What do you think?
Rate this book
Socrates' Children Volume III: Modern Philosophers
This is the third of a four-volume history of philosophy . . . on ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary philosophy. After the fourth volume is produced in paper, a one-volume clothbound edition, containing all four paperbound editions, will be published. Kreeft focuses on the “big ideas” that have influenced present people and present times, and includes relevant biographical data, proportionate to its importance for each thinker. Moreover, the aim of the work is to stimulate philosophizing, controversy, and argument. It uses ordinary language and logic, not jargon and symbolic logic, and it is commonsensical (like Aristotle) and existential in the sense that it sees philosophy as something to be lived and experienced in life. Philosophy, after all, is not about philosophy but reality . . . about wisdom, life and death, good
and evil, and God. Kreeft seeks to be simple and direct and clear. But it is not dumbed down and patronizing. It will stretch the reader, but it is meant for beginnings, not just scholars. It can be used for college classes or do-it-yourselfers. It emphasizes surprises; remember, “philosophy begins in wonder.” And it includes visual aids: charts, cartoons, line drawings, and drawings of each philosopher.
and evil, and God. Kreeft seeks to be simple and direct and clear. But it is not dumbed down and patronizing. It will stretch the reader, but it is meant for beginnings, not just scholars. It can be used for college classes or do-it-yourselfers. It emphasizes surprises; remember, “philosophy begins in wonder.” And it includes visual aids: charts, cartoons, line drawings, and drawings of each philosopher.
415 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 15, 2012
51 people are currently reading
257 people want to read
About the author
Peter Kreeft
198 books1,074 followersPeter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 27, 2023
Brilliant commentary on some horrible ideas!
July 26, 2024
Great!
Great and informative book! Highly recommend! Peter Kreeft is one of my favorite philosophers. Amazing, interesting, cool, substantive, deep, short.
Great and informative book! Highly recommend! Peter Kreeft is one of my favorite philosophers. Amazing, interesting, cool, substantive, deep, short.
January 1, 2018
I read a manuscript copy of this book for the author's class at The King's College on Modern Philosophy. I found Peter Kreeft and his book to be great resources for anyone interested in an introduction to modern philosophy. The book is broken down by philosopher, and further into small, easy-to-digest sections on personal life, epistemology, metaphysics, legacy, and so on. I enjoyed this book more so than other philosophy books because Kreeft writes everything in very comprehendible terms, without cheapening the material, and also adds fun jokes and anecdotes that keep you interested when you otherwise might get bogged down. While the book makes no attempt to disguise its partiality to some philosophers over others, I think it is still a great book for students, casual readers, or those wanting a starting place from which to kick off a deep dive into modern philosophy.
December 30, 2025
I really do appreciate Kreeft's succinct writing. I don't really mind his opinions on philosophers, likely because I share his same views, though he doesn't hold back when criticizing a philosopher's lifestyle or, well, philosophy. Regardless, this book has been an excellent bird's eye view and refresher of the history of modern philosophy as viewed from the subject, the individual philosophers and their systems, if any, as placed in their context. It's quite helpful. (After reading this book, I decided to no longer give away my copy but to keep them for future reference should I need to revisit a philosopher's thought.)
June 17, 2023
The good: Kreeft provides an informative introduction to a lot of famous philosophers, in a fairly accessible manner. While I struggled with a lot of the book (see below), it also had a lot of valuable takeaways. My favorite was Pascal, whose famous wager is stronger than the
reductionist modern critiques against it, and whose timeless insight into the simultaneous wretchedness and greatness of man is perhaps the best I’ve ever read - I’ve gone on to read and enjoy his direct writings. Hegel’s dialectic is a useful lens I find relevant to parts of my own life. Rousseau’s emotionalism and “General Will” helped me realize how the new moral absolutes of our current age can be thought of as a shifting collective postmodernism based on feeling. It struck me that a lot of these philosophers took a decent idea or a brilliant insight, became enamored with it, and elevated it to a sort of god or idol and tried to explain the whole universe with it - but some of them still have value in proper context. The book gave me interesting things to think about.
The bad: Overall it’s disproportionally focused on Western European men. That’s not inherently problematic, especially if that was the stated focus of the book, or if these guys just had objectively good ideas, or if they were objectively influential - but there were weaknesses on all three fronts. Some of their ideas didn’t make any sense at all (which to be fair is probably more my fault than the philosophers or Kreeft), and I was also left baffled and wanting for evidence of the actual influence of many of them (Hobbes’ big ideas was defending absolute monarchy… right at the era when absolute monarchy collapsed forever). It was clear Kreeft wasn’t even a big fan of many of them. Some of the more forgettable minor philosophers felt like they were just there to pad his list of 100 - maybe he should have left them out and included some more non-Westerners. Overall I was left with the impression that a lot of these famous old white dudes are severely overrated.
The ugly: Kreeft’s own bias kept getting in the way of his writing. The intro promised to try to treat all the philosophers fairly, but it was extremely obvious when Kreeft didn’t like one - he couldn’t go three sentences without interjecting a snarky comment. I’ll use the chapter on Marx as an illustrative example. Kreeft made a lot of good points about both Marx’s personal hypocrisy (ex. he hated factories but had never set foot in one - he was literally the original bourgeois liberal who cares about the poor as long as he doesn’t have to interact with them) and vacuous philosophy (ex. on the inevitable failure of abolishing private property: “No one keeps public toilets as clean as his own.”) But the whole chapter was dripping with so much criticism, even of irrelevant details (Kreeft mentioned how “dirty” Marx was about five times in the short chapter), that - to borrow one of the author’s own phrases - Kreeft’s chapter on Marx didn’t teach me very much about Marx, but it did teach me a lot about Kreeft. His subsection on “Communism’s Appeal” was disappointingly dismissive - he essentially said it has no appeal and dictators just like it because they want power. Huh? I’m no expert but I can come up with all kinds of reasons for communism’s appeal. Marx’s critique of capitalism creating a dehumanizing focus on money and reducing people to the value of their work, while incomplete, is essentially correct, and his vision of a more fair world is inherently attractive, especially if you’ve been on the losing end of capitalism’s creative destruction. The problem of course is that Marxism - real Marxism, not the right-wing dog whistle against anything remotely liberal - is inherently unable to deliver on that vision; it’s only able to destroy. In my view, Christianity is the only philosophy that’s actually capable of creating the world that Marxism can only pretend to. If you’re worried about how dangerous Marxism is, it’s important to genuinely understand its appeal to counter it. Which you can’t do if you have such blinders on that all you can say is “dirty Marx bad man wants power”. And while that chapter was the most egregious display of Kreeft’s bias, it was far from the only one. If this was his attempt at treating these philosophers fairly, I can’t imagine what an unfair treatment would look like.
reductionist modern critiques against it, and whose timeless insight into the simultaneous wretchedness and greatness of man is perhaps the best I’ve ever read - I’ve gone on to read and enjoy his direct writings. Hegel’s dialectic is a useful lens I find relevant to parts of my own life. Rousseau’s emotionalism and “General Will” helped me realize how the new moral absolutes of our current age can be thought of as a shifting collective postmodernism based on feeling. It struck me that a lot of these philosophers took a decent idea or a brilliant insight, became enamored with it, and elevated it to a sort of god or idol and tried to explain the whole universe with it - but some of them still have value in proper context. The book gave me interesting things to think about.
The bad: Overall it’s disproportionally focused on Western European men. That’s not inherently problematic, especially if that was the stated focus of the book, or if these guys just had objectively good ideas, or if they were objectively influential - but there were weaknesses on all three fronts. Some of their ideas didn’t make any sense at all (which to be fair is probably more my fault than the philosophers or Kreeft), and I was also left baffled and wanting for evidence of the actual influence of many of them (Hobbes’ big ideas was defending absolute monarchy… right at the era when absolute monarchy collapsed forever). It was clear Kreeft wasn’t even a big fan of many of them. Some of the more forgettable minor philosophers felt like they were just there to pad his list of 100 - maybe he should have left them out and included some more non-Westerners. Overall I was left with the impression that a lot of these famous old white dudes are severely overrated.
The ugly: Kreeft’s own bias kept getting in the way of his writing. The intro promised to try to treat all the philosophers fairly, but it was extremely obvious when Kreeft didn’t like one - he couldn’t go three sentences without interjecting a snarky comment. I’ll use the chapter on Marx as an illustrative example. Kreeft made a lot of good points about both Marx’s personal hypocrisy (ex. he hated factories but had never set foot in one - he was literally the original bourgeois liberal who cares about the poor as long as he doesn’t have to interact with them) and vacuous philosophy (ex. on the inevitable failure of abolishing private property: “No one keeps public toilets as clean as his own.”) But the whole chapter was dripping with so much criticism, even of irrelevant details (Kreeft mentioned how “dirty” Marx was about five times in the short chapter), that - to borrow one of the author’s own phrases - Kreeft’s chapter on Marx didn’t teach me very much about Marx, but it did teach me a lot about Kreeft. His subsection on “Communism’s Appeal” was disappointingly dismissive - he essentially said it has no appeal and dictators just like it because they want power. Huh? I’m no expert but I can come up with all kinds of reasons for communism’s appeal. Marx’s critique of capitalism creating a dehumanizing focus on money and reducing people to the value of their work, while incomplete, is essentially correct, and his vision of a more fair world is inherently attractive, especially if you’ve been on the losing end of capitalism’s creative destruction. The problem of course is that Marxism - real Marxism, not the right-wing dog whistle against anything remotely liberal - is inherently unable to deliver on that vision; it’s only able to destroy. In my view, Christianity is the only philosophy that’s actually capable of creating the world that Marxism can only pretend to. If you’re worried about how dangerous Marxism is, it’s important to genuinely understand its appeal to counter it. Which you can’t do if you have such blinders on that all you can say is “dirty Marx bad man wants power”. And while that chapter was the most egregious display of Kreeft’s bias, it was far from the only one. If this was his attempt at treating these philosophers fairly, I can’t imagine what an unfair treatment would look like.
February 23, 2025
This volume was bigger than the previous two. Compared to the ancients which for many there is often scant primary writings left, it makes sense this modern volume is bigger: more recent, printing press for the whole period, often “more” philosophical areas and threads to cover. Compared to the medievals, I think sometimes the primary sources are limited, but I think overall it was simply easier to pin down medieval philosophers’ “big ideas” compared to the moderns. But it must be said that Kreeft inserted himself much more into this volume compared to the others, because he highly disagreed with these modern philosophers, which adds to its length. There were too many big topics to survey in a month that reading all primary sources was impossible. Even selection of the primary source excerpts would involve bias, anyways. And so, if I could have one person survey all philosophers, somewhat inserting his own perspectives, Peter Kreeft is probably a top three choice for me anyways. But to the problems of his surveying. He presented many of these philosophers’ ultimately very bad ideas, and then instantly comments what exactly are the big problems with them. If he ever did a rewrite (which he shouldn’t), I would suggest that he tone down his counters after presenting these ideas to let the student-reader digest and begin to figure out why the ideas are bad for themselves, first. Perhaps even have an appendix or footnotes of critiques of the bad philosophy at the back of the book. Then especially for the guys he really didn’t like, he gave relatively long biographies of how scandalous and sleazy they were in regular life. Good information to know in the long run, but it made it hard to take the philosophers’ ideas seriously in order to at least try to steal-man their thoughts, and start to understand how they could have been so influential in their generation and into The Great Conversation (many readers wouldn’t have known character-flaw/psychopath backstories in their lifetime either). Finally there is of course inherent bias in just determining who did and didn’t make the cut for the book. I don’t know much about Voltaire, but I’m surprised he wasn’t here. The four he categorized as political philosophers were all The Worst, but I think I know bits and pieces of other modern Enlightenment political philosophers I kind of like. So that begins skewing my thoughts overall on political philosophy. Thus, all of the following thoughts of course can’t be a “final” or “official” opinion on these philosophers, all thumb ratings are subject to change.
...
Overall, I think Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did more for The Great Conversation in three generations than modern philosophers collectively did in three centuries. For every useful step-forward contribution to The Great Conversation any of them made, there were at least two steps backwards of intellectual plagues. Plagues that advanced banal secular materialism and individualism, stoked violence and revolution, laid the groundwork for totalitarian regimes, and/or caused problematic ideas/ideologies we are still dealing with today (see philosophers below with particularly low ratings).
...
Overall, I think Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did more for The Great Conversation in three generations than modern philosophers collectively did in three centuries. For every useful step-forward contribution to The Great Conversation any of them made, there were at least two steps backwards of intellectual plagues. Plagues that advanced banal secular materialism and individualism, stoked violence and revolution, laid the groundwork for totalitarian regimes, and/or caused problematic ideas/ideologies we are still dealing with today (see philosophers below with particularly low ratings).
February 6, 2024
Kreeft continues his survey of the 100 most important philosophers, ranging in this volume from Rene Descartes (1596-1650) to Karl Marx (1818-1883). He mostly follows his previous format of giving some biographical information and context for the thinker and then a summary of their thought. Many of the philosophers are also subject to various critiques, some from subsequent philosophers and some from Kreeft himself. While the summaries reference key texts by these philosophers, no bibliographies are added at the end of each as in previous volumes.
The text, as before, is very readable and entertaining. While Kreeft delves into the ideas of these thinkers, he doesn't get lost or lose the reader by moving too quickly. He has some comic asides and is generally pleasant to read.
The big challenge in this volume is some of the summaries (especially Rousseau and Marx) have a lot commentary about their lives and how they do not at all match up to the philosophies they espouse. While the contrast is important to point out, Kreeft becomes very heavy-handed and judgmental at times. I am sympathetic with his disdain but I wish he were more scholarly and less vindictive.
I am still enjoying this series and will continue on to the Contemporary Philosophers.
Recommended.
Sample quote, on Kant's idea of the highest good being pleasure:
The text, as before, is very readable and entertaining. While Kreeft delves into the ideas of these thinkers, he doesn't get lost or lose the reader by moving too quickly. He has some comic asides and is generally pleasant to read.
The big challenge in this volume is some of the summaries (especially Rousseau and Marx) have a lot commentary about their lives and how they do not at all match up to the philosophies they espouse. While the contrast is important to point out, Kreeft becomes very heavy-handed and judgmental at times. I am sympathetic with his disdain but I wish he were more scholarly and less vindictive.
I am still enjoying this series and will continue on to the Contemporary Philosophers.
Recommended.
Sample quote, on Kant's idea of the highest good being pleasure:
Contrast what premodern philosophers like Aristotle meant by "happiness": not mere subjective contentment but objective perfection or completeness. The test that distinguishes the two is suffering: happiness in the sense of contentment excludes suffering, but happiness in the sense of perfection or completeness includes and even requires suffering. (As Rabbi Heschel said, "The man who has not suffered--what could he possibly know, anyway?") The ancients typically identified happiness (in this rich, deep, moral sense) as the greatest good, the summum bonum, and the greatest question in their ethics was what it consisted of and how to attain it. [p. 136]
March 10, 2023
While Dr. Kreeft is certainly an important intellectual within the current sphere of Catholic philosophy and education, I would not recommend Socrates' Children as an introduction to philosophy for those seeking genuine engagement with the broader discipline. If you're hoping to better understand philosophers who align or may be compatible with the teachings of the Catholic church this would be an excellent introduction. However, Kreeft's unapologetic disavowing of numerous philosophers is nearly impossible to look past, most notably in the case of his review of the thoughts and ideas of Karl Marx. I am by no means a supporter of Marxist ideas, but when I compared Kreeft's engagements with Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, the anti-communist rhetoric and bias Kreeft brings into his critique of Marx overwhelms the reader to the point that Kreeft might as well be writing an anti-communist essay instead of attempting to introduce his reader to the (flawed) ideas of a very significant historical figure, despite the arguably more anti-Catholic sentiment present in the thought of Nietzsche.
Kreeft's treatment of philosophers he does not agree with and those he (self-admittedly) did not understand tells volumes of larger problems within the Catholic intellectual sphere. Where thinkers who are lauded as pillars of our modern church do not properly engage with dissenters, opting to defame character rather than demerit ideas. I shouldn't have to be writing about this in a review of an introduction to philosophy, but nevertheless, Kreeft fails to treat any philosophers who he actively detests with a fair perspective, reaffirming the secular world's belief that Catholic "intellectualism" is really just ad hominem attack on the thinkers that we ought to properly engage.
Kreeft's treatment of philosophers he does not agree with and those he (self-admittedly) did not understand tells volumes of larger problems within the Catholic intellectual sphere. Where thinkers who are lauded as pillars of our modern church do not properly engage with dissenters, opting to defame character rather than demerit ideas. I shouldn't have to be writing about this in a review of an introduction to philosophy, but nevertheless, Kreeft fails to treat any philosophers who he actively detests with a fair perspective, reaffirming the secular world's belief that Catholic "intellectualism" is really just ad hominem attack on the thinkers that we ought to properly engage.
January 1, 2019
The clearest sign of truth is joy. But most particularly, one finds beauty in the lines of good philosophy, that child of wonder and awe, grandchild of truth and goodness. Kreeft prods the pillars of philosophical thought, and parses out the parsimonious from the perspicacious by their knack for giggling and love.
That is most definitely a perspective sifted through my thesis. But it's also true -- and it's one of the delights of this history of philosophy. It puts Chesterton -- neglected by philosophical historians -- up top in truth-loving-tellers. Moreover, it separates the men from the boys, to use an inaptly old divisor.
Altogether though, this history of philosophy runs the gamut of East and West with both academic precision and conversational accessibility. Highly recommend every volume.
That is most definitely a perspective sifted through my thesis. But it's also true -- and it's one of the delights of this history of philosophy. It puts Chesterton -- neglected by philosophical historians -- up top in truth-loving-tellers. Moreover, it separates the men from the boys, to use an inaptly old divisor.
Altogether though, this history of philosophy runs the gamut of East and West with both academic precision and conversational accessibility. Highly recommend every volume.
December 31, 2018
Having read the rough draft of the book for a class on modern philosophy, I was disappointed that it was more in the draft than published book phase. The author is not shy in describing philosophers in a biased light. In addition, his snide comments get a little old after a while. I was disappointed in the lack of attribution given to, or even mention of, primary sources. While this draft has potential to be a great resource, we're still waiting for a polished publication.
September 18, 2025
I’ll tell you, hearing short biographies of Modern philosophers really demystified some of them.
Kant comes off like a crazy recluse, Rousseau just straight up sucked.
I also wasn’t aware that Marx didn’t ever hang with proletariats other than the dwarf maid he hired and then had an illegitimate son with who wasn’t allowed to interact with him or come in the front door.
Bunch of freakin looney toons.
Kant comes off like a crazy recluse, Rousseau just straight up sucked.
I also wasn’t aware that Marx didn’t ever hang with proletariats other than the dwarf maid he hired and then had an illegitimate son with who wasn’t allowed to interact with him or come in the front door.
Bunch of freakin looney toons.
Read
December 4, 2020I may have to go back to the other volumes. Just plain fascinating
October 12, 2023
The author also brought humor into his descriptions of some of the philosophers.
January 8, 2025
Dec 2024. Suspect this one will take longer.
After 135 pages, yes, this volume is more difficult. But Kreeft is the ideal guide.
Finished, outstanding. I don't mind the minor redundancies of thought and expression; in fact they help to clarify the big picture of the sweep of history, and the little details of thinker and thought.
After 135 pages, yes, this volume is more difficult. But Kreeft is the ideal guide.
Finished, outstanding. I don't mind the minor redundancies of thought and expression; in fact they help to clarify the big picture of the sweep of history, and the little details of thinker and thought.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews