Scan barcode
chloehyman's review
2.0
Cosmos and History seeks an archaic ontology to explain the prevalence of cosmic regeneration in early civilizations. It is a fascinating introduction to the subject, and Eliade supports his views with a number of well-cited examples.
However, his terminology is inconsistent, which doesn't quite undermine the quality of the author's arguments, but does make for a very confusing read. Eliade uses categories to differentiate cultural practices, and to demonstrate how certain practices borrow from multiple theoretical models. That these categories are ambiguously defined does not bode well for the text's clarity. Furthermore, Eliade provides the names for certain events and practices in Greek and Latin and then refers to them as such later, a practice that muddles an already confusing text.
Notable examples of ambiguous categorization include unclear relationships between periodicity and astral modeling, as well as the latter and cosmic regeneration. The author also maintains that stoicism emphasizes eternal reputation and a final cataclysm, a dichotomy he does not reconcile despite the opposition of these paradigms throughout the text. He switches between the terms 'neo-Stoicism' and 'Stoicism' at will, never differentiating between the two chronologically or contextually.
I still enjoyed Cosmos and History, as it introduced me to a number of fascinating ideas, but it left me with more questions than answers. I'd recommend this text as a jumping off point for a curious reader.
However, his terminology is inconsistent, which doesn't quite undermine the quality of the author's arguments, but does make for a very confusing read. Eliade uses categories to differentiate cultural practices, and to demonstrate how certain practices borrow from multiple theoretical models. That these categories are ambiguously defined does not bode well for the text's clarity. Furthermore, Eliade provides the names for certain events and practices in Greek and Latin and then refers to them as such later, a practice that muddles an already confusing text.
Notable examples of ambiguous categorization include unclear relationships between periodicity and astral modeling, as well as the latter and cosmic regeneration. The author also maintains that stoicism emphasizes eternal reputation and a final cataclysm, a dichotomy he does not reconcile despite the opposition of these paradigms throughout the text. He switches between the terms 'neo-Stoicism' and 'Stoicism' at will, never differentiating between the two chronologically or contextually.
I still enjoyed Cosmos and History, as it introduced me to a number of fascinating ideas, but it left me with more questions than answers. I'd recommend this text as a jumping off point for a curious reader.
More...