What do you think?
Rate this book
Infinity and Perspective
Bronze Award Winner for Philosophy in the ForeWord Magazine Book of the Year Awards.
Much postmodern rhetoric, suggests Karsten Harries, can be understood as a symptom of our civilization's discontent, born of regret that we are no longer able to experience our world as a cosmos that assigns us our place. But dissatisfaction with the modern world may also spring from a conviction that modernism has failed to confront the challenge of an inevitably open future. Such conviction has frequently led to a critique of modernity's founding heroes. Challenging that critique, Harries insists that modernity is supported by nothing other than human freedom.
But more important to Harries is to show how modernist self-assertion is shadowed by nihilism and what it might mean to step out of that shadow. Looking at a small number of medieval and Renaissance texts, as well as some paintings, he uncovers the threshold that separates the modern from the premodern world. At the same time, he illuminates that other, more questionable threshold, between the modern and the postmodern.
Two spirits preside over the Alberti, the Renaissance author on art and architecture, whose passionate interest in perspective and point of view offers a key to modernity; and Nicolaus Cusanus, the fifteenth-century cardinal, whose work shows that such interest cannot be divorced from speculations on the infinity of God. The title Infinity and Perspective connects the two to each other and to the shape of modernity.
Much postmodern rhetoric, suggests Karsten Harries, can be understood as a symptom of our civilization's discontent, born of regret that we are no longer able to experience our world as a cosmos that assigns us our place. But dissatisfaction with the modern world may also spring from a conviction that modernism has failed to confront the challenge of an inevitably open future. Such conviction has frequently led to a critique of modernity's founding heroes. Challenging that critique, Harries insists that modernity is supported by nothing other than human freedom.
But more important to Harries is to show how modernist self-assertion is shadowed by nihilism and what it might mean to step out of that shadow. Looking at a small number of medieval and Renaissance texts, as well as some paintings, he uncovers the threshold that separates the modern from the premodern world. At the same time, he illuminates that other, more questionable threshold, between the modern and the postmodern.
Two spirits preside over the Alberti, the Renaissance author on art and architecture, whose passionate interest in perspective and point of view offers a key to modernity; and Nicolaus Cusanus, the fifteenth-century cardinal, whose work shows that such interest cannot be divorced from speculations on the infinity of God. The title Infinity and Perspective connects the two to each other and to the shape of modernity.
- GenresPhilosophy
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
4 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 22, 2014
Reading this book I kept thinking of Owen Barfield. Like Barfield, Karsten Harries combines history, science, philosophy, and theology into a coherent whole. Like Barfield, Harries is critical of modernism and postmodernism. But unlike Barfield, Harries finds a place for technology and even modern objectivity, and in my opinion more clearly points to what it might mean to "put things back together." Not only does this book remind me of Owen Barfield, I think in some ways it's actually better than Barfield. It's a challenging but rewarding read, like a steep Alpine trail (another metaphor used in the book itself for the process of knowing).
Harries starts with the theological/scientific speculations of Nicholas of Cusa, showing how a theology of the infinity of God led to the hypothesis of the infinity of the universe. (Bruno gets his own showing showing how derivative his ideas were from his predecessors like Nicholas ... and Harries depicts Bruno as a general irresponsible hack of an academic, not exactly the same picture as the 20-minute cartoon hagiography of Bruno on Cosmos). It was theology that inexorably led to a view of the universe that knocked down the old Aristotelian understanding. The theological speculations of the nominalists paving the way for Descartes, Copernicus, and Galileo. (Similar again to the 20th-century story told in Naming Infinity.)
Barfield's problem is that he stays in the middle ages. In his book Saving the Appearances, Barfield (if I recall correctly) attributes the preface to Copernicus's book to Copernicus himself, and takes the theme that all science is doing is "saving the appearances" as the theme of his book, drawing a line back to Copernicus for validation. This always bothered me. I like some of what Barfield does with this but it has always seemed too extreme. Harries points out that the preface was written by Osiander, not Copernicus, as a sort of fig leaf or olive branch, and Copernicus himself wrote as if the scientific observations were reality, not just appearances, like I assume a scientist would (as did Descartes, as did Galileo). Harries finds the right balance between expressing the incompleteness of our knowledge (the ways in which hypotheses indeed only "save the appearances") but also noting that some hypotheses are better than others, a distinction I don't remember finding in Barfield.
At the end of the book, Harries argues that modern objectivity allows us to step outside our own perspectives and worlds for a bit, but that if continued this motion will lead to nihilism (this sounds almost exactly like Walker Percy in Lost in the Cosmos). Harries instead proposes that we return to earth as our special, unique home -- something I've found that my own writing has tried to do. Harries calls this a "postpostmodern geocentrism" and a new Copernican revolution or recentering of the universe. What Barfield calls "putting things together," Harries identifies as a homecoming. In the end, the story of the history of theology and science is that, after a long journey, the prodigal returns.
Harries starts with the theological/scientific speculations of Nicholas of Cusa, showing how a theology of the infinity of God led to the hypothesis of the infinity of the universe. (Bruno gets his own showing showing how derivative his ideas were from his predecessors like Nicholas ... and Harries depicts Bruno as a general irresponsible hack of an academic, not exactly the same picture as the 20-minute cartoon hagiography of Bruno on Cosmos). It was theology that inexorably led to a view of the universe that knocked down the old Aristotelian understanding. The theological speculations of the nominalists paving the way for Descartes, Copernicus, and Galileo. (Similar again to the 20th-century story told in Naming Infinity.)
Barfield's problem is that he stays in the middle ages. In his book Saving the Appearances, Barfield (if I recall correctly) attributes the preface to Copernicus's book to Copernicus himself, and takes the theme that all science is doing is "saving the appearances" as the theme of his book, drawing a line back to Copernicus for validation. This always bothered me. I like some of what Barfield does with this but it has always seemed too extreme. Harries points out that the preface was written by Osiander, not Copernicus, as a sort of fig leaf or olive branch, and Copernicus himself wrote as if the scientific observations were reality, not just appearances, like I assume a scientist would (as did Descartes, as did Galileo). Harries finds the right balance between expressing the incompleteness of our knowledge (the ways in which hypotheses indeed only "save the appearances") but also noting that some hypotheses are better than others, a distinction I don't remember finding in Barfield.
At the end of the book, Harries argues that modern objectivity allows us to step outside our own perspectives and worlds for a bit, but that if continued this motion will lead to nihilism (this sounds almost exactly like Walker Percy in Lost in the Cosmos). Harries instead proposes that we return to earth as our special, unique home -- something I've found that my own writing has tried to do. Harries calls this a "postpostmodern geocentrism" and a new Copernican revolution or recentering of the universe. What Barfield calls "putting things together," Harries identifies as a homecoming. In the end, the story of the history of theology and science is that, after a long journey, the prodigal returns.
January 3, 2026
曾经人类在宇宙的中心，上帝在头顶注视，一切井然有序，意义是现成的（Given）。但当我们开始追问“眼见是否为实”、“中心是否虚构”时，我们实际上亲手拆毁了这个襁褓，带来视角的觉醒和无限的恐惧，这种转变是痛苦的，我们置换了既定的安全感，面对物理上的失重（Displacement），人类并没有坐以待毙，而是展开了一场壮烈的心理自救。这就是文中提到的“理性的自我确立”（Rational Self-Assertion）。既然宇宙不再给我位置，那我就自己创造位置。而这种转变解释了现代社会为何极其推崇“控制”与“效率”。因为潜意识里，我们依然恐惧那个“无限的、冷漠的荒漠”。只有通过技术征服自然、通过数据量化生活，我们才能暂时遗忘那种根本性的“无家可归感”。
真正的英雄主义，不是幻想回到那个地心说的摇篮里去，而是在这片无尽的宇宙荒漠中，用理性丈量星空，用敬畏守护大地，以“有知的无知”为杖，从容地走下去。
真正的英雄主义，不是幻想回到那个地心说的摇篮里去，而是在这片无尽的宇宙荒漠中，用理性丈量星空，用敬畏守护大地，以“有知的无知”为杖，从容地走下去。
October 8, 2024
Harries has developed a unique interpretation of the history of thought:
1、Nicholas of Cusa discovered the theory of perspective, which can be reflected in the widespread dissemination of this idea, as well as the theory of perspective and the optical maze
2、This ideology promoted the idea of infinite God, but fortunately Eckhart and others proposed the theory of self transcendence, which allowed people to still adhere to agnosticism
3、This perspective and transcendent theory developed into a belief in rationally grasping the primary quality, and the scientific revolution was born here
This is a very interesting explanation, but the jump from point 2 to 3 three is not convincing. Claiming to have touched the truth does not necessarily mean a return to agnosticism(Eckhart's mysticism is very strong), and claiming that this is closely related to the scientific revolution's view of truth is an overly strong argument —— what reason do we have to say that the scientific revolution's epistemology comes from this transcendent grasp, rather than Aquinas' internal order of all things?
Moreover, Copernicus and Bruno in history did not possess the later scientific spirit; On the contrary, most of the time they are blind and paranoid, just selected for their accidental discoveries
1、Nicholas of Cusa discovered the theory of perspective, which can be reflected in the widespread dissemination of this idea, as well as the theory of perspective and the optical maze
2、This ideology promoted the idea of infinite God, but fortunately Eckhart and others proposed the theory of self transcendence, which allowed people to still adhere to agnosticism
3、This perspective and transcendent theory developed into a belief in rationally grasping the primary quality, and the scientific revolution was born here
This is a very interesting explanation, but the jump from point 2 to 3 three is not convincing. Claiming to have touched the truth does not necessarily mean a return to agnosticism(Eckhart's mysticism is very strong), and claiming that this is closely related to the scientific revolution's view of truth is an overly strong argument —— what reason do we have to say that the scientific revolution's epistemology comes from this transcendent grasp, rather than Aquinas' internal order of all things?
Moreover, Copernicus and Bruno in history did not possess the later scientific spirit; On the contrary, most of the time they are blind and paranoid, just selected for their accidental discoveries
November 24, 2024
4.5/ 5
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews