The Age of Genius

The Seventeenth Century and the Birth of the Modern Mind

By: A. C. Grayling

Narrated by: Ric Jerrom

Length: 14 hrs and 38 mins

Publisher's summary

The Age of Genius explores the eventful intertwining of outward event and inner intellectual life to tell, in all its richness and depth, the story of the 17th century in Europe. It was a time of creativity unparalleled in history before or since, from science to the arts, from philosophy to politics.

Acclaimed philosopher and historian A. C. Grayling points to three primary factors that led to the rise of vernacular (popular) languages in philosophy, theology, science, and literature; the rise of the individual as a general and not merely an aristocratic type; and the invention and application of instruments and measurement in the study of the natural world.

Grayling vividly reconstructs this unprecedented era and breathes new life into the major figures of the 17th century intelligentsia who spanned literature, music, science, art, and philosophy - Shakespeare, Monteverdi, Galileo, Rembrandt, Locke, Newton, Descartes, Vermeer, Hobbes, Milton, and Cervantes, among many more. During this century, a fundamentally new way of perceiving the world emerged as reason rose to prominence over tradition, and the rights of the individual took center stage in philosophy and politics - a paradigmatic shift that would define Western thought for centuries to come.

©2016 A. C. Grayling (P)2016 Audible, Inc.

A Long History Lesson

To say Grayling is verbose on the subject of the history that eventually leads to an overview of his title would be an understatement. I do understand the need to explain it all to people who might have never learned the events of pre-Enlightenment history, especially those of us in the US where our own nation’s history is paramount. (If you doubt me, look at the graduation requirements for non-history majors at any college or university.) Grayling does draw it all together in a brief conclusion, which finally explains his theory and why he felt the need to name and explain almost every war in Europe during the century leading up to the Enlightenment. It is fascinating, and, considering the mess we are currently in, almost hopeful to view the possibility that if this all goes to a bloody war (literal, not British) we might come out the other side in an even more enlightened world. In his conclusion he makes some good points as to the why of our current regression, slouching back toward the Dark Ages, all of which I find myself in agreement having grown up in Fundamentalist Christianity. He rightly expresses that the problem is the dire lack of education. As he points out, it is cliche’ to even say that. I do appreciate that he alleviated teachers of the blame that is too often placed on them (it’s not their fault, truly). I wish, however, that he would have given more than a complaint. Maybe he considered this more of a conversation starter and an awareness raiser. In that case, the book hardly ends on a good note. As one in the midst of education I can assure you that the general public is in no way interested. Students are apathetic, and these are college students. I would have been interested in hearing more of his thoughts on how to change this. Hopefully he’s written more on this subject elsewhere. Otherwise, a great and well-told history book, but if you are looking for something that is only about the Enlightenment you’ll want to look elsewhere.

Today is a function of the 17th century

To understand who we are one must first understand where we came from and how we got there. Nothing provides more insight into our current human condition than a well thought out history about a critical century of thought such as this book provides. I've noticed that my "Scientific American" during the last two issues has commented on how the two statements recently made by actual politicians: "Climate change is a Chinese Hoax", and that "philosophers are not as important as welders", show a complete detachment from reality. Critical reasoning and rational thought based on empirical facts are universally accepted by subscribers to "Scientific American" and they owe a debt a gratitude to the 17th century pre-Enlightenment age as outlined in this book.

The book provides a very good narrative for describing how we went from magic to science in such a short time. He'll bring in the elements from the 16th century which are necessary for telling the story and takes the story into the 18th and beyond when required. He never forces the reader into the artificial boundaries created by the 17th century as such.

There is one criticism I did have on this book. It was how he presented the 30 year war (1618 - 1648). He is muddled. There are much better books and lectures on the subject matter, but don't allow yourself to get discouraged by his incoherence on that most interesting of all wars and realize it does matter for understanding today. Students of understanding modern times often make the major mistake of starting their studies with the beginning of the 20th century. Today's world did not happen in a vacuum and this book provides an excellent starting point for understanding today's world.

Progress leading to critical reasoning and rational thought based on empirical methods and logical principles were not guaranteed for humanity. This book shows some of the paradigm shifts in thinking that were necessary before they became the norm. It took a confluence of different approaches to lead from the point where witches were considered real and burnt alive (after all if hell fire awaits them in the after life, they might as well enter hell through fire in this life) to the point were truth based on superstition, myth, magic, alchemy, Kabbalism and Hermeticism became ignored and irrelevant.

Overall, I'm for anything that shows the importance of critical reasoning, and I love the 17th century because of how critical it is for us in understanding who we are today. (BTW, climate change is real and is not a Chinese Hoax, and welders are valuable, but society to properly function will always provide a place for critical thinkers such as philosophers and readers of books like this one!).

Great History, I forgive the high opinion content

Here is a clarifying view of a most confusing period in history. The parts about the wars, the development of science, changes in political thought, and the transition of intellectual perspective are authoritative and understandable. The parts about arts and literature are weak (How can you possibly omit Don Quixote from such a survey?) The author definitely advocates a perspective that is more presently political than purely historical, But I'm not sure if he did not he would have been able to present the period with such clarity. The premise that the 17th century is the fulcrum point of 2nd Millennium European history (at least) is well made. The inscrutability of the 30 years war is axiomatic; here it is entirely intelligible. The descriptions of the great minds of the era are personalized, detailed and clearly presented without getting lost in nomenclature. The book is never tedious, I tore through it like I do my favorite novels. Point by point we see how a rationalist, scientific, and humanist perspective overtakes one of religious dogma and all manner of intellectual nonsense. It is curious to me, that in an age so deeply steeped in rationalist and humanist principles and practices, that an author finds it so important to endorse and praise this perspective. Three hundred years later and we're still hearing about the bad church and the virtuous astronomers. Yes, it's a great story. Yes, it needs to be told. But do we really need all the chest thumping? Perhaps he's writing for a school age audience. No doubt he knows more of this crowd than I do. Are there significant movements that need convincing? Perhaps there are. Personally, I feel a lot more threatened by oligarchic capitalism and climate change than by the Taliban. Frankly, it makes many of the book's premises suspect. I learned a lot, but I'll have to wait to feel confirmed in my understanding because the author has so vehemently names his biases. I agree with him in general, but perhaps not in degree. It has the feel of being sold something you've already bought.

Humanism Is a Religion - Grayling a Devotee

Fair history and a good point, spoiled by the author's stunning Progressive humanist ideological rants. Predictable inability to dissociate God from less-than-perfect believers and worse-than-imperfect collectives of believers; and resultant ignorant boisterous antagonisms against the faithful, faith groups and God. It is one thing to be ignorant of a Creator, another to claim science while purposefully discounting ideas on ideological grounds. Send this volume to the religious section. Being harangued with lengthy NSFW quotes from Rochester's ribald reveries for what? shock value? was another blight on this soon-to-be-left-on-dime-store-racks trash. Humanism on this scale takes a lot more faith than God.

Thespian at Work

Though I am only an hour into this, I must write with some annoyance that the reader makes comprehension extremely difficult, at least for me. He might be a good reader for fiction, but here, instead of narrating ideas ordered into paragraphs, he strives to bring out the imagined theatricality of each sentence with British fillips of overemphasis. Not terrible, but give it a listen before deciding. Some publishers seem to think that the more scholarly the material, the more drama it requires, like restauranteurs who try to enhance their cuisine by adding loud dance music.

Not what I expected (in a bad way)

This book is 30% about Kings and their wars, 30% on magic and witchcraft and 30% substance. I can’t recommend this book even though I have thoroughly enjoyed other books by Grayling