Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers

Rating:
Summary: Does What It Says It Does
Review: Philip Stokes traces -- quickly, succinctly, and always in a page-and-a-half -- exactly why each philosopher included in "100 Essential Thinkers" has earned a place in the book's pages. While the text is perfect for a quick brush-up on famous names throughout history you know you should know but you can't ever remember exactly why (or exactly what they did or said), it is just that -- a primer, a relatively painless refresher, but far from a comprehensive account of each individual. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, mostly because of the tone and layout of the entries on each thinker -- Stokes has a gift for summing up the thrust of complicated philosophical preponderances in lightning-quick, lucid and polemic-free prose. He also begins each little article with an interesting blurb or quotation from the thinker, and provides a picture, painting, etching or sculpture. All this makes it easier to anchor the person, usually described only in terms of their abstract ideas, more firmly in your mind. (Democritus looks wasted, for example, and Whitehead lives up to his name...and wait until you see the push-broom moustache on Neitzsche...)

The book details little of its thinkers' lives, except where perhaps relevant to the evolution of ideas and theories important to philosophy, but does occasionally trace an idea or a solution through its earlier manifestations. All in all, it's a snack of a book...and for some of the 100 greatest thinkers (like St. Anselm, Schelling, Philo of Alexandria) that's probably as in-depth as you'll ever want to go.

Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction or Refresher
Review: Stokes presents a brief introduction to his chosen panoply of 100 influential Western thinkers, from Ancient Greece to the present. A concise (about one page per philosopher) and informative read, well suited as an introduction to the ideas and schools of thought of these major figures. At times Stokes seems to slip his own assumptions and preference into the fabric of his assessments (for instance he seems to personally defend Sartre's existentialist conclusions). Of course, this is not in and of itself bad and Stokes does not make any claim to try for some sort of perfect objectivity. Whether or not Stokes' own views and affinities color his presentation should be no problem to the reader who plans on learning from more than one source (which is always a good idea). While reading this book it has been interesting to see how each philosopher begins his own progression of thought with certain assumptions. Subsequent thinkers who agree with certain aspects of another's philosophy, but disagree with the conclusions of that philosopher, merely need to alter certain foundational assumptions---sometimes it seems in order to support an already reached conclusion. What underlies the assumptions that cause philosophers to choose or reject certain ideas? Stokes' presentation makes this question stand out, for you merely have to turn the page and there is another great philosopher finding an earlier thinkers ideas "acceptable" or "unacceptable" as a statement of fact without much explanation as to why. It is in this way an introductory book such as this may well spur a likely candidate on to further study in philosophy. Overall: A good introduction as well as a good source for a quick brain refresh on famous philosophers' ideas and works.