What do you think?
Rate this book
Más allá de nuestras mentes: Qué pensamos y cómo llegamos a pensarlo
Una historia estimulante sobre cómo la imaginación interactúa con las facultades psicológicas, -emoción, percepción y razón- para formar la historia de la vida humana.
El imaginar (para ver lo que no está presente) es la asombrosa habilidad que ha alimentado el desarrollo y la innovación de los humanos a lo largo de los siglos.
Como especie, somos únicos, con nuestra singular capacidad para remodelar el mundo después de ver las imágenes en nuestras mentes.
Atravesando distintos campos como los de la ciencia, política, religión, cultura, filosofía e historia, Felipe Fernández-Armesto revela las apasionantes e inquietantes historias de nuestros saltos imaginativos, desde el primer Homo sapiens hasta nuestros días.
A través de ideas innovadoras de la ciencia cognitiva, Fernández-Armesto explora cómo y por qué primero tenemos ideas, y nos da una visión tentadora de cómo somos y qué necesitamos para conseguirlas. Desenterrando evidencias históricas, comienza reconstruyendo el pensamiento de nuestros ancestros del Paleolítico para revelar la sutileza y profundidad de las ideas de los primeros humanos.
Un magistral himno a la alegría de la imaginación humana por parte de un maravilloso y elegante pensador, este libro nos muestra que las malas ideas son en muchas ocasiones más influyentes que las buenas ideas, que los pensamientos más antiguos, son en ocasiones los mejores; y que las ideas originales del Occidente en ocasiones vienen del intercambio con un mundo más amplio; y que los pasos del pensamiento innovado están bajo amenaza.
El imaginar (para ver lo que no está presente) es la asombrosa habilidad que ha alimentado el desarrollo y la innovación de los humanos a lo largo de los siglos.
Como especie, somos únicos, con nuestra singular capacidad para remodelar el mundo después de ver las imágenes en nuestras mentes.
Atravesando distintos campos como los de la ciencia, política, religión, cultura, filosofía e historia, Felipe Fernández-Armesto revela las apasionantes e inquietantes historias de nuestros saltos imaginativos, desde el primer Homo sapiens hasta nuestros días.
A través de ideas innovadoras de la ciencia cognitiva, Fernández-Armesto explora cómo y por qué primero tenemos ideas, y nos da una visión tentadora de cómo somos y qué necesitamos para conseguirlas. Desenterrando evidencias históricas, comienza reconstruyendo el pensamiento de nuestros ancestros del Paleolítico para revelar la sutileza y profundidad de las ideas de los primeros humanos.
Un magistral himno a la alegría de la imaginación humana por parte de un maravilloso y elegante pensador, este libro nos muestra que las malas ideas son en muchas ocasiones más influyentes que las buenas ideas, que los pensamientos más antiguos, son en ocasiones los mejores; y que las ideas originales del Occidente en ocasiones vienen del intercambio con un mundo más amplio; y que los pasos del pensamiento innovado están bajo amenaza.
500 pages, Paperback
First published June 6, 2019
77 people are currently reading
729 people want to read
About the author
Felipe Fernández-Armesto
131 books182 followersFelipe Fernández-Armesto is a British professor of history at the University of Notre Dame and author of several popular works, notably on cultural and environmental history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
July 29, 2019
A legitimate question to ask is why humans, part of a sub-group of primates known as great apes, do not live like other great apes. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, of which we share 99 percent of our DNA, exhibit very little in the way of cultural variation and evolution, whereas human history is cultural variation and evolution.
How do we account for the difference? Science tells us that all the traditional notions of human superiority are illusions: other animals have keener senses, greater physical strength and prowess, cunning intelligence, elaborate communication, sophisticated social systems, and even the capacity for tool use (chimpanzees, for example, fashion sticks as tools to catch termites). Our intelligence and social skills are of a different variety, but they are not unique in the animal kingdom.
So what makes humans truly unique? The answer is the ability to reshape behavior and the environment via the generation, dissemination, and adoption of ideas. While animals exhibit intelligence and social skills, animals cannot become anything other than what they were genetically programmed to become. A chimpanzee can only be a chimpanzee, no matter how highly developed his intellect or social skills are in comparison to other chimps. His behaviors are almost entirely genetically determined. Humans, on the other hand, are the only animals that have broken free from the constraints of biology, able to change themselves and their environments in previously unimagined ways.
The product of this imaginative power, ideas, are therefore the most significant forces driving human behavior and history and the single most important distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. In Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came To Think It, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto makes the case that a true understanding of human history must focus on the power of ideas. As Fernandez-Armesto writes:
“I propose that ideas, rather than impersonal forces, make the world; that almost everything we do starts in our minds, with reimagined worlds that we then try to construct in reality. We often fail, but even our failures impact on events and jar them into new patterns, new courses.”
This is hard to argue against. Imagine if, for example, Christianity never came to dominate the minds of the middle ages and classical learning never required a renaissance. Would the scientific revolution and age of enlightenment have happened a millennium earlier? And what if the modern world was filled with stoics or Epicureans or platonists instead of Christians? Imagine how different the world would be, in just these two scenarios alone.
The fact is, our thoughts and behaviors are driven by ideas, the majority of which are the result of the intellectual work of others. Even those who do not consider themselves to be “intellectuals” are nonetheless driven by the uncritical acceptance of ideas thought up by past thinkers, transmitted from mind to mind over millennia.
To truly understand history, and ourselves, and to critically evaluate which beliefs are worth maintaining and which are in need of discarding, one needs to confront the origins of ideas and their philosophical merit. And this must be done, otherwise one’s beliefs will simply be the product of historical forces left unexamined, and we know what Socrates said about the unexamined life.
In this way, Out of Our Minds serves an important role in a society that has lost touch with philosophy and thus with the foundation of all knowledge, science, and culture. Ideas that we never question drive our behavior in service to ideologies devised by others, and the escape from this influence can only come from a revival in philosophy and a renewed interest in ideas.
Serving this worthwhile purpose, Fernandez-Armesto takes the reader through the full scope of the history of ideas, from our pre-literate past through the twenty-first century, weaving the story around the three problems that humanity must perpetually face: 1) the problem of knowledge and how to discover the true nature of reality, 2) the problem of conduct and how to lead fulfilling and ethical lives, and 3) the problem of governance and how to organize society politically and economically.
The topics are covered in a mostly objective fashion, but I did find myself disagreeing with the author in a few areas, and this deserves some elaboration. While this is certainly a worthwhile read in intellectual history, the author appears, in general, to be overly sympathetic to religion and more than once refers to atheism as “quasi-religious.”
After stating the obvious fact that some scientists are religious, Fernandez-Armesto writes:
“The idea that science and religion are enemies is false: they concern distinct, if overlapping, spheres of human experience. But the presumption has proved extremely hard to overcome.”
Science and religion are not enemies in the uninteresting sense that someone can be both a scientist and also religious, able to compartmentalize two distinct ways of thinking. But science and religion are enemies in the epistemological sense, a sense you would assume to be more relevant to a history of ideas.
Epistemologically, scientific and religious thinking could not be more different: religion is based on deference to authority and immutable truth that is revealed through scripture or personal revelation; science, on the other hand, is based on observation, experiment, and the progression of knowledge, in addition to a skeptical distrust of intuition and received wisdom. In contrast to the blind conformance to divinely sanctioned and immutable texts, the motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba,” or “take nobody’s word for it.”
These are two distinct epistemological stances: one that believes truth can be revealed or divinely inspired, unencumbered by evidence or experimentation, and one that believes that truth is fundamentally provisional and subject to change based on new discoveries. Religion and science may, as Fernandez-Armesto wrote, concern distinct but overlapping spheres of experience, but the approach to discovering truths about those spheres could not be more dissimilar.
If science is the rational investigation of the material world, then philosophy is the rational investigation of the moral and spiritual world, not religion. Philosophy has more in common with science, due to its reliance on logic, reasoned argument, and evidence, than religion, which relies on faith, or the maintenance of beliefs despite the evidence (faith wouldn’t be required if the evidence lined up in its favor). Therefore the conflict is not simply between science and religion; it’s between science and moral philosophy together against religion. As Christopher Hitchens said, “Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”
Additionally, despite the claims of the author, atheism is not “just another religion.” A—theism is exactly what it looks like, the absence of theism, or belief in god or gods. It is not a positive theory; it is the negation of a theory that is not persuasive. Knowing that someone is an atheist doesn’t tell you anything else about any of their other beliefs. As Sam Harris said, “Atheism is just a way of clearing the space for better conversations.”
In that sense, atheism allows for a full and honest confrontation with the problems of moral philosophy. If science cannot tell us what is moral, that doesn’t mean that religion fills the gap by default. There is a rich history of secular moral philosophy beginning with Socrates and including Stoicism, Epicureanism, and modern secular humanism, and one would receive a much better and more nuanced moral education by studying literature and philosophy than by reading ancient scripture.
Moral issues are by nature inconclusive and involve trade-offs and conflicting priorities, and are therefore best debated and argued in a context free from dogma or religious constraint. Asserting certainties in an inherently uncertain domain is a recipe for conflict and violence, as dialogue is hindered by professions of faith, which by definition are not amenable to reason.
And that’s what makes especially terrifying the assertion by Fernandez-Armesto that “politics in a Chrisitan tradition may be due for a revival.” Can you think of anything worse, or more divisive, than political decisions being justified by faith or relativistic readings of the Bible? Can you think of anything more contrary to the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights than allowing one particular religion to have state-sanctioned legitimacy above all others?
We should have learned by now that the answer to the tyrannies of the past, including Communism, Nazism, and fascism, is not to replace one type of dogma with another in the form of religion. An open, secular, and democratic society of compromise and dialogue with constitutional protections is the best we can do, however imperfect it remains. But the idea that things might be better if we all start asserting that our political beliefs are divinely sanctioned is a recipe for disaster.
One final observation: the author seems to hold the position that science does not improve morality, forgetting that many immoral acts throughout history were committed based on factual misunderstandings. If we no longer burn witches at the stake or throw virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods, we can thank science.
Science can be used to harm others, obviously, but the net effect seems to be positive, even if only considering the advances of medical science. Fernandez-Armesto also overplays the “failure of science” in the twentieth century to attain certainty, as if the anecdote to incomplete theories or bad science is anything other than better science. People are always looking for excuses to retreat back into mysticism or religion at the hint of any kind of uncertainty, but this is a mistake. Reason and science together may not ever lead to absolute, certain knowledge, but abandoning them is to also abandon our best chance at inhabiting a sane world.
How do we account for the difference? Science tells us that all the traditional notions of human superiority are illusions: other animals have keener senses, greater physical strength and prowess, cunning intelligence, elaborate communication, sophisticated social systems, and even the capacity for tool use (chimpanzees, for example, fashion sticks as tools to catch termites). Our intelligence and social skills are of a different variety, but they are not unique in the animal kingdom.
So what makes humans truly unique? The answer is the ability to reshape behavior and the environment via the generation, dissemination, and adoption of ideas. While animals exhibit intelligence and social skills, animals cannot become anything other than what they were genetically programmed to become. A chimpanzee can only be a chimpanzee, no matter how highly developed his intellect or social skills are in comparison to other chimps. His behaviors are almost entirely genetically determined. Humans, on the other hand, are the only animals that have broken free from the constraints of biology, able to change themselves and their environments in previously unimagined ways.
The product of this imaginative power, ideas, are therefore the most significant forces driving human behavior and history and the single most important distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. In Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came To Think It, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto makes the case that a true understanding of human history must focus on the power of ideas. As Fernandez-Armesto writes:
“I propose that ideas, rather than impersonal forces, make the world; that almost everything we do starts in our minds, with reimagined worlds that we then try to construct in reality. We often fail, but even our failures impact on events and jar them into new patterns, new courses.”
This is hard to argue against. Imagine if, for example, Christianity never came to dominate the minds of the middle ages and classical learning never required a renaissance. Would the scientific revolution and age of enlightenment have happened a millennium earlier? And what if the modern world was filled with stoics or Epicureans or platonists instead of Christians? Imagine how different the world would be, in just these two scenarios alone.
The fact is, our thoughts and behaviors are driven by ideas, the majority of which are the result of the intellectual work of others. Even those who do not consider themselves to be “intellectuals” are nonetheless driven by the uncritical acceptance of ideas thought up by past thinkers, transmitted from mind to mind over millennia.
To truly understand history, and ourselves, and to critically evaluate which beliefs are worth maintaining and which are in need of discarding, one needs to confront the origins of ideas and their philosophical merit. And this must be done, otherwise one’s beliefs will simply be the product of historical forces left unexamined, and we know what Socrates said about the unexamined life.
In this way, Out of Our Minds serves an important role in a society that has lost touch with philosophy and thus with the foundation of all knowledge, science, and culture. Ideas that we never question drive our behavior in service to ideologies devised by others, and the escape from this influence can only come from a revival in philosophy and a renewed interest in ideas.
Serving this worthwhile purpose, Fernandez-Armesto takes the reader through the full scope of the history of ideas, from our pre-literate past through the twenty-first century, weaving the story around the three problems that humanity must perpetually face: 1) the problem of knowledge and how to discover the true nature of reality, 2) the problem of conduct and how to lead fulfilling and ethical lives, and 3) the problem of governance and how to organize society politically and economically.
The topics are covered in a mostly objective fashion, but I did find myself disagreeing with the author in a few areas, and this deserves some elaboration. While this is certainly a worthwhile read in intellectual history, the author appears, in general, to be overly sympathetic to religion and more than once refers to atheism as “quasi-religious.”
After stating the obvious fact that some scientists are religious, Fernandez-Armesto writes:
“The idea that science and religion are enemies is false: they concern distinct, if overlapping, spheres of human experience. But the presumption has proved extremely hard to overcome.”
Science and religion are not enemies in the uninteresting sense that someone can be both a scientist and also religious, able to compartmentalize two distinct ways of thinking. But science and religion are enemies in the epistemological sense, a sense you would assume to be more relevant to a history of ideas.
Epistemologically, scientific and religious thinking could not be more different: religion is based on deference to authority and immutable truth that is revealed through scripture or personal revelation; science, on the other hand, is based on observation, experiment, and the progression of knowledge, in addition to a skeptical distrust of intuition and received wisdom. In contrast to the blind conformance to divinely sanctioned and immutable texts, the motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba,” or “take nobody’s word for it.”
These are two distinct epistemological stances: one that believes truth can be revealed or divinely inspired, unencumbered by evidence or experimentation, and one that believes that truth is fundamentally provisional and subject to change based on new discoveries. Religion and science may, as Fernandez-Armesto wrote, concern distinct but overlapping spheres of experience, but the approach to discovering truths about those spheres could not be more dissimilar.
If science is the rational investigation of the material world, then philosophy is the rational investigation of the moral and spiritual world, not religion. Philosophy has more in common with science, due to its reliance on logic, reasoned argument, and evidence, than religion, which relies on faith, or the maintenance of beliefs despite the evidence (faith wouldn’t be required if the evidence lined up in its favor). Therefore the conflict is not simply between science and religion; it’s between science and moral philosophy together against religion. As Christopher Hitchens said, “Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”
Additionally, despite the claims of the author, atheism is not “just another religion.” A—theism is exactly what it looks like, the absence of theism, or belief in god or gods. It is not a positive theory; it is the negation of a theory that is not persuasive. Knowing that someone is an atheist doesn’t tell you anything else about any of their other beliefs. As Sam Harris said, “Atheism is just a way of clearing the space for better conversations.”
In that sense, atheism allows for a full and honest confrontation with the problems of moral philosophy. If science cannot tell us what is moral, that doesn’t mean that religion fills the gap by default. There is a rich history of secular moral philosophy beginning with Socrates and including Stoicism, Epicureanism, and modern secular humanism, and one would receive a much better and more nuanced moral education by studying literature and philosophy than by reading ancient scripture.
Moral issues are by nature inconclusive and involve trade-offs and conflicting priorities, and are therefore best debated and argued in a context free from dogma or religious constraint. Asserting certainties in an inherently uncertain domain is a recipe for conflict and violence, as dialogue is hindered by professions of faith, which by definition are not amenable to reason.
And that’s what makes especially terrifying the assertion by Fernandez-Armesto that “politics in a Chrisitan tradition may be due for a revival.” Can you think of anything worse, or more divisive, than political decisions being justified by faith or relativistic readings of the Bible? Can you think of anything more contrary to the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights than allowing one particular religion to have state-sanctioned legitimacy above all others?
We should have learned by now that the answer to the tyrannies of the past, including Communism, Nazism, and fascism, is not to replace one type of dogma with another in the form of religion. An open, secular, and democratic society of compromise and dialogue with constitutional protections is the best we can do, however imperfect it remains. But the idea that things might be better if we all start asserting that our political beliefs are divinely sanctioned is a recipe for disaster.
One final observation: the author seems to hold the position that science does not improve morality, forgetting that many immoral acts throughout history were committed based on factual misunderstandings. If we no longer burn witches at the stake or throw virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods, we can thank science.
Science can be used to harm others, obviously, but the net effect seems to be positive, even if only considering the advances of medical science. Fernandez-Armesto also overplays the “failure of science” in the twentieth century to attain certainty, as if the anecdote to incomplete theories or bad science is anything other than better science. People are always looking for excuses to retreat back into mysticism or religion at the hint of any kind of uncertainty, but this is a mistake. Reason and science together may not ever lead to absolute, certain knowledge, but abandoning them is to also abandon our best chance at inhabiting a sane world.
September 23, 2020
I remember this book as being a fascinating intellectual survey which covers about every aspect that you would want to know. It is a great jumping off point to look at certain thinkers you are interested in. However, I would warn the casual reader from diving in without further consideration, as it is an academic book meant for close reading.
November 18, 2019
DNF
I am sorry but I cannot read a book if the opening chapter contains the following:
"The size of human brains is not, therefore, a necessary condition for human-style thinking, but is probably what evolutionary jargon calls a ‘spandrel’ – a by-product of the evolution of the faculties that equip us to think. Most of the human brain, to put it bluntly, is probably functionless junk, like tonsils and appendixes. To say that it would not be there unless it were useful – only we do not know how – is obviously fallacious or else an expression of over-confidence in the efficiency of evolution, which, as Darwin acknowledged, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is no more consistently targeted than the wind."
Regurgitating crap like this just tells me I am not the target audience, time to move on.
I am sorry but I cannot read a book if the opening chapter contains the following:
"The size of human brains is not, therefore, a necessary condition for human-style thinking, but is probably what evolutionary jargon calls a ‘spandrel’ – a by-product of the evolution of the faculties that equip us to think. Most of the human brain, to put it bluntly, is probably functionless junk, like tonsils and appendixes. To say that it would not be there unless it were useful – only we do not know how – is obviously fallacious or else an expression of over-confidence in the efficiency of evolution, which, as Darwin acknowledged, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is no more consistently targeted than the wind."
Regurgitating crap like this just tells me I am not the target audience, time to move on.
August 13, 2019
Disappointing. The subject is important and I had high hopes for this book. Unfortunately it disappoints in three respects. First, the writing is highly informal. Secondly, much of the content is speculative. And thirdly, the author alludes to his political opinions on today’s events, which are irrelevant to the book’s subject — and predictable.
I very much want to read a good book on the subject that is the title of this book, but this book fails to deliver.
I very much want to read a good book on the subject that is the title of this book, but this book fails to deliver.
October 10, 2019
The Human being, what impact has it had on the earth compared to other animals? How does the Mind evolve from brian? Why should multiculturism still relevant? What is the impact of technology and why is religion still relevant?
Felipe tackles all these pretty academic questions. He is an academic but writes like a self-taught polymath. A style which is very important as I believe that subject matter experts are too restricted, too afraid of wearing into unknown areas.
Felipe tackles all these pretty academic questions. He is an academic but writes like a self-taught polymath. A style which is very important as I believe that subject matter experts are too restricted, too afraid of wearing into unknown areas.
May 13, 2025
This was a very good book. I was kinda doubtful since I had tipped my toes into this author before and wasn’t impressed. I was a teenager at the time so I must have not been mature enough to get it. This book does an amazing job at stringing together the mental history of the world into a very readable and comprehensible way. This is one of the hardest topics to write well and the author has done a great job. It also integrates the entire world tradition very well. I would highly recommend it. The one criticism I have is there are gaps in narration which make me wonder about the clarity of the author’s worldview. For example there is zero mention of the Protestant reformation, probably the most important even of early modern europe and I see the author teaches at a Catholic university, so maybe that’s it. There’s also zero analysis of the effects of Communism or Socialism, which suggests an inability to grasp with the dominant thread of our times. You can’t hate on the Nazis, or Christian fundamentalists but not the communists. The author clearly believes in equality in itself, which will poison any worldview since equality is completely contradictory to the brutal jungle that is human life. At the same time I think the author is fundamentally honest and trying to find the truth so I’ll chalk up these to be differences of opinion.
April 13, 2021
On the one hand, Fernández-Armesto’s work deserves the highest rating: he sets out what he wants to achieve, including an awareness of its limitations, and then proceeds to deliver in spades. The writing is smooth, graceful and elegant; few would find difficulty here. As he points out in the Preface, his book is but a small contribution towards a history of the human imagination. His purview is vast, ranging from the earliest times over tens of thousands of years to the present. There is much that is both informative and stimulating in what he presents for our attention, and that is sufficient to recommend it highly.
On the other hand, I found the brilliance of Fernández-Armesto’s exposition problematic, and precisely because of the assumptions “necessary” for his thesis. There are many of these assumptions, and I suspect that, given the nature of the inquiry, they would be almost impossible to eliminate or overcome. This makes it an easy target for sceptics and cynics, permitting an undermining of the overall narrative. From this perspective it could be argued that the whole premise is pointless, and suggestive that the work itself is not worthy of any value outside of its own limitations.
Ironically, this could suggest that that very inadequacy might very well be its most useful quality!
It seems to me that a crucial problem lies in the use of the words/terms in delineating one’s specific field of study. As the book’s sub-title tells us, Fernández-Armesto is concerned about what we think, and how we came to think it — so a rather vast area of study is involved. As he points out in his Preface, this is also about “imagination”; and “thoughts” or “ideas” about this throughout the millennia of all human existence would be no mean feat, especially as one would think the vast number of billions of people would remain more or less inaccessible.
As one reads through this book, it soon becomes clear that the main ideas raised here are those which might perhaps be adjudicated pertinent to those of us living in the 21st-c (i.e. mostly political, social, and religious ideologies) and that the opinions described can only be those for which some form of accessibly stored written or spoken commentary or opinion exists. It seems obvious to me that these can only be but a very few of the thoughts and ideas over tens of thousands of years… And that what we might have access to is more often than not merely speculations of others who are more often than not biased in one of any number of ways, in order to back up some preexisting ideas (i.e. speculations on speculations) and that these themselves predispose interpretations on earlier presuppositions, and so on…
Fernández-Armesto provides us clear and informative descriptions of opinions regarding his selection of ideas for consideration, and more or less leaves it at that. There is little on the evaluation of those ideas. The effect is cool, detached, and apparently impartial — much like one could imagine an adroit Artificial Intelligence operator might use for the development of computer algorithms “appropriate” for human applications. Intelligence and rationalisation are fickle servants: they have been, are, and will be used to “justify” rationally any position or suggestion proposed to them for consideration by any dominant power. As it stands, the book seems to lean towards a kind of laissez-faire quality tinged with a semi-deterministic fatalistic or karmic resignation cloaked in a threadbare and chilly stoicism, in relation to the human condition.
What are missing are the qualities most people might consider to be truly human and important (kindness, love, pleasure, entertainment, pain, joy, suffering, justice, injustice, anger, revenge, etc. etc.) without which “we” would not be very human at all! These qualities are also fruitful areas of study when dealing with the human “imagination”, and upon which many would have complex and stimulating “thoughts” and “ideas” about.
Whether any of the above matters really explain or help to understand how “we” think, or how “we” came to think them are not, to my way of thinking, sufficiently explored here. More needs to be done.
On the other hand, I found the brilliance of Fernández-Armesto’s exposition problematic, and precisely because of the assumptions “necessary” for his thesis. There are many of these assumptions, and I suspect that, given the nature of the inquiry, they would be almost impossible to eliminate or overcome. This makes it an easy target for sceptics and cynics, permitting an undermining of the overall narrative. From this perspective it could be argued that the whole premise is pointless, and suggestive that the work itself is not worthy of any value outside of its own limitations.
Ironically, this could suggest that that very inadequacy might very well be its most useful quality!
It seems to me that a crucial problem lies in the use of the words/terms in delineating one’s specific field of study. As the book’s sub-title tells us, Fernández-Armesto is concerned about what we think, and how we came to think it — so a rather vast area of study is involved. As he points out in his Preface, this is also about “imagination”; and “thoughts” or “ideas” about this throughout the millennia of all human existence would be no mean feat, especially as one would think the vast number of billions of people would remain more or less inaccessible.
As one reads through this book, it soon becomes clear that the main ideas raised here are those which might perhaps be adjudicated pertinent to those of us living in the 21st-c (i.e. mostly political, social, and religious ideologies) and that the opinions described can only be those for which some form of accessibly stored written or spoken commentary or opinion exists. It seems obvious to me that these can only be but a very few of the thoughts and ideas over tens of thousands of years… And that what we might have access to is more often than not merely speculations of others who are more often than not biased in one of any number of ways, in order to back up some preexisting ideas (i.e. speculations on speculations) and that these themselves predispose interpretations on earlier presuppositions, and so on…
Fernández-Armesto provides us clear and informative descriptions of opinions regarding his selection of ideas for consideration, and more or less leaves it at that. There is little on the evaluation of those ideas. The effect is cool, detached, and apparently impartial — much like one could imagine an adroit Artificial Intelligence operator might use for the development of computer algorithms “appropriate” for human applications. Intelligence and rationalisation are fickle servants: they have been, are, and will be used to “justify” rationally any position or suggestion proposed to them for consideration by any dominant power. As it stands, the book seems to lean towards a kind of laissez-faire quality tinged with a semi-deterministic fatalistic or karmic resignation cloaked in a threadbare and chilly stoicism, in relation to the human condition.
What are missing are the qualities most people might consider to be truly human and important (kindness, love, pleasure, entertainment, pain, joy, suffering, justice, injustice, anger, revenge, etc. etc.) without which “we” would not be very human at all! These qualities are also fruitful areas of study when dealing with the human “imagination”, and upon which many would have complex and stimulating “thoughts” and “ideas” about.
Whether any of the above matters really explain or help to understand how “we” think, or how “we” came to think them are not, to my way of thinking, sufficiently explored here. More needs to be done.
January 23, 2020
This is an interesting collection of elements of intellectual history - a mixture of the output of selected thinkers from history - formed into a narrative intended to illustrate cultural change throughout history.
Whilst (I assume) most of the facts are accurate*, I'd suggest the way they are woven together to create conclusions is tenuous. In essence the book collects relatively coincidental events and assumes their temporal connection is the cause of some zeitgeist. In many cases this was no doubt true, in others - particularly the causal links proposed around early 20th century scientific discoveries - unlikely.
I found the chapters on pre-written history to be understandably the most speculative, with the rationale the author draws conclusions on completely unclear, particularly with respect to mysticism. As other reviewers have indicated, those conclusions likely reflect the interpretation of scant evidence (e.g. cave-paintings) from the author's personal perspective.
Throughout the book there are modern asides linking historical events to present day situations. Encouraging readers to understand the lessons that can be applied from history is valuable. However what is most troubling about these is the author injecting his personal position on these matters (like abortion and voluntary euthanasia) without any logical progression to those positions.
History is obviously a massive subject and it is impossible to include 'everything' in a book of this nature. However I did find the absence of thinking from the Islamic Golden Age (~800-1200 AD) to be a significant omission. It was mentioned tangentially as the means of transmission of Greek philosophy to more modern times, and Islam itself was discussed at some level, but the secular thinking of that period seemed otherwise ignored.
Overall, I respect this as a tremendous work and a largely engaging read, but don't agree with the way many of the conclusions were reached.
* As a New Zealander, p347 presents a small error - we achieved universal suffrage in 1893 not 1901.
Whilst (I assume) most of the facts are accurate*, I'd suggest the way they are woven together to create conclusions is tenuous. In essence the book collects relatively coincidental events and assumes their temporal connection is the cause of some zeitgeist. In many cases this was no doubt true, in others - particularly the causal links proposed around early 20th century scientific discoveries - unlikely.
I found the chapters on pre-written history to be understandably the most speculative, with the rationale the author draws conclusions on completely unclear, particularly with respect to mysticism. As other reviewers have indicated, those conclusions likely reflect the interpretation of scant evidence (e.g. cave-paintings) from the author's personal perspective.
Throughout the book there are modern asides linking historical events to present day situations. Encouraging readers to understand the lessons that can be applied from history is valuable. However what is most troubling about these is the author injecting his personal position on these matters (like abortion and voluntary euthanasia) without any logical progression to those positions.
History is obviously a massive subject and it is impossible to include 'everything' in a book of this nature. However I did find the absence of thinking from the Islamic Golden Age (~800-1200 AD) to be a significant omission. It was mentioned tangentially as the means of transmission of Greek philosophy to more modern times, and Islam itself was discussed at some level, but the secular thinking of that period seemed otherwise ignored.
Overall, I respect this as a tremendous work and a largely engaging read, but don't agree with the way many of the conclusions were reached.
* As a New Zealander, p347 presents a small error - we achieved universal suffrage in 1893 not 1901.
April 23, 2020
Although this book did provide insights into ideas, science, politics, and history of the first human to the present, it did so in an overwhelming way. There were so many people (too many) and the author’s fanciful vocabulary got in the way. More examples as a way of explaining what he was presenting would have helped. I felt like I definitely needed a rich historical background (like have a doctorate) to totally appreciate this book. A more focused approach would have been more valuable for me. On a positive note, it did make me think about the present and how we are drawing from the past for ideas on how to interact with our world.
October 19, 2020
Avoid.
Felipe Fernández-Armesto is supposedly one of the finest historians alive. Maybe, but this book is mostly just an endless string of speculation plus a good deal of Catholic ranting. Probably a good read if you're a new age hippie and want to learn about the birth of magic, the realm of witches, and the prevalence of 'mana' and spirits.
And how atheists and 'scientists' (who practice a form of magic) cling on to ideas of materialism discarded sometime in the last Ice Age by our more enlightened ancestors as they took up religion.
Two stars is being quite generous.
Felipe Fernández-Armesto is supposedly one of the finest historians alive. Maybe, but this book is mostly just an endless string of speculation plus a good deal of Catholic ranting. Probably a good read if you're a new age hippie and want to learn about the birth of magic, the realm of witches, and the prevalence of 'mana' and spirits.
And how atheists and 'scientists' (who practice a form of magic) cling on to ideas of materialism discarded sometime in the last Ice Age by our more enlightened ancestors as they took up religion.
Two stars is being quite generous.
January 4, 2021
This book is an absolute must read. It is indeed an ambitious goal to summarise in one single volume the history of thinking. I will keep it handy for future reference about facts and persons along the mankind evolution and what matters to me, are the questions that came to my mind by its reading. Not recommendable for biased minds.
July 17, 2021
i tried. some interesting parts but it wasn't the psychological approach i thought it would be - it was all economical and philosophical theology, more history than I could handle and so much art and politics I'm about to get a headache. I'm probably just at the wrong age to read it- or maybe I'm just not bored enough.
July 3, 2025
Out Of Our Minds was not what I expected, but it is a great novel which does justice to the "history of the world" trope.
I was sold on this book as it being an "alternative" to Yuval Noah Harari's Nexus. However, I must say that, despite both seeking a "history of the world" narrative, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto does a more puritan job at it.
Nexus was more focused on saying something about AI and tech, and in that process YNH partially nitpicks from History to add to his point about information and data, to make a commentary on present day events.
In contrast, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto focuses purely on the history aspect of each of the eras of the 10 chapters he writes, not even mentioning AI or data until the last two chapters (and even then he focuses on the human element and not on the technology at all). This allows the reader to absorb each era as its own individual piece, and draw conclusions based on their own interpretation and intelligence.
This book has a very interesting global angle to it too, missing in almost any global conversation, incorporating many "forbidden histories" from across the world rooted in facts without justifying himself (he is too senior to justify himself). From seeing the crusades as a fight over Jewish legacy, to the Henry Thoreau's influences of Gandhi's satyagraha, to the Islamic renaissance to Persian duality thought to African Tswana tribes and their works to - so much of it I didn't know of, and so much of it I didn't even know was formalized and studied so well!
While I "knew" of many of these things, the book challenged and nuanced my perception of various events across the globe that were mentioned here.
The book circles around back to Eastern philosophy, exactly where it starts, and that is another interesting take to see be part of geopolitics 3-4 years after the book is released.
This book is a gem, and there may be very few authors like this. It is a must read.
9/10
For more reviews, find me on Medium! @karthikgovil
I was sold on this book as it being an "alternative" to Yuval Noah Harari's Nexus. However, I must say that, despite both seeking a "history of the world" narrative, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto does a more puritan job at it.
Nexus was more focused on saying something about AI and tech, and in that process YNH partially nitpicks from History to add to his point about information and data, to make a commentary on present day events.
In contrast, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto focuses purely on the history aspect of each of the eras of the 10 chapters he writes, not even mentioning AI or data until the last two chapters (and even then he focuses on the human element and not on the technology at all). This allows the reader to absorb each era as its own individual piece, and draw conclusions based on their own interpretation and intelligence.
This book has a very interesting global angle to it too, missing in almost any global conversation, incorporating many "forbidden histories" from across the world rooted in facts without justifying himself (he is too senior to justify himself). From seeing the crusades as a fight over Jewish legacy, to the Henry Thoreau's influences of Gandhi's satyagraha, to the Islamic renaissance to Persian duality thought to African Tswana tribes and their works to - so much of it I didn't know of, and so much of it I didn't even know was formalized and studied so well!
While I "knew" of many of these things, the book challenged and nuanced my perception of various events across the globe that were mentioned here.
The book circles around back to Eastern philosophy, exactly where it starts, and that is another interesting take to see be part of geopolitics 3-4 years after the book is released.
This book is a gem, and there may be very few authors like this. It is a must read.
9/10
For more reviews, find me on Medium! @karthikgovil
September 25, 2024
So this book took me a wee while to read (more on that later) and I have to confess had a bit of a rocky start for me. I initially thought, from the intro, that we were going to look at creativity or new ideas and how they came about 'literally' perhaps using big historic ideas as the framework to explore that - e.g. perhaps grabbing say Marx and discussing how he came up with Socialism, or Einstein and Relativity.
Now the book does tickle that approach, however Out of our Minds did kind of come across as a bit BIG THOUGHTs(tm) (as in it felt a lot like Fernandez-Armesto riffing on all their thoughts on various big things).
However as I worked through the book I warmed a LOT to the writing of this book. Yes its a little disorderly, there is a lot of variation in the quality of the prose, sometimes delving into a subject deeply and specifically, and at others almost dancing over topics like a flash fire. While indeed it did read like a really smart stream of consciousness the actual brilliance to this book as you'll find your own mind working creativity off the topics presented.
This may not be the kind of book you'll read and then recite factoids, or be able to explain the history of XYZ, I think you'll definitely find your pondering muscle exercising. I absolutely adored the final chapter, ironically but fittingly focused on 'Uncertainty.'
That said as a long and rambling tome, I would recommend some caution in picking it up - at times I found myself only flicking through a few pages, and others putting the book down for longish periods but devouring the later chapters. Even glancing at the contents page just now I'm a little overwhelmed. I've recently turned 40 and this feels very Boomer of me to suggest, but while I recommend this boo I also recommend a reading plan (omg what have I become?)
Now the book does tickle that approach, however Out of our Minds did kind of come across as a bit BIG THOUGHTs(tm) (as in it felt a lot like Fernandez-Armesto riffing on all their thoughts on various big things).
However as I worked through the book I warmed a LOT to the writing of this book. Yes its a little disorderly, there is a lot of variation in the quality of the prose, sometimes delving into a subject deeply and specifically, and at others almost dancing over topics like a flash fire. While indeed it did read like a really smart stream of consciousness the actual brilliance to this book as you'll find your own mind working creativity off the topics presented.
This may not be the kind of book you'll read and then recite factoids, or be able to explain the history of XYZ, I think you'll definitely find your pondering muscle exercising. I absolutely adored the final chapter, ironically but fittingly focused on 'Uncertainty.'
That said as a long and rambling tome, I would recommend some caution in picking it up - at times I found myself only flicking through a few pages, and others putting the book down for longish periods but devouring the later chapters. Even glancing at the contents page just now I'm a little overwhelmed. I've recently turned 40 and this feels very Boomer of me to suggest, but while I recommend this boo I also recommend a reading plan (omg what have I become?)
May 23, 2021
Quite often, the author summarizes complex, intricate theories and philosophies to carry a point of his. But unfortunately in my opinion it is clear to me, where I have explored, that it is some times either misunderstood by the author, or misinterpreted, phrased incorrectly and could therefor lead to incorrect understanding or interpretation by readers of this book.
However, I believe he is an amazing Historian and I trust him regarding this field. He is further more an interesting man because of his associations and pursuing researching more fields than just his own to speculate and theorize about the patterns found in our history, and why he believes it unravelled the way it did. In some cases he does so brilliantly, in other he speaks of theories and philosophies in incorrect terms and therefor it is clear the research wasn't cunducted deeply in all cases, but rather broadly. Some parts of the book I found much more worthy than two stars. But because other bits of incorrect understanding is used to carry his theories, and it being contained in the same book. I believe it is damaging to these philosophies and theories and readers should make sure to read it with a good amount of speculation when he refers to such instead of only his field, being history.
However, I believe he is an amazing Historian and I trust him regarding this field. He is further more an interesting man because of his associations and pursuing researching more fields than just his own to speculate and theorize about the patterns found in our history, and why he believes it unravelled the way it did. In some cases he does so brilliantly, in other he speaks of theories and philosophies in incorrect terms and therefor it is clear the research wasn't cunducted deeply in all cases, but rather broadly. Some parts of the book I found much more worthy than two stars. But because other bits of incorrect understanding is used to carry his theories, and it being contained in the same book. I believe it is damaging to these philosophies and theories and readers should make sure to read it with a good amount of speculation when he refers to such instead of only his field, being history.
June 19, 2022
Whilst this acts as a good book for one to jump their own questions and ideas off of or to find new topics to research, the author's narrative and biases serve to undermine the piece as a whole.
A "global history" ends up particularly euro-centric with little mention of Africa or South America and only courteous mentions of a few parts of Asia, as well as having a heavy lean towards Christianity, particularly Catholicism.
The writing style can be obtuse, list-like, and impenetrable at times. The author often applies judgements or draws conclusions without making sufficient arguments, leaving the reader to simply trust the author's education to provide validity.
Although clearly well researched, the book itself could probably do with stricter editing and less of the author's voice if it truly wants to be an encyclopaedia of ideas as apose to an opinion piece on European sociology. Furthermore it tends to handpick individual thinkers, entirely ignoring the phenomena of ideas occurring simultaneously in different places.
A "global history" ends up particularly euro-centric with little mention of Africa or South America and only courteous mentions of a few parts of Asia, as well as having a heavy lean towards Christianity, particularly Catholicism.
The writing style can be obtuse, list-like, and impenetrable at times. The author often applies judgements or draws conclusions without making sufficient arguments, leaving the reader to simply trust the author's education to provide validity.
Although clearly well researched, the book itself could probably do with stricter editing and less of the author's voice if it truly wants to be an encyclopaedia of ideas as apose to an opinion piece on European sociology. Furthermore it tends to handpick individual thinkers, entirely ignoring the phenomena of ideas occurring simultaneously in different places.
November 23, 2021
An interesting & wide ranging history of human thought proceeding from the thoughts inferred by the artifacts left by prehistoric humans thru to the present day. This is highly reminiscent of the work of Daniel Boorstin - who IMHO did it better. What is interesting are entries which must be attributed to the author's insider position with the Roman Catholic along with certain accompanying conservatisms. There are some important thinkers covered - important to the author at least - who are not at all well-known.
October 22, 2019
Some fascinating and hugely insightful thinking unfortunately shrouded in baroque language. It’s summed up for me in the following extract where the author writes, seemingly without irony: Hegel adopted a strategy unlikely to communicate yet calculated to impress: he made his thought hard to follow and his language hard to understand. Would-be intellectuals often overrate obscurity and even exalt unintelligibility.’
July 24, 2021
Unfortunately, along with the paragraph mentioned in Piet Perske's review the sentence on page 49 "Powerful constituencies congratulate themselves on having escaped into science, especially proselytising atheists, philosophical critics of traditional understanding of 'consciousness', neuroscientists dazzled by the chemical and electrical activity in the brain (which some of them mistake for thought)...", has personally put me off from reading this any further.
January 14, 2020
Not sure if it was the distractions of the holiday season, but this book failed to deliver. Interesting but not enthralling. I can imagine dipping back into it for certain topics. Perhaps tried to cover too much and therefore lacked the depth it promised.
Read
October 14, 2019This is an excellent book of social history. If you are interested in social history, and who isn't, it's one you must read.
January 10, 2021
Not my style
April 2, 2021
Simple y sencillo... No es el libro que esperaba,creo que hay espectativas muy altas si se considera al pensamiento cientifico,cuando solo magnifican los conceptos y se exageran sin fuentes adecuadas
February 17, 2023
Abandoned - something I do very rarely - very poorly written and reasoned
December 20, 2025
stopped reading when the author started comparing the women’s brain with a neanderthal’s brain lol
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews