Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.65 AVERAGE
3.65 AVERAGE
Despite that this historic book ‘New Science’ by Giambattista Vico (written around 1744) is one which broke new ground in studying ancient myths, law, and history, I cannot get past his constant boosting of Christianity as being so clearly superior to all other religions especially since his belief is that the Christian God is real while these other gods are barbaric. Not, gentle reader.
How Vico can ignore the similarities of bibical myths along with the other admirable insights he gained through his academic studies of ancient texts from China, the Far and Near East, and the Mediterranean (Athens, Rome, Egypt) is beyond me.
Vico’s book publicized and synthesized, although he wasn’t the first to come up with the thought, the idea a people's culture is linked to their myths. He brought out into the light of day the idea Culture evolves. If we cannot understand the historical timeline and the cultural framework of a myth, it is because the culture is very different from the current reader's time. We need to try to understand the culture of a civilization to understand the myth.
Vico's idea of using architectural observation of ancient texts and cultural artifacts, taking these at their face value and applying it to conclusions of academic studies, was contrary to the philosophical thought at the time. Thinkers like the philosopher Descartes was positing only Reason was a valid way to know things about things, that culture was eternal and unchanging because people were permanently unchanging. Vico states there is no ‘universal’ culture because people were radically different in thought and beliefs in the past as demonstrated by archeological discoveries and texts. He thought civilizations went through cycles of evolution.
Gentle reader, I am only a retired secretary, not a philosopher, historian or scientist. If I have got this wrong, comment below and educate me.
There is an extensive Index and Glossary section.
How Vico can ignore the similarities of bibical myths along with the other admirable insights he gained through his academic studies of ancient texts from China, the Far and Near East, and the Mediterranean (Athens, Rome, Egypt) is beyond me.
Vico’s book publicized and synthesized, although he wasn’t the first to come up with the thought, the idea a people's culture is linked to their myths. He brought out into the light of day the idea Culture evolves. If we cannot understand the historical timeline and the cultural framework of a myth, it is because the culture is very different from the current reader's time. We need to try to understand the culture of a civilization to understand the myth.
Vico's idea of using architectural observation of ancient texts and cultural artifacts, taking these at their face value and applying it to conclusions of academic studies, was contrary to the philosophical thought at the time. Thinkers like the philosopher Descartes was positing only Reason was a valid way to know things about things, that culture was eternal and unchanging because people were permanently unchanging. Vico states there is no ‘universal’ culture because people were radically different in thought and beliefs in the past as demonstrated by archeological discoveries and texts. He thought civilizations went through cycles of evolution.
Gentle reader, I am only a retired secretary, not a philosopher, historian or scientist. If I have got this wrong, comment below and educate me.
There is an extensive Index and Glossary section.
So this book is in turns repetitive, dogmatic, and insightful. Somehow its insistence on being "systematic", and finding these grand parallels everywhere, gets in the way of the more inquisitive (and, admittedly speculative) moments. The etymological musings, the notion of a "mental dictionary" and the development story about language and culture were certainly thought-provoking though at times a bit silly and forced. The final two books seemed largely either repetitive or simply an affirmation of Vico's own place in history. The "Discovery of the True Homer" is what led meto read this book in he first place. Almost all of the observations I made above apply to it in miniature. Still, the mythic view of Homer it espouses does have defenders in contemporary scholarship, which is usually a good thing.
If you're reading this bc of James Joyce, you'll find a lot that is helpful. You'll get beyond just this really shallow idea that Joyce used Vico's ideas of historical cycles, and see all sorts of other parallels between Vico and both Ulysses and Finnegans Wake on nearly every page.
That said, the argument on its own has a forced and idiosyncratic quality that's hard to get past.
If you're reading this bc of James Joyce, you'll find a lot that is helpful. You'll get beyond just this really shallow idea that Joyce used Vico's ideas of historical cycles, and see all sorts of other parallels between Vico and both Ulysses and Finnegans Wake on nearly every page.
That said, the argument on its own has a forced and idiosyncratic quality that's hard to get past.
Fascinating analysis of ancient Rome, Greece, antiquity, and the cycle of civilisations - with particular focus on illuminating the 'dark ages' (i.e. of both the ancient, pre-Socratic era, and the early medieval era).
Most interesting topics include his interpretation of ancient myth as poetic story telling of history, his analysis of Homer's works, and the development of the civil state from the family (ruled by divine right), to the aristocratic/heroic city state, to the human civil states of democracy and, finally, monarchy.
A broad range of classical history is covered and explained in great detail: the giantology of ancient peoples, the creation of pagan gods, the ancient citymakers/lawmakers such as Solon or Lycurgus (who, in fact, are not the original founders), the symbology that permeates through all of ancient mythology, the social class struggles between noble and pleb, etc.
Vico stories us through the institutions, driven by the fear of nature and it's elevation to the status of various supreme gods. Fear of the gods shames the people, while the gods' language must be divinated. This shames and tempers the first peoples, creating virtue among certain peoples. That shame helps form the first institutions: marriage, which creates the family; and burial, which reflects the belief in the immortality of the soul and veneration of gods and ancestors. Heroic figures, reflected in the Hercules myth, tames and cultivates the land, and slays beasts. Those peoples, the strong and pious, take in refugees: other peoples, without the temperance to found their own gods, nor the strength to protect themselves. The heads of the families, the fathers, therefore become both kings and priests protecting their now extended families, as well as their sacred religion, which confers on them, and them alone, the supreme power. From these family monarchs come other insitutions: the first lamguage, formed of hieroglyphs - entirely symbolic; the busks of family chiefs represent their strength, with emblems of their like used as a symbol of their authority, and eventually forming the first currencies. And so on.
Most of the focus is on ancient history, understandable given the intellectual milieu in which Vico was writing, but he concludes with a brief description of how these cycles end: (1) monarchy, (2) conquest, (3) return to barbarism.
Many of the topics are discussed several times, and reference earlier or later chapters constantly - forming a dense multi-layered and, therefore, well-connected and convincing argument.
Most interesting topics include his interpretation of ancient myth as poetic story telling of history, his analysis of Homer's works, and the development of the civil state from the family (ruled by divine right), to the aristocratic/heroic city state, to the human civil states of democracy and, finally, monarchy.
A broad range of classical history is covered and explained in great detail: the giantology of ancient peoples, the creation of pagan gods, the ancient citymakers/lawmakers such as Solon or Lycurgus (who, in fact, are not the original founders), the symbology that permeates through all of ancient mythology, the social class struggles between noble and pleb, etc.
Vico stories us through the institutions, driven by the fear of nature and it's elevation to the status of various supreme gods. Fear of the gods shames the people, while the gods' language must be divinated. This shames and tempers the first peoples, creating virtue among certain peoples. That shame helps form the first institutions: marriage, which creates the family; and burial, which reflects the belief in the immortality of the soul and veneration of gods and ancestors. Heroic figures, reflected in the Hercules myth, tames and cultivates the land, and slays beasts. Those peoples, the strong and pious, take in refugees: other peoples, without the temperance to found their own gods, nor the strength to protect themselves. The heads of the families, the fathers, therefore become both kings and priests protecting their now extended families, as well as their sacred religion, which confers on them, and them alone, the supreme power. From these family monarchs come other insitutions: the first lamguage, formed of hieroglyphs - entirely symbolic; the busks of family chiefs represent their strength, with emblems of their like used as a symbol of their authority, and eventually forming the first currencies. And so on.
Most of the focus is on ancient history, understandable given the intellectual milieu in which Vico was writing, but he concludes with a brief description of how these cycles end: (1) monarchy, (2) conquest, (3) return to barbarism.
Many of the topics are discussed several times, and reference earlier or later chapters constantly - forming a dense multi-layered and, therefore, well-connected and convincing argument.
I truly believe that this is a work of a madman. I don't know how people enjoy reading this book, or even find Vico intelligent. He makes outrageous and nonsensical claims about history, and provides no facts at all. We are witnessing a mental illness ladies and gentlemen!!
DID NOT FINISH
This is absolute rubbish. Vico is quoting other authors and then making the most outrageous claims (e.g. Giants came from wallowing in their own filth, nobody had ever heard of the Jews which proves they are the most ancient people, etc.) without referring to anything to support his claims. Such a waste of time.
This is absolute rubbish. Vico is quoting other authors and then making the most outrageous claims (e.g. Giants came from wallowing in their own filth, nobody had ever heard of the Jews which proves they are the most ancient people, etc.) without referring to anything to support his claims. Such a waste of time.
It's mAAD how underappreciated Vico is as the father of sociology. Aside from his crucial influence over Joyce's Finnegans Wake, there's a whole swathe of critical theory in here. From Marx's dialectical history to Durkheime's analysis of nations. There's even postmodern thinking in here in regard to Vico's theory of how we construct religion and customs - and hence why we should be able to understand society first and foremost ahead of God.
His historical and mythological analysis here is particularly tantalizing though. The passage about pre-modern humans, in the age of poetic theology (á la Mycenean Greece), being mute was astounding. It's an insight into the creative consciousness of a culture which sees humanity as inextricably bound to nature. The wind howls and waves murmur because they are just like us, a willing being full of elan vital.
It's that form of vitalism, tempered by his Platonic Christian framing, that makes Vico a masterfully paradoxical thinker. He's at once the Enlightenment's greatest and first historicist - while being it's biggest anti-modern critic. He's at once the most open-minded perennialist while also the most strict pagan-condemning Catholic.
More than anything Vico is a refreshing thinker. He demonstrates that there is a middle way between Rousseau and Hobbes. He's an eye-opener for those who are stuck in the AC Graying or Bertrand Russell mythological analytic story of philosophy.
His historical and mythological analysis here is particularly tantalizing though. The passage about pre-modern humans, in the age of poetic theology (á la Mycenean Greece), being mute was astounding. It's an insight into the creative consciousness of a culture which sees humanity as inextricably bound to nature. The wind howls and waves murmur because they are just like us, a willing being full of elan vital.
It's that form of vitalism, tempered by his Platonic Christian framing, that makes Vico a masterfully paradoxical thinker. He's at once the Enlightenment's greatest and first historicist - while being it's biggest anti-modern critic. He's at once the most open-minded perennialist while also the most strict pagan-condemning Catholic.
More than anything Vico is a refreshing thinker. He demonstrates that there is a middle way between Rousseau and Hobbes. He's an eye-opener for those who are stuck in the AC Graying or Bertrand Russell mythological analytic story of philosophy.