Charles Taylor in A Secular Age (2007) reopened the debate about the possibility of “reenchantment,” presupposing that “enchantment” once existed, but got lost, such that we arrived at a state of “disenchantment.” However, the no longer marginal debate on the possibility of a “re-enchantment,” is in my view chaotic and lacks precise definitions. In this article the author tries to clarify the concepts involved and put some order in the debate and investigate the possibilities for a kind of re-en…
Read moreCharles Taylor in A Secular Age (2007) reopened the debate about the possibility of “reenchantment,” presupposing that “enchantment” once existed, but got lost, such that we arrived at a state of “disenchantment.” However, the no longer marginal debate on the possibility of a “re-enchantment,” is in my view chaotic and lacks precise definitions. In this article the author tries to clarify the concepts involved and put some order in the debate and investigate the possibilities for a kind of re-enchantment. Firstly, she discloses enchantment, disenchantment, and reenchantment as factors in an intellectual scheme, rather than as concepts describing an historical reality. Secondly, she shows that these terms are not applicable to epoque defining sociocultural constellations, a common conviction, defended by Taylor too, which has awkward ideology-related implications. Finally, she points out, in an analysis inspired by Ricoeur, that it rather is the domain of the individual life where the loss and the recovering of enchantment may take place, in a dynamic between the individual and the “call of reality,” having the enchanting capacity to inspire possible lives and give our lives its beacons.
