What do you think?
Ancient Mediterranean Philosophy: An Introduction
Although the Greeks were responsible for the first systematic philosophy of which we have any record, they were not alone in the Mediterranean world and were happy to draw inspiration from other traditions; traditions that are now largely neglected by philosophers and scholars. This book tells the story of 'Greek Philosophy', paying due attention to its historical context and the contributions made by Egyptians, Hebrews, Persians and even barbarians from northern Europe. Stephen Clark provides a narrative history of the philosophical traditions that took shape over several centuries in the Mediterranean world and offers a comprehensive survey of this crucial period in the history of philosophy.
The book includes a thorough historical and philosophical overview of all the key thinkers, events and ideas that characterized the period and explores in detail central themes such as the contest of gods and giants, the contrast between the reality and appearance, and the idea of the philosopher. Ideal for undergraduate students, this concise and accessible book provides a comprehensive guide to a fascinating period in the history of philosophy.
The book includes a thorough historical and philosophical overview of all the key thinkers, events and ideas that characterized the period and explores in detail central themes such as the contest of gods and giants, the contrast between the reality and appearance, and the idea of the philosopher. Ideal for undergraduate students, this concise and accessible book provides a comprehensive guide to a fascinating period in the history of philosophy.
- GenresPhilosophyHistory
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 29, 2020
This is a relatively short introduction to o the history of ancient "greek", "Western", or (as in the title) "Mediterranean", philosophy. Compare it's 200+ pages with the 400+ pages written by Joseph Owens, or the 4 volume history of ancient greek philosophy written by Giovanni Reale. Comparing the sizes, one wonders if such a short volume can have anything worthwhile to say about the philosophy of that time. This, at least, was my worry. I was pleasantly surprised! The author provides an interesting history, written almost like a story, of how ancient Occidental philosophy developed, flourished, and then continued into the middle ages. He does not hesitate to point out that the "received" views of ancient philosophy, as it is frequently taught today, are often less than certain. He does not shy away from the clear religious influence of ancient polytheisms on the development of philosophy, and points out that, often, these mythologies where as philosophical as the philosophies...just using image and allegory. Of particular interest is how he includes the ancient Hebrews, and the Christians of the first couple centuries of our era, in this history of Mediterranean philosophy. He treats Hebrew and early Christian thought fairly, though with some scepticism, and even dedicates a section to the philosophy of Jesus.
All in all, I was quite impressed. Definitely worth reading.
All in all, I was quite impressed. Definitely worth reading.
March 24, 2017
208 pages may be a little too short to summarise all Classical philosophy and one reading is certainly too hasty to grasp it. Instead, this is better described (I think) as a thoughtful and thought-provoking meditation on major themes addressed by the ancients. This includes the expected topics - concerning ethics, morality, the meaning of life, how we know and what we can believe. For myself a number of features stood out, as follows.
The opening challenge of the history is to attack and undermine the myth of a distinct and uniquely Greek philosophy emerging as it were by virgin birth in an island of reason surrounded by a sea of barbarian ignorance and primitive mysticism. It is not enough even to list off the sources of Greek thought in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt or India, as though there was an evolutionary progression from the early efforts of those predecessors and the pinnacles of Greek synthesis and creativity. Quite simply, Greek philosophy always was and it remained entirely a part of a widespread conversation between cultures that, while retaining their diverse characters, were never isolated from each other. This is why the book’s title is “Ancient Mediterranean Philosophy” rather than Greek.
It is also wrong to accept the propositions that Christian suppression terminated rational Greek philosophy, or that barbarian invasions terminated educated thought and debate with the fall of the Roman Empire. He points out that the Vandals, the Visigoths, and other barbarian peoples were in fact already fully converted to Christianity when they engaged with the declining empire. He observes that, had the emperor Julian [“the apostate”] or some other force rescued paganism from the Christians, it is absurd to imagine that this would have resulted in a world ruled by scientific and rational thought rather than religion.
In any case, Greek philosophy always was essentially religious. “The fate of Anaxagoras (imprisoned, threatened with death and finally dismissed from Athens) fits similar stories about the anger felt by established or conventional thinkers at the attempt to dethrone Zeus ... This seems to suggest, to moderns, that philosophers were secular scientists, at odds with a superstition. This theme reappears in discussing later centuries: it is supposed, for example, that a Christian mob murdered Hypatia, in 415 AD, because she was a rationalist (and a woman). The truth is otherwise: few moderns who now mourn Hypatia endorse her probable beliefs, which were mostly Pythagorean. The violence of Alexandrian – or more broadly Egyptian - mobs was a familiar theme and Hypatia, sadly, paid a price...” [p91]
“At any rate, anyone supposing that the Christian Churches have made life worse than it was in heathen times and places should read more history!”[p180]
“However important their disagreements, Philo of Alexandria (Jewish), John Evangelist and Clement (Christian), and Plotinus (pagan) shared a world. The grand deductive structure created by the pagan Platonist Proclus was mirrored in the work of the Christian ps-Dionysius a few years later, and in later Christian and Islamic texts.” [p181]
The book stands on its own merits but it can also be asked – why is it written in this way at this time? Without knowing the author at all, I have several guesses to offer. Bear in mind these are my reflections and not those of the author. One is simply that scholarship has altered our perception of the history of this (very lengthy) period, for example concerning the “Fall of the Roman Empire”, which is true but that seems too detached and “academic” a line of enquiry. One, I hope, is the need to confront and rebut the escalating appeals to “Western” superiority over alternative cultures – not distant ones, but particularly Islam, which of course is as integral to the “Western” tradition as any other strand of thought, certainly Christianity or Judaism, but also “Greek” philosophy. Another is to acknowledge that the simplistic expectation that Science and Reason would make religion irrelevant, or that the two fields of thought are incompatible and mutually destructive, has lost its appeal to those – religious or not - dissatisfied with the resulting dialogue of the deaf. Whatever the motivation for the book, I hold to the view that history is always the history of the present moment, and works best when it is most relevant. In that respect, for my money, this book is terrific.
The opening challenge of the history is to attack and undermine the myth of a distinct and uniquely Greek philosophy emerging as it were by virgin birth in an island of reason surrounded by a sea of barbarian ignorance and primitive mysticism. It is not enough even to list off the sources of Greek thought in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt or India, as though there was an evolutionary progression from the early efforts of those predecessors and the pinnacles of Greek synthesis and creativity. Quite simply, Greek philosophy always was and it remained entirely a part of a widespread conversation between cultures that, while retaining their diverse characters, were never isolated from each other. This is why the book’s title is “Ancient Mediterranean Philosophy” rather than Greek.
It is also wrong to accept the propositions that Christian suppression terminated rational Greek philosophy, or that barbarian invasions terminated educated thought and debate with the fall of the Roman Empire. He points out that the Vandals, the Visigoths, and other barbarian peoples were in fact already fully converted to Christianity when they engaged with the declining empire. He observes that, had the emperor Julian [“the apostate”] or some other force rescued paganism from the Christians, it is absurd to imagine that this would have resulted in a world ruled by scientific and rational thought rather than religion.
In any case, Greek philosophy always was essentially religious. “The fate of Anaxagoras (imprisoned, threatened with death and finally dismissed from Athens) fits similar stories about the anger felt by established or conventional thinkers at the attempt to dethrone Zeus ... This seems to suggest, to moderns, that philosophers were secular scientists, at odds with a superstition. This theme reappears in discussing later centuries: it is supposed, for example, that a Christian mob murdered Hypatia, in 415 AD, because she was a rationalist (and a woman). The truth is otherwise: few moderns who now mourn Hypatia endorse her probable beliefs, which were mostly Pythagorean. The violence of Alexandrian – or more broadly Egyptian - mobs was a familiar theme and Hypatia, sadly, paid a price...” [p91]
“At any rate, anyone supposing that the Christian Churches have made life worse than it was in heathen times and places should read more history!”[p180]
“However important their disagreements, Philo of Alexandria (Jewish), John Evangelist and Clement (Christian), and Plotinus (pagan) shared a world. The grand deductive structure created by the pagan Platonist Proclus was mirrored in the work of the Christian ps-Dionysius a few years later, and in later Christian and Islamic texts.” [p181]
The book stands on its own merits but it can also be asked – why is it written in this way at this time? Without knowing the author at all, I have several guesses to offer. Bear in mind these are my reflections and not those of the author. One is simply that scholarship has altered our perception of the history of this (very lengthy) period, for example concerning the “Fall of the Roman Empire”, which is true but that seems too detached and “academic” a line of enquiry. One, I hope, is the need to confront and rebut the escalating appeals to “Western” superiority over alternative cultures – not distant ones, but particularly Islam, which of course is as integral to the “Western” tradition as any other strand of thought, certainly Christianity or Judaism, but also “Greek” philosophy. Another is to acknowledge that the simplistic expectation that Science and Reason would make religion irrelevant, or that the two fields of thought are incompatible and mutually destructive, has lost its appeal to those – religious or not - dissatisfied with the resulting dialogue of the deaf. Whatever the motivation for the book, I hold to the view that history is always the history of the present moment, and works best when it is most relevant. In that respect, for my money, this book is terrific.
July 11, 2020
Ancient Mediterranean Philosophy by Stephen R.L. Clark is one of the best contemporary books on ancient philosophy I’ve ever read. In fact, I’ve become a real fan of his work in general, he seems to me to be one of the greatest living philosophers. His style may be somewhat of an acquired taste; reading his work is highly enjoyable for me, but it is difficult work and he makes you work hard as a reader. Clark doesn’t spoon-feed the reader, it’s often difficult to discern what he really thinks and where he is taking you next As I said, this for me is highly enjoyable since he is by no means predictable, but you can, in the end see the logic in why he went through such seemingly byzantine meditations. He strikes me as a writer who believes that substance and style, content and creativity cannot be divorced and it shows in his eloquent and often, humorous, prose. Above all else, the sense one gets from reading Clark’s work is that we too often make easy distinctions in order to organize and classify information and forget that these schemata are not actually real. We overlay these models over reality and then focus more on the model and eventually get so off-track that we’ve completely lost touch with reality. Refreshingly, Clark with his deep insight and luminously precise mind penetrates all of our left-brain obfuscations and brings the reader’s consciousness back to what is true and real. This is reading philosophy should do to us.
In this vein, Clark starts off by telling us that he chose to write on this topic precisely because ancient Mediterraneans are at once alien and similar to us, just like all peoples. He is good at showing the tension between opposing ideas, though he never seems to resolve it, and perhaps, he shouldn’t. Another tenet he holds that he shares with us from the beginning is that the truth is impossible to convey in writing, it can only be experienced, but he hopes he can furnish a map for us to where Truth may reside. Chapter One starts off 100k years ago to when the first humans are thought to have shown up. He starts off with a discussion of myths and stories and how these are valuable not just as entertainment, but as equally and perhaps even more valuable vehicles for discovering truth and being able to apply that truth in our lives. As he, like Pierre Hadot, reminds us the ancients conceived of philosophy as a way of life and not a dry and boring academic discipline reserved for intellectuals. This foundational chapter ends by showing that we modern people, who consider ourselves more advanced than these backwards ancients, have our own myths and our own gods.
In Chapter 2, he describes the input of various other cultures and the past on the philosophical period that is the main focus of the book (roughly 5th century BC- 3rd century AD). He shows great interest in what many would consider religious texts rather than philosophical, but as mentioned, the line here is blurry. It seems absolutely baseless to separate the two. He shows the parallels and differences between various civilizations and manages to bring in one of his pet topics, the treatment of animals, into large focus. The next chapter largely focuses on the Pre-Socratic philosophers. A major point in this chapter that I had to ponder for a while was the idea that perhaps most of these philosophers believed that experience aided by ascetic practices was a surer route to the truth than cold, bloodless logic. Most of these thinkers were not what we have traditionally been taught – Clark gets us to see their ideas in a new light. Perhaps Parmenides thought change was impossible because he had an experience that showed him that the only place is HERE and the only time is NOW, instead of only making a simple syllogism that he thought up in his head one lazy Tuesday afternoon. As Heraclitus said while on the toilet “There are gods even here.”
In Chapter 4 Clark gives a defense of the use of persuasion by example over persuasion by principle. Clark’s deep knowledge and wide breadth of learning are apparent throughout the entire book. He effortlessly summons examples from far ranging sources and brings them to bear in relevant ways to times and places you wouldn’t think possible. He brings up stories from the Old Testament and intersperses them with quotes from Thucydides; he answers the riddles from one age with the responses of another, seemingly unlinked. He uncovers the unity of disparate cultures and realms of thought with ease. It is very pleasurable to read, although it does require slower, more deliberate and careful reading; not a bad thing. He upends traditional views of Socrates and Plato here and doesn’t offer easy answers, just shows us that, like Socrates, we don’t know what we think we know.
Chapter 5 is all about Plato and the dialogues. He tells us here why the written word is something even Plato didn’t seem to have confidence in – it is often misinterpreted as anyone with any familiarity in scriptural exegesis can attest. The traditional dating of the dialogues is called into question here as is the idea that Plato developed his thought and abandoned his former master Socrates with the Forms and then even abandoned that and apparently didn’t believe anything he ever wrote. Clark shows why Plato thought some theory of Forms is necessary and why Aristotle was probably wrong in his debate with Plato here. He rehabilitates Cratylus and Euthydemus by showing that perhaps confusion and not clarity was the goal. The idea that Platonists are inherently dualistic is also debunked here as well.
The next chapter focuses on Aristotle, the other giant of the ancient world, and how he was a Platonist whose only real disagreement with Plato was in the field of metaphysics, and it is here that Aristotle is least clear, so it could even potentially just be misunderstanding. Aristotle’s supposed antipathy towards science and pro-slavery stance are called into question here as another of modernity’s enduring myths (and not even particularly useful or good one’s at that). This is especially ironic, considering how Clark notes that modern common sense is basically Aristotelian due to the enduring role of scholasticism in the middle ages on modern thought. We prefer the literal to the metaphorical, the “rational” to the mythological and prioritize this life and this world over the age to come (and many deny this altogether) thanks to Aristotle.
Chapter 7 goes over other popular schools like the Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and even the Hebrews. Most ancient philosophy books wouldn’t include these last 2 or 3, so that was a real treat. As the book goes on we see more and more that what seems to be a bifurcation between religious and secular philosophical ideas is largely a modern fiction – in fact the people we would think as the progenitors of modern science were people like Empedocles who though he was an exiled god and sought to prove it by jumping headlong into a volcano into his death. Not many “philosophers” or scientists would do such a thing these days! You really get a palpable sense that all these schools were seeking the Truth, and they wanted to live in accordance with it, to do its (or His) will and so gain peace. The conclusions they got to and the methods they used were different and some perhaps wrong, but it was all done with the same noble goal.
Chapter 8 focuses on Christian philosophers, Roman religion, and the Skeptics. There is a good historical exposition of Christianity and its resemblance to Cynicism. He gives a very sympathetic reading of the Skeptics, who point out that it is really difficult to know what to believe with any certainty, but in the end Clark does seem to side against them with those who would choose some school and pursue it with more gusto; perhaps the Skeptics privilege peace of mind too much. Chapter 9 focuses on the last towering figure of this period: Plotinus. He shows that there are two broad categories that all cultures fall into in various degrees with the caveat that this too is an artificial imposition on reality that doesn’t actually exist. He shows what the ancients thought about whether life was worth living and why (quite important!) What would’ve happened if the ancient world had gone with pagan Platonism over Christianity is mused over, fairly impartially, in my opinion—the result is different than you may think. He ends the book in Chapter 10 with a list of the great questions that have plagued humanity from time immemorial and leaves us with a bittersweet hope for the future.
I would not call this an introduction to philosophy. It was a very difficult read, and it defies certain orthodoxies and conventions, but perhaps they should be treated so. I will definitely read this again. I would like to reiterate that Clark is a master of his craft, he writes exceedingly well and his style really fits the subject matter, although it can take some time to get used to it and see where he is going. He also has a recommended reading list which is very valuable. I highly recommend this book if you are looking for a more in depth look at ancient philosophy that you won’t learn in a Phil 100 course. I will end this review with a quote from another book by Clark "I am Aristotelian on Mondays and Wednesdays, a Pyrrhonian Sceptic on Tuesdays and Fridays, a Neo- Platonist on Thursdays and Saturdays and worship in the local Episcopalian church on Sundays."
In this vein, Clark starts off by telling us that he chose to write on this topic precisely because ancient Mediterraneans are at once alien and similar to us, just like all peoples. He is good at showing the tension between opposing ideas, though he never seems to resolve it, and perhaps, he shouldn’t. Another tenet he holds that he shares with us from the beginning is that the truth is impossible to convey in writing, it can only be experienced, but he hopes he can furnish a map for us to where Truth may reside. Chapter One starts off 100k years ago to when the first humans are thought to have shown up. He starts off with a discussion of myths and stories and how these are valuable not just as entertainment, but as equally and perhaps even more valuable vehicles for discovering truth and being able to apply that truth in our lives. As he, like Pierre Hadot, reminds us the ancients conceived of philosophy as a way of life and not a dry and boring academic discipline reserved for intellectuals. This foundational chapter ends by showing that we modern people, who consider ourselves more advanced than these backwards ancients, have our own myths and our own gods.
In Chapter 2, he describes the input of various other cultures and the past on the philosophical period that is the main focus of the book (roughly 5th century BC- 3rd century AD). He shows great interest in what many would consider religious texts rather than philosophical, but as mentioned, the line here is blurry. It seems absolutely baseless to separate the two. He shows the parallels and differences between various civilizations and manages to bring in one of his pet topics, the treatment of animals, into large focus. The next chapter largely focuses on the Pre-Socratic philosophers. A major point in this chapter that I had to ponder for a while was the idea that perhaps most of these philosophers believed that experience aided by ascetic practices was a surer route to the truth than cold, bloodless logic. Most of these thinkers were not what we have traditionally been taught – Clark gets us to see their ideas in a new light. Perhaps Parmenides thought change was impossible because he had an experience that showed him that the only place is HERE and the only time is NOW, instead of only making a simple syllogism that he thought up in his head one lazy Tuesday afternoon. As Heraclitus said while on the toilet “There are gods even here.”
In Chapter 4 Clark gives a defense of the use of persuasion by example over persuasion by principle. Clark’s deep knowledge and wide breadth of learning are apparent throughout the entire book. He effortlessly summons examples from far ranging sources and brings them to bear in relevant ways to times and places you wouldn’t think possible. He brings up stories from the Old Testament and intersperses them with quotes from Thucydides; he answers the riddles from one age with the responses of another, seemingly unlinked. He uncovers the unity of disparate cultures and realms of thought with ease. It is very pleasurable to read, although it does require slower, more deliberate and careful reading; not a bad thing. He upends traditional views of Socrates and Plato here and doesn’t offer easy answers, just shows us that, like Socrates, we don’t know what we think we know.
Chapter 5 is all about Plato and the dialogues. He tells us here why the written word is something even Plato didn’t seem to have confidence in – it is often misinterpreted as anyone with any familiarity in scriptural exegesis can attest. The traditional dating of the dialogues is called into question here as is the idea that Plato developed his thought and abandoned his former master Socrates with the Forms and then even abandoned that and apparently didn’t believe anything he ever wrote. Clark shows why Plato thought some theory of Forms is necessary and why Aristotle was probably wrong in his debate with Plato here. He rehabilitates Cratylus and Euthydemus by showing that perhaps confusion and not clarity was the goal. The idea that Platonists are inherently dualistic is also debunked here as well.
The next chapter focuses on Aristotle, the other giant of the ancient world, and how he was a Platonist whose only real disagreement with Plato was in the field of metaphysics, and it is here that Aristotle is least clear, so it could even potentially just be misunderstanding. Aristotle’s supposed antipathy towards science and pro-slavery stance are called into question here as another of modernity’s enduring myths (and not even particularly useful or good one’s at that). This is especially ironic, considering how Clark notes that modern common sense is basically Aristotelian due to the enduring role of scholasticism in the middle ages on modern thought. We prefer the literal to the metaphorical, the “rational” to the mythological and prioritize this life and this world over the age to come (and many deny this altogether) thanks to Aristotle.
Chapter 7 goes over other popular schools like the Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and even the Hebrews. Most ancient philosophy books wouldn’t include these last 2 or 3, so that was a real treat. As the book goes on we see more and more that what seems to be a bifurcation between religious and secular philosophical ideas is largely a modern fiction – in fact the people we would think as the progenitors of modern science were people like Empedocles who though he was an exiled god and sought to prove it by jumping headlong into a volcano into his death. Not many “philosophers” or scientists would do such a thing these days! You really get a palpable sense that all these schools were seeking the Truth, and they wanted to live in accordance with it, to do its (or His) will and so gain peace. The conclusions they got to and the methods they used were different and some perhaps wrong, but it was all done with the same noble goal.
Chapter 8 focuses on Christian philosophers, Roman religion, and the Skeptics. There is a good historical exposition of Christianity and its resemblance to Cynicism. He gives a very sympathetic reading of the Skeptics, who point out that it is really difficult to know what to believe with any certainty, but in the end Clark does seem to side against them with those who would choose some school and pursue it with more gusto; perhaps the Skeptics privilege peace of mind too much. Chapter 9 focuses on the last towering figure of this period: Plotinus. He shows that there are two broad categories that all cultures fall into in various degrees with the caveat that this too is an artificial imposition on reality that doesn’t actually exist. He shows what the ancients thought about whether life was worth living and why (quite important!) What would’ve happened if the ancient world had gone with pagan Platonism over Christianity is mused over, fairly impartially, in my opinion—the result is different than you may think. He ends the book in Chapter 10 with a list of the great questions that have plagued humanity from time immemorial and leaves us with a bittersweet hope for the future.
I would not call this an introduction to philosophy. It was a very difficult read, and it defies certain orthodoxies and conventions, but perhaps they should be treated so. I will definitely read this again. I would like to reiterate that Clark is a master of his craft, he writes exceedingly well and his style really fits the subject matter, although it can take some time to get used to it and see where he is going. He also has a recommended reading list which is very valuable. I highly recommend this book if you are looking for a more in depth look at ancient philosophy that you won’t learn in a Phil 100 course. I will end this review with a quote from another book by Clark "I am Aristotelian on Mondays and Wednesdays, a Pyrrhonian Sceptic on Tuesdays and Fridays, a Neo- Platonist on Thursdays and Saturdays and worship in the local Episcopalian church on Sundays."
April 12, 2020
Clark sets the ancient philosophers in the context of ancient religious and life concerns. Aristotle was not a pioneer analytic philosopher, though that how we at the other end of the timeline tend to read him. Chooses emphases that match the ancients concerns, not ours. So, a great corrective.
June 4, 2026
An interesting discussion about the swirling philosophies in the Mediterranean during the ancient period. However, while this is an interesting book, it is a poor textbook, or even an "introduction" to Ancient Philosophy. A stronger editorial hand would have been helpful.
May 31, 2016
This book will be divisive. Bracingly skeptical of the usual picture given of ancient philosophy. Come for the positive evaluation of Plotinus; stay for the (partial) rehabilitation of Spengler.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews