Rating: 
Summary: thoroughly absorbing and thoughtful, but a bit snooty
Review: bryan magee is an excellent writer and i hope to see more from him, but i think he should concentrate less on attacking people with other opinions and more on forming his own ideas. this, after all, is what magee himself sees as the hallmark of a 'real' philosopher, and yet he doesn't seem to realize that he himself does not have any new or original ideas, he is just superb at discussing ones that are already there. most of the book is written using kant's lingo (the 'noumenal' part of reality being the hidden, unknowable part, the 'phenomenal'being the realm of appearances and everyday life) and describing ultimate reality in schopenhauerian terms. not one word betrays an original idea, only highly refined opinions on reality expressed with other people's terminology. if we were to use magee's own criteria in judging whether one was a 'real philosopher' or not, he would clearly not be one. aside from that, this book is certainly a work of importance in the sense that it revitalizes and reanimates many of the most important thinkers and ideas of the past century. magee takes us to the brink of ultimate reality, and in one truly touching chapter describes the crisis of meaninglessness and nothingness that is absolutely inevitable in anyone who chooses not to take it one day at a time, but to buckle down and think. one doesn't exactly get the sense that the crisis was ever completely resolved, but this only makes magee seem more real and authentic. amidst all the exhaustive tirades against analytic philosophers, scholars, academics, we get the sense of a passionate man who will not sacrifice the quest for actual truth as many thinkers do (even some great ones) in the pursuit of mental comfort. magee may leave us in a difficult position, that is, one of almost complete uncertainty, but i'm willing to wager that most true philosophers would concede that that is in fact where we are, for all our suspicious talk about absolutes and transcendent powers governing the universe. being an agnostic myself, i was relieved that i never hit that much anticipated page that would have shot the whole thing down for me, that is, the concession to religious faith or any form of irrational humbug. magee has a sense of the miraculous and yet he also has tremendous intellectual integrity. a must.
Rating: 
Summary: Magisterial autobiography.
Review: Bryan Magee's masterly confessions cover not only his philosophical work, but also his life as a Labour politician and his TV and writer's career. As a politician, he was disappointed by the only marginal impact of government interventions and became a political Liberal. But his main aim has always been individual freedom. His analyses of the philosophy of Popper, Russell, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Mill, Augustinus, Schelling, Fichte, Frege, and others, are profound, extremely clear and to the point (a rarity today).
He is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the British language philosophy: she constitutes the bankruptcy of philosophy and ends in a morass of 'playing with words'. The assumption that everything can be expressed by words is too preposterous to take it even into consideration: how do you say a piano concerto of Mozart or the Mona Lisa. As one other philosopher asked in an interview on the BBC: have they nothing else to do in this world? His world view is rather pessimistic: people are lead by false values (mimicry, compromise ...) rather than by love, loyalty to truth or integrity.
Other leitmotivs in this book are his fear for death and the intellectual catastrophe of common sense (our senses discern nothing of what happens in the real, physical world: atoms, speed of the earth...) Nevertheless, I disagree with him on one crucial point : his Kantian philosophical problem of the link between personal freedom and the determinist physical laws. For Magee, it is impossible to have individual freedom in an empirical world reigned by these laws. There must for him be a world (a part of the human body) outside these laws, that provides the foundation for freedom.
I side here with Popper and Stephen Hawking who say that the solution of this problem lays in the brain. Our brain is subject to the uncertainty principle, in other words, to the randomness associated with quantum mechanics (S. Hawking 'Black Holes and Baby Universes). For a refutation of Kant, see W. Heisenberg 'Physics and Philosophy'.
This book constitutes an enriching and most entertaining dialogue with the reader. Not to be missed.
Rating:
Summary: First Class Personal Introduction to Philosophy
Review: Bryan Magee, well known for his previous works and popularisations, gives in this account an 'insider's look' into not just into how philosophy was practised in the 20th century, but also gives key insights into some of the greatest thinkers in the history of philosophy: St Augustine, Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, the Greek philosophers, but most notably, Kant and Schopenhauer. Like his other book 'The Story of Philosophy', 'Confessions of a Philosopher' outlines the historical development of philosophy from the time of the Greeks too the present. Magee brilliantly expounds the incredible influence this has had on civilisation and on the immense importance of the great thinkers. But most importantly, in my view, he recongises the tremendous importance of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose ideas were as revolutionary to philosophy as those of Plato and Aristotle before him. Magee clearly understands the importance of Kant, but goes one step further and explains the most difficult yet important aspects of Kant's philosophy, such as his distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality', his view we can only understand what we can percieve and 'order' according to our minds, the fact that God's existence (or nonexistence) can no longer be proved rationally, and so on, in beautifully clear and vivid prose. Magee is not just a acute philosopher, but is also a first class writer and populariser; something that is rare in philosophy. Magee utterly destroys the old stereotype of philosophy as being either pointless pedantry over words (something he correctly attributes to the excessive focus on linguistics by many contemporary analytic philosophers) or as air-headed speculative metaphysics with no connection to the real world. Magee argues, quite convincingly, that like science, philosophy is not merely about clarifying concepts or analysing our language, but about understanding our world, our place in it, and indeed, the universe as a whole. He pulls no punches, blasting postmodernism, some aspects of continental philosophy, and the Anglo-American tradition of 'analytic philosophy' as being utterly useless, and as giving philosophy a bad reputation. The other interesting facet of Magee presentes in his book is the fascinating autobiographical material, including his encounters with great thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, his views on Wittgenstein, his deep thoughts about the nature of time, and his immense reverence for Kant and Schopenhauer. Especially interesting is his recognition of the importance of Schopenhauer, one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century whose extremely important work was overlooked because of the popularity of Hegel. Magee's book is also refreshingly sprinkled with positive references to science. It seems fashionable these days in the humanities to either denounce science as either some 'social construction' designed to enforce some ideaology, or to ignore it altogether. Magee rightly demolishes this view as the height of stupidity and arrogance, borrowing liberally from great philosopher/scientists like Kant, whilst at the same time not falling into a naive scientism that the positivist movement seemed to get trapped in. Magee's book ends with a poignant and wrenching view of the question of death. He illustrates his own struggle with his knowledge that he, like the rest of us, will eventually die, fully aware that in the shadow of Kant all attempts to prove the existence of God and an afterlife are futile exercises in speculation. Magee grasps this existential dilemma to its fullest extent and masterfully argues we may have an immaterial component to our being that survives death. Like all true philosophers, Magee doesn't force any dogmas down your throat but only asks you to consider the possibility, and even then, only tentatively. Although I cannot regard his arguments as proof any conciousness survives our death, he certainly makes you think about it. Several critics have derided this book and Magee himself as pretentious. I must disagree. If anything, Magee did the most anyone ever did to open my eyes to the wonder of philosophy and to the importance of great thinkers like Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer. Magee's anguishing and intensely personal accounts of his attempts to find knowledge and understanding echo deeply within one's soul, and so easy and conversational is his prose is that you identify and empathise with him without even knowing it, feeling as though he is guiding you every step of the way. He lacks the pretension of Russell, the arrogance of Popper, the blind ideaological stupidity of many 'postmodern' thinkers, and the annoyingly dismissive attitude towards metaphysical questions typical of some science writers. He communicates the deepest and most important human endeavour-philosophy, in clear and concise terms and in doing so avoids the sophisty and intellectual self-congratulation one finds in so many academic writings. If you want to dig deeper into philosophy, then this is a good place to start.
Rating: 
Summary: An admixture of pleasure and pain.
Review: Fascinating and enlightening in places, and intensely irritating in others. Without doubt Magee is a smart man, but he is by no means a philosopher. Indeed, one of the arguments postulated by him in this very tome is that philosophers must in some way contribute to humanity's understanding of itself and its universe. While Magee's body of work (including this volume) certainly contributes to our understanding of *philosophy*, that's about the end of it. On top of that, Chapter 2 appears to be nothing more than his entry into the "mention your tenure at Oxford as many times as you can in a single paragraph" competition that I understand is being held globally at the moment, and Chapter 16 is his "ooh, look, I done wrote me a book!", which is utterly pointless because what are we reading? In any event, as I say, good in places, painful and egoist in others. I finished it and I knew a few tidbits more than I did when I went in, but that's the extent of it. Good for people who enjoy reading *about* philosophy, but people seeking wisdom can give this a miss.
Rating:
Summary: Clear and deep
Review: I'll admit that I was originally turned off by the corny title and cover of the book, but once I got past that, I realized that few minds have grasped the real meaning and import of western philosophy like Magee's has. Magee is the best kind of philosopher--exhibiting disciplined thinking with an incredible grasp of the material's meaning. His critique of modern analytic philosophy is profound and displays incredible insight. His grasp of the mystery of existence is deep and his ability to convey that mystery to the reader is his shining accomplishment. Magee makes it clear that you don't need to be religious to really feel that mystery. His general criticisms of both religionists and humanists are right on. Religious people tend to be smug about and uncritical of their inherited ideas, and humanists tend to lose the sense of the crushing mystery of why there is anything at all rather than nothing. I can honestly say that no book has hit me so profoundly than this one (other than Schopenhauer's _The World as Will and Representation_, which Magee addresses with great skill in his book).
Rating:
Summary: Well-written but pretentious
Review: In "Confessions of a Philosopher," Bryan Magee traces his personal development regarding philosophy. Magee often is very astute and is a good writer. His sections on Kant brim with passion as does his section on the God question. Although this book is not a technically a survey of philosophy, it does introduce the concepts of many philosophers, especially Kant, Wittgenstein and Schopenhauer, in very readable prose. I also enjoyed the chapter on Magee's mid-life "existential" crisis and his dealings with the existentialists, especially Nietzsche. Magee, however, is pretentious. He repeatedly demeans Bertrand Russel's "History of Western Philosophy" by calling it a text for "adult education." Unlike Magee, however, most people don't have the advantage to attend Yale and Oxford. His chapter on writing novels is particulary self-serving and has almost no purpose within the text. He constantly chastises academics for their own unchecked egos, but falls into much of the same elitist mindset that he complains about. I would recommend this book for anyone interested in a personal journey through the eyes of a "professional" philosopher. For a true survey of western philosophy, however, I recommend Russell's "History of Western Philosophy."
Rating:
Summary: A Journey Not A Destination
Review: REVIEW: I've heard it said that "life's a journey, not a destination." This is applicable to this book and its apply named subtitle "A Journey Through Western Philosophy." It follows the author from his philosophical thinking in childhood, through his formal schooling in the subject, and on to his personal relationships with famous philosophers and his advanced study, thinking and writing about the subject. The book is not a destination in that its purpose is not to espouse a particular philosophy or theory, although he does make his own opinions quite clear (e.g. about what is good philosophy and what is not). Even though the book has a few weaknesses, it is highly interesting and easy to read. Especially useful to those who are beginning their own "journey" into philosophy. This book is also typical of a number of others that I like in that it is hard to categorize. It is not quite: an autobiography, or a book on philosophy, or a biography of other philosophers. It is in some ways all of these and even includes a chapter that is almost a "how-to" on writing a novel. The advanced philosophy reader may not gain much from Magee's book, but an amateur or beginning reader like myself should find it very worthwhile. It helped me understand some of the major schools or trends in philosophy and helped me create a reading program for further study (e.g. which authors to start with and which to avoid for a while). I also found it to be a good book to read after Magee's other book "The Story of Philosophy" which started my interest in the subject. I also highly recommend that as an introduction. STRENGTHS: For the most part, just the right breadth and depth for the non-advanced philosophy reader. The personal accounts of Magee's interactions with philosophers such as Popper and Russell are very interesting and hard to find anywhere else. The author has done a very good job at making his personal journey broadly interesting to the reader. WEAKNESSES: For my interests, Magee spends too much time rejecting certain types of philosophy (e.g. linguistic). His arguments are convincing, but the total amount of ink spent on it is too much and he sounds almost defensive at times (perhaps at not rejecting it sooner?). WHO SHOULD READ THIS BOOK: Probably most useful to the non-advanced philosophy reader who is beginning his/her own "journey". ALSO CONSIDER: "The Story of Philosophy" also by Magee
Rating:
Summary: In praise of the idle rich
Review: The modern world is very much impoverished by the almost complete elimination of that class of people who lived their whole lives on inherited wealth, the "idle rich". Not all were idle, some were interesting eccentrics and others were able to follow their own interests and speak their minds without fear of their jobs or their livelihood. Magee managed to emulate this way of life to some extent because he was able to move in and out of well-paid work and maintain a high degree of independence in his thinking and his writing. True independence of thought is almost completely unknown these days, due to political pressures and to the demands for conformity for progress in a career. The main theme of the book is Magee's dissatisfaction with the mainstream of analytical philosophy, and his quest for a philosophy that has something to say about the big questions that philosophy and science do not attempt to answer. A subtext to the main theme is Magee's progress through life as a writer, politician, social commentator and broadcaster. Here we encounter his political career, his novels, his crisis of identity and his lengthy quest for enlightenment which led him to the works of Schopenhauer. Magee read history and philosophy at Oxford and Yale (a breath of fresh air), then in 1956 he moved to London and found his way into radio and TV. Blessed with a flair for research and presentation he rose to anchor the leading British weekly current affairs program on TV. This advanced his political education in a very interesting way because he traveled all over the world and discovered the reality of life under communist and socialist regimes. To his dismay, back home even his conservative friends could not credit the full extent of the brutality and squalor that he encountered under the Marxist regimes of the world. Magee became friends with Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell, the two men who he regarded as the most important living philosophers at that time. His friendship with Popper was stormy because he was prepared to stand toe to toe and argue despite Popper's overbearing manner. Still, he considered that Popper's contribution was invaluable and has yet to be fully appreciated, especially by professional philosophers. Magee had a short but rewarding friendship with Bertrand Russell until the old man was cut off from the world by his private secretary. Magee visited Russell in Wales to discuss an appearance on a TV current affairs program. Russell (aged 87) waited hand and foot on the young reporter (to Magee's intense discomfort) and the visit continued into the evening when Russell discovered Magee's interest in politics and philosophy. Due to Russell's great age and his elevated station both in society and in the realm of intellect it seemed to Magee that most of the history of the last 85 years had passed through his life. When Magee made a critical comment on some aspect of Marxism, Russell replied "Yes, I made exactly that point to Lenin, but I couldn't get him to see it". For some people the most interesting aspect of this book will be the insights and perspectives that Magee provides on modern philosophy, especially in Britain. The major defect of the system was the tendency for philosophers to be recruited from students of Greats - that is, Greek, Latin and Ancient History. They knew nothing of science and in many cases were actively hostile to it. There was probably a class bias as well, and a tendency to live their lives apart from the wider world of commerce and politics. In addition to the deficiencies of the recruits, both phases of Wittgenstein's influence tended to work against imaginative and original thinking. He pioneered serious intellectual discussion on air, first with a BBC radio series on modern British philosophers, later with a program called Something to Say in which He chaired one-hour debates between high-powered opponents: Aron and Marcuse; Hayek and Bernard Crick; Galbraith versus Crossland (on the need for economic growth); Monod versus Eccles (on the human soul); Ayer versus a Roman Catholic bishop (on the existence of God). To make these dialogues work for the popular audience Magee had to prepare in depth. Some of this preparation brought him into contact with a body of ideas that had been quite foreign to him. His own political position was quite clear, as a prospective Labour candidate he defined himself as a non-Marxist, non-socialist but heavily interventionist liberal. He felt he had all the answers to the left-wing radicals and the mainstream of conservatives (Conservative Party voters). He wrote "But now, for the first time in my life, I came seriously up against a fourth position, the position of the radical right, whose existence I had known of before but which I had never regarded with respect. In fact, the truth is that I had dismissed it as quasi-fascist and had never given it serious examination." This shows in a very graphic manner how close the ideas of classical or non-socialist liberalism came to extinction. In the case of Magee a very well educated man, a voracious reader, active in politics, an international traveler and a journalist of great distinction did not come into meaningful contact with this body of ideas until he approached middle age. In the event, Magee took on board most of their critique of interventionism but could not go all the way, and so he adopted a position which he described as "Thatcherism plus welfare". This is a very interesting and revealing book, even for people who are not overly interested in Magee's personal fears and enthusiasms.
Rating:
Summary: Magee's Introduction to Philosophy
Review: This is an excellent book for both philosophy specialists and novices alike. It would even serve as an excellent Intro. to Philosophy text. My non-philosophy major friends have loved it. This book is most successful in introducing philosophical inquiry and its themes in an interesting and exciting way. It is a narrative of Magee's own entry into philosophy. It begins with "Scenes from Childhood," which establishes the immediacy and exigency of philosophical questions, then it moves into "My Introduction to Academic Philosophy." Magee discusses the various pendelum swings of philosophical fashion, from the rise and demise of linguistic analysis (he is a bit harsh on this topic), to basic philosophical problems, such as perception. Some of the more interesting chapters are on Kant, Russell, Popper, and the nature of academic philosophy. This is a remarkably engaging book. It presents a very decent SUMMARY of contemporary philosophical concerns. Many of my friends could hardly set it down. It is written from an 'analytic' perspective (M. is an Oxford veteran). The sentences are clear and direct, often witty. It is stylistically amenable to a general public audience.
Rating:
Summary: Seen from the inside
Review: This is not a polularization /adult-education style presentation. Magee sees things form the inside; it is his own formation of philosophical ideas & techniques that we witness.
Magee was close enough to Popper to present us with his ideas first-hand (nobody reads Popper; people read about him). He also debunks a few idiotic myths about Wittgenstein as an atomist (Magee read W and realized that people read commentary on him rarely the original).
Magee writes with the remarkable clarity of the English philosophers/thinkers.
| 
