The Columbia History of Western Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: Where is the love of wisdom?
Review: The Columbia History of Western Philosophy narrates western philosophy in a more collective way than traditional histories of philosophy, and, for related reasons, its editor, Richard H Popkin, has called upon a diverse group of specialists to edit the chapters.

This is both Politically Correct and academically conventional, but it means that the Columbia history is not a good introduction to philosophy for the general reader: instead it is an excellent reference book for someone already versed in philosophy.

In former days, the history of philosophy was biographical, and focused on the thought of the major dead white males. .... Throughout his book, Popkin's authors provide this Politically Correct equal time and the general reader already well-versed in philosophy can learn much. But Popkin, in the selfsame interests of Political Correctness, fails to have his team judge, and for that matter, the judgements of a team are almost guaranteed to be a least common denominator. The sophisticated and academic reader can be left with more questions than answers, but the general reader is, I think, ultimately confused: did Plato mean what Plato said or was Plato messing with our minds? Should Spinoza have gotten married and settled down? Was Theodore Adorno a schnook or a good guy? ....

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Reference!
Review: THis book has been immensely helpful in one major way: It speaks philosophy in a language I could understand. Philosophy can be difficult with its own terminology, yet this book makes it so easy to understand the concepts and factions.

Rating:
Summary: Very mediocre introduction to philosophical thought
Review: When I was browsing on Amazon, I was surprised to see that this book (In Europe it is called 'The Pimlico History of Western Philosophy, edited by Richard H. Popkin and effectively written by -indeed- a 'small army of connaisseurs') had an average rating of 4.5 stars. To me the largest part of the book is utterly unreadable. Many sections seem like an endless row of quotations connected by lines of interpretative thought from each expert. No doubt that these people are experts in their field, but their capacity to transmit the basic ideas as intended by the philosophers discussed (or at least the interpretations of those ideas), is very poor. Nor do the discussions stimulate philosophical thought in the reader himself. Probably this might not be the purpose of this book, but in my personal opinion every history of philosophy should encourage the interested layman to contemplate on the big questions concerning metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and ethics. Or as Storig formulates it very well in his excellent 'Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philospie':

What can we do? What should we do? What may we believe?

If you are looking for the answers to these questions, do not read this book. The remark Popkin makes in the introduction of this book concerning 'History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell is really cheap: "Russell wrote his book hastily out of financial desperation while jobless in N.Y.C. at the beginning of WW II. Since Russell was a scholar of very few topics he covered, and uninterested or hostile to others, his opus is most engaging as Russelliana but hardly as history of philosophy". And further: "This work (Popkin's) is not intended to compete with this classic (Russell's)". Well, I read both and the conclusion is easily made. Pimlico doesn't come even close to Russell's. Indeed Bertrand Russell treats the history of philosophy in a very personal style and frankly ventilates his opinion on the great minds of western philosophy. But he does this in such a way, that it is still possible to get a clear picture of the original ideas unbiased by Russell's opinions. Also Russell's book does stimulate the educated reader to think and judge for himself. And, frankly, - but this is my personal opinion - although I do not agree with Russell's judgement in a number of cases, his statement that the philosophic ideas of some great men like Berkeley - who denied the existence of matter; material objects exist only through being perceived - are to be classified as insanity, despite the sometimes ingenuous arguments Berkeley made to support this view.

I would like to spare one section from Pimlico's from my harsh criticism. That is the one written by Avrum Stroll on 'Twentieth Century Analytic Philosphy'. The eleven chapters he wrote give a very accessible introduction to this difficult subject, although I feel he could have spent more words on the Tractatus in the Wittgenstein chapter. Stroll's contribution prevents the rating from dropping to one star.