A Short History of Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: Philosophy to Go
Review: Authors Solomon and Higgins have written a very readable history of philosophy matching philosopher's names with a brief explanation of their pet concepts. They cover too much ground really; by the time I finished the book, I had been exposed to so many ideas and philosophers that I remembered hardly any of them. They should have just covered the major philosophers of one period in depth if they expected many readers to remember anything. But this is a good reference book; I wrote some philosophers down and maybe I may read a couple of their primary works over a lifetime. This is also a good book for the intellectually lazy but mildly curious people who want to be exposed to philosophy without having to go through the pain of reading the profound primary sources. Higgins and Solomon have already done that for you; they have allegedly read these philosophers' books and have reported back with bit-sized morsels of information about their different philosophies. Some of the philosophies seem important, others might leave you wondering why anyone would waste a lifetime worrying about such a subject.

Many different kinds of philosphers are covered whether they be boring, charismatic, bolshevik, dangerous, obfuscating, bloodless, blasphemous, godly, mathematical, humanistic, elitest, egalitarian, arrogant, irritable, humble, obscure, famous, rich, poor, establishment, anti-establishment, heretical, dogmatic, flexible, incomprehensible, annoying, pleasant, hypocritical, scientific, kooky, or intellectually dishonest. I don't really have time to explain all of them in depth.

Rating:
Summary: Informative-Easy To Read-Worth Every Penny
Review: For years I have gone about reading philosophy in a very haphazard fashion. Nietzche here, Plato there, Baudrillard here, you get the point. A Short History of Philosophy has helped me understand not only what the great (and minor) philosophers have said but in what conditions they lived. For those of you who have started as I, I can assure you that the puzzle makes much more sense when you start from the beginning. For a "Short History" this book packs an immense ammount of information. The text is very accessible, though I do recommend that you have a Dictionary of Philosophy to accompany your reading. If you have any interest in Philosophy please do yourself a favor and read this book. Solomon and Higgins have created a book worthy of its praise.

Rating:
Summary: helpful "mental systems" re-boot
Review: I bought the hardcover version as a bargain book/remainder at a local bookstore--probably the best bargain book purchase I've made in years, come to think of it.

I read this book after finishing my M.A. thesis in German Literature. The arduous production and defense of my Thesis left me psychichally drained and had shattered my intellectual confidence completely. I turned to this book in the hope of performing what I like to liken to a full "cold" systems re-boot on a computer...start over from the very beginning and do a "full check of all systems"...the book was a sheer joy to read, opened my eyes afresh to new facets of philosphy I'd never considered before...such as the profound humanism contained in Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things". I also appreciated Solomon & Higgins' offering of the Philosophical olive branch to Psychology & psychoanalysis, apparently feeling that a practice of Philosophy which ignores the insights of psychoanalysis, et. al. is so much the poorer for it. Having just now finished Peter Gay's _Freud: A Life for our Time_(1988), however, I think it can be safely said that the real historical Freud would have rejected this rapprochment (In terms of time-line, it wasn't the Philosophy who rejected Freud so much as Freud who rejected as unsatisfactory the condition of the contemporary state of Philosophy of his time and sought to make Psychoanalysis a clear and distinct science, set apart from formal academic Philosophy which Freud had already given up on) But I think subsequent events down to the present day make this suggested rapprochment of Solomon & Higgins correct and appropriate, and Freud deserves his own seat in the canon of Western Philosophy. (IMHO, Psychology without Philosophical insight is itself vacuous) In any event, as a whole to book restored my faith in Philosophy and led to a renewal and re-discovery of my own intellectual confidence.

In a final note about the authors, I have had the pleasure to listen to some of Prof. Robert Solomon's lectures via audio cassette -- specifically a lecture series entitled "No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life", produced for The Teaching Company (TM). I am happy to report that Dr. Solomon is just as engaging "live" as he is in print. I look forward to listening to his lecture series on Nietzsche which was done in collaboration with his co-author, Prof. Higgins, also for The Teaching Company.

Rating:
Summary: For the ?Wide-Eyed in Wonder? type
Review: I could have chosen Bertrand Russell or Will Durant's books on the same topic, but I went with the Solomon and Higgins combo instead. They purposely write for the novice and include often-ignored philosophical traditions in the East and elsewhere. Unlike most accounts, the book is quick read at 300 pages. The curious reader will find it a thorough introduction to the "wonder" of philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: For the ¿Wide-Eyed in Wonder¿ type
Review: I could have chosen Bertrand Russell or Will Durant's books on the same topic, but I went with the Solomon and Higgins combo instead. They purposely write for the novice and include often-ignored philosophical traditions in the East and elsewhere. Unlike most accounts, the book is quick read at 300 pages. The curious reader will find it a thorough introduction to the "wonder" of philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent history.
Review: I had recently read the Norwegian novel "Sophie's World," which is a short history of philosophy thinly disguised as a novel. It's the same as dozens of histories of philosophy written in the first part of this century . . . or AS IF in the first part of this century. Under the pretense of "taking no position," it takes the position that all of Western philosophy from Plato onward remains alive today as current thought.

I read "A Short History of Philosophy." with that peculiar joy one has in finding a book one would like to have written (which is no indication that one COULD have written it). Solomon and Higgins, who write with a single and masterful voice, have here painted a loving portrait of a long series of beliefs, the vast majority of which Solomon and Higgins probably do not share. They are able to convey the significance, at the time, of disputes that are now dead, and also the importance of appreciating those disputes now, not only in order to diagnose vestigial remains of them in current culture(s), and not only for the benefit of future thought, but for their own sake as beautiful, if abandoned, human creations.

Most histories of philosophy present a series of philosophers as isolated individuals, one passing a torch neatly to the next. At most the reader is informed of the nationality of each. Solomon and Higgins correct for this by placing philosophers in their cultural and political contexts. But they do not go to the opposite extreme and make the mistake of thinking that philosophy does not in its turn have a great effect on the rest of culture. Similarly, they strike a good and sophisticated balance between emphasizing individuals and minimizing them as parts of general trends. More importantly - and this is an obvious reason why I could not have written this book, though I learned from other parts of it as well - the authors include non-Western (mostly Eastern) philosophy. They address what has been influential, but also what they hope will be more influential, drawing out elements of Western thought that they see as badly neglected, and pointing to non-Western notions that they see as good antidotes (or correctives, not places to rest but useful tools for change) to Western ones. The book points out both actual points of contact between historic cultures, and similarities between them regardless of any known influence. This is helped by the method of interweaving numerous stories as required by chronological order. But I should note that similarities are mentioned as an aid to understanding, not at all as an attempt to hint at any a-cultural "truth."

Also helpful is the refusal to distinguish between religion and philosophy, and the consequent inclusion of a Short History of Religion scattered through the book. As the authors point out, the idea of such a distinction is a very recent one, and is thus not helpful in describing past traditions. Various thinkers not always labeled philosophers are included as well. There are some excellent passages on Montaigne.

The Short History is written in ordinary American English loaded with turns of phrase the authors may themselves find questionable: "the very nature of," "objectivity," "subjectivism," "reality itself," "essential," "rationally," "irrationality." The origins and dubitability of many of these notions are discussed in the book (early comments on the expression "natural" set the tone), and yet elsewhere they are used as if we are all agreed upon their comprehensibility and usefulness. One can find on one page a good discussion of problems with the notion of rationality, and on another the word "irrationality" used without explanation to refer to the Nazi Holocaust. The book is thus, in a very broad sense, written, as Derrida would put it, "under erasure." Words are used because they are part of the language of the book's intended audience, despite the fact that the authors might prefer to abandon (or change the meaning of) those words. In only two cases do I find this troublesome. On the whole it seems to me both wise and unavoidable. The most troublesome case is the phrase "commonsense." Numerous discussions of the misuse and abuse of this phrase are here published together with numerous uses of it, some of them rather unhelpfully scare-quoted and others not. The other case that bothers me is a single instance of the phrase "from a philosophical point of view," in a work that seems largely devoted to opening up the question of what thing or things that has meant and can mean.

In the preface Solomon and Higgins state their intention to "keep our own biases out of the text." But I credit them with near-recognition of the near-meaninglessness of that statement. The last sections of the book, dealing with the interaction of diverse cultures, point out the all-too-common danger of taking one's own point of view for an absence of bias. This book would offend a great many philosophy professors, especially in the English speaking world. Various beliefs are described as so absurd that the philosopher must have been joking. Other ideas are lamented for the damage they've done.

I am not complaining. I share the authors' biases, and imagine that a great many other people do too. The book is excellently written, clear, rich, dense. A good bibliography is provided.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent overview of the development of philosophy
Review: Not sure about phiosophy or philosophers? This might just be the book for you. Easy to read and witty, the book covers Western philosophy well. The philosophical development of other cultures is also covered less completely for comparison.