Scan barcode
islomar's review against another edition
1.0
Uuufff... se me hizo bola.
Lo más importante: utiliza un lenguaje rococó y oscuro que dificulta enormemente su comprensión.
Solo recomendable para "estudiosos" del tema, de Ortega y Gasset, o libertarios empedernidos ^____^
Lo más importante: utiliza un lenguaje rococó y oscuro que dificulta enormemente su comprensión.
Solo recomendable para "estudiosos" del tema, de Ortega y Gasset, o libertarios empedernidos ^____^
cronosmu's review against another edition
3.0
Que una cuarta parte de las reseñas en español sean diatribas no hacia el contenido del libro sino hacia su "complejidad" (cuando la prosa de Ortega y Gasset es, a diferencia de la de tantos filósofos, clarísima y amena) o hacia el elitismo, el machismo, la homofobia y demás patologías que el biempensante posmoderno menta para sentirse moralmente superior, prueba ciertamente uno de los puntos de este ensayo, a saber, que "lo característico del momento es que el alma vulgar, tiene el denuedo de afirmar el derecho de la vulgaridad y lo impone dondequiera".
Y este valoración no es del todo distinta. Porque no es tanto una reseña objetiva como un apunte privado, banal, que no pretende iluminar a nadie ni mucho menos a ningún texto. Esto es, a fin de cuentas, a lo que invita Goodreads: a decir si nos pareció ameno o aburrido un libro. Cinco años atrás, cuando me desvivía haciendo promoción de un liberalismo del cual he abjurado, las prescripciones políticas de este libro me habrían entusiasmado en la misma medida en que hoy me repelen. Apreciación que, desde luego, no invalida otra de las tesis del autor: la inevitable integración de Europa (y de Occidente) en el marco de su decadencia, trasunto del espíritu contemporáneo: la homogeneización global (con Occidente al frente) como ideal último del paradigma liberal-progresista.
Y este valoración no es del todo distinta. Porque no es tanto una reseña objetiva como un apunte privado, banal, que no pretende iluminar a nadie ni mucho menos a ningún texto. Esto es, a fin de cuentas, a lo que invita Goodreads: a decir si nos pareció ameno o aburrido un libro. Cinco años atrás, cuando me desvivía haciendo promoción de un liberalismo del cual he abjurado, las prescripciones políticas de este libro me habrían entusiasmado en la misma medida en que hoy me repelen. Apreciación que, desde luego, no invalida otra de las tesis del autor: la inevitable integración de Europa (y de Occidente) en el marco de su decadencia, trasunto del espíritu contemporáneo: la homogeneización global (con Occidente al frente) como ideal último del paradigma liberal-progresista.
slippyslipslip's review
4.0
i thought it was going to be boring marxist theory, it ended up being cool anti-marxist philosophy
lukescalone's review
4.0
This was a book that I appreciated quite a lot. In it, Ortega argues that modernity is defined by the rise of the "mass man," who could be from any class and is only defined by its status as not-a-minority. In Ortega's conception, the "working masses" is an entirely different concept from "mass man," although there is some overlap. Ortega finds that the crisis the West is facing (in the 1930s) is the disappearance of morality under the rapid changes of the nineteenth century. He finds that nationalists are a dying breed, who resurged as a form of conservatism before nations weakened ("The last flare, the longest; the last sigh, the deepest. On the very eve of their disappearance there is an intensification of frontiers--military and economic."). He dislikes Marxists, but he despises Bolshevism (indeed, he does separate the two: "[. . .] Marxian Socialism and Bolshevism mare two historical phenomena which have hardly a single common denominator."). He also despises fascism, which he finds more despicable than any labor movement.
Perhaps his most interesting insight (from the perspective of the historian, at least) is that he finds that Bolshevism may become more popular in Europe because Europeans want to do something to better their societies (perhaps this could be a source of morality), and the Bolsheviks seemed to do this quite effectively through Five Year Plans. However, Ortega rejects this and finds that it would be best to "[build] Europe into a great national State" as the only way Bolshevism could be counteracted. I don't think I quite agree with him on this, but it does seem that numerous architects of the European Community (and later, the European Union) would agree. In doing so, Europeans could establish a new form of Europe-wide morality, although he problematically seems to think of Slavs as not-Europeans (pitting a "Slavonic" code against a European code, and a Slavically-coded Bolshevik project against a more universalist European project).
Above all, Ortega seems almost to represent the pinnacle of progressivism. Although he finds it necessary to look to the past to root oneself in history, he rejects the insularity of nationalism, the specter of Communism, and the violence of fascism. Instead, he looks towards a fundamentally progressive, liberal, and universalist vision of the future that builds continuities with the past. I think, generally, his analysis is decent if flawed, but he does have an admirable vision of what the future may hold and I think it is one that we would all do well to remember, especially in these times of nationalist populism.
Perhaps his most interesting insight (from the perspective of the historian, at least) is that he finds that Bolshevism may become more popular in Europe because Europeans want to do something to better their societies (perhaps this could be a source of morality), and the Bolsheviks seemed to do this quite effectively through Five Year Plans. However, Ortega rejects this and finds that it would be best to "[build] Europe into a great national State" as the only way Bolshevism could be counteracted. I don't think I quite agree with him on this, but it does seem that numerous architects of the European Community (and later, the European Union) would agree. In doing so, Europeans could establish a new form of Europe-wide morality, although he problematically seems to think of Slavs as not-Europeans (pitting a "Slavonic" code against a European code, and a Slavically-coded Bolshevik project against a more universalist European project).
Above all, Ortega seems almost to represent the pinnacle of progressivism. Although he finds it necessary to look to the past to root oneself in history, he rejects the insularity of nationalism, the specter of Communism, and the violence of fascism. Instead, he looks towards a fundamentally progressive, liberal, and universalist vision of the future that builds continuities with the past. I think, generally, his analysis is decent if flawed, but he does have an admirable vision of what the future may hold and I think it is one that we would all do well to remember, especially in these times of nationalist populism.
theyoungveronica's review
4.0
Oscillates between being a genuinely discerning critique of modern society and a paranoiac analysis by a man unreasonably fearful of a post-Europe world. It's also interesting to scrutinize the outdated, caricaturized vision of America (reminds me of Baudrillard's America.) For the Europeans at the time, America was a tabula rasa; in that sense the image of America was never rooted in 'reality'—in its infancy, it was only ever what Europeans wanted it to be. So Baudrillard saw an incandescent postmodernist landscape, and Ortega y Gasset projected onto America his fears of a nihilist, post-moral state. I find it curious that, by this assessment, America is a paragon of mass culture. Yet, by other judgements, America is far too individualistic.
There is a fine line between between a nuanced critic of mass culture and a pompous alarmist. His anxieties of a world after European hegemony reveal the true character of his thought. No Europe? No morality! he holds. Ultimately, a provocative read, but I couldn't shake off the feeling that his argument could be summarized as: observe the popularity of frivolous celebrities in mass culture, the lack of values & persistent egoism; thus, we should only give a handful of aristocrats the vote. Not the right prescription.
There is a fine line between between a nuanced critic of mass culture and a pompous alarmist. His anxieties of a world after European hegemony reveal the true character of his thought. No Europe? No morality! he holds. Ultimately, a provocative read, but I couldn't shake off the feeling that his argument could be summarized as: observe the popularity of frivolous celebrities in mass culture, the lack of values & persistent egoism; thus, we should only give a handful of aristocrats the vote. Not the right prescription.
danamiranda's review
3.0
I like the discussions surrounding the mass-man, hyper-democracy and the State but find problematic Ortega's conception of destiny and command/obedience.
catherineofalx's review against another edition
5.0
I am HERE for this (as a book that helps me make sense of a dangerous way of thinking and an important period of history) (but damn dat Castilian prose)