What do you think?
Rate this book
丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱: 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 廿賱賶 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞
賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞 丕賱亘丕乇夭丞 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱睾乇亘賷貙 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 兀賳鬲賵賳賷 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賲氐丕丿乇賴丕 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞貙 賵賷購禺囟賽毓 賯丿乇賸丕 賰亘賷乇賸丕 賲賳 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿賷丞 賱賱亘丨孬貙 賵賷賮爻乇 賲丕 鬲賵氐賻賾賱 廿賱賷賴 賲賳 賳鬲丕卅噩 亘亘乇丕毓丞 賵賵囟賵丨 賱丕 賷毓乇賮丕賳 丕賱賯賷賵丿貨 亘丿亍賸丕 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱爻丕亘賯賷賳 賱爻賯乇丕胤貙 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 賵兀乇爻胤賵貙 賵賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 兀氐丨丕亘 丕賱乇丐賶 賲賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 兀賲孬丕賱 廿乇丕爻賲賵爻. 鬲馗賴乇 芦丕賱賮賱爻賮丞禄 賴賳丕 賰馗丕賴乇丞 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷丨丿賴丕 賮乇毓 賵丕丨丿 賲賳 賮乇賵毓 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 亘賱 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 鈥� 賰賲丕 賷賵囟丨 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 鈥� 賮廿賳 兀賰孬乇 廿賳噩丕夭丕鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 孬賵乇賷丞賸 賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 爻乇賷毓賸丕 賲丕 噩乇賶 鬲亘賳賽賾賷賴丕 賲賳 噩丕賳亘 賮乇賵毓 賲毓乇賮賷丞 兀禺乇賶貙 賵賴賵 賲丕 兀丿賻賾賶 廿賱賶 禺賱賯 丕賱賵賴賲 亘兀賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賱丕 賷丨乇夭賵賳 兀賷 鬲賯丿賲 毓賱賶 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯. 廿賳 賰鬲丕亘丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 賲丕 賷夭賷丿 毓賱賶 兀賱賮賻賷 毓丕賲 賲賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賳噩丕夭 賴丕卅賱貙 賵賱賰賳 賰鬲丕亘丞 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賮賷 兀賯賱 賲賳 禺賲爻賲丕卅丞 氐賮丨丞 亘賱購睾丞 爻賱爻丞 賵亘丕乇毓丞 賲賴賲丞賹 兀氐毓亘 亘賰孬賷乇貨 賵賴匕丕 賴賵 賲丕 賳噩丨 兀賳鬲賵賳賷 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 賮賷 鬲丨賯賷賯賴 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 芦丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱禄 丕賱匕賷 賷乇卮丿 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賮賷 乇丨賱鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘丿兀 亘兀賵丕卅賱 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 賵丨鬲賶 賮賱丕爻賮丞 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 賯亘賱 丿賷賰丕乇鬲. 廿賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲卮乇賵毓 卮丿賷丿 丕賱胤賲賵丨 賷賯丿賽賾賲 氐賵乇丞 毓丕賲丞 賱賱賮賱爻賮丞貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賳賮爻賴丕 賴賷 賲丕 賳賮鬲賯丿賴 鈥� 賲毓 丕賱兀爻賮 鈥� 賮賷 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵毓.
460 pages, ebook
First published December 30, 2000
461 people are currently reading
5998 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Gottlieb
22听books135听followersAnthony Gottlieb is a British writer, former Executive Editor of The Economist, historian of ideas, and the author of The Dream of Reason. He was educated at Cambridge University and has held visiting fellowships at All Souls College, Oxford, and Harvard University. He has taught at the CUNY Graduate Center and the New School in New York, and been a visiting scholar at New York University and fellow at the Cullman Centre for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. He is a fellow of the New York Institute for the Humanities and the series editor of The Routledge Guides to the Great Books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews
August 21, 2017
賰鬲丕亘 丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱 賴賵 賵丕丨丿 賲賳 兀賲鬲毓 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲賯乇兀 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞貙 賰鬲亘賴 兀賳鬲賵賳賷 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 賵賳卮乇賴 賮賷 丕賱孬賱丕孬賷賳 賲賳 丿賷爻賲亘乇 毓丕賲 (2000). 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 噩夭亍 孬丕賳賷 賳購卮乇 賮賷 兀睾爻胤爻 2016 賵賱賲 賷鬲乇噩賲 廿賱賶 丕賱丌賳.
乇丨賱丞 賲匕賴賱丞 賵賲丿賴卮丞 賮賷 毓賵丕賱賲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘兀賮賰丕乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞.. 兀賳丕 兀丐賲賳 亘兀賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 鬲亘賳賷 賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵鬲噩毓賱賴 兀賰孬乇 鬲賯亘賱賸丕 賱賱丌乇丕亍 丨鬲賶 賱賵 賰賳鬲 鬲鬲毓丕乇囟 賲毓賴丕貙 賵賴賷 兀賲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賰賲丕 賳丿乇賰. 賲賳 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱毓丕賱賲 氐賵賮賷 賵兀賳丕 兀爻毓賶 賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀禺乇賶 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賱賶 兀賳 賵賯毓 賮賷 賷丿賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賲丕 兀乇賵毓賴!
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賯丕賱 毓乇囟 賲賵噩夭 賱賱賰鬲丕亘.
乇丨賱丞 賲匕賴賱丞 賵賲丿賴卮丞 賮賷 毓賵丕賱賲 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘兀賮賰丕乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞.. 兀賳丕 兀丐賲賳 亘兀賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 鬲亘賳賷 賮賰乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵鬲噩毓賱賴 兀賰孬乇 鬲賯亘賱賸丕 賱賱丌乇丕亍 丨鬲賶 賱賵 賰賳鬲 鬲鬲毓丕乇囟 賲毓賴丕貙 賵賴賷 兀賲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賰賲丕 賳丿乇賰. 賲賳 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱毓丕賱賲 氐賵賮賷 賵兀賳丕 兀爻毓賶 賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀禺乇賶 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賱賶 兀賳 賵賯毓 賮賷 賷丿賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賲丕 兀乇賵毓賴!
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賯丕賱 毓乇囟 賲賵噩夭 賱賱賰鬲丕亘.
October 17, 2010
I am absolutely floored that people did not give this book five stars. I was so impressed that now that I am done with the book I am planning on turning right around to read it immediately again. Absolutely a new favorite. I have studied the more ancient philosophers very heavily and have never read such beautiful correlations between great minds as put forth by Gottlieb. Extremely simple and very elegant. This is exactly what I was looking for to solidify time periods and thinkers together. I don't care what anyone else says this book was hands down fantastic!
April 20, 2020
賲賳 丕賱賲丨夭賳 兀賳賳賷 兀噩賱鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳匕 氐丿賵乇 鬲乇噩賲鬲賴 賮賷 毓丕賲 2014 丨鬲賷 丕賱兀賳貙 乇亘賲丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賮乇丕睾 丕賱匕賴賳賷 賴賵 賲丕 賰丕賳 賷賳賯氐賳賷 賰賷 兀禺賵囟 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱乇丨賱丞 賲賳 丕賱廿丨丕賱丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲丿賯賷賯丕鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯賵丕賲賷爻 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵賱賰賳 賲丕 兀噩賲賱賴丕 乇丨賱丞 丨賷賳 鬲兀鬲賷 賮賷 毓賱賲 賳丨亘賴 賵賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 賵噩賵賴乇賷 賱鬲兀乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賰賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賱賳 兀胤賷賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲賯丿賷賲 賵賱賰賳賳賷 爻兀胤賷賱 亘丕賱兀爻賮賱 賱鬲賱禺賷氐 亘毓囟 兀噩夭丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓爻賷 兀賳 賷賳鬲賮毓 亘賴丕 睾賷乇賷 賵鬲噩匕亘 廿賳鬲亘丕賴賴 兀賵 鬲賳賮毓賳賷 兀賳丕 卮禺氐賷丕賸 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 .
賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賷 孬賱丕孬丞 賮氐賵賱貙 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 - 賲丕 賯亘賱 爻賯乇丕胤 - 亘丿丕賷丞 亘丕賱賲賱胤賷賵賳 賵賳賴丕賷丞 亘丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賵賳 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘賲匕丕賴亘 賮賱爻賮賷丞 毓馗賷賲丞 賲孬賱 丕賱賮賷孬丕睾賵乇孬賷丞 - 賵丕賱鬲賷 兀孬乇鬲 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賲賳 賵賯鬲賴丕 賵丨鬲賷 丕賱兀賳 - 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 兀賯乇亘 賱賱丿賷丕賳丞 賲賳賴丕 賱賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賮乇賵丕丿賴丕 丕毓鬲賳賯賵丕 丕賱賳亘丕鬲賷丞 廿賷賲丕賳丕賸 賲賳賴賲 亘鬲賳丕爻禺 丕賱兀乇賵丕丨 賰賲丕 賰丕賳賵丕 賷賯丿爻賵賳 丕賱丨乇賵賮 賵賷胤賱賯賵賳 毓賱賷 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賲孬賱 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱毓丿賱 兀乇賯丕賲 賲孬賱 1 賵 4貙 賵賲乇賵丕賸 兀賷囟丕 亘亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻 丕賵賱 賲賳 禺丕賱賮 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱爻丕卅丿丞 亘丨乇賰丞 賰賱 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賵亘丿亍 賷丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷亘乇賴賳 毓賱賷 兀賳 賰賱 卮卅 孬丕亘鬲 賱丕 賷鬲丨乇賰 賲賳 兀賵賱 丕賱爻賴賲 丕賱賲賳胤賱賯 賱賱賳噩賵賲 賵丕賱賰賵丕賰亘 賵亘賴匕丕 廿匕丕 賮丕賱賰賵賳 兀夭賱賷 - 乇亘賲丕 鬲乇賷 兀賳 兀賮賰丕乇賴 囟乇亘丕賸 賲賳 丕賱噩賳賵賳 賵賱賰賳 丨賷賳 鬲乇賷 丕賱兀孬乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賰鬲賴 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賲賳胤賯 爻鬲毓丿賱 毓賳 乇兀賷賰 - 賵鬲賱賲賷匕賴 夭賷賳賵賳 丕賱匕賷 丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷亘乇賴賳 亘丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 毓賱賷 氐丨丞 丕丿毓丕亍丕鬲 賲毓賱賲賴 賮亘丕賱鬲賮丕囟賱 賲孬賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲噩夭卅賴 丨乇賰丞 丕賱賯賵爻 廿賱賷 賲爻鬲胤賷賱丕鬲 氐睾賷乇丞 賮賷 賰賱 賲爻鬲胤賷賱 丕賱賯賵爻 賱丕 賷鬲丨乇賰 賵賴賵 賲丕 鬲賲 鬲賮賳賷丿賴 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 .
兀賲丕 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱 賮賯丿 噩丕亍鬲 賱鬲鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷爻 賵丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賳貙 賮丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷爻 兀賵賱 賲賳 兀丨爻 亘賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱匕乇丞 賱賷爻 賰賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 賵賱賰賳賴 兀賲賳 亘賵噩賵丿 賲賰賵賳丕鬲 丿丕禺賱 賰賱 丕賱賲賵丕丿 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 兀賳 賳乇丕賴丕 賵兀氐睾乇 賲賳 兀賳 鬲購賰爻乇 賵鬲丨賲賱 賮賷 胤賷丕鬲賴丕 鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賳賮爻賴丕 孬賲 賵氐賮 兀卮賰丕賱賴丕 亘兀賳 丕賱賲賱丨 賲孬賱丕 匕乇丕鬲賴 賲丿亘亘丞 賵丕賱爻賰乇 匕乇丕鬲賴 丿丕卅乇賷丞 丕賱卮賰賱 賵賴賵 鬲賮爻賷乇 亘丿賷賴賷 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 乇睾賲 禺胤卅賴 賮丕賱賲賱丨 賷賱爻毓 丕賱賱爻丕賳 賮鬲丨爻爻 亘兀賳賴 賲丕丿丞 賲丿亘亘丞 賵賴賰匕丕貙 賵賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賮氐賱 丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賳 兀賵賱 賲賳 兀賳夭賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 亘乇噩賴丕 丕賱毓丕噩賷 賵噩毓賱賴丕 賲鬲丕丨丞 賱毓賵丕賲 丕賱卮毓亘貙 賷鬲毓賱賲賵賳 賲賳賴丕 丕賱噩丿丕賱 賵丕賱賮賱賰 賵亘毓囟 賲賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 賵賴賵 賲丕 兀夭毓噩 賲丨鬲賰乇賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 - 賰兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 - 賮賯賵賱賴賲 賲孬賱丕 亘兀賳 " 丕賱賳氐乇 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 丨賱賷賮丕 廿賱丕 賱賲賳 賷鬲丨丿孬 兀賮囟賱 " 賰丕賳 賱亘 丕賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱爻賵賮爻胤丕卅賷 賮賷 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱噩丿丕賱 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞 賮賷 賰賱 卮卅 賰丕賳鬲 賲匕賴亘賴賲 丕賱丨賷丕鬲賷 賲賲丕 兀孬丕乇 丨賮賷馗丞 丨鬲賷 丕賱睾賷乇 賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 .
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賰丕賳 鬲賱禺賷氐 賱賮鬲乇丞 爻賯乇丕胤 賵賲丕 亘毓丿賴貙 賷卮賷乇 亘毓囟 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賱爻賯乇丕胤 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵 亘 (孬丕賱賵孬 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞) 賳馗乇丕賸 賱鬲兀孬賷乇賴賲 丕賱卮丿賷丿 毓賱賷 爻賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丨鬲賷 丕賱兀賳貙 賮爻賯乇丕胤 丨賰賷賲 毓氐乇賴 賰丕賳 賷乇賷 兀賳 丕賱賮胤乇丞 賮賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賴賷 丕賱鬲賯賵賷貙 賮賰賱 廿賳爻丕賳 鬲賯賷 賵鬲賰賲賳 賲賴賲鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 丕賱賲賵賱賵丿丞 賮賷 丿丕禺賱賴 賲賳匕 賵賱丕丿鬲賴 貙 賰賲丕 賰丕賳 賷乇賷 兀賳 賰賱 廿賳爻丕賳 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賷 賰賱 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賰賱 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賲賲賰賳丞 鬲賰賲賳 丕賱氐毓賵亘丞 賮賯胤 賮賷 鬲賵噩賷賴 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賱丕爻鬲禺乇丕噩 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丞 賵丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丨賷丕鬲賴 兀購鬲賴賲 亘丕賱丕賳鬲賲丕亍 賱賱爻賮賵爻胤丕卅賷賳 亘噩丕賳亘 丕賱賱賵丕胤 賵丨購賰賲 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱廿毓丿丕賲 賵賱賰賳賴 兀禺鬲丕乇 鬲賳賮賷匕賴 亘賳賮爻賴 賵兀賳鬲丨乇 賮賷 亘賷鬲賴 . 貙 兀賲丕 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賮賰丕賳 氐睾賷乇丕賸 兀亘丕賳 丕賳鬲丨丕乇 爻賯乇丕胤 賮鬲兀孬乇 亘賴 兀卮丿 鬲兀孬賷乇 賵賰鬲亘 賲丨丕賵乇丕鬲賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 賱賵氐賮 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 亘丕賱賰丕賲賱 賵賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賰賱 賮賱爻賮丞 爻賯乇丕胤 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 丨丕賱賷丕 賵氐賱鬲賳丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘毓丿 囟賷丕毓 賰賱 賲丕 賰鬲亘 爻賯乇丕胤 貙 兀賳卮兀 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞 乇賷丕囟賷丞 賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賱賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 (賰鬲亘 毓賱賷 亘丕亘賴丕 賱丕 賷丿禺賱賴丕 廿賱丕 乇賷丕囟賷) 賵賲賳 兀賴賲 兀毓賲丕賱賴 兀賮賰丕乇賴 毓賳 毓丕賱賲 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賷 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲孬賱 賲賳 賰賱 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 毓賱賷 丕賱兀乇囟 賲賳 噩賲丕賱 賵毓丿賱 賵禺賷乇 賵廿賱禺 貙 賰賲丕 兀賳賴 丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷鬲禺賷賱 卮賰賱 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞 賲賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 鬲丨賰賲賴丕 賵氐賮丕鬲 丨賰丕賲賴丕 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇賷 兀賳賴賲 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷丿乇爻賵丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丨鬲賷 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷賴丕 賵賱禺氐 賰賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 (丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞) .
兀賲丕 毓賳 兀乇爻胤賵 賮賴賵 兀亘賵 丕賱賲賳胤賯 丕賱匕賷 賷丨囟乇 兀爻賲賴 丕賱兀賳 丨賷賳 賳鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯 丕賵 毓賳 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賱賱丨賰丕賲 - 賮兀乇爻胤賵 賲毓賱賲 丕賱廿爻賰賳丿乇 丕賱兀賰亘乇 - 毓賱賷 禺賱丕賮 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲毓賱賲賴 賱賲 賷丐賲賳 兀乇爻胤賵 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘賵噩賵丿 毓丕賱賲 賲賳 丕賱賲孬賱 丕賱毓賱賷丕 賰賲丕 賱賲 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱丌賱賴丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 亘賲毓賳丕賴丕 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賱賷賴 賮丕賱兀賱丞 賲賳 賵噩賴 賳馗乇賴 賰丕賳 賲賰亘賱 丕賱賷丿賷賳 兀賲丕賲 賰賱 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 賵丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵賱賰賳賴 兀賲賳 賰賲孬賱賴 賵賯鬲賴丕 兀賳 丕賱賰賵賳 亘丕賱賰丕賲賱 賲爻禺乇 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮 賮賷 兀乇爻胤賵 毓賳 賲毓賱賲賴 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賷囟丕賸 賴賵 丕卮鬲睾丕賱 兀乇爻胤賵 亘丕賱胤亘 賵丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷 賮賷賴 賰賲丕 賰丕賳 賲賴賵賵爻 亘鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丞 賰賱賴丕 賲賳 丕賱胤賷賵乇 賵丕賱夭賵丕丨賮 賲賲丕 兀孬乇 毓賱賷 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 賯賱賷賱丕賸 賮鬲乇賰 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱乇賵丨賷丞 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱賵賳 賵兀賴鬲賲 兀賰鬲乇 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱兀乇囟賷丞 賲賲丕 賷乇丕賴 毓賱賷 兀乇囟 丕賱賵丕賯毓 .
賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賮氐賱 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱爻賰賷賳丞 (丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞 賵丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞) 賵賱鬲賱禺氐賷賴賲 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 亘亘爻丕胤丞 兀賳 丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞 鬲卮賰 賮賷 賰賱 卮賷亍 賲賳 兀賵賱 丕賱睾乇囟 賲賳 丕賱胤毓丕賲 賱賱睾乇囟 賲賳 丕賱賳賵賲 亘丿丕毓賷 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞 賮賷 賰賱 卮賷亍 賮賱爻賳丕 噩賲賷毓丕賸 賳丨爻 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丿乇噩丞 賲賳 丕賱亘乇丿 兀賵 丕賱丨乇 - 乇丕噩毓 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱爻賵賮爻胤丕卅賷賳 - 賵兀賳鬲賴賷 丕賱兀賲乇 亘亘毓囟賴賲 賱賱卮賰 賮賷 賵噩賵丿 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻貙 兀賲丕 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賮鬲乇賷 兀賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賯丿乇 賲賰鬲賵亘 賳爻賷乇 毓賱賷賴 噩賲賷毓丕 賲爻賷乇賷賳 賱丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳禺丕賱賮賴 賵賱賰賳 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳賯鬲氐丿 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賱匕丕鬲 賲賳 兀賵賱 丕賱胤毓丕賲 賱賱卮賴賵丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賰賷 賳氐賱 賱丨丕賱丞 賲賳 丕賱爻賱丕賲 丕賱賳賮爻賷 鬲兀賴賱賳丕 賱丕爻鬲卮賮丕賮 賴匕丕 丕賱賯丿乇貙 兀賲丕 丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 賮賰丕賳鬲 鬲乇賷 賮賷 賯丿乇 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 卮卅 賷丨鬲乇賲 賮兀賲賳賵丕 亘丕賱賯囟丕亍 賵丕賱賯丿乇 賵毓賱賷 兀爻丕爻賴 乇賮囟賵丕 丕賱丨夭賳 毓賱賷 賵賮丕丞 卮禺氐 毓夭賷夭 毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 兀賵 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱丕賲鬲毓丕囟 賲賳 卮丿丞 丕賱亘乇丿 .
兀賲丕 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賮賯丿 亘丿亍 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 (賲鬲賷 丕賳賮氐賱鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓賳 丕賱毓賱賲) 賵兀賳鬲賴賷 亘 (賲鬲賷 丕賳賮氐賱鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 ) 賵賮賷 丕賱賲賳鬲氐賮 噩丕亍 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰亘丕乇 賲孬賱 丕賱賯丿賷爻 兀賵噩爻鬲賷賳 賵鬲賵賲丕爻 丕賱兀賰賵賷賳賷 賵睾賷乇賴賲 貙 賰賲丕 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 鬲兀孬乇 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇賷賳 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賰 賳賷賵鬲賳 賵 賴賵亘夭 賵噩丕賱賷賱賵 賵丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷禺鬲賲賴丕 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賴賱賷賳爻賷鬲賷 - 亘毓丿 丕賳賴賷丕乇 丕賱賲賲賱賰丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 - 賵毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 賲毓 兀賳賷 兀噩丿 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯鬲囟亘 丨丿 丕賱賲賱賱 爻賵丕亍 賲賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賮爻賴 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇賯氐 亘賷賳 賲丕卅丞 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵賲丕卅丞 賲匕賴亘 賮賷 氐賮丨丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賵丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賱匕賷 賱賲 賷賰賲賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賳賮爻 丕賱廿鬲賯丕賳 賰賲丕 亘丿卅賴 賱賱兀爻賮貙 乇睾賲 毓賷賵亘 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賮賴匕丕 賱丕 賷賯賱賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯賷丿 兀賳賲賱賴 賮賯丿 兀氐亘丨 亘賷賳 賷丿賷 兀賵賱 鬲乇卮賷丨 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷禺賵囟 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 .
鬲賲 亘丨賲丿丕賱賱賴
19-4-2020
賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賷 孬賱丕孬丞 賮氐賵賱貙 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 - 賲丕 賯亘賱 爻賯乇丕胤 - 亘丿丕賷丞 亘丕賱賲賱胤賷賵賳 賵賳賴丕賷丞 亘丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賵賳 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘賲匕丕賴亘 賮賱爻賮賷丞 毓馗賷賲丞 賲孬賱 丕賱賮賷孬丕睾賵乇孬賷丞 - 賵丕賱鬲賷 兀孬乇鬲 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賲賳 賵賯鬲賴丕 賵丨鬲賷 丕賱兀賳 - 賵丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 兀賯乇亘 賱賱丿賷丕賳丞 賲賳賴丕 賱賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賮乇賵丕丿賴丕 丕毓鬲賳賯賵丕 丕賱賳亘丕鬲賷丞 廿賷賲丕賳丕賸 賲賳賴賲 亘鬲賳丕爻禺 丕賱兀乇賵丕丨 賰賲丕 賰丕賳賵丕 賷賯丿爻賵賳 丕賱丨乇賵賮 賵賷胤賱賯賵賳 毓賱賷 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 賲孬賱 丕賱毓賯賱 賵丕賱毓丿賱 兀乇賯丕賲 賲孬賱 1 賵 4貙 賵賲乇賵丕賸 兀賷囟丕 亘亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻 丕賵賱 賲賳 禺丕賱賮 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱爻丕卅丿丞 亘丨乇賰丞 賰賱 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賵亘丿亍 賷丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷亘乇賴賳 毓賱賷 兀賳 賰賱 卮卅 孬丕亘鬲 賱丕 賷鬲丨乇賰 賲賳 兀賵賱 丕賱爻賴賲 丕賱賲賳胤賱賯 賱賱賳噩賵賲 賵丕賱賰賵丕賰亘 賵亘賴匕丕 廿匕丕 賮丕賱賰賵賳 兀夭賱賷 - 乇亘賲丕 鬲乇賷 兀賳 兀賮賰丕乇賴 囟乇亘丕賸 賲賳 丕賱噩賳賵賳 賵賱賰賳 丨賷賳 鬲乇賷 丕賱兀孬乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇賰鬲賴 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱賲賳胤賯 爻鬲毓丿賱 毓賳 乇兀賷賰 - 賵鬲賱賲賷匕賴 夭賷賳賵賳 丕賱匕賷 丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷亘乇賴賳 亘丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 毓賱賷 氐丨丞 丕丿毓丕亍丕鬲 賲毓賱賲賴 賮亘丕賱鬲賮丕囟賱 賲孬賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲噩夭卅賴 丨乇賰丞 丕賱賯賵爻 廿賱賷 賲爻鬲胤賷賱丕鬲 氐睾賷乇丞 賮賷 賰賱 賲爻鬲胤賷賱 丕賱賯賵爻 賱丕 賷鬲丨乇賰 賵賴賵 賲丕 鬲賲 鬲賮賳賷丿賴 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 .
兀賲丕 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱 賮賯丿 噩丕亍鬲 賱鬲鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷爻 賵丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賳貙 賮丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷爻 兀賵賱 賲賳 兀丨爻 亘賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱匕乇丞 賱賷爻 賰賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 賵賱賰賳賴 兀賲賳 亘賵噩賵丿 賲賰賵賳丕鬲 丿丕禺賱 賰賱 丕賱賲賵丕丿 兀氐睾乇 賲賳 兀賳 賳乇丕賴丕 賵兀氐睾乇 賲賳 兀賳 鬲購賰爻乇 賵鬲丨賲賱 賮賷 胤賷丕鬲賴丕 鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賳賮爻賴丕 孬賲 賵氐賮 兀卮賰丕賱賴丕 亘兀賳 丕賱賲賱丨 賲孬賱丕 匕乇丕鬲賴 賲丿亘亘丞 賵丕賱爻賰乇 匕乇丕鬲賴 丿丕卅乇賷丞 丕賱卮賰賱 賵賴賵 鬲賮爻賷乇 亘丿賷賴賷 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 乇睾賲 禺胤卅賴 賮丕賱賲賱丨 賷賱爻毓 丕賱賱爻丕賳 賮鬲丨爻爻 亘兀賳賴 賲丕丿丞 賲丿亘亘丞 賵賴賰匕丕貙 賵賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賮氐賱 丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賳 兀賵賱 賲賳 兀賳夭賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 亘乇噩賴丕 丕賱毓丕噩賷 賵噩毓賱賴丕 賲鬲丕丨丞 賱毓賵丕賲 丕賱卮毓亘貙 賷鬲毓賱賲賵賳 賲賳賴丕 丕賱噩丿丕賱 賵丕賱賮賱賰 賵亘毓囟 賲賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 賵賴賵 賲丕 兀夭毓噩 賲丨鬲賰乇賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 - 賰兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 - 賮賯賵賱賴賲 賲孬賱丕 亘兀賳 " 丕賱賳氐乇 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 丨賱賷賮丕 廿賱丕 賱賲賳 賷鬲丨丿孬 兀賮囟賱 " 賰丕賳 賱亘 丕賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱爻賵賮爻胤丕卅賷 賮賷 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱噩丿丕賱 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞 賮賷 賰賱 卮卅 賰丕賳鬲 賲匕賴亘賴賲 丕賱丨賷丕鬲賷 賲賲丕 兀孬丕乇 丨賮賷馗丞 丨鬲賷 丕賱睾賷乇 賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 .
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賰丕賳 鬲賱禺賷氐 賱賮鬲乇丞 爻賯乇丕胤 賵賲丕 亘毓丿賴貙 賷卮賷乇 亘毓囟 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賱爻賯乇丕胤 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵 亘 (孬丕賱賵孬 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞) 賳馗乇丕賸 賱鬲兀孬賷乇賴賲 丕賱卮丿賷丿 毓賱賷 爻賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丨鬲賷 丕賱兀賳貙 賮爻賯乇丕胤 丨賰賷賲 毓氐乇賴 賰丕賳 賷乇賷 兀賳 丕賱賮胤乇丞 賮賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賴賷 丕賱鬲賯賵賷貙 賮賰賱 廿賳爻丕賳 鬲賯賷 賵鬲賰賲賳 賲賴賲鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 丕賱賲賵賱賵丿丞 賮賷 丿丕禺賱賴 賲賳匕 賵賱丕丿鬲賴 貙 賰賲丕 賰丕賳 賷乇賷 兀賳 賰賱 廿賳爻丕賳 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賷 賰賱 丕賱毓賱賵賲 賵廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賰賱 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賲賲賰賳丞 鬲賰賲賳 丕賱氐毓賵亘丞 賮賯胤 賮賷 鬲賵噩賷賴 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賱丕爻鬲禺乇丕噩 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丞 賵丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丨賷丕鬲賴 兀購鬲賴賲 亘丕賱丕賳鬲賲丕亍 賱賱爻賮賵爻胤丕卅賷賳 亘噩丕賳亘 丕賱賱賵丕胤 賵丨購賰賲 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱廿毓丿丕賲 賵賱賰賳賴 兀禺鬲丕乇 鬲賳賮賷匕賴 亘賳賮爻賴 賵兀賳鬲丨乇 賮賷 亘賷鬲賴 . 貙 兀賲丕 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賮賰丕賳 氐睾賷乇丕賸 兀亘丕賳 丕賳鬲丨丕乇 爻賯乇丕胤 賮鬲兀孬乇 亘賴 兀卮丿 鬲兀孬賷乇 賵賰鬲亘 賲丨丕賵乇丕鬲賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇丞 賱賵氐賮 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 亘丕賱賰丕賲賱 賵賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賰賱 賮賱爻賮丞 爻賯乇丕胤 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 丨丕賱賷丕 賵氐賱鬲賳丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘毓丿 囟賷丕毓 賰賱 賲丕 賰鬲亘 爻賯乇丕胤 貙 兀賳卮兀 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞 乇賷丕囟賷丞 賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賱賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丕鬲 (賰鬲亘 毓賱賷 亘丕亘賴丕 賱丕 賷丿禺賱賴丕 廿賱丕 乇賷丕囟賷) 賵賲賳 兀賴賲 兀毓賲丕賱賴 兀賮賰丕乇賴 毓賳 毓丕賱賲 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賷 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲孬賱 賲賳 賰賱 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲 毓賱賷 丕賱兀乇囟 賲賳 噩賲丕賱 賵毓丿賱 賵禺賷乇 賵廿賱禺 貙 賰賲丕 兀賳賴 丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷鬲禺賷賱 卮賰賱 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞 賲賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 鬲丨賰賲賴丕 賵氐賮丕鬲 丨賰丕賲賴丕 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇賷 兀賳賴賲 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷丿乇爻賵丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵丨鬲賷 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷賴丕 賵賱禺氐 賰賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 (丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞) .
兀賲丕 毓賳 兀乇爻胤賵 賮賴賵 兀亘賵 丕賱賲賳胤賯 丕賱匕賷 賷丨囟乇 兀爻賲賴 丕賱兀賳 丨賷賳 賳鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯 丕賵 毓賳 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賱賱丨賰丕賲 - 賮兀乇爻胤賵 賲毓賱賲 丕賱廿爻賰賳丿乇 丕賱兀賰亘乇 - 毓賱賷 禺賱丕賮 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲毓賱賲賴 賱賲 賷丐賲賳 兀乇爻胤賵 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘賵噩賵丿 毓丕賱賲 賲賳 丕賱賲孬賱 丕賱毓賱賷丕 賰賲丕 賱賲 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱丌賱賴丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 亘賲毓賳丕賴丕 丕賱賲鬲毓丕乇賮 毓賱賷賴 賮丕賱兀賱丞 賲賳 賵噩賴 賳馗乇賴 賰丕賳 賲賰亘賱 丕賱賷丿賷賳 兀賲丕賲 賰賱 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 賵丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵賱賰賳賴 兀賲賳 賰賲孬賱賴 賵賯鬲賴丕 兀賳 丕賱賰賵賳 亘丕賱賰丕賲賱 賲爻禺乇 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮 賮賷 兀乇爻胤賵 毓賳 賲毓賱賲賴 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賷囟丕賸 賴賵 丕卮鬲睾丕賱 兀乇爻胤賵 亘丕賱胤亘 賵丕賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷 賮賷賴 賰賲丕 賰丕賳 賲賴賵賵爻 亘鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丞 賰賱賴丕 賲賳 丕賱胤賷賵乇 賵丕賱夭賵丕丨賮 賲賲丕 兀孬乇 毓賱賷 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 賯賱賷賱丕賸 賮鬲乇賰 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱乇賵丨賷丞 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱賵賳 賵兀賴鬲賲 兀賰鬲乇 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱兀乇囟賷丞 賲賲丕 賷乇丕賴 毓賱賷 兀乇囟 丕賱賵丕賯毓 .
賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賮氐賱 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱爻賰賷賳丞 (丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞 賵丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞) 賵賱鬲賱禺氐賷賴賲 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 亘亘爻丕胤丞 兀賳 丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞 鬲卮賰 賮賷 賰賱 卮賷亍 賲賳 兀賵賱 丕賱睾乇囟 賲賳 丕賱胤毓丕賲 賱賱睾乇囟 賲賳 丕賱賳賵賲 亘丿丕毓賷 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞 賮賷 賰賱 卮賷亍 賮賱爻賳丕 噩賲賷毓丕賸 賳丨爻 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丿乇噩丞 賲賳 丕賱亘乇丿 兀賵 丕賱丨乇 - 乇丕噩毓 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱爻賵賮爻胤丕卅賷賳 - 賵兀賳鬲賴賷 丕賱兀賲乇 亘亘毓囟賴賲 賱賱卮賰 賮賷 賵噩賵丿 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 丕賱兀爻丕爻貙 兀賲丕 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賮鬲乇賷 兀賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賯丿乇 賲賰鬲賵亘 賳爻賷乇 毓賱賷賴 噩賲賷毓丕 賲爻賷乇賷賳 賱丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳禺丕賱賮賴 賵賱賰賳 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳賯鬲氐丿 賮賷 賰賱 丕賱賱匕丕鬲 賲賳 兀賵賱 丕賱胤毓丕賲 賱賱卮賴賵丞 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賰賷 賳氐賱 賱丨丕賱丞 賲賳 丕賱爻賱丕賲 丕賱賳賮爻賷 鬲兀賴賱賳丕 賱丕爻鬲卮賮丕賮 賴匕丕 丕賱賯丿乇貙 兀賲丕 丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 賮賰丕賳鬲 鬲乇賷 賮賷 賯丿乇 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 卮卅 賷丨鬲乇賲 賮兀賲賳賵丕 亘丕賱賯囟丕亍 賵丕賱賯丿乇 賵毓賱賷 兀爻丕爻賴 乇賮囟賵丕 丕賱丨夭賳 毓賱賷 賵賮丕丞 卮禺氐 毓夭賷夭 毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 兀賵 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 丕賱丕賲鬲毓丕囟 賲賳 卮丿丞 丕賱亘乇丿 .
兀賲丕 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賮賯丿 亘丿亍 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 (賲鬲賷 丕賳賮氐賱鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓賳 丕賱毓賱賲) 賵兀賳鬲賴賷 亘 (賲鬲賷 丕賳賮氐賱鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 ) 賵賮賷 丕賱賲賳鬲氐賮 噩丕亍 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰亘丕乇 賲孬賱 丕賱賯丿賷爻 兀賵噩爻鬲賷賳 賵鬲賵賲丕爻 丕賱兀賰賵賷賳賷 賵睾賷乇賴賲 貙 賰賲丕 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 鬲兀孬乇 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇賷賳 亘丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賰 賳賷賵鬲賳 賵 賴賵亘夭 賵噩丕賱賷賱賵 賵丨丕賵賱 兀賳 賷禺鬲賲賴丕 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賴賱賷賳爻賷鬲賷 - 亘毓丿 丕賳賴賷丕乇 丕賱賲賲賱賰丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞 - 賵毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞 賲毓 兀賳賷 兀噩丿 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯鬲囟亘 丨丿 丕賱賲賱賱 爻賵丕亍 賲賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳賮爻賴 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇賯氐 亘賷賳 賲丕卅丞 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵賲丕卅丞 賲匕賴亘 賮賷 氐賮丨丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賵丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賱匕賷 賱賲 賷賰賲賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賳賮爻 丕賱廿鬲賯丕賳 賰賲丕 亘丿卅賴 賱賱兀爻賮貙 乇睾賲 毓賷賵亘 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賮賴匕丕 賱丕 賷賯賱賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯賷丿 兀賳賲賱賴 賮賯丿 兀氐亘丨 亘賷賳 賷丿賷 兀賵賱 鬲乇卮賷丨 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷禺賵囟 賮賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 .
鬲賲 亘丨賲丿丕賱賱賴
19-4-2020
August 2, 2017
乇賵蹖丕蹖 禺乇丿 賳賵卮鬲賴 蹖 丌賳鬲賵賳蹖 诏丕鬲賱蹖亘 乇丕 賳卮乇 賯賯賳賵爻 丿乇 爻丕賱 1384 亘丕 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 賱蹖 賱丕 爻丕夭诏丕乇 乇賵丕賳賴 亘丕夭丕乇 讴乇丿 讴賴 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖 睾乇亘 丕夭 倬蹖卮 爻賯乇丕胤蹖丕賳 鬲丕 乇賳爻丕賳爻 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿. 丌賳趩賴 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丕夭 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 賴賲丕賳賳丿 賲鬲賲丕蹖夭 賲蹖讴賳丿 倬丿蹖丿丌賵乇賳丿賴 蹖 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙亘乇禺賱丕賮 丿蹖诏乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮賴 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇 鬲賵爻胤 蹖讴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 蹖丕 鬲丕乇蹖禺丿丕賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 賳卮丿賴 亘賱讴賴 诏丕鬲賱蹖亘 乇賵夭賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇 賲噩賱賴 "丕讴賵賳賵賲蹖爻鬲" 亘賵丿賴 賵 賳诏丕賴蹖 讴賴 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 賮賱爻賮賴 睾乇亘 丿丕卮鬲賴貙 丿蹖丿 蹖讴 跇賵乇賳丕賱蹖爻鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 禺賵丕賳卮 丌爻丕賳 賵 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 丕夭 賮賱爻賮賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿
丕夭丿蹖诏乇 賵蹖跇诏蹖 賴丕蹖 丌賳 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 亘賴 亘丨孬 讴丕賲賱 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 倬蹖卮 爻賯乇丕胤蹖丕賳 丕卮丕乇賴 讴乇丿 讴賴 蹖讴 爻賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丿 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 丿丕丿賴貙 丕賲丕 丿乇 爻賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 蹖 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 蹖讴 賮氐賱 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖 卮賵丿.
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖 卮賵丿 讴賴 賮乇氐鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕孬乇 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿賳 讴丕倬賱爻鬲賵賳 乇丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿 蹖丕 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳賳丿 亘丕 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮賴 乇丕鬲賱噩 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘乇 賯乇丕乇 讴賳賳丿
倬丕蹖賳丿賴 賵 倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿
丕夭丿蹖诏乇 賵蹖跇诏蹖 賴丕蹖 丌賳 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 亘賴 亘丨孬 讴丕賲賱 丿乇亘丕乇賴 蹖 倬蹖卮 爻賯乇丕胤蹖丕賳 丕卮丕乇賴 讴乇丿 讴賴 蹖讴 爻賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丿 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 丿丕丿賴貙 丕賲丕 丿乇 爻賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 蹖 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 蹖讴 賮氐賱 賲丨丿賵丿 賲蹖 卮賵丿.
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖 卮賵丿 讴賴 賮乇氐鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕孬乇 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿賳 讴丕倬賱爻鬲賵賳 乇丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿 蹖丕 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳賳丿 亘丕 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮賴 乇丕鬲賱噩 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘乇 賯乇丕乇 讴賳賳丿
倬丕蹖賳丿賴 賵 倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿
July 20, 2015
丕賱賷賵賲 丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 兀禺賷乇丕賸 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賱丨賲賶 :-)
賷鬲噩賵賱 亘賳丕 " 兀賳鬲賵賳賶 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 " 賮賶 乇丨賱丞 胤賵賷賱丞 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 貙 賲賳匕 毓氐乇 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 .. 賲鬲賲賴賱丕賸 毓賳丿 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 丕賱賰亘丕乇: 爻賯乇丕 胤 - 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 - 兀乇爻胤賵
孬賲 賲爻乇毓丕賸 毓賳丿 丕賱賲丿丕乇爻: 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 貙 丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 貙 丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞
賵丕禺鬲鬲賲 亘噩賵賱丞 爻乇賷毓丞 毓賱賶 賲賳 馗賴乇賵丕 賲賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 亘毓丿 丕賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱卮賰賵賰賶 賵鬲夭丕賲賳賵丕 賲毓 亘丿亍 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵丕賱氐丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賷丞 賲毓 丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 賮賷賲丕 亘毓丿.
賲毓 孬賯賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 (賱胤賵賱 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱夭賲賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 賷爻鬲毓乇囟賴丕 ) 賳噩丨 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賶 噩毓賱 賯乇丕卅鬲賴 毓賲賱丕賸 卮賷賯丕賸 .. 賵廿賳 毓丕亘賴 丕賱鬲卮鬲鬲 賵賰孬乇丞 丕賱賲賯丕乇丕賳丕鬲 禺丕氐丞賸 賮賶 丌禺乇 賮氐賱 (賯賱毓丞 丕賱賵乇毓: 賲賳 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 丨鬲賶 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞).. 賵兀賷囟丕賸 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 賱賱賰丕鬲亘
兀毓鬲亘乇賴 賲賯丿賲丞 賱賲賵爻賵毓丞 亘乇鬲乇丕賳丿 乇丕爻賱 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賮賶 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 賵丕賱匕賶 爻賵賮 兀賯賵賲 亘丕爻鬲賰賲丕賱賴 賯乇賷亘丕賸 ..
賷鬲噩賵賱 亘賳丕 " 兀賳鬲賵賳賶 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 " 賮賶 乇丨賱丞 胤賵賷賱丞 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 貙 賲賳匕 毓氐乇 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 .. 賲鬲賲賴賱丕賸 毓賳丿 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 丕賱賰亘丕乇: 爻賯乇丕 胤 - 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 - 兀乇爻胤賵
孬賲 賲爻乇毓丕賸 毓賳丿 丕賱賲丿丕乇爻: 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 貙 丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 貙 丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞
賵丕禺鬲鬲賲 亘噩賵賱丞 爻乇賷毓丞 毓賱賶 賲賳 馗賴乇賵丕 賲賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 亘毓丿 丕賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱卮賰賵賰賶 賵鬲夭丕賲賳賵丕 賲毓 亘丿亍 馗賴賵乇 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵丕賱氐丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賷丞 賲毓 丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 賮賷賲丕 亘毓丿.
賲毓 孬賯賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 (賱胤賵賱 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱夭賲賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 賷爻鬲毓乇囟賴丕 ) 賳噩丨 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賶 噩毓賱 賯乇丕卅鬲賴 毓賲賱丕賸 卮賷賯丕賸 .. 賵廿賳 毓丕亘賴 丕賱鬲卮鬲鬲 賵賰孬乇丞 丕賱賲賯丕乇丕賳丕鬲 禺丕氐丞賸 賮賶 丌禺乇 賮氐賱 (賯賱毓丞 丕賱賵乇毓: 賲賳 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 丨鬲賶 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞).. 賵兀賷囟丕賸 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 賱賱賰丕鬲亘
兀毓鬲亘乇賴 賲賯丿賲丞 賱賲賵爻賵毓丞 亘乇鬲乇丕賳丿 乇丕爻賱 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賮賶 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 賵丕賱匕賶 爻賵賮 兀賯賵賲 亘丕爻鬲賰賲丕賱賴 賯乇賷亘丕賸 ..
August 21, 2009
For some reason I鈥檝e always felt essentially uneducated because I didn鈥檛 have a 鈥渃lassical education鈥�. I didn鈥檛 learn Latin or Greek (though I worked a fair way through a Teach Yourself Latin book once when I was reading Ulysses and felt my lack most particularly). I never studied Greek or Roman history either after high school. My interests tended to be contemporary and American. I also only remember taking one philosophy class and it was not very memorable. I鈥檝e read some Plato and Aristotle, The Iliad and the Odyssey and a fair number of Greek plays. I want to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but I started it and was lost because I had so little background (though I could see the writing was superb鈥攏o wonder it鈥檚 lasted so long.). Hence my interest in this book.
It鈥檚 well written and even humorous in spots; Gottlieb doesn鈥檛 stand in awe of classical philosophy as a subject or of classical writers because they鈥檙e classical. I鈥檓 not knowledgeable enough to know whether he treats them fairly. It made sense to me. I note that Amazon reviewers rate the book either 5 or 1 which means it鈥檚 probably a book worth looking at, certainly by non-specialists. I was least interested in the pre-Socratics though and most interested, modernist that I am, in the last chapter, called The Haven of Piety: From Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. It was particularly interesting to see how increasingly western philosophy had to 鈥渁ccommodate itself鈥� to Christianity. The themes were not all that different from controversies which have been raging ever since, no matter how often they were put to rest, like whether the world was created all at once by God or existed or evolved independently.
Two things this book reminded me of particularly. First that philosophy first embraced all learning and only later separated itself out into first philosophy and theology and later into literature and science and history and mathematics, etc. etc. It was particularly interesting to see the evolution of science out of what was called 鈥渘atural philosophy鈥� and to discover that pre-Socratic philosophers first came up with the 鈥渁tomistic theory鈥濃€攁 crude hypothesis about the 鈥渢iny particles鈥� that made up all matter. Secondly, it reminded me that in the period that we call the 鈥淒ark Ages鈥� in Europe, much of the learning of the classical period was preserved and advanced by Arab scholars. It鈥檚 so easy to forget, in today鈥檚 focus on fundamental Islamist politics that glorious period of academic brilliance in the Arab world
It鈥檚 well written and even humorous in spots; Gottlieb doesn鈥檛 stand in awe of classical philosophy as a subject or of classical writers because they鈥檙e classical. I鈥檓 not knowledgeable enough to know whether he treats them fairly. It made sense to me. I note that Amazon reviewers rate the book either 5 or 1 which means it鈥檚 probably a book worth looking at, certainly by non-specialists. I was least interested in the pre-Socratics though and most interested, modernist that I am, in the last chapter, called The Haven of Piety: From Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. It was particularly interesting to see how increasingly western philosophy had to 鈥渁ccommodate itself鈥� to Christianity. The themes were not all that different from controversies which have been raging ever since, no matter how often they were put to rest, like whether the world was created all at once by God or existed or evolved independently.
Two things this book reminded me of particularly. First that philosophy first embraced all learning and only later separated itself out into first philosophy and theology and later into literature and science and history and mathematics, etc. etc. It was particularly interesting to see the evolution of science out of what was called 鈥渘atural philosophy鈥� and to discover that pre-Socratic philosophers first came up with the 鈥渁tomistic theory鈥濃€攁 crude hypothesis about the 鈥渢iny particles鈥� that made up all matter. Secondly, it reminded me that in the period that we call the 鈥淒ark Ages鈥� in Europe, much of the learning of the classical period was preserved and advanced by Arab scholars. It鈥檚 so easy to forget, in today鈥檚 focus on fundamental Islamist politics that glorious period of academic brilliance in the Arab world
April 15, 2016
I will confess to having a degree in Philosophy, which, from a practical stand point, may seem kind of pointless. My father certainly thought so when I was in college. 'What are you going to do with that?' he would say. 'There's no jobs in it.' His degree was in accounting and he worked as an auditor. He knew about money. And because he did, I didn't feel I needed to. That was back when I was young and not especially aware of the need to actually earn an income of my own some day. My insufferable reply was usually something like, 'I'm going to college for an education, not for job training.' Yeah, great comeback. Very philosophical, but try paying the rent with it!
Admittedly, a degree in Philosophy isn't for everyone, but we all have a philosophy, at least as it's broadly defined. We each have a particular way of looking at the world, complete with reasons (or at least rationalizations) of why we see it this way. Our personal philosophies form the foundations of everything we think and do. They color our perceptions and shape our actions. In this respect, our philosophies are pretty important, so sparing a thought or two for them is probably worthwhile.
In this book, Gottlieb takes us back to some of the earliest recorded reflections on ways of seeing the world, from ideas about what it 'really' is, to how people should live in it. I don't recall ever reading a better summation of the main points of the most prominent thinkers: from ancient Greece (where all sorts of ideas, both wild and insightful were espoused and criticized) to the Renaissance (when rationalization tended to dominate over rationality). He also clears up a few common misconceptions about some philosophers. I, personally, gained a greater appreciation for Aristotle from this book. Like many, I tended to view his philosophy as one of the things impeding progress in the Middle Ages. But it wasn't the fault of Aristotle or Ptolemy or Galen that their works were regarded as something close to sacred long after their deaths, and they probably would not have approved to learn that they were.
The Dream of Reason is a great read. It's concise, informative, even entertaining. Gottlieb achieves the latter through clear prose and by providing just a bit of analysis from a modern perspective, which puts the ideas he's explaining in context and shows their progression over time. If you're a student of philosophy or just someone with a mild interest, you should read this.
Admittedly, a degree in Philosophy isn't for everyone, but we all have a philosophy, at least as it's broadly defined. We each have a particular way of looking at the world, complete with reasons (or at least rationalizations) of why we see it this way. Our personal philosophies form the foundations of everything we think and do. They color our perceptions and shape our actions. In this respect, our philosophies are pretty important, so sparing a thought or two for them is probably worthwhile.
In this book, Gottlieb takes us back to some of the earliest recorded reflections on ways of seeing the world, from ideas about what it 'really' is, to how people should live in it. I don't recall ever reading a better summation of the main points of the most prominent thinkers: from ancient Greece (where all sorts of ideas, both wild and insightful were espoused and criticized) to the Renaissance (when rationalization tended to dominate over rationality). He also clears up a few common misconceptions about some philosophers. I, personally, gained a greater appreciation for Aristotle from this book. Like many, I tended to view his philosophy as one of the things impeding progress in the Middle Ages. But it wasn't the fault of Aristotle or Ptolemy or Galen that their works were regarded as something close to sacred long after their deaths, and they probably would not have approved to learn that they were.
The Dream of Reason is a great read. It's concise, informative, even entertaining. Gottlieb achieves the latter through clear prose and by providing just a bit of analysis from a modern perspective, which puts the ideas he's explaining in context and shows their progression over time. If you're a student of philosophy or just someone with a mild interest, you should read this.
July 31, 2019
One of the things that I wish that I could have had in my youth is a classical education. Economic impracticality aside, at the time I did not even know that such a thing even existed so needless to say it was impossible on multiple levels. Over the years though I've tried to supplement the gaps in my knowledge with a basic overview of classical philosophy, provided by people like Bertrand Russell, Will Durant and Arthur Herman. I've noticed other people doing this today through YouTube popularizers of vastly uneven quality. Classical knowledge has a growing prestige in our minds today. That makes sense given the epistemological crisis that we are collectively experiencing.
Perhaps since I've already read many similar surveys, this book did not reveal much about classical philosophy that I was not already familiar with. It did teach me a valuable lesson though: how not to write a book. It's not that the writing was bad, it was fine. It is just that there was nothing impelling the book along. There was no original argument or contention underlying the chapter discussions. They were just like individual Wikipedia articles stacked on top of each other without any necessary relationship. Maybe I am asking a lot, but in Arthur Herman's sublime The Cave and the Light he manages to make a compelling argument for the continuing relevance and dynamism of Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the present day. In comparison this book by Gottlieb is like an encyclopedia. That is, superfluous in the age of the cloud.
Gottlieb has a certain contempt or dismissiveness towards many of the ancient philosophers he is writing about. This critically undermines the book in my opinion. To put it this way: if some obscure ancient guy was just wrong and believed a bunch of nonsense with no impact on the present day; why should we care about them then? Just vanity knowledge? It actually needs to be explained afresh, or with some enthusiasm for he subject.
The author's own apparent positivistic/materialistic leanings are not so subtly expressed throughout the book. If your own beliefs are similar it might make the overall discussion more tolerable. To be fair, I always appreciate the effort to present anew old knowledge. It is vital and needs to be done for every generation, lest they fall under the sway of charlatans. And it's not that this book is without redeeming qualities 鈥� it does teach you the basics of Aristotle and Plato for example. But if you are a philistine who feels pained by your lack of classical knowledge please read The Cave and the Light instead. You will get something more clearly meaningful, relevant and enjoyable out of it.
Perhaps since I've already read many similar surveys, this book did not reveal much about classical philosophy that I was not already familiar with. It did teach me a valuable lesson though: how not to write a book. It's not that the writing was bad, it was fine. It is just that there was nothing impelling the book along. There was no original argument or contention underlying the chapter discussions. They were just like individual Wikipedia articles stacked on top of each other without any necessary relationship. Maybe I am asking a lot, but in Arthur Herman's sublime The Cave and the Light he manages to make a compelling argument for the continuing relevance and dynamism of Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the present day. In comparison this book by Gottlieb is like an encyclopedia. That is, superfluous in the age of the cloud.
Gottlieb has a certain contempt or dismissiveness towards many of the ancient philosophers he is writing about. This critically undermines the book in my opinion. To put it this way: if some obscure ancient guy was just wrong and believed a bunch of nonsense with no impact on the present day; why should we care about them then? Just vanity knowledge? It actually needs to be explained afresh, or with some enthusiasm for he subject.
The author's own apparent positivistic/materialistic leanings are not so subtly expressed throughout the book. If your own beliefs are similar it might make the overall discussion more tolerable. To be fair, I always appreciate the effort to present anew old knowledge. It is vital and needs to be done for every generation, lest they fall under the sway of charlatans. And it's not that this book is without redeeming qualities 鈥� it does teach you the basics of Aristotle and Plato for example. But if you are a philistine who feels pained by your lack of classical knowledge please read The Cave and the Light instead. You will get something more clearly meaningful, relevant and enjoyable out of it.
November 25, 2016
One can learn Philosophy best of all by going to the primary sources themselves and studying them, but by doing it that way the student losses the context and the relationship between the different schools of thought and how a school of thought relates to the others of its time period and how it is relevant today. The author, a journalist, does that connecting for the reader by analyzing what each school of thought says and how it connects giving the reader the modern perspective the school requires.
I can give a for instance what the author does with the school of thought with the Skeptics. First he puts them in the context after the Socratics and why they relate as they do, then he shows the contrast they had with the Epicureans and Stoics, and then how they relate to the Logical Positivists of the relatively modern Vienna Circle by the fact that the Skeptics see the world at most by the empirical facts based upon the absolute foundation and aren't necessarily needing the theory (theoria, the binding glue that holds the world together by a narrative or description) to understand the world (Hume, a Skeptic and empiricist would say you never can see the effect, just the cause, and the vase staying upon the table is all that you can really see and the 'gravity' is not materially real and is just a 'construct', a narrative, within the mind).
I think the author some what excels at explaining each school of thought and putting the context and relevance in its proper place. I think Bertrand Russel and Will Durant each have written a very similar book as this one and did as good or better job. I'm not sure if there was anything really new within this book that wasn't in the other two books, but he is a good writer and the book is an interesting read.
(The author really likes the short play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes and must have mentioned it 10 times with the pre-Socratics and the Socratics. I would recommend listening to the free version available at LibriVox before listening to this story since it is entertaining, laugh out loud funny, free, and is such a big part of the narrative to the first part of this book).
I can give a for instance what the author does with the school of thought with the Skeptics. First he puts them in the context after the Socratics and why they relate as they do, then he shows the contrast they had with the Epicureans and Stoics, and then how they relate to the Logical Positivists of the relatively modern Vienna Circle by the fact that the Skeptics see the world at most by the empirical facts based upon the absolute foundation and aren't necessarily needing the theory (theoria, the binding glue that holds the world together by a narrative or description) to understand the world (Hume, a Skeptic and empiricist would say you never can see the effect, just the cause, and the vase staying upon the table is all that you can really see and the 'gravity' is not materially real and is just a 'construct', a narrative, within the mind).
I think the author some what excels at explaining each school of thought and putting the context and relevance in its proper place. I think Bertrand Russel and Will Durant each have written a very similar book as this one and did as good or better job. I'm not sure if there was anything really new within this book that wasn't in the other two books, but he is a good writer and the book is an interesting read.
(The author really likes the short play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes and must have mentioned it 10 times with the pre-Socratics and the Socratics. I would recommend listening to the free version available at LibriVox before listening to this story since it is entertaining, laugh out loud funny, free, and is such a big part of the narrative to the first part of this book).
February 2, 2025
An enjoyable read. I did get lost, especially with the Ancient philosophers, where many, many names were mentioned, but what was a serious eye opener was how Anthony Gottlieb took these philosophers down from their high pedestals and talked about them in more earthly tones; I was always under the impression that Plato was this super human being who has done much for Western thinking, though not that he isn鈥檛 but now he seems more human to me. However, it didn鈥檛 stop there as Anthony Gottlieb described the unfolding of Western philosophy, he gave many examples of how its reporting has been altered and it didn鈥檛 quite happen in how it鈥檚 popularly spoken of. Both these elements I found helpful in making the difference to make this subject less intimidating.
November 18, 2024
Really good summary of western philosopher before the Renaissance.
1. Earliest philosophy is 6th c. BC in Miletus, allegedly predicting a solar eclipse.
2. c. 500 BC, the Pythagoreans studied the harmony of the universe and worshipped numbers.
3. Heraclitus (540-480 BC): one cannot step twice in the same river.
4. Parmenides wrongly believed we can鈥檛 talk about non-existence. A good joke about nobody (p. 56).
5. Zeno is Parmenides鈥檚 student and had an infinity paradox refuted every century.
6. Empedocles (no note).
7. Anaxagora (500-428 BC) developed materialist thinking which led to 鈥渁tomists鈥� Leucippus and Democritus.
8. Atomists: Incidentally, the latter reached the conclusion of the paradox of Zeno is wrong because he assumed everything can be divided ad infinitum.
9. Sophists: One of the first to teach all kinds of things and earn money is Protagoras. Before this time, sophists meant wise men and sages. Plato is against their unprincipled approach of teaching practical success. In one of his plays, Aristophanes framed Socrates as a sophist.
10. 4 main witnesses of Socrates鈥檚 thought: Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Xenophon implausibly tried to pass on his own tips about farming and military tactics through the figure of Socrates. If X tried too hard to make S respectable, Aristophanes tried the opposite. S鈥檚 character strength is his weakness in philosophy: he believes that once people really know justice, they would immediately become just themselves. Plato describes Cynic Diogenes as S gone mad.
11. Plato鈥檚 Academy teaches well-off elite who were hungry for higher education. The utopia in the Republic is in one sense not ideal. What he is really urged is no more than what guides a prudent parent: we don鈥檛 allow children to be free until we establish a constitution in them, just as in a city, we try to equip them with a guardian and rule within them to take our place. For Plato, being rational does not primarily mean being calculating and intellectual. Greek reason is not cold, but hot. It has been aptly defined as 鈥渢hat in a man which enables him to live for something鈥�.
12. Aristotle:
1. His contribution in logic and biology stands above other contributions.
2. He writes like a modern professor (because we copied dutifully his style). So much so, someone aptly said 鈥淎鈥檚 works are full of platitudes in much the same way as Shakespeare鈥檚 Hamlet is full of quotations鈥�.
3. His concepts of 4 causes, quintessence.
4. His syllogism is perhaps due to Socrates鈥檚 style of argument. It needs to be complemented by propositional logic.
5. To A, virtue is the ability to steer a middle course between defect and excess.
6. To A, a good life will require a certain minimum of material comfort and general good fortune, but the crucial thing is to do all the characteristically human things well and from the right motives. Such a life will bring the sort of pleasures that a wise man judges to be best. A new twist is added to the story when it emerges that one particular activity is even more valuable than the rest, so that the very best form of life would be the one devoted to that. This activity turns out to be (risking a bit of self-serving on A鈥檚 part) theoria: intellectual contemplation.
7. Mere rational argument is not enough. Virtue is a matter of character, which is in turn a matter of habits.
8. In A鈥檚 view, poetry (脿 la Iliad and Oedipus Tyrannus) is something more worthy of serious attention than history (by which he means mere particular facts).
13. Epicurean, Stoics, and Skeptics. Aristotle died one day after his student AtG. The subsequent Hellenistic period brought a new era in philosophy in which it is above all a guide to life and source of comfort. Though a bit too oversimplified, the following Victorian profiles of Epicureans and Stoics are quite useful:
1. There have ever been stern, upright, self-controlled, and courageous men, actuated by a pure sense of duty, capable of high efforts of self-sacrifice, somewhat intolerant of the frailties of others, somewhat hard and unsympathizing in the ordinary intercourse of society, but rising to heroic grandeur as the storm lowered upon their path, and more ready to relinquish life than the cause they believed to be true. There have also always been men of easy tempers and of amiable dis-position, gentle, benevolent, and pliant, cordial friends and forgiving enemies, selfish at heart, yet ever ready, when it is possible, to unite their gratifications with those of others, averse to all enthusiasm, mysticism, utopias, and superstition, with little depth of character or capacity for self-sacrifice, but admirably fitted to impart and to receive enjoyment, and to render the course of life easy and harmonious. The first are by nature Stoics, and the second Epicureans.
2. On the other hand, the earliest Skeptics were hoping to find tranquillity by finding out the truth about things. They were unable to find the truth, so they gave up and suspended judgement-whereupon they instantly started to feel better. Thus it turns out to be the suspension of judgement, and not the pursuit of inquiry, which brings contentment.
14. Late antiquity and the Middle Ages: By year 1000, all branches of knowledge collapse in the west. Christianity bears some blame as it emphasizes that the only thing to know about the world is that it鈥檚 made by God. During this period, Hypatia鈥檚 story is recycled onto St. Catherine of Alexandria. There were already argument against heavier objects falling much faster than lighter ones (by Philoponus), 1000 years before Galileo.
15. Renaissance: By that time, Platonists restored love of math and also venerated sun. These help prepared the ground for 17th.c. development. Mid 15th. C., European books numbered in the 1000s, by the end of the century, there were at least 10M in circulation. Luther and the Protestants unleashed the 鈥渉ow do you know鈥� question. Montaigne brought the issue to a wider audience. Both Descartes and Bacon resolved to try and put human knowledge on a firmer footing.
1. Earliest philosophy is 6th c. BC in Miletus, allegedly predicting a solar eclipse.
2. c. 500 BC, the Pythagoreans studied the harmony of the universe and worshipped numbers.
3. Heraclitus (540-480 BC): one cannot step twice in the same river.
4. Parmenides wrongly believed we can鈥檛 talk about non-existence. A good joke about nobody (p. 56).
5. Zeno is Parmenides鈥檚 student and had an infinity paradox refuted every century.
6. Empedocles (no note).
7. Anaxagora (500-428 BC) developed materialist thinking which led to 鈥渁tomists鈥� Leucippus and Democritus.
8. Atomists: Incidentally, the latter reached the conclusion of the paradox of Zeno is wrong because he assumed everything can be divided ad infinitum.
9. Sophists: One of the first to teach all kinds of things and earn money is Protagoras. Before this time, sophists meant wise men and sages. Plato is against their unprincipled approach of teaching practical success. In one of his plays, Aristophanes framed Socrates as a sophist.
10. 4 main witnesses of Socrates鈥檚 thought: Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Xenophon implausibly tried to pass on his own tips about farming and military tactics through the figure of Socrates. If X tried too hard to make S respectable, Aristophanes tried the opposite. S鈥檚 character strength is his weakness in philosophy: he believes that once people really know justice, they would immediately become just themselves. Plato describes Cynic Diogenes as S gone mad.
11. Plato鈥檚 Academy teaches well-off elite who were hungry for higher education. The utopia in the Republic is in one sense not ideal. What he is really urged is no more than what guides a prudent parent: we don鈥檛 allow children to be free until we establish a constitution in them, just as in a city, we try to equip them with a guardian and rule within them to take our place. For Plato, being rational does not primarily mean being calculating and intellectual. Greek reason is not cold, but hot. It has been aptly defined as 鈥渢hat in a man which enables him to live for something鈥�.
12. Aristotle:
1. His contribution in logic and biology stands above other contributions.
2. He writes like a modern professor (because we copied dutifully his style). So much so, someone aptly said 鈥淎鈥檚 works are full of platitudes in much the same way as Shakespeare鈥檚 Hamlet is full of quotations鈥�.
3. His concepts of 4 causes, quintessence.
4. His syllogism is perhaps due to Socrates鈥檚 style of argument. It needs to be complemented by propositional logic.
5. To A, virtue is the ability to steer a middle course between defect and excess.
6. To A, a good life will require a certain minimum of material comfort and general good fortune, but the crucial thing is to do all the characteristically human things well and from the right motives. Such a life will bring the sort of pleasures that a wise man judges to be best. A new twist is added to the story when it emerges that one particular activity is even more valuable than the rest, so that the very best form of life would be the one devoted to that. This activity turns out to be (risking a bit of self-serving on A鈥檚 part) theoria: intellectual contemplation.
7. Mere rational argument is not enough. Virtue is a matter of character, which is in turn a matter of habits.
8. In A鈥檚 view, poetry (脿 la Iliad and Oedipus Tyrannus) is something more worthy of serious attention than history (by which he means mere particular facts).
13. Epicurean, Stoics, and Skeptics. Aristotle died one day after his student AtG. The subsequent Hellenistic period brought a new era in philosophy in which it is above all a guide to life and source of comfort. Though a bit too oversimplified, the following Victorian profiles of Epicureans and Stoics are quite useful:
1. There have ever been stern, upright, self-controlled, and courageous men, actuated by a pure sense of duty, capable of high efforts of self-sacrifice, somewhat intolerant of the frailties of others, somewhat hard and unsympathizing in the ordinary intercourse of society, but rising to heroic grandeur as the storm lowered upon their path, and more ready to relinquish life than the cause they believed to be true. There have also always been men of easy tempers and of amiable dis-position, gentle, benevolent, and pliant, cordial friends and forgiving enemies, selfish at heart, yet ever ready, when it is possible, to unite their gratifications with those of others, averse to all enthusiasm, mysticism, utopias, and superstition, with little depth of character or capacity for self-sacrifice, but admirably fitted to impart and to receive enjoyment, and to render the course of life easy and harmonious. The first are by nature Stoics, and the second Epicureans.
2. On the other hand, the earliest Skeptics were hoping to find tranquillity by finding out the truth about things. They were unable to find the truth, so they gave up and suspended judgement-whereupon they instantly started to feel better. Thus it turns out to be the suspension of judgement, and not the pursuit of inquiry, which brings contentment.
14. Late antiquity and the Middle Ages: By year 1000, all branches of knowledge collapse in the west. Christianity bears some blame as it emphasizes that the only thing to know about the world is that it鈥檚 made by God. During this period, Hypatia鈥檚 story is recycled onto St. Catherine of Alexandria. There were already argument against heavier objects falling much faster than lighter ones (by Philoponus), 1000 years before Galileo.
15. Renaissance: By that time, Platonists restored love of math and also venerated sun. These help prepared the ground for 17th.c. development. Mid 15th. C., European books numbered in the 1000s, by the end of the century, there were at least 10M in circulation. Luther and the Protestants unleashed the 鈥渉ow do you know鈥� question. Montaigne brought the issue to a wider audience. Both Descartes and Bacon resolved to try and put human knowledge on a firmer footing.
February 14, 2019
兀賳鬲賵賳賷 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 賱賴 賲賳 丕賱爻賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賲賷夭丞 賲丕 賷噩毓賱 賰鬲丕亘賴 賴匕丕 賮賷 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲毓乇賵賮丞 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.. 兀爻賱賵亘賴 賲賲鬲丕夭 賮賷 丕賱乇亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬貙 賵丕賱噩賲毓 亘賷賳 兀賰亘乇 賯丿乇賺 賲賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮賷 兀氐睾乇 丨賷賾夭 賲賲賰賳貙 賵匕賱賰 亘丕賱賲夭噩 亘賷賳 鬲賷爻賷乇 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱丨賰賷 亘丨賷孬 丕賱賮賯乇丞 鬲賰賵賳 賲賰孬賾賮丞 亘卮賰賱 賰亘賷乇 賵賲鬲賲丕爻賰丞. 賷丨乇氐 丿丕卅賲賸丕 毓賱賶 兀賱丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 毓丕卅賯賸丕 兀賲丕賲 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲爻鬲乇爻賱丞貙 賵賷購馗賴乇 丕賱鬲兀孬賾乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 丨丿孬鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賵馗賴賵乇 匕賱賰 毓賱賶 兀賮賰丕乇賴賲貙 禺氐賵氐賸丕 乇亘胤購賴 丕賱賮賱爻賮丕鬲 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 亘兀氐丿丕卅賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬貙 賰丕賱乇亘胤 賲孬賱賸丕 亘賷賳 賲賯賵賱丞 丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賷賳 賮賷 賳爻亘賷丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕賱賳夭毓丕鬲 丕賱賳爻亘賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵丕賱孬賯丕賮丞貙 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱亘乇噩賲丕鬲賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱丿賶 賵賱賷丕賲 噩賷賲爻貙 賲乇丕毓賷賸丕 亘丿賯丞 亘賷丕賳 兀賵噩賴 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 亘賷賳 丕賱丕孬賳賷賳. 兀賲丕 兀賴賲 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲丕 賰丕賳 賷毓胤賷賳賷 丕賱丿丕賮毓 賱廿賰賲丕賱賴 亘卮賰賱 賲爻鬲賲乇 賮賴賵 丕賱丨賷丕丿貙 賮乇睾賲 賵賱賵噩 噩賵鬲賱賷亘 廿賱賶 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 兀睾賵丕乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷賮賯丿 丨賷丕丿賴 賵賱賵 賯賱賷賱賸丕貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賰丕賳 賷乇丕毓賷 丿丕卅賲賸丕 丕賱鬲賯氐賷 賵丕賱賵囟賵丨 丕賱爻賱賷賲 丕賱氐丕丿賯 賱毓乇囟 賱兀賮賰丕乇 亘賯丿乇鬲賴 丕賱賲匕賴賱丞 毓賱賶 丕賱亘丨孬 賵丕賱噩賲毓貙 賵丕囟毓賸丕 丨噩噩 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 兀賲丕賲 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賱賷氐亘丨 賲爻鬲賵毓亘賸丕 賱賱禺胤賵胤 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賯爻丕賲:
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 鬲爻毓 賮氐賵賱貙 丕賱兀賵賱 毓賳 丨賯亘丞 賲丕 賯亘賱 丕賱爻賯乇丕胤賷丞貙 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱兀賵丕卅賱/丕賱賲賱胤賷賷賳貙 賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 兀賮賰丕乇 賰賱 賲賳賴賲 毓賱賶 丨丿丞: 胤丕賱賷爻貙 賵兀賳丕賰爻賷賲丕賳丿乇貙 賵兀賳丕賰爻賷賲賷賳爻. 孬賲 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳賴 毓賳 丕賱賮賷孬丕睾賵乇賷賷賳貙 賵丕賱孬丕賱孬 毓賳 賴賷乇賯賱賷胤爻貙 丕賱乇丕亘毓 毓賳 亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻貙 丕賱禺丕賲爻 毓賳 夭賷賳賵賳 鬲賱賲賷匕 亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻貙 丕賱爻丕丿爻 毓賳 廿賲亘賷丿賵賰賱賷爻 丕賱兀賰乇丕噩丕爻賷貙 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓賳 兀賳丕賰爻丕噩賵乇丕爻貙 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓賳 丿賷賲賵賯乇胤賷爻貙 賵兀禺賷乇賸丕 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓賳 丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賷賳貙 賵亘匕賱賰 賷賳鬲賴賷 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 丨賯亘丞 爻賯乇丕胤 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵貙 賲毓 丨丿賷孬 賲賮氐賱 賵賲鬲卮毓亘 毓賳 賮賰乇 賰賱賺 賲賳賴賲 賵丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱匕賷 賳鬲噩 毓賳賴 賱丿賶 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 兀賵 丕賱乇賵賲丕賳貙 賵丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱賳丕鬲噩丞 毓賳 兀賮賰丕乇賴賲 賵賴賵 兀爻丕爻 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賱孬.
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賲賳 賮氐賱賷賳貙 丕賱兀賵賱 毓賳 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞貙 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲賴 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 亘毓丿 丕賳鬲賴丕亍 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賴賷賱賷賳爻鬲賷 丨鬲賶 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵丕賳鬲賴丕亍賸 亘丿賷賰丕乇鬲 兀亘賵 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞. 賵亘匕賱賰 賷賳鬲賴賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱.
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲爻賲 亘賯丿乇丞 毓丕賱賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲夭噩 亘賷賳 鬲亘爻賷胤 丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賵賵噩丕夭丞 丕賱卮乇丨 丕賱鬲賷 鬲胤賾乇丿 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賴賵 賲丕 賷毓胤賷賴 賲丕 賱賴 賲賳 爻賲丞 賲賲賷夭丞 賵卮毓亘賷丞 賲爻鬲丨賯賻賾丞 賵賷噩毓賱賴 賲賳 兀賵丕卅賱 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賲鬲丕夭丞 賮賷 毓乇囟賴丕 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 兀賯爻丕賲:
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 鬲爻毓 賮氐賵賱貙 丕賱兀賵賱 毓賳 丨賯亘丞 賲丕 賯亘賱 丕賱爻賯乇丕胤賷丞貙 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱兀賵丕卅賱/丕賱賲賱胤賷賷賳貙 賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 兀賮賰丕乇 賰賱 賲賳賴賲 毓賱賶 丨丿丞: 胤丕賱賷爻貙 賵兀賳丕賰爻賷賲丕賳丿乇貙 賵兀賳丕賰爻賷賲賷賳爻. 孬賲 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳賴 毓賳 丕賱賮賷孬丕睾賵乇賷賷賳貙 賵丕賱孬丕賱孬 毓賳 賴賷乇賯賱賷胤爻貙 丕賱乇丕亘毓 毓賳 亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻貙 丕賱禺丕賲爻 毓賳 夭賷賳賵賳 鬲賱賲賷匕 亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻貙 丕賱爻丕丿爻 毓賳 廿賲亘賷丿賵賰賱賷爻 丕賱兀賰乇丕噩丕爻賷貙 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓賳 兀賳丕賰爻丕噩賵乇丕爻貙 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓賳 丿賷賲賵賯乇胤賷爻貙 賵兀禺賷乇賸丕 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓賳 丕賱爻賮爻胤丕卅賷賷賳貙 賵亘匕賱賰 賷賳鬲賴賷 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 丨賯亘丞 爻賯乇丕胤 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵貙 賲毓 丨丿賷孬 賲賮氐賱 賵賲鬲卮毓亘 毓賳 賮賰乇 賰賱賺 賲賳賴賲 賵丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱匕賷 賳鬲噩 毓賳賴 賱丿賶 丕賱廿睾乇賷賯 兀賵 丕賱乇賵賲丕賳貙 賵丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱賳丕鬲噩丞 毓賳 兀賮賰丕乇賴賲 賵賴賵 兀爻丕爻 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賱孬.
丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賲賳 賮氐賱賷賳貙 丕賱兀賵賱 毓賳 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞貙 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲賴 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 亘毓丿 丕賳鬲賴丕亍 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賴賷賱賷賳爻鬲賷 丨鬲賶 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶 賵丕賳鬲賴丕亍賸 亘丿賷賰丕乇鬲 兀亘賵 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞. 賵亘匕賱賰 賷賳鬲賴賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱.
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲爻賲 亘賯丿乇丞 毓丕賱賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲夭噩 亘賷賳 鬲亘爻賷胤 丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賵賵噩丕夭丞 丕賱卮乇丨 丕賱鬲賷 鬲胤賾乇丿 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賴賵 賲丕 賷毓胤賷賴 賲丕 賱賴 賲賳 爻賲丞 賲賲賷夭丞 賵卮毓亘賷丞 賲爻鬲丨賯賻賾丞 賵賷噩毓賱賴 賲賳 兀賵丕卅賱 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賲鬲丕夭丞 賮賷 毓乇囟賴丕 賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
January 12, 2018
so my man Harjan Singh at the BK lounge on Manor Park Rd be all lyk "Lookie here paji: I'm not saying that Aristotelean syllogism necessitates the interminable pretzels of dem analyticz, but all Whopperz be teh cholesterol; all Harjan Singhz be da Whopperz; ergo all Harjan Singhz be the cholesterol. Yar wut u eat, boiiieeee." Indeed, the man had a point, spumey froth of mustard oozing from his lips, and who was I to argue the niceties of Medieval theologians, pan-seared or otherwise? Lamentably, I digress; Goobles presents a swarthy survey, less curmudgeonly than the Roosel yet chock with verve. Kudos, fine sir!
February 22, 2017
This is an enjoyable and thorough overview of Western Philosophy from its origins in Greek Asia Minor up through the 16th century. Gottlieb has dug in and his deep understanding of the schools of thought and their intricate relationships makes this the ideal book to get the timelines straight without just skimming the surface.
I can't decide if his humor (which I like) detracts a little from the grandeur of the subject or makes what could be an overwhelming trudge much lighter. I think I just decided, when in doubt go with humor, that's my philosophy.
I'm interested in the current revival of Stoic philosophy. There is a Stoic Week and good discussions led by Massimo Pigliucci on youtube and blogs.
I can't decide if his humor (which I like) detracts a little from the grandeur of the subject or makes what could be an overwhelming trudge much lighter. I think I just decided, when in doubt go with humor, that's my philosophy.
I'm interested in the current revival of Stoic philosophy. There is a Stoic Week and good discussions led by Massimo Pigliucci on youtube and blogs.
December 1, 2016
丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱 (鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 廿賱賷 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞)
兀賳鬲賵賳賷 噩賵鬲賱賷亘
.............................
丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 丕賱丌賳 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賰賳鬲 賯丿 兀噩賱鬲 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賱兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞貨 賳馗乇丕 賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賱賷 賮乇丕睾 賱夭賲賳 胤賵賷賱貙 賱賷爻 賮乇丕睾 丕賱賵賯鬲 賮賯胤貙 亘賱 賮乇丕睾 丕賱匕賴賳 賲賳 丕賱賲卮丕睾賱 賵丕賱賲卮丕賰賱 兀賷囟丕貙 賵賴賷 丨丕賱丞 賯賱賲丕 鬲鬲丨賯賯.
賵賱賲丕 丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 毓乇賮鬲 兀賳賴 賮毓賱丕 賰丕賳 賮賷 丨丕噩丞 廿賱賷 毓賯賱 賲爻鬲毓丿 賱賱爻賮乇 賮賷 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 丕賱乇丨賱丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賷丞 噩丿丕 丿丕禺賱 丨賱賲 毓馗賷賲 噩丿丕 毓丕卮賴 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 毓賱賷 賲丿丕乇 丌賱丕賮 丕賱爻賳賷賳貙 賴賷 毓賲乇 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 乇丨賱鬲賴 賲毓 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
賱賯丿 兀丨爻賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賮丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賮賴賲貙 賮賴賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵賲賰丕賳賴 賮賷賴丕貙 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴 亘丕賱賰賵賳 賵禺丕賱賯 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賴賵 乇丨賱丞 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賯賱 賲毓 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
賷賯毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 兀乇亘毓賲丕卅丞 賵爻鬲賷賳 氐賮丨丞 賲賯爻賲丞 廿賱賷 孬賱丕孬 兀噩夭丕亍貙 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 毓賳 毓氐乇 賲丕 賯亘賱 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞貙 賵丕賱孬丕賱孬 毓賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 賱賲 賳毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴賲 賵噩丿賵丕 賯亘賱 毓氐乇 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賮賲賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賴乇賯賱賷胤爻貙 賵亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻貙 賵夭賷賳賵賳貙 賵廿賲亘賷丿賵賰賱賷爻貙 賵兀賳丕賰爻丕噩賵乇丕爻貙 賵丿賷賲賵賯乇賷胤賷爻.
賰賱 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴賲 丌乇丕亍 賮賷 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴賲 亘丕賱賲毓亘賵丿貙 賰賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴賲 丌乇丕亍 丨賵賱 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱丌乇丕亍 賱丕夭丕賱鬲 賲鬲丿丕賵賱丞 亘賷賳 氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳.
賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 乇丌賴丕 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賯丿賷賲丕 丨賵賱 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞 兀賳 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賰賱賴丕 禺賱賯鬲 賲賳 丕賱賲丕亍貙 賵兀賳賴丕 禺賱賯鬲 賲賳 丕賱賳丕乇貙 賵兀賳 丕賱賲丕丿丞 禺賱賯鬲 賲賳 毓賳丕氐乇 兀乇亘毓丞 賴賷 丕賱鬲乇丕亘 賵丕賱賲丕亍 賵丕賱賳丕乇 賵丕賱賴賵丕亍貙 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 鬲毓乇囟鬲 賱兀氐賱 賲丕丿丞 丕賱賰賵賳.
賵囟丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘爻賴賵賱丞 賰賷賮 兀賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲鬲賯丿賲賵賳 賲賴丿賵丕 賱馗賴賵乇 噩賷賱 丕賱毓馗賲丕亍 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇賷賳貙 賵賴丐賱丕亍 賴賲 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 丕賱兀賰孬乇 卮賴乇丞 賵賴賲 爻賯乇丕胤 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵.
賮賷 賮氐賱 胤賵賷賱 丨賰賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 鬲丕乇賷禺 賰賱 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵兀賴賲 丌乇丕卅賴 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱廿賱賴賷丕鬲 賵賲賳賴噩 賰賱 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇貙 賵乇丐賷丞 賰賱 賲賳賴賲 賱賱毓丕賱賲貙 賮賲賳賴賲 賲賳 賷乇賷 丕賱賮賰乇 兀爻亘賯 賲賳 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賵噩賵丿貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賲賳 賷毓賷卮 亘賮賰乇賴 賮賷 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲孬丕賱賷丕鬲貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賲賳 兀賳夭賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 丕賱爻賲丕亍 廿賱賷 丕賱兀乇囟.
賰賱 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賰丕賷丞貙 卮丕乇賰 亘賴丕 賮賷 鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱丨賱賲 丕賱毓馗賷賲貙 丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱. 丕爻鬲卮賴丿 爻賯乇丕胤 賱兀噩賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 賵乇賮囟 丕賱賮乇丕乇 賲賳 兀賲丕賲 兀毓丿丕卅賴 乇睾賲 鬲賵丕賮乇 丕賱賮乇氐丞貙 賵亘賳賷 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 噩賲賴賵乇賷鬲賴 丕賱禺賷丕賱賷丞 丕賱兀賮賱丕胤賵賳賷丞 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇貙 亘丕丨孬丕 毓賳 毓丕賱賲 兀賮囟賱 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賵丨丕賵賱 兀乇爻胤賵 兀賳 賷毓賱賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 胤乇賷賯丞 賷丨賰賲 亘賴丕 毓賱賷 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 賵丕賱賲爻丕卅賱 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲毓乇囟 賱賴丕 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賴貙 賮亘賳賷 賲賳胤賯賴 丕賱禺丕氐 賱賱丨賰賲 毓賱賷 賲丿賷 氐丨丞 賵禺胤兀 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱鬲賷 賷丨鬲丕噩 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 廿賱賷 丕賱丨賰賲 賮賷賴丕.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 廿賱賷 丕賱爻賰賷賳丞貙 賵賷賯氐丿 賴賳丕 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞. 賮賴匕賴 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賯丿 賰丕賳 賴賲賴丕 丕賱兀賵賱 丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵爻賰賷賳丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲賮賯賵丿丞. 賮丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賯丿 亘丨孬鬲 毓賳 丕賱爻賰賷賳丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱丕賳睾賲丕爻 丕賱賰丕賲賱 賮賷 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲貙 賵毓賱賷 毓賰爻賴丕 丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲 胤乇賷賯 丕賱夭賴丿 賱賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賷 爻賰賷賳丞 丕賱賳賮爻 賵丕鬲禺匕鬲 丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞 賲賵賯賮丕 賷丿賱 丕爻賲賴丕 毓賱賷賴貙 賵鬲毓鬲亘乇 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 賲賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲賲賴丿丞 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷 賱賯亘賵賱 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賰賲丕 賯丕賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘.
乇睾賲 氐毓賵亘丞 賲丕丿丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵賵毓賵乇鬲賴丕貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丿 兀丨爻賳 賲丐賱賮賴 鬲鬲亘毓 賳賲賵 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷貙 賵禺胤丕 亘丕賱賯丕乇卅 賲毓賴 賰兀賳賴 賷賳鬲賯賱 賲毓賴 毓賱賷 丿乇噩丕鬲 爻賱賲貙 賰賱 賳賯賱賴 鬲賴丿賷 廿賱賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賱賷賴丕 鬲賱賯丕卅賷丕.
兀丨爻賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱乇亘胤 亘賷賳 兀噩夭丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 丨鬲賷 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賷爻鬲胤乇丿 兀丨賷丕賳丕 賵賷賳鬲賯賱 賲賳 賲賵囟賵毓賴 賰賷 賷毓乇賮 丕賱賯丕乇卅 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賲鬲丿 亘賴丕 丕賱夭賲賳 丨鬲賷 兀孬乇鬲 賮賷 毓氐乇賳丕貙 賵賷匕賰乇 賲賳 鬲兀孬乇 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘賮賷賱爻賵賮 賲賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲貙 賰賲丕 賷賳賯賱 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱賴賲.
乇睾賲 兀賳 賲丕丿丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 氐毓亘丞 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 丕賱爻賴賱 兀賵 賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴丕 賰丕賲賱丞貙 亘賱 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 廿賳 賲丕 丕爻鬲賵毓亘鬲賴 賲賳賴丕 賵賲丕 亘賯賷 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 匕丕賰乇鬲賷 賯賱賷賱 噩丿丕貙 賱賰賳 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 兀賳賳賷 禺爻乇鬲 亘賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賯賱丞 賲丕 亘賯賷 賮賷 匕丕賰乇鬲賷 賲賳 賲丨鬲賵丕賴貨 賱兀賳 賲鬲毓丞 賲鬲丕亘毓丞 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱毓氐賵乇 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴丕 賲賰爻亘 賰亘賷乇貙 賵丕賱鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賷 賴賲 兀賰亘乇 丕賱毓賯賵賱 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賵賲卮丕睾賱賴賲 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱毓氐賵乇 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴 賲賰爻亘貙 賮賷賰賮賷 兀賳 鬲毓乇賮 賴賲賵賲 丕賱賰亘丕乇 賰賷 鬲鬲禺賱賷 毓賳 丕賱賴賲賵賲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿 鬲卮睾賱 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 賷賵賲丕 賲丕.
賵賷賰賮賷 兀賳 兀賯賵賱 兀賳 賲丕 丨氐賱鬲 毓賱賷賴 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 亘賯丿乇 睾乇賮丞 亘賷丿 賲賳 賳賴乇 噩丕乇貙 兀賵 賰亘賱賱 兀氐丕亘 賲賱丕亘爻賷 毓賳丿賲丕 睾爻賱鬲賴丕 賮賷 亘丨乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賲賮賷丿丞 噩丿丕 噩丿丕.
兀賳鬲賵賳賷 噩賵鬲賱賷亘
.............................
丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 丕賱丌賳 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賰賳鬲 賯丿 兀噩賱鬲 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賱兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞貨 賳馗乇丕 賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賱賷 賮乇丕睾 賱夭賲賳 胤賵賷賱貙 賱賷爻 賮乇丕睾 丕賱賵賯鬲 賮賯胤貙 亘賱 賮乇丕睾 丕賱匕賴賳 賲賳 丕賱賲卮丕睾賱 賵丕賱賲卮丕賰賱 兀賷囟丕貙 賵賴賷 丨丕賱丞 賯賱賲丕 鬲鬲丨賯賯.
賵賱賲丕 丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 毓乇賮鬲 兀賳賴 賮毓賱丕 賰丕賳 賮賷 丨丕噩丞 廿賱賷 毓賯賱 賲爻鬲毓丿 賱賱爻賮乇 賮賷 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 丕賱乇丨賱丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賷丞 噩丿丕 丿丕禺賱 丨賱賲 毓馗賷賲 噩丿丕 毓丕卮賴 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 毓賱賷 賲丿丕乇 丌賱丕賮 丕賱爻賳賷賳貙 賴賷 毓賲乇 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 乇丨賱鬲賴 賲毓 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
賱賯丿 兀丨爻賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賮丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賮賴賲貙 賮賴賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵賲賰丕賳賴 賮賷賴丕貙 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴 亘丕賱賰賵賳 賵禺丕賱賯 丕賱賰賵賳貙 賴賵 乇丨賱丞 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賯賱 賲毓 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞.
賷賯毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 兀乇亘毓賲丕卅丞 賵爻鬲賷賳 氐賮丨丞 賲賯爻賲丞 廿賱賷 孬賱丕孬 兀噩夭丕亍貙 賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 毓賳 毓氐乇 賲丕 賯亘賱 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳賷丞貙 賵丕賱孬丕賱孬 毓賳 毓氐乇 丕賱賳賴囟丞.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮丞 賱賲 賳毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴賲 賵噩丿賵丕 賯亘賱 毓氐乇 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賮賲賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賴乇賯賱賷胤爻貙 賵亘丕乇賲賳賷丿爻貙 賵夭賷賳賵賳貙 賵廿賲亘賷丿賵賰賱賷爻貙 賵兀賳丕賰爻丕噩賵乇丕爻貙 賵丿賷賲賵賯乇賷胤賷爻.
賰賱 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴賲 丌乇丕亍 賮賷 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賰賵賳 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴賲 亘丕賱賲毓亘賵丿貙 賰賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴賲 丌乇丕亍 丨賵賱 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱丌乇丕亍 賱丕夭丕賱鬲 賲鬲丿丕賵賱丞 亘賷賳 氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲亘 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳.
賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 乇丌賴丕 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 賯丿賷賲丕 丨賵賱 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丕丿丞 兀賳 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賰賱賴丕 禺賱賯鬲 賲賳 丕賱賲丕亍貙 賵兀賳賴丕 禺賱賯鬲 賲賳 丕賱賳丕乇貙 賵兀賳 丕賱賲丕丿丞 禺賱賯鬲 賲賳 毓賳丕氐乇 兀乇亘毓丞 賴賷 丕賱鬲乇丕亘 賵丕賱賲丕亍 賵丕賱賳丕乇 賵丕賱賴賵丕亍貙 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 鬲毓乇囟鬲 賱兀氐賱 賲丕丿丞 丕賱賰賵賳.
賵囟丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘爻賴賵賱丞 賰賷賮 兀賳 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲鬲賯丿賲賵賳 賲賴丿賵丕 賱馗賴賵乇 噩賷賱 丕賱毓馗賲丕亍 賲賳 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇賷賳貙 賵賴丐賱丕亍 賴賲 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 丕賱兀賰孬乇 卮賴乇丞 賵賴賲 爻賯乇丕胤 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵.
賮賷 賮氐賱 胤賵賷賱 丨賰賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 鬲丕乇賷禺 賰賱 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵兀賴賲 丌乇丕卅賴 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱廿賱賴賷丕鬲 賵賲賳賴噩 賰賱 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇貙 賵乇丐賷丞 賰賱 賲賳賴賲 賱賱毓丕賱賲貙 賮賲賳賴賲 賲賳 賷乇賷 丕賱賮賰乇 兀爻亘賯 賲賳 丕賱賲丕丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賵噩賵丿貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賲賳 賷毓賷卮 亘賮賰乇賴 賮賷 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲孬丕賱賷丕鬲貙 賵賲賳賴賲 賲賳 兀賳夭賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賲賳 丕賱爻賲丕亍 廿賱賷 丕賱兀乇囟.
賰賱 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賰丕賳鬲 賱賴 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨賰丕賷丞貙 卮丕乇賰 亘賴丕 賮賷 鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱丨賱賲 丕賱毓馗賷賲貙 丨賱賲 丕賱毓賯賱. 丕爻鬲卮賴丿 爻賯乇丕胤 賱兀噩賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 賵乇賮囟 丕賱賮乇丕乇 賲賳 兀賲丕賲 兀毓丿丕卅賴 乇睾賲 鬲賵丕賮乇 丕賱賮乇氐丞貙 賵亘賳賷 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 噩賲賴賵乇賷鬲賴 丕賱禺賷丕賱賷丞 丕賱兀賮賱丕胤賵賳賷丞 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇貙 亘丕丨孬丕 毓賳 毓丕賱賲 兀賮囟賱 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賵丨丕賵賱 兀乇爻胤賵 兀賳 賷毓賱賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 胤乇賷賯丞 賷丨賰賲 亘賴丕 毓賱賷 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 賵丕賱賲爻丕卅賱 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲毓乇囟 賱賴丕 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賴貙 賮亘賳賷 賲賳胤賯賴 丕賱禺丕氐 賱賱丨賰賲 毓賱賷 賲丿賷 氐丨丞 賵禺胤兀 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱鬲賷 賷丨鬲丕噩 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 廿賱賷 丕賱丨賰賲 賮賷賴丕.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 廿賱賷 丕賱爻賰賷賳丞貙 賵賷賯氐丿 賴賳丕 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 賵丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞. 賮賴匕賴 丕賱賲匕丕賴亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 賯丿 賰丕賳 賴賲賴丕 丕賱兀賵賱 丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵爻賰賷賳丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲賮賯賵丿丞. 賮丕賱兀亘賷賯賵乇賷丞 賯丿 亘丨孬鬲 毓賳 丕賱爻賰賷賳丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱丕賳睾賲丕爻 丕賱賰丕賲賱 賮賷 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲貙 賵毓賱賷 毓賰爻賴丕 丕賱乇賵丕賯賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲 胤乇賷賯 丕賱夭賴丿 賱賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賷 爻賰賷賳丞 丕賱賳賮爻 賵丕鬲禺匕鬲 丕賱卮賰賵賰賷丞 賲賵賯賮丕 賷丿賱 丕爻賲賴丕 毓賱賷賴貙 賵鬲毓鬲亘乇 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 賲賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲賲賴丿丞 賱賱毓賯賱 丕賱睾乇亘賷 賱賯亘賵賱 丕賱毓賯賷丿丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賰賲丕 賯丕賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘.
乇睾賲 氐毓賵亘丞 賲丕丿丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 賵賵毓賵乇鬲賴丕貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丿 兀丨爻賳 賲丐賱賮賴 鬲鬲亘毓 賳賲賵 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷貙 賵禺胤丕 亘丕賱賯丕乇卅 賲毓賴 賰兀賳賴 賷賳鬲賯賱 賲毓賴 毓賱賷 丿乇噩丕鬲 爻賱賲貙 賰賱 賳賯賱賴 鬲賴丿賷 廿賱賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賱賷賴丕 鬲賱賯丕卅賷丕.
兀丨爻賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱乇亘胤 亘賷賳 兀噩夭丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 丨鬲賷 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賷爻鬲胤乇丿 兀丨賷丕賳丕 賵賷賳鬲賯賱 賲賳 賲賵囟賵毓賴 賰賷 賷毓乇賮 丕賱賯丕乇卅 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賲鬲丿 亘賴丕 丕賱夭賲賳 丨鬲賷 兀孬乇鬲 賮賷 毓氐乇賳丕貙 賵賷匕賰乇 賲賳 鬲兀孬乇 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘賮賷賱爻賵賮 賲賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賯丿賷賲貙 賰賲丕 賷賳賯賱 丕賱丌乇丕亍 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱賴賲.
乇睾賲 兀賳 賲丕丿丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 氐毓亘丞 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 丕賱爻賴賱 兀賵 賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴丕 賰丕賲賱丞貙 亘賱 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 廿賳 賲丕 丕爻鬲賵毓亘鬲賴 賲賳賴丕 賵賲丕 亘賯賷 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 匕丕賰乇鬲賷 賯賱賷賱 噩丿丕貙 賱賰賳 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賵賱 兀賳賳賷 禺爻乇鬲 亘賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賯賱丞 賲丕 亘賯賷 賮賷 匕丕賰乇鬲賷 賲賳 賲丨鬲賵丕賴貨 賱兀賳 賲鬲毓丞 賲鬲丕亘毓丞 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱毓氐賵乇 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴丕 賲賰爻亘 賰亘賷乇貙 賵丕賱鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賷 賴賲 兀賰亘乇 丕賱毓賯賵賱 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲貙 賵賲卮丕睾賱賴賲 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱毓氐賵乇 賮賷 丨丿 匕丕鬲賴 賲賰爻亘貙 賮賷賰賮賷 兀賳 鬲毓乇賮 賴賲賵賲 丕賱賰亘丕乇 賰賷 鬲鬲禺賱賷 毓賳 丕賱賴賲賵賲 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿 鬲卮睾賱 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 賷賵賲丕 賲丕.
賵賷賰賮賷 兀賳 兀賯賵賱 兀賳 賲丕 丨氐賱鬲 毓賱賷賴 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 亘賯丿乇 睾乇賮丞 亘賷丿 賲賳 賳賴乇 噩丕乇貙 兀賵 賰亘賱賱 兀氐丕亘 賲賱丕亘爻賷 毓賳丿賲丕 睾爻賱鬲賴丕 賮賷 亘丨乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賲賮賷丿丞 噩丿丕 噩丿丕.
March 16, 2020
Interesting and information overview of early philosophy. Highly ennjoyable.
May 14, 2017
Gottlieb鈥檚 focus is on the ancient Greeks who laid out the main themes found in Western philosophy, including whether ultimate reality is something that transcends the natural world. The Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) first articulated the materialist side of this debate by dispensing with supernatural explanations and looking for the 鈥渘atural causes of things.鈥� Parmenides and Pythagoras provided an alternative reality, a world of eternal oneness that superseded the world of senses, change and multitude.
The book鈥檚 title, 鈥淭he Dream of Reason,鈥� captures this debate between these two metaphysical positions, but the meaning of 鈥淒ream鈥� and 鈥淩eason鈥� is ambiguous. For the Milesians and their successors, reason was about looking for the material, logical linkages between cause and effect. It was a mind frame that would lead to Western science and the progressive explanation about how the material world worked. This was one way to define the 鈥渄ream of reason.鈥�
Plato鈥檚 鈥渞eason鈥� was the other. Here, Gottlieb鈥檚 account is problematic. 鈥淲hat struck Plato about the objects dealt with in mathematics,鈥� Gottlieb writes, 鈥渋s that they are ideal, eternal, unchanging and pleasingly independent of earthly, visible things.鈥� This is the world of Forms and it鈥檚 difficult to read the dialogues without this as the overarching perspective. But Gottlieb does not go there. Socrates, the dominant voice in Plato鈥檚 dialogues, is said by Gottlieb to be a figure who is not interested in the cosmic underpinnings of philosophy. The dialogues were, he says, 鈥済enerally explanatory discussions鈥� by Socrates about how we 鈥渙ught to live鈥� and that, in a 鈥渘on-dogmatic鈥� way, Socrates was interested only in questioning established wisdom and ferreting out the truth through dialogue. Though this is the standard account of Socrates, it is counter to what Gottlieb says elsewhere and what one might gather from reading of Socrates, directly, without filters, in the dialogues. (1) For his interpretation of Socrates鈥� views, Gottlieb relies mainly on Plato who, he writes, put 鈥渕ystical glasses on Socrates鈥� and eventually, 鈥渃oming under the influence of Italian Pythagoreans,..invoked the name of Socrates to expound on all sorts of subjects.鈥�
Gottlieb steers his presentation on Plato away from any other-worldly orientation. Early on, commenting on the similarities between Plato鈥檚 philosophy and the Christianity that developed a few centuries later, Gottlieb notes that 鈥渢he [Platonic] God of the Timaeus鈥� could be misinterpreted as 鈥渢he God of Genesis,鈥� stating that,鈥淩eading Plato without biblical blinkers, we can see that this required plenty of imaginative interpretation.鈥� Gottlieb then notes the 鈥渟pecific differences鈥� where this is so. While it鈥檚 not surprising that there would be differences in specific details between Genesis and Plato, it does not take 鈥渂iblical blinkers鈥� to reasonably speculate about the Christian roots in Plato's thought - the notion of another world, the badness of this world, the need to perfect our being to be worthy of an ascent to this higher world. (2) Now 鈥渢he dream of reason鈥� means something other than what Gottlieb conveys. In Gottlieb鈥檚 take on Plato, happiness is the rule of reason. It鈥檚 to 鈥渞ule oneself properly.鈥� Is that, though, about this world? Or is it about mirroring the world of Forms, of Perfection and Harmony that stand in contrast to 鈥渆arthly good鈥� and the 鈥渞elativist and subjectivist Sophists?鈥�
鈥淔or the first twelve centuries of the Christian era,鈥� Gottlieb states, 鈥渢he Timaeus formed the basis of most cosmology in the West鈥� and 鈥減hilosophy...remained more or less the slave of Christianity.鈥� He calls this 鈥渁 posthumous conversion of Plato.鈥� From 529 A.D. (the Roman ban on non-Christian philosophy), he says that 鈥淩eason got sidetracked by faith.鈥� Commenting on Proclus鈥檚 Elements of Theology, this was all about an attempt of 鈥渁ntiquity to provide an elaboration of the 鈥楶latonic鈥� system that had sprouted on Plato鈥檚 grave.鈥� Gottlieb tells us that these reputed other-worldly elements stem from Neoplatonism, a term coined in the 19th century to refer to those religious elements that, in Gottlieb鈥檚 words, went 鈥渂eyond anything found in Plato.鈥�
In Gottlieb鈥檚 view, Plato 鈥渄id little more than gesture towards a higher world.鈥� Gottlieb rescues Plato from Christianity by having Plato鈥檚 thought reflect a more modern-day conception of reason, one that is stripped of mysticism yet alludes to an independent, objective reality nonetheless. (3) For Gottlieb, the antecedents of this modern-day perspective on Plato go back to the atomists and to Aristotle. (4) After the long Christian interlude, this tradition was resuscitated in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which began the process that would 鈥渞eplace faith with earthly reason.鈥� In the end, the reader of Gottlieb鈥檚 book is left with the impression that the reason of Plato was reunited with the reason of science.
But it could be argued just as well that such reconciliation never happened and that a good part of the ancient debate about the two conceptions of 鈥淩eason鈥� continues to this day. In science, this ambivalence is not consequential as reason is applied to understanding cosmic realities regardless of their ultimate origin and it鈥檚 not uncommon to learn of mathematicians and scientists who are drawn to something like Plato鈥檚 Forms. In moral philosophy, though, it is different. Some Plato adherents posit the existence of a universal and eternal moral realm, which is accessed by reason in Plato鈥檚 sense. For many, that world has been seriously undermined by modern-day science that operates, comfortably, within a purposeless universe. Without Plato鈥檚 overarching firmament, what happens then to moral philosophy? Is it the relativism of the Sophists or is it, worse, nihilism? But in a Platonic framework we are not able to look to science for answers. That鈥檚 a subjectivism that is not allowed, even though, along with the problem of self-interest, the foundation for philosophical values and principles such as freedom and equality, compassion and mutual respect are embedded in, or logically derived from, who we are as biological beings.
(1) A straight-up reading of Socrates in the dialogues can reveal a man on a mission, a man with a hidden agenda, a man who engages in one-way dialogue. In other words, not a person one might want to hang out with.
(2) Of Marsilio Ficino鈥檚 translation (1484) that 鈥渂rought Plato back into circulation鈥� Gottlieb writes that, 鈥淟ike St Augustine, Ficino believed that Platonism contained important anticipations of Christianity.鈥�
(3) See Frank M. Turner, The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (1981), for a discussion of 19th century efforts to rehabilitate Plato鈥檚 thought.
(4) Gottlieb is excellent in his treatment of Aristotle, correcting the misimpression given by a mechanistic conception of life that humans are not goal-driven beings: 鈥淗aving Darwinian details does not mean that we can do without Aristotle鈥檚 final causes. Quite the reverse: the mechanism of natural selection spells out how nature involves final causes, not how it can dispense with them鈥�.Bacon, and many others since, have said that Aristotelian final causes are a piece of juvenile rubbish that has to be cleared out of the way before any grown-up science can move in. This may be true of the pseudo-Artistotelian final causes of some of his followers, but not of Aristotle鈥檚 own.鈥�
The book鈥檚 title, 鈥淭he Dream of Reason,鈥� captures this debate between these two metaphysical positions, but the meaning of 鈥淒ream鈥� and 鈥淩eason鈥� is ambiguous. For the Milesians and their successors, reason was about looking for the material, logical linkages between cause and effect. It was a mind frame that would lead to Western science and the progressive explanation about how the material world worked. This was one way to define the 鈥渄ream of reason.鈥�
Plato鈥檚 鈥渞eason鈥� was the other. Here, Gottlieb鈥檚 account is problematic. 鈥淲hat struck Plato about the objects dealt with in mathematics,鈥� Gottlieb writes, 鈥渋s that they are ideal, eternal, unchanging and pleasingly independent of earthly, visible things.鈥� This is the world of Forms and it鈥檚 difficult to read the dialogues without this as the overarching perspective. But Gottlieb does not go there. Socrates, the dominant voice in Plato鈥檚 dialogues, is said by Gottlieb to be a figure who is not interested in the cosmic underpinnings of philosophy. The dialogues were, he says, 鈥済enerally explanatory discussions鈥� by Socrates about how we 鈥渙ught to live鈥� and that, in a 鈥渘on-dogmatic鈥� way, Socrates was interested only in questioning established wisdom and ferreting out the truth through dialogue. Though this is the standard account of Socrates, it is counter to what Gottlieb says elsewhere and what one might gather from reading of Socrates, directly, without filters, in the dialogues. (1) For his interpretation of Socrates鈥� views, Gottlieb relies mainly on Plato who, he writes, put 鈥渕ystical glasses on Socrates鈥� and eventually, 鈥渃oming under the influence of Italian Pythagoreans,..invoked the name of Socrates to expound on all sorts of subjects.鈥�
Gottlieb steers his presentation on Plato away from any other-worldly orientation. Early on, commenting on the similarities between Plato鈥檚 philosophy and the Christianity that developed a few centuries later, Gottlieb notes that 鈥渢he [Platonic] God of the Timaeus鈥� could be misinterpreted as 鈥渢he God of Genesis,鈥� stating that,鈥淩eading Plato without biblical blinkers, we can see that this required plenty of imaginative interpretation.鈥� Gottlieb then notes the 鈥渟pecific differences鈥� where this is so. While it鈥檚 not surprising that there would be differences in specific details between Genesis and Plato, it does not take 鈥渂iblical blinkers鈥� to reasonably speculate about the Christian roots in Plato's thought - the notion of another world, the badness of this world, the need to perfect our being to be worthy of an ascent to this higher world. (2) Now 鈥渢he dream of reason鈥� means something other than what Gottlieb conveys. In Gottlieb鈥檚 take on Plato, happiness is the rule of reason. It鈥檚 to 鈥渞ule oneself properly.鈥� Is that, though, about this world? Or is it about mirroring the world of Forms, of Perfection and Harmony that stand in contrast to 鈥渆arthly good鈥� and the 鈥渞elativist and subjectivist Sophists?鈥�
鈥淔or the first twelve centuries of the Christian era,鈥� Gottlieb states, 鈥渢he Timaeus formed the basis of most cosmology in the West鈥� and 鈥減hilosophy...remained more or less the slave of Christianity.鈥� He calls this 鈥渁 posthumous conversion of Plato.鈥� From 529 A.D. (the Roman ban on non-Christian philosophy), he says that 鈥淩eason got sidetracked by faith.鈥� Commenting on Proclus鈥檚 Elements of Theology, this was all about an attempt of 鈥渁ntiquity to provide an elaboration of the 鈥楶latonic鈥� system that had sprouted on Plato鈥檚 grave.鈥� Gottlieb tells us that these reputed other-worldly elements stem from Neoplatonism, a term coined in the 19th century to refer to those religious elements that, in Gottlieb鈥檚 words, went 鈥渂eyond anything found in Plato.鈥�
In Gottlieb鈥檚 view, Plato 鈥渄id little more than gesture towards a higher world.鈥� Gottlieb rescues Plato from Christianity by having Plato鈥檚 thought reflect a more modern-day conception of reason, one that is stripped of mysticism yet alludes to an independent, objective reality nonetheless. (3) For Gottlieb, the antecedents of this modern-day perspective on Plato go back to the atomists and to Aristotle. (4) After the long Christian interlude, this tradition was resuscitated in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which began the process that would 鈥渞eplace faith with earthly reason.鈥� In the end, the reader of Gottlieb鈥檚 book is left with the impression that the reason of Plato was reunited with the reason of science.
But it could be argued just as well that such reconciliation never happened and that a good part of the ancient debate about the two conceptions of 鈥淩eason鈥� continues to this day. In science, this ambivalence is not consequential as reason is applied to understanding cosmic realities regardless of their ultimate origin and it鈥檚 not uncommon to learn of mathematicians and scientists who are drawn to something like Plato鈥檚 Forms. In moral philosophy, though, it is different. Some Plato adherents posit the existence of a universal and eternal moral realm, which is accessed by reason in Plato鈥檚 sense. For many, that world has been seriously undermined by modern-day science that operates, comfortably, within a purposeless universe. Without Plato鈥檚 overarching firmament, what happens then to moral philosophy? Is it the relativism of the Sophists or is it, worse, nihilism? But in a Platonic framework we are not able to look to science for answers. That鈥檚 a subjectivism that is not allowed, even though, along with the problem of self-interest, the foundation for philosophical values and principles such as freedom and equality, compassion and mutual respect are embedded in, or logically derived from, who we are as biological beings.
(1) A straight-up reading of Socrates in the dialogues can reveal a man on a mission, a man with a hidden agenda, a man who engages in one-way dialogue. In other words, not a person one might want to hang out with.
(2) Of Marsilio Ficino鈥檚 translation (1484) that 鈥渂rought Plato back into circulation鈥� Gottlieb writes that, 鈥淟ike St Augustine, Ficino believed that Platonism contained important anticipations of Christianity.鈥�
(3) See Frank M. Turner, The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (1981), for a discussion of 19th century efforts to rehabilitate Plato鈥檚 thought.
(4) Gottlieb is excellent in his treatment of Aristotle, correcting the misimpression given by a mechanistic conception of life that humans are not goal-driven beings: 鈥淗aving Darwinian details does not mean that we can do without Aristotle鈥檚 final causes. Quite the reverse: the mechanism of natural selection spells out how nature involves final causes, not how it can dispense with them鈥�.Bacon, and many others since, have said that Aristotelian final causes are a piece of juvenile rubbish that has to be cleared out of the way before any grown-up science can move in. This may be true of the pseudo-Artistotelian final causes of some of his followers, but not of Aristotle鈥檚 own.鈥�
March 10, 2024
鈥淭he Dream of Reason鈥� by Anthony Gottlieb is a comprehensive book which scrupulously explores the philosophy of the Greeks to the Renaissance period. Admittedly, I did struggle through the early pre-Socratic chapters a bit. Thales (the water guy), Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Democritus and their collective atomic musings, frankly, didn鈥檛 really do it for me; but I suppose the fact that they were even talking about atoms in 4th century Athens is worthy of a bit of respect!
Interestingly, the Sophists were cast in an entirely different light by Gottlieb, not necessarily the scourge of the earth as Plato and Aristotle would condemn them. Gottlieb explains the practical applications of Sophist teachings on rhetoric, and how their contributions to theories of morality - particularly in the context of law and jurisprudence - cannot be dismissed as merely subversive teachings.
Also exonerated are the Epicureans, who apparently were quite partial to a bit of physics when they weren鈥檛 indulging in more carnal pleasures.
The Stoics were covered a tad prosaically for my taste; a slightly rudimentary 鈥渙h do I have to, they鈥檙e not that good鈥�. Interestingly, Gottlieb notes Cicero as being quite philosophically capricious, bit of a fence-sitter as it would turn out; half-epicurean, half-stoic - my eyebrow imperceptibly rose under the incandescence of the lamplight, and I damn near lost a half-soaked digestive biscuit to the murky depths of my scolding tea on learning of this revelation dear reader.
Of course, Plato and Aristotle take centre stage, and their respective philosophies are assiduously balanced and explained with refreshing clarity. If you have read the Platonic dialogues or Aristotle鈥檚 ethics, these chapters will serve as an indispensable supplementary refresher. Gottlieb is adept at preempting the questions that invariably arise in our minds and elucidating conflicting aspects of philosophical theories. He explains what issues were resolved, at least temporarily, by the work of one thinker, and what questions their philosophy engendered.
鈥淭he Dream of Reason鈥� ends up reading like a continuous dialogue between the entire pantheon of philosophers throughout the ages. We end up in the Middle Ages after centuries of theologians squabbling amongst themselves or ganging up on the reject basket of mystics, alchemists, astrologists, and Neoplatonists, ironically enough, almost back where we started - as Platonic and Aristotelian ideas are incorporated into or reconciled with Christianity. The extent to which Plato鈥檚 Forms and Aristotle鈥檚 ideas on substance/matter have influenced and shaped Christian thought is far greater than I think most people realise.
Interestingly, the Sophists were cast in an entirely different light by Gottlieb, not necessarily the scourge of the earth as Plato and Aristotle would condemn them. Gottlieb explains the practical applications of Sophist teachings on rhetoric, and how their contributions to theories of morality - particularly in the context of law and jurisprudence - cannot be dismissed as merely subversive teachings.
Also exonerated are the Epicureans, who apparently were quite partial to a bit of physics when they weren鈥檛 indulging in more carnal pleasures.
The Stoics were covered a tad prosaically for my taste; a slightly rudimentary 鈥渙h do I have to, they鈥檙e not that good鈥�. Interestingly, Gottlieb notes Cicero as being quite philosophically capricious, bit of a fence-sitter as it would turn out; half-epicurean, half-stoic - my eyebrow imperceptibly rose under the incandescence of the lamplight, and I damn near lost a half-soaked digestive biscuit to the murky depths of my scolding tea on learning of this revelation dear reader.
Of course, Plato and Aristotle take centre stage, and their respective philosophies are assiduously balanced and explained with refreshing clarity. If you have read the Platonic dialogues or Aristotle鈥檚 ethics, these chapters will serve as an indispensable supplementary refresher. Gottlieb is adept at preempting the questions that invariably arise in our minds and elucidating conflicting aspects of philosophical theories. He explains what issues were resolved, at least temporarily, by the work of one thinker, and what questions their philosophy engendered.
鈥淭he Dream of Reason鈥� ends up reading like a continuous dialogue between the entire pantheon of philosophers throughout the ages. We end up in the Middle Ages after centuries of theologians squabbling amongst themselves or ganging up on the reject basket of mystics, alchemists, astrologists, and Neoplatonists, ironically enough, almost back where we started - as Platonic and Aristotelian ideas are incorporated into or reconciled with Christianity. The extent to which Plato鈥檚 Forms and Aristotle鈥檚 ideas on substance/matter have influenced and shaped Christian thought is far greater than I think most people realise.
December 20, 2016
賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賰賳鬲 賱丕 丕爻鬲胤賷毓 鬲賲賷賷夭 賯賱賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘賷賳 賰賲 丕賱賳賯賵賱丕鬲 丕賱賴丕卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳賯賱賴 , 賰丕賳 賰孬賷乇丕 賲丕 賷購爻賴亘 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 亘卮賰賱 賲賲賱 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 兀賳丕 .
賱賰賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞 鬲亘丿兀 亘毓丿 賮氐賱 爻賯乇丕胤 , 賲鬲毓丞 丨賯賷賯賷丞 噩毓賱鬲賳賷 兀睾賮乇 賱賴 賲丕 賲囟賶 賲賳 賲賱賱 , 賮賴賲鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 睾丕卅亘丞 毓賳 丕賱丨囟賵乇 .
兀噩賲賱 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賴 賷毓賱賲賰 賰賷賮 鬲賳丕賯卮 賮賱爻賮賷丕 , 賮胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵 爻乇丿 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 噩賲賷賱丞 噩丿丕 , 賰賲丕 兀賳賴 丨丕賵賱 丕賱鬲賲丨賷氐 賮賷 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱鬲賷 兀賵乇丿賴丕 賯丿乇 丕賱賲爻鬲胤丕毓 , 賲毓 廿賷乇丕丿賴 賱丌乇丕亍 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丌禺乇賷賳 賵 匕賰乇 乇兀賷賴 賵 賴賰匕丕 .
*/*/*
丌賲賳 賴賷乇賯賱賷胤爻 亘兀賳 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賰賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷賳 丕賳賲丕 鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 賲卮賰丕丞 賵丕丨丿丞 , 賮丕賱亘丨孬 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賴賵 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 亘丨孬 亘卮賰賱 睾賷乇 賲亘丕卮乇 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱丌禺乇 .
賱賵 兀毓賲賱賳丕 丕賱賲噩丕夭 賯賱賷賱丕 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱毓亘丕乇丞 爻賳噩丿賴丕 賳賵毓丕 賲丕 氐丨賷丨丞 亘卮賰賱 兀賵 亘丌禺乇 ... 賳毓賲 丕賱毓賱賲 賷賯乇亘賰 賲賳 丕賱禺丕賱賯 丕賱賲亘丿毓 .. 賮賯胤 丕賱毓賱賲 賵 丕賱毓賱賲 賵丨丿賴 ... 賰兀賳 丕賱賱賴 賵囟毓 賱賳丕 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賵 賮賷賴 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱廿乇卮丕丿丕鬲 賵 丕賱禺胤賵胤 丕賱毓乇賷囟丞 丕賱毓賲賷賯丞 賵 兀毓胤丕賳丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 兀賷囟丕 賱賳卮丕賴丿賴 毓賳 賰孬亘 賵 兀毓胤丕賳丕 丕賱毓賯賱 賱賳鬲兀賲賱 賵 賳鬲毓賱賲 , 賵 兀毓胤丕賳丕 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 賱賳賳丿賴卮 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 .
賰兀賳 丕爻乇丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 鬲賵氐賱賳丕 廿賱賶 丨賯賷賯丞 兀亘丿賷丞 賯丿賷賲丞 , 賵 賰兀賳 丕賱賱丨馗丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳氐賱 賮賷賴丕 丕賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 爻鬲賰賵賳 賳賴丕賷丞 賰賱 卮賷亍 .
賰賲丕 兀賳 丌賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇丌賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱禺賱賯 賵 丕賱賳卮兀 賵 丕賱賰賵賳 毓噩賷亘丞 賮賷 鬲賰賵賳賷賴丕 , 丨賷孬 賷胤睾賶 毓賱賷賴丕 胤丕亘毓 賲賳 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲丨丿賷丿 丨賷孬 賷氐亘睾賴丕 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱賲噩丕夭賷 ! 賵 賲賳 丕賱賲孬賷乇 賱賱丿賴卮丞 丕賲賰丕賳賷丞 鬲賮爻賷乇賴丕 亘兀賰孬乇 賲賳 卮賰賱 賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲毓賳賶 丨爻亘 丕賱丨賯亘丞 賵 丕賱毓氐乇 賵 丕賱廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 丕賱賲鬲丕丨丞 ! 賰賱 賴匕丕 毓噩賷亘 , 賰賱 賴匕丕 賷丿毓賵賰 賰亘卮乇賷 賱賱鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 賰賱 賲毓乇賮丞 賯丿賷賲丞 賵 廿毓丕丿丞 丕禺鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 , 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丌賷丕鬲 賰兀賳賴丕 鬲賯賵賱 賱賰 : 賲賳 賷亘丨孬 賷噩丿 , 賵 丕賱兀毓噩亘 賲賳 賴匕丕 兀賳 賲乇爻賱 賴匕賴 丕賱乇爻丕賱丞 賷鬲亘毓賴丕 亘丌賷丕鬲 鬲丿毓賵賰 丕賱賶 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 , 鬲丿毓賵賰 丕賱賶 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賳鬲 賵 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賳鬲 賵 鬲亘賯賶 兀賳鬲 賵 兀賳 賱丕 鬲爻賲丨 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷噩毓賱 賲賳賰 睾賷乇賰 , 賲乇爻賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賷囟丕 賷爻鬲賮夭賰 賱鬲賮賰乇 賮賲賱卅 賰鬲丕亘賴 亘賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 賰賭賭 " 兀賮賱丕 賷毓賯賱賵賳 " , " 兀賮賱丕 賷鬲丿亘乇賵賳 " , " 廿賳 賮賷 匕賱賰 賱丌賷丕鬲 賱兀賵賱賷 丕賱兀賱亘丕亘 " 賵 丕賱毓丿賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷胤賵賱 丕丨氐丕亍賴 .
賲丕賱匕賷 賷乇賷丿賴 丕賱賲購賳卮卅 丕賱兀賵賱 賵 氐丕丨亘 丕賱乇爻丕賱丕鬲 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 賲賳 賴匕丕 賰賱賴 !! 賱賲丕匕丕 賷氐亘睾 兀睾賱亘 賰賱賲丕鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵 丕賱禺賱賯 賵 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賱賵賳 丕賱賲噩丕夭 !! 責 丕賳賴 賷賯賵賱 賱賰 丕亘丨孬 毓賳賷 賵 爻鬲噩丿賳賷 毓賳丿賰 .
*/*/*
" 賵噩丿賷乇 亘丕賱匕賰乇 兀賷囟丕 兀賳賴 毓賳丿賲丕 賰丕賳丕 賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱兀賵丕卅賱 賷購賱賯賵賳 丕賱禺胤亘 賵 賷丨鬲噩賵賳 毓賱賶 兀賷 卮賷亍 賰丕賳 匕賱賰 毓賱賶 賲乇兀賶 賵賲爻賲毓 賲賳 噩賲賴賵乇 鬲夭丿丕丿 孬賯丕賮鬲賴 賷賵賲丕 亘毓丿 賷賵賲 "
賵賴匕丕 亘丕賱囟亘胤 毓賰爻 丕賱匕賷 賷丨氐賱 賮賷 夭賲丕賳賳丕
丨賷孬 賰賱賲丕 馗賴乇 兀賳丕爻 賱賱賲賳丕馗乇丞 賵 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞
匕賲賵賴賲 賵 賯丕賱賵丕 賱賴賲 賱丕 鬲賮爻丿賵丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丕爻 丿賷賳賴賲
賴賲 毓賳丿賴賲 賴賵爻 賷鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 兀賳 賷乇賵丕 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賯胤 噩丕賴賱丞 賵 亘丨丕噩丞 賱賴賲
丿賷丿賳賴賲 , 丕乇噩毓 賱廿賲丕賲 丕賱賲爻噩丿 賰賲丕 鬲乇噩毓 賱賱胤亘賷亘
賵 丕亘賳 毓賲賰 卮禺氐 賲孬丕賱賷 賵 賱賴 爻賱胤丞 丕賱兀賲乇 賵 丕賱賳賴賷 賮賯胤 賱兀賳賴 賲賱鬲丨賷
賰賲丕 兀賳 賲氐胤丨 "丨乇賲丞 " 賲賳丕馗乇丞 兀賴賱 丕賱亘丿毓 賷賲賱卅 兀賮賵丕賴 兀丿毓賷丕亍 丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱賷賵賲
丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕 賳爻賲毓 : " 丕賱毓賵丕賲 賯賵賲 亘爻胤丕亍 賱丕 賷賮賯賴賵賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 "
賳毓賲 , 兀賳鬲賲 賲賳 鬲乇賷丿賵賳賴賲 賴賰匕丕
丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賷亘毓孬 丕賱賳卮賵丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賮爻
賱賰賳 丕賱賵氐丕賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賲乇囟 賷噩亘 丕賱鬲禺賱氐 賲賳賴 .
*/*/*
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲噩乇亘丞 賮賱爻賮賷丞 噩賲賷賱丞 亘丨賯 .
*TMT*
賱賰賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞 鬲亘丿兀 亘毓丿 賮氐賱 爻賯乇丕胤 , 賲鬲毓丞 丨賯賷賯賷丞 噩毓賱鬲賳賷 兀睾賮乇 賱賴 賲丕 賲囟賶 賲賳 賲賱賱 , 賮賴賲鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 睾丕卅亘丞 毓賳 丕賱丨囟賵乇 .
兀噩賲賱 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賴 賷毓賱賲賰 賰賷賮 鬲賳丕賯卮 賮賱爻賮賷丕 , 賮胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵 爻乇丿 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 噩賲賷賱丞 噩丿丕 , 賰賲丕 兀賳賴 丨丕賵賱 丕賱鬲賲丨賷氐 賮賷 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱鬲賷 兀賵乇丿賴丕 賯丿乇 丕賱賲爻鬲胤丕毓 , 賲毓 廿賷乇丕丿賴 賱丌乇丕亍 賮賱丕爻賮丞 丌禺乇賷賳 賵 匕賰乇 乇兀賷賴 賵 賴賰匕丕 .
*/*/*
丌賲賳 賴賷乇賯賱賷胤爻 亘兀賳 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賰賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷賳 丕賳賲丕 鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 賲卮賰丕丞 賵丕丨丿丞 , 賮丕賱亘丨孬 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賴賵 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 亘丨孬 亘卮賰賱 睾賷乇 賲亘丕卮乇 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱丌禺乇 .
賱賵 兀毓賲賱賳丕 丕賱賲噩丕夭 賯賱賷賱丕 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱毓亘丕乇丞 爻賳噩丿賴丕 賳賵毓丕 賲丕 氐丨賷丨丞 亘卮賰賱 兀賵 亘丌禺乇 ... 賳毓賲 丕賱毓賱賲 賷賯乇亘賰 賲賳 丕賱禺丕賱賯 丕賱賲亘丿毓 .. 賮賯胤 丕賱毓賱賲 賵 丕賱毓賱賲 賵丨丿賴 ... 賰兀賳 丕賱賱賴 賵囟毓 賱賳丕 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賵 賮賷賴 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱廿乇卮丕丿丕鬲 賵 丕賱禺胤賵胤 丕賱毓乇賷囟丞 丕賱毓賲賷賯丞 賵 兀毓胤丕賳丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 兀賷囟丕 賱賳卮丕賴丿賴 毓賳 賰孬亘 賵 兀毓胤丕賳丕 丕賱毓賯賱 賱賳鬲兀賲賱 賵 賳鬲毓賱賲 , 賵 兀毓胤丕賳丕 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 賱賳賳丿賴卮 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 .
賰兀賳 丕爻乇丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 鬲賵氐賱賳丕 廿賱賶 丨賯賷賯丞 兀亘丿賷丞 賯丿賷賲丞 , 賵 賰兀賳 丕賱賱丨馗丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳氐賱 賮賷賴丕 丕賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 爻鬲賰賵賳 賳賴丕賷丞 賰賱 卮賷亍 .
賰賲丕 兀賳 丌賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇丌賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱禺賱賯 賵 丕賱賳卮兀 賵 丕賱賰賵賳 毓噩賷亘丞 賮賷 鬲賰賵賳賷賴丕 , 丨賷孬 賷胤睾賶 毓賱賷賴丕 胤丕亘毓 賲賳 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲丨丿賷丿 丨賷孬 賷氐亘睾賴丕 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱賲噩丕夭賷 ! 賵 賲賳 丕賱賲孬賷乇 賱賱丿賴卮丞 丕賲賰丕賳賷丞 鬲賮爻賷乇賴丕 亘兀賰孬乇 賲賳 卮賰賱 賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲毓賳賶 丨爻亘 丕賱丨賯亘丞 賵 丕賱毓氐乇 賵 丕賱廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 丕賱賲鬲丕丨丞 ! 賰賱 賴匕丕 毓噩賷亘 , 賰賱 賴匕丕 賷丿毓賵賰 賰亘卮乇賷 賱賱鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 賰賱 賲毓乇賮丞 賯丿賷賲丞 賵 廿毓丕丿丞 丕禺鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 , 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丌賷丕鬲 賰兀賳賴丕 鬲賯賵賱 賱賰 : 賲賳 賷亘丨孬 賷噩丿 , 賵 丕賱兀毓噩亘 賲賳 賴匕丕 兀賳 賲乇爻賱 賴匕賴 丕賱乇爻丕賱丞 賷鬲亘毓賴丕 亘丌賷丕鬲 鬲丿毓賵賰 丕賱賶 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 , 鬲丿毓賵賰 丕賱賶 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賳鬲 賵 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賳鬲 賵 鬲亘賯賶 兀賳鬲 賵 兀賳 賱丕 鬲爻賲丨 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷噩毓賱 賲賳賰 睾賷乇賰 , 賲乇爻賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賷囟丕 賷爻鬲賮夭賰 賱鬲賮賰乇 賮賲賱卅 賰鬲丕亘賴 亘賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 賰賭賭 " 兀賮賱丕 賷毓賯賱賵賳 " , " 兀賮賱丕 賷鬲丿亘乇賵賳 " , " 廿賳 賮賷 匕賱賰 賱丌賷丕鬲 賱兀賵賱賷 丕賱兀賱亘丕亘 " 賵 丕賱毓丿賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷胤賵賱 丕丨氐丕亍賴 .
賲丕賱匕賷 賷乇賷丿賴 丕賱賲購賳卮卅 丕賱兀賵賱 賵 氐丕丨亘 丕賱乇爻丕賱丕鬲 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 賲賳 賴匕丕 賰賱賴 !! 賱賲丕匕丕 賷氐亘睾 兀睾賱亘 賰賱賲丕鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賵 丕賱禺賱賯 賵 丕賱賰賵賳 亘賱賵賳 丕賱賲噩丕夭 !! 責 丕賳賴 賷賯賵賱 賱賰 丕亘丨孬 毓賳賷 賵 爻鬲噩丿賳賷 毓賳丿賰 .
*/*/*
" 賵噩丿賷乇 亘丕賱匕賰乇 兀賷囟丕 兀賳賴 毓賳丿賲丕 賰丕賳丕 賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱兀賵丕卅賱 賷購賱賯賵賳 丕賱禺胤亘 賵 賷丨鬲噩賵賳 毓賱賶 兀賷 卮賷亍 賰丕賳 匕賱賰 毓賱賶 賲乇兀賶 賵賲爻賲毓 賲賳 噩賲賴賵乇 鬲夭丿丕丿 孬賯丕賮鬲賴 賷賵賲丕 亘毓丿 賷賵賲 "
賵賴匕丕 亘丕賱囟亘胤 毓賰爻 丕賱匕賷 賷丨氐賱 賮賷 夭賲丕賳賳丕
丨賷孬 賰賱賲丕 馗賴乇 兀賳丕爻 賱賱賲賳丕馗乇丞 賵 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞
匕賲賵賴賲 賵 賯丕賱賵丕 賱賴賲 賱丕 鬲賮爻丿賵丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丕爻 丿賷賳賴賲
賴賲 毓賳丿賴賲 賴賵爻 賷鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 兀賳 賷乇賵丕 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賯胤 噩丕賴賱丞 賵 亘丨丕噩丞 賱賴賲
丿賷丿賳賴賲 , 丕乇噩毓 賱廿賲丕賲 丕賱賲爻噩丿 賰賲丕 鬲乇噩毓 賱賱胤亘賷亘
賵 丕亘賳 毓賲賰 卮禺氐 賲孬丕賱賷 賵 賱賴 爻賱胤丞 丕賱兀賲乇 賵 丕賱賳賴賷 賮賯胤 賱兀賳賴 賲賱鬲丨賷
賰賲丕 兀賳 賲氐胤丨 "丨乇賲丞 " 賲賳丕馗乇丞 兀賴賱 丕賱亘丿毓 賷賲賱卅 兀賮賵丕賴 兀丿毓賷丕亍 丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱賷賵賲
丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕 賳爻賲毓 : " 丕賱毓賵丕賲 賯賵賲 亘爻胤丕亍 賱丕 賷賮賯賴賵賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 "
賳毓賲 , 兀賳鬲賲 賲賳 鬲乇賷丿賵賳賴賲 賴賰匕丕
丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賷亘毓孬 丕賱賳卮賵丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賮爻
賱賰賳 丕賱賵氐丕賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賲乇囟 賷噩亘 丕賱鬲禺賱氐 賲賳賴 .
*/*/*
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲噩乇亘丞 賮賱爻賮賷丞 噩賲賷賱丞 亘丨賯 .
*TMT*
May 25, 2010
He makes some shallow and, I think, unnecessary criticisms of religion throughout the book, even when it seems like a side track.
For example, the implication that Milesian philosophers are somehow more rational for trying to explain things via naturalism seems absurd. Why should the reader think a naturalistic explanation is more rational than an agential one? This criticism seems more poignant since the Milesian theories often seem even more absurd than some of the agential theories they would have had access to.
Gottlieb also implies that these naturalistic explanations are superior than the overly complex and mysterious godidit explanations. But how is "waterdidit" simpler and less mysterious? Or how about undefined-substance-did-it??
These sort of quick surface-level criticisms of religion and, specifically, Christianity, are present throughout the book.
His treatment of the Greeks is pretty good. It would be great, but his bias against any form of supernaturalism leads him to take a revisionist approach towards the supernaturalism that was present in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and virtually every other thinker he covers.
Of course, according to Gottlieb, respectable minds like Socrates and Plato couldn't have seriously entertained ideas about gods and being commissioned by gods. After all, that would mean they were superstitious "goddidit" types, and we know they were too smart for that sort of thing. So when we read anything in their writings about gods or the supernatural, we have to realize that they didn't really mean any of that. Of course, that's absurd and one could apply Gottlieb's methodology to also try and prove that Moses or any of the other biblical authors didn't really believe in God.
His treatment of Medieval philosophy is horrible. His attitude towards it is summed up in the following: "Given limited time and space, most medieval philosophy is best left to slumber in its arguably dark and undeniably thorny forrest" (348). Although he does admit that "to imply that the best minds of the medieval West had produced nothing of any 'substance or profit' was going too far" (ibid; said in references to other criticisms of medieval philosophy).
Basically, I think Gottlieb sees the "dream of reason" dying in the medieval era. It was only fully alive with those Greeks who took a naturalistic view of the world, but this is partly just wishful thinking on Gottlieb's part. There was no naturalism in any of the thinkers that he covers, at least not in the modern sense of the word. And why did philosophy start to die off? Well because virtually all of the prominent philosophers from then on were Christian, supernaturalist godidit types. For example, "In one sense, Augustine turned back the clock of intellectual history" (383). Why? Because he believed in stories about God (384).
One begins to suspect that for Gottlieb the history of "the dream of reason" is a history of the battle between faith and reason. But this wouldn't be too fair. Gottlieb doesn't seem to consciously set out to write the book in this way. He's no Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Rather, he simply has a prejudice against religion and he lets that come out clearly in his evaluative remarks throughout the book.
I guess I can't fault him too much for that. He has every right to give his evaluations of the matters and if he thinks religion is the bane of reason he has every right to say so. But I disagree and I don't think his criticisms were very reasonable.
I also didn't like the note format. There were not endnote markings in the book (and I prefer footnotes) and aside from his block-quotes, it was very hard to tell when he was paraphrasing something a philosopher said or whether this was just his own spin on the philosopher's words. And given his clear bias, it would be nice to distinguish the two.
If he treated the medieval philosophers with the same respect that he treated the Greeks and if he had toned down the surface level shots at religion, I would have given the book at least 4 stars. I would like to give it at least 2 1/2, since I thought it was more than just "okay," but that option isn't available.
For example, the implication that Milesian philosophers are somehow more rational for trying to explain things via naturalism seems absurd. Why should the reader think a naturalistic explanation is more rational than an agential one? This criticism seems more poignant since the Milesian theories often seem even more absurd than some of the agential theories they would have had access to.
Gottlieb also implies that these naturalistic explanations are superior than the overly complex and mysterious godidit explanations. But how is "waterdidit" simpler and less mysterious? Or how about undefined-substance-did-it??
These sort of quick surface-level criticisms of religion and, specifically, Christianity, are present throughout the book.
His treatment of the Greeks is pretty good. It would be great, but his bias against any form of supernaturalism leads him to take a revisionist approach towards the supernaturalism that was present in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and virtually every other thinker he covers.
Of course, according to Gottlieb, respectable minds like Socrates and Plato couldn't have seriously entertained ideas about gods and being commissioned by gods. After all, that would mean they were superstitious "goddidit" types, and we know they were too smart for that sort of thing. So when we read anything in their writings about gods or the supernatural, we have to realize that they didn't really mean any of that. Of course, that's absurd and one could apply Gottlieb's methodology to also try and prove that Moses or any of the other biblical authors didn't really believe in God.
His treatment of Medieval philosophy is horrible. His attitude towards it is summed up in the following: "Given limited time and space, most medieval philosophy is best left to slumber in its arguably dark and undeniably thorny forrest" (348). Although he does admit that "to imply that the best minds of the medieval West had produced nothing of any 'substance or profit' was going too far" (ibid; said in references to other criticisms of medieval philosophy).
Basically, I think Gottlieb sees the "dream of reason" dying in the medieval era. It was only fully alive with those Greeks who took a naturalistic view of the world, but this is partly just wishful thinking on Gottlieb's part. There was no naturalism in any of the thinkers that he covers, at least not in the modern sense of the word. And why did philosophy start to die off? Well because virtually all of the prominent philosophers from then on were Christian, supernaturalist godidit types. For example, "In one sense, Augustine turned back the clock of intellectual history" (383). Why? Because he believed in stories about God (384).
One begins to suspect that for Gottlieb the history of "the dream of reason" is a history of the battle between faith and reason. But this wouldn't be too fair. Gottlieb doesn't seem to consciously set out to write the book in this way. He's no Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Rather, he simply has a prejudice against religion and he lets that come out clearly in his evaluative remarks throughout the book.
I guess I can't fault him too much for that. He has every right to give his evaluations of the matters and if he thinks religion is the bane of reason he has every right to say so. But I disagree and I don't think his criticisms were very reasonable.
I also didn't like the note format. There were not endnote markings in the book (and I prefer footnotes) and aside from his block-quotes, it was very hard to tell when he was paraphrasing something a philosopher said or whether this was just his own spin on the philosopher's words. And given his clear bias, it would be nice to distinguish the two.
If he treated the medieval philosophers with the same respect that he treated the Greeks and if he had toned down the surface level shots at religion, I would have given the book at least 4 stars. I would like to give it at least 2 1/2, since I thought it was more than just "okay," but that option isn't available.
June 25, 2017
This three-star review is the product of my completist tendencies. The book I really wanted to read is the sequel, Gottlieb's The Dream of Enlightenment, and I should have just started there. Gottlieb is a former journalist, and I love his writing: entertaining and to-the-point and frequently points out nonsense. But the book spends so much time on pre-Socratic philosophers鈥攖hose very ancient Greeks who were just making shit up with no discipline鈥攁nd I don't care about them AT ALL. The rest of the book was an excellent refresher on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In particular, Gottlieb has rehabilitated Aristotle in my eyes. What an ambitious thinker! I had no idea that we still have millions of his words intact, which is wonderful even if he was convinced that ladies have fewer teeth (?!?!) than gentlemen.
I was also interested to learn about the Stoics and Epicureans, which are both pretty interesting and totally misrepresented by the zeitgeist. Whatever associations you have with them are likely wrong.
So yes, in these troubled times, this book is a mostly soothing look back at ancient naval-gazers. Plato's discussion of tyrants was a bit of a gut-punch, but hey, it still rings true after all these centuries.
I was also interested to learn about the Stoics and Epicureans, which are both pretty interesting and totally misrepresented by the zeitgeist. Whatever associations you have with them are likely wrong.
So yes, in these troubled times, this book is a mostly soothing look back at ancient naval-gazers. Plato's discussion of tyrants was a bit of a gut-punch, but hey, it still rings true after all these centuries.
December 5, 2016
I was not very enthusiastic about this book to start with; I agreed with some of the reviews that there was a lot of interpretation from the author. However, a few chapters into the book, I started to find this a strength. It certainly is not a history book like the Copleston-series (or even Russell), but it provides much more context. Some parts were very well written. To name just a few: Plato on democracy; Aristotle鈥檚 logic, Epicurism. The book could use a better editor, as there are some simple factual mistakes. E.g. the elementary particles are not divided into two classes of quarks and leptons (p108). Such minor mistakes are not sufficient to give anything less than 5 stars.
August 5, 2017
It took me a while to finish, but it was definitely worth the read. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn/read something about philosophy, but doesn't know where to begin. It is a difficult read because of its subject, not its writer. Gottlieb writes about philosophy as if it is a story, offers interesting and funny comments, and repeats himself to make the content of his writing more accessible. I have never enjoyed reading scholarly writing this much.
April 7, 2022
The Dream of Reason takes a human, popular view at philosophy from the ancient Greeks forward to the Renaissance, treating this conversation as one of wise, fallible, and occasionally funny humans through the ages. These were people grappling with Big Questions, namely what is the universe made of, how did it come to be, and how do people lead meaningful lives, and while their answers do not match modern understandings, they are foundational. For someone with a fairly weak background in philosophy, especially the older stuff, it's a good supplement to a missed classical education.
The first few chapters, on the pre-Socratics, are necessarily weaker, given that the surviving works of these authors is measured in a few hundred lines, and sometimes even a handful of direct words and a maze of quotations and commentaries. The book fully arrives with Socrates, who's method of systematic questioning set the form for much of what follows. Plato and Aristotle get detailed overviews as well, with their foundational works on ethics, metaphysics, as well as more practical topics like logic and biology.
What follows after the big three is less good. Gottlieb has less sympathy for the efforts of the stoics, epicureans, and skeptics to flesh out frameworks in the wake of Aristotle. Medieval theology, and the effort to synthesize non-heretical Christian theology with neoplatonist mysticism is mostly a dead end. One thing which I learned was that the scientific reaction against Aristotle was more rhetoric than reality. Aristotle couldn't have been the stifling authority on Western learning during the Middle Ages, because he was almost lost entirely, only being preserved by Arab philosophers (a sadly absent chapter). The abstruse commentary style of the scholastics has little in common with Aristotle, who can be tedious, but is generally a model of clarity. While Aristotle's physics lack the tools of quantified measurement which make modern physics work, he was a dedicated empiricist.
Fun and informative, and not exactly unbiased, The Dream of Reason is a solid introduction and overview.
The first few chapters, on the pre-Socratics, are necessarily weaker, given that the surviving works of these authors is measured in a few hundred lines, and sometimes even a handful of direct words and a maze of quotations and commentaries. The book fully arrives with Socrates, who's method of systematic questioning set the form for much of what follows. Plato and Aristotle get detailed overviews as well, with their foundational works on ethics, metaphysics, as well as more practical topics like logic and biology.
What follows after the big three is less good. Gottlieb has less sympathy for the efforts of the stoics, epicureans, and skeptics to flesh out frameworks in the wake of Aristotle. Medieval theology, and the effort to synthesize non-heretical Christian theology with neoplatonist mysticism is mostly a dead end. One thing which I learned was that the scientific reaction against Aristotle was more rhetoric than reality. Aristotle couldn't have been the stifling authority on Western learning during the Middle Ages, because he was almost lost entirely, only being preserved by Arab philosophers (a sadly absent chapter). The abstruse commentary style of the scholastics has little in common with Aristotle, who can be tedious, but is generally a model of clarity. While Aristotle's physics lack the tools of quantified measurement which make modern physics work, he was a dedicated empiricist.
Fun and informative, and not exactly unbiased, The Dream of Reason is a solid introduction and overview.
January 11, 2021
I鈥檝e read of lot of greek and Roman histories, but my lack knowledge of the ancient philosophers caused me to pick up this book. I was looking for a general survey so that I could pick and choose the thinkers that I wanted to learn about. Gottlieb does an amazing job of summarizing the different schools of thought and personalities of over a thousand years of thought. There is a lot to digest here, but the narrative flows well and I鈥檝e already learned so much.
December 28, 2018
I took me nearly 5 months to finish this book and it only has 500 pages. This is not always the book's fault. Sometimes my life is too hectic to focus on reading a certain book or books in general. This time, it was the book's fault.
You see, I love philosophy. I studied it for a couple of semester. Being familiar with the basic facts I don't expect too learn lots of new things but I believe you can always find something new to think about. Even a book like this which promised a general overview on western philosophy. In fact, is an all-time favorite of mine.
When I first picked up the book I liked it. The part on early Greek philosophy was well-written and offered some new insights. However, the book became difficult once it reached Socrates and lost me with Plato. Honestly, I love to read about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle but the author managed to write lots of different aspects together without a central theme. The chapters were longer than necessary and instead of focusing on certain topics the author tried to talk about all the aspects. Seriously, you can only do one thing. Either write a book on Plato and his philosophy and discuss everything in detail or focus on some parts. All the information was just thrown in there and I believe it would have been more than difficult to follow the author's discussion if I hadn't known about them that much beforehand. For me, it was more than confusing because I can't understand why any author would want to cram all the information together.
In the end, the book is not all bad. I liked the beginning and enjoyed the ending. It was the middle part that killed any joy I had.
Luckily, there are awesome books on philosophy out there and I look forward to pick up another one.
You see, I love philosophy. I studied it for a couple of semester. Being familiar with the basic facts I don't expect too learn lots of new things but I believe you can always find something new to think about. Even a book like this which promised a general overview on western philosophy. In fact, is an all-time favorite of mine.
When I first picked up the book I liked it. The part on early Greek philosophy was well-written and offered some new insights. However, the book became difficult once it reached Socrates and lost me with Plato. Honestly, I love to read about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle but the author managed to write lots of different aspects together without a central theme. The chapters were longer than necessary and instead of focusing on certain topics the author tried to talk about all the aspects. Seriously, you can only do one thing. Either write a book on Plato and his philosophy and discuss everything in detail or focus on some parts. All the information was just thrown in there and I believe it would have been more than difficult to follow the author's discussion if I hadn't known about them that much beforehand. For me, it was more than confusing because I can't understand why any author would want to cram all the information together.
In the end, the book is not all bad. I liked the beginning and enjoyed the ending. It was the middle part that killed any joy I had.
Luckily, there are awesome books on philosophy out there and I look forward to pick up another one.
May 3, 2020
A powerhouse of a study on the foundation and evolution of western philosophy. Beginning with pre-Socratic thinkers and going all the way up to post-Reformation theologians, Gottlieb takes the reader on a journey of critical examination through the names many people hear, but seldom take the time to understand.
The bulk of the book naturally covers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but later delves into the writings and discoveries of these thinkers' followers, notably the Epicureans, Stoics, and Cynics. We then see how middle-age Christianity largely pushed aside these Hellenistic writers, and then their re-emergence in the time of the Renaissance and beyond.
Gottlieb not only provides a history of what these thinkers thought and said, but impressively compares their notions of reality, science, God, etc. in a way that highlights the important similarities and differences. We see where certain schools of thought built off of and diverged from each other. Ultimately, the reader is able to see how throughout the long march of time, our notions of justice, morality, virtue, pleasure, purpose, etc. came about and evolved. To a casual reader such as myself, this book occasionally got bogged down in mundane specifics. Overall, however, it was a highly-enjoyable read and one that I will probably read again at some time in the future.
The bulk of the book naturally covers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but later delves into the writings and discoveries of these thinkers' followers, notably the Epicureans, Stoics, and Cynics. We then see how middle-age Christianity largely pushed aside these Hellenistic writers, and then their re-emergence in the time of the Renaissance and beyond.
Gottlieb not only provides a history of what these thinkers thought and said, but impressively compares their notions of reality, science, God, etc. in a way that highlights the important similarities and differences. We see where certain schools of thought built off of and diverged from each other. Ultimately, the reader is able to see how throughout the long march of time, our notions of justice, morality, virtue, pleasure, purpose, etc. came about and evolved. To a casual reader such as myself, this book occasionally got bogged down in mundane specifics. Overall, however, it was a highly-enjoyable read and one that I will probably read again at some time in the future.
October 21, 2019
Gottlieb does not live up to his name (i.e. he does not like God)!
His presentation of ancient philosophy is both profoundly erudite and interesting to read/listen.
But his evaluation of anything Christian from late antiquity to the 16th century is dishonest and quite shameful. He certainly let his emotions get the hold of him and ruined what started as a fantastic history of philosophy.
His presentation of ancient philosophy is both profoundly erudite and interesting to read/listen.
But his evaluation of anything Christian from late antiquity to the 16th century is dishonest and quite shameful. He certainly let his emotions get the hold of him and ruined what started as a fantastic history of philosophy.
March 12, 2016
This book is similar to Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, however I think this one does justice to Aristotle. It finishes just before Ren茅 Descartes. The author has promised another volume that covers the later philophers.
Recommended.
Recommended.
April 26, 2013
too much of the author's opinion, not enough history. The author seems to think he can know what someone's intentions were 2500 years ago.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.