Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition

Rating:
Summary: Important! Perhaps the start of a new esoteric scholarship.
Review: I always found it strange that most modern scholars believed that their understanding of Plato was superior to that of Neoplatonists like Iamblichus, who lived almost two thousand years closer to Plato than we do, and who doubtless had access to contextual materials now lost. Kingsley's book goes some way toward reconstructing this context, and in so doing indicates that Iamblichus and other antique philosophers often regarded as "degenerate" compared to the Platonic/Aristotelian "purity" were instead the bearers of a tradition with deep roots in pre-Socratic, even shamanistic, soil. A key figure in this suppressed lineage, according to Kingsley, was Empedocles, well-known for his doctrine of the elements, but little-known until now as an esoteric ancestor of magic, alchemy and Sufism. I consider a book important if, after reading it, the familiar has become strange again. Along with the works of D Merkur and G Shaw, we may be seeing the birth of a new and rigourous form of antique esoteric scholarship.

Rating:
Summary: One of few deserving 5 stars
Review: I was led to this book by John Opsopaus' superb "Pythagorean Tarot," wherein he mentions that Kingsley demonstrated that Empedocles was a shaman ("iatromantis," that is). Everything said about this book so far is true: It *is* an interesting and valuable read; it *is* highly technical; and Kingsley definitely takes on every other classical scholar in clearing the air, removing historical debris and cultural bias, and establishing a new standard of personal involvement in classical scholarship. My take is that one can get the gist of his conclusions in chapters 15 & 19 (and perhaps 20 & 22), without wading through all the scholarly minutae. This groundwork was probably necessary to remove the blinders from our collective eyes imposed by an earlier generation of Greek scholars overly wowed by science and strangely detached from personal experience. In the end, I look forward to reading Kingsley's "Dark Places of Wisdom."

Rating:
Summary: Interesting & worthwhile, but very academic
Review: I was led to this book by John Opsopaus' superb "Pythagorean Tarot," wherein he mentions that Kingsley demonstrated that Empedocles was a shaman ("iatromantis," that is). Everything said about this book so far is true: It *is* an interesting and valuable read; it *is* highly technical; and Kingsley definitely takes on every other classical scholar in clearing the air, removing historical debris and cultural bias, and establishing a new standard of personal involvement in classical scholarship. My take is that one can get the gist of his conclusions in chapters 15 & 19 (and perhaps 20 & 22), without wading through all the scholarly minutae. This groundwork was probably necessary to remove the blinders from our collective eyes imposed by an earlier generation of Greek scholars overly wowed by science and strangely detached from personal experience. In the end, I look forward to reading Kingsley's "Dark Places of Wisdom."

Rating:
Summary: good, but too much like the other academics
Review: Kingsley is better elsewhere, when he isn't trying to impress other academics with his ideas and simply writes about the things that are important to him. Anyone expecting something like Dark Places of Wisdom, etc. will be bored to death wading through this heavily researched epic of jargon, but it will be worth their effort if they do--he makes a very good case for the mystery schools' hidden influence.

Rating:
Summary: good, but too much like the other academics
Review: Peter Kingsley's Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic presents an insightful and informative look at the Pythagorian tradition, with particular focus on Empedocles. Kingsley suggests that much of early 20th Century scholarship has failed to understand important aspects of the presocratic thinkers, in that modern scholarship imposes an artifical distinction between "rational" and "mystical" elements in these thinkers. Kingsley suggests that for the presocratics science and religion were a unified whole which can be properly understood only when we grant as much importance to the mythic or metaphoric mode of presocratic thought, as is currently granted to the literal and scientific aspects. Kingsley sees a major change in thought occuring with Plato and Aristotle, and views the latter as eliminating many of the mythical aspects which would have been understood by a contemporary audience. Kingsley ties Pythagoreanism and Orphism to Plato, and suggests a cultural whole that would have formed the background for Plato's thought. Kingsley supports his suggestions with excellent scholarship and anyone interested in the presocratics, Pythagorians or Orphics should consider this book required reading. Kingsley's style is easy to read and idea provoking. Kingsley draws on a wide range of knowledge, relating in a scholarly manner ideas contained in Empedolces and other Pythagoreans, to Hermeticism and even Arabic Sufism. Kingsley offers ample footnotes and citations.

Rating:
Summary: Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic
Review: Peter Kingsley's Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic presents an insightful and informative look at the Pythagorian tradition, with particular focus on Empedocles. Kingsley suggests that much of early 20th Century scholarship has failed to understand important aspects of the presocratic thinkers, in that modern scholarship imposes an artifical distinction between "rational" and "mystical" elements in these thinkers. Kingsley suggests that for the presocratics science and religion were a unified whole which can be properly understood only when we grant as much importance to the mythic or metaphoric mode of presocratic thought, as is currently granted to the literal and scientific aspects. Kingsley sees a major change in thought occuring with Plato and Aristotle, and views the latter as eliminating many of the mythical aspects which would have been understood by a contemporary audience. Kingsley ties Pythagoreanism and Orphism to Plato, and suggests a cultural whole that would have formed the background for Plato's thought. Kingsley supports his suggestions with excellent scholarship and anyone interested in the presocratics, Pythagorians or Orphics should consider this book required reading. Kingsley's style is easy to read and idea provoking. Kingsley draws on a wide range of knowledge, relating in a scholarly manner ideas contained in Empedolces and other Pythagoreans, to Hermeticism and even Arabic Sufism. Kingsley offers ample footnotes and citations.

Rating:
Summary: One of few deserving 5 stars
Review: Peter Kingsley's ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY, MYSTERY, AND MAGIC should be read by all students of western philosophy, as well as by anyone interested in thought and scholarship. Here is a work that shines a light into ancient Greek thought, and calls into question the motives and standards of ancient - and unfortunately modern - scholarship.

By itself, this makes the book worthy of wide attention. But what is more is that Kingsley brings philosophy back to its roots, helping enormously in the unpopular effort to shake us out of our current philosophical stupor and fascination with pointless 'problems.'

The book is written in a formal, academic style, unlike Kinglsey's later work. Those unfamiliar with this kind of writing may be put off (as is evidenced by some of the reviews here) by such 'intrusions' as foot and endnotes, and by the careful effort Kingsley has given to covering all the bases in order to create the most sound argument possible. Nevertheless, the book is not difficult to read by any means, especially when compared to most western philosophy today. Far from being evidence of Kingsley's wish to be pompous, or to impress colleagues, this style of writing is simply demanded by serious scholars, who were certainly among the primary targets of this book. One will not even be read by one's colleagues without writing in this established way. Had he not used this style, Kingsley would not have been taken seriously, and would have disappeared into the ranks of unpublished writers. That he was taken seriously by the elite of academia is seen by some of the reviews ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY received from them:

"A masterpiece, gripping, urgent and important: a unique pioneering work."
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY (Oxford/Paris)

"The thesis is argued with immense learning ... courageous, original."
THE TIMES (London)

"A remarkable achievement: challenging, learned and at the same time enthralling to read."
CLASSICAL REVIEW (Oxford)

"Bold and extremely significant ... Kingsley's book may well be the most important book about Presocratic philosophy in years, and it is certainly one of the most exciting, challenging, and stimulating."
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (Washington DC)

"Every scholar dreams of writing a truly original book, but in reality hardly anyone ever does. A truly original book, one that can transform a whole discipline, appears at the most once in a generation. In the field of ancient philosophy, Peter Kingsley's Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic is such a book."
PROF. A. A. LONG, University of California at Berkeley

My guess as to why Kinglsey wrote in the standard academic style before switching to an informal one is that he wanted to establish himself as someone who was not a crackpot, before delving into the territory that he has with his second and third books. No respected scholar with a job to keep would dare to say what Kingsley has said in these later works. The sad fact is that if he had held a distinguished position in one of the top ten universities of the world, he would have been out on the street in no time had he published IN THE DARK PLACES OF WISDOM or REALITY, and that just goes to show what a sad state academia - higher 'learning' - is in.

Read this book first, then read the others. If you have an open mind, and have the creative ability to try on a new set of mental clothing, you'll be rewarded.