On 'The Age of Reason'
"Never before in history have there been such enormous elites carrying such burdens of knowledge." p8

"[A]mong the illusions which have invested our civilization is an absolute belief that the solution to our problems must be a more determined application of rationally organized expertise. The reality is that our problems are largely the product of that application." p8

"...reason constituted a moral weapon, when in fact it was nothing more than a disinterested administrative method... centuries of Western elites have been obliged to invent a moral direction where none existed." p14

"Reason began, abruptly, to separate itself from and to outdistance the other more or less recognized human characteristics - spirit, appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will and, most important, experience. This gradual encroachment on the foreground continues today. It has reached a degree of imbalance so extreme that the mythological importance of reason obscures all else and has driven the other elements into the marginal frontiers of doubtful respectability." p15

"Knowledge, of course, was to be the guarantor of reason's moral force - knowledge, an invincible weapon in the hands of the individual, a weapon which would ensure that society was built upon considered and sensible actions. But in a world turned upon power through structure, the disinterested consideration of knowledge simply couldn't hold and was rapidly transformed into our obsession with expertise. The old civilization of class was replaced by one of castes - a highly sophisticated version of corporatism. Knowledge became the currency of power and as such was retained. This civilization of secretive experts was quite naturally obsessed not by the encouragement of understanding but by the providing of answers." p16

They are, you know? And this book will explain to you why it's ok to panic.

This is a difficult one to review. While raging against the technocratic elite, Saul, lovingly dedicates his book to Maurice Strong, oil tycoon, fauz environmentalist and grand poobah of the international NGO scene. These schizophrenic slips dog Voltaire's Bastards throughout. So much so that I really don't know what to think about it as a whole.

There are obvious problems with the idea of a sharply reasoned polemic about the overuse of reason. Thing is, there's so much good stuff here about blind unbalanced rationality (though Saul's lauded humanism is a symptom of this too), systems theory, our debt economy, modern art, and the religion of specialisation - never have I covered the pages of a book in such underline and exclamation. For every comment that is downright inaccurate/misleading/or poorly presented are three or four others that are truly original and revelatory. Do I recommend this? Absolutely, just tread carefully - there are traps aplenty.

Changed my whole way of looking at the world. Totally changed the way I viewed "Experts" in their field.

Classic!

This is an incredibly insightful work and maintains a premise I have long desired to articulate: that reason is merely a tool rather than an end. I have to applaud the author’s scope and level of critique, but at the same time there is a level of hedging and abasement that doesn’t lead to any concrete conclusions. Moreover, the very means which the author is critiquing are employed as justifications for his own reasonings, I.e. efficiency and logic. Methodologically it is suspect and pedagogically it is lacking. There also seems to be an enthymeme carries within that supposes that we need to return to a time that is simply untenable. Had the author proposed further developments we could pursue rather than falling back into notions of virility (the author seems to have a phobia of castration and emasculation) and self-assurance in the manner of Buddhist modesty and transcendence. There is also a good deal of hedging to the effect that at points he denigrates the very notions he is implicitly promoting, but t is rather unconvincing considering the sustained attacks throughout the book on the more explicit trappings. Maybe I am too hung up on the notions of individuality and freedom, but the moral qualms he places on those two aspects of liberal ideology seem contrary to his critiques of Western monotheism. Nevertheless, he offers striking insights into the contemporary condition of the individual denuded of the conservative hypocrisy which is more a protective veneer to allow for the frenzied satisfaction of venal desires.

This review turned out far more critical than I anticipated, but I was sorely dissatisfied with the conclusions drawn considering what I thought was a brilliant critique of modern bureaucratic democracy. Despite his perspicacity around issues of military budgets and corporate infrastructure, he seems committed to maintaining the edifice. That is to say, it appears to be a reformist look that fears we went too far and if we could just go back to a “simpler” time all would be well. It is the clarion call of the moderate who disagrees with everything so that there will be a “happy middle.” It’s temperance at its worst because it offers no solutions but rather conveniently places its chips on both sides of the party line - lobbying for truth. The apotheosis of doubt is always suspect in my book, particularly when it is used as a resolution instead of a beginning. Like reason, doubt is also a tool, not an end in itself, otherwise we’d never be sure enough to put one foot in front of the other without fear of falling through the earth - the plight of the Pyrrhonian Skeptic.

A tool in your toolbox to understand modern thought.

To say that I am "Currently Reading" this poorly states the case. I have been reading it in bite-sized bits for five years or more. I find that too big a bite clogs my mind.

The book defies simple description for it covers many areas and elements of modern society, however . . .

Saul's premise is that Reason, a "discovery" of the late 18th and early 19th, century has run riot, ignoring humanity (in the sense of human-ness), to society's detriment. Here's a sample of a thought. "Reason" develops complexity in a system (say, the law), and to express that complexity, language becomes more and more complex. Finally, the language is understood only by those priests and acolytes of the system, and those affected by the system and the language (say, the public) are no longer capable of understanding what's going on.

The book is nearly 600 pages of heavy going, because the author is asking us to look at our history (European/North American) through a new lens: that perhaps being logical is not always the best way for a society to proceed, for that develops problems that must look back into the system for solution. Thus, we see corruption and a descending spiral of utility for society.

I read this book after hearing about it in passing on a podcast. I found the title amusing. I went to the library to see if they had a copy. I did not expect this massive tome. I started reading this book five months ago and it has nearly dominated my free thoughts, even when I'm not reading it. I imagine I will continue to think of this book until I die. This book has a powerful ability to relate strongly and immediately to the world around you. I feel as though every time I picked up the book to read a new section, this book seemed to be laser focused on a news story from that day. This book is 25 years old but remains completely relevant to today. Saul does an incredible job communicating simply and clearly his findings and thoughts and relaying a history from before Christ to the 1990s. This book had also opened my eyes to sources of feeling directionless or aimless; products of a flawed society built on unfeeling rational machinery. In one of the later chapters, Saul writes that the power of the novel is that it presents a world for the reader to explore and engage with and that the reader, in reading, believes they are the creator of that world, that they wrote that novel. In Voltaire's Bastards, the world we explore is ours, and we realize the capabilities of our active role within it.

This is a very interesting work. Although two decades old, it does contain ideas which are no less- if not just- as valid as they were when the author proposed them. Amongst these are criticisms of the trend since "the Enlightenment" (whatever that was supposed to mean!)of logicians and technocrats to hide their inefficiencies and prejudices, injustices and genocides, beneath a sophistry of hypocritical and cross-purposing propaganda agendas. There is a lot picked to shreds here including:
The pretenses of popular democracy, capitalism & the free market vs. social interest, bureaucracy and politics, law and state violence. And that's only in the first half. The second half deals with the cult of celebrity, and how the star system (beginning with Marie Antionette, who apparently told them all "let them eat brioche" [NOT "cake"!])got going and has replaced real social value with fame for fame's sake. He also analyses changes in literature via the novelist, and the writers "who write about writing" as two accordingly divergent developments.
This book was highly entertaining and though it comes to something of a whimper of an ending, nonetheless, is a very valid and well-constructed piece of social analysis and criticism.

A complex and incisive - and sometimes convoluted - series of arguments regarding the failings of those in power and the idea of the technocrat attaining a 'Hero' status. Slightly dated due to the publishing date of 1992, it regardless presents fascinating theories such as individualism as illusion, or the idea of conflating celebrity with power as folly.

In his long and well constructed book John Ralston Saul does much more than critique the rise of reason in Western society. It is a fulsome history of Western society itself, running the gamut of every element that may hold some vestige of power in the Western world today—defence, government and business being obvious examples, but also including art, literature and society in general. Apportioning blame across the system, Saul fires off salvos inditing everyone and everything, but in such a well argued way that you find yourself nodding along in agreement rather than shaking your head in bewilderment.

The heart of the argument that underpins this book is that Western society has developed (or maybe devolved) into a lifeless machine, unwilling to reward creativity and that we are now in the grip of rampant bureaucratisation and mediocrity. Saul argues his case well, with his words reading more like an informed if passionate defence, rather than a rant. While the reader may not agree with everything Saul has to say, or even much of it, this is a book of a rare breed—one that presents its arguments well, with clarity and wry humour, while simultaneously informing and challenging the reader. If you read one book this year in attempt to understand why society is the way it is, make it this book.