Philosopher Charles Taylor on How Romanticism Changed Everything

This is an excerpt edited by Prof Jason Blakely for pedagogical purposes from Charles Taylor's 1988 lecture The Inner Self delivered at the Vancouver Institute. Full version here: • The Inner Self - Charl...

[@sina8883]

As I was listening to this, it just struck me how romanticism culminates in the psychology of Jung- with his emphasis on inner exploration and reflection, and how happiness and fulfillment are ultimately to be achieved through the process of individuation. I had never made that connection.

[@NoeticEidetics]

This is excellent. I am about to read Taylor’s “Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited”.

[@carneades4409]

really interesting; thank you

[@meofamily4]

The characterization is difficult to credit without the speaker giving a single specific example.

[@ElyBlack-kn6dr]

Excerpt from an hour plus lecture and a massive tome (Sources of the Self) with many examples!

[@stevedelchamps5113]

Didnt M H Abrams do all this much better in Natural Supernaturalism?

[@josephvasey2533]

he mentions Herder within the first 60 seconds

[@meofamily4]

Oh, @@josephvasey2533 , he mentions several names. Blake, Montaigne (three times), Wagner, your friend Herder.
But -- if you would please -- give me one specific example of any of these many categories -- expressive view of the human being, reflexive expression, and so on -- being brought forward in actual instantiation.
Let us take Herder. What specifically did Herder say that was different from what, let us say, Hume did? The speaker goes on and on about trends and attitudes, but never gives a single example of what he is talking about.
It is pure assertion, without a single nod in the direction of illustration. He expects the listener to accept it all without providing a single example -- as I said.
A weak form of presenting ideas.

[@josephvasey2533]

​@@meofamily4 > but never gives a single example of what he is talking about
"Jeder Mensch hat sein eigenes Maß." Again, first 60 seconds.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the charge here. Is he supposed to be providing in-text citations at every mention of a writer? He's doing broad strokes analysis of hundreds of years of high culture. Surely that would've bogged down the talk, no? These aren't exactly obscure writers he's talking about, either. If you want to assess his claims, the texts are all readily available. Or pop open libgen and crack open his book (or the cambridge companions/histories series). You could probably even shoot him an email!