever had the pleasure to hear. A man who could speak so eloquently, interestingly and excitingly about History that you would completely forget his dishevelled appearance and the massive stain on his shirt.
June 7, 2013
A very interesting read on the changing views on the human body and religion in the 17 and 18th centuries. It takes us through the thoughts of some heavy hitters during that time period. Some chapters were more interesting than others. What surprises me from these early thinkers is that religion still has such a foothold in the world today especially in the U.S.
March 16, 2013
"How the Enlightenment provided a lens through which we can best see the profound shift from the theocentric, otherworldly, Dark Ages to the modern, earthly body-centered world we live in today."
This was dense, but a very good book.
This was dense, but a very good book.
March 3, 2015
This is a very interesting book which is hard going despite being well, even elegantly written. This is because his thinking is deep and requires the reader to think about what has just been read and to order thinking accordingly.
January 18, 2008
A very interesting study of the attitudes toward the body as Europe moved from the Christian-dominated Middle Ages and Renaissance to the Enlightenment. A witty writer.
November 24, 2010
Three stars is actually rather kind. Really wanted to like this book as the subject and author are favorites of mine. Sadly, there is no way to ignore the lack of editing or disjointed tone.
January 21, 2011
A great tour through modern Western civilization's development of SELF.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews