What do you think?
Rate this book
کتاب فیلسوفان مرده
این کتاب به ما می‌گوی� که فلاسفه چگونه مرده‌ان� و در زمینه� نگرش مناسب در قبال مرگ و مردن، چه چیزهایی را می‌توانی� از فلسفه یاد بگیریم. کریچلی می‌گوی� امید من توفیق در بازتاباندن گفته� آغازین مونتنی یعنی «ثبت انواع مرگ‌ه� همراه با حاشیه‌نویس� است». شرط می‌بند� که با یادگیری چگونه مردن می‌توانی� به چگونه زندگی کردن بیندیشیم.
کتاب شامل مدخل‌های� کوتاه و گاه بسیار کوتاه درباره� فیلسوفان مختلف است که شیوه� مرگ آن‌ه� را باز می‌گوی� و غالباً این شیوه‌ه� را با اندیشه‌ها� محوری آن‌ه� مرتبط می‌کن�.
این مدخل‌ه� را می‌توا� از آغاز تا پایان به‌طو� منظم یا به صورت گلچین خواند. چنانچه از آغاز تا پایان خوانده شود، مجموعه� انباشت‌شونده‌ا� از مضمون‌ه� پدیدار شوند، که بر نقش فلسفه در یاد دادن چگونه مردن و چگونه زندگی کردن چیزی بیفزاید.
کتاب شامل مدخل‌های� کوتاه و گاه بسیار کوتاه درباره� فیلسوفان مختلف است که شیوه� مرگ آن‌ه� را باز می‌گوی� و غالباً این شیوه‌ه� را با اندیشه‌ها� محوری آن‌ه� مرتبط می‌کن�.
این مدخل‌ه� را می‌توا� از آغاز تا پایان به‌طو� منظم یا به صورت گلچین خواند. چنانچه از آغاز تا پایان خوانده شود، مجموعه� انباشت‌شونده‌ا� از مضمون‌ه� پدیدار شوند، که بر نقش فلسفه در یاد دادن چگونه مردن و چگونه زندگی کردن چیزی بیفزاید.
366 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
207 people are currently reading
2,378 people want to read
About the author
Simon Critchley
116books360followersSimon Critchley (born 27 February 1960 in Hertfordshire) is an English philosopher currently teaching at The New School. He works in continental philosophy. Critchley argues that philosophy commences in disappointment, either religious or political. These two axes may be said largely to inform his published work: religious disappointment raises the question of meaning and has to, as he sees it, deal with the problem of nihilism; political disappointment provokes the question of justice and raises the need for a coherent ethics
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews
June 25, 2009
At work a semi-common (meaning I get the question a few times a year) question that gets sent my way is something like, "I want an introduction to philosophy". I don't like this question very much. Most people who are asking it have no background in philosophy and they are looking for one quick book that will teach them everything they need to know. Sometimes they want this one book to have original writings by philosophers, but just the essential stuff, along with easy to understand little commentaries to explain it all to them. Most of the people who have asked me this question (or more likely have been sent to me to answer this question, since this is my supposed area of expertise) I'm sure are well meaning people who are looking to learn something about philosophy but have no idea where to start (or in the case of one particular man who wanted a book that would just tell him the meaning of life, but in a small compact book).
I don't like this question because there isn't a good answer to it. Most people don't care for my standard answer, which is to read Sophie's World, a YA novel about the history of philosophy. I personally think this is a great introduction to philosophy, and I wish I had read it a few years before I did when I had first started my erratic reading of various philosophers. My second and third recommendations are Copleston's seven or eight volume history of western philosophy collection, which I'm sure is quite good, even if I have only read parts of two of the volumes, and the encyclopedia of philosophy edited by Robert Audi, an invaluable collection of short essays on just about any topic one can think of in philosophy. This book many times in my student days helped me out by giving me enough of a background in something being mentioned in a book to have at least some idea of what the writer was saying.
Why all of this blah blah blah? Because I think I might be adding this book to my weak and disappointing arsenal of books to give to people who want a bit of an overview of philosophy. Maybe they won't learn too much from this book about actual philosophy (there is sort of an understanding in the book that the reader kind of knows something already, but not an alienating understanding), but they will be given fun anecdotal stories about a whole slew of philosophers, and at least get their palates whetted for where they might want to start their own reading. It will also expose them to the reality that there are no answers in philosophy, just a whole bunch of questions that in all likely hood one would be a healthier person not to think about.
The book itself is a lot of fun to read, it's kind of like an In Touch magazine special issue on the intellectual celebrities from the past twenty six hundred years (or so). You get lots of juicy little details about philosophers, you get lots of deaths, some of them mundane, some of them spectacular and even some improbable. You get to learn details of philosophers lives that you would never imagine. For example, did you know that Spinoza liked to train spiders to fight each other, and apparently one of his favorite pastimes was watching them fight. Or that Nietzsche was coprophagic? Do you even know what coprophagic is? Well I didn't, and neither does my spell checker. It means that he drank his own urine and ate his own shit. Wow!!!! Who would have thought. I also didn't know that Wagner had written to Nietzsche's doctors with his own opinion about the philosopher's breakdown, apparently Wagner was the opinion that Nietzsche suffered from his nervous breakdown because of excessive masturbation (which leads me to wonder who Wagner would know this, did they talk about beating off? Can you picture in your mind the giant of German opera discussing how he jerks off with the melancholy philosopher? Or maybe did Wagner walk in on Nietzsche doing it? So many questions, volume 2 please, I propose the title to be The Book of Auto-Erotic Philosophers).
My complaint about the book is that there is no entry for Cioran, maybe not a major philosopher (but seriously there are quite a few non Rock Stars here), but really a central one when you want to talk about death and at least writing that is aimed directly at not wanting to live anymore in the world (yes I could have said suicide). I would have liked to seen him represented, but I guess one can't have everything they would like.
I don't like this question because there isn't a good answer to it. Most people don't care for my standard answer, which is to read Sophie's World, a YA novel about the history of philosophy. I personally think this is a great introduction to philosophy, and I wish I had read it a few years before I did when I had first started my erratic reading of various philosophers. My second and third recommendations are Copleston's seven or eight volume history of western philosophy collection, which I'm sure is quite good, even if I have only read parts of two of the volumes, and the encyclopedia of philosophy edited by Robert Audi, an invaluable collection of short essays on just about any topic one can think of in philosophy. This book many times in my student days helped me out by giving me enough of a background in something being mentioned in a book to have at least some idea of what the writer was saying.
Why all of this blah blah blah? Because I think I might be adding this book to my weak and disappointing arsenal of books to give to people who want a bit of an overview of philosophy. Maybe they won't learn too much from this book about actual philosophy (there is sort of an understanding in the book that the reader kind of knows something already, but not an alienating understanding), but they will be given fun anecdotal stories about a whole slew of philosophers, and at least get their palates whetted for where they might want to start their own reading. It will also expose them to the reality that there are no answers in philosophy, just a whole bunch of questions that in all likely hood one would be a healthier person not to think about.
The book itself is a lot of fun to read, it's kind of like an In Touch magazine special issue on the intellectual celebrities from the past twenty six hundred years (or so). You get lots of juicy little details about philosophers, you get lots of deaths, some of them mundane, some of them spectacular and even some improbable. You get to learn details of philosophers lives that you would never imagine. For example, did you know that Spinoza liked to train spiders to fight each other, and apparently one of his favorite pastimes was watching them fight. Or that Nietzsche was coprophagic? Do you even know what coprophagic is? Well I didn't, and neither does my spell checker. It means that he drank his own urine and ate his own shit. Wow!!!! Who would have thought. I also didn't know that Wagner had written to Nietzsche's doctors with his own opinion about the philosopher's breakdown, apparently Wagner was the opinion that Nietzsche suffered from his nervous breakdown because of excessive masturbation (which leads me to wonder who Wagner would know this, did they talk about beating off? Can you picture in your mind the giant of German opera discussing how he jerks off with the melancholy philosopher? Or maybe did Wagner walk in on Nietzsche doing it? So many questions, volume 2 please, I propose the title to be The Book of Auto-Erotic Philosophers).
My complaint about the book is that there is no entry for Cioran, maybe not a major philosopher (but seriously there are quite a few non Rock Stars here), but really a central one when you want to talk about death and at least writing that is aimed directly at not wanting to live anymore in the world (yes I could have said suicide). I would have liked to seen him represented, but I guess one can't have everything they would like.
July 24, 2024
يعرّف أفلاطون وسقراط الموت على أنه الفصل النهائي بين الروح والجسد. إنهم يعتبرون الجسد سجنًا للروح ويعتبرون الموت وسيلة حرية الروح.
……�"مات سقراط موتا بطيئا وقد غطى وجهه تماما، ربما ليحجب عن نظره صورة أولئك الذين قتلوه دون ذنب. يروى أنه بالرغم من أن تلميذه النجيب أفلاطون لم يحضر إعدامه، إلا أنه كتب عقب وفاة معلمه العزيز سقراط قائلا: "كل الفلسفة تمرين على الموت"."
كتاب يروي من خلاله كريتشلي حكاية الموت مع الفلاسفة، وأثر الفلسفة التحويلي في حياة البعض منهم. ومرام كريتشلي من هذا العمل كما يذكر بيان أن أعظم أعمال الفيلسوف الفنية-عادةً -الهيئة التي مات عليها. وهي أمثولات جديرة بالتأمل.
…�"توجد أدلة تشير إلى أن فرويد نفسه كان يتوق إلى الموت. فبعدما أغمي عليه في ميونخ عام 1912 كانت كلماته الأولى حين استعاد وعيه: "ما ألذ أن نموت."؛ فيما يقول (شوبنهور) أيضاً إنّ الموت هو الموضوع الرئيس للفلسفة والمُلِهم الأكبر للتفكير الفلسفي."
يتطرق الكاتب ولو بالنزر اليسير إلى سير بعض من الفلاسفة والمفكرين، من الفلسفة ما قبل اليونانية إلى الفلسفة الحديثة، بما فيها مفاهيمهم الفلسفية وأثرهم في زمانهم، و آراء أو تصورات -(توضح الموت في فكر الفلاسفة.) وطبيعة فهمه "الفيلسوف" للموت.
كما يتعرض كريتشلي لظروف موتهم منذ الحقب القديمة حتى العصر الراهن. وهو يروي بشكل غير مباشر عن علاقتنا بالموت أو تراثنا الفكري الجمعي الواعي عنه بما به هواجسنا. ويثير بالذهن عدة تساؤلات من بينها: ما معنى أن تكون على القيد الحياة؟، أي نوع من الحياة؟ وأيضاً من أجل أية غاية؟ وحول ما إذا كانت الحياة الطويلة للغاية، حتى الخلود، ستكون مفيدة لنا؟ وهل نحن حقاً متصالحين مع فكرة الموت؟
الموت والخلود من القضايا الفلسفية الكبرى التي شغلت حيزاً كبيراً من تفكير الفلاسفة والمفكرين على مر العصور، كما أنه من الاشتغالات الفكرية الإشكالية في الديانات باختلافها، والبشرية جمعاء بوجه خاص.
ترجمة إبراهيم الكلثم رائعة كعادته.
……�"مات سقراط موتا بطيئا وقد غطى وجهه تماما، ربما ليحجب عن نظره صورة أولئك الذين قتلوه دون ذنب. يروى أنه بالرغم من أن تلميذه النجيب أفلاطون لم يحضر إعدامه، إلا أنه كتب عقب وفاة معلمه العزيز سقراط قائلا: "كل الفلسفة تمرين على الموت"."
كتاب يروي من خلاله كريتشلي حكاية الموت مع الفلاسفة، وأثر الفلسفة التحويلي في حياة البعض منهم. ومرام كريتشلي من هذا العمل كما يذكر بيان أن أعظم أعمال الفيلسوف الفنية-عادةً -الهيئة التي مات عليها. وهي أمثولات جديرة بالتأمل.
…�"توجد أدلة تشير إلى أن فرويد نفسه كان يتوق إلى الموت. فبعدما أغمي عليه في ميونخ عام 1912 كانت كلماته الأولى حين استعاد وعيه: "ما ألذ أن نموت."؛ فيما يقول (شوبنهور) أيضاً إنّ الموت هو الموضوع الرئيس للفلسفة والمُلِهم الأكبر للتفكير الفلسفي."
يتطرق الكاتب ولو بالنزر اليسير إلى سير بعض من الفلاسفة والمفكرين، من الفلسفة ما قبل اليونانية إلى الفلسفة الحديثة، بما فيها مفاهيمهم الفلسفية وأثرهم في زمانهم، و آراء أو تصورات -(توضح الموت في فكر الفلاسفة.) وطبيعة فهمه "الفيلسوف" للموت.
كما يتعرض كريتشلي لظروف موتهم منذ الحقب القديمة حتى العصر الراهن. وهو يروي بشكل غير مباشر عن علاقتنا بالموت أو تراثنا الفكري الجمعي الواعي عنه بما به هواجسنا. ويثير بالذهن عدة تساؤلات من بينها: ما معنى أن تكون على القيد الحياة؟، أي نوع من الحياة؟ وأيضاً من أجل أية غاية؟ وحول ما إذا كانت الحياة الطويلة للغاية، حتى الخلود، ستكون مفيدة لنا؟ وهل نحن حقاً متصالحين مع فكرة الموت؟
الموت والخلود من القضايا الفلسفية الكبرى التي شغلت حيزاً كبيراً من تفكير الفلاسفة والمفكرين على مر العصور، كما أنه من الاشتغالات الفكرية الإشكالية في الديانات باختلافها، والبشرية جمعاء بوجه خاص.
ترجمة إبراهيم الكلثم رائعة كعادته.
January 14, 2015
Strange as it might sound, my constant concern in these seemingly morbid pages is the meaning and possibility of happiness.
This book harbored such high expectations for me, ones that sadly weren't met. Critchely dazzled me with his book on Political Theology and i turned to this appropriately whetted. The approach here lacked rigor and offered instead a popular history of philosophy through 190 vignettes of central figures. A brief segue into ancient Chinese philosophy and the inclusion of a half dozen relatively obscure women (outside of their more famous female authors) felt cobbled, a PC postscript. What was intriguing was the reverberation of certain thinkers. One thinks of Derrida and Foucault both reading Seneca at their end of their lives. Schopenhauer and Marx died in easy chairs (Melreau-Ponty was apparently reading Descartes) and Deleuze threw himself out of a window.
One further inecluctable truth remains: Heidegger made bad choices. It was the experience of Husserl and Levinas to bear witness to such. Simone Weil's response was medieval and sublime.
This book harbored such high expectations for me, ones that sadly weren't met. Critchely dazzled me with his book on Political Theology and i turned to this appropriately whetted. The approach here lacked rigor and offered instead a popular history of philosophy through 190 vignettes of central figures. A brief segue into ancient Chinese philosophy and the inclusion of a half dozen relatively obscure women (outside of their more famous female authors) felt cobbled, a PC postscript. What was intriguing was the reverberation of certain thinkers. One thinks of Derrida and Foucault both reading Seneca at their end of their lives. Schopenhauer and Marx died in easy chairs (Melreau-Ponty was apparently reading Descartes) and Deleuze threw himself out of a window.
One further inecluctable truth remains: Heidegger made bad choices. It was the experience of Husserl and Levinas to bear witness to such. Simone Weil's response was medieval and sublime.
April 4, 2019
به قول خود نويسنده سايمون كريچلي اين كتاب مدخل خوبي براي علاقه مندان به فلسفه هستد و سرنخ هاي خوبي ارائه ميده و همچنين سرگرم كننده هست. نامتعادل هست و نميشه هميشه بهش اعتماد كرد! اما كتاب خوبي بود براي كساني كه علاقه مند به كار در اين حوزه هستند.ما تصور ميكنيم فيلسوف هاي انسان نيودند و گويي زندگي نكردند و نمردند اما اين كتاب فيلسوف رو به عنوان يك انسان مقابل شما قرار ميده. مرگ پديده بسيار مهمي هست و گويي كه تمام فلسفه، تمرين مردن بوده است. به هر صورت من كتاب رو به كساني كه علاقه دارند به اين خوزه معرفي ميكنم و خصوصا دوستاني كه كمي با نظريات فيلسوفان اشنايي دارند.
July 6, 2012
A wonderful concept for a book. It spends a page and half or so on the deaths of 170 different philosophers. For some, it nicely juxtaposes their beliefs with their practical applications. For others, it illustrates a hypocrisy. Mostly though, I think it does a good job bringing the lot of them back down to earth. The introductions (there are three) are themselves a decent discussion on death and dying. It's one of those books you wish was a Wikipedia page so you could follow all the strands it begins to tug at.
March 16, 2012
This was hugely disappointing, and probably because it's not that good.
The premise of the book is actually pretty interesting: illustrate the various philosophies to death by recounting the personal deaths (and lives) of famous philosophers throughout history and how that compared or contrasted with their philosophy. However, there are a few mistakes that Critchley makes in telling the tales:
- Trying to tell the stories of over 190 different philosophers... in a 250 page book.
- Unable to decide whether the capsule biograpies are meant to be read in sequence or at will.
- Immediately - and with little supporting evidence - imposing his own viewpoint in the picture and allowing it to warp his histories without any apparent consideration of alternative stances beyond mere recounting.
As a result, Critchley rarely manages to eke any depth out of the philosophers discussed. This isn't too much of a problem early on in the greek philosophers, whose differences can be bluntly hashed out without too much loss in detail. But once he gets to medieval times, the enterprise starts to fall apart. (More later.)
Critchley's prose is merely middling, despite being specifically praised by Lewis Lapham (who normally has excellent taste as showcased in Lapham's Quarterly). His tone is so bland that it seems equally ill-suited to discussing philosophy or humorous anecdotes, despite being employed in the service of both. Sometimes there enough transitions between sections to indicate they were meant to be read as a whole, but other times they seem almost slapdash. Even when we're being given the These Are Connected signposts, there doesn't seem to be much added by their juxtaposition.
Finally, the whole book is semi-stifled by Critchley himself, who declares his position from the beginning and never ceases to remind you whether he agrees or disagrees with the author at hand. This is ok when it comes to constructing philosophy, but not when you're laying claim to exegenesis (deciphering the meaning of texts) or recounting their lives in a historically-accurate manner. But yet it does, and the result is that I was deeply suspicious of everything Critchley said. And because he slammed all 190 people into only 250 pages, there's very little given in the way of corroborating evidence. Yuck.
I almost wrote this negative review last night at about 100 pages in, but decided to persevere in hopes that it would get better once we reached more modern philosophers with better documentation of their personal lives. It did get better, but only mildly. There were moments that made me laugh, but only a handful in the whole book.
The premise of the book is actually pretty interesting: illustrate the various philosophies to death by recounting the personal deaths (and lives) of famous philosophers throughout history and how that compared or contrasted with their philosophy. However, there are a few mistakes that Critchley makes in telling the tales:
- Trying to tell the stories of over 190 different philosophers... in a 250 page book.
- Unable to decide whether the capsule biograpies are meant to be read in sequence or at will.
- Immediately - and with little supporting evidence - imposing his own viewpoint in the picture and allowing it to warp his histories without any apparent consideration of alternative stances beyond mere recounting.
As a result, Critchley rarely manages to eke any depth out of the philosophers discussed. This isn't too much of a problem early on in the greek philosophers, whose differences can be bluntly hashed out without too much loss in detail. But once he gets to medieval times, the enterprise starts to fall apart. (More later.)
Critchley's prose is merely middling, despite being specifically praised by Lewis Lapham (who normally has excellent taste as showcased in Lapham's Quarterly). His tone is so bland that it seems equally ill-suited to discussing philosophy or humorous anecdotes, despite being employed in the service of both. Sometimes there enough transitions between sections to indicate they were meant to be read as a whole, but other times they seem almost slapdash. Even when we're being given the These Are Connected signposts, there doesn't seem to be much added by their juxtaposition.
Finally, the whole book is semi-stifled by Critchley himself, who declares his position from the beginning and never ceases to remind you whether he agrees or disagrees with the author at hand. This is ok when it comes to constructing philosophy, but not when you're laying claim to exegenesis (deciphering the meaning of texts) or recounting their lives in a historically-accurate manner. But yet it does, and the result is that I was deeply suspicious of everything Critchley said. And because he slammed all 190 people into only 250 pages, there's very little given in the way of corroborating evidence. Yuck.
I almost wrote this negative review last night at about 100 pages in, but decided to persevere in hopes that it would get better once we reached more modern philosophers with better documentation of their personal lives. It did get better, but only mildly. There were moments that made me laugh, but only a handful in the whole book.
The Book of Dead Philosophers would be far better served as a two-part arrangement: a quick survey of the deaths of philosophers, followed by a deeper examination of the handful of philosophers whose work Critchley truly finds valuable. As is, it seems too much like Critchley wants to impress you with his research and then slip a fast one on you by sneaking in his own opinion as fact. I found it frustrating in the same way that I find it frustrating to read The Economist's smug claim to stating The Way Things Are while cutting off at the knees my own ability to critically examine the claims.
In the end, the best praise I can give this book is that it was smoothly-written enough that I was over with it fairly quickly. Only a night and a morning spent, and I'm onward to greener pastures.
January 3, 2021
کتابی بسیار ضعیف که حاصل توهمات و شنیده های نویسنده است. به قول خود نویسنده که میگوید: «پاهایم را تا زانو در آب های نا آرام ویکیپدیا فرو کرده ام» خود هویداست که چه کتاب زرد و مزخرفی است.
هرجا که راجع به فیلسوفی صحبتی شده به ندرت منبع ذکر شده است و اصلا مشخص نیست این اطلاعات از زندگی فیلسوفان را از کدام منبع اتخاذ کرده است.
به شدت از خواندن این کتاب پشیمانم و برای کشوری که در آن همچین کتابی ترجمه و چاپ میشود متاسف!!
هرجا که راجع به فیلسوفی صحبتی شده به ندرت منبع ذکر شده است و اصلا مشخص نیست این اطلاعات از زندگی فیلسوفان را از کدام منبع اتخاذ کرده است.
به شدت از خواندن این کتاب پشیمانم و برای کشوری که در آن همچین کتابی ترجمه و چاپ میشود متاسف!!
July 17, 2020
what the hell was the point of this book? it was like reading who magazine for philosophy geeks. super shallow. the thing i'm angriest about is that this book is so utterly forgettable that one day in the future i will probably accidentally read it again.
March 28, 2020
Probably would not have finished this book (as quickly) if not for the interesting times in which we are living, leaving me with too much time to do nothing (and thus read).
Three thoughts, the first one somewhat philosophical, the other critical and the last one neither of those two things.
1) Critchley wants his readers to contemplate and meditate on death and the role death plays in our lives. He also argues for an approach to philosophy which does not disregard the lives of philosophers. These two things I found to be incompatible.
2) The witty style did not work for me as well: it felt like Critchley tried to take on too much at once. AND philosophical discussion of death, AND providing us funny/interesting stories of the deaths of philosophers AND presenting their thinking as one with their work. He should've chosen one approach, I think. Now the book was neither truly funny, nor all that interesting (spoiler: most deaths were really quite boring): presenting the discussed philosophers exactly as the stereotypes I already encountered in every other introduction to philosophy.
3) I do not really want to know what it says about me that I already knew every single actual interesting death in this book (the story of how Bacon died continues to be my favourite). I wish my memory for useful things was as good as my memory for morbid facts and details.
Would not recommend. Although it was better than staring at the walls and pacing through my room I guess.
Three thoughts, the first one somewhat philosophical, the other critical and the last one neither of those two things.
1) Critchley wants his readers to contemplate and meditate on death and the role death plays in our lives. He also argues for an approach to philosophy which does not disregard the lives of philosophers. These two things I found to be incompatible.
2) The witty style did not work for me as well: it felt like Critchley tried to take on too much at once. AND philosophical discussion of death, AND providing us funny/interesting stories of the deaths of philosophers AND presenting their thinking as one with their work. He should've chosen one approach, I think. Now the book was neither truly funny, nor all that interesting (spoiler: most deaths were really quite boring): presenting the discussed philosophers exactly as the stereotypes I already encountered in every other introduction to philosophy.
3) I do not really want to know what it says about me that I already knew every single actual interesting death in this book (the story of how Bacon died continues to be my favourite). I wish my memory for useful things was as good as my memory for morbid facts and details.
Would not recommend. Although it was better than staring at the walls and pacing through my room I guess.
May 23, 2020
Very interesting and engaging book! I really enjoyed it!!!!
April 23, 2010
This book seemed just the ticket when I came across it in a bookstore. It more than beckoned, it produced a siren call. Since there were no masts available to lash myself to, I surrendered and walked zombie-like to the cashier, cradling the book carefully. Drama aside, while I was a while warming up to Critchley's book, it lived up to most of its seductive song. His introductory remarks stated he intended to tell how the philosophers of history died and what we could learn from philosophy about the proper attitude to take in regard to death and dying. I didn't think the book very instructive. Not that kind of book, I'd say, more a survey, a roll call of what seems to be every philosopher of the past. What facts are known about their individual deaths are detailed. The more bizarre the death the more fun Critchley seems to have with his material. It's anecdotal and amusing. However, I didn't see that it would help the general reader cope in any way with dying or with grief. Or in learning anything about death as a subject. In fact, no line of thought was presented at all. If any trend stands out it's the general movement during the last 150 years toward secular thought. Indeed, that may be Critchley's lesson.
November 17, 2011
This review first appeared in the International Cemetery, Cremation & Funeral Association Magazine ()
People have been thinking about death for a long time. I am a big fan of not reinventing the wheel. If some expert has already figured it out, why not consult him? Philosophers are professional thinkers on the larger issues, so they are the natural go-to for questions of life and death. However, there has not been a handy compendium of their musings on the subject -- until now.
Simon Critchley, the author of The Book of Dead Philosophers says, “This is a book about how philosophers have died and what we can learn from philosophy about the appropriate attitude to death and dying. My wager is that in learning how to die we might also be taught how to live.� He has amassed in chronological order just about everybody who can be termed a philosopher, writing ninety short biographies that each invariably ends with the philosopher’s demise.
If anything, this book shows that philosophers can die accidentally, messily, or idiotically just like the rest of us � which actually works against the book’s stated premise, since philosophy is obviously no guarantee of a good death. Industry readers may also be annoyed by the way some philosophers (Seneca, for example) didn’t want funerals or tombs (Diogenes).
But the stories are quite amusing and frequently very funny. You also get a fine and easy-to-swallow survey of the entire body of classical philosophical thought. This would be a great gift for a true intellectual, but is probably not going to get a mention in PEOPLE magazine.
People have been thinking about death for a long time. I am a big fan of not reinventing the wheel. If some expert has already figured it out, why not consult him? Philosophers are professional thinkers on the larger issues, so they are the natural go-to for questions of life and death. However, there has not been a handy compendium of their musings on the subject -- until now.
Simon Critchley, the author of The Book of Dead Philosophers says, “This is a book about how philosophers have died and what we can learn from philosophy about the appropriate attitude to death and dying. My wager is that in learning how to die we might also be taught how to live.� He has amassed in chronological order just about everybody who can be termed a philosopher, writing ninety short biographies that each invariably ends with the philosopher’s demise.
If anything, this book shows that philosophers can die accidentally, messily, or idiotically just like the rest of us � which actually works against the book’s stated premise, since philosophy is obviously no guarantee of a good death. Industry readers may also be annoyed by the way some philosophers (Seneca, for example) didn’t want funerals or tombs (Diogenes).
But the stories are quite amusing and frequently very funny. You also get a fine and easy-to-swallow survey of the entire body of classical philosophical thought. This would be a great gift for a true intellectual, but is probably not going to get a mention in PEOPLE magazine.
February 2, 2025
قضيت رحلة طويلة مع هذا الكتاب، وقد كانت بحق؛ رحلة ممتعة (مع مفارقة عنوانه)
أثناء قراءتي تعجبت كيف يمكن للحديث عن الموت أن يكون عذبًا وطيّبًا، حيث هذا ما وجدته هنا، واستحضرته بقوة.
اعتقدته مملًا في البداية، وليس سوى مجرد سرد تاريخي مختزل لسيرهم وحكايا موتهم. لكنه في الحقيقة يحمل قصص كثيرة حريّة بالاطلاع، وفلسفات تثير التفكير وإعادة النظر رغم اختلافها وتشعبها، وهذا أجمل ما بها: الكثير من الرؤى المتعددة عن العالم. لذا: يجب أن يُقرأ برويّة. فضلًا عن أسلوب الكاتب الذكي والشيّق.
والأهم؛ الشكر الجزيل للمترجم على ترجمته الرائعة!
أثناء قراءتي تعجبت كيف يمكن للحديث عن الموت أن يكون عذبًا وطيّبًا، حيث هذا ما وجدته هنا، واستحضرته بقوة.
اعتقدته مملًا في البداية، وليس سوى مجرد سرد تاريخي مختزل لسيرهم وحكايا موتهم. لكنه في الحقيقة يحمل قصص كثيرة حريّة بالاطلاع، وفلسفات تثير التفكير وإعادة النظر رغم اختلافها وتشعبها، وهذا أجمل ما بها: الكثير من الرؤى المتعددة عن العالم. لذا: يجب أن يُقرأ برويّة. فضلًا عن أسلوب الكاتب الذكي والشيّق.
والأهم؛ الشكر الجزيل للمترجم على ترجمته الرائعة!
May 29, 2017
This book kinda disappointed me a little. I was expecting to learn a little more about phillosophy and fun facts about philosophers' lifes, and while it does provide that at some points, it is generally a little erratic and sometimes you feel as if there was no pattern and the author added some people just because. Take Demetrio, just one line about him. I mean, he could just have left him out if he was going to write just one line about him (and Demetrio doesn't even have an interesting death and he is not that famous).
Another thing that was disappointing is the fact that when he talks about the women he's included (I appeciate the fact that he included them, though) he usually writes about them because of a man and tells more about the man than the actual person he's supposedly writing about.
But this book gives us what was promised, nothing more and nothing less, I guess. I liked that it was a light reading and I got to know some authors I didn't (and now I'm going to do my research on them) and some fun facts, and it made me laugh. In the end, even with the sensation that this book is a little of a mess, I liked it.
Another thing that was disappointing is the fact that when he talks about the women he's included (I appeciate the fact that he included them, though) he usually writes about them because of a man and tells more about the man than the actual person he's supposedly writing about.
But this book gives us what was promised, nothing more and nothing less, I guess. I liked that it was a light reading and I got to know some authors I didn't (and now I'm going to do my research on them) and some fun facts, and it made me laugh. In the end, even with the sensation that this book is a little of a mess, I liked it.
January 27, 2020
This little book was an absolute delight! A great book to pique one's interest and to further one's knowledge of philosophy. So many tidbits of information about these 'serious' thinkers (men and women!) made them so much more relate-able. They may have all been great intellects in their own right, but the personal touches took them a bit off their pedestals, out of their ivory towers and much more accessible.
May 1, 2023
Fazlasıyla magazinsel bi o kadar da spekülatif bilgi dolu. Filozofların, düşünürlerin ölümlerinin nasıl olduğundan, ölümü nasıl karşıladıklarından bahsediyor. Felsefenin ve filozofun ölüm karşısında ne cevaplar verebileceğini filozofların ölümlerinde arıyor. Benim hoşuma gitti, entelektüel görgü olarak okunabilir. Bazı düşünür ve filozoflar dahil edilmeseymiş de olurmuş. Ayrıca türkçe edisyonda çok sayıda imla hatası mevcut.
January 11, 2025
An excellent journey through the great philosophers from the viewpoint of their mortality.
May 30, 2012
Like any popular overview of the history of philosophic thought on a given subject, Critchley's cuts some corners, collapses important distinctions (especially in regards to Christianity), and in general has to leave out a good deal of interesting stuff just to get through the story he selected to tell. That said, this is a really fun meditation upon death through the thoughts and deaths of a wide swath of (mostly but not entirely Western) philosophers from Thales and Plato to Foucalt and Derrida.
The book is built as a series of brief little articles detailing some of the thought, experiences, and especially the actual demise, of philosophers. It can be read straight through or by meandering, but a general philosophy of how Critchley thinks we ought to view death creeps through. He favors Montaigne's mix of Epicureanism and Stoicism which forgets of any pretension to an afterlife but focuses rather on living happily in the present, anticipating the "philosopher's death," hopefully a peaceful kind. It's a bit homiletic on this point.
Perhaps more importantly, though, is that Critchley isn't simply offering a way to better understand death through the teachings and lives of various philosphers, but a better way to understand the history of philosophy in general---a different posture toward the dead of the past and thus a way to rethink our place in the present. He tries in his limited way to spread recognition of his view that philosophers the world over contribute to the exercise of thinking about what it means to think and be, that philosophy is a universal activity with all of humanity's messiness, plurality. The most obvious common tie is found in the fact that we all die, and thus it presents a great point of discussion. Overall, the book's concept itself, I think, is much better than Critchley's actual execution (pun intended).
The book is built as a series of brief little articles detailing some of the thought, experiences, and especially the actual demise, of philosophers. It can be read straight through or by meandering, but a general philosophy of how Critchley thinks we ought to view death creeps through. He favors Montaigne's mix of Epicureanism and Stoicism which forgets of any pretension to an afterlife but focuses rather on living happily in the present, anticipating the "philosopher's death," hopefully a peaceful kind. It's a bit homiletic on this point.
Perhaps more importantly, though, is that Critchley isn't simply offering a way to better understand death through the teachings and lives of various philosphers, but a better way to understand the history of philosophy in general---a different posture toward the dead of the past and thus a way to rethink our place in the present. He tries in his limited way to spread recognition of his view that philosophers the world over contribute to the exercise of thinking about what it means to think and be, that philosophy is a universal activity with all of humanity's messiness, plurality. The most obvious common tie is found in the fact that we all die, and thus it presents a great point of discussion. Overall, the book's concept itself, I think, is much better than Critchley's actual execution (pun intended).
April 25, 2009
The reviews thus far are pretty split on this book. I'd really give it a 3-and-a-half, but ŷ wouldn't let me do this.
Best-suited for someone with at least a bit of a background in philosophy. If you've taken a course at community college and barely passed, then this won't help you if you need to retake the class. Although I've taken said community college class (and got an A, thank you), it's been a while, and although I have a good interest in philosophy, with the numerous amount of philosophers and the more numerous amount of books, it's hard to know where to start.
Critchley's book is probably better suited for someone who has read a few of the texts from the particularly major philosophers, but if you haven't, it shouldn't necessarily discourage you. There are some interesting topics of discussion brought up in the book, allowing for some moments of mulling over how one looks at one's own life, and which of these philosophers best embody our own views. Although there are better books out there for an introduction to philosophy, I found this one enjoyable and would recommend it to someone who has read other books produced out of philosophical thought.
Best-suited for someone with at least a bit of a background in philosophy. If you've taken a course at community college and barely passed, then this won't help you if you need to retake the class. Although I've taken said community college class (and got an A, thank you), it's been a while, and although I have a good interest in philosophy, with the numerous amount of philosophers and the more numerous amount of books, it's hard to know where to start.
Critchley's book is probably better suited for someone who has read a few of the texts from the particularly major philosophers, but if you haven't, it shouldn't necessarily discourage you. There are some interesting topics of discussion brought up in the book, allowing for some moments of mulling over how one looks at one's own life, and which of these philosophers best embody our own views. Although there are better books out there for an introduction to philosophy, I found this one enjoyable and would recommend it to someone who has read other books produced out of philosophical thought.
August 24, 2009
When I picked up "The Book of Dead Philosophers," by Simon Critchley, I was hoping that that collection of words would expand my knowledge of philosophy. I was so wrong.
As the title reads, "The Book of Dead Philosophers," that is exactly what is included in this relatively short book of 250 pages. It is a collection of obituaries of 190 philosophers that is enlightening, thought provoking, and at times often funny.
This book is a perfect read for some one that needs to consume a few minutes here and there. It won't inform you how to die or what to do once you get there, but it will give insight as to how some philosophers, Socrates, believed "To be a philosopher, then, is to learn how to die ..." (xxiv Critchley).
As the title reads, "The Book of Dead Philosophers," that is exactly what is included in this relatively short book of 250 pages. It is a collection of obituaries of 190 philosophers that is enlightening, thought provoking, and at times often funny.
This book is a perfect read for some one that needs to consume a few minutes here and there. It won't inform you how to die or what to do once you get there, but it will give insight as to how some philosophers, Socrates, believed "To be a philosopher, then, is to learn how to die ..." (xxiv Critchley).
October 24, 2014
Philosophy in 190 small parts. Actually, death in 190 parts. This book is not about to teach philosophy to anyone, not even to introduce it. Its not even about how philosophers live. It's about how philosophers die. What was the causes of their death and what they believe for it. It's well written with funny facts and a thin irony. This book is a proof that even death can be the cause for some laughs. Recommended for all those who afraid to die. (Don't worry, we are almost 90%. The other 10% just lie.)
February 15, 2021
The book mainly talks about the thoughts of a philosopher on death and how exactly he died and what the author wants us to learn from it in his own words...
"Philosophy is a technically complex academic discipline with its own internal criteria of excellence and it should be kept away from other humanistic disciplines and from the unseemly disorder of private and public life. Needless to say, this is a view that I have sought to challenge in this book"
"Philosophy is a technically complex academic discipline with its own internal criteria of excellence and it should be kept away from other humanistic disciplines and from the unseemly disorder of private and public life. Needless to say, this is a view that I have sought to challenge in this book"
December 28, 2024
A delightful read that proved far more informative and thought provoking than I had imagined it would be. Critchley weaves humor and personal anecdotes to give the reader a look into the lives and thoughts of famous and less than famous philosophers on a most personal - and often professional - subject, death, in so doing enlightening us not only on their ideas but their humanity.
Loved this book.
Loved this book.
March 29, 2010
"The book of dead philosophers" reminds me of the "Sophie's world" by Gaader. For people who don't know much about philosophy it is a good introduction. The point is that here is too much fragmented information to really enjoy this book. The 190 philosophers are all dead and here is the attempt to see the question of mortality through the eyes of the great minds.
October 21, 2010
I was a philosophy major and I love the premise of this book. However, it was just too dry and exhaustive for my taste.
September 7, 2017
From a sentence to a few pages this book visits with nearly 200 philosophers and gives a snippet of their lives, opinions and deaths. A very interesting read.
Read
October 16, 2019به شدت سطحی،عامی،مزخرف!
فهرست رو نگاه کنید
اسمارو ویکی پدیا سرچ کنید
بیشتر یاد میگیرید!
حتی به کسی که هیچی مطلقا هیچی درباره فلسفه نمیدونه هم توصیه نمی کنم!
فهرست رو نگاه کنید
اسمارو ویکی پدیا سرچ کنید
بیشتر یاد میگیرید!
حتی به کسی که هیچی مطلقا هیچی درباره فلسفه نمیدونه هم توصیه نمی کنم!
March 11, 2021
I kept this book in the throne room ,I'd usually finished with business by the time I got through two philosophers. Funny and wise , thoroughly enjoyed it !
June 9, 2022
Absolutely loved it!
January 3, 2025
Martyrs of Philosophy
Socrates, Seneca and Spinoza. We all know about the three great deaths in philosophy. In this book, Simon Critchley provides us with a witty, entertaining and highly readable account of almost every conceivable death of almost every conceivable philosopher, but without much philosophy, but this should not be a complaint. This book is biographical rather than philosophical, it is intended to be a ‘tongue-in-cheek� alternative history of philosophy and that is fine for the topic of this book. However, biographies of great thinkers are always problematic because there is the ever-present temptation, and even unavoidable necessity, to conflate the personality and psychology of the philosopher with the thinking and intellect of the philosopher and thereby inadvertently psychoanalyze a person not available to us. As with any of us, their lives were intimately tied up with their thinking. Professor Critchley adroitly manages this challenge as he provides us with many readable accounts of life, thought and death.
What I would like to do here is narrow the list to the martyrs of philosophy. Mixed in with the rollcall of dead philosophers are those who died on behalf of philosophy itself, those whom I like to designate as the martyrs of philosophy. Here is my brief list, I have added several philosophers not included in Professor Critchley’s macabre rollcall, with my even briefer sketches and tag lines. I started thinking of obvious martyrs which included Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, Hypatia and Bruno but my list soon expanded to 35 entries, 15 of which appear in Professor Critchley’s book. Perhaps I got carried away, oh well. When they appear in Professor Critchley’s book, I cite the page number(s). Please let me know if my list is incomplete, or perhaps, most likely, too expansive. Certainly, selection bias on my part may have perhaps crept into the list. Challenge to the reader of this review. Can you find the two Rock Stars and understand why they are Rock Stars, at least to me?
Empedocles, d. c. 430 BCE, age 60. (pp. 13 � 15). A questionable first entry, perhaps. The leading candidate for the first entry is of course Socrates. Empedocles was technically a suicide, if legend is correct; a legendary suicide and it was a suicide to demonstrate a philosophical point about immortality and/or reincarnation. Thus, I list him as a martyr of philosophy, or perhaps as a sacrifice to philosophy. Legend has it that Empedocles died by throwing himself into Mount Etna in Sicily.
Socrates, d. 399 BCE, age 70. (pp. XX � XXIV). Enough said but I will say it anyway. Executed by order of the Athenian Assembly for impiety and corrupting the youth. Forced to drink hemlock and as Plato describes it “…but in a minute or two no movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.� Plato seems to have left out some of the minor side effects that go with hemlock poisoning such as puking, drooling, twitching, severe pain, palpitations, convulsions and feelings of suffocation unless of course Socrates had that very special brand of hemlock, the one guaranteed not to have the unpleasant side effects. He was a married man but Philosophy was his only Mistress.
Isocrates, d. 338 BCE, age 74. (Not in this book). Contemporaneous with Plato and Aristotle and known by some as the prophet of the Hellenistic world. When his hopes for a Panhellenic civilization were lost in the quarrel between Philip of Macedon and Athens, Isocrates fell into despair and legend has it that he starved himself to death, perhaps another self-sacrifice as much as a martyter.
Anaxarchus, d. 320 BCE, age 60. (p. 31). Pounded to death in a mortar with iron pestles on the order of Nicocreon, the tyrant of Cyrus. All this fuss over a few innocent remarks about tyrants� heads being displayed on tables. Tyrants can be overly sensitive at times and without Alexander there to protect him, well� Philosophically speaking, who cares anyway? Perhaps so thought Anaxarchus.
Titus Lucretius, d. 52 BCE, age 44. (Not in this book). The Roman Epicurean is alleged to have driven himself mad with by taking a love potion of all things and to have later killed himself as a result. Thus, we have born the model of the romantic, lovesick, lovestruck, mad poet. The so-called love potion may have been aphrodisiac that turned out to be toxic, it has been said its use may have been at the suggestion of his wife, interesting. The accuracy of all this is of course a matter dispute.
Cicero, d. 43 BCE, age 63. (pp. 55 � 56). Assassinated by the agents of Marc Anthony. First, fortunately I should think for Cicero, his head was severed, then his hands were severed, all of which found their way to the speaker’s rostrum in the Senate in keeping with the fine Roman tradition established by Marius and Sulla. We really shouldn’t lose our heads when it comes to politics.
Jesus of Nazareth, d. c. 36 CE, age 32. (Not in this book). Jesus followed in a long line of ancient Cynical thinkers. Cynicism was a philosophy of protest. Jesus was essentially a protester and thus a Cynic (ancient, not modern) and follower in the line of Diogenes. The Cynics were the hippies of their time. His idea about leaving the family to follow his ways was consistent with ancient Cynical recommendations for living. Asking, who are my brothers and who are my parents as well as telling the people to leave the dead to bury their dead and to give up their money and possessions and take up a new way of life was as consistent with Cynical philosophy as it was outrageous to Jewish orthodoxy. No need to comment on the method of execution which was reserved for criminals and traders.
Seneca, d. 65 CE, age 61. (pp. 56 � 59). He was condemned, banished and condemned again. He was ordered to commit suicide by his former pupil, the Emperor Nero. After a long struggle which included slashed writs, poison and finally suffocation, what was supposed to be a heroic reenactment of the death of Socrates came to a tragic-comic close.
Justin Martyr, d. 165 CE, age 65. (Not in this book). Sometimes its all the name. He incurred the wrath of a cynic philosopher, Cresens for, of all things, criticizing his immorality. He was thence sentenced to death for being a Christian by the Roman prefect, Junius Rusticus. The preferred method on execution at this time for recalcitrant Christians was to be scourged and beheaded.
Hypatia of Alexandria, d 415 CE, age 45 or 65. (pp. 66 � 67). Literally cut and broken to pieces with pieces of broken pottery - by a gang of Christian monks, possibly on the orders of the so called ‘saint� Cyril, then bishop of Alexandria. Of course, the monks had to first have their fun by stripping her naked. What could be more appalling to a Neoplatonist? No resistance was offered by Hypatia. Who was the Christian here?
Boethius, d. 526 CE, age 44. (pp. 79 � 80). Strangled or bludgeoned to death after being cruelly tortured while in prison on the orders his employer Theodoric, the Ostrogoth king of Italy, based on spurious and false (according to Boethius anyway) charges of treason. So much for the consolation of philosophy.
Abraham Ibn Daud, d. 1180, age 70. (Not in this book). Oh no, yet another Christian mob kills yet another philosopher, this time a Jewish philosopher, not a pagan. There were no pagans left to persecute in the name of the one God. When given the choice of converting to Christianity or death, he chose�, well, who could blame him? All for the sanctification of G-d's Name?�
Jan Hus, d. 1415, age 46. (Not in this book). A sort of ‘proto-protestant�. He served as an example for Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. He was executed, burned at the stake in a slow burning fire, by the Council of Constance. The great crime that merited this treatment: using a Czech liturgy and in administering Holy Communion to the laity under the forms of both bread and wine. The aftermath has become known as the Hussite Wars.
Pico della Mirandola, d. 1494, age 31. (pp. 104 � 105). Yes, a martyr as well as a brilliant philosophical polymath. My understanding is that forensic evidence released in 2008 confirmed the cause of death as arsenic poising, possibly on the order of Piero de' Medici. This after Piero’s predecessor, Lorenzo The Magnificent, who provided Pico with patronage and protection from the Inquisition was himself deceased.
Thomas More, d. 1535, age 57. (pp. 107 � 108). Needs no introduction. Executed, mercifully beheaded considering the alternative of drawing and quartering, on the orders of Henry VIII for not acknowledging the King’s divorce from Catherine, marriage to Anne, his repudiation of the Pope and his new role as head of the Church in England, details, details.
Petrus Ramus, 1572, age 57. (p. 111). He was an influential French humanist, logician, educational reformer and philosopher. He was also a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism, risky business in the France of His (Her in this case) Most Christian Majesty. After coming out of hiding he was stabbed to death and mutilated while at prayer on the third day of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
Giordano Bruno, d. 1600, age 52. (pp. 114 � 115). Suffered the fate avoided by Galileo. But what a fate to suffer! Condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake but with more than the usual cruelty. More than I can bring myself to put into words here. What was his crime? Just the usual sort of stuff for which one was executed as a heretic, viz., proposing an infinite universe and the possibility of other worlds.
Lucillo Vanini, d. 1619, age 34. (Not in this book). Here we go again. Lucilio Vanini was also burnt at the stake by the Inquisition after being brutally tortured. What were his crimes? We could almost guess, he viewed the universe as an entity governed by natural laws and was also the first knowledgeable proponent of biological evolution, maintaining that humans and other non-human apes have a common ancestor. I am surprised that he did not make into Professor Critchley’s rollcall of the dead.
Uriel de Costa, d. 1640, age 55. (Not in this book). Uriel da Costa (the first Spinoza), after his family was forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity, he converted back to Judaism and found that it was not all that he hoped. At last, after being whipped and trampled by a religious group he had offended, Jews, not Christians this time, he went home and shot himself. This being the seventeenth century, firearms not being what they are today, death was not quick and was reportedly quite terrible. The problem here, obsessed with and persecuted by, you guessed it, religion.
Algernon Sidney, d. 1683, age 60. (Not in this book). His ‘Discourses on Government�, cost him his head. It turned out that the Stuarts did not have the divine right to rule after all. An early founding father of the American Republic, executed for treason and the standard penalty for treason, the one avoided by Thomas More, was to be hanged, drawn and quartered - ghoulish.
Marquis de Condorcet, d. 1794, age 50. (p. 64). After many months in hiding, The Marquis de Condorcet was arrested, incarcerated and died while in prison. The question is the manner of his death, possible suicide or quite possibly murdered in prison by fanatical Jacobins in lieu of execution. The French Revolution consumes its own as revolutions always do.
Philipp Mainländer, d. 1876, age 34. (Not in this book). Rock Star. He was a German poet and philosopher. His magnum opus was ‘The Philosophy of Redemption� Yes, he is my favorite entry, as well as my philosophical crush, on this list due to his proclamation that life is absolutely worthless, and that “…the knowledge that non-being is better than being, is the supreme principle of morality� while at the same time being delicate, humane, gentile and sublime. I find his apparent paradox and contradiction to be fully consistent. He even out does our vicarious mentor, the great Schopenhauer. He gave meaning to the “Will to Die� when he hanged himself, using a pile of copies of his own ‘The Philosophy of Redemption� as the gallows. I agree that life is absolutely worthless, but that is why it is not worth killing yourself over. In any case, apart for the first chapter to my knowledge, there is no extant English translation of ‘The Philosophy of Redemption�.
After a period of relative safety, a new round of martyrdom beings in the 20th century, courtesy of political, rather than religious, fanatics this time around.
Theodor Lessing, d. 1933, age 61. (Not in this book). First, his books were burned in May, 1933 at the celebrated Berlin University book burning orgy. Then, on August 30, 1933, while working in his study he was shot through the window by guess who? Nazi assassins. He died the next day at the Marie Bader hospital in Marienbad, Czechoslovakia. He was a German-Jewish philosopher offering the compelling thesis that history, having no objective validity, amounts to a mythic construct imposed on an unknowable reality, in order to give its some semblance of meaning.
Antonio Gramsci, d. 1937, age 46. (pp. 196 � 197). Antonio Gramsci was a Neo-Marxist (not the bland iron of laws of history type) as well as the founder of the Italian Communist Party, and all this in the Fascist Italy of Benito Mussolini. He died during his imprisonment. He was due for release in 1937 but became too ill, he was denied medical treatment while in prison, and died prior to release.
Gustav Shpet, d. 1937, age 58. (Not in this book). The Russian phenomenologist. In 1921 he founded the Institute of Scientific Philosophy in Moscow. In 1937 he was executed in the Stalinist purge after being accused of involvement in an anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary (monarchist) organization and for worst of all, being an idealist in philosophy as well as politics.
Stanislaw Ignacy Witkiewicz, d. 1939, age 54. (Not in this book). The Polish leader in art, literature and philosophy. Upon the German invasion of Poland from the west, he escaped to the east only to run into the Soviet invasion from the east on September 17, 1937. With darkness closing in from both directions, on September 18 he committed suicide by taking an overdose of Veronal and trying to slit his wrists.
Walter Benjamin, d. 1940, age 48. (pp. 208 � 209). A philosopher associated with, and almost rescued by, the Frankfurt School (through the efforts of Adorno and Horkheimer). He was a cultural critic and essayist, as well as being an eclectic thinker, combining elements of German idealism, Romanticism, Western Marxism, and Jewish mysticism. In attempting to fly to the U.S. he committed suicide at the Spanish-French border rather than being deported by the Spanish authorities back into the waiting hands of the Nazi’s in France.
Kurt Grilling, d. 1941, age 56. (Not in this book). With his visa to the U.S. delayed due to alleged communist ties, he and his wife were shipped to Auschwitz where they were promptly escorted to the nearest gas chamber. Think, Grelling–Nelson paradox.
Kurt Huber, d. 1943, age 49. (Not in this book). Death by guillotine on July 13, 1943 after his arrest and imprisonment on February 27, 1943. He was actually a good German nationalist and conservative, not left-leaning and not a Jew, but he was not seduced by the Nazis as was the 'great' Heidegger and therein was his problem. He was tried in the kangaroo court of the madman and fanatic Chief Justice (Grand Inquisitor), Roland Freisler. Most striking is the connection to the composer Carol Orff who denied even knowing Huber when the chips were down so to speak. An all too familiar story. Much like Boethius, he undertook to write a philosophical work while in prison. Huber's work was a biography of his hero Leibniz, but unlike Boethius, he was never able to complete his consolation.
Simone Weil, d. 1943, age 34. (pp. 226 � 226). Rock Star. She once said, “Death is the most precious thing which has been given to man. That is why the supreme impiety is to make bad use of it. To die amiss.� Simone Weil died from tuberculosis complicated by malnutrition. Biographer Richard Rees said, and I think most accurately for this philosopher/mystic/saint “…she died of love.� To this I would add she died with and from empathy for anyone less well off than herself.
Giovanni Gentile, d. 1945, age 68. (Not in this book). Made the mistake of being known as the ‘philosopher of Fascism� even though, ironically, he worked to secure the release of anti-fascist intellectuals. He was described as the most rigorous Neo-Hegelian by Benedetto Croce. He was shot and killed by anti-fascist partisans after arguing for the release of anti-fascist intellectual in Florence.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, d. 1945, age 39. (Not in this book). Known for his writings on Christianity's role in the secular world, he was actually arrested by Gestapo in 1933 for his anti-regime activities such as opposition to Hitler's euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews. He was also accused of being associated with the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler and thus executed by hanging in April, 1945.
Ernst Bergmann, d. 1945, age 63. (Not in this book). Maybe he should not even be included in this list. A real Nazi driveller. Well, Heidegger joined the Nazi party in 1933 so� He committed suicide anyway, in April, 1945 when the jig was up, just after the Allied forces captured Leipzig. He claimed that Jesus was of Aryan descent and that he was not a Jew and that Adolf Hitler was the new messiah. Was he really any worse than Heidegger never left the Nazi party? Heidegger was a better philosopher but no better a person. Heidegger never willingly gave up his Nazi affiliation. He did resign from his official Nazi position as Fuhrer-Philosopher, not based on ethical concerns, but due to professional jealousies with lesser sycophants purring for attention for their Philosopher-Fuhrer.
Miki Kiyoshi, d. 1945, age 48. (Not in this book). Miki Kiyoshi was a Japanese humanist and existentialist who died in prison, most likely from illness emanating very poor prison conditions, after helping a friend on the run from the military authorities. He was the father of the ‘Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere� but not the violence or imperialism with which it was implemented and by which he was appalled. Miki believed that philosophy should be pragmatic and be utilized in addressing concrete social and political problems.
Mohandas Gandhi, d. 1948, age 78. (Not in this book). Amid the religious violence between displaced Hindus and Muslims after the India gained independence from Britain in 1947, Gandhi was assassinated, shot and killed, by a Hindu zealot. Gandhi of course was a vi
Socrates, Seneca and Spinoza. We all know about the three great deaths in philosophy. In this book, Simon Critchley provides us with a witty, entertaining and highly readable account of almost every conceivable death of almost every conceivable philosopher, but without much philosophy, but this should not be a complaint. This book is biographical rather than philosophical, it is intended to be a ‘tongue-in-cheek� alternative history of philosophy and that is fine for the topic of this book. However, biographies of great thinkers are always problematic because there is the ever-present temptation, and even unavoidable necessity, to conflate the personality and psychology of the philosopher with the thinking and intellect of the philosopher and thereby inadvertently psychoanalyze a person not available to us. As with any of us, their lives were intimately tied up with their thinking. Professor Critchley adroitly manages this challenge as he provides us with many readable accounts of life, thought and death.
What I would like to do here is narrow the list to the martyrs of philosophy. Mixed in with the rollcall of dead philosophers are those who died on behalf of philosophy itself, those whom I like to designate as the martyrs of philosophy. Here is my brief list, I have added several philosophers not included in Professor Critchley’s macabre rollcall, with my even briefer sketches and tag lines. I started thinking of obvious martyrs which included Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, Hypatia and Bruno but my list soon expanded to 35 entries, 15 of which appear in Professor Critchley’s book. Perhaps I got carried away, oh well. When they appear in Professor Critchley’s book, I cite the page number(s). Please let me know if my list is incomplete, or perhaps, most likely, too expansive. Certainly, selection bias on my part may have perhaps crept into the list. Challenge to the reader of this review. Can you find the two Rock Stars and understand why they are Rock Stars, at least to me?
Empedocles, d. c. 430 BCE, age 60. (pp. 13 � 15). A questionable first entry, perhaps. The leading candidate for the first entry is of course Socrates. Empedocles was technically a suicide, if legend is correct; a legendary suicide and it was a suicide to demonstrate a philosophical point about immortality and/or reincarnation. Thus, I list him as a martyr of philosophy, or perhaps as a sacrifice to philosophy. Legend has it that Empedocles died by throwing himself into Mount Etna in Sicily.
Socrates, d. 399 BCE, age 70. (pp. XX � XXIV). Enough said but I will say it anyway. Executed by order of the Athenian Assembly for impiety and corrupting the youth. Forced to drink hemlock and as Plato describes it “…but in a minute or two no movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.� Plato seems to have left out some of the minor side effects that go with hemlock poisoning such as puking, drooling, twitching, severe pain, palpitations, convulsions and feelings of suffocation unless of course Socrates had that very special brand of hemlock, the one guaranteed not to have the unpleasant side effects. He was a married man but Philosophy was his only Mistress.
Isocrates, d. 338 BCE, age 74. (Not in this book). Contemporaneous with Plato and Aristotle and known by some as the prophet of the Hellenistic world. When his hopes for a Panhellenic civilization were lost in the quarrel between Philip of Macedon and Athens, Isocrates fell into despair and legend has it that he starved himself to death, perhaps another self-sacrifice as much as a martyter.
Anaxarchus, d. 320 BCE, age 60. (p. 31). Pounded to death in a mortar with iron pestles on the order of Nicocreon, the tyrant of Cyrus. All this fuss over a few innocent remarks about tyrants� heads being displayed on tables. Tyrants can be overly sensitive at times and without Alexander there to protect him, well� Philosophically speaking, who cares anyway? Perhaps so thought Anaxarchus.
Titus Lucretius, d. 52 BCE, age 44. (Not in this book). The Roman Epicurean is alleged to have driven himself mad with by taking a love potion of all things and to have later killed himself as a result. Thus, we have born the model of the romantic, lovesick, lovestruck, mad poet. The so-called love potion may have been aphrodisiac that turned out to be toxic, it has been said its use may have been at the suggestion of his wife, interesting. The accuracy of all this is of course a matter dispute.
Cicero, d. 43 BCE, age 63. (pp. 55 � 56). Assassinated by the agents of Marc Anthony. First, fortunately I should think for Cicero, his head was severed, then his hands were severed, all of which found their way to the speaker’s rostrum in the Senate in keeping with the fine Roman tradition established by Marius and Sulla. We really shouldn’t lose our heads when it comes to politics.
Jesus of Nazareth, d. c. 36 CE, age 32. (Not in this book). Jesus followed in a long line of ancient Cynical thinkers. Cynicism was a philosophy of protest. Jesus was essentially a protester and thus a Cynic (ancient, not modern) and follower in the line of Diogenes. The Cynics were the hippies of their time. His idea about leaving the family to follow his ways was consistent with ancient Cynical recommendations for living. Asking, who are my brothers and who are my parents as well as telling the people to leave the dead to bury their dead and to give up their money and possessions and take up a new way of life was as consistent with Cynical philosophy as it was outrageous to Jewish orthodoxy. No need to comment on the method of execution which was reserved for criminals and traders.
Seneca, d. 65 CE, age 61. (pp. 56 � 59). He was condemned, banished and condemned again. He was ordered to commit suicide by his former pupil, the Emperor Nero. After a long struggle which included slashed writs, poison and finally suffocation, what was supposed to be a heroic reenactment of the death of Socrates came to a tragic-comic close.
Justin Martyr, d. 165 CE, age 65. (Not in this book). Sometimes its all the name. He incurred the wrath of a cynic philosopher, Cresens for, of all things, criticizing his immorality. He was thence sentenced to death for being a Christian by the Roman prefect, Junius Rusticus. The preferred method on execution at this time for recalcitrant Christians was to be scourged and beheaded.
Hypatia of Alexandria, d 415 CE, age 45 or 65. (pp. 66 � 67). Literally cut and broken to pieces with pieces of broken pottery - by a gang of Christian monks, possibly on the orders of the so called ‘saint� Cyril, then bishop of Alexandria. Of course, the monks had to first have their fun by stripping her naked. What could be more appalling to a Neoplatonist? No resistance was offered by Hypatia. Who was the Christian here?
Boethius, d. 526 CE, age 44. (pp. 79 � 80). Strangled or bludgeoned to death after being cruelly tortured while in prison on the orders his employer Theodoric, the Ostrogoth king of Italy, based on spurious and false (according to Boethius anyway) charges of treason. So much for the consolation of philosophy.
Abraham Ibn Daud, d. 1180, age 70. (Not in this book). Oh no, yet another Christian mob kills yet another philosopher, this time a Jewish philosopher, not a pagan. There were no pagans left to persecute in the name of the one God. When given the choice of converting to Christianity or death, he chose�, well, who could blame him? All for the sanctification of G-d's Name?�
Jan Hus, d. 1415, age 46. (Not in this book). A sort of ‘proto-protestant�. He served as an example for Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. He was executed, burned at the stake in a slow burning fire, by the Council of Constance. The great crime that merited this treatment: using a Czech liturgy and in administering Holy Communion to the laity under the forms of both bread and wine. The aftermath has become known as the Hussite Wars.
Pico della Mirandola, d. 1494, age 31. (pp. 104 � 105). Yes, a martyr as well as a brilliant philosophical polymath. My understanding is that forensic evidence released in 2008 confirmed the cause of death as arsenic poising, possibly on the order of Piero de' Medici. This after Piero’s predecessor, Lorenzo The Magnificent, who provided Pico with patronage and protection from the Inquisition was himself deceased.
Thomas More, d. 1535, age 57. (pp. 107 � 108). Needs no introduction. Executed, mercifully beheaded considering the alternative of drawing and quartering, on the orders of Henry VIII for not acknowledging the King’s divorce from Catherine, marriage to Anne, his repudiation of the Pope and his new role as head of the Church in England, details, details.
Petrus Ramus, 1572, age 57. (p. 111). He was an influential French humanist, logician, educational reformer and philosopher. He was also a convert from Catholicism to Protestantism, risky business in the France of His (Her in this case) Most Christian Majesty. After coming out of hiding he was stabbed to death and mutilated while at prayer on the third day of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
Giordano Bruno, d. 1600, age 52. (pp. 114 � 115). Suffered the fate avoided by Galileo. But what a fate to suffer! Condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake but with more than the usual cruelty. More than I can bring myself to put into words here. What was his crime? Just the usual sort of stuff for which one was executed as a heretic, viz., proposing an infinite universe and the possibility of other worlds.
Lucillo Vanini, d. 1619, age 34. (Not in this book). Here we go again. Lucilio Vanini was also burnt at the stake by the Inquisition after being brutally tortured. What were his crimes? We could almost guess, he viewed the universe as an entity governed by natural laws and was also the first knowledgeable proponent of biological evolution, maintaining that humans and other non-human apes have a common ancestor. I am surprised that he did not make into Professor Critchley’s rollcall of the dead.
Uriel de Costa, d. 1640, age 55. (Not in this book). Uriel da Costa (the first Spinoza), after his family was forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity, he converted back to Judaism and found that it was not all that he hoped. At last, after being whipped and trampled by a religious group he had offended, Jews, not Christians this time, he went home and shot himself. This being the seventeenth century, firearms not being what they are today, death was not quick and was reportedly quite terrible. The problem here, obsessed with and persecuted by, you guessed it, religion.
Algernon Sidney, d. 1683, age 60. (Not in this book). His ‘Discourses on Government�, cost him his head. It turned out that the Stuarts did not have the divine right to rule after all. An early founding father of the American Republic, executed for treason and the standard penalty for treason, the one avoided by Thomas More, was to be hanged, drawn and quartered - ghoulish.
Marquis de Condorcet, d. 1794, age 50. (p. 64). After many months in hiding, The Marquis de Condorcet was arrested, incarcerated and died while in prison. The question is the manner of his death, possible suicide or quite possibly murdered in prison by fanatical Jacobins in lieu of execution. The French Revolution consumes its own as revolutions always do.
Philipp Mainländer, d. 1876, age 34. (Not in this book). Rock Star. He was a German poet and philosopher. His magnum opus was ‘The Philosophy of Redemption� Yes, he is my favorite entry, as well as my philosophical crush, on this list due to his proclamation that life is absolutely worthless, and that “…the knowledge that non-being is better than being, is the supreme principle of morality� while at the same time being delicate, humane, gentile and sublime. I find his apparent paradox and contradiction to be fully consistent. He even out does our vicarious mentor, the great Schopenhauer. He gave meaning to the “Will to Die� when he hanged himself, using a pile of copies of his own ‘The Philosophy of Redemption� as the gallows. I agree that life is absolutely worthless, but that is why it is not worth killing yourself over. In any case, apart for the first chapter to my knowledge, there is no extant English translation of ‘The Philosophy of Redemption�.
After a period of relative safety, a new round of martyrdom beings in the 20th century, courtesy of political, rather than religious, fanatics this time around.
Theodor Lessing, d. 1933, age 61. (Not in this book). First, his books were burned in May, 1933 at the celebrated Berlin University book burning orgy. Then, on August 30, 1933, while working in his study he was shot through the window by guess who? Nazi assassins. He died the next day at the Marie Bader hospital in Marienbad, Czechoslovakia. He was a German-Jewish philosopher offering the compelling thesis that history, having no objective validity, amounts to a mythic construct imposed on an unknowable reality, in order to give its some semblance of meaning.
Antonio Gramsci, d. 1937, age 46. (pp. 196 � 197). Antonio Gramsci was a Neo-Marxist (not the bland iron of laws of history type) as well as the founder of the Italian Communist Party, and all this in the Fascist Italy of Benito Mussolini. He died during his imprisonment. He was due for release in 1937 but became too ill, he was denied medical treatment while in prison, and died prior to release.
Gustav Shpet, d. 1937, age 58. (Not in this book). The Russian phenomenologist. In 1921 he founded the Institute of Scientific Philosophy in Moscow. In 1937 he was executed in the Stalinist purge after being accused of involvement in an anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary (monarchist) organization and for worst of all, being an idealist in philosophy as well as politics.
Stanislaw Ignacy Witkiewicz, d. 1939, age 54. (Not in this book). The Polish leader in art, literature and philosophy. Upon the German invasion of Poland from the west, he escaped to the east only to run into the Soviet invasion from the east on September 17, 1937. With darkness closing in from both directions, on September 18 he committed suicide by taking an overdose of Veronal and trying to slit his wrists.
Walter Benjamin, d. 1940, age 48. (pp. 208 � 209). A philosopher associated with, and almost rescued by, the Frankfurt School (through the efforts of Adorno and Horkheimer). He was a cultural critic and essayist, as well as being an eclectic thinker, combining elements of German idealism, Romanticism, Western Marxism, and Jewish mysticism. In attempting to fly to the U.S. he committed suicide at the Spanish-French border rather than being deported by the Spanish authorities back into the waiting hands of the Nazi’s in France.
Kurt Grilling, d. 1941, age 56. (Not in this book). With his visa to the U.S. delayed due to alleged communist ties, he and his wife were shipped to Auschwitz where they were promptly escorted to the nearest gas chamber. Think, Grelling–Nelson paradox.
Kurt Huber, d. 1943, age 49. (Not in this book). Death by guillotine on July 13, 1943 after his arrest and imprisonment on February 27, 1943. He was actually a good German nationalist and conservative, not left-leaning and not a Jew, but he was not seduced by the Nazis as was the 'great' Heidegger and therein was his problem. He was tried in the kangaroo court of the madman and fanatic Chief Justice (Grand Inquisitor), Roland Freisler. Most striking is the connection to the composer Carol Orff who denied even knowing Huber when the chips were down so to speak. An all too familiar story. Much like Boethius, he undertook to write a philosophical work while in prison. Huber's work was a biography of his hero Leibniz, but unlike Boethius, he was never able to complete his consolation.
Simone Weil, d. 1943, age 34. (pp. 226 � 226). Rock Star. She once said, “Death is the most precious thing which has been given to man. That is why the supreme impiety is to make bad use of it. To die amiss.� Simone Weil died from tuberculosis complicated by malnutrition. Biographer Richard Rees said, and I think most accurately for this philosopher/mystic/saint “…she died of love.� To this I would add she died with and from empathy for anyone less well off than herself.
Giovanni Gentile, d. 1945, age 68. (Not in this book). Made the mistake of being known as the ‘philosopher of Fascism� even though, ironically, he worked to secure the release of anti-fascist intellectuals. He was described as the most rigorous Neo-Hegelian by Benedetto Croce. He was shot and killed by anti-fascist partisans after arguing for the release of anti-fascist intellectual in Florence.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, d. 1945, age 39. (Not in this book). Known for his writings on Christianity's role in the secular world, he was actually arrested by Gestapo in 1933 for his anti-regime activities such as opposition to Hitler's euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews. He was also accused of being associated with the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler and thus executed by hanging in April, 1945.
Ernst Bergmann, d. 1945, age 63. (Not in this book). Maybe he should not even be included in this list. A real Nazi driveller. Well, Heidegger joined the Nazi party in 1933 so� He committed suicide anyway, in April, 1945 when the jig was up, just after the Allied forces captured Leipzig. He claimed that Jesus was of Aryan descent and that he was not a Jew and that Adolf Hitler was the new messiah. Was he really any worse than Heidegger never left the Nazi party? Heidegger was a better philosopher but no better a person. Heidegger never willingly gave up his Nazi affiliation. He did resign from his official Nazi position as Fuhrer-Philosopher, not based on ethical concerns, but due to professional jealousies with lesser sycophants purring for attention for their Philosopher-Fuhrer.
Miki Kiyoshi, d. 1945, age 48. (Not in this book). Miki Kiyoshi was a Japanese humanist and existentialist who died in prison, most likely from illness emanating very poor prison conditions, after helping a friend on the run from the military authorities. He was the father of the ‘Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere� but not the violence or imperialism with which it was implemented and by which he was appalled. Miki believed that philosophy should be pragmatic and be utilized in addressing concrete social and political problems.
Mohandas Gandhi, d. 1948, age 78. (Not in this book). Amid the religious violence between displaced Hindus and Muslims after the India gained independence from Britain in 1947, Gandhi was assassinated, shot and killed, by a Hindu zealot. Gandhi of course was a vi
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.