What do you think?
Rate this book
[The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche (Modern Library)] [Author: Monroe C. Beardsley] [December, 2002]
"Between the earliest and the latest of the works included here, we have two hundred and fifty years of vigorous and adventurous philosophizing," Monroe Beardsley writes in his introduction to this collection. "If the modern period can be only vaguely or arbitrarily bounded, it can at least be studied, and we can ask whether any dominant themes, overall patterns of movement, or notable achievements can be found within it. This question is one that is best asked by the reader after he has read, or read around in, these works." Selections have been made from the writings of twelve European philosophers. These Descartes Discourse on MethodPascal ThoughtsSpinoza "The Nature of Evil"Leibniz "The Relation Between Soul and Body"Rousseau The Social ContractKant Critique of Pure ReasonFichte The Vocation of ManHegel Introduction to the Philosophy of HistorySchopenhauer The World as Will and IdeaComte A General View of PositivismMach The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the PsychicalNietzsche Beyond Good and Evil
Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
32 people are currently reading
337 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
November 27, 2018
Descartes
Discourse on Method (Parts I - III); Meditations on First Philosophy
(See my critique in Selected Writings of Descartes)
Pascal
See my critique of Pensees.
Spinoza
Unlike Ratner’s poorly transcribed and edited The Philosophy of Spinoza, this chapter lays out Spinoza’s philosophy by properly excerpting his works so the reader can understand the process by which his philosophy was constructed. If you have ever wondered about God being eternal and infinite and being omnipresent, Spinoza devised a view whereby two substances can occupy the same space at the same time by redefining substance to be exclusively divine. All of creation consists of modes of His substance. All attributes are also divine and infinite and eternal and modes share in those attributes. Intriguing.
Leibniz
Cogent throughout, these excerpts (Discourse on Metaphysics, Monads) clarify the concepts of time, space, motion and God. A worthy read. I am baffled only by how Leibniz has been relegated to a nearly inconsequential status among thinkers. His interests and expertise were so broad that he easily supplants more popular geniuses.
Rousseau
See my critique of The Social Contract
Kant
I am an enthusiast for Kant. So many of his ideas ring true. That the mind coordinates perceptions and exists a priori sounds the death knell for materialism. If only scientists would read his work. If only militants would! If only theologians! He proves the necessity of a God without recourse to dogma. It takes some doing to understand him - I suggest reading his predecessors first - but he gives the knowledgeable reader a sense of euphoria missing from other philosophers.
Fichte
The Vocation of Man is a cogent attempt by a philosopher to avoid using the word “God” in explaining that man’s purpose is fulfilled in this life by attaining the next one. Well written, easy to understand and a good summary of his beliefs. Unfortunately, some of his beliefs (especially those asserting that the German people are the people qualified to unite the world in the quest). German nationalists used him in pushing a warped agenda.
Hegel
Introduction to the Philosophy of History sets out his ultimate objective: Proof that the World is run by Reason. It is unfortunate that an earlier Modern Library volume (The Philosophy of Hegel) did not include this introduction, but an annotated review of Hegel’s observations concerning history. It would have answered many questions. Still, if you want to understand his philosophy of history, this introduction is vital. In Logic, Hegel sets forth his Doctrine of Being. Since being is reducible to the indeterminate (utterly without form and so without content), it is equivalent to nothing. To bridge this gap, he arrives at becoming which is the unity of the two. Since becoming is more than nothing, it is Being Determinate. This is being with a character (quality) which is reality. From this, Hegel constructs his theory.
Schopenhauer
He asserts his fundamental truth that the world is my will because all that exists exists only for the subject: the individual preceptor if you will. This is so myopic that it approaches solipsism, (although Schopenhauer ridiculed the latter concept). If the object is unperceived by the subject, then does the object exist? The subject’s perspective determines reality? The inherent inconsistencies within his system, he simply denies by asserting the questions are not proper. Life is pure struggle, interrupted infrequently with moments of happiness (the absence of pain). It is only when the will attains superior knowledge that man realizes the best thing to do is to avoid life. In other words, avoid self-awareness (life) by practicing awareness of the nothing. What a pathetic view.
Comte
His positivism has influenced modern political movements and is pure bunk. Since both theology and reason have not yielded positive results, let’s use materialism and construct a guide for humanity based upon feelings. This subordination of the intellect to the heart will cultivate social sympathy (morality), which is far superior to the old systems because it is based on subjectivity. Really? Isn’t this how we have arrived at the political climate today – the dominance of subjective feelings trump facts and truth? And aren’t we approaching mayhem as a result? Not to Comte. He wants positivism to become the new religion: the worship of humanity. Wouldn’t that require a discipline by a new universal church: the State? “Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?”
Ernst Mach
A physicist, Mach tried to employ the scientific method to philosophical inquiry. Nothing is important except what can be observed or is a datum, and everything hypothetical, metaphysical and superfluous is to be eliminated. He arrives at objectivity by a thoroughly subjective exercise: sensation dictates reality to the individual, the individual realizes that others have similar sensations and, by rejecting any emotional patina attributable by the individual to the object, one can arrive at a proper conclusion that can be universally predictable. But what becomes of concepts such as causes and essences or substances? How does one examine justice? Or love?
Nietzsche
Here is the darling of the 20th Century, the destroyer of philosophy. How else does one account for his popularity other than his screed against religion (especially Christianity) and against the carefully crafted and internally consistent philosophies of his predecessors. Nietzsche is a perceptive critic with many valid arguments against previous philosophies but a hypocritic for failing to see that what he espouses is no more valid than those beliefs he eviscerates. Furthermore, he fails to support with any cogency what he puts forth as his position. One is left with the impression that he was a frustrated, self-centered and brilliant child on the verge of dementia. Interestingly, he predicted the pseudo-intellectualism of the present decade, “(T)hey are not free, and are ludicrously superficial, especially in their innate partiality for seeing the cause of almost all human misery and failure in the old forms in which society has hitherto existed. What they would strive for with all their strength is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for every one; their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called “Equality of Rights” and “Sympathy with all Sufferers” – and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something that must be done away with.” Nietzsche was appalled because suffering induces advancement. His Will to Power is really the insatiable Will to Live.
Discourse on Method (Parts I - III); Meditations on First Philosophy
(See my critique in Selected Writings of Descartes)
Pascal
See my critique of Pensees.
Spinoza
Unlike Ratner’s poorly transcribed and edited The Philosophy of Spinoza, this chapter lays out Spinoza’s philosophy by properly excerpting his works so the reader can understand the process by which his philosophy was constructed. If you have ever wondered about God being eternal and infinite and being omnipresent, Spinoza devised a view whereby two substances can occupy the same space at the same time by redefining substance to be exclusively divine. All of creation consists of modes of His substance. All attributes are also divine and infinite and eternal and modes share in those attributes. Intriguing.
Leibniz
Cogent throughout, these excerpts (Discourse on Metaphysics, Monads) clarify the concepts of time, space, motion and God. A worthy read. I am baffled only by how Leibniz has been relegated to a nearly inconsequential status among thinkers. His interests and expertise were so broad that he easily supplants more popular geniuses.
Rousseau
See my critique of The Social Contract
Kant
I am an enthusiast for Kant. So many of his ideas ring true. That the mind coordinates perceptions and exists a priori sounds the death knell for materialism. If only scientists would read his work. If only militants would! If only theologians! He proves the necessity of a God without recourse to dogma. It takes some doing to understand him - I suggest reading his predecessors first - but he gives the knowledgeable reader a sense of euphoria missing from other philosophers.
Fichte
The Vocation of Man is a cogent attempt by a philosopher to avoid using the word “God” in explaining that man’s purpose is fulfilled in this life by attaining the next one. Well written, easy to understand and a good summary of his beliefs. Unfortunately, some of his beliefs (especially those asserting that the German people are the people qualified to unite the world in the quest). German nationalists used him in pushing a warped agenda.
Hegel
Introduction to the Philosophy of History sets out his ultimate objective: Proof that the World is run by Reason. It is unfortunate that an earlier Modern Library volume (The Philosophy of Hegel) did not include this introduction, but an annotated review of Hegel’s observations concerning history. It would have answered many questions. Still, if you want to understand his philosophy of history, this introduction is vital. In Logic, Hegel sets forth his Doctrine of Being. Since being is reducible to the indeterminate (utterly without form and so without content), it is equivalent to nothing. To bridge this gap, he arrives at becoming which is the unity of the two. Since becoming is more than nothing, it is Being Determinate. This is being with a character (quality) which is reality. From this, Hegel constructs his theory.
Schopenhauer
He asserts his fundamental truth that the world is my will because all that exists exists only for the subject: the individual preceptor if you will. This is so myopic that it approaches solipsism, (although Schopenhauer ridiculed the latter concept). If the object is unperceived by the subject, then does the object exist? The subject’s perspective determines reality? The inherent inconsistencies within his system, he simply denies by asserting the questions are not proper. Life is pure struggle, interrupted infrequently with moments of happiness (the absence of pain). It is only when the will attains superior knowledge that man realizes the best thing to do is to avoid life. In other words, avoid self-awareness (life) by practicing awareness of the nothing. What a pathetic view.
Comte
His positivism has influenced modern political movements and is pure bunk. Since both theology and reason have not yielded positive results, let’s use materialism and construct a guide for humanity based upon feelings. This subordination of the intellect to the heart will cultivate social sympathy (morality), which is far superior to the old systems because it is based on subjectivity. Really? Isn’t this how we have arrived at the political climate today – the dominance of subjective feelings trump facts and truth? And aren’t we approaching mayhem as a result? Not to Comte. He wants positivism to become the new religion: the worship of humanity. Wouldn’t that require a discipline by a new universal church: the State? “Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?”
Ernst Mach
A physicist, Mach tried to employ the scientific method to philosophical inquiry. Nothing is important except what can be observed or is a datum, and everything hypothetical, metaphysical and superfluous is to be eliminated. He arrives at objectivity by a thoroughly subjective exercise: sensation dictates reality to the individual, the individual realizes that others have similar sensations and, by rejecting any emotional patina attributable by the individual to the object, one can arrive at a proper conclusion that can be universally predictable. But what becomes of concepts such as causes and essences or substances? How does one examine justice? Or love?
Nietzsche
Here is the darling of the 20th Century, the destroyer of philosophy. How else does one account for his popularity other than his screed against religion (especially Christianity) and against the carefully crafted and internally consistent philosophies of his predecessors. Nietzsche is a perceptive critic with many valid arguments against previous philosophies but a hypocritic for failing to see that what he espouses is no more valid than those beliefs he eviscerates. Furthermore, he fails to support with any cogency what he puts forth as his position. One is left with the impression that he was a frustrated, self-centered and brilliant child on the verge of dementia. Interestingly, he predicted the pseudo-intellectualism of the present decade, “(T)hey are not free, and are ludicrously superficial, especially in their innate partiality for seeing the cause of almost all human misery and failure in the old forms in which society has hitherto existed. What they would strive for with all their strength is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for every one; their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called “Equality of Rights” and “Sympathy with all Sufferers” – and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something that must be done away with.” Nietzsche was appalled because suffering induces advancement. His Will to Power is really the insatiable Will to Live.
February 23, 2020
Joelle Reads Her Bookcase #11
I can see the logic in not including Voltaire, but it's odd that there was no selection of Kierkegaard.
I can see the logic in not including Voltaire, but it's odd that there was no selection of Kierkegaard.
June 29, 2009
A great collection of synthesized writings from some of the greatest European philosophers. This book can serve as introductory guide to the style and ideas of Decartes, Leibniz, Pascal, Spinoza, Comte, Kant, Rousseau, Hegel, Mach and Nietzche. The editor has picked a wealth of works that paint a thorough canvas of the life and works of each author. For example Nietzhes works ‘The Superman,’ ‘Will To Power’ and ‘The Good and Evil,’ allow readers to get good understanding of the author’s evolution in thinking and writing as well as gauge the prevailing concerns of the scientific and philosophical interests at the time. Readers are introduced to the concepts of reason, logic, philosophy of history, metaphysics, positivism and sociology. A very high recommendation.
May 21, 2014
It (and Western civilization) was all downhill after Spinoza (it just took art, politics a few centuries, and technology an additional century, to catch up and fall behind, as Yogi Berra might put it). Considering it as anthology (form) or philosophy (content), I can't give it any more than three stars (especially considering the modern progression from Rousseau to Mach--Nietzsche was a confused ray of hope at the end that accomplished little aside from influencing a young Ayn Rand). Beardsley curiously omitted "The Transcendental Deduction of the Categories" from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", which (I have been informed) is the most famous section of the work and provides evidence of why Kant's more rational, less corrupted (compared to him and the thinkers he spawned, down to today) contemporaries referred to him as "the all-destroyer" (among other pejoratives).
July 21, 2012
This was my first journey into Spinoza, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Mach. I'm glad to have been introduced, though I still don't feel intimately familiar with any of them. It was nice to be able to recognize certain small connections in their general discourses, though I walk away with little more than an outline sketch with which to locate their voices.
July 19, 2008
I am perpetually "currently reading" this book, and yet I have not finished it yet. I really dug Pascal... Spinoza's writing is kind of difficult. I don't yet see what Einstein loved about him. But then again, I'm not Einstein.
May 22, 2007
If it's got Schopenhauer in it, how can you go wrong?
November 25, 2018
I think my mind has expanded having read all this.
November 5, 2023
I discovered Metaphysics is less complex than I realized.
June 9, 2025
A summation of European philosophy and an exploration of its roots and doctrines. A vitally important book for forward-thinkers and those looking to see the world from many different angles. The book chronologically explores many great thinkers of Europe, hence the title— “from Descartes to Nietzsche”. One of my personal favorites. It has something to offer everyone, no matter religion, difference in opinion, or social class— it is a universal delve into the psyche of some of, perhaps, the smartest men of all time.
June 20, 2008
This book is a compilation of the most common problems that occupied the attention of the major European philosophers during the span of nearly three centuries. To name some of the philosophers included, you'll find Descartes' Discourse on Method, Spinoza's Nature of Evil, Leibniz' Relation Between Soul and Body, Rousseau's Social Contract, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, etc.
February 12, 2008
If your going to own only one compendium of European wind-bags, this is the one. Most philosophizing per page you'll find outside a 101 level textbook.
Read
May 10, 2013To boring to continue.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews