What do you think?
Rate this book
The Two Greatest Ideas: How Our Grasp of the Universe and Our Minds Changed Everything
Two simple yet tremendously powerful ideas that shaped virtually every aspect of civilization
This book is a breathtaking examination of the two greatest ideas in human history. The first is the idea that the human mind can grasp the universe. The second is the idea that the human mind can grasp itself. Acclaimed philosopher Linda Zagzebski shows how the first unleashed a cultural awakening that swept across the world in the first millennium BCE, giving birth to philosophy, mathematics, science, and virtually all the major world religions. It dominated until the Renaissance, when the discovery of subjectivity profoundly transformed the arts and sciences. This second great idea governed our perception of reality up until the dawn of the twenty-first century.
Zagzebski explores how the interplay of the two ideas led to conflicts that have left us ambivalent about the relationship between the mind and the universe, and have given rise to a host of moral and political rifts over the deepest questions human beings face. Should we organize civil society around the ideal of living in harmony with the world or that of individual autonomy? Zagzebski explains how the two greatest ideas continue to divide us today over issues such as abortion, the environment, free speech, and racial and gender identity.
This panoramic book reveals what is missing in our conception of ourselves and the world, and imagines a not-too-distant future when a third great idea, the idea that human minds can grasp each other, will help us gain an idea of the whole of reality.
This book is a breathtaking examination of the two greatest ideas in human history. The first is the idea that the human mind can grasp the universe. The second is the idea that the human mind can grasp itself. Acclaimed philosopher Linda Zagzebski shows how the first unleashed a cultural awakening that swept across the world in the first millennium BCE, giving birth to philosophy, mathematics, science, and virtually all the major world religions. It dominated until the Renaissance, when the discovery of subjectivity profoundly transformed the arts and sciences. This second great idea governed our perception of reality up until the dawn of the twenty-first century.
Zagzebski explores how the interplay of the two ideas led to conflicts that have left us ambivalent about the relationship between the mind and the universe, and have given rise to a host of moral and political rifts over the deepest questions human beings face. Should we organize civil society around the ideal of living in harmony with the world or that of individual autonomy? Zagzebski explains how the two greatest ideas continue to divide us today over issues such as abortion, the environment, free speech, and racial and gender identity.
This panoramic book reveals what is missing in our conception of ourselves and the world, and imagines a not-too-distant future when a third great idea, the idea that human minds can grasp each other, will help us gain an idea of the whole of reality.
- GenresPhilosophyHistory
280 pages, Hardcover
Published November 16, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 22, 2021
This book traces the intellectual history of what philosopher Linda Zagzebeski refers to as humanity’s two greatest ideas: (1) that the mind can grasp the universe, and (2) that the mind can grasp itself. As it turns out, in the West, these ideas are fundamentally in conflict with each other and result in very different interpretations of the world and our place within it.
Prior to the Renaissance and the rise of the second great idea, humanity embraced the first great idea, that the universe is rationally structured and that the mind is capable of grasping it in its entirety. This is, essentially, the position of philosophical realism, which posits the existence of the objects of perception, as they’re perceived, regardless of whether or not there are minds to perceive them. This led to further ethical and political positions that stressed the importance of living in harmony with nature and society, and which downplayed the significance of individual autonomy.
This all changed with the rise of the second great idea—the idea that the mind can grasp itself—which introduced the subject/object divide and the position of philosophical idealism, which states that our reality is shaped more by our thoughts and ideas about the world than from the world in itself. Idealism can take two forms: (1) the idealism of George Berkeley, which states that ALL that exists is the mind, or (2) the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant, which states that, while an external reality that impinges on our sensory organs exists, it is our minds that nonetheless construct our reality, a reality that does not necessarily correspond to the “things in themselves” that exist independent of perception.
Kant’s version of idealism seems to be, in all likelihood, correct. To see why, think about color blindness. If, for example, someone with normal vision looks at a “red” object, and the color-blind individual sees the same object as green, then it is obvious that the object in itself is neither red nor green; rather, the perception of color is a mental property independent of the object itself. Extend this line of thinking to taste, sound, and touch, and then even to space, time, causation, and solidity, and you can recognize the distinct possibility that what actually exists in the world is very different from the world of our mental creations. Recognizing this, philosophers began to pay more attention to the subjectivity of our inner worlds rather than to a conception of the mind as simply a window to an external world that can be directly known.
As with the first great idea, the second great idea spawned its own unique ethical and political positions that, rather than emphasizing harmony with reality, instead emphasized the individual self, rights, and autonomy, in contrast to the view that we are all part of a single, knowable reality that is rationally structured and greater than the sum of any of its parts. Zagzebeski spends a good deal of the first part of the book tracing the intellectual history of these two ideas and showing us the conflicts these ideas have created—conflicts we are living with to this day.
In a particularly interesting chapter, Zagzebeski maps the two great ideas to the political conflicts of our day, showing that both liberals and conservatives inconsistently prioritize social harmony and individual autonomy across a host of issues. On the liberal side, pro-life stances prioritize individual autonomy whereas left-leaning positions on climate change emphasize social and natural harmony. On the political right, gun rights advocacy emphasize autonomy whereas anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances empahsize (in their minds) social harmony.
Of course, this could mean one of two things: either Zagzebeski’s theory is not particularly helpful in explaining political and ethical positions, as people clearly are taking into consideration a host of other, more important factors, or else people are simply not spending enough time contemplating the foundational principles by which they are forming their political opinions. I tend to think it’s probably a mix of the two, as people do seem to gravitate to the same positions as others with similar political leanings even when the underlying principles seem to conflict.
Either way, this way of thinking about our political conflicts, and the first principles by which we form our political beliefs, is a welcome change compared to how we typically conduct our political discourse in this country. Zagzebeski is encouraging us to think deeper about our positions and to extend greater empathy to those with different perspectives.
In the final part of the book, Zagzebeski proposes the advancement of the third greatest idea, the idea that the mind can grasp other minds, or the principle of intersubjectivity. She makes the claim that Western philosophy and science have spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to understand the objective world and our own inner subjective worlds at the expense of deeper consideration of other minds and the impact other minds have on the construction of individual subjective realities. Advances in the psychology of empathy, the neuroscience of emotion and sociality (in particular mirror neurons), and philosophical reflections on the interconnection and interdependence of our subjective worlds can all bridge the gap in our understanding of the minds of others and can help us to temper our political vitriol and intolerance for those with countervailing views.
Overall, this book has some interesting (if not repetitious) ideas, but one line of criticism might be the book’s oversimplification of the history of philosophy. I think you could probably find examples of the second great idea—the recognition of individuality, subjectivity, and autonomy—in ancient Greek philosophy (especially in the works of Plato, the Stoics, and the Epicureans), and also examples of the first great idea in modern philosophy (Spinoza). In politics, I think there are more important issues at play than wondering if the mind can grasp the universe versus itself, particularly concepts of equality, freedom, and justice that originated from different considerations. Condensing the entirety of intellectual history to two metaphysical issues obscures the importance of other lines of inquiry.
Also, who’s to say the human mind can grasp all reality in the first place? All three great ideas presuppose that the universe can be contemplated in its entirety by the mind of one species of primate. I think Immanuel Kant showed us the limitations of our minds to investigate anything outside the bounds of what we evolved to contemplate. We can learn useful information about the world, our minds, society, and other people, but the deepest metaphysical questions—including the nature of consciousness—lay beyond our reach. How could it be otherwise? How can we compare an “objective reality” independent of our minds with our mental constructions when we can never step out of our minds to make the comparison?
Maybe the issue is that we lack humility and overvalue our ability to grasp reality, and that the answer is to not keep insisting that we can grasp the universe in its entirety at all. We should keep learning what we can—including an appreciation of the different perspectives of others—but we probably don’t need a third “great idea” that tells people they can know the total nature of reality without any gaps.
Prior to the Renaissance and the rise of the second great idea, humanity embraced the first great idea, that the universe is rationally structured and that the mind is capable of grasping it in its entirety. This is, essentially, the position of philosophical realism, which posits the existence of the objects of perception, as they’re perceived, regardless of whether or not there are minds to perceive them. This led to further ethical and political positions that stressed the importance of living in harmony with nature and society, and which downplayed the significance of individual autonomy.
This all changed with the rise of the second great idea—the idea that the mind can grasp itself—which introduced the subject/object divide and the position of philosophical idealism, which states that our reality is shaped more by our thoughts and ideas about the world than from the world in itself. Idealism can take two forms: (1) the idealism of George Berkeley, which states that ALL that exists is the mind, or (2) the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant, which states that, while an external reality that impinges on our sensory organs exists, it is our minds that nonetheless construct our reality, a reality that does not necessarily correspond to the “things in themselves” that exist independent of perception.
Kant’s version of idealism seems to be, in all likelihood, correct. To see why, think about color blindness. If, for example, someone with normal vision looks at a “red” object, and the color-blind individual sees the same object as green, then it is obvious that the object in itself is neither red nor green; rather, the perception of color is a mental property independent of the object itself. Extend this line of thinking to taste, sound, and touch, and then even to space, time, causation, and solidity, and you can recognize the distinct possibility that what actually exists in the world is very different from the world of our mental creations. Recognizing this, philosophers began to pay more attention to the subjectivity of our inner worlds rather than to a conception of the mind as simply a window to an external world that can be directly known.
As with the first great idea, the second great idea spawned its own unique ethical and political positions that, rather than emphasizing harmony with reality, instead emphasized the individual self, rights, and autonomy, in contrast to the view that we are all part of a single, knowable reality that is rationally structured and greater than the sum of any of its parts. Zagzebeski spends a good deal of the first part of the book tracing the intellectual history of these two ideas and showing us the conflicts these ideas have created—conflicts we are living with to this day.
In a particularly interesting chapter, Zagzebeski maps the two great ideas to the political conflicts of our day, showing that both liberals and conservatives inconsistently prioritize social harmony and individual autonomy across a host of issues. On the liberal side, pro-life stances prioritize individual autonomy whereas left-leaning positions on climate change emphasize social and natural harmony. On the political right, gun rights advocacy emphasize autonomy whereas anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances empahsize (in their minds) social harmony.
Of course, this could mean one of two things: either Zagzebeski’s theory is not particularly helpful in explaining political and ethical positions, as people clearly are taking into consideration a host of other, more important factors, or else people are simply not spending enough time contemplating the foundational principles by which they are forming their political opinions. I tend to think it’s probably a mix of the two, as people do seem to gravitate to the same positions as others with similar political leanings even when the underlying principles seem to conflict.
Either way, this way of thinking about our political conflicts, and the first principles by which we form our political beliefs, is a welcome change compared to how we typically conduct our political discourse in this country. Zagzebeski is encouraging us to think deeper about our positions and to extend greater empathy to those with different perspectives.
In the final part of the book, Zagzebeski proposes the advancement of the third greatest idea, the idea that the mind can grasp other minds, or the principle of intersubjectivity. She makes the claim that Western philosophy and science have spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to understand the objective world and our own inner subjective worlds at the expense of deeper consideration of other minds and the impact other minds have on the construction of individual subjective realities. Advances in the psychology of empathy, the neuroscience of emotion and sociality (in particular mirror neurons), and philosophical reflections on the interconnection and interdependence of our subjective worlds can all bridge the gap in our understanding of the minds of others and can help us to temper our political vitriol and intolerance for those with countervailing views.
Overall, this book has some interesting (if not repetitious) ideas, but one line of criticism might be the book’s oversimplification of the history of philosophy. I think you could probably find examples of the second great idea—the recognition of individuality, subjectivity, and autonomy—in ancient Greek philosophy (especially in the works of Plato, the Stoics, and the Epicureans), and also examples of the first great idea in modern philosophy (Spinoza). In politics, I think there are more important issues at play than wondering if the mind can grasp the universe versus itself, particularly concepts of equality, freedom, and justice that originated from different considerations. Condensing the entirety of intellectual history to two metaphysical issues obscures the importance of other lines of inquiry.
Also, who’s to say the human mind can grasp all reality in the first place? All three great ideas presuppose that the universe can be contemplated in its entirety by the mind of one species of primate. I think Immanuel Kant showed us the limitations of our minds to investigate anything outside the bounds of what we evolved to contemplate. We can learn useful information about the world, our minds, society, and other people, but the deepest metaphysical questions—including the nature of consciousness—lay beyond our reach. How could it be otherwise? How can we compare an “objective reality” independent of our minds with our mental constructions when we can never step out of our minds to make the comparison?
Maybe the issue is that we lack humility and overvalue our ability to grasp reality, and that the answer is to not keep insisting that we can grasp the universe in its entirety at all. We should keep learning what we can—including an appreciation of the different perspectives of others—but we probably don’t need a third “great idea” that tells people they can know the total nature of reality without any gaps.
March 29, 2022
5 stars because I greatly enjoyed the read - I found it to be insightful, interesting, and knowledgeable - even though there were a few things I took issue with. The ideas in the book do an excellent job of tracing through the history of the philosophy and tying various viewpoints together and relating them to art, literature, and other things going on at the time. I found the treatment of some of my favorite philosophers, Sartre and Wittgenstien, to be fair an accurate (although I think we could have used more Sartre).
We danced around the problem of the self being an illusion. The author mentions how modern physics has essentially swallowed up all other sciences and talks about meditation and the illusory self briefly, but doesn't do much to say why that is not the case. Perhaps this is ok as these are just ideas and not truths, but I would have liked to see this explored more. It's also possible (though unlikely) that the third greatest idea is the idea that the self is an illusion. Or perhaps that is the fourth greatest idea.
The idea of combining the objective and subjective worlds from the outside in didn't do it for me. I think I understood the point that was being made but for me it always ends up being a "layering" of one on top of another rather than a true union. This could very well be my problem.
But again, I greatly enjoyed it and certainly see evidence in today's culture that we could be on the verge of intersubjectivity as the third greatest idea - which would probably do a lot of practical good for the world if we give it the appropriate attention.
We danced around the problem of the self being an illusion. The author mentions how modern physics has essentially swallowed up all other sciences and talks about meditation and the illusory self briefly, but doesn't do much to say why that is not the case. Perhaps this is ok as these are just ideas and not truths, but I would have liked to see this explored more. It's also possible (though unlikely) that the third greatest idea is the idea that the self is an illusion. Or perhaps that is the fourth greatest idea.
The idea of combining the objective and subjective worlds from the outside in didn't do it for me. I think I understood the point that was being made but for me it always ends up being a "layering" of one on top of another rather than a true union. This could very well be my problem.
But again, I greatly enjoyed it and certainly see evidence in today's culture that we could be on the verge of intersubjectivity as the third greatest idea - which would probably do a lot of practical good for the world if we give it the appropriate attention.
May 20, 2024
Though this was not an easy book to digest (philosophy is not me forté), it was an interesting way to look back at history through the lens of the two greatest ideas.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews