What do you think?
Rate this book
At the End of an Age
At the End of an Age is a reflection on the nature of historical and scientific knowledge. Of extraordinary philosophical, religious, and historical scope, it is the product of a great historian's lifetime of thought on the subject of his discipline and the human condition. While running counter to most of the accepted ideas and doctrines of our time, it offers a compelling framework for understanding history, science, and man's capacity for self-knowledge.
In this work, John Lukacs describes how we in the Western world have now been living through the ending of an entire historical age that began in Western Europe about five hundred years ago. Unlike people during the ending of the Middle Ages or the Roman empire, we can know where we are. But how and what is it that we know?
In this work, John Lukacs describes how we in the Western world have now been living through the ending of an entire historical age that began in Western Europe about five hundred years ago. Unlike people during the ending of the Middle Ages or the Roman empire, we can know where we are. But how and what is it that we know?
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
8 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
About the author
John Lukacs
63 books116 followersLukacs was born in Budapest to a Roman Catholic father and Jewish mother. His parents divorced before the Second World War. During the Second World War he was forced to serve in a Hungarian labour battalion for Jews. During the German occupation of Hungary in 1944-45 he evaded deportation to the death camps, and survived the siege of Budapest. In 1946, as it became clear that Hungary was going to be a repressive Communist regime, he fled to the United States. In the early 1950s however, Lukacs wrote several articles in Commonweal criticizing the approach taken by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom he described as a vulgar demagogue.[1]
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 1, 2015
A late essay by the singular Lukacs, this book is essentially a summa contra determinism, materialism, and scientism, and a plea for a genuine mode of historical thinking about humanity's place in the world.
To quote one of the author's ubiquitous footnotes, "...Louis Victor de Broglie in 1939: 'The notions of causality and of individuality have had to undergo a fresh scrutiny, and it seems certain that this major crisis, affecting the guiding principles of our physical concepts will be the source of philosophical consequences which cannot yet be clearly perceived.' Twenty years later this historian was attempting to recognize some of them; and another forty years later--at the end of the Modern Age--this book represents a, necessarily, imperfect, attempt to summarize their meaning."
Invoking Heisenberg, Pierre Duhem, and a host of luminaries (Lukacs' long and distinguished career as a historian is evident), the author's main point can partially be summed up when he writes, "It is our imaginative capacity which, together with memory proves, among other things, that the laws of physics do not always and everywhere apply to the perceptions and functions of our minds... It is not only that 'Know Thyself!' is the necessary fundament of all our understanding of other human beings. It is that we can never go entirely outside of ourselves, just as we cannot ever go outside the universe to look at it."
To quote one of the author's ubiquitous footnotes, "...Louis Victor de Broglie in 1939: 'The notions of causality and of individuality have had to undergo a fresh scrutiny, and it seems certain that this major crisis, affecting the guiding principles of our physical concepts will be the source of philosophical consequences which cannot yet be clearly perceived.' Twenty years later this historian was attempting to recognize some of them; and another forty years later--at the end of the Modern Age--this book represents a, necessarily, imperfect, attempt to summarize their meaning."
Invoking Heisenberg, Pierre Duhem, and a host of luminaries (Lukacs' long and distinguished career as a historian is evident), the author's main point can partially be summed up when he writes, "It is our imaginative capacity which, together with memory proves, among other things, that the laws of physics do not always and everywhere apply to the perceptions and functions of our minds... It is not only that 'Know Thyself!' is the necessary fundament of all our understanding of other human beings. It is that we can never go entirely outside of ourselves, just as we cannot ever go outside the universe to look at it."
February 25, 2012
This is a good cursory introduction to Lukacs's main project. It covers elements from his two greatest works (Historical Consciousness and Confessions of an Original Sinner) especially. Although those two books are more thorough and to be more highly commended, End of an Age is a great choice for those impatient readers hoping to grasp the salient thoughts of this historian.
May 26, 2019
Quantum uncertainty and mathematical indeterminacy mean that the supposed "gap" between knowledge of human affairs (history) and knowledge of natural things (science) has been closed. All knowledge implicates the knower -- one who knows always participates directly with the known thing. There is no such thing as a pure subject or pure object: the foundations of the modern scientific enterprise have unraveled themselves in Heisenberg and Gödel. Knowledge is fundamentally historical. Scientific knowledge, properly understood, is the history of science.
The Modern Age, Lukacs insists, is rapidly coming to a close. Something else lies on the other side, but it is impossible to know what it is until it arrives (though some recent developments in thinking in the late 20th century might point to what lies on the horizon). Our task, as those who will see the dawn of this new era, is to reflect -- seriously and deliberately -- on our own thinking.
The Modern Age, Lukacs insists, is rapidly coming to a close. Something else lies on the other side, but it is impossible to know what it is until it arrives (though some recent developments in thinking in the late 20th century might point to what lies on the horizon). Our task, as those who will see the dawn of this new era, is to reflect -- seriously and deliberately -- on our own thinking.
October 30, 2019
Lukacs, like Christopher Lasch, Jaroslav Pelikan, Christopher Dawson and NT Wright is deeply comforting company to keep. Although, like those others, he can be positively unsettling in overturning complacent attitudes and beliefs that lack timeless continuity.
John is an historian who actually writes the truth, however imperfectly, in a sea of books proffering no more than banal determinism.
This late text, and Lukacs' other larger works, serve as a corrective to the deceitful books, which take up space in airports and in high street book stores, regurgitating modern age myths such as marxist, or kin, materialisms. Whether they do so consciously or not.
In stark contrast, the late Lukacs writes powerfully in this and other works about 'historical consciousness' and of man as a free actor involved in meaningful history. A creature conducive to 'imagination' and 'inspiration'.
Like Lasch, he writes descriptively about various forms of bourgeois, middle and upper class habits and beliefs, changes in culture from different directions. Most often many at once of course.
John Lukacs can move swiftly from sex relations to the roles of production and consumption in industrial and technological societies without inducing us to sleep. This is testament to his skill as a writer and meaningful overarching themes. He writes passionately about many other, often more important, themes than the few I've mentioned and serves to (re)orient us at the dawn of a new age of man. He is worth following.
John is an historian who actually writes the truth, however imperfectly, in a sea of books proffering no more than banal determinism.
This late text, and Lukacs' other larger works, serve as a corrective to the deceitful books, which take up space in airports and in high street book stores, regurgitating modern age myths such as marxist, or kin, materialisms. Whether they do so consciously or not.
In stark contrast, the late Lukacs writes powerfully in this and other works about 'historical consciousness' and of man as a free actor involved in meaningful history. A creature conducive to 'imagination' and 'inspiration'.
Like Lasch, he writes descriptively about various forms of bourgeois, middle and upper class habits and beliefs, changes in culture from different directions. Most often many at once of course.
John Lukacs can move swiftly from sex relations to the roles of production and consumption in industrial and technological societies without inducing us to sleep. This is testament to his skill as a writer and meaningful overarching themes. He writes passionately about many other, often more important, themes than the few I've mentioned and serves to (re)orient us at the dawn of a new age of man. He is worth following.
August 14, 2022
John Lukacs’ At the End of an Age is a small book with a lot to say. Its aim is to present a sweeping and mostly informal discussion about the historical and present circumstances of the world and how they relate to (or are inseparable from) mankind through the lens of the historian (Lukacs, in this case). According to Lukacs, “history is the memory of mankind,” a non-scientific activity or effort exclusively dependent on the historian, so this text speaks for itself.
From the get-go, Lukacs claims that the Modern Age, as he coins it, has come to an end and inarguably is in a state of decline. The Modern Age, succeeding the Ancient Age and Middle Ages, has had several “sub-ages,” such as the Bourgeois Age, but it's all finally coming to a close. In the first chapter, the first of five, Lukacs provides a cursory history of the Modern Age, from its infancy to its currently deplorable conditions. Each chapter presents a thesis that Lukacs expounds and defends.
Lukacs draws from myriad sources to defend his views, from historians, philosophers, artists, and scientists, presumably from a lifetime of reading. This book, a work of philosophy that nearly summarizes the author’s beliefs from decades of writing and research, presents arguments through the lenses of history and science (primarily physics), with a sprinkling of Christianity. (A “sprinkling” meaning that the author’s Christian beliefs are never stated outright but sneak in unassumingly throughout.)
The primary issue with At the End of an Age is Lukacs’ mischaracterization and overemphasis of certain concepts in physics. Physics is typically the primary natural science against which, or based on which, many thinkers test their mettle. In Lukacs’ case, however, it is to his detriment, whereas his ideas concerning history are insightful (such as his research on Hitler), relevant (in his review of contemporary issues), philosophical in nature, and reminiscent of the views expounded by Ortega y Gasset (for better or worse).
Unfortunately, Lukacs’ diatribe against deterministic physics constitutes almost half the book, which isn’t enough to fully flesh out his issues when keywords like “fact,” “reality,” “free will,” “determinism,” and "cause and effect,” among others, are thrown around at will. He assumes the reader understands the meaning of these words, but his attacks against certain positions are particularly nuanced, making his arguments imprecise, which is ironic since Lukacs tends to “deconstruct” a phrase or idea with which he disagrees by challenging its syntactic ambiguity or word choice (see, for example, Lukacs’ rather silly deconstruction of Thomas Kuhn’s most famous work in the footnotes of page 103).
The strengths of this book are twofold: 1) its thesis, that man’s activities, intellectual or practical, are inherently inseparable from man himself; and 2) its historical case studies, particularly its lengthy discussions about Hitler, about whom Lukacs has long thought and written. The book’s weaknesses are part and parcel the author's discussions of science, which is merely Lukacs’ overreliance and misapplication of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (UP), in which he confuses the UP with the “observer effect." The UP is an inherent property of quantum mechanics due to the wave-like behavior of matter (matter waves), which necessarily applies to all quantum objects. The observer effect, on the other hand, is merely a change to the system under observation due to interaction from an observer’s instrument. However, Lukacs does not acknowledge this distinction and erroneously likens a fundamental property of quantum mechanical systems to both historical events and the nature of reality. In other words, he applies the UP, which pertains only to quantum objects, to the nature of the universe, on a macroscopic scale. He believes that the nondeterminism of the UP is proof of the indeterminacy of reality as a whole. Again, Lukacs never states exactly what he means by nondeterminism, which can be interpreted and defined in a number of ways.
Lukacs equates the UP with a universal “cracking” of “scientific certitude,” but Heisenberg simply (and importantly) outlined a mathematical formalism that allows us to test and observe quantum mechanical results by discovering that classical observables do not exist when a quantum object interacts with a nonclassical instrument, such as eigenstates of P (momentum) and Q (position) when a quantum system is measured by a classical apparatus. It's as simple as that. He also believes that a particle's existence cannot truly be known, but this is also false: properties of a particle are defined by probabilities, but the existence of the particle under observation is never in question.
There are a number of other misconstructions, such as his comment about Godel’s incompleteness theorems (Godel says nothing of “truth”), his invoking the canonical commutation relation to demonstrate that mathematics does not represent “material reality,” his stating that the brain or mind does “not follow the ‘laws’ of natural science of physics” (the physicist and neuroscientist John Beggs would disagree), and his mistaking modern evolutionary biology merely as "Darwinism."
Midway through the book, Lukacs reviews three of the most important intellectuals of the Modern Age, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. His comments on Marx are on point, his critique of Freud is a poignant reminder of former titan's lack of critical thinking and outdated rationale, but his dismissal of Einstein’s intellectual contributions is befuddling. Instead of crediting Einstein as being one of the founders of quantum mechanics – a field to which Lukacs is unusually attached – Lukacs accuses Einstein of having a narrow “objective-subjective” view of the world that is built upon the framework of Descartes’ dualism and Spinoza’s determinism. Yes, Einstein was a determinist in the most basic sense, but it’s a stretch to insist that his physicalization of geometric structure is a “self-imposed… limitation of [his] thinking;" on the contrary, it was revolutionary. Einstein’s philosophical thinking was heavily inspired by Ernst Mach, but both his insights and contributions to the study of nature had and continue to have seismic ripples. Fortunately, Lukacs’ dismissal of these three figures does not encourage him to promote or accept the “myths” of creationism or Aryan physics.
The idea that Lukacs ultimately propounds is that science, and in particular scientific facts, are inseparable from scientists in the same way that history is inseparable from historians and living from human life, which is the only “kind” of life we can possibly know. Surprisingly, with his detailed scrutinies and penchant for historical research and analysis, one would expect Lukacs to dedicate more time divulging his Christian beliefs, because, interestingly, much of what is written shares close quarters with humanistic sentiments. One would guess that his religious beliefs are rooted in his perceived view that the external world cannot be objectified and that the universe is devoid of meaning without humanity to find or impose meaning. This perspective greatly emphasizes man’s existence, placing him, as it were, at the center of the universe, meaning that man did not come from the universe but rather the universe, as we know it, came from man, such that man must have come from something not of this universe but something beyond it, such as a divine creator. These are merely my musings; I am unaware if Lukacs has ever revealed these notions in writing.
In summary, only half of At the End of an Age can be recommended: the half that sticks to history and philosophy, such as the bulk of chapters one, two, and five, and not those that pertain more closely to the philosophy of science, because Lukacs’ views on scientific knowledge are overly selective or at times misconstrued. Outside from the oft-perceived “crotchety, get-off-my-lawn remarks,” Lukacs is a penetrating historian, and although he doesn’t achieve the level of sophistication of, say, Jacques Barzun, his thoughts are worth exploring. But don’t start here.
From the get-go, Lukacs claims that the Modern Age, as he coins it, has come to an end and inarguably is in a state of decline. The Modern Age, succeeding the Ancient Age and Middle Ages, has had several “sub-ages,” such as the Bourgeois Age, but it's all finally coming to a close. In the first chapter, the first of five, Lukacs provides a cursory history of the Modern Age, from its infancy to its currently deplorable conditions. Each chapter presents a thesis that Lukacs expounds and defends.
Lukacs draws from myriad sources to defend his views, from historians, philosophers, artists, and scientists, presumably from a lifetime of reading. This book, a work of philosophy that nearly summarizes the author’s beliefs from decades of writing and research, presents arguments through the lenses of history and science (primarily physics), with a sprinkling of Christianity. (A “sprinkling” meaning that the author’s Christian beliefs are never stated outright but sneak in unassumingly throughout.)
The primary issue with At the End of an Age is Lukacs’ mischaracterization and overemphasis of certain concepts in physics. Physics is typically the primary natural science against which, or based on which, many thinkers test their mettle. In Lukacs’ case, however, it is to his detriment, whereas his ideas concerning history are insightful (such as his research on Hitler), relevant (in his review of contemporary issues), philosophical in nature, and reminiscent of the views expounded by Ortega y Gasset (for better or worse).
Unfortunately, Lukacs’ diatribe against deterministic physics constitutes almost half the book, which isn’t enough to fully flesh out his issues when keywords like “fact,” “reality,” “free will,” “determinism,” and "cause and effect,” among others, are thrown around at will. He assumes the reader understands the meaning of these words, but his attacks against certain positions are particularly nuanced, making his arguments imprecise, which is ironic since Lukacs tends to “deconstruct” a phrase or idea with which he disagrees by challenging its syntactic ambiguity or word choice (see, for example, Lukacs’ rather silly deconstruction of Thomas Kuhn’s most famous work in the footnotes of page 103).
The strengths of this book are twofold: 1) its thesis, that man’s activities, intellectual or practical, are inherently inseparable from man himself; and 2) its historical case studies, particularly its lengthy discussions about Hitler, about whom Lukacs has long thought and written. The book’s weaknesses are part and parcel the author's discussions of science, which is merely Lukacs’ overreliance and misapplication of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (UP), in which he confuses the UP with the “observer effect." The UP is an inherent property of quantum mechanics due to the wave-like behavior of matter (matter waves), which necessarily applies to all quantum objects. The observer effect, on the other hand, is merely a change to the system under observation due to interaction from an observer’s instrument. However, Lukacs does not acknowledge this distinction and erroneously likens a fundamental property of quantum mechanical systems to both historical events and the nature of reality. In other words, he applies the UP, which pertains only to quantum objects, to the nature of the universe, on a macroscopic scale. He believes that the nondeterminism of the UP is proof of the indeterminacy of reality as a whole. Again, Lukacs never states exactly what he means by nondeterminism, which can be interpreted and defined in a number of ways.
Lukacs equates the UP with a universal “cracking” of “scientific certitude,” but Heisenberg simply (and importantly) outlined a mathematical formalism that allows us to test and observe quantum mechanical results by discovering that classical observables do not exist when a quantum object interacts with a nonclassical instrument, such as eigenstates of P (momentum) and Q (position) when a quantum system is measured by a classical apparatus. It's as simple as that. He also believes that a particle's existence cannot truly be known, but this is also false: properties of a particle are defined by probabilities, but the existence of the particle under observation is never in question.
There are a number of other misconstructions, such as his comment about Godel’s incompleteness theorems (Godel says nothing of “truth”), his invoking the canonical commutation relation to demonstrate that mathematics does not represent “material reality,” his stating that the brain or mind does “not follow the ‘laws’ of natural science of physics” (the physicist and neuroscientist John Beggs would disagree), and his mistaking modern evolutionary biology merely as "Darwinism."
Midway through the book, Lukacs reviews three of the most important intellectuals of the Modern Age, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. His comments on Marx are on point, his critique of Freud is a poignant reminder of former titan's lack of critical thinking and outdated rationale, but his dismissal of Einstein’s intellectual contributions is befuddling. Instead of crediting Einstein as being one of the founders of quantum mechanics – a field to which Lukacs is unusually attached – Lukacs accuses Einstein of having a narrow “objective-subjective” view of the world that is built upon the framework of Descartes’ dualism and Spinoza’s determinism. Yes, Einstein was a determinist in the most basic sense, but it’s a stretch to insist that his physicalization of geometric structure is a “self-imposed… limitation of [his] thinking;" on the contrary, it was revolutionary. Einstein’s philosophical thinking was heavily inspired by Ernst Mach, but both his insights and contributions to the study of nature had and continue to have seismic ripples. Fortunately, Lukacs’ dismissal of these three figures does not encourage him to promote or accept the “myths” of creationism or Aryan physics.
The idea that Lukacs ultimately propounds is that science, and in particular scientific facts, are inseparable from scientists in the same way that history is inseparable from historians and living from human life, which is the only “kind” of life we can possibly know. Surprisingly, with his detailed scrutinies and penchant for historical research and analysis, one would expect Lukacs to dedicate more time divulging his Christian beliefs, because, interestingly, much of what is written shares close quarters with humanistic sentiments. One would guess that his religious beliefs are rooted in his perceived view that the external world cannot be objectified and that the universe is devoid of meaning without humanity to find or impose meaning. This perspective greatly emphasizes man’s existence, placing him, as it were, at the center of the universe, meaning that man did not come from the universe but rather the universe, as we know it, came from man, such that man must have come from something not of this universe but something beyond it, such as a divine creator. These are merely my musings; I am unaware if Lukacs has ever revealed these notions in writing.
In summary, only half of At the End of an Age can be recommended: the half that sticks to history and philosophy, such as the bulk of chapters one, two, and five, and not those that pertain more closely to the philosophy of science, because Lukacs’ views on scientific knowledge are overly selective or at times misconstrued. Outside from the oft-perceived “crotchety, get-off-my-lawn remarks,” Lukacs is a penetrating historian, and although he doesn’t achieve the level of sophistication of, say, Jacques Barzun, his thoughts are worth exploring. But don’t start here.
May 25, 2011
One of the historians last works. very readable...he made some great observations I have never read before. Saw him on TV later doing a reading. He said he was very old (80+) and in this book...was just going to say whatever he wanted. Apparently he finally found some academic freedom.
August 8, 2015
very insightful, a deeper more thoughtful way of looking at history and thought. a book I would want to read over.
December 20, 2025
Lukacs is supposedly a renowned historian writing a book about his personal observations of the end of what he calls, "The Modern Age." This book reveals that he is a misogynistic, racist, anti-intellectual whose understanding of the end of the modern age is that it is being caused by things he himself says he does not fully understand. While there are interesting pieces of knowledge and wisdom sprinkled throughout this book, there is little reason to subject yourself to the anti-science and anti-materialist drivel that Lukacs spouts throughout its entirety.
Read
June 1, 2010I loved this book --- the kind of history that is worth reading! Lokacs writes about history as a good historian shoud --- taking his vast knowledge of events and adding meanng. His explanations are profound. This book is several essays -- the first is the Title essay. How interesting that Lukacs sees these things that are "ending" --- that we are all talking about, and also the bigger waves of history that most of us cannot or do not take the time to see -- the end of the Modern Age. Brought on by the things that made the modern age -- the end of industrial revoluations, the end of books, above all the end of the nation state, the end of the European Age,the age of money, the age of cities, the age of schooling (?) (the decline of reading,) the age of science (?), the ageo of the Family, the age of privacy the ae of Representation --- he claims all are ending. Lukacs declares we are end at least a century of transition. (The end of Europe he dates not from the end of the second world war, but the end of the first!
June 8, 2015
A master historian here reviews the meaning of the Modern Age and what constitutes its end. Surprisingly, I discovered a great deal of the history of science in the 20th century in this volume. Lukacs identifies Marx, Freud, Darwin, and Einstein as the most important figures in modern thought, and identifies both determinism and the illusion of scientific objectivity as the mistaken beliefs of the Modern Age. Read this book for an amazing appeal for the power of belief to change the course of history.
July 19, 2015
A veritable evaluation and reevaluation of historical tropes about the nature of knowing that have persisted in modern age. Lukacs proposes a rethinking of the nature of determinism in historical knowledge. He elaborates on the role of human beings in the universe, drawing upon philosophies of scientists including the more well-known Heisenberg, and the less well-known Pierre Duhem (for whom Lukacs makes a good case for further study).
June 4, 2010
Religious proselytism
January 4, 2011
Wonderful introduction to Lukacs' work. Gives perspective on his historical knowledge and processes. Four stars because he seems to get a little hung up on his view of physics indeterminism.
June 7, 2015
Přečetl jsem 90 stran a pak mi došlo, že mě to už sto stran nebaví.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews