What do you think?
Rate this book
In Search of Civilization: Remaking a Tarnished Idea
"A self-effacing, humane and unparanoid call to change our wealthy yet often barbaric world for the better." *
In this provocative cri de coeur, the philosopher John Armstrong rescues the idea of civilization from irrelevance and connects it to our search for individual happiness. "Civilization" once referred to a society's technological prowess, its political development, or its cultural achievement. In the modern era, however, the word became burdened by the legacy of colonialism and connotations of elitism. For it to have value once again, according to Armstrong, we must understand that a society balances material prosperity with spiritual prosperity if it is to merit the term "civilized"―and currently we are impoverished.
In Search of Civilization is his corrective. As he roams from anecdote to aesthetic appreciation―from the banality of an early job at an insurance company to the redemptive wonders of a seventeenth-century church spire visible out an office window, from Adam Smith's philosophy to the Japanese tea ceremony―Armstrong reminds us that culture lies within us and that its nourishment is essential to a flourishing society.
In this provocative cri de coeur, the philosopher John Armstrong rescues the idea of civilization from irrelevance and connects it to our search for individual happiness. "Civilization" once referred to a society's technological prowess, its political development, or its cultural achievement. In the modern era, however, the word became burdened by the legacy of colonialism and connotations of elitism. For it to have value once again, according to Armstrong, we must understand that a society balances material prosperity with spiritual prosperity if it is to merit the term "civilized"―and currently we are impoverished.
In Search of Civilization is his corrective. As he roams from anecdote to aesthetic appreciation―from the banality of an early job at an insurance company to the redemptive wonders of a seventeenth-century church spire visible out an office window, from Adam Smith's philosophy to the Japanese tea ceremony―Armstrong reminds us that culture lies within us and that its nourishment is essential to a flourishing society.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
13 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
About the author
John Armstrong
567 books86 followersJohn Armstrong is a British philosopher living in Melbourne, Australia. He was born 1966 in Glasgow and worked as a research fellow at the University of London. Armstrong works currently as the Philosopher-in-Residence at the Melbourne Business School at the Melbourne University. He is author of several books on philosophical themes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
April 15, 2011
When I was young I wanted to live what I thought of as the "life of the mind." I imagined that this was the opposite of pursuing material goods but that this was a more than worthy exchange. Having read too many old novels, it was clear that one could only combine material wealth with the life of the mind if one was born wealthy. All of this was of course combined with an intense snobbery towards those with material aspirations. So when, unsurprisingly, I began to have some of those myself, it put me at conflict (I thought) with my own ideals. This is the tension that Armstrong addresses in his lovely meditation on the nature of "Civilization" (with that capital "C").
As he writes, "The point, here, is to trace the connections between spiritual goods and worldly goods. The thing that sensitive and serious people love (spirit) is already very connected to what they think they hate (matter, materialism)." 64
Materialism is not the problem. The problem is materialism without any corresponding growth of what he calls "spiritual goods." You can get a sense of what he thinks these are from his list of what he calls "higher needs": "Appreciation of beauty, love of wisdom, noble sense of purpose, cultivated imagination, generosity of spirit." 76
In his words: “the problem is not material expansion; it is material expansion in the absence of an equal degree of spiritual growth. And it is a mistake to suppose that it is material progress itself that has damaged our spiritual condition.//It is more accurate—and more practically useful—to see the causality running in the opposite direction. It is the weakness of our grasp of spiritual goods—of our attachment to truth, beauty and goodness—that has rendered material progress unsatisfactory in crucial ways.” 65
In one especially lovely sentence: "Civilization, in this respect, is a community of maturity in which across the ages individuals try to help each other cope with the demands of mortality." 109
The answer is not to reject the material world but to infuse it with the spiritual world. But someone struggling to feed themselves and their family are unlikely to be able to be able to work at that marriage between the spiritual and the material. "And if we want to question how civilized a modern civilization is" writes Armstrong, "the right question to ask is: How well does it support widespread flourishing.” 74 The key word here, of course, is "widespread." A society which has a small cultivated elite and a large struggling majority is not nearly as civilized as a society that allows the majority to flourish in the way Armstrong describes.
I have to share one more passage because it struck me so strongly: “It is naïve, indeed unkind, to suppose that our nostalgia for some imagined past of civilization is a species of intellectual error. As if we simply forgot that the past was full of atrocities. Surely there is mental space enough in a civilized mind to love something without pretending there was nothing wrong with it.” 185
As he writes, "The point, here, is to trace the connections between spiritual goods and worldly goods. The thing that sensitive and serious people love (spirit) is already very connected to what they think they hate (matter, materialism)." 64
Materialism is not the problem. The problem is materialism without any corresponding growth of what he calls "spiritual goods." You can get a sense of what he thinks these are from his list of what he calls "higher needs": "Appreciation of beauty, love of wisdom, noble sense of purpose, cultivated imagination, generosity of spirit." 76
In his words: “the problem is not material expansion; it is material expansion in the absence of an equal degree of spiritual growth. And it is a mistake to suppose that it is material progress itself that has damaged our spiritual condition.//It is more accurate—and more practically useful—to see the causality running in the opposite direction. It is the weakness of our grasp of spiritual goods—of our attachment to truth, beauty and goodness—that has rendered material progress unsatisfactory in crucial ways.” 65
In one especially lovely sentence: "Civilization, in this respect, is a community of maturity in which across the ages individuals try to help each other cope with the demands of mortality." 109
The answer is not to reject the material world but to infuse it with the spiritual world. But someone struggling to feed themselves and their family are unlikely to be able to be able to work at that marriage between the spiritual and the material. "And if we want to question how civilized a modern civilization is" writes Armstrong, "the right question to ask is: How well does it support widespread flourishing.” 74 The key word here, of course, is "widespread." A society which has a small cultivated elite and a large struggling majority is not nearly as civilized as a society that allows the majority to flourish in the way Armstrong describes.
I have to share one more passage because it struck me so strongly: “It is naïve, indeed unkind, to suppose that our nostalgia for some imagined past of civilization is a species of intellectual error. As if we simply forgot that the past was full of atrocities. Surely there is mental space enough in a civilized mind to love something without pretending there was nothing wrong with it.” 185
January 1, 2017
Armstrong fears civilisation has become tarnished and needs to be rebuffed to return its original shine. He sees this as essentially a disparity between material progress and spiritual progress, with the latter currently in decline. Not that he is negative about material progress — indeed he sees the latter as an essential ingredient for civilisation to exist at all. For civilisation to continue to be that (cultured, refined, sensitive to the finer things in life) we need to counter excesses of any kind, and Armstrong feels that virtue lies best in Aristotle's 'middle way'.
This is a lovely, poetical, philosophical book that looks at the question of civilisation and what it means. It probes the meaning of the word, yearning for the pleasure and happiness it can provide — but does so dispassionately: yet there is passion in that dispassionate analysis. Many aspects are covered; many insights provided. Armstrong is sensitive to the many good aspects implied in the word, but he is not blind to its negative qualities as well.
The word 'civilisation' is a relative newcomer, and derives from Europe. Today we are more conscious of many types of civilisation, with many interpretations. Armstrong is concerned that many modern scholars and philosophers are turning away from the idea of civilisation and do not wish to discuss it. This saddens him sufficiently to write this work. His philosophical stance provides him with sufficient intellectual rigour to allow him to dissect the various elements that constitute what we mean by civilisation, presenting both its pros and cons in short yet precise essays. This is perhaps what I loved most about this book: its subject (rarely confronted by thinkers, and when it is, often done so pejoratively (possibly because our concept has not survived its ideals in practice)) and Armstrong's willingness to see the bad along with the good, so that one can take only what one considers the best of what it has to offer, so to help all of us achieve happier states in life.
I must admit that I did not always agree with Armstrong's statements of what he feels valuable, but I did identify with his yearning for those things which contribute to a better quality of life.
One of the modern words which I find increasingly irritating is 'spiritual'. It used to mean a lot, and possibly still does, but that meaning is for me increasingly devoid of any real significance. Armstrong uses it a lot, but tries to define it as one progresses through the book. He does not really believe that it should simply be understood as being opposed to 'material' and he tries to equate it at different stages to the virtues of Western culture, but also to sensitivity, compassion, love of the finer things of life, etc. Appreciation of the Arts is a major 'spiritual' requirement. How to keep these qualities and enhance them? How can we reinvent civilisation (if necessary) to enhance these qualities across the board, across state and national boundaries, across cultural divides?
Perhaps the problem lies in the word 'spiritual', because limiting it to 'virtues' is ineffective: 'vices' can also be termed 'spiritual' (injustice, greed, intolerance, envy etc. might be 'bad' spirituality, but they are spiritual nevertheless).
This is a book to relish, take issue with, argue about. It may not provide all the answers, but it is a gentle, intelligent, and provocative place to start. Maybe 'civilisation' deserves to be disposed of, but what a shame it would be if we threw out the baby with the bathwater! (Or maybe not!!)
This is a lovely, poetical, philosophical book that looks at the question of civilisation and what it means. It probes the meaning of the word, yearning for the pleasure and happiness it can provide — but does so dispassionately: yet there is passion in that dispassionate analysis. Many aspects are covered; many insights provided. Armstrong is sensitive to the many good aspects implied in the word, but he is not blind to its negative qualities as well.
The word 'civilisation' is a relative newcomer, and derives from Europe. Today we are more conscious of many types of civilisation, with many interpretations. Armstrong is concerned that many modern scholars and philosophers are turning away from the idea of civilisation and do not wish to discuss it. This saddens him sufficiently to write this work. His philosophical stance provides him with sufficient intellectual rigour to allow him to dissect the various elements that constitute what we mean by civilisation, presenting both its pros and cons in short yet precise essays. This is perhaps what I loved most about this book: its subject (rarely confronted by thinkers, and when it is, often done so pejoratively (possibly because our concept has not survived its ideals in practice)) and Armstrong's willingness to see the bad along with the good, so that one can take only what one considers the best of what it has to offer, so to help all of us achieve happier states in life.
I must admit that I did not always agree with Armstrong's statements of what he feels valuable, but I did identify with his yearning for those things which contribute to a better quality of life.
One of the modern words which I find increasingly irritating is 'spiritual'. It used to mean a lot, and possibly still does, but that meaning is for me increasingly devoid of any real significance. Armstrong uses it a lot, but tries to define it as one progresses through the book. He does not really believe that it should simply be understood as being opposed to 'material' and he tries to equate it at different stages to the virtues of Western culture, but also to sensitivity, compassion, love of the finer things of life, etc. Appreciation of the Arts is a major 'spiritual' requirement. How to keep these qualities and enhance them? How can we reinvent civilisation (if necessary) to enhance these qualities across the board, across state and national boundaries, across cultural divides?
Perhaps the problem lies in the word 'spiritual', because limiting it to 'virtues' is ineffective: 'vices' can also be termed 'spiritual' (injustice, greed, intolerance, envy etc. might be 'bad' spirituality, but they are spiritual nevertheless).
This is a book to relish, take issue with, argue about. It may not provide all the answers, but it is a gentle, intelligent, and provocative place to start. Maybe 'civilisation' deserves to be disposed of, but what a shame it would be if we threw out the baby with the bathwater! (Or maybe not!!)
December 26, 2013
A nonfiction book examining the question, "what is civilization"? There were interesting thoughts, concepts, and anecdotes in here, but overall I found it a bit too academic; which is ironic because that's a lot of what the book examined... i.e. cultural sophistication vs. "barbarianism" or "savageness." So, in short, I couldn't get some of the book's highbrow concepts through my thick barbarian skull.
What I did get out of it was this: there are a lot of interpretations of the word "civilization" and you have to determine what you're talking about when you're discussing it. The book said that you could look at civilizations as various worldwide cultures--i.e. East vs. West, capitalist vs. communist, etc., or you could say that ALL civilizations have enough in common that the central question is really "civilized" vs. "uncivilized" (i.e. barbaric, savage, no government, culture, rules, etc.). There is also the meaning where "civilized" indicates "highbrow," and things like reality TV, Top 40 music, and romance novels are considered "uncivilized" or lowbrow.
Some good food for thought here, but overall it just didn't mesh for me.
What I did get out of it was this: there are a lot of interpretations of the word "civilization" and you have to determine what you're talking about when you're discussing it. The book said that you could look at civilizations as various worldwide cultures--i.e. East vs. West, capitalist vs. communist, etc., or you could say that ALL civilizations have enough in common that the central question is really "civilized" vs. "uncivilized" (i.e. barbaric, savage, no government, culture, rules, etc.). There is also the meaning where "civilized" indicates "highbrow," and things like reality TV, Top 40 music, and romance novels are considered "uncivilized" or lowbrow.
Some good food for thought here, but overall it just didn't mesh for me.
July 30, 2024
Everyone living in civilization should read this. A subtle but articulate argument for reviving our faith in humanity and our belief in the value of taste. Although it's not what Armstong contends, my favourite quotation from the book is: "Sensitive and serious people have to retreat. In the Middle Ages, refuge was in the austere cloister; today it might be a university department, or it might just be a lower standard of living: the consequence of a refusal to compete in the uncouth world."
November 16, 2011
My review is here: http://zenpundit.com/?p=4086
August 19, 2015
I give Armstrong's choice of topic and philosophical cast of characters 5 stars, but the book is too meandering, too much of a flitting survey of the best that has been thought and expressed, to get 5 stars overall. It's a profitable tome to read though: I love his mission to reclaim the word "civilization" and I find myself in violent agreement with him at every turn as to the immediate importance and continued utility of this 'sovereign concept.' He draws from many 'heroes of civilization' across diverse fields, luminaries such as Matthew Arnold, Suger of St. Denis, and Cicero, but also lesser known heroes like the great French chef Edouard de Pomiane, the documentarian Kenneth Clark, and the Japanese cultural ambassador Kakuzo Okakura.
This is how Arnold defines civilization: "Civilization occurs when a high degree of material prosperity and a high degree of spiritual prosperity come together and mutually enhance each other." He claims that the civilized mind is one in which an appreciation of a great many seemingly mundane things has been deeply and broadly cultivated, things such as food, music, literature, art, relationships, and even enlightened politics. His is a generous, magnanimous, and inviting form of civilization even as it insists on high standards. This appeals to me as one steeped and believing in a proselytizing form of religion that seeks to better the individual. But the study of civilization is an important addition to religions' aim to turn the mind heavenward for few religions are centered around the cultivation of civilized tastes in everyday matters more closely associated with philosophy's 'Good Life,' and so they can sometimes get overlooked by those presuming they have enough already.
Here are some of my favorite quotes:
--On the apparent paradox embedded in the Clash of Civilizations theory: "Mahatma Gandhi once made a comment that helps dissolve this apparent paradox. Asked what he thought of Western civilization he said, 'It would be a very good thing.' . . . But Gandhi was not suggesting that Plato, Jesus, Galileo, Mozart, Thomas Jefferson, Goethe and Einstein were frauds and fools. The point was, surely, that their achievements and best spirit had not penetrated and guided the thought and behaviour of anything like enough people." pg. 19 [This is part of a fascinating argument that civilized people from each great cultural tradition have more in common with each other than with uncivilized people from within their own separate cultures...suggesting of course that civilization is the way to mutual peace and admiration].
--"This is the secret of prejudice: it is not discrimination but an inability to recognize the merits of another person." pg. 25
--"The life-support system for love has two aspects. First, civilization seeks to find and protect the good things with which - potentially - we can form high-quality relationships. And, second, civilization fosters and protects the qualities in us that allow us to love such things for the right reasons. The qualities that inspire love are: goodness, beauty and truth. And when we love these qualities we come to possess the corresponding capacities of wisdom, kindness and taste." pg. 27
--"We need institutions - churches, newspapers, art movements, universities, political parties - that hold and support the best self; which can express and empower the best self; and which are able to hold their own against the cross-currents of fashion." pg. 38
--"The cultural laurels - and a species of authority that goes with them - have been awarded in unfortunate directions. Mockery, irony and archness are not what we need." pg. 66 (For me, this was interesting commentary on the 'hipster' culture of irony in the U.S.)
--"In an intimate way, tragedy is founded on the fact that not all good things are compatible . . . The longing to live an interesting and enjoyable life is always confronted by poverty, fragility, bad luck, death. Things we want to control are often beyond our control. We do not choose the political, moral or economic world in which we have to live; you can wear yourself out seeking genuine progress and end up making none. So the ambition of civilization, in the face of this, is to strengthen us to face inevitable disappointment and suffering. The tragic dimension of life cannot be removed by planning and legislation. Instead we have to cultivate what are called 'stoic' virtues: the capacity to do without, to postpone pleasure, to make ourselves do things we do not want to do (when there is good reason to do them); to put up with minor irritations, to avoid complaint and useless criticism." pg. 109
--"A civilized person has barbarian and decadent aspects, but these have been overcome, educated and reassured." pg. 142
--"The pursuit of knowledge serves the purpose of depth - not the extent or completeness or systematic organization of information, but the experience of being 'penetrated . . . to the depths of the soul.'" pg. 155
--"The idea of renaissance has been desperately missing from the art of modernity. That is, the idea that one can look to the past and find ideal achievements worth emulation; and so one can learn from and continue the best that has been made. The solution is tantalizing, simple and cheap. The scholars need to move from the secondary historical question (What can we find out about the Renaissance?) to the primary philosophical question: What is it important to learn from the Renaissance that we could and should use today and that matters in the lives of many more people?" pg. 163
--"Surely there is mental space enough in a civilized mind to love something without pretending that there was nothing wrong with it." pg. 185
This is how Arnold defines civilization: "Civilization occurs when a high degree of material prosperity and a high degree of spiritual prosperity come together and mutually enhance each other." He claims that the civilized mind is one in which an appreciation of a great many seemingly mundane things has been deeply and broadly cultivated, things such as food, music, literature, art, relationships, and even enlightened politics. His is a generous, magnanimous, and inviting form of civilization even as it insists on high standards. This appeals to me as one steeped and believing in a proselytizing form of religion that seeks to better the individual. But the study of civilization is an important addition to religions' aim to turn the mind heavenward for few religions are centered around the cultivation of civilized tastes in everyday matters more closely associated with philosophy's 'Good Life,' and so they can sometimes get overlooked by those presuming they have enough already.
Here are some of my favorite quotes:
--On the apparent paradox embedded in the Clash of Civilizations theory: "Mahatma Gandhi once made a comment that helps dissolve this apparent paradox. Asked what he thought of Western civilization he said, 'It would be a very good thing.' . . . But Gandhi was not suggesting that Plato, Jesus, Galileo, Mozart, Thomas Jefferson, Goethe and Einstein were frauds and fools. The point was, surely, that their achievements and best spirit had not penetrated and guided the thought and behaviour of anything like enough people." pg. 19 [This is part of a fascinating argument that civilized people from each great cultural tradition have more in common with each other than with uncivilized people from within their own separate cultures...suggesting of course that civilization is the way to mutual peace and admiration].
--"This is the secret of prejudice: it is not discrimination but an inability to recognize the merits of another person." pg. 25
--"The life-support system for love has two aspects. First, civilization seeks to find and protect the good things with which - potentially - we can form high-quality relationships. And, second, civilization fosters and protects the qualities in us that allow us to love such things for the right reasons. The qualities that inspire love are: goodness, beauty and truth. And when we love these qualities we come to possess the corresponding capacities of wisdom, kindness and taste." pg. 27
--"We need institutions - churches, newspapers, art movements, universities, political parties - that hold and support the best self; which can express and empower the best self; and which are able to hold their own against the cross-currents of fashion." pg. 38
--"The cultural laurels - and a species of authority that goes with them - have been awarded in unfortunate directions. Mockery, irony and archness are not what we need." pg. 66 (For me, this was interesting commentary on the 'hipster' culture of irony in the U.S.)
--"In an intimate way, tragedy is founded on the fact that not all good things are compatible . . . The longing to live an interesting and enjoyable life is always confronted by poverty, fragility, bad luck, death. Things we want to control are often beyond our control. We do not choose the political, moral or economic world in which we have to live; you can wear yourself out seeking genuine progress and end up making none. So the ambition of civilization, in the face of this, is to strengthen us to face inevitable disappointment and suffering. The tragic dimension of life cannot be removed by planning and legislation. Instead we have to cultivate what are called 'stoic' virtues: the capacity to do without, to postpone pleasure, to make ourselves do things we do not want to do (when there is good reason to do them); to put up with minor irritations, to avoid complaint and useless criticism." pg. 109
--"A civilized person has barbarian and decadent aspects, but these have been overcome, educated and reassured." pg. 142
--"The pursuit of knowledge serves the purpose of depth - not the extent or completeness or systematic organization of information, but the experience of being 'penetrated . . . to the depths of the soul.'" pg. 155
--"The idea of renaissance has been desperately missing from the art of modernity. That is, the idea that one can look to the past and find ideal achievements worth emulation; and so one can learn from and continue the best that has been made. The solution is tantalizing, simple and cheap. The scholars need to move from the secondary historical question (What can we find out about the Renaissance?) to the primary philosophical question: What is it important to learn from the Renaissance that we could and should use today and that matters in the lives of many more people?" pg. 163
--"Surely there is mental space enough in a civilized mind to love something without pretending that there was nothing wrong with it." pg. 185
June 22, 2024
thought-provoking exploration of what it means to live a truly civilised life. Armstrong delves into the philosophical underpinnings of civilisation, questioning modern assumptions about progress, culture, and the good life. He argues that civilisation is not just about technological advancement or economic success but involves a deeper engagement with values and practices that enrich human experience. Through eloquent prose and insightful analysis, the book challenges readers to reflect on their own contributions to the civilised world and consider how they might cultivate a more enlightened and humane existence.
January 27, 2010
This is a serious book written in a light-hearted rhetoric. In this book, Armstrong takes us on a journey to discover the vital elements that make up 'civilization'. Interwoven in this journey are glimpses of Armstrong's personal life and struggles, several snippets of wisdom and acute observations of everyday life. Because of these personal glimpses, Armstrong's book comes closer as a humanistic essay rather than as a brooding piece of philosophical writing on 'civilization'.
There are indeed jewels in this book. One memorable passage--which is also too long to quote in a review--undertakes an introspective study of the psyche of modern barbarism and decadence (pp. 141). The penetrative wits here are rather profound. Another passage critiques the idea of open-mindedness as a form of receptivity that does not question the quality or the destination of the received signal.
But Armstrong's book is also riddled with a few self-contradicting puzzles. One episode deals with his own disappointment--and perhaps also bitterness--with an institute of Renaissance studies outside of Florence. For Armstrong, he did not understand why scholars there were unwilling to question the teleology, or purpose, of what they are researching. Unless it is also possible to demonstrate some real-life applicability from these research, Armstrong seems to have concluded that these scholars are wasting their time in superficial pursuit within the opulent cloister of this Florentine villa.
His opinion however does not sit well with his major argument in the book--that civilization demands a spiritual attention to the small and often mundane things (or process) of life. While Armstrong has a point that scholars ought to question the teleology of their endeavor more often, it can be equally said that to 'waste time' on something which has no direct applicability to life today is part of what it means to hone spiritual competence (i.e., attention to small details, taking pleasure in knowing little obscure things, elevating the unnoticed or the mundane, seeking new mental horizons...etc) in direct resistance to material prosperity and its temptations.
The weakest part of his book is however the obligatory last chapter where Armstrong hastily tried to marry the idea of material prosperity with spiritual prosperity to drive a new way of doing business. For example he writes, "the drive to material prosperity is deeply entrenched and so powerful that seeking to eliminate it is either fanciful or cruel" (pp. 188). In this chapter, Armstrong makes an appeal for the humanities to enter business so that through the insights that the humanities can reveal, businesses can finally help people understand their real needs.
This is not only a weak argument; it is also a frightening vision for civilization.
In all, Armstrong's conclusion might have been averted if he had held a more comprehensive view of different references to how the idea of civilization has been carried by different peoples across time. In the entire book, I only remember one inter-cultural reference to the Japanese tea ceremony as a hallmark of civilization; every other references belong in the Grecian-Occidental tradition of what constitutes the civilized and civilization.
Nonetheless, this is still a valuable book. It is also a very easy book to write if one is cynical about civilization today. And although Armstrong refrained from easy cynicism, he fell for a non-sequitur conclusion for the marriage of material and spiritual prosperity that neither square with what is going on in the world today nor is it likely that they will become good bedfellows.
There are indeed jewels in this book. One memorable passage--which is also too long to quote in a review--undertakes an introspective study of the psyche of modern barbarism and decadence (pp. 141). The penetrative wits here are rather profound. Another passage critiques the idea of open-mindedness as a form of receptivity that does not question the quality or the destination of the received signal.
But Armstrong's book is also riddled with a few self-contradicting puzzles. One episode deals with his own disappointment--and perhaps also bitterness--with an institute of Renaissance studies outside of Florence. For Armstrong, he did not understand why scholars there were unwilling to question the teleology, or purpose, of what they are researching. Unless it is also possible to demonstrate some real-life applicability from these research, Armstrong seems to have concluded that these scholars are wasting their time in superficial pursuit within the opulent cloister of this Florentine villa.
His opinion however does not sit well with his major argument in the book--that civilization demands a spiritual attention to the small and often mundane things (or process) of life. While Armstrong has a point that scholars ought to question the teleology of their endeavor more often, it can be equally said that to 'waste time' on something which has no direct applicability to life today is part of what it means to hone spiritual competence (i.e., attention to small details, taking pleasure in knowing little obscure things, elevating the unnoticed or the mundane, seeking new mental horizons...etc) in direct resistance to material prosperity and its temptations.
The weakest part of his book is however the obligatory last chapter where Armstrong hastily tried to marry the idea of material prosperity with spiritual prosperity to drive a new way of doing business. For example he writes, "the drive to material prosperity is deeply entrenched and so powerful that seeking to eliminate it is either fanciful or cruel" (pp. 188). In this chapter, Armstrong makes an appeal for the humanities to enter business so that through the insights that the humanities can reveal, businesses can finally help people understand their real needs.
This is not only a weak argument; it is also a frightening vision for civilization.
In all, Armstrong's conclusion might have been averted if he had held a more comprehensive view of different references to how the idea of civilization has been carried by different peoples across time. In the entire book, I only remember one inter-cultural reference to the Japanese tea ceremony as a hallmark of civilization; every other references belong in the Grecian-Occidental tradition of what constitutes the civilized and civilization.
Nonetheless, this is still a valuable book. It is also a very easy book to write if one is cynical about civilization today. And although Armstrong refrained from easy cynicism, he fell for a non-sequitur conclusion for the marriage of material and spiritual prosperity that neither square with what is going on in the world today nor is it likely that they will become good bedfellows.
February 2, 2022
In this slender volume, John Armstrong seeks to explore and define what we mean by civilisation. He observes 3 aspects of modernity: liberal economic markets; cultural democracy; freedom of opinion, and emphasised the role of idealism and questioning within civilisation, and stressed the importance of dispensing with certainty noting that dissent is generally about matters of speculation, not matters of fact. Practicalities such as making money etc will, he argued, always be pursued and don’t require societal encouragement whereas idealism needs encouragement. He hoped that, in due course, the cultivation of Hellenism would change the character of disagreement by reducing the attachments of persons to ideas making them more flexible although I opine it will be a very long time before that occurs.
He cited Hobbes who argued that in nature, man is either in peril in a brutal state of competition and risk of death etc for which civilization is needed to provide communal security; or man is in harmony, peace etc and civilization makes life intolerable by forcing servitude. He then went on to summarise the utilitarian concept of the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people and extend this idea to the idea of flourishing which encompasses but goes beyond happiness, an idea I found particularly appealing.
Citing Sir Kenneth Clark’s 1969 TV series "Civilization", he endorsed Clark’s observation that civilisation is about internalising "life-giving ideas", then reflected on Bernard Berenson who, with a focus on the Renaissance, asks and attempts to answer the question why art and knowledge of art matters and expressed his dissatisfaction that the institute using Berenson’s bequeathed house has become devoted to the detailed study of the past not how the ideas of the Renaissance can be applied to the continued development of today’s civilisation.
Armstrong then reflected on the importance of having an inner life, cited works of literature that invite us to explore and develop this inner life and asserted an aspect of civilisation was giving expression to this inner life and that real spirituality was having an inner life. He cited Martin Luther’s distaste for the sale of indulgences and the worship of holy relics. He then stressed the importance of having an open mind and an ambivalence which allows the accommodation of what does not fit, although he didn’t mention Martin Luther’s hostility to science which was as strong as that of the Catholic church. He also noted and was somewhat disappointed with the schism between science and the arts.
Despite the unnecessary and sometimes annoying anecdotes cited from his younger years, it was good exploration of what comprises a civilisation and civilisation per se, but, given his breadth of knowledge, it reads like a first draft or attempt to document his exploration rather than what it could have been, a more definitive coverage of the subject – he had all the tools to write an excellent book but could only manage a good one.
He cited Hobbes who argued that in nature, man is either in peril in a brutal state of competition and risk of death etc for which civilization is needed to provide communal security; or man is in harmony, peace etc and civilization makes life intolerable by forcing servitude. He then went on to summarise the utilitarian concept of the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people and extend this idea to the idea of flourishing which encompasses but goes beyond happiness, an idea I found particularly appealing.
Citing Sir Kenneth Clark’s 1969 TV series "Civilization", he endorsed Clark’s observation that civilisation is about internalising "life-giving ideas", then reflected on Bernard Berenson who, with a focus on the Renaissance, asks and attempts to answer the question why art and knowledge of art matters and expressed his dissatisfaction that the institute using Berenson’s bequeathed house has become devoted to the detailed study of the past not how the ideas of the Renaissance can be applied to the continued development of today’s civilisation.
Armstrong then reflected on the importance of having an inner life, cited works of literature that invite us to explore and develop this inner life and asserted an aspect of civilisation was giving expression to this inner life and that real spirituality was having an inner life. He cited Martin Luther’s distaste for the sale of indulgences and the worship of holy relics. He then stressed the importance of having an open mind and an ambivalence which allows the accommodation of what does not fit, although he didn’t mention Martin Luther’s hostility to science which was as strong as that of the Catholic church. He also noted and was somewhat disappointed with the schism between science and the arts.
Despite the unnecessary and sometimes annoying anecdotes cited from his younger years, it was good exploration of what comprises a civilisation and civilisation per se, but, given his breadth of knowledge, it reads like a first draft or attempt to document his exploration rather than what it could have been, a more definitive coverage of the subject – he had all the tools to write an excellent book but could only manage a good one.
September 23, 2011
“Civilization” refers to a high degree of material and spiritual prosperity occurring together, mutually enhanced. A person could be called civilized when this integration is present in his/her life.
“Spiritual” refers to a person’s inner life apart from the intellect. It includes the imagination, emotions, attitudes, and memory. It is a person’s “spirit” that you would recognize in a friend, a complex set of properties.
“Spiritual prosperity” includes:
1. Depth of thought, feeling or experience: Many tasks are complex but some are insightful. Depth is the outcome of curiosity. We ask “Why?” and the answer reaches down into the causes and explanations of VALUE. Aspects of ourselves may be revealed (touched?)that seem important and this can shape our view of the world. Two major problems are sentimentality (an object is asked to hold too much meaning) and self-absorption (the recesses of inner life is used merely as an escape) but the cultivation of depth seeks authentic expression.
2. Breadth of mind: An open mind is readjusted in light of new facts or ideas (rather than just accepting any thing that is new or different). Ambivalence requires the cultivation of mental space.
3. Attachment to higher things: Higher things are beauty, wisdom and goodness. They are connected with ideals: pictures of perfection with goals and eventual outcomes. We feel taken up and absorbed into something that feels bigger than ourselves but in which we can participate in an epic sense. How do we recognize goodness? It is not by status, price or what advertisers tell us will make us happy. A study of the humanities helps to reveal what is good.
The primary task today is the development of spiritual prosperity to match the strength of our material prosperity. A savage life is not the opposite of civilization. It is barbarism and decadence.
“Barbarians” are those who have material prosperity but no spiritual prosperity. They have a lack of sensitivity and self-awareness but act with bravado, menacing, tough. They fear anyone restricting their appetites. (“If I try to explain, I’ll get nowhere, if I negotiate, I’ll be outwitted, if I hesitate, I’ll be attacked”) There is an intense fear of humiliation. There is a strong conformism and fear of boredom. (” I have to show off or nobody notices me”). Causes of barbarism: 1. Fear, 2. lack of confidence, 3. romantic pessimism, 4. communicative anxiety.
“Decadence” is defeatism. It is a sensitivity that recoils from itself. It is morose, vulnerable, paralyzed with a despair that is disguised as laziness.
Religions, cults, and myths are attempts to organize and guide inner life. From a secular point of view, one can increase spiritual prosperity by....(see the book)
“Spiritual” refers to a person’s inner life apart from the intellect. It includes the imagination, emotions, attitudes, and memory. It is a person’s “spirit” that you would recognize in a friend, a complex set of properties.
“Spiritual prosperity” includes:
1. Depth of thought, feeling or experience: Many tasks are complex but some are insightful. Depth is the outcome of curiosity. We ask “Why?” and the answer reaches down into the causes and explanations of VALUE. Aspects of ourselves may be revealed (touched?)that seem important and this can shape our view of the world. Two major problems are sentimentality (an object is asked to hold too much meaning) and self-absorption (the recesses of inner life is used merely as an escape) but the cultivation of depth seeks authentic expression.
2. Breadth of mind: An open mind is readjusted in light of new facts or ideas (rather than just accepting any thing that is new or different). Ambivalence requires the cultivation of mental space.
3. Attachment to higher things: Higher things are beauty, wisdom and goodness. They are connected with ideals: pictures of perfection with goals and eventual outcomes. We feel taken up and absorbed into something that feels bigger than ourselves but in which we can participate in an epic sense. How do we recognize goodness? It is not by status, price or what advertisers tell us will make us happy. A study of the humanities helps to reveal what is good.
The primary task today is the development of spiritual prosperity to match the strength of our material prosperity. A savage life is not the opposite of civilization. It is barbarism and decadence.
“Barbarians” are those who have material prosperity but no spiritual prosperity. They have a lack of sensitivity and self-awareness but act with bravado, menacing, tough. They fear anyone restricting their appetites. (“If I try to explain, I’ll get nowhere, if I negotiate, I’ll be outwitted, if I hesitate, I’ll be attacked”) There is an intense fear of humiliation. There is a strong conformism and fear of boredom. (” I have to show off or nobody notices me”). Causes of barbarism: 1. Fear, 2. lack of confidence, 3. romantic pessimism, 4. communicative anxiety.
“Decadence” is defeatism. It is a sensitivity that recoils from itself. It is morose, vulnerable, paralyzed with a despair that is disguised as laziness.
Religions, cults, and myths are attempts to organize and guide inner life. From a secular point of view, one can increase spiritual prosperity by....(see the book)
May 3, 2014
“In Search of Civilization: Remaking a Tarnished Idea,” by John Armstrong (Graywolf Press, 2009). Armstrong is a professor of philosophy in Melbourne, Australia. In this slim volume (194 pages, no bibliography, no footnotes), he defines what he means by civilization. It is a place where there is both material and spiritual prosperity. A human needs material prosperity to think beyond survival; spiritual prosperity provides the intellectual and emotional and moral depth to go with that prosperity, resulting in happiness. The writing is clear and fairly simple, but the ideas are so rich that I could not read more than a few pages at a time. First he describes the four general understandings of what “civilization” means: “a collective scheme of values; a way of living.” “A certain level of economic and political development, enough to support towns and to undertake large buildlng projects.” “the sophisticated pursuit of pleasure; the enjoyment, comfort and interest of life.” “A high level of intellectual and artistic excellence. The grandest, most noble achievements.” He travels through time and cultures, examines philosophers (most the Greeks); quotes Snow, Leavett, Socrates, Berenson, etc. I am going to buy this book and read it some more. The cover is Ingres’ Portrait of Mme. Devaucay. This, he says, is the image of a sophisticated person, a woman in this case. Comfortable in her own skin, relaxed, confident,, sensual and intelligent, with a frank, open gaze, looking out at the viewer with her own understanding. I think I want a copy of this. This is very different from my Titian Maja Desnuda.
http://www.johnarmstrong.com.au
July 9, 2015
“In Search of Civilization: Remaking a Tarnished Idea,” by John Armstrong (Graywolf Press, 2009). Armstrong is a professor of philosophy in Melbourne, Australia. In this slim volume (194 pages, no bibliography, no footnotes), he defines what he means by civilization. It is a place where there is both material and spiritual prosperity. A human needs material prosperity to think beyond survival; spiritual prosperity provides the intellectual and emotional and moral depth to go with that prosperity, resulting in happiness. The writing is clear and fairly simple, but the ideas are so rich that I could not read more than a few pages at a time. First he describes the four general understandings of what “civilization” means: “a collective scheme of values; a way of living.” “A certain level of economic and political development, enough to support towns and to undertake large building projects.” “the sophisticated pursuit of pleasure; the enjoyment, comfort and interest of life.” “A high level of intellectual and artistic excellence. The grandest, most noble achievements.” He travels through time and cultures, examines philosophers (most the Greeks); quotes Snow, Leavett, Socrates, Berenson, etc. I am going to buy this book and read it some more. The cover is Ingres’ Portrait of Mme. Devaucay. This, he says, is the image of a sophisticated person, a woman in this case. Comfortable in her own skin, relaxed, confident, sensual and intelligent, with a frank, open gaze, looking out at the viewer with her own understanding. I think I want a copy of this. This is very different from my Titian Maja Desnuda.
http://www.johnarmstrong.com.au
http://www.johnarmstrong.com.au
January 12, 2025
A Fish in Water
We take civilization so much for granted that we often do not realize that we inhabit it. We think we know exactly what civilization is until we are asked to define it. It is at this time we realize that we do not even have the vocabulary necessary to adequately discus, let alone define civilization. John Armstrong provides us with just that vocabulary.
With the vocabulary in hand, we can discuss civilization in an intelligent and coherent manner, but more importantly, we learn how to recognize this precious human achievement of civilization and realize its inherent delicacy. We may be not able to put a value on civilization but we certainly learn how to value it.
The principles of civilization are inherently conservative principles in that in our civilization we have a patrimony worth preserving. We should be suspicious of attempts to make sudden changes to settled arrangements and mature institutions and not be too quick to embrace large scale panacea solutions. However, the principles of civilization betray us when they array us against progress and change. The principles of civilization benefit us when they help us to see that real progress and beneficial change come about only incrementally, just as civilization itself evolves incrementally. Change should not be desired for change sake, but nor should change be resisted simply because it is change. Maintaining civilization requires discernment, perspective and judgement on our part but as Will Durant once put it so well, civilization exists only by cosmological and geological consent, subject to change without notice.
We take civilization so much for granted that we often do not realize that we inhabit it. We think we know exactly what civilization is until we are asked to define it. It is at this time we realize that we do not even have the vocabulary necessary to adequately discus, let alone define civilization. John Armstrong provides us with just that vocabulary.
With the vocabulary in hand, we can discuss civilization in an intelligent and coherent manner, but more importantly, we learn how to recognize this precious human achievement of civilization and realize its inherent delicacy. We may be not able to put a value on civilization but we certainly learn how to value it.
The principles of civilization are inherently conservative principles in that in our civilization we have a patrimony worth preserving. We should be suspicious of attempts to make sudden changes to settled arrangements and mature institutions and not be too quick to embrace large scale panacea solutions. However, the principles of civilization betray us when they array us against progress and change. The principles of civilization benefit us when they help us to see that real progress and beneficial change come about only incrementally, just as civilization itself evolves incrementally. Change should not be desired for change sake, but nor should change be resisted simply because it is change. Maintaining civilization requires discernment, perspective and judgement on our part but as Will Durant once put it so well, civilization exists only by cosmological and geological consent, subject to change without notice.
August 4, 2014
a book that like all other books of its kind, starts out promising in its earnestness, then fails to reveal to us any meaning other than by a trope or a superficial idea. Books like this make me wonder why these fucks are writing books when they don't even have an intellectual integrity to themselves, if at least their readers. The impression I got of Armstrong was of the hopeful romantic at first, and then the juvenile SNAG. After the 7th chapter I decided, for the first time in a long time, that I would be putting down a book halfway with no chance of me ever picking it up again. I looked at the back cover again and noticed just why: He was the cheap romantic of an associate professor, with the striving for meaning but lacking any clarity as to what that search necessarily entails: it was surprising he actually graduated from his course in Philosophy, given the quality of his writing
Empty and frustrating
The book of a child who says to himself: I am going to discover the world through my noble feelings, then scribbles down a haphazard story where the protagonist is himself
Empty and frustrating
The book of a child who says to himself: I am going to discover the world through my noble feelings, then scribbles down a haphazard story where the protagonist is himself
April 1, 2012
Armstrong has been a truly inspiring companion these past few weeks. Meditative, probing and wonderfully articulate, this book has no fear of distilling ideas and actions to their fundamental essences. I happen to agree with most everything Armstrong posits, which makes for very pleasant and reaffirming reading indeed; but, more importantly, I am refreshed and energized by his excellent thinking, expressed as it is in beautiful and erudite -- yet casual and inviting -- prose. This book makes me feel OK about being human, being educated, being an artist, and remaining somewhat attached to the "first world" into which I was born. It's no mean feat to accomplish all that in under 200 pages.
Armstrong knows what's important in the life of the mind and the spirit, and he's not afraid to remind us. I, for one, am very grateful for what he shares in these golden pages. Gentle, humane, insightful, incisive, etc. etc. etc. I look forward to rereading this numerous times.
Armstrong knows what's important in the life of the mind and the spirit, and he's not afraid to remind us. I, for one, am very grateful for what he shares in these golden pages. Gentle, humane, insightful, incisive, etc. etc. etc. I look forward to rereading this numerous times.
February 28, 2012
This book took me six months to read. Should have taken two days. It's only 195 pgs. It's not bad...just tedious. Admittedly, with a nice cover blurb by Alain de Botton my expectations may have been set a wee bit high. Discussing aesthetics and philosophy, even in its LCD form (where my mind resides), can often wear thin without the proper vehicle of layman's language. There were certainly a-ha moments and right-on! voice overs espoused by me. But then my higher thoughts would be subsumed by rhetoricals like: "How much longer is this damn book going to take to read?" On second thought, it did only take me about two days to read...those two days just happened to be separated by six months.
December 30, 2009
Started reading this the other day, haven't finished it though. What few pages i have read is pretty great. It reads very easily, very simplistic and anyone can read it. I assumed the book would be a bit more complicated, perhaps even a bit boring, but not at all. It's quite straight forward.
I've never read any of Armstrong's work before, but this is ruministic, if that's even a word. I'll write more about this as i read more
I've never read any of Armstrong's work before, but this is ruministic, if that's even a word. I'll write more about this as i read more
January 28, 2013
This book is sort of like a casual one-way discussion about what it means to be civilized, how we can possibly be more civilized and what leading a Good existence is all about. The author brings to light some interesting thoughts and ideas which may inspire more of the same. It did for me.
June 27, 2011
I have blogged my thoughts on this book on link below... *spoilers alert*
http://rachitamisra.wordpress.com/201...
http://rachitamisra.wordpress.com/201...
Read
July 25, 2011would be nice if more of us would/could take the time to consider the issues in this book.
May 19, 2013
somewhat artsy wank, plenty of food for thought for the curious.
December 23, 2013
brilliant!! a beautiful insight into 21st century problems, life and philosophy, a great read well worth it.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews