Scan barcode
loganmhurley's review against another edition
2.0
Fine as far as it goes, but it's much more interested in blaming the cultural malaise (which I agree exists) on the unmooring effect of self-reference instead of actually exploring the ethical dimensions of authenticity.
jb134's review against another edition
4.0
This is the book we need in our age of unbridled individualism and "me only" culture. Taylor can be difficult to read, as he writes as if giving a lecture. Once you can read his style without frustration, his thoughts drive at key insights of the human condition. He says things more analytical philosophers might be scared to. He points to some of the near-mystical elements of human existence that drive us and define us.
Fantastic read, short.
Fantastic read, short.
evan_streeby's review against another edition
4.0
Much of what he says has great relevance to our modern world, and his differentiation between manner of describing and content that forms authenticity is particularly valuable. His description of the narcissistic and subjectivist ills of society seem to resonate 30 years after this book came out, and my peers seem even more entrenched in the idea that “working on yourself” entails cleansing themselves of the feelings of others and indeed the entire outer world.
Two points of disagreement with my own view, however, exist.
1. His contention that society is in a balance and has yet to choose between self-serving individualism and his formulated ideal authenticity. It seems clear that our society has chosen the former; perhaps this was the case in 1991, but with the internet age, severe negative polarization, and sociopolitical absurdities the 21st century has brought about, it seems clear - we now live in a full-blown narcissistic, subjectivist society. Which leads to:
2. His slow burn tactic for creating a universal endorsement of his (genuinely better) mode of authenticity no longer seems practical, and indeed may be naive in our current climate. He bashed the vehemently anti-modernity adherents as being debased in their ideology, but I think it’s clear his ideal world cannot be achieved with out a radical or even revolutionary upheaval of society.
Overall, a very good read with important points to consider for anyone trying to better understand why things feel so wrong with much of contemporary life.
Two points of disagreement with my own view, however, exist.
1. His contention that society is in a balance and has yet to choose between self-serving individualism and his formulated ideal authenticity. It seems clear that our society has chosen the former; perhaps this was the case in 1991, but with the internet age, severe negative polarization, and sociopolitical absurdities the 21st century has brought about, it seems clear - we now live in a full-blown narcissistic, subjectivist society. Which leads to:
2. His slow burn tactic for creating a universal endorsement of his (genuinely better) mode of authenticity no longer seems practical, and indeed may be naive in our current climate. He bashed the vehemently anti-modernity adherents as being debased in their ideology, but I think it’s clear his ideal world cannot be achieved with out a radical or even revolutionary upheaval of society.
Overall, a very good read with important points to consider for anyone trying to better understand why things feel so wrong with much of contemporary life.
davehershey's review against another edition
5.0
Who Should Read This Book – Anyone who wants to better understand why our contemporary culture has come to so highly value authenticity (be true to yourself).
The Big Takeaway – The modern age of authenticity is not merely to be unequivocally celebrated (“boosters”) nor unflinchingly opposed (“knockers”) but instead to be critically examined so as to recognize what is good while clearly explaining blindspots.
A quote – “What our situation seems to call for is a complex, many-leveled struggle, intellectual, spiritual, and political, in which the debates in the public arena interlink with those in a host of institutional settings, like hospitals and schools, where the issues of enframing technology are being lived through in concrete form; and where these disputes in turn both feed and are fed by the various attempts to define in theoretical terms the place of technology and the demands of authenticity, and beyond that, the shape of human life and its relation to the cosmos.
But to engage effectively in this many-faceted debate, one has to see what is great in the culture of modernity, as well as what is shallow or dangerous” (120)
Charles Taylor is one of the most influential living philosophers, and his book A Secular Age is one of my all-time favorites. Surprisingly (to me), I’ve never read any of his other works. I desire to reread A Secular Age, but before I do I picked up this short book just to get a feel for some of his other work.
He begins by identifying what he calls the three malaises of modernity: individualism, the primacy of instrumental reason (reason that calculates the most economical means to a given end), and the political consequences of the first two which is a society where individuals will not actively participate in self-government. The rest of the book mostly focuses on the first one and ends with implications for the last two.
The rise of individualism led to relativism in which everyone has their own values:
“Relativism was itself an offshoot of a form of individualism, whose principle is something like this: everyone has a right to develop their own form of life, grounded on their own sense of what is really important or of value. People are called upon to be true to themselves and to seek their own self-fulfillment. What this consists of, each must in the last instance, determine for him-or herself. No one else can or should try to dictate its content” (14).
This is why I love reading Taylor – he puts words to the perceptions of the world I have. Quote s like that one, and other parts of the book, describe the culture we live in. Taylor argues this pursuit of authenticity and your own values is a moral idea. He says that something like this has always existed but what makes the modern age unique is the feeling that people are called to do this and waste their life if they do not (17).
There is a lot I could say about this little book. Seriously, I underlined like half of it. I will focus on two things for the rest of my review.
First, Taylor seeks a balanced approach. He describes two positions in regard to this modern age of authenticity. There are the “knockers” who mostly see the entire project as a loss and seemingly want to go back to some sort of good-old days. Then there are the “boosters” who gladly and uncritically welcome all changes the modern world has brought. In contrast to these, Taylor seeks a more balanced view which recognizes the benefits of modernity while also nothing its shortcomings.
This sympathetic yet critical view seems both true and helpful. There is a lot of good about the modern world (vaccines) and the emphasis on the individual. Yet there are places it has gone wrong. Further, only in being sympathetic is it possible to enter in and engage with people.
Second, Taylor’s critique of authenticity is helpful as it should have been obvious. The call of authenticity is for individuals to develop their own opinions, to be true to themselves and form their own values. Yet Taylor points out we always develop our opinions and ideas in dialogue with others – “things take on importance against a background of intelligibility” (37). Our culture values choice – be authentic – but for choices to matter, some must be favored over others. He writes:
“Unless some options are more significant than others, the very idea of self-choice falls into triviality and hence incoherence. . . Which issues are significant, I do not determine. If I did, no issue would be significant. But then the very idea of self-choosing as a moral ideal would be impossible. So the ideal of self-choice supposes that there are other issues of significance beyond self-choice” (39).
Take the issue of wearing masks during a pandemic. There was (is) a clash between those who elevate their choice (its my right not to wear a mask) and those who argue in response the individual’s responsibility to others (if it keeps others safe, you ought to wear a mask). Or take same-sex relationships, a topic that has certainly changed since this book was published in 1991. The general feeling is that you ought to be true to yourself, developing your own values. You should not be constrained by traditions or authorities outside yourself. Yet, this very idea is still formed in dialogue with others. There is an expectation (and I’d say, rightly so) that other people ought to respect who you are. As we cannot help but exist in community, in the world, together we cannot help but place demands upon one another. Whether it is wearing a mask or loving whomever you choose, these choices only matter in relationship to other people.
If all options are equally worthy solely because they are chosen, with personal choice of value being the highest value, then choice loses its significance. I could choose to find my self-worth in the specific number of hairs on my head which just might make me unique, but is that a significant choice because I choose to find value in it? Or, I could choose to find my self-worth in opposing same-sex relationships. In a world where being authentic and creating value is primary, is that choice equally as significant as the choice to support same-sex relationships?
I think it is important to note that Taylor does allude to same-sex relationships which is partly why I used that example. I am always nervous mentioning such topics, as what is left unsaid could lead to unwarranted assumptions. Obviously who a person is attracted to goes beyond mere choice. But I suppose that might fit Taylor’s point. If we argue any way of life is valid because all personal choices are valid, this collapses on itself because choice, as choice, is insignificant. If we argue a way of life is valid because of nature [people are naturally attracted to certain people] or society [we ought to respect other’s ways of life] we are appealing to a horizon beyond our individual selves.
Taylor writes:
“Only if I exist in a world in which history, or the demands of nature, or the needs of my fellow human beings, or the duties of citizenship, or the call of God, or something else of this order matters crucially, can I define an identity for myself that is not trivial. Authenticity is not the enemy of demands that emanate from beyond the self; it supposes such demands” (40-41).
There’s a tension here. We are asked to create our authentic selves yet to do so requires some openness to horizon of significance.
Finally, in the last chapter, after a chapter on instrumental reason, he returns to politics. Again he seeks balance, noting that market mechanisms are indispensable (sorry communists) but a free society ordered only through markets is also impossible (sorry capitalists). What really struck me was how prescient, even prophetic, his words were, written in 1991:
“The danger is not actual despotic control but fragmentation – that is, a people increasingly less capable of forming a common purpose and carrying it out. Fragmentation arises when people come to see themselves more and more atomistically, otherwise put, as less and less bound to their fellow citizens in common projects and allegiances” (112-113)
“The debate between the major candidates becomes ever more disjointed, their statements ever more blatantly self-serving, their communications consisting more and more of the now famous ‘sound bytes,’ their promises risibly unbelievable (‘read my lips’) and cynically unkempt, while their attacks on their opponents sink to ever more dishonorable levels, seemingly with impunity” (115).
Sounds familiar?
Overall, this book is a brilliant entry into Taylor’s thought. I’d highly recommend pastors, or anyone interested in understanding our culture, to pick it up. Its not a behemoth like A Secular Age, and even though it is kind of dated in some of the examples, this only reveals how clearly Taylor saw what was coming.
The Big Takeaway – The modern age of authenticity is not merely to be unequivocally celebrated (“boosters”) nor unflinchingly opposed (“knockers”) but instead to be critically examined so as to recognize what is good while clearly explaining blindspots.
A quote – “What our situation seems to call for is a complex, many-leveled struggle, intellectual, spiritual, and political, in which the debates in the public arena interlink with those in a host of institutional settings, like hospitals and schools, where the issues of enframing technology are being lived through in concrete form; and where these disputes in turn both feed and are fed by the various attempts to define in theoretical terms the place of technology and the demands of authenticity, and beyond that, the shape of human life and its relation to the cosmos.
But to engage effectively in this many-faceted debate, one has to see what is great in the culture of modernity, as well as what is shallow or dangerous” (120)
Charles Taylor is one of the most influential living philosophers, and his book A Secular Age is one of my all-time favorites. Surprisingly (to me), I’ve never read any of his other works. I desire to reread A Secular Age, but before I do I picked up this short book just to get a feel for some of his other work.
He begins by identifying what he calls the three malaises of modernity: individualism, the primacy of instrumental reason (reason that calculates the most economical means to a given end), and the political consequences of the first two which is a society where individuals will not actively participate in self-government. The rest of the book mostly focuses on the first one and ends with implications for the last two.
The rise of individualism led to relativism in which everyone has their own values:
“Relativism was itself an offshoot of a form of individualism, whose principle is something like this: everyone has a right to develop their own form of life, grounded on their own sense of what is really important or of value. People are called upon to be true to themselves and to seek their own self-fulfillment. What this consists of, each must in the last instance, determine for him-or herself. No one else can or should try to dictate its content” (14).
This is why I love reading Taylor – he puts words to the perceptions of the world I have. Quote s like that one, and other parts of the book, describe the culture we live in. Taylor argues this pursuit of authenticity and your own values is a moral idea. He says that something like this has always existed but what makes the modern age unique is the feeling that people are called to do this and waste their life if they do not (17).
There is a lot I could say about this little book. Seriously, I underlined like half of it. I will focus on two things for the rest of my review.
First, Taylor seeks a balanced approach. He describes two positions in regard to this modern age of authenticity. There are the “knockers” who mostly see the entire project as a loss and seemingly want to go back to some sort of good-old days. Then there are the “boosters” who gladly and uncritically welcome all changes the modern world has brought. In contrast to these, Taylor seeks a more balanced view which recognizes the benefits of modernity while also nothing its shortcomings.
This sympathetic yet critical view seems both true and helpful. There is a lot of good about the modern world (vaccines) and the emphasis on the individual. Yet there are places it has gone wrong. Further, only in being sympathetic is it possible to enter in and engage with people.
Second, Taylor’s critique of authenticity is helpful as it should have been obvious. The call of authenticity is for individuals to develop their own opinions, to be true to themselves and form their own values. Yet Taylor points out we always develop our opinions and ideas in dialogue with others – “things take on importance against a background of intelligibility” (37). Our culture values choice – be authentic – but for choices to matter, some must be favored over others. He writes:
“Unless some options are more significant than others, the very idea of self-choice falls into triviality and hence incoherence. . . Which issues are significant, I do not determine. If I did, no issue would be significant. But then the very idea of self-choosing as a moral ideal would be impossible. So the ideal of self-choice supposes that there are other issues of significance beyond self-choice” (39).
Take the issue of wearing masks during a pandemic. There was (is) a clash between those who elevate their choice (its my right not to wear a mask) and those who argue in response the individual’s responsibility to others (if it keeps others safe, you ought to wear a mask). Or take same-sex relationships, a topic that has certainly changed since this book was published in 1991. The general feeling is that you ought to be true to yourself, developing your own values. You should not be constrained by traditions or authorities outside yourself. Yet, this very idea is still formed in dialogue with others. There is an expectation (and I’d say, rightly so) that other people ought to respect who you are. As we cannot help but exist in community, in the world, together we cannot help but place demands upon one another. Whether it is wearing a mask or loving whomever you choose, these choices only matter in relationship to other people.
If all options are equally worthy solely because they are chosen, with personal choice of value being the highest value, then choice loses its significance. I could choose to find my self-worth in the specific number of hairs on my head which just might make me unique, but is that a significant choice because I choose to find value in it? Or, I could choose to find my self-worth in opposing same-sex relationships. In a world where being authentic and creating value is primary, is that choice equally as significant as the choice to support same-sex relationships?
I think it is important to note that Taylor does allude to same-sex relationships which is partly why I used that example. I am always nervous mentioning such topics, as what is left unsaid could lead to unwarranted assumptions. Obviously who a person is attracted to goes beyond mere choice. But I suppose that might fit Taylor’s point. If we argue any way of life is valid because all personal choices are valid, this collapses on itself because choice, as choice, is insignificant. If we argue a way of life is valid because of nature [people are naturally attracted to certain people] or society [we ought to respect other’s ways of life] we are appealing to a horizon beyond our individual selves.
Taylor writes:
“Only if I exist in a world in which history, or the demands of nature, or the needs of my fellow human beings, or the duties of citizenship, or the call of God, or something else of this order matters crucially, can I define an identity for myself that is not trivial. Authenticity is not the enemy of demands that emanate from beyond the self; it supposes such demands” (40-41).
There’s a tension here. We are asked to create our authentic selves yet to do so requires some openness to horizon of significance.
Finally, in the last chapter, after a chapter on instrumental reason, he returns to politics. Again he seeks balance, noting that market mechanisms are indispensable (sorry communists) but a free society ordered only through markets is also impossible (sorry capitalists). What really struck me was how prescient, even prophetic, his words were, written in 1991:
“The danger is not actual despotic control but fragmentation – that is, a people increasingly less capable of forming a common purpose and carrying it out. Fragmentation arises when people come to see themselves more and more atomistically, otherwise put, as less and less bound to their fellow citizens in common projects and allegiances” (112-113)
“The debate between the major candidates becomes ever more disjointed, their statements ever more blatantly self-serving, their communications consisting more and more of the now famous ‘sound bytes,’ their promises risibly unbelievable (‘read my lips’) and cynically unkempt, while their attacks on their opponents sink to ever more dishonorable levels, seemingly with impunity” (115).
Sounds familiar?
Overall, this book is a brilliant entry into Taylor’s thought. I’d highly recommend pastors, or anyone interested in understanding our culture, to pick it up. Its not a behemoth like A Secular Age, and even though it is kind of dated in some of the examples, this only reveals how clearly Taylor saw what was coming.
magicsheep's review against another edition
4.0
I liked the way this book felt. It was a philosophical work, but it was still easy to read. Mr. Taylor did not use any fancy words just to sound important, as many philosophers try to do. The book had a good message as well, and that message is that no person should belong to jusst one ideology. We should decide for us selves at every turn, and take the best parts of evere ideology. Therefore leave out the worst parts, and make a grand new philosophy for ourselves. My reason for giving this book 4 stars is that the conclusion contradicts the build up. If we make a singe ideology, out of the good parts of all the other ideologies, then we follow only one ideology.
intoxicatedcake's review against another edition
3.0
This work of examining the origin of the modern moral framework encourages a difficult piece of introspective thought on the subject of self. The author works to convey his view of how morality has shifted, not from some "good" to "bad", but simply to something different than our grandparents, or even parents, had experienced during their formative years. To this end, it allows the opportunity of self-evaluation for the audience as Taylor describes the his view of self-realization and its consequences. It is a good inducement to introspection and self-awareness, as, whether or not you agree with his thesis, it provides good challenge to the reader without asserting a "good/bad" binary that might prevent the audience from placing themselves in the argument.
While the general thrust of this lecture is strong, Taylor readily admits that he doesn't have all the answers, and is also aware that his arguments resemble sketches and outlines in the latter sections. Consequently, while I found myself enjoying the early sections of the book, as it went on I found myself less enthralled with the subject. Additionally, the specialized language involved with the subject meant that as the book went on I found myself with a slimmer grasp upon the subject as the pool of these terms grew.
I have little doubt that there is more to this lecture than I have absorbed. The specialized language and the difficult nature of the subject matter suggest this book as a work of more serious study than my fairly casual reading provided. I certainly found it interesting, and it provided me some good food for thought, but has also revealed itself as somewhat inaccessible to a general reader.
While the general thrust of this lecture is strong, Taylor readily admits that he doesn't have all the answers, and is also aware that his arguments resemble sketches and outlines in the latter sections. Consequently, while I found myself enjoying the early sections of the book, as it went on I found myself less enthralled with the subject. Additionally, the specialized language involved with the subject meant that as the book went on I found myself with a slimmer grasp upon the subject as the pool of these terms grew.
I have little doubt that there is more to this lecture than I have absorbed. The specialized language and the difficult nature of the subject matter suggest this book as a work of more serious study than my fairly casual reading provided. I certainly found it interesting, and it provided me some good food for thought, but has also revealed itself as somewhat inaccessible to a general reader.
tashtonnes's review against another edition
4.0
My eye falls upon words of philosophy that are easy to read: tears come to my eyes
Next I notice that this philosophy lives in a small book: I look skyward and bless the heavens
For real tho kudos to Taylor for making phil so easy and accessible
Content wise I'm more mixed
So this book is about all the problems of modernity- you know the ones: the hyper individualism, the passiveness, the instrumental reason
This book addresses and examines that and comes to an interesting conclusion:
Modern life aspires to the ideal of authenticity, of realisation (a moral and agreeable ideal), although in practice we have sort of perverted it creating tension in our lives
To fix this, we must examine our ideal of authenticity, and attempt to correct our path towards it
This involves acknowledging that not everything revolves around the self as an individual, even to form and confirm our identity, this must happen in dialogue with other people. We also need larger causes and communities that transcend individual life, or everything is chaos and nothing has any meaning, the value in even establishing the self has no value if it does not have a background of external values on which to rely.
So we must assert a common ground that is larger than ourselves. This is particularly interesting and urgent when you do consider it in connection to the attitudes of the damn youth today. A neutral "you do you fam" attitude has arisen and been viewed as a correct moral stance, but according to Taylor, this only increases the fractured nature of our society, which leaves us as isolated individuals in a fractured society, which then plays into larger issues, political, economical, environmental blah blah blah issues (so basically issues that transcend individuals that won't be solved by neutrality). This fractured state also leaves us trapped in our capitalistic, instrumental reason hellscape
Actually the more I think about it the more I come round to Taylor..
Anyways, a good accessible book that was really well grounded in history but also art and literature!!! Drag the postmodernists Taylor!!
My only real problem with it is that it isn't an overdramatic earth shattering piece of philosophy, its more subtle and more readily applicable to everyday life which is a dumb criticism but still
Next I notice that this philosophy lives in a small book: I look skyward and bless the heavens
For real tho kudos to Taylor for making phil so easy and accessible
Content wise I'm more mixed
So this book is about all the problems of modernity- you know the ones: the hyper individualism, the passiveness, the instrumental reason
This book addresses and examines that and comes to an interesting conclusion:
Modern life aspires to the ideal of authenticity, of realisation (a moral and agreeable ideal), although in practice we have sort of perverted it creating tension in our lives
To fix this, we must examine our ideal of authenticity, and attempt to correct our path towards it
This involves acknowledging that not everything revolves around the self as an individual, even to form and confirm our identity, this must happen in dialogue with other people. We also need larger causes and communities that transcend individual life, or everything is chaos and nothing has any meaning, the value in even establishing the self has no value if it does not have a background of external values on which to rely.
So we must assert a common ground that is larger than ourselves. This is particularly interesting and urgent when you do consider it in connection to the attitudes of the damn youth today. A neutral "you do you fam" attitude has arisen and been viewed as a correct moral stance, but according to Taylor, this only increases the fractured nature of our society, which leaves us as isolated individuals in a fractured society, which then plays into larger issues, political, economical, environmental blah blah blah issues (so basically issues that transcend individuals that won't be solved by neutrality). This fractured state also leaves us trapped in our capitalistic, instrumental reason hellscape
Actually the more I think about it the more I come round to Taylor..
Anyways, a good accessible book that was really well grounded in history but also art and literature!!! Drag the postmodernists Taylor!!
My only real problem with it is that it isn't an overdramatic earth shattering piece of philosophy, its more subtle and more readily applicable to everyday life which is a dumb criticism but still