The Hero in History: A Study in Limitation and Possibility

by Sidney Hook

Many of the earliest books, particularly those dating back to the 1900s and before, are now extremely scarce and increasingly expensive. Hesperides Press are republishing these classic works in affordable, high quality, modern editions, using the original text and artwork.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction

273 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1943

About the author

Sidney Hook was an American pragmatic philosopher known for his contributions to public debates. A student of John Dewey, Hook continued to examine the philosophy of history, of education, politics, and of ethics. He was known for his criticisms of totalitarianism (fascism and Marxism–Leninism). A pragmatic social democrat, Hook sometimes cooperated with conservatives, particularly in opposing communism. After WWII, he argued that members of conspiracies, like the Communist Party USA and other Leninist conspiracies, ethically could be barred from holding offices of public trust.

Reviews

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este livro foi escrito nos anos 1940 por Sidney Hook e faz uma análise do papel do herói na História. Sim, na história com H maiúsculo e não na literatura. O autor quer entender como e por que certas pessoas entram na história como heróis e outras, mesmo que tenham a mesma importância ou façam as mesmas coisas, não têm o mesmo êxito. Para Hook o herói é um evento, um acontecimento e, por sua natureza acontencimental, ele depende de contexto para ter sucesso em se tornar notabilizado. Assim, o autor separa o herói contextual em dois tipos: aquele feito pelo momento e aquele que faz seu próprio momento. Tentando exemplificar sua teoria, Sidney Hook usa dois exemplos: a Revolução Francesa e a Revolução Russa, que analisa esta segunda de forma esmiuçada. Achei que este é um livro muito interessante e, pra uma obra desenvolvida nos anos 1940, incrivelmente clara e direta, coisa que muitos livros atuais não conseguem ser. The Hero in History trouxe bons insights para minha pesquisa.

[Christofer Beaudry · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few weeks ago, I bought my tattered copy of Sidney Hook's 1943 "The Hero in History" from a closing used bookstore. It wasn't originally in my pile, but I added it in order to qualify for the going-out-of-business sale. A few days ago, I opened it up and started reading. Today I would place this book somewhere within my top 20 -maybe 25- favorite works of philosophy.

Written during the Second World War, "The Hero in History" explores the Philosophy of History, and the relationship between individual autonomy, and the overwhelming social, political, and biological forces of history. He widens the scope of the Free-Will or Determinism debate to the grand scale of human history, and in doing so explores the logical conclusions of the debate that shake our contemporary understanding far beyond the scope of trivial concerns to which the debate is traditionally confined.

Rather than merely being an introductory text or anthology on the Philosophy of History, Hook makes critical contributions through his own analysis and arguments. He discusses thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Engels, Spencer, and Trotsky -among others, and uses examples such as Napoleon, Beethoven, Newton, Hitler, and most of all Lenin -among others. He draws interesting distinctions between "the hero of historical action and the hero of thought," as well as between the "eventful man" and the "event-making man."

Far from perfect, Hook's work is riddled with a few boring and unnecessary chapters, some weak arguments, and worst of all both implicit and explicit sexism. Furthermore, his arguments looking back on the past are noticeably stronger than any he makes with an eye towards the future.

All things considered: 5 stars, an interesting, stimulating, entertaining, and informative delve into the Philosophy of History. It is perhaps one of the many tragedies of history that Hook has gone unrecognized as the "hero of thought" that he should have become.

[Ali G. Mushkel · Rating 4 out of 5]

"على المجتمع أن يكوّن الرجل العظيم قبل أن يستطيع الرجل العظيم أن يعيد تكوين المجتمع"

هربرت سبنسر.

أن الايمان بالبطل هو اليوم اكثر من أي يوم مضى، سلعة مصطنعة اصطناعاً، فإن الذي يسيطر على الإعلام يستطيع أن يصنع أو يهدم الاعتقاد به بين ليلة وضحاها، فكلما ازدادت الأزمة حدة اشتد التوق سواء أكان هذا التوق صلاة صامتة أو تضرعاً عاماً من الجمهور من اجل الرجل الذي سيسيطر عليها، أحياناً يدعى هذا الرجل (المنقذ، الفارس، النبي، المصلح، الحبيب، الثوري) يقول انجلز: أن ظهور شخص معين دون غيره في زمن محدد وفي بلد معين هو بالطبع صدفة مجردة، ولكننا لو قضينا على ذلك الرجل تظل دائماً ثمة حاجة إلى بديل لابد له في المدى البعيد من أن يتوفر سواء أكان صالحاً ام شريراً.
من خلال عدة فصول يحاول هوك أن يفسر ظاهرة البطل والاسباب التي تؤدي إلى ظهوره أن كان حالة إجتماعية مفروضة أو من خلال الصدف التي تحقق هذا الشيء، متخذاً عدة نماذج من أبطال التاريخ وصانعي الحدث ووضعها تحت مجهر التحليل من خلال اراء عدة مفكرين.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

noticeably dated bit still interesting to read. introduces a new line of thought inn historical studies

[José Pereira · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had no idea this book existed, read it only because it was recommended to me as "one of the best defenses of collectivism ever written". I don't really see that. But it definitely is one of the best things I have read on the philosophy of history (the competition isn't strong, though).
Going against the common trope in philosophy of history of sketching some grand theory of historical development, Hook examines - with historical & philosophical methods - common views of historical change. He is quite successful in revealing the inconsistencies of the many theories that ascribe unique importance to events, individuals, determined collectives, or any given agent.
Hook ends up gesturing towards a not-very-clear account that blends processualism with pyrrhonism, a product of the heterodox marxism he espoused at the time, I guess.
The book is valuable for the critical part, though. Definitely a good thing to recommend to traditionalists and all those (most not very attentive people, I think) that love to "laud" Napoleon, Darwin, the French Revolution, Churchill, or Mozart.