Customer Reviews

At the End of an Age

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is that most rare of scholarly books, namely, one that is well written and meaningful. Briefly, Mr. Lukacs holds that much of what came into being in western society, and is largely taken for granted even though it didn't exist in the Middle Ages, is disappearing or collapsing. This list includes the state (and it's ability to provide law and order to the common citizen), money (of any REAL value), industry, cities, books and literacy, and the right to privacy. None of this is too shocking, since, as he points out, even the common working man in a bar can readily recognise the analogy between American, or western, civilization and Roman civilization.

I find it interesting how more and more first rate minds, like Jacques Barzun (Dawn to Decadence) and Morris Berman (The Twilight of American Culture) are coming to quite simular historical summations. It seems that one no longer has to be a science fiction writer, pestimistic paranoid, or religious fanatic to see that we are nearing the end of of anything worth terming civilization.

Lukacs holds that the future struggle will be between those who hold that men are mere machines and those who hold that we are creatures (in a spiritual sense.) Put me down as a creature, please.

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.

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.

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).

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.

At the End of an Age is an important book whose importance
will increase as the years go by. For whether the next age
will be light or dark will depend on how clearly we perceive
and act on certain "recognitions" that John Lukacs tries to
adumbrate. I say "tries to adumbrate," because Mr Lukacs's
formulations are suggestive rather than definitve.

The recognitions, stated baldly, include:

1. History comprises what could have and what did happen.
2. All knowlege is human knowledge.
3. Man is the center of and inseparable from the universe.

Yesterday, today, or tomorrow these statements (or Mr.
Lukacs's more extended and argued versions) might be viewed
variously: as profound, thought-provoking, platitudinous,
obvious, nonsensical, silly.

But what Burckhardt said about Thucydides could be true of
Lukacs: "There might be a fact of the greatest significance
reported by Thucydides which will only be recognized as such
a hundred years from now."

I've given this book a two-star review because it contains many interesting ideas and should provoke much thought and discussion. Ultimately, this book must be roundly rejected for its dangerous anti-rationalism, abuse of scientific thought, and soft-core spirituality.

The central focus of the book is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It is used again and again (to varying effect) to cast doubt on almost every system of thought that has arisen in the past 500 years (the eponymous Modern era whose end is purportedly nigh). Instead of a recognition that Heisenberg's Uncertainty merely dictates the limits of measurement and observation, the Uncertainty Principle is applied ad nauseum to undermine the value of science and reason in all of their forms.

This books is ultimately dismissive of science, mathematics, Darwin, Einstein, Marx, Freud, Modernist thought in most of its forms, Postmodern though, Rationality, Determinism, Positivism, Nominalism, and Causality (as in the notion of cause and effect). Einstein is especially abused in this narrative. He is shown to be naive, misguided, and even anachronistic (the argument is made that his physics reflect systems of thought that had already been discredited near the turn of the 20th century). Einstein's contributions to science are fairly dismissed hand-wavingly, again relying predominantly on absurd extension of Heisenberg (the fact that Einstein opposed Uncertainty is used as an excuse to discredit his great contributions entirely).

After roundly rejecting almost every system of thought produced by the Western world, what then is left? For those with the stomach to make it through this noxious "long essay", the punchline is that evolution is rejected (though none of the claims or evidence are really addressed), science is battered through torturously convoluted application of Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and mathematics and theoretical physics are dismissed outright.

The conclusion that is drawn in final pages is that since science can't be trusted, its dismissal of the anthropocentric and geocentric worldviews (which of course preceded the Modern era) cannot be justified. Christianity is namechecked, a vague environmental transcendendalism is proposed, and as far as the author is concerned, the sun still revolves around the earth (the merits of this view are actually defended by the author in this book. He goes so far as to claim that scientific challenge to the geocentric model are arrogant, while his embrace of it somehow reflects the utmost humility).

I would say that there are many excellent criticisms of the many movements in Modern thought, conceptions of "Progress", and scientific reasoning, but this is not one of them.

If anyone has seen the Ramtha cult's "What the Bleep" movie, they will find the manner of argumentation here quite familiar. As in that film, some "mind blowing" consequences of quantum physics are paraded about, science is abused, causal reasoning is derided, and an ill-defined New-Agey spirituality is peddled in the wreckage of reason and rationality resulting from abusive extension of quantum principles. While this book is certainly better informed on historical sources, its reasoning is no more valid that that absurd advertisement for the Ramtha cult (and the anthropocentric conclusions of both works present more than passing resemblance).

Given the title, I would expect most readers (like myself) thought that they were cracking a different book entirely. For a thoughtful and funny look at the end of the modern age as evidenced by the decline of reason in the West, I would recommend Francis Wheen's "Idiot Proof", which blames the decline of reason and rationality (especially in the academic and "intellectual" spheres) on this very sort of tortured argumentation. It is not presented in as serious a fasion as this academically-inclined "long essay", but it is a far more valuable exercise in criticism.

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.

Dr. John Lukacs is one of the premier intellectuals alive today. However--and it pains me to say this--you'd never know it by this book. It is unfocused and choc-a-bloc with longueurs--the worst, however, are the gigantic footnotes that extend to subsequent pages...truly a cardinal sin. Don't read this book, and if you have, don't judge Lukacs by it alone. Go to c-span.org, click on bookTV, click on In-Depth archive, click on the year 2000, and then click on Lukacs's name. Judge him by that, not this minor misfire.

Prof. Lukacs attempts to elaborate the conditions prevailing as the Modern Age winds down in the West, esp. in the US. No other recent book have I marked up and raised questions of its contents. His fear is not of science per se though of its sometimes unruly offspring, "Technology". Does he engage in a "reductio ad absurdum" to get it right about Hitler? Lastly, he is a devout believer, Catholic, not such a bad choice, though his belief lacks inspiration and conviction. It is likely an intellectual determination against the godless Fascists and Communists whose destructive forces he witnessed in his youth.