Philosophical Temperaments: From Plato to Foucault

Insurrections: Critical Studies in Religion, Politics, and Culture

by Peter Sloterdijk, Creston Davis (Foreword), Thomas Dunlap (Translator)

Peter Sloterdijk turns his keen eye to the history of western thought, conducting colorful readings of the lives and ideas of the world's most influential intellectuals. Featuring nineteen vignettes rich in personal characterizations and theoretical analysis, Sloterdijk's companionable volume casts the development of philosophical thinking not as a buildup of compelling books and arguments but as a lifelong, intimate struggle with intellectual and spiritual movements, filled with as many pitfalls and derailments as transcendent breakthroughs.

Sloterdijk delves into the work and times of Aristotle, Augustine, Bruno, Descartes, Foucault, Fichte, Hegel, Husserl, Kant, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, Marx, Nietzsche, Pascal, Plato, Sartre, Schelling, Schopenhauer, and Wittgenstein. He provocatively juxtaposes Plato against shamanism and Marx against Gnosticism, revealing both the vital external influences shaping these intellectuals' thought and the excitement and wonder generated by the application of their thinking in the real world. The philosophical "temperament" as conceived by Sloterdijk represents the uniquely creative encounter between the mind and a diverse array of cultures. It marks these philosophers' singular achievements and the special dynamic at play in philosophy as a whole. Creston Davis's introduction details Sloterdijk's own temperament, surveying the celebrated thinker's intellectual context, rhetorical style, and philosophical persona.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, German Literature, History

136 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Peter Sloterdijk is a German philosopher, cultural theorist, television host and columnist. He is a professor of philosophy and media theory at the University of Art and Design Karlsruhe.

Peter Sloterdijk studied philosophy, Germanistics and history at the University of Munich. In 1975 he received his Ph.D. from the University of Hamburg. Since 1980 he has published many philosophical works, including the Critique of Cynical Reason. In 2001 he was named president of the State Academy of Design, part of the Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe. In 2002 he began to co-host Das Philosophische Quartett, a show on the German ZDF television channel devoted to discussing key issues affecting present-day society.

The Kritik der Zynischen Vernunft (Critique of Cynical Reason), published by Suhrkamp in 1983, became the best-selling philosophical book in the German language since the Second World War and launched Sloterdijk's career as an author.

The trilogy Spheres is the philosopher's magnum opus. The first volume was published in 1998, the second in 1999, and the last in 2004.

Reviews

[hayatem · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب يروي السيرة الذاتية لأعمدة الفلاسفة في التاريخ الفلسفي القديم والحديث منه، بأسلوب شيق ومرح. الكاتب خفيف الظل، وساق السير المختلفة بمزاج فلسفي رائق، تنم عن فلسفة ذهنية واعية. كما اشتغل الكاتب بالتحليل المفاهيمي لأساليبهم الفكرية واستكشاف أبعاد تجربتهم الجمالية في الفلسفة.
هنا سيتعرف القارئ على الفلاسفة باختلافاتهم الجوهرية بحرف يجيد العزف على الوتر الحساس بخفة، إضافة إلى النقلة المعرفية التي أحدثوها في جوانب مهمة وإشكالية من تاريخ الفلسفة، والعوامل المؤثرة فيها.
جمع أسلوبه بين التأمل الفلسفي المستنير والانفتاح الجمالي لدى الفلسفة.
منهل مختصر وقيّم ! ويصلح كمدخل للتعرف على الفلاسفة، وتاريخ الفلسفة من أفلاطون إلى فوكو، من وجهة نظر لافته للانتباه.
رائع وممتع !

[Vuk Vuckovic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pre nego što sam pročitao predgovor, pomislio sam kako bi ovi tekstovi u kojima se govori o 19 filozofa bili odlični kontinentalni uvodnici u opšte tekstove o datim autorima na (analitičkom) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ali onda jutros bacih pogled i na uvod i videh da su Sloterdajk i ekipa imali na umu da napišu nove kratke uvodnike za originalnu literaturu koju više niko ne čita i čiju slavu i snagu su želeli ponovo da nam pokažu i stanu na put čitanju sekundarne literature i gomile komentara na sekundarnu literaturu, odnosno onu literaturu omiljenu na Filozofskom fakultetu - TERCIJARNU - "bilo nam je najviše stalo da potkopamo prevlast sekundarne literature koja se odavno stara o tome da se izvorni tekst izvornih misli svuda izgubi iza neprobojnih velova od komentara i komentara na komentare." Ta edicija sa alternativnim tekstovima umesto glomaznih uvodnika navodno je uspešno realizovana i postoji tamo negde u Nemačkoj u IK Diedrichs - blago njima. A nama ostaju vera, nada i ljubav da Kosmos i Kontrast stara BIGZ-ova izdanja štampaju u nekom novom ruhu koje je dobro...

Sloter (da je objavljivan ovde devedesetih, imao bi kultni status zbog poluprezimenika Nika) se nada da postoje nijanse u temperamentima mislilaca između krotkih i samouverenih kako ih je svojevremeno klasifikovao Fihte. Odmah da odgovorim, mislim da nema i da čak i ovako različiti mislioci potpadaju pod te dve kategorije s tim što bismo kad bi gledali njihova životna doba i razvoj takođe mogli da vidimo da je neko ko je u osnovi bio krotki naturalista koji je samo klasifikovao i opravdavao poredak, postajao namah i samouvereni subjekt koji želi da zgrabi slobodu i dopre do nečega ili u slučaju Marksa - stvori nešto iznad onoga što je već opipljivo i saznatljivo.

Dakle, 19 filozofa: 4 iz 20. veka: Huserl, Vitgenštajn, Sartr i Fuko (Hajdegera i Adorna nema, jer porodice nisu dale pravo na štampanje njihovih knjiga i Sloterdajk lamentira nad monopolom koji te familije drže - a kod nas se Bitak i vreme i Filozofska terminologija štampaju lagano).
Počinje se sa Platonom - glavnim esencijalistom i zafršava sa Fukoom - vrhunskim primerom anti-esencijaliste.

Za moj ukus ovde fali minimum Hjum, a onda i jedan Heraklit ako se već spremala edicija sa Hajdegerom koji je tvrdio da su Platon i Aristotel udaljili čoveka od bića kojem su presokratovci, među kojima najviše Heraklit, ali i sofisti, bili jako blizu (biću).
Od svih navedenih, možda jedino Đordana Bruna nisam čitao u originalu, tj. izvorni tekst u prevodu, i to mi imponuje! - e, moje studije filozofije, kad je čovek sa diplomom srećan što je čitao 18/19 autora u knjizi. Moram da dodam, naravno - skoro pola ovih autora i izvoda iz njihovih dela čitao sam u okviru svog neformalnog obrazovanja, na fakultetu za njih nije bilo mesta.

Zanimljivi tekstovi. Treba baciti pogled, jer Sloterdajk očigledno jako dobro poznaje istoriju filozofije i ima svoj poseban ugao tumačenja učenja svakog od navedenih mislilaca.

[Domanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

الفلاسفة ما يفكرون في الفراغ، أفكارهم تتشكل حسب المزاجات النفسية والظروف اللي عاشوا فيها. الكتاب يوضح كيف أن الفلسفة مش مجرد أفكار مجردة، بل مرتبطة بالمشاعر والتجارب الذاتية لكل فيلسوف. عبر التاريخ، تحولات الفلسفة كانت متأثرة بالدين، العلم، والسياسة، وكل فيلسوف كان عنده طريقته الخاصة في التفاعل مع العالم. الكاتب يشوف أن الفلسفة مش تفكير بارد، بل تجربة مليانة انفعالات وعواطف. الكتاب يربط بين المزاج الإنساني والتحولات الفكرية، ويوضح كيف تغيرت الفلسفة مع الحداثة وما بعدها.

بشكل عام، بيعطيك زاوية جديدة لفهم الفلسفة و نشأتها بعيدًا عن الطريقة الأكاديمية التقليدية.

[Squolle]

Man muss den Titel sehr ernst nehmen: es geht tatsächlich um die Temperamente der Philosophen.
Inhaltlich hat mich manches mehr, manches weniger abgeholt.
Was beeindruckt, ist der Stil von Sloterdijk. Zum Beispiel bezeichnet er Platon als die Samenbank der Philosophiegeschichte, von der aus noch viele Gehirne befruchtet werden. Solche textlichen Ergüsse bereiten Freude.

[Jacob Wren]

Peter Sloterdijk writes:

Looking back over the age of great moral politics, we recognize, of course, how such lofty hopes have dragged humanity into a potentially violent cycle of enthusiasms and disillusionment. It would appear that after all of this, we are not condemned to freedom, but to a clarification of our illusions from the purview of our dreams of freedom.

[Uxküll · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is certainly required reading for anyone who wishes to enrich their understanding of the history of philosophy.

Written in Sloterdijk's unique, quasi-polemical and incisive style, this short description of some of the major thinkers in the philosophical tradition remains one of the best I have encountered.

Rich with allusions and references to other philosophers of import as well, your knowledge of philosophy will be deepened, clarified and perhaps problematized by perusing this short book.

[Juan Antonio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Estamos ante un librito que se compone de prólogos a una colección de pensadores, realizada en Alemania, no sé cuándo. Vamos, algo parecido a esa colección de Grandes Pensadores que hizo RBA Coleccionables hace tiempo, y que volvió a sacar (venta en kioscos y también por suscripción) el año pasado, 2023. Una colección que hice casi en su totalidad, por cierto, vía kiosco, pero como suele pasar, el kiosco de marras me hizo la pirula, y no pude acabar la colección. Luego llamé o traté de contactar varias veces con RBA, pero me dijeron que no estaba disponible, vaya por Dios. Cuando por fin me enteré de que la volvían a sacar, me dio mucha alegría.

Alegría al saber que la querida colección, en colaboración con la editorial Gredos, volvía a estar en el mercado, en los kioscos y vía web. De hecho, estos tomos son parte de la colección de Gredos, de grandes pensadores (no todo van a ser clásicos de Grecia y Roma). Según veo en la web de la editorial, la colección se compone de 48 entregas, con las obras capitales de los filósofos de Occidente, de dónde si no... ¿Por qué hablo de esta colección precisamente? No hago publicidad de la editorial, por cierto, sino que viene muy bien, por si hay alguien interesado en ella, porque curiosamente, coinciden muchos de los pensadores de la lista alemana que Sloterdijk reseña. Al final, están y son los que hay, los mejores. No hay sorpresas en la viña del Señor. Como bien señala el alemán, no pudieron estar en la colección dos de los mejores pensadores, claramente sus favoritos: Heidegger y Adorno. ¿Por qué? pues por problemas legales, derivados de los famosos derechos de autor. Malditas familias, ejem...

Así pues, las reseñas abarcan, como dice el subtítulo también, de Platón a Foucault. Es decir, del comienzo de la metafísica occidental, hasta la posmetafísica precisamente. Es una pena que esos problemas con los derechos nos haya privado (a nosotros y a aquellos lectores alemanes) de la lectura de semejantes maestros. Qué habría escrito PS sobre ellos, esos pesos pesados de la última filosofía metafísica... Ya nunca lo sabremos. ¿Qué pasa con el resto? Pues muy bien, Maribel. Platón, brillante intro, se lo merece el hombre. Ya sabemos de la admiración & comprensión de esta figura de la filosofía occidental por parte del de Karlsruhe. Platón tiene cuatro entregas, nada menos, en la colección citada de RBA, se lo merece. Hay que leer a Platón, ahora más que nunca. Todo lo demás, parece un poco descafeinado, a su lado. Aristóteles, psé... San Agustín, psé. Me hizo gracia el prólogo de Giordano Bruno y el recochineo con las cenizas, maldita cena, qué mal me sentó. Hay que decir, por si aún hubiera alguien que no se enteró, que la escritura de PS es endemoniadamente brillante, y que su estilo brilla aquí como en sus mejores trabajos (y eso que esta obrilla es algo de circunstancia). De hecho, hacia la mitad de su lectura, o de vez en cuando, al final de ciertos prólogos, tenía que dejar de leer, y decirme, con una sonrisilla maliciosa: lo bien que escribe el hijoputa, joder, es que no hay otro igual. Le da cien mil vueltas a cualquier pensador, ya no digamos sociólogo o ensayista del tres al cuarto. Sloterdijk podría decir, en un libro especial: Por qué escribo tan bien, o Cómo escribí mis mejores libros, que son (casi) todos. No sabemos en qué radica su estilo, que por supuesto es inimitable.

Encuentro tres razones o motivos o líneas posibles. Una, PS es un poeta, en el fondo. Una poesía bien extraña, que juega con analogías, con rupturas de la línea principal, excursiones free jazz y distanciamientos o elevaciones por encima de la humanidad cansada, para ilustrarnos sobre lo que acontece, con una cierta visión. Esta elevación en el tono, que es física y mental, hace que nos exponga la Historia de la Filosofía como nunca antes la habíamos visto. Luego, PS ama la música, y eso se nota, Su prosa tiene ritmo interno, tiene brío, y sabe siempre cómo perderse, y cómo volver a la línea principal, la secreta melodía, o bien se muestra perversamente diatónico... En tercer lugar, PS ya está más allá de la filosofía, y como bien deja caer en varios momentos, el siglo XX es el siglo de la psicología, quiere decir, del psicoanálisis. ¿Por qué Sloterdijk es tan sagaz y los demás tan tontos? Porque él sabe, todas estas cosas, y cree en el psicoanálisis, y sabe que después de la filosofía viene Freud y Lacan, y muchos otros psiquiatras y ensayistas de la materia oscura... Y sabe que sin música contemporánea (sí, la música culta de nuestros días) no es posible entender los misterios de la existencia y de nosotros mismos. No sé si habéis leído El árbol mágico, su única incursión en la "novela", pero os recuerdo su subtítulo: El nacimiento del psicoanálisis en el año 1785. Ensayo épico sobre la filosofía de la psicología. Hay dos ediciones de esta obra, yo tengo la de Seix Barral de 2002. No conozco a otro pensador tan involucrado en la psicología-psicoanálisis, quitando al petardo de Zizek...

En fin, que los prólogos son desiguales, y algunos son un poco decepcionantes, también. El de Nietzsche, por ejemplo, me dejó un poco plof. En cambio, se luce con Schelling, con Fichte, con Hegel, y sobre todo con Schopenhauer, en donde nota, ay, el punto de inflexión, el quiebre en esa larga línea de la metafísica platónica-cristiana.
“De Schopenhauer podría proceder la frase: solo la desesperación puede salvarnos aún; claro está que él no habló de desesperación, sino de renuncia. Para los modernos, «renuncia» es la palabra más difícil del mundo. Schopenhauer la invocó contra viento y marea. Tras él, las cuestiones éticas están abiertas de una manera más radical de lo que nunca lo habían estado hasta entonces.”

Pasaje de: Peter Sloterdijk. “Temperamentos filosóficos”.
Aún recuerdo el vértigo que sentí cuando, de joven, no recuerdo exactamente la edad, oí por primera vez el nombre de Schopenhauer, tal vez en una obra teatral. El mundo como voluntad y representación, qué curioso nombre para un libro… Supe, desde entonces, que la vida que me esperaba era un vértigo y una angustia constante, que mi vida ya sería así, por desgracia. Este S. lo había adivinado, el hijoputa.

“Con su doctrina de la voluntad salta por los aires la teoría del fundamento del mundo en torno al racionalismo religioso, tal como seguía en vigor desde los tiempos de Platón, para pasar a un reconocimiento de lo irracional marcado por el horror y el asombro; Schopenhauer es el primero en instituir la naturaleza energética e impulsiva, exenta de razón, del ser. En esto es uno de los padres del siglo psicoanalista; en un futuro podría ser considerado incluso protector y pariente de una época sistémica y teorizante del caos.”

Pasaje de: Peter Sloterdijk. “Temperamentos filosóficos”.

En la colección de RBA / Gredos, Schopenhauer ocupa las entregas 18 y la 26, con su obra capital, no os la perdáis.
¿Qué más? Descartes también es señalado como se merece, se le dedica un tiempo.
De Kierkegaard dice:
“Fue el primero en entrar en la era de la duda, de la sospecha y de la decisión creadora.”

Pasaje de: Peter Sloterdijk. “Temperamentos filosóficos”.
A Marx le dedica uno de los prólogos más jugosos de todos, como se merece, y habla de una posible segunda lectura del pensador alemán, que lo salve, de alguna manera, de los desastres de la primera lectura social-política. Acaba el capítulo de forma arrolladora, haciendo un breve análisis de nuestro mundo contemporáneo, con esa fuerza imaginativa y esa brillantez que no tienen parangón en la actualidad:

“Desde la subjetividad humana de nuestro tiempo asoma el alma del dinero cada vez con menos tapujos: una sociedad de compradores comprados y de prostituyentes prostituidos se instala en las relaciones globalizadas del mercado. El lema liberal ya clásico del laissez-faire se explicita en el moderno chupar y dejar chupar. La telecomunicación es cada vez más difícil de distinguir del televampirismo. Televidentes y telechupones se nutren de un mundo licuado que apenas ya sabe lo que es lo sólido o una vida propia. ¿No podría ocurrir que fuera inminente una época en la que quien no quiera hablar de vampirismo también debería callar sobre filosofía? Si esto se hiciera realidad,/sería en todo caso el momento de una segunda oportunidad para Marx.”

Pasaje de: Peter Sloterdijk. “Temperamentos filosóficos”.
Aquí usa el martillo nietzscheano de forma contundente, y deja al lector patidifuso, o con una sonrisa en los labios, y te dices: qué hijoputa, qué bueno que es. ¿Y cómo se llama la película que hay que ver? Arrebato, de un tal Iván Zulueta. O bien, en otros tiempos más recientes, ufff, menuda peli, The Addiction, de Abel Ferrara. Una reseña dijo: “Es hechizante ver cómo Ferrara va a por todas” (Peter Travers, Rolling Stone). Otra dijo: “"Puede que no guste a todo el mundo, pero es fascinante en temas e imágenes” (Kim Newman, Empire).
En fin, la brillante pluma de PS no descansa hasta el final, y ahí se pone de manifiesto su amor por la filosofía francesa, que no en vano, aunque por un corto período de tiempo, dominó la escena filosófica mundial. Porque ya sabemos que siempre han dominado los alemanes, y tras el estructuralismo (que valora convenientemente), la pelota ha vuelto al tejado alemán, por suerte. El prólogo a Sartre es hermoso, merece la pena leerlo. Y qué decir del de Foucault, con el que acaba este librito brillante como pocos.

Curiosamente, en la colección de RBA / Gredos no están ninguno de los dos, como no lo están Adorno ni Heidegger. En cambio, hay hasta tres entregas dedicadas al gran Ludwig Wittgenstein, que es reseñado también como se merece.
““La magia todavía luminiscente de la obra de Wittgenstein, juntamente con la esquiva aureola de su vida, forman parte del regreso imprevisto del elemento monacal al centro moral de la cultura burguesa. Como apenas ningún otro más que él, Wittgenstein da testimonio de la secesión moral de una élite intelectual respecto de la totalidad de los estados mediocres.”
Pasaje de: Peter Sloterdijk. “Temperamentos filosóficos”.

Wittgenstein, un mito intelectual del siglo XX. Esto se demuestra en cosas tan sencillas como: en la peli de Rohmer Cuento de invierno, cuando Félicie (la protagonista, profesora de filosofía) entra en su apartamento, en un estante vemos una foto de…, sí, Wittgenstein. Aún recuerdo el fervor con el que leí algunas de sus obras, en mi primera juventud, y cómo me interesé también por su vida, que no era una vida normal, sino monacal, a lo que se refiere PS en su escrito. Esa imposibilidad de escribir de un tirón, esa escritura fragmentaria, tiene un poco su equivalente musical en la obra de György Kurtág, el compositor húngaro de los fragmentos, signos y mensajes del otro mundo, si hace falta. Y Kafka estaba…
La colección de RBA se despide con Plotino II: Enéadas IV- VI, con fecha prevista de venta en kioscos el 17-09-2024.

[Drake_ Boling · Rating 5 out of 5]

My first foray into the twisted mind of Peter Sloterdijk impressed me greatly. In this short volume, Sloterdijk assembles important moments in metaphysics from Plato to Foucault and relates them through various historical and personal inciting incidents. He also interweaves his larger thesis, something about subjectivity (?) throughout, basically rendering this the most complex 'intro to philosophy' book imaginable.
Throughout this timeline, he is not afraid to revise what we think of as philosophical movements or the hegemony of thought at different points in history:

"what posterity liked to call 'the project of modernity' was hardly more than a lively exchange of letters between a few dozen correspondents."

However, he takes metaphysics as serious as Fichte in that he believes

"philosophy remains a fruitless enterprise without an awakening of the whole individual to it... No one could reach the focal point of essential thinking who had not torn himself away in an existentially transformative turnaround from his prior belief in the superiority of things in front of him and outside him... You must change your life... [to reach] the new doctrine of the all-transforming dignity of subjectivity".

Here are some highlights for me:
Plato kicks things off with his theory of forms:

"What we should have remembered at all costs we lost as we plunged into this world. Remembrance of a prenatal a priori or pure knowledge is to render the mythological and rapsodic memory culture superfluous. Thus begins the revolution of knowledge through the a priori."
"Plato had established philosophy as metaphysics when he implanted it in the masterful claim of transcending the imperfect to the perfect, the finite to infinite. These philosophical transcendencies had the quality of sublime regressions in which the existing intellect groped its way to pre-existential intuition. The fundamental metaphysical act-- transcendence-- means precisely this withdrawing from time to regain the origin of the absolute."

Later on, he detailed his respect for the Christian theology of St. Augustine:

"When Augustine endows the human interior with the highest accolades as the vessel of the traces of God, he simultaneously yields to an irresistible urge to debase humankind beneath a transcendental Majesty."

Pascal's theology is also praised as being protoexistentialist, calling him "the first among philosophical secretaries of modern despair". This contextualization of these works made these thinkers seem more real than I had previously given them credit. Perhaps I had never fully appreciated the Augustine---->Pascal----> Kierkegaard pipeline before.

This thread carried on to Leibnitz, who I mostly knew as the inventor of calculus and whose 'best of all worlds' worldview was mocked in Candide, which I read in high school. I thought that book was funny and I hated calculus, so on through college I never gave his arguments a ton of credit. Sloterdijk's reading of him puts him at the foreground of individual ontology, going as far as praising him thusly:

"By defining human subjectivity as competent and informed activity that is endlessly perfectable, [Leibnitz] made his contribution to the formation of the modern subject as the entrepreneur of Being in its totality. The brightness and dispassionate friendliness of the Leibnizian world is grounded in the circumstance that its subject is allowed to move still without any scruples as the agent of a rational deity within a universe, rich in perspectives and full of mysteries worthy of investigation. In post-Leibnitzian worlds, the relationship of loyalty between subject and Being seems destroyed. With the rise of existentialisms, life philosophies, and system theories, the optimistic fit between subjective and objective reason was lost ever since the subjects have found themselves entangled and total wars of various types of reason as agents there at the behest of uncomprehended majesties. For the future of human history, it will be important to regenerate a principle of optimism or at least a principle of non-pessemism."

Heard.

He briskly moved through Kant, praising the categorical imperative as a means to base an ethic upon a collective individuals. He at one point calls neo- Kantians "the church of autonomous subjects". Interesting.

Onward through Fichte, a thinker I definitely need to spend more time with:

"Fichte's greatness will reveal itself above all to those who muster the patience to immerse themselves in his analysis unsurpassed in its lucidity of the structures of subjectivity. I am to take for the fact of my existence as myself as lightly, and as seriously as though my I-ness were God's last chance."
"Under his gaze, all scenery becomes an evening landscape. Every view must become a final tableau. Terminal knowledge appears at the advanced hour when the concept disconnects itself from the experience in order to arrange itself for all eternity."

That's high praise.

Needless to say, Hegel's importance cannot be overstated, for reasons I do not understand. Sloterdijk basically proposes there was metaphysics before Hegel and metaphysics after Hegel and the two are very different for some other reasons I don't understand :

"In Hegel's logic, the individual is reconciled with the general: by wearing themselves out on what would appear to be their own missions, the great individuals play their role in the heroic epic of the universal offense of freedom and Truth; by exerting their powers to the utmost and the arena of contemporary doing and thinking, the individual is transform themselves into crystals of the absolute. Their life becomes bright under a sky of supreme significance.
Here the individual is entirely illuminated... He burns up without a remnant in historical task so as to be no more than a figure in its constellation."

I think I will use this as another exigence to try to power through Phenomenology of Spirit cuz I have tried before and didn't get it but fr this shit sounds pretty badass.

Sloterdijk then hypes up Schelling to the point where I immediately had to go buy one of his books :

"Writing in radiant prose, the young Schelling drafted a series of systemic sketches that performed before the eyes of an amazed public a celestial journey of speculative reason. He seemed to have discovered a process of speaking from the vantage point of the absolute as though from a secure position. No matter what objects the young man touched, everything transformed itself under his vigorous diction into a flight of fancy and speculative thunderstorm. It was as though the goal was to prove that finally, a confidant of God was once again among us."
"Schelling discovered the motif of enabling past consciousness without which there would not exist the categories of subconscious and of cognitive evolution which are crucial to modern thought".

This influence seems extremely important to Sloterdijk's larger project interrogating subjectivity as I understand his thesis laid out in Bubbles, Globes, & Foam, which I am intimidated yet excited to dig into.

On to Schopenauer, another philosopher that I haven't read a ton of primary documents from:

"With his doctrine of the will, the theory of the foundation of the world leaps from the kind of pious rationalism that had prevailed since the days of Plato to a recognition- characterized by horror and amazement- of the a rational Schopenauer was the first who identified beings energetic and instinctive nature, which is free of reason and that is one of the founders of the century of psychoanalysis."

Sloterdijk then proposes a very interesting grouping of three thinkers in one of my favorite passages:

"Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, each of whom in his own way carried the twilight of the 19th century into the 20th are regarded as bearers of the three obstrusively negative messages about basic forces of human reality: the dominance of conditions of production over idealistic fictions, the dominance of vital functions over symbolic systems, and the dominance of the unconscious nature over human self-awareness. With three voices, the dysangelists seem to be proclaiming one and the same Doom: You are prisoners of structures and systems. The truth will make you unfree."

Damn!

He later spits this ghastly rumination on the spectre of Marx:

"The undead – which walks among "humans as the value of money and which, as laughing communicator, strips the living of time and souls-- rules today almost without any pretext over advanced societies... Televampirism draws from a liquefied world, which hardly still knows what a resistant or autonomous life might be."

Insane. He also remarks (reMarx?) about how Marx's readership and subsequent critiques, unlike many philosophers, only reinforces a proletariat consciousness, his power only growing as more people weigh in on his relevance through the years. Often Sloterdijk's commentary veered into some Zizek-adjacent interpretations of ideology and the inescapable nature of capitalism, but never quite drew those parallels. I would love to see those two in conversation with each other, which, probably exists.

One of my favorite parts of the book was Sloterdijk's recounting of Husserl's eidetic reduction, which was rendered so crystalline I remembered what made me fall in love with phenomenology back when I was a dumbass kid in college. Here is a really long fried ass quote:

"...Descartes, Fichte and Husserl responded with the sonorous thesis that nothing less than absolute certainty is enough. As a science prior to and above the senses, rigorous authoritative thought seeks to demonstrate that the totality of material phenomena is constructed out of achievements of consciousness...
Our heart is restless until it finds rest in self-evidence. [Phenomenology] is suited to healing the ontological psychosis of the restless animal...
As the teacher of thinking self-perception, he removed himself and his students into a theoretical sanatorium where no other measures were on the agenda other than exercises of clarification in the purest air of detailed descriptions...
He who enters into the time of the pure exercise of descriptions is removed as it were from the lifetime that simultaneously runs its course, and the objects of the phenomenological meditation assemble on the desk of the thinker into sublime still-lives. They are no longer naively encountered objects from the so-called real world, but figures in the absolute film of intentionality for the duration of his exercise. The describer steps out of the torrential time of life lived headed towards death and entrusts himself to the present of absolute consciousness...
The phenomenologist undertakes the task, as strange as it is seductive, of elevating what has been seen a thousand times as though the goal is to catch it by surprise as it emerges out of the creative consciousness at the moment it is first beheld...Husserl brought the unity of thinking and writing into a gestural synthesis. To him, the desk is the window onto the world of essences. Here, beholding and writing proved to be convergent activities...
The chair of the philosopher who has immersed himself in arid ecstasy in his descriptions is the bearer of a seated observer out of the pen. The thinker flows the ink of the original evidence. His writings capture the living intuitions on paper like congealed light...
In this process, phenomenology rendered its verdict against the essential blindness of vulgar relativism and psychologism, as well as against the blindness of subjectivity of scientific objectivism and the final analysis. The desk of the phenomenologist is an altar at which the thinker officiates as a pure functionary of the absolute."

I think it's time to revisit Ideas I. Possibly even check out Ideas II which I have always been terrified of.
Later, Wittgenstein's emphasis on the inter-subjective quality of language is pretty interesting:

"The story of Wittgenstein's life and thought is the passion of an intellect that sought to explain its place in the world and add its boundaries as one dwelling on the borderline of being. The philosopher is never concerned with anything less than the block of the world as a whole. He feels as the world, all along with its order could get lost in the space between two sentences and so thinking becomes for him navigating between islands of formal clarity that lay scattered in the vastness of unclarity."

Later still, Sartre's existentential "degagement" is summarized:

"[Sartre] remained throughout his life faithful to his way of living the groundless freedom to him. The nothingness of subjectivity was not a downward plunging abyss, but a spring bubbling upward an excess of power of negation against everything that was encompassing".

Empowering.

The book somewhat climaxes with reflections on Foucault, as it applies to topics Peter is definitely further exploring in other books:

"He knew what had to be avoided, overcome, replaced, if the undertaking of a thinking beyond the rigged games of substance, subject, and object was to succeed. 'The world as sphere. I as compass. God as center. That is the three-fold blockage of event-thinking.' "

Seems like this is an idea he runs with, and I definitely need to brush up on Foucault before beginning Sloterdijk's main trilogy.

Here are some kinda fucked up words he uses throughout:

iatromancers
legasthenia
materiosoph
image-ontology
excrescences
demiurgic
phyturgos
dyadic
synoptic
eremetic
relativistic neopragmatism
aegis
patristics
theosophies
vitalistic
nimbus
martyrological
matutinal
res publica
millenarianism
pleromatic
Mesmerian
elusions
triumphalist
arational
gnosticizing
entelechies
irridendists
vespertine
polymorphous
neophenomenogical
cameralist
legitimist
psychagogic
amusical
ineluctably
telematic
cosmo-dynamism
enmities
perspicuity
sophrosyne
paideia
arrogate
Hellenism
historiographer
suprapersonal
diktat
expropriation
theodicy
appellatory
prophetism
epigone
metaphysized
sacral
furor theologicus
dysangelic
eschatological
autoplastically
autogenous
kynical
Titanomachy
omniactivity
thematizing
calligraphic
pax Kantìana
kosmopolités
sobria ebriatas
kynicism
psychography
tractate
massif

Not bad for a book this short.

Across the board, complaints I have are mostly based in wanting to hear more. Could have used a little more discussion of Plato considering his timeline is based on different reactions / historical upheavals in Platonism. Would have loved more of late Neitzsche, definitely more Kant and Foucault. But the point of this book is to introduce these ideas in dialogue with each other, not to judge them against one another. At the same time, How tf did Heidegger not get his own chapter?!! Sloterdijk vs. hermeneutic phenomenology would probably kick ass. I would have really loved to hear about the some of the shamanism / pre-Platonic ontological speculations like from Heraclitus for example. I would love to hear his thoughts on Bergson, and his theory of the subjective perception of duration. Oh well. Guess I just have to read more from him.

Overall the entire book overflowed with contagious enthusiasm, like when you can tell how excited the author is to talk about something they care about. The whole project seemed like a primer for his body of work, understanding the way different conceptions of subjectivity have been incorporated into significant moments in the history of metaphysics. See ya next time, Petey.

#Globes.

[Public_enemy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Several articles from the history of philosophy. Sloterdijk observes these philosophers and time they lived in, and discovers tendencies in their philosophical projects. Some of them more (Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche) and some less interesting.

[Perrystroika · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this sleek little volume in a chic bookstore in West Hollywood called Book Soup where it put me back $20, then read it all of the next day riding the route 20 bus down Wilshire through Downtown and wandering around Little Tokyo on foot, and then the next day after that in snippets while being herded through security checkpoints at LAX and then on the plane back to Jersey.

This is my first extended encounter with Sloterdijk, whom I know of through his outsized reputation. Perhaps I shouldn't judge too harshly, since this isn't one of his magnum opuses, but I was a tad underwhelmed. Billing itself as a kind of "intro to philosophy", practically a survey course chopped up into bite sized bits, each chapter detailing a major figure from the history of philosophy (beginning with Plato, ending with Foucault), the book is feather light as German philosophy books go, practically a beach read.
Between all the biography, and historical summary, the book's slim hundred some odd pages hardly contain any sustained philosophical argument at all. But I suppose that is in keeping with Sloterdijk's "Post-metaphysical" outlook on the intellectual situation of philosophy, which, following Wittgenstein, emphasizes therapeutic aims. "Postmetaphysics" represents a pragmatics of the impulse behind metaphysical thinking rather than metaphysical thinking per se, an analysis of the uses and purposes to which the human animal has put the corpus of methods and texts known as "philosophy".

Oddly enough, the writer Philosophical Temperaments reminds me the most of is Edmund Wilson. You have the same impression of immense erudition married to formidable synthetic powers, effortlessly blending different areas of knowledge together into a complete portrait of a figure/oeuvre. As Wilson tends to do, Sloterdijk also here tends to float over his subjects at a high level of abstraction, looming synoptically over them. Insofar as one has complaints, it's that this higher macro level engagement, reading biography, sociology, the history of ideas, and the evolving idea of metaphysics together as one text, isn't supported by microlevel engagement at the level of texts. Unfortunately, in philosophy, all the stakes are in the boring logic, not in the fancy rhetoric. I found myself impatient with him to get down to some nitty gritty.

The book can read like a series of off-hand, facile mprovisations. These are often brilliant. I'm particularly taken with the first chapter, the one that sold me on the book, on Plato. It's quite a shrewd reading as it emphasizes Plato's role as the originator of Western philosophical thinking. A transitional figure located at an axial point of cultural change, Plato combined in the literary character of Socrates the shamanistic role of wise man from traditional/preliterate culture with that of rational, sober theorist, a peddler of doctrines, a role that only exists in literate cultures. No mere theoretician, he is characterized in the Symposium as a daimonic being, neither entirely mortal nor divine, but a mixture of the two, a complicated figure who both looks backward to the ecstatic traditions of the mystery cults and forward to the alienated, disenchanted world of Western instrumental rationality.

Sloterdijk discusses the role of philosophy in classical education for the elite. AT a time when the first great multiethnic empires were being created, it fell to philosophy to create a ruling class able to generate a viable moral universalism that could unite collections of warring tribes into a community, a community mediated through concepts of universal law and right. Thus was born the spiritual ideal of the cosmopolitan, the man who is at home everywhere. 

[Raúl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me gusta Sloterdijk: condensado, con estilo, pero sin florituras ni materia grasa. Usando de metáforas y alegorías, contempla la historia del pensamiento como una suerte de macizo montañoso. Otro recurso, común en este autor, es el uso de analogías con conceptos económicos:

'Radical reforma monetaria de la razón, en una época de inflación galopante del discurso, Descartes creó un nuevo criterio de valor para los discursos sensatos, cimentados en el patrón oro de la evidencia'.

Ante todo, esto no es exactamente una historia de la filosofía, ni un ensayo ni obra de divulgación. Y no por lo breve, sino por la propia estructura del libro, cuyo origen se debe a cierta colección alemana de textos de autores filosóficos: Sloterdijk prologó cada uno de esos tomos, y el pequeño volumen que ahora nos ocupa es ni más ni menos que la compilación de cada uno de esos prólogos. Es por esto que tenemos que perdonarle al libro muchas cosas: la falta de unidad, el desequilibrio entre unos capítulos y otros, o los vacíos que encontramos con algunos autores de importancia. Temperamentos filosóficos es, por tanto, una colección de prólogos, algunos de los cuales profundizan más que otros en el autor, su filosofía o lo que ésta representa. Porque aquí está la madre del cordero: a pesar de no haber sido concebido como libro, todos los capítulos tienen en común cierto enfoque que puede resumirse en la idea de Fichte de que la filosofía de cada autor tiene que ver con su propia personalidad. Podría añadir, en este caso, que la obra que dejan para los restos se relaciona asimismo con la personalidad que dejan sus personajes. Visto en retrospectiva, me refiero a una proyección de futuro de grandes personalidades o, mejor, corrientes filosóficas, que a modo de revivals vuelven a ser leídas y encuentran hueco en tiempos posteriores y en la actualidad, que al fin y al cabo es lo que más nos interesa. Bajo estas premisas, Sloterdijk apunta, en ciertos capítulos, a grandes ideas que influyeron en la mentalidad cultural, o bien a perfiles tipo de los que pueden decirse de cada autor o de cada lector de estos autores.

Así, por ejemplo, a la hora de hablar de Agustín de Hipona, dice que 'desligó la filosofía de su antigua constitución maníaca y la colocó bajo el patrocinio de la depresión'; de Descartes y los cartesianos, habla de un 'triunfo de los ingenieros frente a los teólogos'; de Aristóteles destaca el nuevo protagonismo que desde él tendría la vida teórica y contemplativa, 'relación original entre el saber y la alegría'; con Leibniz habla de un perfil único y olvidado con el que hoy en día resulta difícil empatizar (frente al temperamento de un Pascal, por ejemplo): el del filósofo cortesano, diplomático y enciclopedista. Entre las rarezas siempre interesantes, el breve capítulo dedicado a Giordano Bruno, que no habla ni de él ni de su obra, sino de su figura de mártir de la razón, formada por las cenizas de su pira; entre los prólogos más extensos, el brillante capítulo inicial dedicado a Platón. Etcétera. En resumen, considero este librito de obligada lectura para todo el que guste de las historias e historietas de la filosofía.

[Gaetano Venezia · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short but generative work for those familiar with Western philosophy* and sympathetic to a continental approach.

Philosophical Temperaments explores the progression of Western philosophy not as a series of arguments, but as a series of responses to cultural conditions. Sloterdijk isn't going for rigorous argument or analysis; he's investigating the temperament of philosophers and tracing the motivations and conditions for the creation of new theories. I quote several examples below.°

In his own words, Sloterdijk describes this book as an exploration and confirmation of Nietzsche's claim that "all philosophical systems have always been…also memoirs and confessions" and Fichte's "well-known dictum that the philosophy one chooses depends on the kind of person one is." (xviii-xix)

*
With few citations, explications, or summaries of philosopher's ideas, this book is almost useless by itself. Familiarity with primary texts is necessary to appreciate Sloterdijk's intimations, colorful analogies, and controversial claims. In the chapters on authors I haven't read, like Fichte and Schelling, I felt lost.

°
"The Platonic opus not only marks the epochal threshold between orality and literacy, but also stands at the boundary between the older, musical-rhapsodic transmission of knowledge and the now prosaic-communicative procurement of knowledge" (11)

"Augustine opened the sluice gates through which elemental masochistic energies have been pouring into European thinking ever since; with a radicalism that virtually raised him to the rank of a higher power, he elevated incurable human nature to the primary motif of his interpretation of reality… One might say that Augustine in this way uncouples philosophy from its classical, manic constitution and places it under the auspices of depression." (20-21)

"The pax Kantiana encompasses the world community of the reasonable as in some kind of minimalist church. It is the church of the autonomous subjects, who recite their critical theories like creeds" (43)

"Like none other, the example of Christianity demonstrates the world history-making dominance of the interpreters over the text" (71)

"The good reader of the future will become attentive in Marx's texts to the concepts and metaphors under which the longest dreams of classical metaphysics donned a contemporary disguise—especially the all-pervading phantasm of the powerful self-generation of the historical subject and the crypto-theological motif of the recovery of the original fullness of self by the "producers" in a world freed from money." (75)

"[Wittgenstein's] notes are the monument of an overly brilliant hesitation to create the world in a cohesive text" (89)

[Alexandru Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

a collection of "introductions" to classic philosophers.
from plato to foucault.
although he said there can be no introduction to philosophy. i take him to mean that there is no substitute for reading them / engaging with their thinking. which, basically, is common sense - no one can seriously say they know what heidegger or kant or husserl said without actually reading them. and not only reading, but retracing their thinking, pen in hand (or as a group of like-minded people, trying to make sense of the text they are reading together).

so, the intention of these "introduction" can be to motivate the reader to take (again) upon himself the task of reading the "greats". and trying to read them sympathetically. kind of "back to the texts themselves". which is a good intention, by the way :)

some of sloterdijk's short texts are very ironic, some - very insightful.
the accent is, usually, on the fundamental disposition / attunement of individual philosophers - what made them write the way they did, and he usually takes their texts as "spiritual exercises" - as exercises in a way of thinking / seeing / being.

the texts are very accessible - and he finds catchy formulas, like "the world spirit at the lectern" or "Augustine […] uncouples philosophy from its classical, manic constitution and places it under the auspices of depression" or "Plato presented himself as a medium — as it were — of the god of the philosophers, who was proclaiming through him the commandment: I am an image-less god, you shall no longer have any sung and versified gods beside me".

i regret only the lack of spinoza from the list / "canon". i can't understand why (maybe he prefers leibniz, who is in the list).

[Lachlan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sloterdijk is one of the most original and engaging thinkers of the modern age.

This book briefly discusses a number of figures from across the history of philosophy. Sloterdijk's style is engrossing, and just a little intoxicating. He certainly does not shrink from bold pronouncements or provocative reinterpretations of prominent texts.

I sympathise with the skeptical stance he takes towards those who see human rationality as an infallible deity or the deliverer of a progressive utopia.

A relatively easy read (within the context of dense philosophy) that is sure to reward you with further reading down the track.

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would give this 6 stars if I could. Very, very interessting! Most motivating to read more!

[Dionysius the Areopagite]

Give to co-worker if you have co-worker, if you work at all, and they'll never talk to you again. The keys of heaven await thy hand(s)!

[Jorge Silupú · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reseña: [Temperamentos filosóficos: de Platón a Foucault- Peter Sloterdijk]

Los velos en la filosofía estropean la idea central. Ya no citan la fuente original, en ocasiones, plagado de horrores, repiten como borregos la versión equívoca de un líder de opinión/influencer y lo hacen pasar como verdad ineludible ante la platea de tuertos, ciegos y extraños. Un profesor de filosofía, bajo la escaramuza guiada por un prelado prejuicioso o una secta fascistoide, llaman “filósofo de la sospecha” a Nietzche, cuando la intención del alemán, sin muchas tribulaciones, era buscar dilucidar las cuestiones filosóficas sin el peso platónico que había sucumbido la historia del pensamiento por siglos.

A unos metros de la objetividad, Peter Sloterdijk, eminencia de la filosofía contemporánea alemana, busca presentar, sin prejuicio, los pensamientos centrales de los filósofos más emblemáticos de la historia. Digo a unos metros, porque ser objetivo es un vil engaño académico, una vez procesado por la caja negra o la materia gris, ya nada puede erigirse como objetivo en este mundo.

En un lenguaje elevado, propio de estas lides, Sloterdijk vacuna al lector de etéreos pensamientos, provenientes de diecinueve psicagogos, compaginados en la obra académica Temperamentos filosóficos: de Platón a Foucault (Siruela, 2009). Será una montaña rusa. Servido.

#filosofía #sloterdijk

[Aldo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Filosofische temperamenten.
Sloterdijk is duidelijk een kenner, en laat dat ook graag in flamboyante taal zien. De kunst van het overbrengen zit hem juist in het versimpelen van complexe materie, zodat iedereen het begrijpt en er iets mee kan. Wellicht laat de de discours over de krachtige invloed van deze mensen zich niet vatten in lekentaal, maar het voelde zo af en toe wel erg overdreven.
Desalniettemin, weet Sloterdijk de grootse filosofen van een andere kant te belichten: hoe zij in de geschiedenis en in het grotere schema der wijsbegeerte staan. Vooral diegene die ik al eens eerder had behandeld werden op een verfrissende manier uiteengezet. Filosofen die doorgaans niet het traditionele canon belanden (Bruno bv.) kregen in dit boek toch hun moment en de beschrijving wekte elke keer mijn interesse.

Al met al een boek bomvol krachtige en originele schetsen maar waar soms het middel het doel voorbij streefde, waarin ik me dus dikwijls heb afgevraagd wat het doel nou precies was.

[Frederic De meyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Er zijn meer dan voldoende (degelijke) inleidingen tot de Westerse filosofie. Sloterdijk was het aan zichzelf verplicht om er niet een zoveelste te schrijven, maar op een hoogsteigen manier deze geschiedenis toe te lichten, en er zijn licht over te laten schijnen. Missie geslaagd. Hij heeft duidelijk zijn lievelingetjes, maar zelfs die kunnen niet ontsnappen aan zijn vaak ironische, soms cynische pen. Een voorbeeldje bij Schelling (p109): "Schelling dreef de toon van onherroepelijkheid op de spits en gaf het oscilleren tussen extreme gezichtspunten het aanzien van een methode." Voor de rest komt Schelling er goed vanaf onder de scherpe blik en briljante analyse van Sloterdijk, anderen een stuk minder... Hoogst genietbare lectuur! (en uitmuntend vertaald door Mark Wildschut)

[Nyard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short and unusual character portraits of philosophers throughout the history of philosophy that aren't fitted in here in any particularly meaningful order or without any narrative throughline makes for some short bursts of entertainment when Sloterdijk finds a particularly adequate characterization, but in its very short chapters there is not much to chew on and not much to take out of the experience. Particularly not an introduction to the actual philosophy of the thinkers and authors in question.

[Jimena · Rating 2 out of 5]

En este libro podemos apreciar cómo Sloterdijk recorre el pensamiento y la personalidad de algunos filósofos a lo largo de la historia.
Uno puede seguir viviendo sin haberlo leído y ser, no obstante, feliz.
;-)

[Mark David Vinzens · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Die klassische Philosophie stellte ihren Adepten in Aussicht, sie könnten es in einem chaotischen Kosmos zur Heiterkeit bringen; zum Weisen wird, wer das Chaos als Maske des Kosmos durchschaut.”

― Peter Sloterdijk, Philosophische Temperamente. Von Platon bis Foucault

[Bruno Grandchamp Rodilha · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was every entertaining and interesting to know different points about these already known philosophers.
Good read for those how love philosophy and reads it like literature.

[Alexander Cruz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muy claro y consiso, y sin embargo, fecundo en ideas para pensar acerca de los autores y sus temperamentos. Un excelente ejercicio de antropología filosófica aplicado a los filósofos mismos.

[Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Visão panorâmica e bem singular do Sloterdijk sobre filósofos da tradição ocidental. Não espere mais do que comentários breves de cada pensador.

[SERGI LAPEIRA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Autor de prosa elaborada, a voltes difícil, però sempre engrescador. No és una lectura per a no iniciats.

[Giovanni Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Variaciones de Gombrowicz.

[Salem Zarir · Rating 2 out of 5]

إن محاسن هذا الكتاب، يمكن إجمالها أولاً في الطابع النيتشوي الذي يهيمن على أسلوب السرد، وذلك عن طريق الدمج المتتابع والمتداخل لأسلوبي الكتابة الشعري والنثري، أي أن الكاتب قادر على أن يكتب "التاريخ شعرا" إذ ما جاز لنا استعارة هذا اللفظ من محمود درويش. ولقد نجحت الترجمة نجاحاً يستحق الإشادة في الإبقاء على هذه الطريقة المميزة في الكتابة.
ثانياً، فإن للكاتب نظرات ثاقبة في معالجته للفلاسفة والمفكرين اللذين تناولهم الكتاب -على الأقل، شعرت بهذا الأمر فيما يخص أولئك المفكرين اللذين يمكنني القول بأنني مطلع نسبيا على النطاقات المركزية التي تطرقوا إليها.
ما يجعلني أمنح الكتاب تقييماً منخفضاً، هو ذاته ما قد يجعلني أعشق كتباً أخرى -كمؤلفات نيتشة مثلاً. إن الكاتب ارتأى اعتماد أسلوب الخواطر أو الشذرات في الكتابة، لكنه لم ينجح فيما نجح فيه نيتشة بوضوح، ألا وهو القدرة على "أن يقول في كلمات قليلة، ما يحتاج آخرون إلى كتب كي يعبروا عنه". فرغم بعض المداخلات الرائعة للكاتب والتي تبعثرت هنا وهناك في صفحات الكتاب، إلا أنه وبشكل عام لم ينجح في أن يمنح القارئ اضاءات جوهرية جديدة على فلسف�� المفكرين اللذين عالجهم، فإذا كان الكاتب لا يعتبر كتابه توطئة للمفكرين المذكورين، ولا هو إضاءة مفتاحية لأفكارهم، ولا هو تتبع لتطور مجموعة معينة من الأفكار عبر الإحاطة بمعالجة تاريخ الفلسفة لها، فماذا يكون الكتاب إذا؟ إنه فقط مجموعة من الشذرات المكتوبة على عجل، والتي لم تستطع أن تقدم إلا قراءة سلسة، سريعة، تتأرجح احيانا بين المتعة والملل.

[Zoonanism · Rating 3 out of 5]

Poetic mini-essays on stellar figures.

One who follows Husserl for instance is but a patient suffering a strange need. Their task in the sanatorium of phenomenology Sloterdijk explains is to step out of torrential time of lived heading-toward-death and entrust themselves to the present of absolute consciousness.

Sartre is presented as one who found in every consciousness the point at which those beings are too proud to admit to a past.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun brief essays on a variety of major figures. Nothing too earth-shattering but some nice appreciations.