Scan barcode
edowdle's review
3.0
It's an interesting survey of different ideal selves throughout history, but I had a hard time as the author insisted a very static concept of identity, as well as having a unflagging love for ancient modes of being. He seems to have almost no use for the contemporary mode of existence, discarding it as "fallen" in some way. Red flag.
aaronchance25's review
2.0
My rating for this book is really a 2.5 (somewhere in between "I liked it" and "It was ok").
Conclusion: The book presents fascinating, easy-to-read literary analyses but suffers from a few problems (some of which are listed below).
I went back and forth with my opinions throughout the book. The first thing to note is that it did not exactly fulfill what the title set out for. It was less of "A Defense of Ideals," and more of an analysis of them.
To start with the positives: the book is wonderfully written. It is clear, concise, and fascinating throughout most of the narration. It presents several analyses from Homer to Freud focused on a distinction between Ideals (the Soul) and Pragmatism (the Self).
Despite this, there are several moments where I had to pause and strongly question what the author is saying. For instance, In his first chapter on the Heroic Ideal, he states that:
"The warriors do not have to think about what kind of life is best, for they know that theirs is: Nature corroborates them constantly. The Greeks take obvious pride in their conviction that they have created a culture that is as close to Nature as any human beings have ever done or (presumably) will do" (page 26).
He then goes on to state that:
"Most currently existing individuals cannot claim to value what Nature values... At their most humane, people today endorse fairness, equality, decency, democracy, and one for all law. However admirable these standards may be, no one thinks of them as natural" (page 26).
From what I understand, these conjoined claims are almost certainly untrue (see the work of Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis as well as the work of anthropologists Douglas Fry & Brian Ferguson). Humans (as well as several other animals), value traits such as fairness and equality BECAUSE of their natural state of being, not because of cultural tendencies, as Edmundson suggests.
Another strange claim was made on page 34 when he suggests that the reason why some war vets come home with PTSD is actually due to them missing their natural state; war: "But is it also possible that they are dispirited precisely because they miss their proper element, war?". I understand that this question is raised in intellectual curiosity with regards to the Heroic Ideal, and can appreciate this sort of question, but I feel as though a claim like that was out of place. This is just a nitpick, however.
One last issue I will mention is that he seems to contradict himself on the issue of the Heroic Ideal. He presents Achilles as the archetype of Heroism: he is man-made for war and does so only for the glory of war and his image (leaving his family and rejecting wealth in the process). Edmundson compares this to Hector which, although also a mighty warrior, cares mostly for his family and the protection of the citizens, thus eliminating him from the pure Heroic Ideal. Throughout the book, Edmundson also ensures that those who value the Self over the Soul value pragmatism over ideals. One example he gives is the characters of Shakespeare:
"In Shakespeare, characters generally speak because they are trying to get something. They want to enhance their images, improve their lots, speed their designs. Most are pragmatists to the tips of their fingers" (page 174).
This is an oddity, because previously, the enhancement of one's image (as in the case of Achilles), is seen as a characteristic of the Heroic Ideal, but now we are being told that it is actually a symptom of pragmatism, used by the Self.
There are other oddities such as this that leave confusion as to what Edmundson is saying. One example that exemplifies the confusion in this book can be found in a blurb for the book. Megan Marshall writes "Self and Soul is a series of secular hymns to the soul-saving idealists who shaped Western literature and spiritual philosophy- from Homer to Shakespeare and Blake, Jesus to Emerson and Freud." From this quote, I can only assume that she is implying that the book categorizes Shakespeare and Freud among the Idealists. Shakespeare and Freud are constantly referred to as anti-Idealists throughout the book, with their own chapters explaining why they belong in the tradition of the Self, rather than the Soul. I can only chalk this mistake up to the confusing nature of some of the book's claims.
Conclusion: The book presents fascinating, easy-to-read literary analyses but suffers from a few problems (some of which are listed below).
I went back and forth with my opinions throughout the book. The first thing to note is that it did not exactly fulfill what the title set out for. It was less of "A Defense of Ideals," and more of an analysis of them.
To start with the positives: the book is wonderfully written. It is clear, concise, and fascinating throughout most of the narration. It presents several analyses from Homer to Freud focused on a distinction between Ideals (the Soul) and Pragmatism (the Self).
Despite this, there are several moments where I had to pause and strongly question what the author is saying. For instance, In his first chapter on the Heroic Ideal, he states that:
"The warriors do not have to think about what kind of life is best, for they know that theirs is: Nature corroborates them constantly. The Greeks take obvious pride in their conviction that they have created a culture that is as close to Nature as any human beings have ever done or (presumably) will do" (page 26).
He then goes on to state that:
"Most currently existing individuals cannot claim to value what Nature values... At their most humane, people today endorse fairness, equality, decency, democracy, and one for all law. However admirable these standards may be, no one thinks of them as natural" (page 26).
From what I understand, these conjoined claims are almost certainly untrue (see the work of Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis as well as the work of anthropologists Douglas Fry & Brian Ferguson). Humans (as well as several other animals), value traits such as fairness and equality BECAUSE of their natural state of being, not because of cultural tendencies, as Edmundson suggests.
Another strange claim was made on page 34 when he suggests that the reason why some war vets come home with PTSD is actually due to them missing their natural state; war: "But is it also possible that they are dispirited precisely because they miss their proper element, war?". I understand that this question is raised in intellectual curiosity with regards to the Heroic Ideal, and can appreciate this sort of question, but I feel as though a claim like that was out of place. This is just a nitpick, however.
One last issue I will mention is that he seems to contradict himself on the issue of the Heroic Ideal. He presents Achilles as the archetype of Heroism: he is man-made for war and does so only for the glory of war and his image (leaving his family and rejecting wealth in the process). Edmundson compares this to Hector which, although also a mighty warrior, cares mostly for his family and the protection of the citizens, thus eliminating him from the pure Heroic Ideal. Throughout the book, Edmundson also ensures that those who value the Self over the Soul value pragmatism over ideals. One example he gives is the characters of Shakespeare:
"In Shakespeare, characters generally speak because they are trying to get something. They want to enhance their images, improve their lots, speed their designs. Most are pragmatists to the tips of their fingers" (page 174).
This is an oddity, because previously, the enhancement of one's image (as in the case of Achilles), is seen as a characteristic of the Heroic Ideal, but now we are being told that it is actually a symptom of pragmatism, used by the Self.
There are other oddities such as this that leave confusion as to what Edmundson is saying. One example that exemplifies the confusion in this book can be found in a blurb for the book. Megan Marshall writes "Self and Soul is a series of secular hymns to the soul-saving idealists who shaped Western literature and spiritual philosophy- from Homer to Shakespeare and Blake, Jesus to Emerson and Freud." From this quote, I can only assume that she is implying that the book categorizes Shakespeare and Freud among the Idealists. Shakespeare and Freud are constantly referred to as anti-Idealists throughout the book, with their own chapters explaining why they belong in the tradition of the Self, rather than the Soul. I can only chalk this mistake up to the confusing nature of some of the book's claims.
jeremychiasson's review
4.0
I'm not sure if Mark Edmundson actually makes compelling arguments in his books, or if I just naturally agree with him and delight in having someone build up an academic case around my existing beliefs.
Either way, Edmundson rails against how our society has taken the great ideals and virtues of our time, and has reduced them to a safe commercial simulacrum (instead of doing heroic deeds, we watch movies and are vicariously heroic). He writes about exemplars of ideals, like Jesus, Achilles, Plato, and Blake, people who live for the soul, and contrasts them with today's disenchanted people, who all live for the Self. In the place of living lives charged with meaning, Edmundson argues, we live by the mediocre middle class values of living as long, as pleasurably, and as (financially) prosperously as we can. And that is why life feels so empty. In this, Edmundson tries to make a case for living a life dedicated to an ideal.
Interestingly, he accuses Shakespeare and his heir, Sigmund Freud, of slaying and reducing all ideals and noble virtues, down to a matter of folly and delusions. They are visionaries of negative capability and reductionism. Edmundson very deliberately set out to write a polemic, if you haven't noticed. You will also notice, if you read a few of Edmundson's books, that he can't seem to write anything without at least disagreeing with Harold Bloom a hundred times.
If nothing else, you will be entertained by Edmundson quixotic tilts at today's society. But if you are anything like me, you will be inspired to cast off what Blake calls your "mind-forg'd manacles" and try to live more beautifully.
Either way, Edmundson rails against how our society has taken the great ideals and virtues of our time, and has reduced them to a safe commercial simulacrum (instead of doing heroic deeds, we watch movies and are vicariously heroic). He writes about exemplars of ideals, like Jesus, Achilles, Plato, and Blake, people who live for the soul, and contrasts them with today's disenchanted people, who all live for the Self. In the place of living lives charged with meaning, Edmundson argues, we live by the mediocre middle class values of living as long, as pleasurably, and as (financially) prosperously as we can. And that is why life feels so empty. In this, Edmundson tries to make a case for living a life dedicated to an ideal.
Interestingly, he accuses Shakespeare and his heir, Sigmund Freud, of slaying and reducing all ideals and noble virtues, down to a matter of folly and delusions. They are visionaries of negative capability and reductionism. Edmundson very deliberately set out to write a polemic, if you haven't noticed. You will also notice, if you read a few of Edmundson's books, that he can't seem to write anything without at least disagreeing with Harold Bloom a hundred times.
If nothing else, you will be entertained by Edmundson quixotic tilts at today's society. But if you are anything like me, you will be inspired to cast off what Blake calls your "mind-forg'd manacles" and try to live more beautifully.
mlindner's review against another edition
5.0
http://m.chronicle.com/article/Why-We-Need-to-Resurrect-Our/232369/
Amazing. Need to re-read together with Sara.
Amazing. Need to re-read together with Sara.
jeffw's review against another edition
3.0
Three desirable ideals are presented - courage, contemplation, and compassion. A "pure" example of each would be Achilles, Plato, and Buddha, respectively.
It is an interesting subject, but I felt it would have been better as longish essay, not a 200 plus page book.
It is an interesting subject, but I felt it would have been better as longish essay, not a 200 plus page book.
jeffw's review
3.0
Three desirable ideals are presented - courage, contemplation, and compassion. A "pure" example of each would be Achilles, Plato, and Buddha, respectively.
It is an interesting subject, but I felt it would have been better as longish essay, not a 200 plus page book.
It is an interesting subject, but I felt it would have been better as longish essay, not a 200 plus page book.
More...