Enlightenment's Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern Age (Routledge Classics)

Enlightenment's Wake delivers a superb account of the fragile philosophical underpinnings of the modern and post-modern world. All the important bases are touched: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Herder, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, Mill, Rawls, Berlin, Rorty , Heidegger...Yes, there are a lot of philosophical bricks in our world. Gray believes that these bricks are are not solid and, in fact, have been crumbling for quite some time. He supports his views with keen and wide-ranging analysis that not only considers our minds and thoughts but also what has actually gone on out there in the "real world" since Kant awoke from his metaphysical slumber. While his writing style is not as felicitous as Berlin's ( one of the few savants that Gray avidly admires ) he casts a wider net into anthropology, sociology and the modern western mecca of multiculturalism. Unlike most of the twentieth century savants consigned to continental Europe Gray makes his point with aporias, differences, slippages, etc. that encumber much modern thought. The negative in "Wake" is that as a collection of mostly previously published essays, there is a bit of inevitable repetition. All in all a masterful snapshot of the view from nowhere. A must read if you want to unclog your mind from received wisdoms.

Gray has superbly detailed the ghastly long tern effects of enlightenment thinking that have carried along Western Civilization for hundreds of years, a path that has led us to what is promising to be the ultimate disaster in the crash of industrial economies and out of control central bankers blinded by their greed and devoid of what was once thought of as ethics.

Gray writes with panache and an acid pen when it suits him. His diagnosis of smugness in the academy is superb.

This man could paraphrase a school lunch menu and it would be worth reading..........

This classics press is great.

This is a book that intends to point out the flaws in the "enlightenment project" and liberalism. Particularly, the "enlightenment project" is the endeavor to find a set of universally-valid, context-independent, principles that, when followed, lead to civil society and unbounded progress. By liberalism, Gray is taking aim at ideas (proclaiming to be neutral toward any conception of the good life) that would allow individuals to live as individuals free to pursue their own visions of the good life.Particularly, Gray (himself a former libertarian-leaning liberal) argues that there are some contradictions embedded in liberalism and the enlightenment project that he things will ultimately lead to its demise. The big contradiction he refers to is in the simultaneous quest to maintain state neutrality toward conceptions of the good life and its need to circumscribe limits to what can and cannot be pursued. The latter, of course is both necessary and antithetical to the idea of state neutrality, leaving liberalism with a conundrum. (Another problem Gray sees with liberalism is its failure to see group-membership, tradition, etc, as values that could be seen by people as overriding individual liberty. Gray, in other words, worries that liberalism simply cannot succeed in areas where group membership or [non-liberal]tradition are more appealing than individual liberty, hence showing that liberalism is not at all neutral.)I agree with all of this (and recommend that readers also read Fish's The Trouble with Principle  for some good argument against the idea of neutral principles.). But there are several problems, particularly when Gray argues that value pluralism (a la Isaiah Berlin) does not favor liberal conclusions. The idea is that since values can very legitimately conflict, liberal values like individiualism, procedural justice, etc, are not sacrosanct, and thus, liberalism unjustly privileges some values over others.)There are a few responses that I don't think Gray considers: first, ANY society structured by ANY set of rules will privilege some values above others, immunizing some of them from trade-off in the case of conflict. This is not at all unique to liberalism, and arguing that liberalism privileges some values thus does NOTHING to show that any other system avoids this problem. (I'd argue that no system of government can avoid privileging some values over others without devolving into anarchy.)Second, with that said, it seems fairly uncontroversial to claim that liberalism allows the widest scope possible for individuals (and groups) to pursue conflicting values. Just because liberal states are not neutral does not mean that they are not MORE neutral than other governmental set-ups. If this is wrong, Gray does not show it or attempt to show it.Lastly, Gray is absolutely nebulous when discussing how we decide that a government set-up (liberalism or any other) is legitimate other than to talk about a minimum standard that they would have to meet in providing their citizens with conditions necessary for pursuit of good lives. But HOW is this to be gauged? I would suggest that democracy is the only great way to gauge whether citizens are provided these things, but I can hear Gray arguing that this would privilege democracy. It is really unclear how else, though, we could ensure that states were providing these minimum conditions. (To put this objection concretely, would Gray have judged Saddam's Iraq or Kim's North Korea to be acceptable because the government attested that citizens were well treated? I suspect that there is a contradiction in Gray's suggestion of 'minimum standards' and his desire not to hold any political principles - democracy in this case - as overriding. If I'm wrong, he's given me no reason to suspect it. (In fact, he does't seem to tackle any possible objections to his philosophy.)In short, this is a challenging book to think about - particularly if you have followed the development of value plurlaism by folks like Berlin, Raz, Kekes, and Galston. I find it difficult to argue with Gray's premises, but think his illiberal conclusions could use either some rethinking or some additional argument.

John Gray is concerned with the failure of the "Enlightenment Project". The peoples of the world are not converging into a universal civilization on a Western model, and the political philosophers have failed to provide a theory that can justify a single universal political morality by appeal to abstract reason alone. Liberal democracy, according to Gray, is a product of historical contingency, not necessity. We may or may not agree with Gray. It is fair to say, however, that very little has happened since this book was first published in 1995 that makes it seem less relevant or valid.I am not convinced by all of Gray's conclusions. I found the book stimulating, however.Gray has a tendency to repeat himself more often than is absolutely necessary. I think that this to some extent may be explained by the fact that the book is based on articles first published in various periodicals.

I first encountered John Gray and his philosophical views in the special features portion of the movie Children of Men based on the book Children of Men by P.D. James and directed by Alfonso Cuaron. John Gray was making a startling claim about the future of the west and philosophy that held my mind captive until I decided to research his work and thought. I decided to first read Enlightenments Wake because I had grappled with other works on the Enlightenment and what it meant for the modern world. I discovered that there are some provocative and controversial claims made in the work that is edifying, however I did feel that Gray made a pedantic show of his clearly elite education. The reading was at time very difficult due to a writing style that was too loaded down with esoteric philosophical examples and an overloaded sentence stucture that made his points difficult to put together. All in all it is worth reading but is not for the faint of heart or the easily bored reader.

著者の最近の作品をいくつか最近読みましたが、順番からいくとこれを最初に読んでいたほうがいいのかもしれません。1990年代前半にいくつかの雑誌に載せられた論文の再録が中心です。冷戦の崩壊を契機として時代を席巻した新自由主義とその背後にある啓蒙主義イデオロギーを徹底的に批判した作品です。そこではソヴィエトの崩壊を自由民主主義のイデオロギーの勝利ではなく、むしろ啓蒙主義イデオロギーとその一方の鬼っ子（もうひとつはアメリカです）の最終的な敗北と捉える見方が色濃く打ち出されています。この議論の背後に潜むのは、アメリカとその社会を構成する一元的な価値観への強い嫌悪の念です。またこの作品を読むことにより、isiah berlinの考え方とのつながりと違いが理解できます。とはいっても中身の濃さは一筋縄ではいきません。議論の展開の中で援用される東アジアの発展モデル（そこでは資本主義が、人間中心主義や普遍的な歴史観を伴うことなく、独自の成長を遂げた）の特性は執筆当時の時代の空気を反映しています（京都学派の作品まで引用されます）。さて本書出版後の現状はどう評価したらいいのでしょうか。結語で、著者が可能性のひとつとして指摘したよう（２７６ページ）に、東アジアは、啓蒙主義の到達点としての西欧のニヒリズムを後追いする中で、独自の技術信仰のグロテスクさとその腐臭を放っているようです。そしてＥＵへの流れがとまることのない旧東欧諸国のその後の動きもこの西欧化のイデオロギーの強靭さを逆に示しているようです。またthe undoing of conservatismはそのよって立つ基盤を壊すことになった現代の保守主義の袋小路を鋭く指摘しています。

One of my kinder critics observed that I had given Gray a hard time when reviewing one of his other books. I continue to read him however (as I am generally sympathetic) and thus to make amends grant this book four stars. Interesting at all times and with much to ponder.The enlightenment seems such a good idea, yet the consequences - less than desirable - are all around. There is thus, not merely a counter-enlightenment but also a Dark Enlightenment set upon shafting the consequences of Enlightenment dreams with their own petard (but this book does not venture that far).

The problem isn't Gray's writing, the content of the book is excellent, and I hesitated giving it a one star review lest it reflect badly on Gray. The problem is Routledge. This is an awful edition. The pages are printed slanted, the binding is awful, and as one turns the page the pages fall out. Try for a different edition, even if secondhand.

another banger from my home boy, he puts the G in JG