What do you think?
Rate this book
From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest
A challenging new look at the great thinkers whose ides have shaped our civilization
From Socrates to Sartre presents a rousing and readable introduction to the lives, and times of the great philosophers. This thought-provoking book takes us from the inception of Western society in Plato鈥檚 Athens to today when the commanding power of Marxism has captured one third of the world. T. Z. Lavine, Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, makes philosophy come alive with astonishing clarity to give us a deeper, more meaningful understanding of ourselves and our times.
From Socrates to Sartre discusses Western philosophers in terms of the historical and intellectual environment which influenced them, and it connects their lasting ideas to the public and private choices we face in America today.
From Socrates to Sartre formed the basis of from the PBS television series of the same name.
From Socrates to Sartre presents a rousing and readable introduction to the lives, and times of the great philosophers. This thought-provoking book takes us from the inception of Western society in Plato鈥檚 Athens to today when the commanding power of Marxism has captured one third of the world. T. Z. Lavine, Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, makes philosophy come alive with astonishing clarity to give us a deeper, more meaningful understanding of ourselves and our times.
From Socrates to Sartre discusses Western philosophers in terms of the historical and intellectual environment which influenced them, and it connects their lasting ideas to the public and private choices we face in America today.
From Socrates to Sartre formed the basis of from the PBS television series of the same name.
426 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
308 people are currently reading
2,376 people want to read
About the author
T.Z. Lavine
5听books18听followersThelma Zeno Lavine (1915鈥�2011), was an American philosopher, professor, and writer, specializing mainly in the areas of 19th and 20th century, especially the writing of John Dewey. She taught courses that highlighted the correlation between philosophy and other topics such as economics, history, and contemporary American culture.
Lavine began teaching philosophy and psychology courses in 1941 at Wells College in Aurora, New York, where she remained until 1943. In 1946 she started at Brooklyn College as a professor of philosophy until 1951. From 1955 until 1965 she held a faculty position at the University of Maryland. In 1965 Lavine went to George Washington University to become Elton Professor of Philosophy, where she taught for 20 years. In 1985 she went to George Mason University, where she became a Robinson Professor of Philosophy, and remained at George Mason until her retirement in 1998.
She is well known for the televised lecture series "From Socrates to Sartre, A Historical Introduction to Philosophy", put on by the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting in 1979. The series comprised thirty lectures, and it has been praised for making philosophy accessible to the public. Lavine鈥檚 most famous publication鈥� "From Socrates to Sartre, The Philosophic Quest" (1984) grew out of the televised lectures, over 250,000 copies were published in the United States and it was also translated into Japanese.
Another notable publication of Lavine鈥檚 is the essay, 鈥淭he Contemporary Significance of the American Philosophic Tradition: Lockean and Redemptive,鈥� from "Reading Dewey", Interpretations for a Postmodern Generation (1998), by Larry A. Hickman. In the essay, Lavine articulates the progression of philosophic thought beginning with an evaluation of Enlightenment principles and their role in the development of the national and legal identity of the United States.
Lavine began teaching philosophy and psychology courses in 1941 at Wells College in Aurora, New York, where she remained until 1943. In 1946 she started at Brooklyn College as a professor of philosophy until 1951. From 1955 until 1965 she held a faculty position at the University of Maryland. In 1965 Lavine went to George Washington University to become Elton Professor of Philosophy, where she taught for 20 years. In 1985 she went to George Mason University, where she became a Robinson Professor of Philosophy, and remained at George Mason until her retirement in 1998.
She is well known for the televised lecture series "From Socrates to Sartre, A Historical Introduction to Philosophy", put on by the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting in 1979. The series comprised thirty lectures, and it has been praised for making philosophy accessible to the public. Lavine鈥檚 most famous publication鈥� "From Socrates to Sartre, The Philosophic Quest" (1984) grew out of the televised lectures, over 250,000 copies were published in the United States and it was also translated into Japanese.
Another notable publication of Lavine鈥檚 is the essay, 鈥淭he Contemporary Significance of the American Philosophic Tradition: Lockean and Redemptive,鈥� from "Reading Dewey", Interpretations for a Postmodern Generation (1998), by Larry A. Hickman. In the essay, Lavine articulates the progression of philosophic thought beginning with an evaluation of Enlightenment principles and their role in the development of the national and legal identity of the United States.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
October 4, 2012
WRITTEN PENDING A REVIEW:
Sometimes it's easier to write a song than to read (and understand) Philosophy...
The Philosophers鈥� Song
Though Plato drank lots of expensive red wine
He could faithfully draw a Divided Line,
Work a Tripartite Soul into his story
And turn a Cave into an Allegory.
Ren茅 Descartes knew when it was time to drink
He could not be, unless he was fit to think
Skepticism led to Self-Evident Truth
And a World with Mechanical Attributes.
Young David Hume was a well-meaning critter
The Empiricist learned, after a bitter,
It鈥檚 not Logic that guides all of our Actions
Reason itself is a slave of the Passions.
The Ideal form of a red wine and bagel
Appealed to German philosopher Hegel
While all History is Dialectical,
His Spirits were Phenomenological.
Revolutionary vision made Marx see red
So much so that Hegel was turned on his head
And Dialectical Materialists
Revolted, forever, German Idealists.
Jean Paul Sartre defined Existentialism
As the ultimate form of Humanism
He proved he was capable of Joie de Vivre
By not asking Simone de Beauvoir to leave.
METAPHYSICAL GRAFITTI:
Monty Python - "The Bruces' Philosophers鈥� Song" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
Monty Python - "Philosophy Football: Germany vs. Greece" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
Thanks to Kris for reminding me about these performances.
Male Philosophy Student and Metaphysical Poet Seeks Indie Girl with Bob Haircut
I think, I hope
That I could be
What you long for
In a lover.
AN APPENDED REVIEW:
The Position of the Mission
I read this book as part of a private mission to acquire an historical context within which to do some more focused philosophical reading.
I never studied philosophy as a discrete subject or course. Instead, my background was in political philosophy and ideology.
I studied Modern Political Thought and the Theory and Practice of Marxism.
Later, I did some undergraduate studies in Semiotics through the French Department, which also gave me some access to Structuralism.
Modern Political Thought was Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Marxism was Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and various Euro-Communists.
I now feel frustrated that I only ever read Hegel through the eyes of Marx.
One of the goals of my mission is to better understand Hegel with a different set of eyes. Another is to better understand the implications of Marx turning Hegel on his head.
But ultimately, I wanted to understand how both Hegel and Marx fit into the History of Western Philosophy, including the period since Marx鈥� death.
I didn鈥檛 choose this work by Lavine for any reason other than the fact that I found a second hand copy for $4.50.
This is half the cost of a good glass of wine or beer, but I gained a lot more pleasure out of this book (and I still get to have a drink).
The Form
The title of the book says something of its scope. However, in truth, it鈥檚 a bit misleading.
Sixteen philosophers feature in the overview, only six of them have sections dedicated to them, and Socrates isn鈥檛 one of them.
Here is the list, with the six in bold:
Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Husserl, Heidgger, Wittgenstein.
Fans of Philosophy or Monty Python might quibble about the choice or the on-ground time of members of this squad, but ultimately I really enjoyed this primer.
The Substance
Up until the sections on Sartre and the back three, Lavine summarises the tenets of each philosopher鈥檚 work in an accessible manner, but also in a way that builds a 1,200 year narrative out of intensely conceived and projected philosophical memes.
The book isn鈥檛 just a personal race, an individual marathon, but a relay, with philosophers passing the baton across decades and centuries, until Lavine, their proxy, reaches us and places the baton in our hand, from which point, we鈥檙e supposed to think and be and do.
Maybe this analogy is a bit artificial, one that Lavine might not have related to, but her achievement has been to turn what could have been a dry topic into something that a larger audience could relate to.
In other words, if you鈥檙e a literary reader who鈥檚 happy to skim la cr猫me de la cr猫me, this isn鈥檛 a bad place to start.
The Spirit Leveller
My main reservation is the sections on Sartre and contemporaneous trends like Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
Up until Sartre, she structured each chapter in short succinct paragraphs, often with numbered arguments.
When she arrives at Sartre, the paragraphs are longer, as if she has swallowed, but not digested, and just regurgitated, material that she did not personally relate to.
Synthesis
So for me, this book is a great overview of philosophy up to Sartre in the sense that he built on both Kierkegaard and Marx, but we will need to supplement it with something else that deals with subsequent movements.
Further Reading
I might start here:
AN UPENDED REVIEW:
Homo Logico-Philosophicus ("The Philosophic Conquest" or "The Attractatus of a Man for a Woman: A Thesis in 33 Sexual Propositions")
1. In the beginning, there was a Man.
2. Because there was nothing much else around or in his head, he was surrounded by Empiricism.
3. Just when Man had got his head around Empiricism, a Woman turned up.
4. From his dick, the Man heard a word, and the word was Lust.
5. When asked to put this thing there, the Woman had no logical reason to object.
6. The Man thought he had discovered the Good Life.
7. The next morning, there was a new word, and the word was Love.
8. The Man said, 鈥淲hat do you mean, Love, look at this. Why don鈥檛 you do that thing that you did last night?鈥�
9. The Woman taught Man the meaning of Negation.
10. In a moment of weakness, the Woman later taught Man the meaning of Persistence.
11. Nine months later, a baby girl was born to the Woman.
12. Tragically, three months later, the baby died.
13. After much grieving and blaming, the Man decided that, if there was an Effect, there must be a Cause.
14. The Woman said, 鈥淗mmm?鈥� and folded her arms inquisitively.
15. The Man thought that, even though the Effect was Visible, the Cause must be Invisible.
16. The Man decided that the Cause must be something Perfect and that all People must be Imperfect.
17. People must be Bad and this other thing must be Good.
18. The Man suggested that the Good Thing should be called God and that God would be a Man.
19. The Woman objected, because she was a Good Thing and, up until then, the Man had called her a Goddess.
20. The Man consulted other Men, and decided to establish a Church that could defeat the arguments of the Goddesses.
21. In time, the Church oppressed not just Women, but Men as well.
22. Men started to question the existence of God and the authority of the Church.
23. Some Men wondered whether they should respect and worship Women instead of God.
24. 鈥淒on鈥檛 be fricken stupid,鈥� said their male friends.
25. Men started to believe in one thing and one thing only, and that was their Consciousness.
26. Women looked at these Men and said, 鈥淲hat about us, what about the kids, what about real life?鈥�
27. The Men said, 鈥淵ou do not exist. I am complete, unto myself.鈥�
28. The Women looked at each other and said, 鈥淚 told you they were fricken stupid.鈥�
29. One of the Women said, 鈥淚f we wait, maybe they will come around to our point of view?鈥�
30. The other Women looked at her and said, 鈥淎re you fricken stupid?鈥�
31. One of the Women said, 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 time for some Music.鈥�
32. One of the other Women said, 鈥淒o you think that we can sort this out while the Music is playing?鈥�
33. All of the other Women looked at her and said, 鈥淎re you fricken stupid?鈥�
Image: Andr茅 Carrilho, New York Times
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE
Turning Your Back on Love
Love is not an express concern of Lavine, although it is something I started to wonder about as I read the book.
The earlier Philosophers were concerned with ethical questions about how to live a Good Life and how to be Happy.
Even now, if we want to think about these issues, the thoughts of the early Philosophers are just as valid and influential as they have been at any point in history, perhaps because it鈥檚 not possible to improve on what they said.
Possibly because they did their job so well, the concerns of Philosophy appeared to move on.
An early concern was the relationship between the Individual and God (or the Gods).
Similarly, the relationship between the Individual and the State became a concern.
Ultimately, the area of Philosophy which has attracted the most academic interest and continued to change or develop the most has been Metaphysics, which concerns the nature of Being and the relationship between the Individual and the World.
One reason for the developments was the influence of scientific theories and discoveries on the concept of Mind.
I Have Only My Self to Blame
My reading of the Philosophy described by Lavine was that it became increasingly abstract and focused on individual Consciousness, almost to the point of Solipsism (the belief that only your own mind is sure to exist).
Within this framework, there is only the Self, and Consciousness reigns.
The focus of Philosophy seems to have become the Self, in isolation.
Relational Philosophy
What has fallen by the wayside is any philosophical interest in relationships between the Individual or Self (on the one hand) and God, the State and other People (on the other hand).
Even Ethics seems to have perished, because the Individual has become the source of all value in substitution for Society.
I, the Individual, need only act in my own self-interest.
So, what has gone missing is any philosophical interest in Love and/or what I will call Fraternity (or Social Harmony), the relationship between People.
鈥淲e鈥� have ceased to be of interest to Philosophy, only 鈥淚鈥� am its concern.
What follows below are some speculative extrapolations on the views of the key Philosophers discussed by Lavine.
Descartes
While reading Lavine on Descartes, I felt that he was too analytical and was determined to place concepts and things in boxes.
At the risk of oversimplifying Descartes, what seemed to be missing was the relationship between the separate concepts or things or boxes.
While he still used a concept of cause and effect, there was no sense of dynamism.
There was no sense that sunburn is the reaction of one thing (the skin of the Self) to another thing (the sun).
Hume
By the time you get to Hume, the sensory takes over. Except that it becomes almost an over-reaction to the lack of relationship in Descartes.
The relationship between two concepts or things is all. The sensory is all.
What is missing in the case of Hume is the Self or the 鈥淚鈥�.
Hume almost seems to argue that there is no ongoing "I" or Self or Ego, that we are constantly changing packages or buckets of sensory reactions or relationships.
I am what I feel. I feel therefore I am.
Except the "I" is different from the "I" of Descartes.
There is no sense of myself with which I can identify with.
So at this point in Lavine, something in me wanted to put the "I" back in the Self or Identity.
We are not just an aggregate of reactions or relationships.
There is a Self and there is an Other. There is an I and there is a You.
There is You, I and our Relationship or sensory experience of each other (of Each Other).
In other words, there is Love, but it is Love between two discrete People.
Descartes focussed on boxes. Hume focussed on sensory experience.
The synthesis is to come up with heart-shaped boxes that relate to each other.
Philosophy must make room for Love.
Hegel
By the time we get to Hegel, the relation of one Individual to another starts off as a Master and Slave Dialectic, the ultimate Stranger Danger, in which the two engage in a Struggle unto Death.
There is no sense of two warriors raising their open hands in a gesture of peace or two people falling in love at first sight.
The relationship is intrinsically suspicious and antagonistic. The two are a Negation of each other.
The exception for Hegel is the Family, in which the Individual is a Member, as opposed to an independent person.
Love, within the Family, is the Mind鈥檚 feeling or sense of its own Unity.
This sense of Unity or Oneness is something that the Individual cannot have in the broader Community.
Marx
Marx describes Love as a passion that undermines Tranquility.
Yet, he also seemed to view mutual Love as a condition that should be aspired to:
"If you love without evoking love in return 鈥� that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent 鈥� a misfortune."
Sartre
Sartre sees Love in similar negative terms to Hegel.
In all relationships, we either enslave the Other or the Other enslaves us.
Lavine鈥檚 section on Sartre finishes on this note, although in the final section on the Contemporary Philosophical Scene she analyses Sartre鈥檚 conversion to Marxism as an embrace of the social and an attempt to find a form of Humanism in Existentialism.
It鈥檚 interesting that, when France was occupied by Germany and the French people were oppressed by the German forces, Sartre turned to a philosophy of Fraternity and Engagement to help overthrow the Germans.
Making Our Own Way From Negation to Elation
The remainder of the book discusses Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
It is more overtly concerned with developments in the understanding of the working of the Mind and Consciousness.
Thus, it retreats from concepts that hint at, or would allow us to construct, a Social Philosophy and a Philosophy of Love.
Because these are not central concerns of Lavine, we never get to hear what she would have thought about these concepts, at least not in this book.
So, we are left alone, on our own, together.
We have to create our own Philosophy of Love.
My Love.
PHILOSOPHY FOR LEMONHEADS:
Musical Interlewd:
It鈥檚 impossible to understand Philosophy in the 21st century without being intimate with the lyrics of Evan Dando of the Lemonheads.
But first, check out these songs:
鈥滲eing Around鈥�:
鈥滲ig Gay Heart鈥�:
鈥滻t's About Time鈥�:
鈥滲it Part鈥�:
See what I mean, now how am I going to refocus you on Philosophy? Well, with a Glossary, only this is no common or garden variety Glossary.
A Glossary of Country and Western Philosophy (According to Evan Dando with a little help from Gram Parsons)
Bodyism
鈥淚f I was your body, would you still wear clothes?鈥�
Boogerism
鈥淚f I was a booger, would you blow your nose?鈥�
Exhibitionism
鈥淚'm just trying really hard to make you notice me being around.鈥�
Hedonism
鈥淚 don't need you to suck my dick or to help me feel good about myself.鈥�
Logical Positivism
鈥淚f you can find a way to add it up, it might be hard, but it might be enough.鈥�
Negativism
鈥� Nobody, nobody has got no one to go to.鈥�
Nihilism
鈥淭hey always go bye the bye. The great big no. The great big no.鈥�
Objectivism
鈥淲hy can't you look after yourself and not down on me?鈥�
Rationalism
鈥淚'm just trying to give myself a reason for being around.鈥�
Relativism
鈥淚t's about time.鈥�
Sado-Masochism
鈥淚'd be grateful, I'd be satisfied.鈥�
Solipsism
鈥淭ake a look into some big grey eyes and ask yourself
You wanna make 'em cry?
Lookin' out of them it's just as well
But you're gonna live to see I'm gonna ask you why.鈥�
Utilitarianism
鈥淒o you have to try to piss me off just 'cause I'm easy to please?鈥�
PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE WITH A FRIEND:
Friend:
Philosophy is the art and science of understanding the Invisible.
DJ Ian:
If you can't see it, how do you know it exists? How do you know it's there?
Friend:
Philosophy is like friends. The absence of a friend does not mean that they are not there or that they are not your friend.
Sextus Propertius:
Always toward absent lovers, love's tide stronger flows.
DJ Ian:
Thanks, Sextus...Sextus? Are you still there? Sextus?
Sextus Propertius:
Yes, Ian. Calm down, I'm still here. I just had my headphones up a bit loud.
DJ Ian:
What were you listening to?
Sextus Propertius:
R.E.M. I really love that band.
SOUNDTRACK:
R.E.M. - "I Believe" [from the album "Lifes Rich Pageant"]
Buzzcocks - "I Believe"
Magazine - "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)"
Magazine - "Believe That I Understand"
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
THE LAST OF THE GREAT METAPHYSICAL POETS
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
Lennon/McCartney
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time - It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
A Trainspotter's Guide to the Beatles Video
At 2:22, we see the back of a beautiful shirt. At 2:39, we see who is wearing it.
PLATO? ARISTOTLE?? SOCRATES??? MORONS!!!
The Princess Bride - Battle of Wits
Sometimes it's easier to write a song than to read (and understand) Philosophy...
The Philosophers鈥� Song
Though Plato drank lots of expensive red wine
He could faithfully draw a Divided Line,
Work a Tripartite Soul into his story
And turn a Cave into an Allegory.
Ren茅 Descartes knew when it was time to drink
He could not be, unless he was fit to think
Skepticism led to Self-Evident Truth
And a World with Mechanical Attributes.
Young David Hume was a well-meaning critter
The Empiricist learned, after a bitter,
It鈥檚 not Logic that guides all of our Actions
Reason itself is a slave of the Passions.
The Ideal form of a red wine and bagel
Appealed to German philosopher Hegel
While all History is Dialectical,
His Spirits were Phenomenological.
Revolutionary vision made Marx see red
So much so that Hegel was turned on his head
And Dialectical Materialists
Revolted, forever, German Idealists.
Jean Paul Sartre defined Existentialism
As the ultimate form of Humanism
He proved he was capable of Joie de Vivre
By not asking Simone de Beauvoir to leave.
METAPHYSICAL GRAFITTI:
Monty Python - "The Bruces' Philosophers鈥� Song" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
Monty Python - "Philosophy Football: Germany vs. Greece" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
Thanks to Kris for reminding me about these performances.
Male Philosophy Student and Metaphysical Poet Seeks Indie Girl with Bob Haircut
I think, I hope
That I could be
What you long for
In a lover.
AN APPENDED REVIEW:
The Position of the Mission
I read this book as part of a private mission to acquire an historical context within which to do some more focused philosophical reading.
I never studied philosophy as a discrete subject or course. Instead, my background was in political philosophy and ideology.
I studied Modern Political Thought and the Theory and Practice of Marxism.
Later, I did some undergraduate studies in Semiotics through the French Department, which also gave me some access to Structuralism.
Modern Political Thought was Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Marxism was Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and various Euro-Communists.
I now feel frustrated that I only ever read Hegel through the eyes of Marx.
One of the goals of my mission is to better understand Hegel with a different set of eyes. Another is to better understand the implications of Marx turning Hegel on his head.
But ultimately, I wanted to understand how both Hegel and Marx fit into the History of Western Philosophy, including the period since Marx鈥� death.
I didn鈥檛 choose this work by Lavine for any reason other than the fact that I found a second hand copy for $4.50.
This is half the cost of a good glass of wine or beer, but I gained a lot more pleasure out of this book (and I still get to have a drink).
The Form
The title of the book says something of its scope. However, in truth, it鈥檚 a bit misleading.
Sixteen philosophers feature in the overview, only six of them have sections dedicated to them, and Socrates isn鈥檛 one of them.
Here is the list, with the six in bold:
Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Husserl, Heidgger, Wittgenstein.
Fans of Philosophy or Monty Python might quibble about the choice or the on-ground time of members of this squad, but ultimately I really enjoyed this primer.
The Substance
Up until the sections on Sartre and the back three, Lavine summarises the tenets of each philosopher鈥檚 work in an accessible manner, but also in a way that builds a 1,200 year narrative out of intensely conceived and projected philosophical memes.
The book isn鈥檛 just a personal race, an individual marathon, but a relay, with philosophers passing the baton across decades and centuries, until Lavine, their proxy, reaches us and places the baton in our hand, from which point, we鈥檙e supposed to think and be and do.
Maybe this analogy is a bit artificial, one that Lavine might not have related to, but her achievement has been to turn what could have been a dry topic into something that a larger audience could relate to.
In other words, if you鈥檙e a literary reader who鈥檚 happy to skim la cr猫me de la cr猫me, this isn鈥檛 a bad place to start.
The Spirit Leveller
My main reservation is the sections on Sartre and contemporaneous trends like Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
Up until Sartre, she structured each chapter in short succinct paragraphs, often with numbered arguments.
When she arrives at Sartre, the paragraphs are longer, as if she has swallowed, but not digested, and just regurgitated, material that she did not personally relate to.
Synthesis
So for me, this book is a great overview of philosophy up to Sartre in the sense that he built on both Kierkegaard and Marx, but we will need to supplement it with something else that deals with subsequent movements.
Further Reading
I might start here:
AN UPENDED REVIEW:
Homo Logico-Philosophicus ("The Philosophic Conquest" or "The Attractatus of a Man for a Woman: A Thesis in 33 Sexual Propositions")
1. In the beginning, there was a Man.
2. Because there was nothing much else around or in his head, he was surrounded by Empiricism.
3. Just when Man had got his head around Empiricism, a Woman turned up.
4. From his dick, the Man heard a word, and the word was Lust.
5. When asked to put this thing there, the Woman had no logical reason to object.
6. The Man thought he had discovered the Good Life.
7. The next morning, there was a new word, and the word was Love.
8. The Man said, 鈥淲hat do you mean, Love, look at this. Why don鈥檛 you do that thing that you did last night?鈥�
9. The Woman taught Man the meaning of Negation.
10. In a moment of weakness, the Woman later taught Man the meaning of Persistence.
11. Nine months later, a baby girl was born to the Woman.
12. Tragically, three months later, the baby died.
13. After much grieving and blaming, the Man decided that, if there was an Effect, there must be a Cause.
14. The Woman said, 鈥淗mmm?鈥� and folded her arms inquisitively.
15. The Man thought that, even though the Effect was Visible, the Cause must be Invisible.
16. The Man decided that the Cause must be something Perfect and that all People must be Imperfect.
17. People must be Bad and this other thing must be Good.
18. The Man suggested that the Good Thing should be called God and that God would be a Man.
19. The Woman objected, because she was a Good Thing and, up until then, the Man had called her a Goddess.
20. The Man consulted other Men, and decided to establish a Church that could defeat the arguments of the Goddesses.
21. In time, the Church oppressed not just Women, but Men as well.
22. Men started to question the existence of God and the authority of the Church.
23. Some Men wondered whether they should respect and worship Women instead of God.
24. 鈥淒on鈥檛 be fricken stupid,鈥� said their male friends.
25. Men started to believe in one thing and one thing only, and that was their Consciousness.
26. Women looked at these Men and said, 鈥淲hat about us, what about the kids, what about real life?鈥�
27. The Men said, 鈥淵ou do not exist. I am complete, unto myself.鈥�
28. The Women looked at each other and said, 鈥淚 told you they were fricken stupid.鈥�
29. One of the Women said, 鈥淚f we wait, maybe they will come around to our point of view?鈥�
30. The other Women looked at her and said, 鈥淎re you fricken stupid?鈥�
31. One of the Women said, 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 time for some Music.鈥�
32. One of the other Women said, 鈥淒o you think that we can sort this out while the Music is playing?鈥�
33. All of the other Women looked at her and said, 鈥淎re you fricken stupid?鈥�
Image: Andr茅 Carrilho, New York Times
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE
Turning Your Back on Love
Love is not an express concern of Lavine, although it is something I started to wonder about as I read the book.
The earlier Philosophers were concerned with ethical questions about how to live a Good Life and how to be Happy.
Even now, if we want to think about these issues, the thoughts of the early Philosophers are just as valid and influential as they have been at any point in history, perhaps because it鈥檚 not possible to improve on what they said.
Possibly because they did their job so well, the concerns of Philosophy appeared to move on.
An early concern was the relationship between the Individual and God (or the Gods).
Similarly, the relationship between the Individual and the State became a concern.
Ultimately, the area of Philosophy which has attracted the most academic interest and continued to change or develop the most has been Metaphysics, which concerns the nature of Being and the relationship between the Individual and the World.
One reason for the developments was the influence of scientific theories and discoveries on the concept of Mind.
I Have Only My Self to Blame
My reading of the Philosophy described by Lavine was that it became increasingly abstract and focused on individual Consciousness, almost to the point of Solipsism (the belief that only your own mind is sure to exist).
Within this framework, there is only the Self, and Consciousness reigns.
The focus of Philosophy seems to have become the Self, in isolation.
Relational Philosophy
What has fallen by the wayside is any philosophical interest in relationships between the Individual or Self (on the one hand) and God, the State and other People (on the other hand).
Even Ethics seems to have perished, because the Individual has become the source of all value in substitution for Society.
I, the Individual, need only act in my own self-interest.
So, what has gone missing is any philosophical interest in Love and/or what I will call Fraternity (or Social Harmony), the relationship between People.
鈥淲e鈥� have ceased to be of interest to Philosophy, only 鈥淚鈥� am its concern.
What follows below are some speculative extrapolations on the views of the key Philosophers discussed by Lavine.
Descartes
While reading Lavine on Descartes, I felt that he was too analytical and was determined to place concepts and things in boxes.
At the risk of oversimplifying Descartes, what seemed to be missing was the relationship between the separate concepts or things or boxes.
While he still used a concept of cause and effect, there was no sense of dynamism.
There was no sense that sunburn is the reaction of one thing (the skin of the Self) to another thing (the sun).
Hume
By the time you get to Hume, the sensory takes over. Except that it becomes almost an over-reaction to the lack of relationship in Descartes.
The relationship between two concepts or things is all. The sensory is all.
What is missing in the case of Hume is the Self or the 鈥淚鈥�.
Hume almost seems to argue that there is no ongoing "I" or Self or Ego, that we are constantly changing packages or buckets of sensory reactions or relationships.
I am what I feel. I feel therefore I am.
Except the "I" is different from the "I" of Descartes.
There is no sense of myself with which I can identify with.
So at this point in Lavine, something in me wanted to put the "I" back in the Self or Identity.
We are not just an aggregate of reactions or relationships.
There is a Self and there is an Other. There is an I and there is a You.
There is You, I and our Relationship or sensory experience of each other (of Each Other).
In other words, there is Love, but it is Love between two discrete People.
Descartes focussed on boxes. Hume focussed on sensory experience.
The synthesis is to come up with heart-shaped boxes that relate to each other.
Philosophy must make room for Love.
Hegel
By the time we get to Hegel, the relation of one Individual to another starts off as a Master and Slave Dialectic, the ultimate Stranger Danger, in which the two engage in a Struggle unto Death.
There is no sense of two warriors raising their open hands in a gesture of peace or two people falling in love at first sight.
The relationship is intrinsically suspicious and antagonistic. The two are a Negation of each other.
The exception for Hegel is the Family, in which the Individual is a Member, as opposed to an independent person.
Love, within the Family, is the Mind鈥檚 feeling or sense of its own Unity.
This sense of Unity or Oneness is something that the Individual cannot have in the broader Community.
Marx
Marx describes Love as a passion that undermines Tranquility.
Yet, he also seemed to view mutual Love as a condition that should be aspired to:
"If you love without evoking love in return 鈥� that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent 鈥� a misfortune."
Sartre
Sartre sees Love in similar negative terms to Hegel.
In all relationships, we either enslave the Other or the Other enslaves us.
Lavine鈥檚 section on Sartre finishes on this note, although in the final section on the Contemporary Philosophical Scene she analyses Sartre鈥檚 conversion to Marxism as an embrace of the social and an attempt to find a form of Humanism in Existentialism.
It鈥檚 interesting that, when France was occupied by Germany and the French people were oppressed by the German forces, Sartre turned to a philosophy of Fraternity and Engagement to help overthrow the Germans.
Making Our Own Way From Negation to Elation
The remainder of the book discusses Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
It is more overtly concerned with developments in the understanding of the working of the Mind and Consciousness.
Thus, it retreats from concepts that hint at, or would allow us to construct, a Social Philosophy and a Philosophy of Love.
Because these are not central concerns of Lavine, we never get to hear what she would have thought about these concepts, at least not in this book.
So, we are left alone, on our own, together.
We have to create our own Philosophy of Love.
My Love.
PHILOSOPHY FOR LEMONHEADS:
Musical Interlewd:
It鈥檚 impossible to understand Philosophy in the 21st century without being intimate with the lyrics of Evan Dando of the Lemonheads.
But first, check out these songs:
鈥滲eing Around鈥�:
鈥滲ig Gay Heart鈥�:
鈥滻t's About Time鈥�:
鈥滲it Part鈥�:
See what I mean, now how am I going to refocus you on Philosophy? Well, with a Glossary, only this is no common or garden variety Glossary.
A Glossary of Country and Western Philosophy (According to Evan Dando with a little help from Gram Parsons)
Bodyism
鈥淚f I was your body, would you still wear clothes?鈥�
Boogerism
鈥淚f I was a booger, would you blow your nose?鈥�
Exhibitionism
鈥淚'm just trying really hard to make you notice me being around.鈥�
Hedonism
鈥淚 don't need you to suck my dick or to help me feel good about myself.鈥�
Logical Positivism
鈥淚f you can find a way to add it up, it might be hard, but it might be enough.鈥�
Negativism
鈥� Nobody, nobody has got no one to go to.鈥�
Nihilism
鈥淭hey always go bye the bye. The great big no. The great big no.鈥�
Objectivism
鈥淲hy can't you look after yourself and not down on me?鈥�
Rationalism
鈥淚'm just trying to give myself a reason for being around.鈥�
Relativism
鈥淚t's about time.鈥�
Sado-Masochism
鈥淚'd be grateful, I'd be satisfied.鈥�
Solipsism
鈥淭ake a look into some big grey eyes and ask yourself
You wanna make 'em cry?
Lookin' out of them it's just as well
But you're gonna live to see I'm gonna ask you why.鈥�
Utilitarianism
鈥淒o you have to try to piss me off just 'cause I'm easy to please?鈥�
PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE WITH A FRIEND:
Friend:
Philosophy is the art and science of understanding the Invisible.
DJ Ian:
If you can't see it, how do you know it exists? How do you know it's there?
Friend:
Philosophy is like friends. The absence of a friend does not mean that they are not there or that they are not your friend.
Sextus Propertius:
Always toward absent lovers, love's tide stronger flows.
DJ Ian:
Thanks, Sextus...Sextus? Are you still there? Sextus?
Sextus Propertius:
Yes, Ian. Calm down, I'm still here. I just had my headphones up a bit loud.
DJ Ian:
What were you listening to?
Sextus Propertius:
R.E.M. I really love that band.
SOUNDTRACK:
R.E.M. - "I Believe" [from the album "Lifes Rich Pageant"]
Buzzcocks - "I Believe"
Magazine - "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)"
Magazine - "Believe That I Understand"
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
THE LAST OF THE GREAT METAPHYSICAL POETS
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
Lennon/McCartney
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time - It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
A Trainspotter's Guide to the Beatles Video
At 2:22, we see the back of a beautiful shirt. At 2:39, we see who is wearing it.
PLATO? ARISTOTLE?? SOCRATES??? MORONS!!!
The Princess Bride - Battle of Wits
Read
May 7, 2020丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 賲蹖鬲賵賳賲 氐乇丕丨鬲丕 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賳丕亘毓 賳爻亘鬲丕 禺賵亘 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 賮賱爻賮賴 毓氐乇 乇賵卮賳诏乇蹖 賵 賲丿乇賳 亘丿賵賳賲 讴賲丕丕蹖賳讴賴 亘禺卮 丕賵賱 讴鬲丕亘 賲禺鬲氐 亘賴 爻賯乇丕胤 賵 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賴爻鬲. 讴鬲丕亘 鬲乇噩賲賴 禺賵亘蹖 丿丕乇賴 賳爻亘鬲丕 賵 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 亘乇丕蹖 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 賴爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖禺賵丕賳 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賲丿乇賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丌卮賳丕 亘卮賳. 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 噩賳亘賴 賴丕蹖 賲孬亘鬲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 賴乇 亘禺卮 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖讴爻乇蹖 倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖讴賳賴 讴賴 禺賵丿 丿賳亘丕賱賴 乇賵蹖 亘禺卮 亘毓丿蹖 賴爻鬲 賵 倬乇爻卮 亘賴 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 乇賵 賲蹖卮賴 丿乇 亘禺卮 賴丕蹖 亘毓丿蹖 噩爻鬲噩賵 讴乇丿貙 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇 噩賳亘賴 賴丕蹖 賲孬亘鬲 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鬲賵賳賲 亘诏賲 賴乇 亘禺卮 亘賴 亘禺卮 賯亘賱蹖 禺賵丿 賲鬲氐賱 丕爻鬲 賲孬賱丕貙 亘禺卮 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賵 鬲賮讴乇丕鬲 賲丕乇讴爻 乇賵 賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 賴诏賱 賳爻亘鬲 丿丕丿 賵 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 爻丕乇鬲乇 乇賵 丿乇 诏乇賵蹖 賮賱爻賮賴 賲丕乇讴爻 賲蹖卮賴 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿 貙 丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 賲賳亘毓 讴丕賲賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 讴賱 賮賱爻賮賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕 鬲丕 丿賵乇賴 賲毓丕氐乇 賳蹖爻鬲 丕賱亘鬲賴 讴賲讴 讴賳賳丿賴 亘賴 賮賴賲 丕蹖賳 诏匕丕乇賴 賴爻鬲貙 趩賵賳 鬲賲丕賲 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 乇賵 賲賵乇丿 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴丕賲賱 賯乇丕乇 賳賲蹖丿賴.
丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕 賲蹖禺賵丕賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 亘禺卮 卮卮賲 賵 丌禺乇 亘诏賲貙 賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賴 讴乇讴賴 诏賵乇 丕夭 倬蹖卮诏丕賲丕賳 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖卮賴. 賳馗乇 讴乇讴賴 诏賵乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 亘蹖 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴爻鬲蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 亘丿賵 鬲賵賱丿 亘丕 丿賱賴乇賴 賵 丿賱賲乇丿诏蹖 诏乇賴 禺賵乇丿賴 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 賴賲賵丕乇賴 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖讴賳丿 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 賳噩丕鬲 丿賴丿貙 丕蹖賳 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 诏乇賵蹖 丕蹖賲丕賳 亘賴 禺丿丕蹖 賲胤賱賯 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖卮賵丿 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖 讴賴 鬲賮讴乇 賲鬲賯丕亘賱 讴乇讴賴 诏賵乇貙 賳蹖趩賴 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賵賲蹖丿蹖 丿乇 丕賳爻丕賳 爻亘亘 丕夭 丿爻鬲 乇賮鬲賳 丕蹖賲丕賳 賲胤賱賯 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丿乇賳 亘丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丿丕丿賳 丕蹖賲丕賳 亘賴 禺丿丕 丕乇夭卮 賵 丨賯蹖賯鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 賲蹖丿賴丿. ( 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 丕卮丕乇賴 亘賴 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲 賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳诏賲丕乇 亘乇诏賲賳 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴賴 丿蹖丿賳卮 禺丕賱蹖 丕夭 賱胤賮 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賮蹖賱賲蹖 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲 賲賵賱賮賴 賴丕蹖 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 乇賵 丿丕乇丕爻鬲貙 /winter light 蹖丕 賳賵乇 夭賲爻鬲丕賳蹖)賳蹖趩賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 讴賴 賲乇诏 禺丿丕 乇丕 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賲乇诏 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 禺丿丕 賲蹖丿丕賳丿.丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴( 丕亘乇丕賳爻丕賳) 卮丿賳 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 賮賱爻賮賴 賳蹖趩賴 卮丕蹖丿 賲賳卮丕亍 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丨丕讴賲丕賳 丿乇 丿賵乇賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘丕卮丿貙 賴賲趩賳丕賳 讴賴 卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 賮丕卮蹖爻鬲蹖 丿乇 丌賱賲丕賳 丿乇 丿賴賴 40 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 乇賵 亘鬲賵丕賳 賳賵毓蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 賳蹖趩賴 丿丕賳爻鬲. 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 爻丕乇鬲乇 丌卮賳丕 賲蹖卮賵蹖賲 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丿乇賳貙 丕賳爻丕賳 卮蹖 卮丿賴 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 賲丕丿蹖貙 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿亘蹖诏丕賳賴貙 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 丌夭丕丿蹖. 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賵賱賮賴 賴丕蹖 賳馗乇蹖賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 ( 鬲賯丿賲 賵噩賵丿 亘乇 賲丕賴蹖鬲) 丕爻鬲. 丌賳趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿(貙賲賳 趩賵賳丕賳 賵噩賵丿 丌诏丕賴 " 賲丕賴蹖鬲" 禺賵丿賲 乇丕 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴 诏夭蹖賳卮 賴丕蹖 賲賵賯鬲 賵 诏匕乇丕蹖 丌賳趩賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賲 亘卮賵賲 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖讴賳賲).丕賳爻丕賳 賲禺鬲丕乇貙 丕賳讴丕乇 賴乇 丕氐賵賱 蹖丕 丌乇賲丕賳 趩賵賳丕賳 賲亘賳丕蹖蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丕禺賱丕賯蹖貙 丌诏丕賴 亘賵丿賳 趩賵賳丕賳 卮蹖 毓蹖賳蹖 蹖丕 賴賲丕賳 丿乇讴 禺賵丿 亘乇丕爻丕爻 賮賴賲 丿蹖诏乇蹖貙 丕蹖賳賴丕賴賲賴 丿乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賮賱爻賮賴 夭亘丕賳诏乇丕 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿賴貙 賮賱爻賮賴 丕蹖蹖 讴賴 倬丕蹖賴 诏匕丕乇 賮賱爻賮賴 鬲丨賱蹖賱蹖 賵 亘乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 鬲噩乇亘賴 诏乇丕 賵 賴蹖賵賲 丕爻鬲.
丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕 賲蹖禺賵丕賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 亘禺卮 卮卮賲 賵 丌禺乇 亘诏賲貙 賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賴 讴乇讴賴 诏賵乇 丕夭 倬蹖卮诏丕賲丕賳 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖卮賴. 賳馗乇 讴乇讴賴 诏賵乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 亘蹖 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴爻鬲蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 丕夭 亘丿賵 鬲賵賱丿 亘丕 丿賱賴乇賴 賵 丿賱賲乇丿诏蹖 诏乇賴 禺賵乇丿賴 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 賴賲賵丕乇賴 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖讴賳丿 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 賳噩丕鬲 丿賴丿貙 丕蹖賳 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 诏乇賵蹖 丕蹖賲丕賳 亘賴 禺丿丕蹖 賲胤賱賯 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖卮賵丿 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖 讴賴 鬲賮讴乇 賲鬲賯丕亘賱 讴乇讴賴 诏賵乇貙 賳蹖趩賴 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賵賲蹖丿蹖 丿乇 丕賳爻丕賳 爻亘亘 丕夭 丿爻鬲 乇賮鬲賳 丕蹖賲丕賳 賲胤賱賯 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丿乇賳 亘丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丿丕丿賳 丕蹖賲丕賳 亘賴 禺丿丕 丕乇夭卮 賵 丨賯蹖賯鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 賲蹖丿賴丿. ( 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 丕卮丕乇賴 亘賴 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲 賴丕蹖 丕蹖賳诏賲丕乇 亘乇诏賲賳 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴賴 丿蹖丿賳卮 禺丕賱蹖 丕夭 賱胤賮 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賮蹖賱賲蹖 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲 賲賵賱賮賴 賴丕蹖 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖 乇賵 丿丕乇丕爻鬲貙 /winter light 蹖丕 賳賵乇 夭賲爻鬲丕賳蹖)賳蹖趩賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 讴賴 賲乇诏 禺丿丕 乇丕 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賲乇诏 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 禺丿丕 賲蹖丿丕賳丿.丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴( 丕亘乇丕賳爻丕賳) 卮丿賳 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 賮賱爻賮賴 賳蹖趩賴 卮丕蹖丿 賲賳卮丕亍 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丨丕讴賲丕賳 丿乇 丿賵乇賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘丕卮丿貙 賴賲趩賳丕賳 讴賴 卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 賮丕卮蹖爻鬲蹖 丿乇 丌賱賲丕賳 丿乇 丿賴賴 40 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 乇賵 亘鬲賵丕賳 賳賵毓蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 賳蹖趩賴 丿丕賳爻鬲. 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 爻丕乇鬲乇 丌卮賳丕 賲蹖卮賵蹖賲 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丿乇賳貙 丕賳爻丕賳 卮蹖 卮丿賴 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 賲丕丿蹖貙 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿亘蹖诏丕賳賴貙 丕賳爻丕賳 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 丌夭丕丿蹖. 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賵賱賮賴 賴丕蹖 賳馗乇蹖賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 ( 鬲賯丿賲 賵噩賵丿 亘乇 賲丕賴蹖鬲) 丕爻鬲. 丌賳趩賳丕賳 讴賴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿(貙賲賳 趩賵賳丕賳 賵噩賵丿 丌诏丕賴 " 賲丕賴蹖鬲" 禺賵丿賲 乇丕 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴 诏夭蹖賳卮 賴丕蹖 賲賵賯鬲 賵 诏匕乇丕蹖 丌賳趩賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賲 亘卮賵賲 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖讴賳賲).丕賳爻丕賳 賲禺鬲丕乇貙 丕賳讴丕乇 賴乇 丕氐賵賱 蹖丕 丌乇賲丕賳 趩賵賳丕賳 賲亘賳丕蹖蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丕禺賱丕賯蹖貙 丌诏丕賴 亘賵丿賳 趩賵賳丕賳 卮蹖 毓蹖賳蹖 蹖丕 賴賲丕賳 丿乇讴 禺賵丿 亘乇丕爻丕爻 賮賴賲 丿蹖诏乇蹖貙 丕蹖賳賴丕賴賲賴 丿乇 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賮賱爻賮賴 夭亘丕賳诏乇丕 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿賴貙 賮賱爻賮賴 丕蹖蹖 讴賴 倬丕蹖賴 诏匕丕乇 賮賱爻賮賴 鬲丨賱蹖賱蹖 賵 亘乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 鬲噩乇亘賴 诏乇丕 賵 賴蹖賵賲 丕爻鬲.
August 21, 2015
丕爻鬲毓賳鬲 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丿乇丕爻鬲賷 賵賯丿 丕爻鬲賮丿鬲 賲賳賴 賰孬賷乇丕賸 禺丕氐丞 賮賷 賲毓丕賱噩鬲賴 賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱毓賱賷丞 毓賳丿 丿賷賮賷丿 賴賷賵賲
賵兀賷囟丕賸 鬲丨賱賷賱賴 賱賮賱爻賮丞 賰賷乇賰賷噩賵乇 賵爻丕乇鬲乇 ..
賯賷賲鬲賴 亘賭 5 賳噩賲丕鬲 賱賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賲賷夭丞 丕賱鬲賷 賵乇丿鬲 亘賴
賵賰匕賱賰 賱丕爻賱賵亘 丕賱毓乇囟 丕賱賲賲賷夭 睾賷乇 丕賱賲購賱賱 毓賱賷 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯 ..
賮噩賲賷賱 賱賱睾丕賷丞 兀賳 賷賳鬲賯賷 賱賰 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 兀賴賲 賵兀噩賲賱 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞
丿賵賳 鬲胤賵賷賱 兀賵 丨卮賵 夭丕卅丿 ..
August 28, 2011
So, you want to have a working understanding of Western philosophy, but you don't have the time or energy to read everything that's come out since Plato? Check this book out. Thorough without being overwhelming, the author walks the reader along as though by the hand: difficult concepts are well explained and some light-hearted passages reveal that even philosophers are human.
March 6, 2011
Thelma Lavine died about a week ago, and I realize that this book by one of my favorite professors was not included on my 欧宝娱乐 list. Both her inspiring philosophy of lit class that I took at GW and her pbs series about this book are marked indelibly in my memory. A great teacher has left our midst but not our hearts and minds.
July 16, 2011
As the name shows. It is a Philosophic Quest. In case this will be your first philosophical book, then I will recommend to read, Sophie's World first.
April 23, 2020
卮丕蹖丿 5 爻鬲丕乇賴 丿丕丿賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 賳馗乇 丿賵爻鬲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賮賱爻賮賴 禺賵丕賳 賴爻鬲賳 讴賲蹖 夭蹖丕丿賴 乇賵蹖 亘丕卮賴 . 賵賱蹖 賲賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭 乇賵 賲蹖 丿賲 趩賵賳 卮禺氐丕 賳賴 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賮賱爻賮賴 丿丕乇賲 賵 賳賴 毓賱丕賯賴 蹖 丌賳趩賳丕賳蹖 . 賵賱蹖 丕夭 爻丕賱蹖丕賳 丿賵乇 毓賱丕賯賴 丿丕卮鬲賲 丿乇 亘毓囟蹖 夭賲蹖賳賴 賴丕 賲孬賱 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 毓賱賲 賵 賴賳乇 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲 亘乇丕 賴賲蹖賳 卮乇賵毓 亘賴 禺賵賳丿賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 毓賱賲 賵 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 賴賳乇 讴乇丿賲 . 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿 . 趩賵賳 賴賲 卮蹖賵丕蹖蹖 禺丕氐蹖 丿丕卮鬲 賵 倬乇 亘賵丿 丕夭 賲孬丕賱 賴丕蹖蹖 賵 夭賵丕蹖丕蹖蹖 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵 爻禺鬲蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 讴卮蹖丿賳 賵 丕蹖賳 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 噩匕丕亘 亘賵丿 鬲丕 鬲夭 賵 丕蹖丿賴 蹖 賮讴乇蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖 卮賵賳 . 賵 賴賲 亘賴 丿賵乇 丕夭 賯囟丕賵鬲 讴乇丿賳 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 賵 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賴丕蹖 禺丕氐蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕睾賱亘 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 亘丕 賲賵賱賮卮 丿丕乇丕 賴爻鬲賳丿.
賲賳 丨鬲蹖 丕賱丕賳 賴賲 亘毓丿 賳夭丿蹖讴 1 爻丕賱 丕夭 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 诏丕賴蹖 讴賴 賱丕夭賲 亘丕卮賴 亘賴 蹖丕丿丕卮鬲 賴丕 賵 賳購鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丨蹖賳 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丿丕卮鬲賲 賲乇丕噩毓賴 賲蹖 讴賳賲 賵 丕夭卮賵賳 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖 讴賳賲 讴賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇 賴賲 鬲亘丿蹖賱卮 賲蹖 讴賳賴 亘賴 蹖賴 讴鬲丕亘賽 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 hand book
丕诏賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇蹖丿 卮賳丕禺鬲 讴賱蹖 賵噩丕賲毓賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 亘夭乇诏蹖 讴賴 卮丕蹖丿 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 丨蹖丕鬲 禺賵丿卮賵賳 賴賲 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮丿賳 亘乇爻蹖丿 賵 蹖丕 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賲亘丕乇夭賴 賴丕卮賵賳 亘乇丕蹖 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 賳馗乇卮賵賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖賴 爻乇賮氐賱 噩丿蹖丿 丿乇 賮賱爻賮賴 丌卮賳丕 亘卮蹖丿 . 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖 丿賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丨鬲賲丕 亘禺賵賳蹖丿 .
賲賳 丨鬲蹖 丕賱丕賳 賴賲 亘毓丿 賳夭丿蹖讴 1 爻丕賱 丕夭 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 诏丕賴蹖 讴賴 賱丕夭賲 亘丕卮賴 亘賴 蹖丕丿丕卮鬲 賴丕 賵 賳購鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丨蹖賳 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丿丕卮鬲賲 賲乇丕噩毓賴 賲蹖 讴賳賲 賵 丕夭卮賵賳 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖 讴賳賲 讴賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇 賴賲 鬲亘丿蹖賱卮 賲蹖 讴賳賴 亘賴 蹖賴 讴鬲丕亘賽 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 hand book
丕诏賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇蹖丿 卮賳丕禺鬲 讴賱蹖 賵噩丕賲毓賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 亘夭乇诏蹖 讴賴 卮丕蹖丿 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 丨蹖丕鬲 禺賵丿卮賵賳 賴賲 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮丿賳 亘乇爻蹖丿 賵 蹖丕 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賲亘丕乇夭賴 賴丕卮賵賳 亘乇丕蹖 鬲孬亘蹖鬲 賳馗乇卮賵賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖賴 爻乇賮氐賱 噩丿蹖丿 丿乇 賮賱爻賮賴 丌卮賳丕 亘卮蹖丿 . 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖 丿賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丨鬲賲丕 亘禺賵賳蹖丿 .
December 31, 2021
Made notes. Took an eternity. Halfway into Russell's History of Philosophy, I took up this one. T.Z. Lavine puts Russell to shame.
June 16, 2016
This was exactly the book I was looking for after years of aimlessly reading philosophy and being exposed to it only superficially in school. I was familiar with the thought of a few philosophers and had a very general chronology in my head, but I wanted to start a more serious study by first reading an overview of Western philosophy. This book was exactly that.
There are seven parts: Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Sartre, and Contemporary Philosophy. In between discussion of each man's philosophy are details about his life, the conflicts of his time and location, and how his thought both affected and was affected by these circumstances. Lavine transitions from one section to the next by using these details as well as including other philosophers as transitional figures; examples include Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Husserl. This was useful because it provided only the information necessary to understand a transition, but also gave the reader a specific name or movement or ideology to search for later if he or she would like more details.
The end of each section was useful in a similar way, including a list of books relevant to that section for further reading. These lists include both works by the person being discussed as well as books critiquing those works. At the end of the entire book is another list like this, a brief glossary, and an index. The book is also easy to read, obviously made for simple folk such as myself, and conveniently broken into many relatively short chapters, i.e. for those who are busy, it is a good book to read in many short sittings; it is not necessary to sit and read 50 pages consecutively to get an idea as seems to be the case with some philosophy books.
As I said, it was just what I was looking for. I am now using it as a branching off point, and will keep it to reference basic ideas I'm sure I will have forgotten.
There are seven parts: Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Sartre, and Contemporary Philosophy. In between discussion of each man's philosophy are details about his life, the conflicts of his time and location, and how his thought both affected and was affected by these circumstances. Lavine transitions from one section to the next by using these details as well as including other philosophers as transitional figures; examples include Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Husserl. This was useful because it provided only the information necessary to understand a transition, but also gave the reader a specific name or movement or ideology to search for later if he or she would like more details.
The end of each section was useful in a similar way, including a list of books relevant to that section for further reading. These lists include both works by the person being discussed as well as books critiquing those works. At the end of the entire book is another list like this, a brief glossary, and an index. The book is also easy to read, obviously made for simple folk such as myself, and conveniently broken into many relatively short chapters, i.e. for those who are busy, it is a good book to read in many short sittings; it is not necessary to sit and read 50 pages consecutively to get an idea as seems to be the case with some philosophy books.
As I said, it was just what I was looking for. I am now using it as a branching off point, and will keep it to reference basic ideas I'm sure I will have forgotten.
July 21, 2017
賲賴賲丕 賳囟噩鬲 賵鬲賯丿賲鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丕鬲 賱丕 亘丿 兀賳 鬲噩丿 噩匕賵乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 貙 賵丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰匕賱賰 賱丕亘丿 兀賳 鬲噩丿 賮賷 毓乇賵賯賴賲 亘賯丕賷丕 爻賯乇丕胤 貙 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 貙 賵丕乇爻胤賵 貙 賵賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賷毓賵丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賮囟賱 賱鬲賯丿賲賴賲 廿賱賶 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲丕賯亘賱 爻賯乇丕胤 .
賴賰匕丕 賴賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 鬲賯丿賲 兀賵 丨乇賰丞 賲爻鬲賲乇丞 貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賱賲 鬲亘丿兀 賲賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 貙 賱丕 亘丿 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賮賰乇丞 兀賵 亘匕乇丞 鬲賳胤賱賯 賲賳賴丕 貙 賵丕賱毓賵丿丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賵乇丕亍 噩賷賱 亘毓丿 噩賷賱 賱賲毓乇賮丞 賲賰丕賳 丕賵 夭賲丕賳 廿賳亘孬丕賯 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賴匕丕 兀賲乇 氐毓亘 噩丿賸丕 貙 賵賲賳 賷賯賵賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 亘丿兀鬲 賲毓 丕賱兀睾乇賷賯 兀賵 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 賴賵 賲禺胤兀 丨鬲賲賸丕 .
賵賲賳 賷賯賵賱 賴賳丕賱賰 賮賱爻賮丕鬲 賯丕賲鬲 亘丕賱鬲丨賱賷賯 貙 亘毓賷丿賸丕 毓賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 貙 兀賯賵賱 賱賴 賳毓賲 貙 賱賰賳賴丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 賯丿 氐賳毓鬲 胤丕卅乇鬲賴丕 賮賵賯 賴匕賴 丕賱兀乇囟 丕賱鬲賷 卮購賷丿鬲 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱兀爻亘賯賷賳 .
賷亘丿兀 乇丨賱鬲丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丕睾乇賷賯賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 貙 賵賴賵 噩丕賴賱賸丕 賴賱 賰丕賳鬲 賴賳丕賱賰 賮賱爻賮丕鬲 賯亘賱賴丕 兀賲 賱丕 貙 賵賴匕丕 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賲 賷丨爻賲 亘爻賴賵賱丞 貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 亘丿兀鬲 賲毓 爻賯乇丕胤 賴匕賴 賲毓賱賵賲丞 禺丕胤卅丞 貙 賴賳丕賱賰 丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賷賳 賵丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱匕賷賳 賷胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴賲 賲丕 賯亘賱 爻賯乇丕胤 . 賮鬲賳鬲賴賷 丕賱乇丨賱丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 賵鬲丨丿賷丿賸丕 毓賳丿 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷 噩丕賳 亘賵賱 爻丕乇鬲乇 .
毓丕乇囟賸丕 賱賳丕 兀賴賲 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵鬲兀孬賷乇賴賲 毓賱賶 賰賱 毓氐乇
丕爻賱賵亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵亘爻賷胤 貙 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱匕賷賳 賱賲 賷丿乇爻賵丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 丕賱廿胤賱丕毓 毓賱賷丞 賵賲毓乇賮丞 賵賮賴賲 賲丕亘丿丕禺賱丞 貙 毓賰爻 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱丕禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱噩賮丕賮 .
December 30, 2015
唳唳多唳氞唳む唳� 唳︵Π唰嵿Χ唳� 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳� 唳撪Κ唳� 唳忇唳� 唳忇Ξ唳� 唳忇唳熰 唳, 唳唳熰 唳︵Π唰嵿Χ唳ㄠ唳� 唳唳膏唳む唳む, 唳︵唳班唳多Θ唳苦唳︵唳� 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳唳Θ唳距唰� 唳む唳侧 唳оΠ唰� 唳忇唰囙Π 唳Π 唳忇 唳曕Π唰�, 唳忇Μ唳� 唳膏唳椸唳侧唳� 唳唰嵿Ψ唰� 唳唳唰嵿Ψ唰� 唳涏唳佮Α唳监 唳︵唳 唳膏唳� 唳膏Ξ唳唰囙Π 唳唳班唳曕唳粪唳唰� 唳呧Ω唳傕唰嵿Ο 唳唳班Χ唰嵿Θ, 唳唳椸唳侧 唳唳犩唳曕 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳 唳嗋唰嵿唳ㄠ唳� 唳曕Π唰囙イ 唳唳班Δ唳苦唳� 唳唳粪唳犩 唳Α唳监唳� 唳Π 唳唳犩唰囙Π 唳Ο唳监Ω 唳唳∴唳む 唳ム唳曕, 唳唳∴唳む唳� 唳ム唳曕, 唳む唳� 唳Θ唰� 唳唳班Χ唰嵿Θ 唳溹Ξ唳� 唳灌Δ唰囙 唳ム唳曕, 唳呧Μ唳多唳粪 唳唳熰 唳多唳� 唳灌Ο唳�, 唳唳犩 唳呧Θ唰佮Ν唳� 唳曕Π唰� 唳む唳� 唳灌唳︵Ο唳监 唳唳班唳 唳む唳� 唳灌唳溹唳� 唳唳班唳� "Human spirit" 唳忇Π 唳唳曕唳多唳� 唳忇唳熰 唳澿Σ唳� 唳膏 唳︵唳栢Δ唰� 唳唳唰囙唰囙イ
唳忇 唳澿Σ唳曕唳距唰� 唳Π唰嵿Ξ唰� 唳呧Θ唰佮Ν唳� 唳曕Π唳距Θ唰嬥Π 唳溹Θ唰嵿Ο唰� 唳犩唳� 唳唳Θ 唳Π唰嵿Γ唳ㄠ唳唰嵿唳� 唳ム唳曕 唳唳班Ο唳监唳溹Θ, 唳︵Π唰嵿Χ唳ㄠ唳� 唳Δ唰� 唳嗋Κ唳距Δ唳︵唳粪唳熰唳む 唳曕唳犩唰嬥唰嵿唳� 唳忇唳熰 唳唳粪Ο唳监唰� 唳膏唳侧唳栢 唳椸Σ唰嵿Κ唳曕唳班唳� 唳Δ唰� 唳む唳侧 唳оΠ唳距Π 唳溹Θ唰嵿Ο唰� 唳犩唳� 唳唳Θ唳唳 唳唳犩唳曕 唳熰唳ㄠ 唳ㄠ唳唳� 唳唳班Ο唳监唳溹Θ, 唳唳� 唳侧唳唳唳� 唳犩唳� 唳膏唳唳唳� 唳曕唳溹唳� 唳曕Π唰囙唰囙Θ啷�
唳� 唳唳唰� 唳呧Θ唰囙 唳曕唳涏唳曕唳� 唳膏唳Π唰嵿Χ 唳曕Π唳� 唳灌Ο唳监唳涏, 唳唳班Δ唳苦唳� 唳︵唳班唳多Θ唳苦唰囙Π 唳膏Ξ唳唳曕唳侧 唳膏唳多唳侧唳粪唳� 唳唳栢Γ唰嵿Α唰囙Π 唳呧Μ唳膏唳ム, 唳膏唳栢唳ㄠ唳距Π 唳唳班唳侧唳� 唳班唳溹Θ唰堗Δ唳苦-唳呧Π唰嵿Ε唳ㄠ唳む唳� 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳о唳班, 唳唳唳侧Μ-唳唳曕唳粪唳唳� 唳唳唳啷�
唳忇 唳唳熰 唳Α唳监Σ唰� 唳嗋Κ唳ㄠ 唳溹唳ㄠΔ唰� 唳唳班Μ唰囙Θ: 唳溹唳炧唳� 唳唳溹唳炧唳ㄠ唳� 唳唳班Δ唳苦唳� 唳多唳栢 唳唳班Χ唳距唳� 唳曕唳唳 唳Π唳Π唰嵿Δ唰€唳む 唳忇唰� 唳呧Θ唰嵿Ο唰囙Π 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳о唳班 唳曕 唳唳班Ν唳距Μ唳苦Δ 唳曕Π唰囙イ
唳唳佮Π唳� 唳︵Π唰嵿Χ唳� 唳ㄠ唳唰� 唳唳Δ唰� 唳唳侧唳唳膏唳�, 唳呧Ε唳 唳唳Δ唰� 唳氞唳�, 唳む唳佮Ζ唰囙Π 唳溹Θ唰嵿Ο 唳呧Μ唳多唳Κ唳距唰嵿Ο啷�
唳忇 唳澿Σ唳曕唳距唰� 唳Π唰嵿Ξ唰� 唳呧Θ唰佮Ν唳� 唳曕Π唳距Θ唰嬥Π 唳溹Θ唰嵿Ο唰� 唳犩唳� 唳唳Θ 唳Π唰嵿Γ唳ㄠ唳唰嵿唳� 唳ム唳曕 唳唳班Ο唳监唳溹Θ, 唳︵Π唰嵿Χ唳ㄠ唳� 唳Δ唰� 唳嗋Κ唳距Δ唳︵唳粪唳熰唳む 唳曕唳犩唰嬥唰嵿唳� 唳忇唳熰 唳唳粪Ο唳监唰� 唳膏唳侧唳栢 唳椸Σ唰嵿Κ唳曕唳班唳� 唳Δ唰� 唳む唳侧 唳оΠ唳距Π 唳溹Θ唰嵿Ο唰� 唳犩唳� 唳唳Θ唳唳 唳唳犩唳曕 唳熰唳ㄠ 唳ㄠ唳唳� 唳唳班Ο唳监唳溹Θ, 唳唳� 唳侧唳唳唳� 唳犩唳� 唳膏唳唳唳� 唳曕唳溹唳� 唳曕Π唰囙唰囙Θ啷�
唳� 唳唳唰� 唳呧Θ唰囙 唳曕唳涏唳曕唳� 唳膏唳Π唰嵿Χ 唳曕Π唳� 唳灌Ο唳监唳涏, 唳唳班Δ唳苦唳� 唳︵唳班唳多Θ唳苦唰囙Π 唳膏Ξ唳唳曕唳侧 唳膏唳多唳侧唳粪唳� 唳唳栢Γ唰嵿Α唰囙Π 唳呧Μ唳膏唳ム, 唳膏唳栢唳ㄠ唳距Π 唳唳班唳侧唳� 唳班唳溹Θ唰堗Δ唳苦-唳呧Π唰嵿Ε唳ㄠ唳む唳� 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳о唳班, 唳唳唳侧Μ-唳唳曕唳粪唳唳� 唳唳唳啷�
唳忇 唳唳熰 唳Α唳监Σ唰� 唳嗋Κ唳ㄠ 唳溹唳ㄠΔ唰� 唳唳班Μ唰囙Θ: 唳溹唳炧唳� 唳唳溹唳炧唳ㄠ唳� 唳唳班Δ唳苦唳� 唳多唳栢 唳唳班Χ唳距唳� 唳曕唳唳 唳Π唳Π唰嵿Δ唰€唳む 唳忇唰� 唳呧Θ唰嵿Ο唰囙Π 唳氞唳ㄠ唳む唳о唳班 唳曕 唳唳班Ν唳距Μ唳苦Δ 唳曕Π唰囙イ
唳唳佮Π唳� 唳︵Π唰嵿Χ唳� 唳ㄠ唳唰� 唳唳Δ唰� 唳唳侧唳唳膏唳�, 唳呧Ε唳 唳唳Δ唰� 唳氞唳�, 唳む唳佮Ζ唰囙Π 唳溹Θ唰嵿Ο 唳呧Μ唳多唳Κ唳距唰嵿Ο啷�
June 5, 2011
I've never read a book that synthesizes so well the different philosophic currents that have existed throughout the ages, and somehow manages to keep them valid from a contemporary point of view at the same time. Thanks to that, I now understand Hume and Hegel much better than I did before. There's also this feeling of urgency that can be perceived as you read, this constant reminder that there's plenty of basis for new philosophies to be born, and that there's even an urgent need for them, since there are only destructive forces nowadays, such as Phenomenology and Linguistic philosophy.
Urgency in philosophy, can you believe that?
The one thing I didn't like about it was how it completely glossed over Schopenhauer, and how it paired up Nietzsche with the Existentialists (those douches).
Urgency in philosophy, can you believe that?
The one thing I didn't like about it was how it completely glossed over Schopenhauer, and how it paired up Nietzsche with the Existentialists (those douches).
February 23, 2024
讴鬲丕亘 乇丕丨鬲 賵 噩賲毓 賵 噩賵乇蹖賴.
December 26, 2019
T.Z. Lavine's From Socrates to Sartre is a relatively short history of philosophy that discusses the primary facets of the philosophies of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, and Sartre. These thinkers are connected and strung together via a narrative according to their cultural, political, historical circumstances as well as their ideas.
This book serves as a wonderful collection of highlights and viewpoints of its primary subjects and can be treated as a study guide to readers unfamiliar with philosophy. The text also works well as a brush up for those who are already familiar major philosophical figures. The chapter on Karl Marx is the book's best, and Hegel is treated much better here than in Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, but there are notable shortcomings: Aristotle is distilled to only a few pages, leaving the reader bereft of his historical influence on philosophy hundreds of years after his death; there is no discussion of medieval philosophy, which served as an extension of Aristotle's thought and a catalyst to the Enlightenment of Descartes, et al; and the book's treatment of phenomenology (in particular glossing over Heidegger's tremendous contributions to philosophy and casting them merely as existentialist thought) is sorely wanting. Also, the author's assessment of analytic philosophy's role in modern society is inaccurately measured, and she misses an important opportunity to link linguistic philosophy due to Wittgenstein (derived from the analytic tradition) to important, related work conducted in the Continental tradition a la Heidegger.
However, these shortcomings do little to detract from the work as a whole. The reader may not find anywhere else a more succinct, cogent summary of the primary philosophers discussed therein. Unlike Russell but very much like Flew, Lavine keeps bias at a minimum.
Upon completing the book, one wonders at the other narrative paths Lavine could have taken, other towering figures to focus on. Her narrative, both thoughtful and brilliant, takes the following path: First, a foundation is provided in the ancient tradition by covering Plato -- effectively where all Western philosophy gets its roots -- second, she shifts to the rationalism introduced by Descartes. Third, rationalism is contrasted with the empiricism of Hume. So far, so good, but Lavine throws in a curve ball on the fourth step. Instead of going straight to Kant from Hume, which is typical, she skips to Hegel, who laid the foundation for Marxism, who in turn made an impact on Sartre and all of the 20th century.
Now, Lavine could have chosen Kant instead of Hegel and Bergson, Heidegger, or even William James instead of Sartre, but she decided to focus the latter half of the book on Hegel's lingering influence and on existentialism, a topic of literature more than philosophy today. This choice may be disappointing to some, since Sartre's contemporary influence is minimal and pales in comparison to other existentialists such as Camus or de Beauvoir or larger Continental figures such as Derrida. But I suspect this boils down to personal taste.
In short, if you are ignorant of philosophy or already well informed, this easily digestible introduction is worth your consideration.
This book serves as a wonderful collection of highlights and viewpoints of its primary subjects and can be treated as a study guide to readers unfamiliar with philosophy. The text also works well as a brush up for those who are already familiar major philosophical figures. The chapter on Karl Marx is the book's best, and Hegel is treated much better here than in Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, but there are notable shortcomings: Aristotle is distilled to only a few pages, leaving the reader bereft of his historical influence on philosophy hundreds of years after his death; there is no discussion of medieval philosophy, which served as an extension of Aristotle's thought and a catalyst to the Enlightenment of Descartes, et al; and the book's treatment of phenomenology (in particular glossing over Heidegger's tremendous contributions to philosophy and casting them merely as existentialist thought) is sorely wanting. Also, the author's assessment of analytic philosophy's role in modern society is inaccurately measured, and she misses an important opportunity to link linguistic philosophy due to Wittgenstein (derived from the analytic tradition) to important, related work conducted in the Continental tradition a la Heidegger.
However, these shortcomings do little to detract from the work as a whole. The reader may not find anywhere else a more succinct, cogent summary of the primary philosophers discussed therein. Unlike Russell but very much like Flew, Lavine keeps bias at a minimum.
Upon completing the book, one wonders at the other narrative paths Lavine could have taken, other towering figures to focus on. Her narrative, both thoughtful and brilliant, takes the following path: First, a foundation is provided in the ancient tradition by covering Plato -- effectively where all Western philosophy gets its roots -- second, she shifts to the rationalism introduced by Descartes. Third, rationalism is contrasted with the empiricism of Hume. So far, so good, but Lavine throws in a curve ball on the fourth step. Instead of going straight to Kant from Hume, which is typical, she skips to Hegel, who laid the foundation for Marxism, who in turn made an impact on Sartre and all of the 20th century.
Now, Lavine could have chosen Kant instead of Hegel and Bergson, Heidegger, or even William James instead of Sartre, but she decided to focus the latter half of the book on Hegel's lingering influence and on existentialism, a topic of literature more than philosophy today. This choice may be disappointing to some, since Sartre's contemporary influence is minimal and pales in comparison to other existentialists such as Camus or de Beauvoir or larger Continental figures such as Derrida. But I suspect this boils down to personal taste.
In short, if you are ignorant of philosophy or already well informed, this easily digestible introduction is worth your consideration.
November 26, 2020
賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 趩賴 賲毓賳丕爻鬲責 讴丕乇讴乇丿 賮賱爻賮賴 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘卮乇 趩蹖爻鬲責 趩乇丕 亘丕蹖丿 爻蹖乇 賮賱爻賮賴 乇丕 丕夭 丌睾丕夭 鬲丕 丕讴賳賵賳 賲胤丕賱毓賴 讴乇丿 責 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丿丕賳卮 丿賵爻鬲蹖 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 倬乇爻卮 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 丕爻丕爻蹖 賵 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘卮乇. 賮賱爻賮蹖丿賳 蹖丕 賮賱爻賮賴 賵乇夭蹖 賲蹖賱 亘賴 鬲賮讴乇 賵 賱匕鬲 丕賳丿蹖卮丿賳 丕爻鬲 賵 胤乇丨 倬乇爻卮 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 诏賵蹖丕 鬲賲丕賲蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 匕賴賳 賮賱爻賮蹖 亘丕 丕蹖噩丕丿 倬乇爻卮 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 丿乇 倬蹖 倬丕爻禺 賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖诏乇丿丿 讴賴 诏丕賴丕 賲鬲囟丕丿 賴賲丿蹖诏乇賳丿. 賵 丕蹖賳 鬲囟丕丿 亘丕毓孬 丕蹖噩丕丿 賮囟丕蹖蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 賲蹖 卮賵丿 讴賴 爻亘亘 乇卮丿 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 賲蹖 卮賵丿 讴賴 丿賵爻鬲丿丕乇 蹖丕賮鬲賳 蹖讴 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賴 賴爻鬲賳丿.
賮賱爻賮賴 趩诏賵賳賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮禺氐 乇丕 乇丕丨鬲 鬲乇 讴賳丿責 丌蹖丕 丕氐賱丕 賴丿賮 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖丕賮鬲賳 乇丕賴讴丕乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴賲鬲乇 乇賳噩 讴卮蹖丿賳 賲丕爻鬲責
賲賴丿 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 爻賯乇丕胤 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘丕乇 亘丕 胤乇丨 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 爻丕丿賴 鬲賮讴乇丕鬲 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 賲乇丿賲 毓丕丿蹖 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 亘乇丿 鬲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 賮賱爻賮蹖丿賳 賵丕 丿丕乇丿.
賮賱丕爻賮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘丕 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賴丕蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 賵 丕夭 賳賯胤賴 賳馗乇 禺賵丿 亘賴 賴爻鬲蹖貙 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲丕 亘賴 丕讴賳賵賳 賱丕蹖賳丨賱 賲蹖 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 乇丕賴讴丕乇 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖 丿丕丿賳丿. 賳馗乇丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘丕 賮賱爻賮賴 賴丕蹖 丕乇丕卅賴 卮丿賴 賯亘賱蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 賵 卮丕蹖丿 丨鬲丕 賲鬲囟丕丿 亘賵丿賳丿.
丕诏乇 亘賴 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕亘乇 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 噩賵丕亘 鬲賲丕賲 爻賵丕賱 賴丕 乇丕 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 乇賳噩 亘卮乇 乇丕 讴賲 讴賳賳丿 賳诏丕賴 讴賳蹖賲貙 賳诏丕賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 賵 禺丕賲蹖 丕爻鬲.
賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲 亘丕 丿賳亘丕賱 讴乇丿賳 蹖讴 乇賵卮 鬲賲丕賲 诏乇賴 賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘卮乇 亘丕夭 卮賵丿. 丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁� 丕丿毓丕 讴賳賲 亘丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 爻蹖乇 賮賱爻賮賴 丕夭 丌睾丕夭 鬲丕 丕讴賳賵賳 賵 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 賯胤毓丕鬲 倬丕夭賱 讴賳丕乇 賴賲 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 诏乇趩賴 賳丕賵丕囟丨 丕賲丕 丿乇爻鬲蹖 亘乇爻蹖賲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮賵丿 丕賳丿讴蹖 鬲爻賱蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲.
賴蹖趩 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 噩賵丕亘 讴丕賲賱 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖鬲 賳禺賵丕賴丿 丿丕卮鬲. 丕蹖賳 賴賳乇 賲丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 丌賳 鬲讴賴 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 毓賯丕蹖丿 卮丕賳 乇丕 讴賴 賲賳丕爻亘 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿賲丕賳 丕爻鬲 亘乇丿丕乇蹖賲 鬲丕 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 亘賴鬲乇蹖 诏乇趩賴 賳丕賵丕囟丨 丕爻鬲 亘乇爻蹖賲. 賵 亘丿丕賳蹖賲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賯丕亘 讴丕賲賱 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿...
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 爻賯乇丕胤 鬲丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿. 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 丕蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴. 賵 亘丕 丿蹖丿蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 亘賴 毓賯丕蹖丿 卮丕賳 賳诏丕賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 賵 亘丕 囟毓賮 賵 賯賵鬲 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 卮丕賳 丌卮賳丕蹖鬲 賲蹖 讴賳丿.
倬爻...
1. 亘丕 丿賳亘丕賱 讴乇丿賳 毓賯丕蹖丿 蹖讴 賳賮乇 丕夭 丌賳賴丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃� 亘賴 噩賵丕亘 亘乇爻蹖.( 讴賱賳 鬲丕賲 賵 鬲賲丕賲 丿賳亘丕賱 讴乇丿賳 蹖讴 毓賯蹖丿賴 賵 蹖讴 丌丿賲 禺胤乇賳丕讴 丕爻鬲)
2. 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 賲丕賳賳丿 蹖讴 夭賳噩蹖乇賴 蹖丕 蹖讴 倬蹖讴乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲鬲氐賱 亘賴賲 丕賳丿. 倬爻 亘丕蹖丿 亘丕 丌乇丕 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿 鬲賲丕賲卮丕賳 丌卮賳丕 卮賵蹖賲 賵 亘丿賵賳 鬲毓氐亘 爻毓蹖 讴賳蹖賲 亘賴 讴賱蹖鬲蹖 賲賵夭賵賳 賵 賲鬲賵丕夭賳 丿爻鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲.
3. 丿乇 丌禺乇 丕氐賱丕 趩賴 丿賱蹖賱蹖 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇 趩蹖夭蹖 爻賵丕賱 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 丿賴蹖賲 賵 丿乇 倬蹖 噩賵丕亘 亘丕卮蹖賲責 :))))
賵 丿乇 丌禺乇 卮丕蹖丿 乇丕賴 丨賱 賳賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲貙 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲貙 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲 丕賲丕 賲鬲賴 亘賴 禺卮禺丕卮 賳诏匕丕乇蹖賲 :)
賮賱爻賮賴 趩诏賵賳賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮禺氐 乇丕 乇丕丨鬲 鬲乇 讴賳丿責 丌蹖丕 丕氐賱丕 賴丿賮 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖丕賮鬲賳 乇丕賴讴丕乇蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴賲鬲乇 乇賳噩 讴卮蹖丿賳 賲丕爻鬲責
賲賴丿 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲. 爻賯乇丕胤 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵賱蹖賳 亘丕乇 亘丕 胤乇丨 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 爻丕丿賴 鬲賮讴乇丕鬲 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 賲乇丿賲 毓丕丿蹖 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 亘乇丿 鬲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 賮賱爻賮蹖丿賳 賵丕 丿丕乇丿.
賮賱丕爻賮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘丕 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賴丕蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 賵 丕夭 賳賯胤賴 賳馗乇 禺賵丿 亘賴 賴爻鬲蹖貙 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲丕 亘賴 丕讴賳賵賳 賱丕蹖賳丨賱 賲蹖 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 乇丕賴讴丕乇 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖 丿丕丿賳丿. 賳馗乇丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘丕 賮賱爻賮賴 賴丕蹖 丕乇丕卅賴 卮丿賴 賯亘賱蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 賵 卮丕蹖丿 丨鬲丕 賲鬲囟丕丿 亘賵丿賳丿.
丕诏乇 亘賴 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕亘乇 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 噩賵丕亘 鬲賲丕賲 爻賵丕賱 賴丕 乇丕 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁嗀� 乇賳噩 亘卮乇 乇丕 讴賲 讴賳賳丿 賳诏丕賴 讴賳蹖賲貙 賳诏丕賴 丕卮鬲亘丕賴 賵 禺丕賲蹖 丕爻鬲.
賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲 亘丕 丿賳亘丕賱 讴乇丿賳 蹖讴 乇賵卮 鬲賲丕賲 诏乇賴 賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘卮乇 亘丕夭 卮賵丿. 丕賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗁� 丕丿毓丕 讴賳賲 亘丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 爻蹖乇 賮賱爻賮賴 丕夭 丌睾丕夭 鬲丕 丕讴賳賵賳 賵 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 賯胤毓丕鬲 倬丕夭賱 讴賳丕乇 賴賲 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 诏乇趩賴 賳丕賵丕囟丨 丕賲丕 丿乇爻鬲蹖 亘乇爻蹖賲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮賵丿 丕賳丿讴蹖 鬲爻賱蹖 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲.
賴蹖趩 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 噩賵丕亘 讴丕賲賱 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖鬲 賳禺賵丕賴丿 丿丕卮鬲. 丕蹖賳 賴賳乇 賲丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 丌賳 鬲讴賴 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 毓賯丕蹖丿 卮丕賳 乇丕 讴賴 賲賳丕爻亘 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿賲丕賳 丕爻鬲 亘乇丿丕乇蹖賲 鬲丕 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 亘賴鬲乇蹖 诏乇趩賴 賳丕賵丕囟丨 丕爻鬲 亘乇爻蹖賲. 賵 亘丿丕賳蹖賲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賯丕亘 讴丕賲賱 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿...
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 爻賯乇丕胤 鬲丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿. 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 丕蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賴賲賴. 賵 亘丕 丿蹖丿蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 亘賴 毓賯丕蹖丿 卮丕賳 賳诏丕賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 賵 亘丕 囟毓賮 賵 賯賵鬲 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 卮丕賳 丌卮賳丕蹖鬲 賲蹖 讴賳丿.
倬爻...
1. 亘丕 丿賳亘丕賱 讴乇丿賳 毓賯丕蹖丿 蹖讴 賳賮乇 丕夭 丌賳賴丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃� 亘賴 噩賵丕亘 亘乇爻蹖.( 讴賱賳 鬲丕賲 賵 鬲賲丕賲 丿賳亘丕賱 讴乇丿賳 蹖讴 毓賯蹖丿賴 賵 蹖讴 丌丿賲 禺胤乇賳丕讴 丕爻鬲)
2. 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 賲丕賳賳丿 蹖讴 夭賳噩蹖乇賴 蹖丕 蹖讴 倬蹖讴乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲鬲氐賱 亘賴賲 丕賳丿. 倬爻 亘丕蹖丿 亘丕 丌乇丕 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿 鬲賲丕賲卮丕賳 丌卮賳丕 卮賵蹖賲 賵 亘丿賵賳 鬲毓氐亘 爻毓蹖 讴賳蹖賲 亘賴 讴賱蹖鬲蹖 賲賵夭賵賳 賵 賲鬲賵丕夭賳 丿爻鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲.
3. 丿乇 丌禺乇 丕氐賱丕 趩賴 丿賱蹖賱蹖 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇 趩蹖夭蹖 爻賵丕賱 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 丿賴蹖賲 賵 丿乇 倬蹖 噩賵丕亘 亘丕卮蹖賲責 :))))
賵 丿乇 丌禺乇 卮丕蹖丿 乇丕賴 丨賱 賳賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲貙 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲貙 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲 丕賲丕 賲鬲賴 亘賴 禺卮禺丕卮 賳诏匕丕乇蹖賲 :)
July 24, 2018
A unique and insightful book that adds a relevant inquiry to Western Philosophy from a modern point of view. I love how one book can have between its covers the thought history of thousands of years!
What I liked most:
1- The author considered the personal life of each philosopher tackled, and how it affected his own philosophy. They were all the "children of their time."
2- She added a list of useful further readings and all books written by the philosopher at the end of every section of the book.
3- She doesn't merely state the schools of thought of different philosophers. More importantly, she adds the criticism directed at their ideas, and aims to answer: "In what way do we relate in the 21st century to their ideologies and perceptions?"
I enjoyed the journey from Socrates to Modernism!
What I liked most:
1- The author considered the personal life of each philosopher tackled, and how it affected his own philosophy. They were all the "children of their time."
2- She added a list of useful further readings and all books written by the philosopher at the end of every section of the book.
3- She doesn't merely state the schools of thought of different philosophers. More importantly, she adds the criticism directed at their ideas, and aims to answer: "In what way do we relate in the 21st century to their ideologies and perceptions?"
I enjoyed the journey from Socrates to Modernism!
December 1, 2018
I hope that none of my fellow dedicated readers and 欧宝娱乐 friends will think less of me, because I have to admit that this book was totally and completely over my head, uninteresting, and a cumbersome, painful, super boring reading experience that has actually wanted me to beg off reading anymore general philosophy books, or most appropriately monikered TOMES in the future. This was a waste of my time.
Unless you are super interested in the discipline of philosophy, BEWARE before you start this one, and maybe find something else (almost anything else) to read.
I also want to note that if you scroll through my "Read" books (and my list is very long) list that it is very, very rare that I use a 1-star rating (and even 2-star ratings relatively infrequently).
Sorry to offend anyone who has read this book and liked it, but I HATED it.
OK, Folks, 'nuff said. You get the point.
Unless you are super interested in the discipline of philosophy, BEWARE before you start this one, and maybe find something else (almost anything else) to read.
I also want to note that if you scroll through my "Read" books (and my list is very long) list that it is very, very rare that I use a 1-star rating (and even 2-star ratings relatively infrequently).
Sorry to offend anyone who has read this book and liked it, but I HATED it.
OK, Folks, 'nuff said. You get the point.
November 12, 2019
This was a required text when I was getting my undergrad. It was in my Intro to Philosophy class, and I really enjoyed the broad spectrum of philosophy over time it provided. It gives a good overview of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Sartre. I later took on Philosophy as my second major and ended up having some second thoughts about my appraisal. First, it does not include Aristotle, which I think is essential to philosophical study, particularly if presenting a broad foundation of Plato. It also skips over Nietzsche, which I also think is essential. That being said, it's a good read, taking some pretty heady material and making it comprehensible. Recommended!
October 29, 2008
A great reference for beginners in philosophic inquiry.
It was very readable and filled with information and clarity. The primary philosophers addressed here are Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Sartre. However the contemporaries of those just mentioned are presented with great detail as well.
It is a book that should be read in high school. My opinion is that philosophy should be mandatory cirriculum to Juniors and/or Seniors, but I digress, this book certainly educated me on the pervading waves of thought throughout (Western) history.
It was very readable and filled with information and clarity. The primary philosophers addressed here are Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Sartre. However the contemporaries of those just mentioned are presented with great detail as well.
It is a book that should be read in high school. My opinion is that philosophy should be mandatory cirriculum to Juniors and/or Seniors, but I digress, this book certainly educated me on the pervading waves of thought throughout (Western) history.
February 16, 2015
兀賵賱 鬲噩乇亘丞 賲毓 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵 賴鬲鬲賰乇乇 賰鬲賷乇 賵 爻毓賷丿 噩丿丕賸 廿賳賷 賮鬲丨鬲 丕賱亘丕亘 丿賴 .
胤乇賷賯丞 毓乇囟 丕賱賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 丕賱賱賷 亘賷賯丿賲賴 賱丕賮賷賳 毓賳 毓賲丕賱賯丞 賮賶 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 鬲賯丿乇 鬲鬲賮賴賲 亘賰賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 賵 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 貙 賲賰賳鬲卮 賲丨鬲丕噩 禺賱賮賷丞 毓賱賲賷丞 毓賳 丕賱賱賷 賴賯乇丕賴 貙 賰賱 丕賱賱賷 賴鬲丨鬲丕噩賴 丕賳賰 鬲爻賱賲 毓賯賱賰 賱毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 亘賷賳丕賯卮賵丕 賯囟丕賷丕 賰亘賷乇丞 鬲賴賲賰 賮賶 丨賷丕鬲賰 .
賰賳鬲 賮賶 賯賲丞 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賱賲丕 賯乇賷鬲 毓賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵 丿賷賰丕乇鬲 賵 賱賯賷鬲 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賷 賯乇賷亘丞 噩丿丕賸 賲賳賴賲 .
胤乇賷賯丞 毓乇囟 丕賱賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷 丕賱賱賷 亘賷賯丿賲賴 賱丕賮賷賳 毓賳 毓賲丕賱賯丞 賮賶 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 鬲賯丿乇 鬲鬲賮賴賲 亘賰賱 丕賱賲爻鬲賵賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 賵 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 貙 賲賰賳鬲卮 賲丨鬲丕噩 禺賱賮賷丞 毓賱賲賷丞 毓賳 丕賱賱賷 賴賯乇丕賴 貙 賰賱 丕賱賱賷 賴鬲丨鬲丕噩賴 丕賳賰 鬲爻賱賲 毓賯賱賰 賱毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 亘賷賳丕賯卮賵丕 賯囟丕賷丕 賰亘賷乇丞 鬲賴賲賰 賮賶 丨賷丕鬲賰 .
賰賳鬲 賮賶 賯賲丞 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賱賲丕 賯乇賷鬲 毓賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵 丿賷賰丕乇鬲 賵 賱賯賷鬲 胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賷 賯乇賷亘丞 噩丿丕賸 賲賳賴賲 .
July 30, 2019
丕亘鬲丿丕亍丕賸 賲賳 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲賲孬賱 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 亘丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱亘卮乇賷 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵毓氐賵乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 賵丕賳鬲賴丕亍賸 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 丨賷孬 爻丕乇鬲乇 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 賴丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘胤乇賷賯丞 丕丿亘賷丞 爻賱爻賱丞 賵賲賲鬲毓丞 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱賮賰乇賷 賲賳匕 丕賰丕丿賷賲賷丞 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵丨鬲賶 丕賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵丕賱賮賱爻賮丕鬲 丕賱丨乇丞 賲鬲賳丕賵賱 丕爻賲丕亍 賲賴賲丞 賲孬賱 丿賷賰丕乇鬲 賵丕乇爻胤賵 爻丕乇鬲乇 賵鬲賵賲丕
賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵睾賳賷 賵爻賴賱 丕賱丕爻賱賵亘
賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵睾賳賷 賵爻賴賱 丕賱丕爻賱賵亘
April 25, 2017
乇賵丕蹖鬲蹖 爻賱蹖爻 賵 趩卮賲 賳賵丕夭 丕乇 丨乇讴鬲 鬲賮讴乇 賮賱爻賮蹖 丿乇 爻蹖乇蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賵 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 卮賲丕 乇丕 亘丕 丿賳蹖丕蹖 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 丌卮賳丕 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 亘賴 趩丕賱卮 讴卮蹖丿賳 鬲賮讴乇 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 讴丕賲賱丕 賲賵賮賯 賳蹖爻鬲 賵賱蹖 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賵蹖 賲蹖 诏匕丕乇丿 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 賲賵丕丿 禺丕賲 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賴丿丕蹖鬲 匕賴賳 亘賴 爻賵蹖 鬲毓賲賱丕鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖 丿丕賳爻鬲.
December 12, 2013
Forced to read as PHI 101 text book. I'm sure it's actually good for someone interested in the subject. It just wasn't for me.
August 30, 2014
One of two texts from my Philosophy class. The readings on Plato's Divided Line & David Hume alone make it worthwhile.
June 21, 2016
Insightful and interesting read
June 6, 2017
賮賷賴 賲乇丕噩毓 賰鬲賷乇 賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵賰賱賴丕 賯賷賲丞 賱賰賳 賲卮 亘丕賱爻賴賵賱丞 賵丕賱爻賱丕爻丞 丿賶 貙賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 賮毓賱丕 .
March 4, 2021
It's a great book, and makes a lot more sense than my other philosophy textbook, but it's still philosophy. I hate it. This is my personal opinion.
February 3, 2025
Excellent introduction to Philosophy! I鈥檓 sure much has happened since it was published (1984), but good enough to whet the appetite to proceed into deeper terrain.
March 27, 2020
Great general survey (still had it from Motter鈥檚 class senior year of high school). Puts into cogent (if not suspicious on those grounds) continuity the major figures and movements of western philosophy. I had read the sections on Plato and Descartes in high school, and apparently the chapter on Hegel this year (although none of it seemed familiar). I touched up on Aristotle and the transition from classical to scholastic and then the intro of modern philosophy. Was able to see better the relationship between Hume and Kant, Kant and Hegel. The sections on Marx and Logical Positivism/linguistic philosophy depressed me (the clear pitfalls and inadequacies of relying solely on empirical materialism to construct worldview, value and meaning), but the section on existentialism and a brief mention of American naturalism was reinvigorating. I鈥檓 planning on taking this momentum with me to finish Octavio Paz鈥檚 Children of the Mire and see how his vision of literature and modernism aligns or disagrees with the diagnosis and influence of existentialism.
September 7, 2020
I will quote the author's last line, "This book has tried to present each philosophic work as expressing the living spirit of a mortal human being". I feel the author has done that well. However, I felt the complexities of each philosopher seemed to have gaps in their true "path" of what they learned and stood for. There was amazing amounts of information but was this book a history of philosophers? - no, was it a full compendium of thought.. not really (but closer). Certainly the author had a tremendous ability to analyze the philosophers but the gaps in each one's conclusions were a bit frustrating for me. That might have been the philosophers themselves and not the writer/researcher.
The book was good in that it was detailed and that it left me with more questions than answers, but in a way that is not good. I certainly feel that I was underwhelmed with most of the philosophers and that is certainly not an indictment of the author or the work. The detail was impressive but the results a bit frustrating.
The book was good in that it was detailed and that it left me with more questions than answers, but in a way that is not good. I certainly feel that I was underwhelmed with most of the philosophers and that is certainly not an indictment of the author or the work. The detail was impressive but the results a bit frustrating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.