What do you think?
Rate this book
Nostalgia for the Absolute
The decline of formal religious systems has left a moral and emotional emptiness in Western culture. George Steiner, internationally renowned thinker and scholar, pursues this and examines the alternative "mythologies" of Marxism, Freudian psychology, Lévi-Straussian anthropology, and fads of irrationality.
61 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
33 people are currently reading
1222 people want to read
About the author
George Steiner
186 books559 followersSee also: George A. Steiner, author on Management and Planning.
Dr. Francis George Steiner was an essayist, novelist, philosopher, literary critic, and educator. He wrote for The New Yorker for over thirty years, contributing over two hundred reviews. Among his many awards, he received The Truman Capote Lifetime Achievement Award from Stanford University 1998. He lived in Cambridge, England, with his wife, historian Zara Shakow Steiner.
In 1950 he earned an M.A. from Harvard University, where he won the Bell Prize in American Literature, and received his Ph.D. from Oxford University (Balliol College) on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1955. He was then a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, for two years. He became a founding fellow of Churchill College at the University of Cambridge in 1961, and has been an Extraordinary Fellow there since 1969. Additionally, Steiner accepted the post of Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Geneva in 1974, which he held for 20 years, teaching in four languages. He became Professor Emeritus at Geneva University on his retirement in 1994, and an Honorary Fellow at Balliol College at Oxford University in 1995. He later held the positions of the first Lord Weidenfeld Professor of Comparative Literature and Fellow of St. Anne's College at Oxford University from 1994 to 1995, and Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University from 2001 to 2002.
Dr. Francis George Steiner was an essayist, novelist, philosopher, literary critic, and educator. He wrote for The New Yorker for over thirty years, contributing over two hundred reviews. Among his many awards, he received The Truman Capote Lifetime Achievement Award from Stanford University 1998. He lived in Cambridge, England, with his wife, historian Zara Shakow Steiner.
In 1950 he earned an M.A. from Harvard University, where he won the Bell Prize in American Literature, and received his Ph.D. from Oxford University (Balliol College) on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1955. He was then a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, for two years. He became a founding fellow of Churchill College at the University of Cambridge in 1961, and has been an Extraordinary Fellow there since 1969. Additionally, Steiner accepted the post of Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Geneva in 1974, which he held for 20 years, teaching in four languages. He became Professor Emeritus at Geneva University on his retirement in 1994, and an Honorary Fellow at Balliol College at Oxford University in 1995. He later held the positions of the first Lord Weidenfeld Professor of Comparative Literature and Fellow of St. Anne's College at Oxford University from 1994 to 1995, and Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University from 2001 to 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
November 8, 2019
Ακόμη και όταν δεν συμφωνείς απόλυτα μαζί του ο George Steiner έχει και τότε την ικανότητα να διευρύνει τους πνευματικούς σου ορίζοντες
August 30, 2022
Pe cât de scurtă, pe atât de cuprinzătoare și oarecum fascinantă. George Steiner își dovedește măiestria în ale scrisului și arată cât de mult ne poate folosi o gândire critică bine șlefuită,prezentând cititorilor o perspectivă clară asupra marxismului, astrologiei și altor pseudoștințe, nelipsind Freud și ale sale idei și concepte, fiind prezente și alte lucruri.
Este scurtă, nu se citește tocmai ușor, dar merită cu siguranță citită.
4,5/5
Este scurtă, nu se citește tocmai ușor, dar merită cu siguranță citită.
4,5/5
October 26, 2016
Pretty unclear ending: the search for truth via science and reason or something to replace the loss of Christian certainty ("God is Dead")? Doubling down on the Enlightenment despite truth being potentially harmful? Didn't leave much to hope for, but Steiner also seems to shrug at the current possibilities. His conclusion reminded me of the first paragraph from Lovecraft's Call of Cthulhu:
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
His conceptualization of Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Claude Lévi-Strauss' anthropology as pseudo-mythologies to fill the void of Christianity is pretty useful however, though exclusively pointed leftward. He also has a ruthless chapter on modern spiritual replacements that will give some laughs if you roll your eyes that direction on occasion.
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
His conceptualization of Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Claude Lévi-Strauss' anthropology as pseudo-mythologies to fill the void of Christianity is pretty useful however, though exclusively pointed leftward. He also has a ruthless chapter on modern spiritual replacements that will give some laughs if you roll your eyes that direction on occasion.
December 8, 2019
"O culto da irracionalidade, as histerias organizadas e o obscurantismo que, ao longo das últimas décadas, se tornaram uma característica tão importante da sensibilidade e comportamentos ocidentais, são cómicos e, muitas vezes, até triviais; mas representam uma incapacidade de amadurecer e um rebaixamento pessoal que são, na sua essência, trágicos."
(página 56)
(página 56)
June 7, 2023
This was my first interaction with any work from George Steiner and I have to say that I found this really short book quite delicious.
In four essays Steiner proposes us the following thesis: the decline of Christianity and its Church in Western Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, following the scientific revolution, came with a big change in the mental universe of the people of that time.
The possibility to understand the world in a rational way, but also the uncertainties that this brought, because science ushered the power to question everything and so, the moral structure religion gave people has disintegrated.
This made humans more vulnerable in their insecurity and so more willing to believe in the new ideologies that the coming era offered them, to replace the world view brought by Christianity.
Steiner label them as "mythologies", claiming that they are religions in their own right and identifies them as being the following: Marxism, Psychoanalysis (Freud), Claude Levi-Strauss's anthropology and various superstitions (oriental beliefs and practices, astrology, aliens, etc).
The construction of his arguments is logical and I dare say strong, but I admit I'm biased because those arguments and conclusion happen to match my own previous assumptions.
Even though almost everything he says is logical I don't think this is a proper book, it's more like the conclusion one would expect after a few more hundreds of pages of pros and cons on his thesis.
For example I would've liked a look on what happened in the Eastern part of Europe, where the Church and Christianity, through Orthodoxy, remained strong all these centuries, up until now, but even so, those mythologies were adopted and integrated in the daily lives by most people while still keeping the world view of the Church!
How does this affect his arguments, it nullifies them, or only nuances them?
Reading a little about the author's career and life I could say it's safe to assume he could've expanded and supported his thesis with some deeper thinking and analysis, but sadly, he didn't.
So, because of all the above I would say I should rate the book with 3 stars, but because I've enjoyed its humor and because I'm subjective I'm gonna give it 4.
In four essays Steiner proposes us the following thesis: the decline of Christianity and its Church in Western Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, following the scientific revolution, came with a big change in the mental universe of the people of that time.
The possibility to understand the world in a rational way, but also the uncertainties that this brought, because science ushered the power to question everything and so, the moral structure religion gave people has disintegrated.
This made humans more vulnerable in their insecurity and so more willing to believe in the new ideologies that the coming era offered them, to replace the world view brought by Christianity.
Steiner label them as "mythologies", claiming that they are religions in their own right and identifies them as being the following: Marxism, Psychoanalysis (Freud), Claude Levi-Strauss's anthropology and various superstitions (oriental beliefs and practices, astrology, aliens, etc).
The construction of his arguments is logical and I dare say strong, but I admit I'm biased because those arguments and conclusion happen to match my own previous assumptions.
Even though almost everything he says is logical I don't think this is a proper book, it's more like the conclusion one would expect after a few more hundreds of pages of pros and cons on his thesis.
For example I would've liked a look on what happened in the Eastern part of Europe, where the Church and Christianity, through Orthodoxy, remained strong all these centuries, up until now, but even so, those mythologies were adopted and integrated in the daily lives by most people while still keeping the world view of the Church!
How does this affect his arguments, it nullifies them, or only nuances them?
Reading a little about the author's career and life I could say it's safe to assume he could've expanded and supported his thesis with some deeper thinking and analysis, but sadly, he didn't.
So, because of all the above I would say I should rate the book with 3 stars, but because I've enjoyed its humor and because I'm subjective I'm gonna give it 4.
June 14, 2015
I came on this book through a tweet by Marc Andreesen, where he claimed that it handily explained a lot of modern-day Weltschmerz. The central thesis is controversial but rings true: Scientific rationalism induced the death of Christian religion in Western Europe and the popularity of aliens, communism, eastern religion, Freud, and structural anthropology can be explained as a direct replacement of the role religion used to fill.
In fact, George Steiner goes one step further and calls these movements ‘meta-religions’ or ‘mythologies’ that share key traits with religion. George Steiner doesn't go into details for why movements with these characteristics resonate so deeply with humanity. A meta-religion:
- Needs to have taxonomy, a set of terms uniquely meaningful for the religion
- Needs a narrative arc: a founding story, a mythological founder, apostasy
- Needs to be holistic and disprovable; the mythology needs to explain everything about the world and be presented as a disprovable, logical system
One can definitely quibble with the criteria above: Is that really the complete basis set? Is it the right basis set? In my opinion, these criteria seem reasonable and his chosen meta-religions clearly check the above boxes. His chosen targets are also clearly important world movements, and are worth discussing as pseudo-religions. The bulk of the book is spent proving that each is a meta-religion. Steiner's critique mainly has to do with the pseudo-scientific claims of these mythologies. Each errantly claims a basis in scientific fact as a bulwark of legitimacy, and this makes these mythologies dangerous and disingenuous.
It's definitely clear that these movements are important to the world and that their adherents really do believe in the inevitability of their claims (the communist March of Progress rings faintly.) It's also clear, especially w/r/t to Communism and Aliens, that this deep belief can truly pervert the world (how else to explain the humongous amount of money poured into Astrology). Steiner's larger point is to shine a light on these movements, to understand them as surrogates for religion as a means of explaining their popularity (especially bolstered with pseudoscience).
The conclusion of the book is a quite-depressing investigation of science as savior. His inescapable conclusion is that science has actually driven more people into the arms of pseudoscience through recent-ish discoveries like the inevitable heat-death of the universe and the acknowledgement that scientific advancement might come at the expense of humanity and not in service of it (e.g. AI).
In fact, George Steiner goes one step further and calls these movements ‘meta-religions’ or ‘mythologies’ that share key traits with religion. George Steiner doesn't go into details for why movements with these characteristics resonate so deeply with humanity. A meta-religion:
- Needs to have taxonomy, a set of terms uniquely meaningful for the religion
- Needs a narrative arc: a founding story, a mythological founder, apostasy
- Needs to be holistic and disprovable; the mythology needs to explain everything about the world and be presented as a disprovable, logical system
One can definitely quibble with the criteria above: Is that really the complete basis set? Is it the right basis set? In my opinion, these criteria seem reasonable and his chosen meta-religions clearly check the above boxes. His chosen targets are also clearly important world movements, and are worth discussing as pseudo-religions. The bulk of the book is spent proving that each is a meta-religion. Steiner's critique mainly has to do with the pseudo-scientific claims of these mythologies. Each errantly claims a basis in scientific fact as a bulwark of legitimacy, and this makes these mythologies dangerous and disingenuous.
It's definitely clear that these movements are important to the world and that their adherents really do believe in the inevitability of their claims (the communist March of Progress rings faintly.) It's also clear, especially w/r/t to Communism and Aliens, that this deep belief can truly pervert the world (how else to explain the humongous amount of money poured into Astrology). Steiner's larger point is to shine a light on these movements, to understand them as surrogates for religion as a means of explaining their popularity (especially bolstered with pseudoscience).
The conclusion of the book is a quite-depressing investigation of science as savior. His inescapable conclusion is that science has actually driven more people into the arms of pseudoscience through recent-ish discoveries like the inevitable heat-death of the universe and the acknowledgement that scientific advancement might come at the expense of humanity and not in service of it (e.g. AI).
February 4, 2020
George Steiner died yesterday. His brilliant and wise literary and cultural critique will be greatly missed. I have commented on his book, "Nostalgia for the Absolute" here: http://thegoodestnews.blogspot.com/20...
April 21, 2022
El humor es la primera resistencia al sufrimiento por dolor. La segunda yo diría que puede ser la doctrina religiosa a las que dirige su certera crítica Steiner- aunque a veces generalista de más-, acercándose a las figuras de Marx, Freud y Levi-Strauss. Afirma que sus legados se basan en estructuras mitológicas, constituyendo post-teologías con un exponente irracional típico que prosperó tras el socavamiento del cristianismo. Es este irracionalismo el fantasma que recorre Occidente, llámese astrología u orientalismos de moda (sacados de contexto obviamente).
Steiner encuentra en el psiconalásis de Freud una pretensión cientifista que yo comparto, que se reduce a una base de "introspección e intuición". Mientras leía a Freud me pareció que confunde la observación con la justificación de la observación, y esta a su vez con la ciencia.
Estas conferencias que discurren en el devenir del pensamiento humano con tendencias positivistas subrayan la necesidad de la verdad. Desde la Ilustración- como afirman desde die Frankfurter Schule- se ha establecido la verdad científica como canónica, cuando en realidad está constreñida socioculturalmente, ligada a la lucha de clases.
Sin embargo, creo que a efectos prácticos la concepción que se toma como verdad es equivocada. Es algo recurrente que encuentro en la literatura. Que pesadxs lxs literatxs hablando de la verdad científica. La ciencia no busca la verdad, ni tampoco da respuestas al "por qué?". Como dice la gran Belén Gavela, la ciencia sólo explica el "cómo?": es un mecanismo para generar y profundizar en el conocimiento. Cualquier uso de la ciencia para otros fines es erróneo.
Las imágenes del mundo y del lugar de la conciencia en la realidad que emergen de la ciencia superan nuestras expectativas y medios de expresión.(frente a las ciencias ocultas)[...] La antimateria y las estrellas de neutrones son hipótesis de trabajo tan profundas, tan elegantes, como la gran música. Sólo le faltó mencionar los neutrinos <3 Dale
Steiner encuentra en el psiconalásis de Freud una pretensión cientifista que yo comparto, que se reduce a una base de "introspección e intuición". Mientras leía a Freud me pareció que confunde la observación con la justificación de la observación, y esta a su vez con la ciencia.
Estas conferencias que discurren en el devenir del pensamiento humano con tendencias positivistas subrayan la necesidad de la verdad. Desde la Ilustración- como afirman desde die Frankfurter Schule- se ha establecido la verdad científica como canónica, cuando en realidad está constreñida socioculturalmente, ligada a la lucha de clases.
Sin embargo, creo que a efectos prácticos la concepción que se toma como verdad es equivocada. Es algo recurrente que encuentro en la literatura. Que pesadxs lxs literatxs hablando de la verdad científica. La ciencia no busca la verdad, ni tampoco da respuestas al "por qué?". Como dice la gran Belén Gavela, la ciencia sólo explica el "cómo?": es un mecanismo para generar y profundizar en el conocimiento. Cualquier uso de la ciencia para otros fines es erróneo.
Las imágenes del mundo y del lugar de la conciencia en la realidad que emergen de la ciencia superan nuestras expectativas y medios de expresión.(frente a las ciencias ocultas)[...] La antimateria y las estrellas de neutrones son hipótesis de trabajo tan profundas, tan elegantes, como la gran música. Sólo le faltó mencionar los neutrinos <3 Dale
April 27, 2015
Summary: as we seek philosophies and cosmologies to fulfill our need for the absolute, we find there is nothing (entropy).
Here's a pick-me-upper: "Two deities, two gods, to overwhelming agencies, govern and divide our being, said Freud. Love and death, Eros and Thanatos. The conflict between them determines the rhythms of existence, of procreation, of somatic and psychic evolution. But finally – the contrary to all intuitive, instinctive expectations, to all our hopes – it is not Eros, not love, but Thanatos who is stronger, who is close to the roots of man. What the species strives for, finally, is not survival and perpetuation, but repose, perfect inertness. In Freud’s visionary programme, the explosion of organic life, which has led to human evolution, was a kind of tragic anomaly, almost a fatal exuberance. It has brought with it untold pain and ecological waste. But this detour of life and consciousness will sooner or later end. An internal entropy is a work. A great quietness will return to creation as life revers to the natural condition of the inorganic. The consummation of the libido lies in death" (p.20).
The book is a little dated at times (cold war ideologies), and his gloss of Marx, Freud and Levi-Strauss tended to be frustrating.
Here's a pick-me-upper: "Two deities, two gods, to overwhelming agencies, govern and divide our being, said Freud. Love and death, Eros and Thanatos. The conflict between them determines the rhythms of existence, of procreation, of somatic and psychic evolution. But finally – the contrary to all intuitive, instinctive expectations, to all our hopes – it is not Eros, not love, but Thanatos who is stronger, who is close to the roots of man. What the species strives for, finally, is not survival and perpetuation, but repose, perfect inertness. In Freud’s visionary programme, the explosion of organic life, which has led to human evolution, was a kind of tragic anomaly, almost a fatal exuberance. It has brought with it untold pain and ecological waste. But this detour of life and consciousness will sooner or later end. An internal entropy is a work. A great quietness will return to creation as life revers to the natural condition of the inorganic. The consummation of the libido lies in death" (p.20).
The book is a little dated at times (cold war ideologies), and his gloss of Marx, Freud and Levi-Strauss tended to be frustrating.
July 4, 2018
Πιο απόλυτος από ποτέ ο Steiner.
Ονομάζει μυθολογίες τα μεγάλα πνευματικά κινήματα του εικοστού αιώνα: τον μαρξισμό, τη φροϋδική ψυχολογία, τη ανθρωπολογία του Levi-Strauss, τον αποκρυφισμό και το "Pursuit of Truth". Θεωρεί ότι προέρχονται από μια αντίδραση στο πνευματικό κενό που απομένει μετά την κατάρρευση του χριστιανισμού/θεολογίας και την άνοδο του επιστημονικού ορθολογισμού. Δεν έχω πρόβλημα με τα δύο τελευταία, αλλά θεωρώ προσβλητικό για τους ανθρώπους που πίστεψαν/πιστεύουν στο μαρξισμό και στη φροϋδική ψυχολογία να τα ονομάζει μυθολογίες. Προσωπικά με γοήτευσε "η αναζήτηση νοήματος" που προβάλλει συνεχώς σ΄αυτό το βιβλίο ο Steiner.
Ονομάζει μυθολογίες τα μεγάλα πνευματικά κινήματα του εικοστού αιώνα: τον μαρξισμό, τη φροϋδική ψυχολογία, τη ανθρωπολογία του Levi-Strauss, τον αποκρυφισμό και το "Pursuit of Truth". Θεωρεί ότι προέρχονται από μια αντίδραση στο πνευματικό κενό που απομένει μετά την κατάρρευση του χριστιανισμού/θεολογίας και την άνοδο του επιστημονικού ορθολογισμού. Δεν έχω πρόβλημα με τα δύο τελευταία, αλλά θεωρώ προσβλητικό για τους ανθρώπους που πίστεψαν/πιστεύουν στο μαρξισμό και στη φροϋδική ψυχολογία να τα ονομάζει μυθολογίες. Προσωπικά με γοήτευσε "η αναζήτηση νοήματος" που προβάλλει συνεχώς σ΄αυτό το βιβλίο ο Steiner.
July 18, 2025
Esperaba mucho muchísimo de este libro porque la idea me parece maravillosa, pero no he logrado entrar en él. Me ha transmitido mucho negativismo y quizá ahora no sea el momento indicado para leer algo así. Además escribe con un modo académico bastante elevado que a mí logra exasperarme un poco. Le daré otra oportunidad más adelante, porque no me parece un mal libro, al contrario, pero en este momento no es lo que necesito leer.
February 7, 2017
Texte Super éclairant. Il a continué à pétiller dans ma tête de la bibliothèque jusqu'à chez moi. Il explique très bien comment notre soif d'absolu est à l'origine des mythologies et la part de mensonges qu'on ait prêt à tolérer pour continuer à croire en quelque chose même lorsqu'on est areligieux. Il ne s'agit pas comme je l'ai craint au début de mettre sur un pied d'égalité sciences et religions, mais de savoir questionner absolument tout. On comprend comment se construit une croyance absolu, une religion avec le mythe du pécher originel, le messie, les apôtres, le chantage à la punition, l’éréthisme, l'intégrisme. Le livre pousse la réflexion principalement autour de trois personnages figures de proue de leur discipline, Marx, Freud, Lévi-Strauss, mais il aborde aussi un tas de sujets tous aussi passionnants, l'astrologie, la drogue, le libéralisme, la génétique, le langage... j'en oublie certainement.
L'effet le plus amusant du livre, c'est qu'après l'avoir refermé, on se surprend à questionner les choses auxquelles on croit et on découvre la part de mensonge qu'elles habitent. Sans tout détruire de nos fondations, ça permet de démythifier certaines passions et de voir comment elles altèrent notre bon jugement. La première qui me soit venue en tête après quelques pas dans le froid hors de la médiathèque, c'est la passion amoureuse, cette personne qu'on idéalise, de laquelle on attend tout et qui peut à tout moment nous anéantir, du moins, c'est ce qu'on croit mais bref tout ça pour dire qu'on cherche de l'absolu dans absolument tout, des idées, des personnages politiques, une nation, une identité, même l'amour d'un club de foot ^^.
J'ai bien conscience d'avoir déjà rencontré tous ces thèmes auparavant mais je vois pas ça comme un point faible du livre. Toute pensée cohérente mérite d'être réécrite indéfiniment parce qu'à la lumière d'autres lectures, on la reçoit différemment, parfois mieux.
Bref, je trouve ce livre absolument émancipateur et plus digeste à lire que Nietzchhehhseh.
PS: J'ai eu un orgasme quand il détaille l’étymologie de certains mots d'origine grecque, comme si je les lisais et comprenais leur sens pour la première fois, mais c'est un délire assez inavouable en société. ^^
L'effet le plus amusant du livre, c'est qu'après l'avoir refermé, on se surprend à questionner les choses auxquelles on croit et on découvre la part de mensonge qu'elles habitent. Sans tout détruire de nos fondations, ça permet de démythifier certaines passions et de voir comment elles altèrent notre bon jugement. La première qui me soit venue en tête après quelques pas dans le froid hors de la médiathèque, c'est la passion amoureuse, cette personne qu'on idéalise, de laquelle on attend tout et qui peut à tout moment nous anéantir, du moins, c'est ce qu'on croit mais bref tout ça pour dire qu'on cherche de l'absolu dans absolument tout, des idées, des personnages politiques, une nation, une identité, même l'amour d'un club de foot ^^.
J'ai bien conscience d'avoir déjà rencontré tous ces thèmes auparavant mais je vois pas ça comme un point faible du livre. Toute pensée cohérente mérite d'être réécrite indéfiniment parce qu'à la lumière d'autres lectures, on la reçoit différemment, parfois mieux.
Bref, je trouve ce livre absolument émancipateur et plus digeste à lire que Nietzchhehhseh.
PS: J'ai eu un orgasme quand il détaille l’étymologie de certains mots d'origine grecque, comme si je les lisais et comprenais leur sens pour la première fois, mais c'est un délire assez inavouable en société. ^^
April 27, 2015
I bought this CBC Massey lecture when it first appeared a couple of millennia ago (1974 - 75). It was important for me in that it was only after reading it that I first framed my own deeply-rooted skepticism. I agreed with Steiner up to the point of his discussion of scientific truth. Then I took a large piece of paper, stuck it up on the wall of my apartment and wrote, "I don't believe in anything." Still don't (I think). It definitely pointed out the impossibility all systematic philosophy for me.
-
Good book for those who are into a myth.
December 1, 2014
Steiner is a narrow-minded, xenophobic right-wing nut who somehow genuinely believes that anyone who does not share his ideas is less than. Ugh, I wrote angry retorts to his words on almost every page.
Not recommended.
Not recommended.
November 10, 2021
I guess I gave 3 stars to this book as an average for its 5 chapters, each of them being rated from 5 to 1, in descending order.
Conclusion: I am confused.
Conclusion: I am confused.
December 21, 2022
Steiner's Nostalgia for the Absolute comes from a series of lectures given at the University of Toronto in 1974 with the intent of describing the ironic, perhaps even tragic situation in Western culture as it developed symptomatic post-theological mythologies. The term "mythology" is not accidental as Steiner wants to identify the quasi-religious traits found in decidedly modern ideological systems such as Marxism, Freudian Psychoanalysis, and the Structuralist Anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss. Steiner's contention is that each of these schools of thought, which have played an indisputably significant and irreversible role in the development of Western thought and culture since their inception, rely upon distinctly religious conceptions of the world, of humanity, of morality, and of the future. While not being identical with formal, organized religions -the writings of Marx, Freud, and Levi-Strauss all strive to attain the distinction of scientific reason - they nonetheless present modern "mythologies" that attempt to fill the void left from the collapse of traditional theological authorities, specifically the Christian churches in the wake of the Second World War. The void Steiner identifies is the absence of a totalizing framework that explains the purpose of humanity, the origin of "sin," the method of redemption from that sin, and the final goal or end-state of the human race, be it beatitude or damnation.
As a lecture, Steiner's presentation is not a study of these systems in any great depth. Marx, Freud, and Levi-Strauss are discussed separately with attention to the specific ways they adopt the rhetoric and concepts of the Christian religion they were trying to replace in order to restore a grand sense of meaning and purpose for themselves and their follows. Marxism, for example, asserts de fide the original sin of exploitation, the wounds of alienation, the redemptive nature of class conflict and revolution, the final political paradise in an apocalyptic "withering away" of the State. History has shown these doctrines of Marx to be promises as empty as any apocalyptic cult. Steiner also pays attention to how those who adopted these mythologies carried them forward as "orthodox" disciples or "heretical" reformers seeking to return to the "true" reading of their master. In this light, the internecine conflicts between Lenin and Luxemburg, Stalin and Trotsky, Freud and Jung resemble some of the most dramatic moments in Christian history where the stakes of doctrinal correctness and practical obedience to the establishment splintered churches and sparked religious wars. Between the textual evidence that Steiner brings forward as well as the historical accounts of how these modern mythologies played out, his argument that Marxism, for example, is a pseudo-scientific rationalist religion with its founding myths, its canonical texts, its magisterium, preachers, martyrs, and heretics, seems more than credible. The interesting question, however, is why these mythologies came about at all.
The central goal of Steiner's inquiry is to elaborate what he calls, "nostalgia for the absolute." Modern mythologies are fundamentally nostalgic, romanticized quests to recapture the feeling of certainty, security, and destiny that was once supplied by dogmatic Christianity. A mythology like Psychoanalysis is definitively anti-religious and anti-illusion in as much as it seeks to dispel the enchantment of theology built upon the idea of transcendent and absolute God who reveals himself and transforms the sinner, substituting theological explanations of original sin, the disobedience in Eden, for a psychoanalytic "original sin," patricide. The similarities cannot be missed. Freud has an Oedipus for Augustine's Adam, a therapist for the incarnate Logos. Psychoanalysis is thus one of many nostalgic mythologies poised over the abyss because its interpretation of civilization and the inner world of human experience cannot possibly be falsified or verified as "revelation."
It is important to note, with Steiner, that these mythologies are not anti-religious in the Enlightenment sense, as one finds in Voltaire. They are not an attack on religion. They are nostalgic quasi-religions that are only be possible in the dual collapse of the cultural authority of Christian theology and the Enlightenment narratives of progress based in the proliferation of rational, scientific research. Modernity, for Steiner, no longer accepts the phrase, "the truth will set you free," without question. In an age where technological progress and ferocious inhumanity are united in the cause of final solutions, where the old authority of the Church either fails to speak against or instead actively supports the atrocity, where theologians fall silent before the holocaust, what remains of truth and freedom?
In Steiner's account, by the end of the 20th century our modern mythologies are becoming just as culturally bankrupt as the religion they hoped to surpass. Since 1974 it would seem his analysis has been vindicated since neither the Marxist nor the theologian have succeeding in guiding the world according to their lights. Without recourse to formal Christianity or the nostalgic mythologies of the absolute that came in its wake, Western civilization is faced with a crisis which it is apparently unable to solve. Steiner's opinion is that desire for the absolute is the DNA of Western culture for some unknown reason. It cannot be exorcised, and nostalgics like Marx, Freud, and Levi-Strauss illustrate the inability of the West to surrender its drive for truth despite the abeyance of transcendent religion, a tragic flaw inherited from the Greeks. This drive for truth, for the absolute, nonetheless is doomed to undermine its own efforts since it is based in a mythical assumption that all truths are beneficial for human society, a presupposition that cannot be founded on anything but a kind of religious faith. Thus, even George Steiner tacitly admits some nostalgia into his analysis as he tries to explain the contemporary situation of the West in dramatological terms. The West is fated to explore and exploit, perhaps not on the local level but as a whole. Prometheus features large in nostalgic mythologies, but so does Hamlet. Steiner leaves us with the feeling that the Western mind is beautiful, sincere, and fatally tainted.
Ultimately, Steiner grants his audience a modicum of hope about the future of truth. Whether or not humanity has a future is a question he is much more hesitant to answer. His pessimism regarding humanity appears tinged with the very nostalgia he illustrates in the lectures. While essentially negative about the capabilities of Western civilization to heal its own wounds, he continues to wonder if the disappearance of humanity from the universe would be regrettable from a philosophical standpoint. Whatever might be the value of Steiner's post-theological hunch about the merit of humanity, his account of how we came to inhabit a post-theological world plagued with deep impulses of religious nostalgia is a valuable insight to our contemporary condition, whether one is a believer or not.
As a lecture, Steiner's presentation is not a study of these systems in any great depth. Marx, Freud, and Levi-Strauss are discussed separately with attention to the specific ways they adopt the rhetoric and concepts of the Christian religion they were trying to replace in order to restore a grand sense of meaning and purpose for themselves and their follows. Marxism, for example, asserts de fide the original sin of exploitation, the wounds of alienation, the redemptive nature of class conflict and revolution, the final political paradise in an apocalyptic "withering away" of the State. History has shown these doctrines of Marx to be promises as empty as any apocalyptic cult. Steiner also pays attention to how those who adopted these mythologies carried them forward as "orthodox" disciples or "heretical" reformers seeking to return to the "true" reading of their master. In this light, the internecine conflicts between Lenin and Luxemburg, Stalin and Trotsky, Freud and Jung resemble some of the most dramatic moments in Christian history where the stakes of doctrinal correctness and practical obedience to the establishment splintered churches and sparked religious wars. Between the textual evidence that Steiner brings forward as well as the historical accounts of how these modern mythologies played out, his argument that Marxism, for example, is a pseudo-scientific rationalist religion with its founding myths, its canonical texts, its magisterium, preachers, martyrs, and heretics, seems more than credible. The interesting question, however, is why these mythologies came about at all.
The central goal of Steiner's inquiry is to elaborate what he calls, "nostalgia for the absolute." Modern mythologies are fundamentally nostalgic, romanticized quests to recapture the feeling of certainty, security, and destiny that was once supplied by dogmatic Christianity. A mythology like Psychoanalysis is definitively anti-religious and anti-illusion in as much as it seeks to dispel the enchantment of theology built upon the idea of transcendent and absolute God who reveals himself and transforms the sinner, substituting theological explanations of original sin, the disobedience in Eden, for a psychoanalytic "original sin," patricide. The similarities cannot be missed. Freud has an Oedipus for Augustine's Adam, a therapist for the incarnate Logos. Psychoanalysis is thus one of many nostalgic mythologies poised over the abyss because its interpretation of civilization and the inner world of human experience cannot possibly be falsified or verified as "revelation."
It is important to note, with Steiner, that these mythologies are not anti-religious in the Enlightenment sense, as one finds in Voltaire. They are not an attack on religion. They are nostalgic quasi-religions that are only be possible in the dual collapse of the cultural authority of Christian theology and the Enlightenment narratives of progress based in the proliferation of rational, scientific research. Modernity, for Steiner, no longer accepts the phrase, "the truth will set you free," without question. In an age where technological progress and ferocious inhumanity are united in the cause of final solutions, where the old authority of the Church either fails to speak against or instead actively supports the atrocity, where theologians fall silent before the holocaust, what remains of truth and freedom?
In Steiner's account, by the end of the 20th century our modern mythologies are becoming just as culturally bankrupt as the religion they hoped to surpass. Since 1974 it would seem his analysis has been vindicated since neither the Marxist nor the theologian have succeeding in guiding the world according to their lights. Without recourse to formal Christianity or the nostalgic mythologies of the absolute that came in its wake, Western civilization is faced with a crisis which it is apparently unable to solve. Steiner's opinion is that desire for the absolute is the DNA of Western culture for some unknown reason. It cannot be exorcised, and nostalgics like Marx, Freud, and Levi-Strauss illustrate the inability of the West to surrender its drive for truth despite the abeyance of transcendent religion, a tragic flaw inherited from the Greeks. This drive for truth, for the absolute, nonetheless is doomed to undermine its own efforts since it is based in a mythical assumption that all truths are beneficial for human society, a presupposition that cannot be founded on anything but a kind of religious faith. Thus, even George Steiner tacitly admits some nostalgia into his analysis as he tries to explain the contemporary situation of the West in dramatological terms. The West is fated to explore and exploit, perhaps not on the local level but as a whole. Prometheus features large in nostalgic mythologies, but so does Hamlet. Steiner leaves us with the feeling that the Western mind is beautiful, sincere, and fatally tainted.
Ultimately, Steiner grants his audience a modicum of hope about the future of truth. Whether or not humanity has a future is a question he is much more hesitant to answer. His pessimism regarding humanity appears tinged with the very nostalgia he illustrates in the lectures. While essentially negative about the capabilities of Western civilization to heal its own wounds, he continues to wonder if the disappearance of humanity from the universe would be regrettable from a philosophical standpoint. Whatever might be the value of Steiner's post-theological hunch about the merit of humanity, his account of how we came to inhabit a post-theological world plagued with deep impulses of religious nostalgia is a valuable insight to our contemporary condition, whether one is a believer or not.
August 21, 2022
4.5⭐
"Dacă nu cumva interpretez greșit dovezile existente, istoria filosofică și politică a Occidentului din ultimii 150 de ani poate fi înțeleasă ca o suită de încercări - mai mult sau mai puțin conștiente, mai mult sau mai puțin sistematice, mai mult sau mai puțin violente - de a umple acest gol central lăsat în urmă de erodarea teologiei. Acest vacuum, acest întuneric central, ține de experiența "morții lui Dumnezeu" (să nu uităm că tonalitatea ironică, tragică a lui Nietzsche în folosirea acestei expresii este atât de des înțeleasă greșit). Dar cred că putem să fim mai preciși: descompunerea unei doctrine creștine cuprinzătoare a lăsat în dezordine - sau a lăsat fără conținut - elemente esențiale ale viziunii noastre despre dreptatea socială, sensul istoriei umane, relația dintre minte și trup sau rolul cunoașterii în comportamentul nostru moral."
"Dacă nu cumva interpretez greșit dovezile existente, istoria filosofică și politică a Occidentului din ultimii 150 de ani poate fi înțeleasă ca o suită de încercări - mai mult sau mai puțin conștiente, mai mult sau mai puțin sistematice, mai mult sau mai puțin violente - de a umple acest gol central lăsat în urmă de erodarea teologiei. Acest vacuum, acest întuneric central, ține de experiența "morții lui Dumnezeu" (să nu uităm că tonalitatea ironică, tragică a lui Nietzsche în folosirea acestei expresii este atât de des înțeleasă greșit). Dar cred că putem să fim mai preciși: descompunerea unei doctrine creștine cuprinzătoare a lăsat în dezordine - sau a lăsat fără conținut - elemente esențiale ale viziunii noastre despre dreptatea socială, sensul istoriei umane, relația dintre minte și trup sau rolul cunoașterii în comportamentul nostru moral."
October 15, 2021
4.5 stars!
The little book, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, is one of the most extraordinary documents of the history of the Western tragic imagination. It formulates (and remember, it is only very rare individuals of genius who can do so) a myth of the meaning of life as comprehensive, as metaphorically authoritative, as those that have come down to us from ancient, collective sources. Two deities, two gods, two overwhelming agencies, govern and divide our being, said Freud. Love and death, Eros and Thanatos. The conflict between them determines the rhythms of existence, of procreation, of somatic and psychic evolution. But finally— the contrary to all intuitive, instinctive expectations, to all our hopes— it is not Eros, not love, but Thanatos who is the stronger, who is closer to the roots of man. What the species strives for, finally, is not survival and perpetuation, but repose, perfect inertness. In Freud's visionary programme, the explosion of organic life, which has led to human evolution, was a kind of tragic anomaly, almost a fatal exuberance. It has brought with it untold pain and ecological waste. But this detour of life and consciousness will sooner or later end. An internal entropy is at work. A great quietness will return to creation as life reverts to the natural condition of the inorganic. The consummation of the libido lies in death.
The ability of Mr. Steiner to condense complex ideas in highly economical prose without compromising the beauty, richness and readability of its employed language is commendable. A really thought-provoking read.
The little book, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, is one of the most extraordinary documents of the history of the Western tragic imagination. It formulates (and remember, it is only very rare individuals of genius who can do so) a myth of the meaning of life as comprehensive, as metaphorically authoritative, as those that have come down to us from ancient, collective sources. Two deities, two gods, two overwhelming agencies, govern and divide our being, said Freud. Love and death, Eros and Thanatos. The conflict between them determines the rhythms of existence, of procreation, of somatic and psychic evolution. But finally— the contrary to all intuitive, instinctive expectations, to all our hopes— it is not Eros, not love, but Thanatos who is the stronger, who is closer to the roots of man. What the species strives for, finally, is not survival and perpetuation, but repose, perfect inertness. In Freud's visionary programme, the explosion of organic life, which has led to human evolution, was a kind of tragic anomaly, almost a fatal exuberance. It has brought with it untold pain and ecological waste. But this detour of life and consciousness will sooner or later end. An internal entropy is at work. A great quietness will return to creation as life reverts to the natural condition of the inorganic. The consummation of the libido lies in death.
The ability of Mr. Steiner to condense complex ideas in highly economical prose without compromising the beauty, richness and readability of its employed language is commendable. A really thought-provoking read.
May 28, 2022
မာ့စ်ရယ်၊ဖရိုက်ရယ်၊စထရော့(strauss)ရယ်ကို ဝေဖန်ထားတာ။ဆင်ခြင်ခြင်းစနစ်မကျတဲ့၊သိပ္ပံနည်းကျမဖြစ်တဲ့ စနစ်တွေ။
ဘုရားသခင်သေဆုံးပီးတဲ့နောက်၊လစ်ဟာသွားတဲ့ ကွက်လပ်နေရာကို ဖြည့်ဖို့ ကြိုးစားချက်တွေအဖြစ် ဝေဖန်ထားတယ်။
ဆိုးတာကတော့ သိပ္ပံနယ်လွန်တွေ၊ဗေဒင်တွေနဲ့ပါ တူတူထားပြောတာမျိုးထိပဲ။
ဒါပေမယ့် နောက်ဆုံးသူပြောတဲ့ အဖြေက ကားမာ့စ်ပြောတာနဲ့တောင် ဆင်တူနေသေးတယ်။
တကယ့်ဖြစ်ရပ်များသည် မည်သူတဦးတယောက်၏ ဆန္ဒကိုမှ မလိုက် ဆိုတာပဲ။
ဘုရားသခင်သေဆုံးပီးတဲ့နောက်၊လစ်ဟာသွားတဲ့ ကွက်လပ်နေရာကို ဖြည့်ဖို့ ကြိုးစားချက်တွေအဖြစ် ဝေဖန်ထားတယ်။
ဆိုးတာကတော့ သိပ္ပံနယ်လွန်တွေ၊ဗေဒင်တွေနဲ့ပါ တူတူထားပြောတာမျိုးထိပဲ။
ဒါပေမယ့် နောက်ဆုံးသူပြောတဲ့ အဖြေက ကားမာ့စ်ပြောတာနဲ့တောင် ဆင်တူနေသေးတယ်။
တကယ့်ဖြစ်ရပ်များသည် မည်သူတဦးတယောက်၏ ဆန္ဒကိုမှ မလိုက် ဆိုတာပဲ။
May 29, 2018
Not an uninteresting book, considering the topics it hovers upon. But incomplete and incoherent.
March 15, 2023
mel vaig comprar per l’edicio i mel tornaria a comprar pel contingut. mencanta la critica q fa a marx (bueno i a freud i levistrauss pero especialment a marx), molt ben feta.
January 17, 2022
In summary, Steiner critiques Marxism, psychoanalysis, and Lévi-Strauss' anthropology as modern relics of theological emblems; and the protruding relatedness between these 'speculative, non-scientific' theories, and religion (Judaism, Christianity) is a sign of its banality, mythological swerve, imaginary void. Steiner clandestinely spear-heads a scientism that doesn't loud itself, he attacks the 'obscurantism' of the humanities, dissolves dualisms, and champions an atmosphere of rationalisms motivated by the scientific outlook. It becomes clear that Steiner despises religion, such that a successful critique of the theoretical, analytical placements of modern philosophy and whatnot, has to take the shady twinning garment of resemblance to religion, to be pitchforked into the abyss of falsity. Marx becomes the Prometheus messianic saviour, who more than anything, catapulted wars and hunger through his theories than save the working class from the strongholds of oppression. Freud, a mythologist with a wrong-headed, perverted notion of Eros and Thanatos. Lévi-Strauss, an apocalyptic anthropologist in the same vein of the biblical revelations. Among the Steiner-diagnosed irrationalisms are astrology, the Occult, and 'Orientalism' (Eastern religions and philosophy). All, nostalgic for some absolute, hence wrong. Excluding science. Steiner loves science.
Steiner's grudge for the 'Orientalism' (which he caricatured as a hodgepodge of guru-loving zombies aiming for nirvana, doing tricks of yoga etc) is that the Western man pursues these Eastern traditions to fill the void of the bankruptcy of Western religions and traditions. Replacing illusions for illusions. But even more bizarrely, he said;
“The Western sense of failure, of potential social-political chaos, has also caused a revulsion against the ethnic and cultural centralism which marks European and Anglo-Saxon thought from ancient Athens to the 1920s. The assumption that Western civilization is superior to all others, that Western philosophy, science, political institutions, are manifestly destined to rule and transform the globe, is no longer self-evident. Many Westerners, the young especially, find it abhorrent. Appalled by the folly of imperialist wars, outraged by the ecological devastation which Western technology has entailed, the flower child and the freak-out, the Symbionese liberationist, and the dharma bum have turned to other cultures. It is the traditions of Asia, of the American Indian, of the black African, which draw him. It is among these that he finds those qualities of dignity, communal solidarity, mythological invention, involvement in the vegetable and animal orders, which Western man has lost or brutally eradicated.”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here he is implying a shady discrepancy because the assumption of the superiority of the west is no longer prevalent amongst Westerners. He considers the traditions of Asia, American Indian, black African, inadequate illusions the Westerner should be wise enough not to partake, as they're myth-inventing relics of irrationalisms. I'm awed at the high reception this astoundingly sick book garners, as it is loudly wrong, jejune, and myopic, edging on pompously arrogant superiority, and intellectual hubris. Steiner's proofs to support his arguments and declarations are turbulent and trivially selective. His broader slogan of theological resemblance is bedimmed by the parochial, reductive and cherry-picked understanding of the worldviews his thorn-sharp finger prickles. Nostalgia for the Absolute is a very incoherent work, endowed with strawmans and hushed racist undertones.
Steiner's grudge for the 'Orientalism' (which he caricatured as a hodgepodge of guru-loving zombies aiming for nirvana, doing tricks of yoga etc) is that the Western man pursues these Eastern traditions to fill the void of the bankruptcy of Western religions and traditions. Replacing illusions for illusions. But even more bizarrely, he said;
“The Western sense of failure, of potential social-political chaos, has also caused a revulsion against the ethnic and cultural centralism which marks European and Anglo-Saxon thought from ancient Athens to the 1920s. The assumption that Western civilization is superior to all others, that Western philosophy, science, political institutions, are manifestly destined to rule and transform the globe, is no longer self-evident. Many Westerners, the young especially, find it abhorrent. Appalled by the folly of imperialist wars, outraged by the ecological devastation which Western technology has entailed, the flower child and the freak-out, the Symbionese liberationist, and the dharma bum have turned to other cultures. It is the traditions of Asia, of the American Indian, of the black African, which draw him. It is among these that he finds those qualities of dignity, communal solidarity, mythological invention, involvement in the vegetable and animal orders, which Western man has lost or brutally eradicated.”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here he is implying a shady discrepancy because the assumption of the superiority of the west is no longer prevalent amongst Westerners. He considers the traditions of Asia, American Indian, black African, inadequate illusions the Westerner should be wise enough not to partake, as they're myth-inventing relics of irrationalisms. I'm awed at the high reception this astoundingly sick book garners, as it is loudly wrong, jejune, and myopic, edging on pompously arrogant superiority, and intellectual hubris. Steiner's proofs to support his arguments and declarations are turbulent and trivially selective. His broader slogan of theological resemblance is bedimmed by the parochial, reductive and cherry-picked understanding of the worldviews his thorn-sharp finger prickles. Nostalgia for the Absolute is a very incoherent work, endowed with strawmans and hushed racist undertones.
February 9, 2020
Cinco conferencias en las que George Steiner analiza y llama mitologías a la filosofía política de Marx, el psicoanálisis de Freud y la antropología de Lévi-Strauss, despues se mete con la astrología y los creencias orientales, todos ellos intentos fallidos de dar una respuesta universal a la crisis de sentido que afecta al hombre moderno. La busqueda de la verdad.
July 8, 2016
No es el George Steiner más inspirado. Para mi gusto, hay demasiados lugares comunes y resulta banal su crítica a los sustitutos religiosos: el marxismo, el psicoanálisis, la antropología estructural de Levi-Strauss o lo que él denomina orientalismos.
February 15, 2017
Five lectures on the decline of Christianity, 'the death of God', and its effects on Western civilization.
Steiner examines three modern mythologies which attempt to fill the gap, the hunger for absolute truth, left by the decline of religion: Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Levi-Straussian anthropology. A mythology, in Steiner's sense of the word, has an easily recognizable beginning and development: a prophetic vision preserved in canonical texts; later disciples and prophets develop the teaching; there is a passionate conflict between sects, each believing they present the truth, that they are the genuine heirs to the founding prophet competing with dangerous and deluded heretics. The mythology presents a total explanation of history and humanity's place in the cosmos; quite often it claims that the analysis is based on science, though it will tend to be unfalsifiable and so not qualify as a scientific theory. The mythology has its own vocabulary, its own rituals and legends and imagery.
His examination of Marxism is particularly effective, eg.
The fourth lecture examines modern superstitions and irrationality: astrology, UFOs, occultism, Eastern mysticism repackaged and hollowed out for Western audiences. This lecture is more lighthearted: Steiner is having a good rant about things that clearly piss him off.
In the final lecture, he talks about the history of scientific truth - a relatively short history - and how thinkers from the Enlightenment onward hoped that the pursuit of scientific truth would replace religious myths and mysteries. Alas, the pursuit of scientific truth - subject to falsification, experimental proof, and logical constraints - is not something that can ignites the passions of all hearts. He discusses whether the truth, when discovered, will actually be beneficial to humanity. I found this lecture a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion, though it does have neat closing paragraph:
Steiner examines three modern mythologies which attempt to fill the gap, the hunger for absolute truth, left by the decline of religion: Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Levi-Straussian anthropology. A mythology, in Steiner's sense of the word, has an easily recognizable beginning and development: a prophetic vision preserved in canonical texts; later disciples and prophets develop the teaching; there is a passionate conflict between sects, each believing they present the truth, that they are the genuine heirs to the founding prophet competing with dangerous and deluded heretics. The mythology presents a total explanation of history and humanity's place in the cosmos; quite often it claims that the analysis is based on science, though it will tend to be unfalsifiable and so not qualify as a scientific theory. The mythology has its own vocabulary, its own rituals and legends and imagery.
His examination of Marxism is particularly effective, eg.
We recognise in the history of Marxism each of the attributes [...] We have the vision of the prophet and the canonical texts which are bequeathed to the faithful by the most important apostle [...] We find a history of ferocious conflict between the orthodox heirs to the master and the heretics, an unbroken family of fission from the time of the Mensheviks to Trotsky and now to Mao. Each time (and this is the theological scenario) a new group of heretics breaks away; and it always says, look, we have the real message of the master; listen to us, the sacred texts have been corrupted, the Gospel is in our keeping; don't listen to the church at the centre. How familiar all this is to students of the history of Christianity. Marxism has its legends [...] Marxism has its vocabulary. Marxism has its emblems, its symbolic gestures, just like any transcendent religious faith [...] It offers a complete explanation of man's function in biological and in social reality. Above all, it offers a contract of messianic promise concerning the future.
The fourth lecture examines modern superstitions and irrationality: astrology, UFOs, occultism, Eastern mysticism repackaged and hollowed out for Western audiences. This lecture is more lighthearted: Steiner is having a good rant about things that clearly piss him off.
In the final lecture, he talks about the history of scientific truth - a relatively short history - and how thinkers from the Enlightenment onward hoped that the pursuit of scientific truth would replace religious myths and mysteries. Alas, the pursuit of scientific truth - subject to falsification, experimental proof, and logical constraints - is not something that can ignites the passions of all hearts. He discusses whether the truth, when discovered, will actually be beneficial to humanity. I found this lecture a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion, though it does have neat closing paragraph:
The truth, I believe, does have a future; whether man does is much less clear. But I cannot help having a hunch as to which of the two is more important.
October 3, 2017
"L’ostacolo esercita su di noi un’attrazione magnetica. C’è qualcosa nel fondo di ciascuno di noi che preferisce le difficoltà, che cerca le questioni aggrovigliate. Al livello più elevato, questo avviene perché i più dotati, i più vitali fra noi sanno da tempo – senza avere magari mai articolato questa consapevolezza – che la verità è più complessa dei bisogni dell’uomo, che in realtà può essere totalmente estranea e nemica di questi bisogni. […]
Era una convinzione profondamente ottimistica, propria del pensiero classico greco e certamente del razionalismo in Europa, che la verità fosse in qualche modo amica dell’uomo, che qualunque cosa si scoprisse, in ultima analisi sarebbe andata a beneficio della specie. Magari ci sarebbe voluto moltissimo tempo. Buona parte della ricerca non aveva chiaramente niente a che fare con l’immediato vantaggio economico o sociale. Ma bastava aspettare un tempo sufficiente, pensare fortemente, essere abbastanza disinteressati nella propria ricerca, e si sarebbe trovata una profonda armonia con la verità che si era scoperta. Mi chiedo se sia così o se proprio questa sia stata la nostra più grande illusione romantica. Ho in mente un’immagine della verità che sta in agguato dietro l’angolo aspettando che l’uomo si avvicini, pronta a dargli una bastonata in testa." (p. 78)
Era una convinzione profondamente ottimistica, propria del pensiero classico greco e certamente del razionalismo in Europa, che la verità fosse in qualche modo amica dell’uomo, che qualunque cosa si scoprisse, in ultima analisi sarebbe andata a beneficio della specie. Magari ci sarebbe voluto moltissimo tempo. Buona parte della ricerca non aveva chiaramente niente a che fare con l’immediato vantaggio economico o sociale. Ma bastava aspettare un tempo sufficiente, pensare fortemente, essere abbastanza disinteressati nella propria ricerca, e si sarebbe trovata una profonda armonia con la verità che si era scoperta. Mi chiedo se sia così o se proprio questa sia stata la nostra più grande illusione romantica. Ho in mente un’immagine della verità che sta in agguato dietro l’angolo aspettando che l’uomo si avvicini, pronta a dargli una bastonata in testa." (p. 78)
July 26, 2020
“Pero existe también por primera vez en la tradición occidental, y pienso que de manera mucho más inquietante, una incongruencia, un desfase, entre la verdad y la supervivencia humana, entre la búsqueda racional de la verdad y los ideales contrastantes de la justicia social. No se trata sólo de que la verdad pueda no hacernos libres, sino de que puede destruirnos.”
El gran crítico literario, fallecido a principio de febrero del 2020, fue uno de los críticos literarios mas agudos e importantes del siglo XX. Sus ultimo años decidió colocarse detrás de la sombra que el foco de atención pudiera captar, los medios de comunicación y las conferencias.
Este pequeño libro, nos muestra como la cultura occidental sufre una dramática crisis de confianza. Las dos guerras mundiales --con la barbarie del Holocausto-- pusieron de manifiesto que la religión organizada y el cristianismo en particular, ya minados por el racionalismo científico tecnológico, eran impotentes frente a las masacres bélicas y los terrores totalitarios de uno y otro signo. Así se produjo la bancarrota de cualquier postura teológica. Pero al mismo tiempo, afectados por la catástrofe, viviendo bajo la amenaza de la autodestrucción atómica y los problemas de la superpoblación, el hambre y el odio políticos, los hombres y las mujeres empezaron a mirar fuera de la Tierra.
El gran crítico literario, fallecido a principio de febrero del 2020, fue uno de los críticos literarios mas agudos e importantes del siglo XX. Sus ultimo años decidió colocarse detrás de la sombra que el foco de atención pudiera captar, los medios de comunicación y las conferencias.
Este pequeño libro, nos muestra como la cultura occidental sufre una dramática crisis de confianza. Las dos guerras mundiales --con la barbarie del Holocausto-- pusieron de manifiesto que la religión organizada y el cristianismo en particular, ya minados por el racionalismo científico tecnológico, eran impotentes frente a las masacres bélicas y los terrores totalitarios de uno y otro signo. Así se produjo la bancarrota de cualquier postura teológica. Pero al mismo tiempo, afectados por la catástrofe, viviendo bajo la amenaza de la autodestrucción atómica y los problemas de la superpoblación, el hambre y el odio políticos, los hombres y las mujeres empezaron a mirar fuera de la Tierra.
March 3, 2025
Steiner plantea que la decadencia de las religiones dejó un vacío que ha buscado llenarse a lo largo del siglo XX por sistemas de pensamiento que, disfrazados de una aparente racionalidad objetiva, tratan de componer un sentido que reoriente el devenir del pensamiento humano. Estas "nuevas religiones" (como el marxismo o el psicoanálisis) comparten, según Steiner, las mismas estructuras mitológicas que creencias como el cristianismo o el judaísmo: una cierta pretensión de totalidad, símbolos cruciales y textos canónicos que dan origen al sistema, y una total oposición a quienes no comparten sus puntos de vista.
Si bien estoy de acuerdo con la tesis, me molesta la pedantería de Steiner a la hora de hacer una separación tajante entre los saberes "privilegiados" para entender la realidad y aquellos que, según él, no lo son. Desacredita, por ejemplo, todas las referencias literarias que Freud utiliza para defender sus teorías.
La última conferencia es, por mucho, la más interesante, ya que tiene que ver con la confianza excesiva que hoy depositamos en la ciencia: ¿tiene algún límite nuestro conocimiento? ¿Qué entendemos por verdad hoy? Si el ser humano llegara a descubrir alguna verdad insoportable, ¿sería preferible volver a algún estado "más primitivo" (lo que sea que eso signifique) de tal forma que la realidad del conocimiento no nos suma en la desesperación?
Si bien estoy de acuerdo con la tesis, me molesta la pedantería de Steiner a la hora de hacer una separación tajante entre los saberes "privilegiados" para entender la realidad y aquellos que, según él, no lo son. Desacredita, por ejemplo, todas las referencias literarias que Freud utiliza para defender sus teorías.
La última conferencia es, por mucho, la más interesante, ya que tiene que ver con la confianza excesiva que hoy depositamos en la ciencia: ¿tiene algún límite nuestro conocimiento? ¿Qué entendemos por verdad hoy? Si el ser humano llegara a descubrir alguna verdad insoportable, ¿sería preferible volver a algún estado "más primitivo" (lo que sea que eso signifique) de tal forma que la realidad del conocimiento no nos suma en la desesperación?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews