Charles Taylor Lecture: Disenchantment and Secularity

For more on this event, visit: bit.ly/10zPpgs
For more on the Berkley Center, visit: berkleycenter.g...
October 22, 2008 | World-renowned philosopher Charles Taylor examined the complex relation between disenchantment and secularity in the West, including the different meanings of "disenchantment," and the implicit meanings behind notions of "re-enchantment." This was the second of the 2008 Berkley Center lectures on the topic "Narratives of Secularity". The lectures surveyed the master narratives which have underpinned secularization, explored more adequate ones, and hazarded a picture of the present predicament of religion and spirituality in the West.
Charles Taylor is one of the world's leading scholars working at the intersection of religion, secularity, and modernity. A philosopher open to other humanities and social science disciplines, he has authored many path-breaking books, including The Sources of the Self (1992), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (1994) and, most recently, A Secular Age (2007). Taylor was for many years Professor for Political Sciences and Philosophy at the McGill University in Montreal, Canada, where he now serves as professor emeritus. He was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2007.

[@cheri238]

With the deepest appreciation and respect for Professor Charles Taylor. He is one of our great thinkers, most definitely.

[@sergiosatelite467]

The tie is tucked in. That says a great deal and leaves many unanswered questions...

[@hishamgornass4577]

Keeping that tie indifferentiated.

[@adriatic.vineyards]

One of the greatest living thinkers

[@atmnurulamin1840]

It is a pity that I have come to know this great man so late in my life. I would think Professor/Philosopher thought can be basis of uniting democratic forces all countries..

[@elel2608]

8:32 differentiation - religion is separated from the secular sphere

[@ChrismAIAutomation]

It's always the Prots that ruin everything

[@williambuysse5459]

Meandering and sweet in tone. Let him sink in and the insights pop up. A good counter yet supplement to Leo Strauss.

[@imasorryentertainer]

Ortcutt, what are you talking about? He cites several works on secularism. Watch the whole speech. It's in, I think, three parts.

[@ortcutt]

I watched all three. First, his description of sociological secularization theory is a caricature. Second, he doesn't present any evidence to dispute that theory. It just seems like more wishing away the evidence, which is what real sociologists like Steve Bruce are constantly encountering.

[@urbaneplanner]

What a Q&A session! Often the questions are way less interesting than the lecture, but not here

[@luisathought]

Thank You

[@doctorj7112]

It was tough for me to follow him. 30 mins in and I’m lost.

[@matthewmayuiers]

Charles Taylor is extremely subtle. If you don’t have a background in the history of philosophical and theological debates he’s won’t be the easiest to follow.

[@matthewmayuiers]

Listen to it like 2-3 times, trust me, it’s worth it

[@balsarmy]

​@matthewmayuiers he doesn't really link to any philosopher. Common populism

[@Fesenfull]

56:58

[@balsarmy]

Didn't like this lecture. I'm sorry but it is pretty about nothing

[@ortcutt]

He completely fails to account for any of the empirical literature on secularization.

[@martinknap8466]

so what is he missing then?

[@evanhadkins5532]

He provides couter-examples - like India. Which he regards as falsifying the thesis - in the sense that it is meant to apply everywhere.

[@MeisterBeefington]

What's the best empirical literature on secularization, in your view? Isn't the guy giving the intro, Casanova, a leading figure in this respect? Of course, taking account of the empirical literature is important, which is why I'm curious what your recomendations are. That said, Taylor is not doing empirical sociology here, it's a different sort of project, a kind of quasi-hegelian analysis of various self-conceptions and the subjective dilemmas to which they give rise. It would obviously be a problem if such analysis flew completely off the rails empirically, but it's not clear to me that's the case.