Scan barcode
amwsetford11's review against another edition
3.0
This book is a great survey of world religions and a deep look into the phenomenology of belief. However, the way eliade analyzes religion is contrived—not tethered to biology. This, I know, is a trait of his field. Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful to address the underlying evolutionary mechanisms in play. Biology, like physics, is a foundational truth that one must accept when putting together hypothetical narratives. When dealing with humans, one must always remember our evolutionary origins and how present functions are driven by ancient mechanisms to further the propagation of lineage. This is foundational. Although culture may seem like a confounding variable at times, a critical analysis giving evolutionary reasoning it’s due will on average be more objectively accurate compared to misguided conspiracy about the meaning of abstract cultural phenomena. I am not saying this is what eliade does, and on some level I don’t think he is in pursuit of the truth, but would prefer to operate within a contrived domain to then map his findings on objective truth. He talks about religious ideas in a religious language and it’s product is equal to that which is truth but only after intense intellectual acrobatics.
Religion itself is a cultural mechanism, which in turn is a biological mechanism. That Eliade fails to maintain this truth is a bit disappointing. Reminding us of the evolutionary function, while not being reductive, is necessary to understand the necessity of religion for man to operate in the world, to tether him to meaning.
The greatest concept to take from this work is that profane, desacralized man, is still religious despite his attempts to remove himself from formal practice. After all, “[man] cannot utterly abolish his past, since he is himself the product of his past.” Although not explicit in eliade’s work, it is clear that our genetic makeup is such that our minds tend to religious orientation. To function in society and to make sense of ones position in relation to others and the cosmos, religious traditions are still used, manipulating our chemistries and aligning them with each other.
Religion itself is a cultural mechanism, which in turn is a biological mechanism. That Eliade fails to maintain this truth is a bit disappointing. Reminding us of the evolutionary function, while not being reductive, is necessary to understand the necessity of religion for man to operate in the world, to tether him to meaning.
The greatest concept to take from this work is that profane, desacralized man, is still religious despite his attempts to remove himself from formal practice. After all, “[man] cannot utterly abolish his past, since he is himself the product of his past.” Although not explicit in eliade’s work, it is clear that our genetic makeup is such that our minds tend to religious orientation. To function in society and to make sense of ones position in relation to others and the cosmos, religious traditions are still used, manipulating our chemistries and aligning them with each other.
roxanacosmina's review against another edition
5.0
Oamenii de atunci încercau să trăiască într-o lume sacră, să trăiască în Realitate, nu în iluzia pe care hindușii o numesc Maya. Pentru ei totul revenea cumva la momentul Creației și, prin tot ce făceau, încercau să imite cosmogonia. Își doreau să fie contemporani cu zeii, să fie cu adevărat oameni. E adevărat că această imitare a dus uneori la lucruri fără sens sau odioase, dar ei, spre deosebire de noi, voiau să trăiască într-o lume pură, într-un timp ce se întoarce mereu la momentul Creației Universului, când lumea era cu desăvârșire pură.
https://adolescentacunasulincarti.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/sacrul-si-profanul-mircea-eliade-cat-de-mult-te-face-ignoranta-sa-pierzi/
https://adolescentacunasulincarti.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/sacrul-si-profanul-mircea-eliade-cat-de-mult-te-face-ignoranta-sa-pierzi/
rouennee's review against another edition
2.5
Problematizzare la secolarizzazione e la desacralizzazione dell’uomo moderno in questo modo becero e qualunquista solo un antropologo era capace di farlo
ynaa's review against another edition
4.0
Nu te-ai aștepta ca același om care a scris Maitreyi — despre care ai putea spune că a "trăit" chiar gândurile protagonistului — să scrie o carte ca asta.
În continuare sunt reticentă când vine vorba de stil, însă acum nu mai e beletristic, ci pură analiza asupra religiei. E de apreciat obiectivitatea cu care Eliade privește subiectul pe care-l explorează. Mult mai bine pusă la punct decât mă gândeam.
În continuare sunt reticentă când vine vorba de stil, însă acum nu mai e beletristic, ci pură analiza asupra religiei. E de apreciat obiectivitatea cu care Eliade privește subiectul pe care-l explorează. Mult mai bine pusă la punct decât mă gândeam.
shanviolinlove's review against another edition
2.0
Excellent anthropological analysis, but I would rate Eliade as a first-rate historian before approaching philosophy of religion. He conducts an analysis of the religious man based primarily of his views of a primordial worshipper and does not fully take into account how Christianity differs in terms of goals: the Christian man's goal is not necessarily to become the Center and return to the origin, although he does nod to the fact that the sacred time for Christianity is influenced more on the life of Jesus Christ than on the creation of the world. Eliade supports an argument that man cannot attain this sacred understanding if he continues along this line of "progress" that ever travels away from the Origin. He does not, however, provide any solution for the generation that moves away from the primitive into the future.
zachbrumaire's review
4.0
Though at times this classic gestures at useful or interesting theoretical frameworks, is failure to ground it's subject matter or engage in self critique hardly allow it to transcend the fascist subtext of both it's own content and it's authors life, in contrast to an author like Schmitt.