Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
A neglected issue in the study of modernization is how the person transfers his pursuit of ultimate ends and meanings from religious to secular perspectives. If one could speak of a modern paradigm, it would include, at a minimum, commitments to rationalism and immanence. Unifying debates between classical rationalists and empiricists, Marxists and positivists, and idealists and realists, is the notion that some form of human reason is the court of last resort for disputes, whether reason be interpreted deductively, inductively, instrumentally, dialectically, or vitally; and the belief that ultimate meaning resides, if at all, in the public situation or in history. Modern perspectives demand, then, that the person confronts and overcomes in some way religious desires, such as the wills to immortality, plenitude, and eternal justice. Methods must be devised by which these desires are either channeled into political or historical perspectives, transferred from the public to the private realm, or denied altogether.
1 One of the few social scientists to have discussed the spiritual costs of modernization extensively is Peter Berger. See his Pyramids of Sacrifice: Political Ethics and Social Change (New York, 1974)Google Scholar.
2 For a complete discussion of Unamuno's early socialist and anarchist phase see de la Dehesa, Rafael Perez, Politico y Sociedad en el Primer Unamuno, 1894–1904 (Madrid, 1966)Google Scholar. This first period of Unamuno's intellectual life is not discussed in the present study because it precedes his self-conscious search for a new way of relating himself to the public situation.
3 García, Antonio Regalado, El Siervo y el Señor: La Diaéctica A gónica de Miguel de Unamuno (Madrid, 1968), p. 34nGoogle Scholar.
4 de Unamuno, Miguel, “En Torno del Casticismo,” in Obras Selectas (Madrid, 1965), p. 58Google Scholar.
5 Ibid., p. 60.
6 Ibid., p. 66.
7 Ibid., p. 59.
8 Fernández, Pelayo H., El Problema de Personalidad en Unamuno y en San Manuel Bueño (Madrid, 1966), p. 18Google Scholar.
9 Unamuno, , “Casticismo,” p. 82Google Scholar.
10 de Olaso, Ezequiel, Los N'ombres de Unamuno (Buenos Aires, 1963), p. 106Google Scholar.
11 Collado, Jésus-Antonio, Kierkegaard y Unamuno: La Existencia Religiosa (Madrid, 1962), pp. 62–3nGoogle Scholar.
12 Meyer, François, La Ontologia de Miguel de Unamuno (Madrid, 1962), p. 51Google Scholar.
13 Visueña, Jose M., Unamuno: Persona y Sociedad (Algorta Vizcaya), 1970), p. 49Google Scholar.
14 Unamuno, “Casticismo,” p. 143Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., p. 67.
16 Ibid., p. 127.
17 Ibid., p. 144.
18 Ibid., p. 48.
19 Unamuno, , “Del Sentimiento Trágico de la Vida: En los Hombres y en los Pueblos,” in Obras Selectas, p. 261Google Scholar.
20 Ibid., p. 263.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., pp. 268–69.
23 Ibid., p. 443.
24 Arístides, Julio, Unamuno, Dialéctica de la Tragedía Existential (Santa Fe, 1969), p. 30Google Scholar.
25 Poncela, S. Serrano, El Pensamiento de Unamuno (México, 1953), p. 138Google Scholar.
26 Mora, José Ferrater, Unamuno: Bosquejo de una Filosofía (Buenos Aires, 1944)Google Scholar.
27 Fran¸ois Meyer argues persuasively that the foundation of Unamuno'sontology is a contradiction between the will to be all (ser todo) and the will to be oneself (serse). See Meyer, La Ontología de Unamuno. For an opposing interpretation that holds that Unamuno embraced contraries, not contradictories, see Turienzo, F. Fernandez, Unamuno, Ansia de Dios y Creación Literaria (Madrid, 1966)Google Scholar.
28 Unamuno, , “Trágico de la Vida,” p. 445Google Scholar.
29 Ibid., p. 449.
30 Ibid., p. 446.
31 Ibid., p. 447.
32 Ibid., p. 446.
33 Ibid., p. 453.
34 Ibid., p. 450.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., p. 454.
37 de Unamuno, Miguel, La Agonla del Cristianismo (Buenos Aires, 1938), p. 13Google Scholar.
38 Ibid., p. 38.
39 Ibid., p. 77.
40 Ibid., p. 81.
41 Ibid., p. 70.
42 Ibid., p. 28.
43 Ibid., p. 16.
44 Ibid., p. 18.
45 Ibid., p. 19.
46 Ibid., p. 18.
47 Ibid., p. 9.
48 Abellán, José Luis, Miguel de Unamuno a la Luz de la Psicología: Una Interpretación de Unamuno desde la Psicologla Individual (Madrid, 1964)Google Scholar.
49 Díaz, Elias, Revision de Unamuno: Análisis Crítico de su Pensamiento Político (Madrid, 1968)Google Scholar.
50 Valle, Agustín Basave Fernández del, “Personalidad y filosofía de Misuel de Unamuno,” Augustinus, IX, no. 35 (Julio-Septiembre, 1964), 343–364Google Scholar. For similar interpretations see: Cancela, Gilberto, El Sentimiento Religiose de Unamuno (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, and Marías, Julián, Miguel de Unamuno (Madrid, 1971)Google Scholar.
51 For a discussion of the distinction between the ethic of responsibility and the ethic of ultimate ends see: Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York, 1946), pp. 77–128Google Scholar.
52 The end result of Unamuno's processes of “invasive charity” and “mutual imposition” is similar to Martin Buber's I-Thou relation, in which the self is expanded by receiving new experience. However, Unamuno differs from Buber in his belief that “invasive charity” is only possible against social structures and through awakening disquiet. See: Buber, Martin, I and Thou (New York, 1958)Google Scholar.
53 Unamuno, , “San Manuel Bueno, Martir,” in Obras Selectas, pp. 849–79Google Scholar.
