Rating: 
Summary: Thinking about our Place in History
Review: A lifetime of writing, teaching, reading and thinking about History has been distilled in these pages. "At the hour of sunset" John Lukacs contemplates the passing of the "Modern Age" which began about 500 years ago with the Renaissance and proceeded through the Age of Enlightenment, producing the modern state. The 20th century, in Lukacs' view, has seen a rapid dissolution and malfunctioning of the ideals and institutions of the Modern Age, and the idea of "Progress" has been severely compromised. He shows how concepts like "liberalism" and "conservatism" have become perverted and meaningless. ("All the -isms are -wasms", says a wag).
In the work of celebrated thinkers like Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Einstein, Lukacs sees the common thread of determinism, which constrains human potential and responsibility. The pursuit of truth - in scientific as well as in historical thinking - has become ever more ambiguous; the limits of objectivity have been recognized. Ranke's famous dictum that the historian describes "what really happened" is an unfulfillable desideratum. "The purpose of the historian is not the establishment of perfect truth but the pursuit of truth through a reduction of ignorance, including untruths".
The Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty or Indeterminacy (which Einstein refused to accept) states that the very act of observing or measuring may alter a physical object. A similar effect obtains in other areas, especially in mass democratic societies (Lukacs mentions phenomena involving popularity and publicity as examples). The "human inseparability of the knower from the known means the inevitable participation of the knower in the known".
Human thought is central to the interpretation of the universe. Hence, we must acknowledge that our thinking of the world is unavoidably anthropomorphic, just as our exploration of the universe is inevitably geocentric. "Thinking about thinking" becomes increasingly important. And for Lucacs, a contemplation of history cannot exclude a contemplation of God. At a time when men are capable of destroying much of the world, including themselves, it behooves them to rethink the essential meaning of their place in history.
This book (the author calls it an "extended essay") is an erudite and impassioned appeal to our historical consciousness. It may make some people very uncomfortable; others undoubtedly will derive from it only what fits into their own preconceptions. But there it is - waiting to be read.
Rating: 
Summary: If Lukacs is right the implications are mind boggling
Review: Fleeing from a not yet wholly Sovietized Hungary to the US, Lukacs was convinced 20 years ago that the entire Modern Age was crumbling fast. By 2002 he was able to write that during the past 10 years his conviction had hardened into an unquestioning belief that not only an entire age and the civilization to which he belonged, were passing but that we are living through - if not already beyond - its very end. Even ordinary people when confronted with the moral rottenness with which we are surrounded conjure up thoughts of the last days of the Roman Empire and have a gut feeling that we are seeing the end of the European Age which began about 500 years ago. As late as 1914 the entire continent of Africa was governed by Europe but after two disastrous world wars and 80 years later there is not one European-ruled African state and European colonists have left their Asian homelands. To the observant, the European Age was clearly over by 1945 when super power status was with the US and with Russia. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall we are living through one of the greatest changes in the entire history of mankind - a period when history is being made by majorities whereas it has been made by minorities in the past and when the aristocratic era has been replaced by democracy. Most of the great minds and artists of the last 500 years had bourgeois origins; the Bourgeois Age was the age of the state, money, industry, cities, privacy, family, schooling, representation and science all of which are declining except for the last two. Evidence of decay is mixed with elements of lasting progress such as health, longevity, material comforts, cheap travel, democracy, working conditions and state welfare, but these should not blind us to the reality of decline. The period from 1914 to 1989 was a transitional period and we are now in a new era. The last time something like this happened was 500-600 years ago but then it involved a small minority of people creating the Renaissance, which is not happening now. At the end of the Modern Age, for the first time in 200 years, more and more people in more and more fields of life, have begun to question the idea of progress. A great division among the American people has begun between unthinking believers in technology and economic determination and those who question and publicly oppose more concrete, more automobiles and more noisy machinery ruling their lives. We must engage in a radical rethinking of progress, history, science, limitations of our knowledge and of our place in the universe and this is what this book is all about. Having set the scene, the author devotes several chapters to justifying his argument and it is not until chapter 5: At the Center of the Universe that he says: "And now I arrive at the most dramatic proposition of this book. Contrary to all accepted ideas we must now, at the end of an Age, recognize that we, and our earth, are at the center of our universe. We did not create the universe. But the universe is our invention; and, as are all human and mental inventions, time-bound, relative, and potentially fallible." He goes on to say that such a hypothesis is neither arrogant nor stupid but hopes that for some people there may be a faint echo of truth. There exists evidence of our central situation in the universe and this means that we must proceed not from a proud but a chastened view of ourselves, of our situation, and of our thinking. Nearing the end of the book Lukacs refers to God. "Throughout this little book I have insisted on the importance of thinking - more exactly: on the present and increasing importance of thinking about thinking. But now I must go further than that - to say something not about thinking but about beliefs." "And now - especially, but perhaps not exclusively for Christians - I must argue for the recognition of our central situation not only in space but also in time. In sum, that the coming of Christ to this earth may have been? no that it was, the central event of the universe; that the greatest, the most consequential event in the entire universe has occurred here, on this earth. The Son of God has not visited this earth during a tour of stars or planets, making a Command Performance for us, arriving from some other place and - perhaps - going off to some other place." If Lukacs is right in what he has written, the implications are mind boggling. All thinking people should read this book and take to heart the author's point about the importance of thinking about thinking. This book may well prove to be the watershed in our lives.
Rating:
Summary: We Are `?At the End of an Age?
Review: Historian John Lukacs explains what every one of us knows and can see in his newest book, `"At the End of an Age" published by Yale University Press. Many people are distinctly uneasy with many aspects of contemporary culture. Society is changing in ways that have many people uncomfortable. Those on earth with international perspectives and a comprehensive education are very uncomfortable. Mr. Lukas has description and explanation in his new book that will be a comfort to you if you are concerned. Civilization is always in flux. It is very difficult to summarize. Leadership and education have changed. Functional illiteracy is both a part of life and leadership in politics. Look no further than a functionally illiterate President with deplorable grammar, a distinct inability to read, and evidencing never having read much at all in `charge' of the most powerful nation on earth. George Bush is a functionally illiterate puerile leader exactly in the mold of popular "B' movie actor Ronald Reagan. Reading is fundamentally and definitely not a part of education. The age-old tendency to the pictorial view of life has become the standard for perception among most people on earth. It isn't necessary to be a "reader" or a verbal and literate person to get an education or lead. `Education' no longer requires general and comprehensive literacy and leadership. It follows the tendencies of culture. Earth has people discussing their "environment" politically as if they were not a part of it themselves. Europeans have done so for decades. They live in an environment where no window screens are necessary on any buildings. Human beings have decimated the entirety of nature from the predators through microbes. People universally and pictorially "bought in" on "philosophy": that separated mind and body. There are unnatural ideologies and separations. Privacy itself was a short-lived notion. There was no such thing in the middle ages. The notion of the family and children is also dead in our culture. Likewise there is no privacy in the age of the Internet. Issues once considered private like mental instability have been unmasked for cause by sociology and psychology in research by the numbers revealing the nature of everything from esteem problems to violence as having etiology in "privacy" and "family" that are undeniable. Since so many people are being "educated" today and going to university, it is very obvious that "education" is changing. The contemporary "educated" person has been subjected to redefinition. Specificity and specialization is the current nature of education. Total literacy across a broad spectrum as a standard for being "educated" is no longer a fact. John Luckas knows what most intelligent people know. The world is becoming a big and amorphous `nothing' in the establishment of the modern age. Cities are no longer urbane. Cities are crime ridden open sewers of culture on the decline. Urbanity and education are no longer synonymous. It is not desirable or necessary to have or go to cities to be urbane and educated. Communications have changed this. Population centers are declining. Society and social history both show that agriculture is long not the standard occupation of people. Neither is "production" as it was during the brevity of the industrial revolution. The industry of "service" is the principal occupation of society today. It does not require comprehensive education or understanding. Maturity is no longer required for leadership. Puerile leaders on the local and national level have become international eyesores like the redneck Texas hillbilly jackass US President Bush. The international community at large is hostile to Americans at large. Since Ronald Reagan, "B" acting is now a standard for governance. It is pictorial enough to satisfy the electorate of the USA that is satisfied with power and might as "status quo. The collective ego of the USA has never been more secure and united. Ability to look forward and look back is still the territory of the minds like Lukacs or St. Augustine. Both have foresight and social direction. The wisdom of wisdom of another great thinker from France, who told us: "things are never as good or as bad as they seem." We do live in a pictorial age. The best students at university with the highest university entry scores are keenly aware of things in films and distinctly unaware of history and standards of literacy many people prefer and expect. Nothing that has changed will entirely disappear. There still will be classically educated people. There will still be mature leadership in some institutions and countries. There still will be books, but book of quality will have fewer readers. Force will replace morality. Power in places like the USA will be pictorially represented and embraced by a majority. There is no need or room for denial about change or the need to deal with the changes that come "At the End of an Age." John Lukacs has written more than twenty books at Yale. This is his best and most difficult book. Things accepted as being of prime importance in culture are diminished. It is a difficult proposition to accept as inheritance of power by dunces like the US President and an immoral `conservative' body politic.
Society is "At the End of an Age." Consult John Lukacs and his book if you are looking for intelligent answers and explanations. The contradictions in terms of our time where geese mate for life as people eschew even one marriage counseling session before divorce, and animals make more sense than people is here. Both animals and humans aren't equipped for more than a pictorial world. Insects have order, discipline, common sense, and organization like humans and their immoral governments. Educated people know that ant or bee colonial wars make more sense than public policy today. The insect-like population of earth with its pictorial and feudal ignorance has grasped control of the reins of culture. Humans are more of a threat to society than the caprices of nature or pestilences in a relativistic world described by Lukacs.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Mr Lukacs' best work
Review: I am a great admirer of John Lukacs and have read many of his books. I think the man is something of a genius, and I am sure he is right that we are at the end of an age. Having said that, much of this book has a rambling quality, and as Mr Posey says in his review, some of what Lukacs writes is near-babble. Mr Lukacs makes far too much of the uncertainty principle. I agree with Mr Posey that Mr Lukacs is unfairly critical of particle physics and mathematics. It is bizarre for Mr Lukacs to write "...we now know that mathematics itself necessarily consists of relationships -- whence the absolute truthfulness of mathematics has been proven an illusion.." Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem a few years ago and we now know that the theorem is absolutely true. But I disagree with Mr Posey in one respect. I think quite a good case can be made for the period since 1950 being one of stagnation.
Anyway, lest I be accused of rambling, Mr Lukacs in this book attempts to summarize ideas that are found throughout his work. Unfortunately he makes a bad job of it. Maybe he wrote the book too quickly. Mr Lukacs' The Passing of the Modern Age, written thirty years ago, is a better book.
Rating:
Summary: Not Mr Lukacs' best work
Review: I am a great admirer of John Lukacs and have read many of his books. I think the man is something of a genius, and I am sure he is right that we are at the end of an age. Having said that, much of this book has a rambling quality, and as Mr Posey says in his review, some of what Lukacs writes is near-babble. Mr Lukacs makes far too much of the uncertainty principle. I agree with Mr Posey that Mr Lukacs is unfairly critical of particle physics and mathematics. It is bizarre for Mr Lukacs to write "...we now know that mathematics itself necessarily consists of relationships -- whence the absolute truthfulness of mathematics has been proven an illusion.." Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem a few years ago and we now know that the theorem is absolutely true. But I disagree with Mr Posey in one respect. I think quite a good case can be made for the period since 1950 being one of stagnation.
Anyway, lest I be accused of rambling, Mr Lukacs in this book attempts to summarize ideas that are found throughout his work. Unfortunately he makes a bad job of it. Maybe he wrote the book too quickly. Mr Lukacs' The Passing of the Modern Age, written thirty years ago, is a better book.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful
Review: Mr. Lukacs' clear and unpretentious style is a joy. I first learned of this book when I saw him speak of it on C-Span's Book TV. His talk clearly showed that he is a brilliant man, and this book reveals his sagacity to the fullest. I don't know, maybe it's just an idiosyncrasy of mine, but I love to study the musings of wise old men. Anyway, the subject matter is disconcerting, but it must be faced. Mr. Lukacs does so with a balanced mixture of pessimism, optimism, caution, and wit. Highly recommended reading, especially in conjunction with Jacques Barzun's more comprehensive FROM DAWN TO DECADENCE.
Rating:
Summary: Philosophy and History at its BEST
Review: The late social critic Neil Postman once observed that we would all do well if we studied the history and philosophy of things. Many silly ideas have been believed and defended in the name of science. Often these things are propagated by those who have given no attention to the philosophy (ideas and assumptions of the discipline) and history (not everyone, everywhere believes or has believed what modern science teaches as "fact") of science. In this insightful book, Dr. Lukacs challenges many of the assumptions people have about the history of history and historical thinking. His comments and criticisms about science are right on target! For those who would dare think at the end of an age when few are thinking, read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Philosophy and History at its BEST
Review: The late social critic Neil Postman once observed that we would all do well if we studied the history and philosophy of things. Many silly ideas have been believed and defended in the name of science. Often these things are propagated by those who have given no attention to the philosophy (ideas and assumptions of the discipline) and history (not everyone, everywhere believes or has believed what modern science teaches as "fact") of science. In this insightful book, Dr. Lukacs challenges many of the assumptions people have about the history of history and historical thinking. His comments and criticisms about science are right on target! For those who would dare think at the end of an age when few are thinking, read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Good stuff, but disjointed
Review: This book is broken into five parts that are only marginally related to each other. Each of those parts are great, but the lack of a coherent central theme makes the book difficult to read.
Rating:
Summary: "...no more than a long[winded] essay"
Review: This book is overpriced and over my head. I hesitate to condemn a historian of Lukacs' caliber, so I chalk it up as being too deep for me.
I was drawn by its title and inside flap description. I thought he was going to explain how the world is changing and his view of where we are going. He didn't. It's a relatively short book (225 pages) in five chapters. Lukacs refers to it as being just a long essay. Actually, the first four chapters seem like separate, disjointed essays, but he pulls them together in the fifth chapter. But I get ahead of myself.
I struggled through the first chapter, which I found pedantic, abstruse, and rambling. (In fact, this is his style throughout.) I agree with his main point that humanity is at a watershed and with most of his supporting points, including his assessment (37) that humanity itself is now the biggest threat to our survival. I have different reasoning, though. He believes the threat comes directly from humanity's technological and scientific progress -- more to the point, from our capabilities and where they might lead. I believe the threat comes indirectly from our technological and scientific progress -- more to the point, from our vast and increasing numbers vis-a-vis our ability to accommodate them, along with the fundamentalist backlash (e.g., Islamist hatred -- read "fear" -- of the West, anti-globalism, etc.). Both stem from progress, but our capabilities should lead us to answers to our problems, albeit creating new ones along the way.
Things almost picked up in the second chapter, but not much. He carries on about what it means to be a historian, with a bit of critique of (other?) historians and the discipline. I wasn't jazzed.
He lost me altogether in the third chapter wherein he critiques humanity's scientific knowledge. He is down on post-modernism. I agree, but then we diverge. He is down on particle (or quantum) physics, the existence of (even the pursuit of) a Grand Unified Theory, and the significant probability of intelligent extraterrestrial life. I disagree with him on all counts. He contends that the 20th century was a time of "intellectual (and artistic) stagnation" (118). I just can't accept this. He uses as "one evidence...the protracted reputation of 'modern' masters of thought, such as Darwin and Marx and Freud and Einstein..." Since he sees the 20th century as being from 1914 to 1989 (we agree on that at least), he sees these guys as carryovers from the 19th century. What about John Von Neumann (computers), Pablo Picasso (abstract painting/cubism), Robert Goddard and Wernher von Braun (rockets), Robert Oppenheimer and Leo Szilard (physics), Paul Dirac and Steven Weinberg (physics and mathematics), Frank Lloyd Wright (architecture), Stephen J. Hawkins (astrophysics)? The list could go on. He just loses me on this one. He sets the bar too high on genius.
He uses Hitler in chapter four to illustrate the application of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as a limit on objectivism in the physical and non-physical world - interesting, but not particularly informative. His point of how the object of historical scrutiny is impacted (interpreted) by the historian seems little more than "people are biased, their bias is a function of their cultural background and environment, and it colors their perception of whatever is the object of their scrutiny". Not a novel concept.
Farther on, "...we now know that mathematics itself necessarily consists of relationships -- whence the *absolute* truthfulness of mathematics has been proven an illusion...[I]f man did not exist, there would be no mathematics." (166-167, emphasis in the original). I disagree. The mathematical relationships and truthfulness that we understand admittedly are limited by our capacity to understand and canalized by our perceptions, which are shaped by our environment and limitations, but we discover mathematical systems and relationships; we don't invent them. They already exist. As Peter Hoeg said (433) in Smila's Sense of Snow, "What we discover in nature is not really a matter of what exists; what we find is determined by our ability to understand." Lukacs approaches this like an indictment against the collective wisdom of the human race. As I see it, it just comes with the territory.
Lukacs seems to have seized on the Uncertainty Principle to debunk classical physics and physicists. He extends this Uncertainty-based debunking to the historical method. I don't know about its usefulness or applicability to historicism, but his basic premise is flawed. Particle physics and, in particular, the Uncertainly Principle, are not incongruous with Newtonian physics. They describe different systems -- the former at the micro, sub-atomic realm; the latter at the macro realm. They interconnect with a sympathetic relationship, and thus neither obviates the other. They are compatible and hold true in their respective realms. I do agree, however, in relating Uncertainty to the human will -- you never really know about people or what they'll do.
This brings us to his denouement, chapter five. He says the "two great achievements" of the Modern Age, which he conventionally starts with the European discovery of the New World, "were the invention and the applications of the scientific method and the evolution of a historical consciousness" (191). After a dozen pages of near-babble he arrives "at the most dramatic proposition of this book. Contrary to all accepted ideas we must now, at the end of an Age, recognize that *we*, and *our earth*, are at the center of our universe" (204, emphasis in original). I think the key word here is "our." If he uses "universe" as a metaphor for the fund of human knowledge then I agree; but, again, that's not a novel concept. If he means something more -- something deeper -- then I must again admit to shallowness.
On balance, I have to say that this book just didn't deliver for me. If you feel up to taking a shot at it, then do. Otherwise, you might want to pass this one by. A generous two stars (only because 1½ isn't an option).
|
