|
|
Title: Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity
Purchase
Item
Manufacturer: Harvard University Press
List Price: $26.50
Our Price: $23.54
|
|
| Customer Reviews: |
| Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Harvard University Press An essential book for anyone interested in following up the Socratic maxim: "Know thyself!" | Charles Taylor is among the most learned of contemporary philosophers, and has the gift of taking a familiar story or idea from the history of philosophy and giving it new life, allowing it to reveal insights that are both unfamiliar but become obvious once stated. Reading "The Sources of the Self" is like a re-education into the significance for us and our sense of self and of what is of ultimate importance of the shifts that took place away from the ancient world to the modern. At its most basic, the shift is from a conception (and corresponding practices) of reality itself as having a normative structure to which our actions and ideas must conform toward a conception of reality as in itself neutral and only invested with value by our projects and goals. Taylor traces meticulously some of the motivations behind this seismic shift, while emphasizing that his project is primarily interpretive rather than explanatory. The question, ultimately, is one of who we are and how we define ourselves and whether such self definitions can be ultimately satisfactory.
There are some brilliant insights along the way. In fact, it is the kind of book where there are so many intriguing insights that you want to follow up, you could easily get lost along the way and never get to the end. The solution, of course, is to read it through once and then go back, as I plan to do a few times.
The book opens with a thorough and convincing (to me) critique of naturalism as applied to ethics. Values can't be explained naturally because they are presupposed by selfhood. To be a self is not merely to be capable of experiencing, but is to have concerns, which means to encounter what there is in terms of what matters to oneself. The neutrality that is presupposed by science, and built into naturalism, is an achievement and not a starting point. The broader concern with which Taylor opens the book and returns to several times is that technical philosophy has defined the scope of ethics far too narrowly upon the question of permissible and impermissible courses of action -- what we really need is an ethics of everyday life, and ethics of self-definition. It is not just a question of what we can and cannot do but of what we should aspire to, of how we should define ourselves and live our lives, of what really matters.
Another intriguing set of insights comes with Taylor's careful reinvestigation of the processes involved in "secularization" (the subject of his newest book, nearly as long as this one). Secularization can't be explained as the natural result of progress, as if faith must of necessity fail in the face of science. In fact, he argues, enlightenment is not so much a radical departure from, but is closely connected with and anticipated by developments in Christian thought and practice in the modern period. At the same time, secularization does not result from a rejection of traditional morality in favor of a more rationalist outlook. The real motivation towards secularization is the growing awareness of alternative moral motivations besides a transcendent God: in nature and beauty, on the one hand, and in the dignity of the autonomous self, on the other. Taylor shows how our modern sense of self has been born out of the recognition of competing moral sources: the traditional one of a transcendent God, the Romantic conception of nature and artistic self expression, and the humanistic conception of the sacred character of the individual human being. These strands can be interwoven and varied, and lead to ambiguous sets of values in terms of which we moderns define ourselves and the meaning of our lives. Taylor's book is an important contribution towards sorting out some of the ambiguities that move us in contradictory and confusing ways, and is to be highly recommended for anyone who wants to figure out who we really are and why we are so confused about ourselves. | | Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Harvard University Press Great, BUT | I read this very popular, yet scholarly, and extolled book when it first was published, and found it elegant, helpful, and problematic. The title is the subject of the book: What sources have gone into making of modern identity? Obviously philosophy and theology are the dominant contributors, with psychology pulling up the rear (which is as it should be, since the latter only came to be 150 years ago).
While I agree with Taylor that philosophy, more than either theology or psychology, actually informs our sense of self, particularly the modern self, I'm not sure psychologists would agree. In today's marketplace of ideas, it's psychology that crowds bookstore shelves with a panoply of "self-help" books. Conversely, while the sense of self is implicit in earlier philosophy, not many modern philosophers address the matter at all. Ergo, the need for this book.
Taylor weaves his theory through the prism of philosophical history and the evolutionary unfolding of how the sense of the modern self has come into being. It's a compelling, perhaps unattractive, pinnacle to which we have come. The "modern" sense of self begins with the works of Rene Descartes (i.e., the thinking being), which may or may not have improved on Boethius's medieval ontology (i.e., the rational animal). Still, the sense of "self" is far more complex than either a rational animal or a thinking being alone would suggest. Perhaps either thesis is the starting point, and obviously necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient, to capture what we mean by "self" today.
To Taylor's credit, he begins to add other necessary features, and the features he adds aren't uncontroversial. Yes, phenomenology is a part of the structure; so too is language a key feature to the identity of the modern self; but where are the well-spring of the emotions? This particularly salient feature of emotions barely registers on Taylor's radar. And it's this deficit, the failure to bring our emotional features to bear, that makes this work such an enormous disappointment.
For the other facets, dimensions, and features, Taylor elegantly, eruditely, and heuristically surveys philosophical history and culls most of its ideas. But how could the emotions (e.g., love, hate, joy, grief, etc.) not figure into Taylor's conception of the "modern self." Even if Taylor relies primarily on philosophical perspectives, the philosophy of emotions is not a nil set. David Hume devoted Part II of his seminal "Treatise on Human Nature" to the passions; numerous contemporary philosophers have addressed focused on the emotions in the years immediately preceding the publication of this book. And even if Taylor had been deprived of the philosophical accounts, he certainly could not have been deprived of psychological accounts. So, the minimalist attention to this most salient of features is jarring.
Why such a fuss about this omission? Robert Solomon, whose works both precede and follow Taylor's book, insists that it is the emotions that make life itself meaningful and valuable: Not independent of the other salient features, but intrinsically integrated with them. The "passions" are what give life zest and interest and dynamic. When's the last time that looking at language's performatives brought "joy" to one? What happens when the self ratiocinates that makes it meaningful to us? Of course, the "eureka" of discovery, the pride of accomplishment, the joy of understanding, the hope of implementation, the desire to act, etc., are what make ratiocination interesting and valuable. Cogitation qua cogitation is significant, no doubt, but we cogitate in order to understand, and understand to implement, and implement to enjoy. Thus, pleasure is integral to the cogitation, for without it, it's simply cold, calculating, and indifferent ratiocination. Per Solomon, the passions (i.e., emotions) are what give life meaning.
If Solomon's thesis about emotions giving the self meaning is true, and it is, how could something so obvious and necessary have been overlooked in this magisterial tome? This singular omission marrs this otherwise fascinating and comprehensive history and analysis of what it means to have a "self." It's as if Taylor started to analyze the pictures on the wall, but ignored the elephant in the middle of the room. The emotions are what give life meaning, and any examination of "the self" that omits them may have given us the container, but has also forgotten to fill it.
Happily, despite this serious omission, Taylor provides a probing and detailed exegesis of the development and structure of the modern self. As long as one supplements this massive tome with other reading (e.g., Solomon's "The Passions," "Love," "The Philosophy of Erotic Love," etc., or Martha Nussbaum's "The Therapy of Desire," "Upheavals of Thought," etc., or Ronald de Souza's "The Rationality of Emotions"), Taylor's work provides the outline and identity of the other salient features, but having given us the wall, but missed the nucleus, of the cell, the work lacks life. | | Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Harvard University Press A True Classic! | Sources of the Self is an exceptional piece of scholarship. In SOS, Taylor engages in a course of philosophical anthropology to demonstrate that our understanding of the self as interior is by no means universal. For Taylor, understandings of the self are inextricably linked to our understandings of the good. Thus, self-understanding is directed by evolving conceptions of the source and location of the good. This idea has been lost, according to Taylor, because of the narrow conception of the good in our modern world and the naturalist suppression of moral ontology.
Taylor defends this argument in two ways. First, he provides a strong argument that the self exists within inescapable moral frameworks. "To know who you are" Taylor argues, "is to be oriented in moral space." These frameworks are composed of hierarchical moral distinctions (i.e., some things are viewed as better than, or more important than others -- for instance, in our time, the notion of respect for persons). Second, Taylor argues that previous goods have been victim to historical suppression.
The bulk of the text is aimed at re-articulating historically suppressed goods. This illustration provides a fascinating romp through the history of ideas from Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau and MANY others, as well an interesting pieces about cultural history (e.g., the Puritans, art theory, etc).
One caution -- this is NOT an easy read. The argument itself is in the first few chapters, the remander is illustration. But keep the argument in mind the whole way. You will have to work to get through it - but it is well worth it! You will never see the self the same way again. | | Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Harvard University Press "immersion" course in the ideas | Someone told philosophy is simply a specific genre of European literature; I would tend to agree if permitted to add that to validate itself as "philosophy" the opus has to include references to the previous philosophical works. Otherwise, however similar in vein and content, a book of philosophy it will not be.
According to that definition philosophers are writers doomed to retell stories heard from their predecessors; far is the day when the Allegory of the Cave will drop off that rambling and overburdened philosophical cart (driven by the Buridan donkey, no doubt) and be moved out of readers' sight.
Whether this definition is true or not, Taylor in his book behaves exactly as described, repeating and condensing others' treatises and opinions. They are many in the long history of our civilization, so the author's tactic is to find connecting "narratives": here is the great "Inward Turn", from which premises of Romanticism easily follow, there came "veneration of the ordinary", which brought about the phenomenon of the modern novel.
It is precisely in this that both the greatest weakness of the oevre and its greatest utility lie: the book has collected innumerable praises from the horde of us, intellectual sloths, for in it we immediately spotted the opportunity to use the results of this marvellous compression, with the narratives as aids to jog our lazy memories, without reading the whole philosophical library of Taylor's sources shelf after shelf, and cover to cover.
The weakness of the approach could be in a certain arbitrariness of the found stories and connections. They make what was announced as "history of the central terms on which the modern man appreciates himself" seem too logical and inevitable. Those threads or constantly developing themes, when historical rather than invented, could be simultaneous, interweaving and interplaying - not consecutive and orderly.
In short, they are patterns half discerned and half imposed on history and philosophy by Taylor himself.
The second peculiarity of the book is the Taylor's style.
Once, they say, physisists came to a University bursar to ask for funds. The bursar studied their proposal for a long time, and then complained: "It's always like this with you, physisists. You always ask for huge sums to do your experiments. Mathematicians are so much better! All they use is paper, pencils and erasers." Then he thought a bit and added: "And philosophers are best of all. They do not even need erasers."
Taylor's style is unnecessarily dense and repetitive. I had an impression that he was more engrossed in wording than in laying out logically when writing. Very often, when the thread has been followed through to the very end, one realises, it could have been greatly reduced, and reduced to almost a platitude, I caught myself thinking at times: yes, "the original unity" of religious worldview was shattered and became multiple disciplines in modernity, emergence of protestant churches is habitually used to explain the Western individualism et cetera et cetera et cetera.
The "difficulty" of the book may be in the density of its style, and not always in the subject matter being discussed.
But still...
they say laziness is the King and true source of all Good in the world, so I cannot help but give the deserved 5 stars to this crash "immersion" course in the ideas of Western philosophy (in the guise of a treatise about Good, Ethics and sources of Modernity), nicely condensed and organized in a number of stories to follow for a curious reader but less than dedicated philosopher.
Digesting the Taylor's tome is the easiest way to read one book and then be able to convincingly claim to know many, many more. | | Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Harvard University Press A Substantive Theory of the Good | Taylor would like to revitalize the ancients' emphasis on what he calls a substantive theory of the good. This he contrasts with a procedural conception of ethics that he ties to certain elements of Modernism. In particular, Taylor takes on modern ethical systems for being too focused on obligation rather than what he terms the "hypergood."
It is not a simple call for revisiting classical philosophy. Taylor is doing more than trying to draw attention to what he sees as wrong turns and misguided focuses in modern ethical thinking. There is a constructive element to the work.
It is not an introductory piece and many would find the depth of references frustrating. For those who have not read many works to which he refers (e.g. Locke, Kant, Rawls, Habermas, Williams) or who cannot distinguish a Kantian from a utilitarian, etc. it might be a bit of a slog. For ethicists or anyone interested in philosophical issues of identity, self, or conceptions of the common good, it is clearly a very important work. | | Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity by Harvard University Press Product Description | In this extensive inquiry into the sources of modern selfhood, Charles Taylor demonstrates just how rich and precious those resources are. The modern turn to subjectivity, with its attendant rejection of an objective order of reason, has led--it seems to many--to mere subjectivism at the mildest and to sheer nihilism at the worst. Many critics believe that the modern order has no moral backbone and has proved corrosive to all that might foster human good. Taylor rejects this view. He argues that, properly understood, our modern notion of the self provides a framework that more than compensates for the abandonment of substantive notions of rationality. The major insight of Sources of the Self is that modern subjectivity, in all its epistemological, aesthetic, and political ramifications, has its roots in ideas of human good. After first arguing that contemporary philosophers have ignored how self and good connect, the author defines the modern identity by describing its genesis. His effort to uncover and map our moral sources leads to novel interpretations of most of the figures and movements in the modern tradition. Taylor shows that the modern turn inward is not disastrous but is in fact the result of our long efforts to define and reach the good. At the heart of this definition he finds what he calls the affirmation of ordinary life, a value which has decisively if not completely replaced an older conception of reason as connected to a hierarchy based on birth and wealth. In telling the story of a revolution whose proponents have been Augustine, Montaigne, Luther, and a host of others, Taylor's goal is in part to make sure we do not lose sight of their goal and endanger all that has been achieved. Sources of the Self provides a decisive defense of the modern order and a sharp rebuff to its critics. |
| |
