What do you think?
Rate this book
من سقراط إلى سارتر: البحث الفلسفي
From Socrates To Satre presents a rousing and readable introduction to the lives, and times of the great philosophers. This thought-provoking book takes us from the inception of Western society Plato's Athens to today when the commanding power of Marxism has captured one third of the world. T.Z. Lavine, Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, makes philosophy come alive with astonishing clarity to give us a deeper, more meaningful understanding of ourselves and our times. From Socrates To Satire discusses Western philosophers in terms of the historical and intellectual environment which influenced them, and it connects their lasting ideas to the public and private choices we face in America today. From Socrates To Satre also formed the basis for the PBS television series of the same name.
491 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
314 people are currently reading
2438 people want to read
About the author
T.Z. Lavine
7 books18 followersThelma Zeno Lavine (1915–2011), was an American philosopher, professor, and writer, specializing mainly in the areas of 19th and 20th century, especially the writing of John Dewey. She taught courses that highlighted the correlation between philosophy and other topics such as economics, history, and contemporary American culture.
Lavine began teaching philosophy and psychology courses in 1941 at Wells College in Aurora, New York, where she remained until 1943. In 1946 she started at Brooklyn College as a professor of philosophy until 1951. From 1955 until 1965 she held a faculty position at the University of Maryland. In 1965 Lavine went to George Washington University to become Elton Professor of Philosophy, where she taught for 20 years. In 1985 she went to George Mason University, where she became a Robinson Professor of Philosophy, and remained at George Mason until her retirement in 1998.
She is well known for the televised lecture series "From Socrates to Sartre, A Historical Introduction to Philosophy", put on by the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting in 1979. The series comprised thirty lectures, and it has been praised for making philosophy accessible to the public. Lavine’s most famous publication— "From Socrates to Sartre, The Philosophic Quest" (1984) grew out of the televised lectures, over 250,000 copies were published in the United States and it was also translated into Japanese.
Another notable publication of Lavine’s is the essay, “The Contemporary Significance of the American Philosophic Tradition: Lockean and Redemptive,” from "Reading Dewey", Interpretations for a Postmodern Generation (1998), by Larry A. Hickman. In the essay, Lavine articulates the progression of philosophic thought beginning with an evaluation of Enlightenment principles and their role in the development of the national and legal identity of the United States.
Lavine began teaching philosophy and psychology courses in 1941 at Wells College in Aurora, New York, where she remained until 1943. In 1946 she started at Brooklyn College as a professor of philosophy until 1951. From 1955 until 1965 she held a faculty position at the University of Maryland. In 1965 Lavine went to George Washington University to become Elton Professor of Philosophy, where she taught for 20 years. In 1985 she went to George Mason University, where she became a Robinson Professor of Philosophy, and remained at George Mason until her retirement in 1998.
She is well known for the televised lecture series "From Socrates to Sartre, A Historical Introduction to Philosophy", put on by the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting in 1979. The series comprised thirty lectures, and it has been praised for making philosophy accessible to the public. Lavine’s most famous publication— "From Socrates to Sartre, The Philosophic Quest" (1984) grew out of the televised lectures, over 250,000 copies were published in the United States and it was also translated into Japanese.
Another notable publication of Lavine’s is the essay, “The Contemporary Significance of the American Philosophic Tradition: Lockean and Redemptive,” from "Reading Dewey", Interpretations for a Postmodern Generation (1998), by Larry A. Hickman. In the essay, Lavine articulates the progression of philosophic thought beginning with an evaluation of Enlightenment principles and their role in the development of the national and legal identity of the United States.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
October 4, 2012
WRITTEN PENDING A REVIEW:
Sometimes it's easier to write a song than to read (and understand) Philosophy...
The Philosophers’ Song
Though Plato drank lots of expensive red wine
He could faithfully draw a Divided Line,
Work a Tripartite Soul into his story
And turn a Cave into an Allegory.
René Descartes knew when it was time to drink
He could not be, unless he was fit to think
Skepticism led to Self-Evident Truth
And a World with Mechanical Attributes.
Young David Hume was a well-meaning critter
The Empiricist learned, after a bitter,
It’s not Logic that guides all of our Actions
Reason itself is a slave of the Passions.
The Ideal form of a red wine and bagel
Appealed to German philosopher Hegel
While all History is Dialectical,
His Spirits were Phenomenological.
Revolutionary vision made Marx see red
So much so that Hegel was turned on his head
And Dialectical Materialists
Revolted, forever, German Idealists.
Jean Paul Sartre defined Existentialism
As the ultimate form of Humanism
He proved he was capable of Joie de Vivre
By not asking Simone de Beauvoir to leave.
METAPHYSICAL GRAFITTI:
Monty Python - "The Bruces' Philosophers’ Song" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJ...
Monty Python - "Philosophy Football: Germany vs. Greece" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGS...
Thanks to Kris for reminding me about these performances.
Male Philosophy Student and Metaphysical Poet Seeks Indie Girl with Bob Haircut
I think, I hope
That I could be
What you long for
In a lover.
AN APPENDED REVIEW:
The Position of the Mission
I read this book as part of a private mission to acquire an historical context within which to do some more focused philosophical reading.
I never studied philosophy as a discrete subject or course. Instead, my background was in political philosophy and ideology.
I studied Modern Political Thought and the Theory and Practice of Marxism.
Later, I did some undergraduate studies in Semiotics through the French Department, which also gave me some access to Structuralism.
Modern Political Thought was Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Marxism was Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and various Euro-Communists.
I now feel frustrated that I only ever read Hegel through the eyes of Marx.
One of the goals of my mission is to better understand Hegel with a different set of eyes. Another is to better understand the implications of Marx turning Hegel on his head.
But ultimately, I wanted to understand how both Hegel and Marx fit into the History of Western Philosophy, including the period since Marx’ death.
I didn’t choose this work by Lavine for any reason other than the fact that I found a second hand copy for $4.50.
This is half the cost of a good glass of wine or beer, but I gained a lot more pleasure out of this book (and I still get to have a drink).
The Form
The title of the book says something of its scope. However, in truth, it’s a bit misleading.
Sixteen philosophers feature in the overview, only six of them have sections dedicated to them, and Socrates isn’t one of them.
Here is the list, with the six in bold:
Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Husserl, Heidgger, Wittgenstein.
Fans of Philosophy or Monty Python might quibble about the choice or the on-ground time of members of this squad, but ultimately I really enjoyed this primer.
The Substance
Up until the sections on Sartre and the back three, Lavine summarises the tenets of each philosopher’s work in an accessible manner, but also in a way that builds a 1,200 year narrative out of intensely conceived and projected philosophical memes.
The book isn’t just a personal race, an individual marathon, but a relay, with philosophers passing the baton across decades and centuries, until Lavine, their proxy, reaches us and places the baton in our hand, from which point, we’re supposed to think and be and do.
Maybe this analogy is a bit artificial, one that Lavine might not have related to, but her achievement has been to turn what could have been a dry topic into something that a larger audience could relate to.
In other words, if you’re a literary reader who’s happy to skim la crème de la crème, this isn’t a bad place to start.
The Spirit Leveller
My main reservation is the sections on Sartre and contemporaneous trends like Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
Up until Sartre, she structured each chapter in short succinct paragraphs, often with numbered arguments.
When she arrives at Sartre, the paragraphs are longer, as if she has swallowed, but not digested, and just regurgitated, material that she did not personally relate to.
Synthesis
So for me, this book is a great overview of philosophy up to Sartre in the sense that he built on both Kierkegaard and Marx, but we will need to supplement it with something else that deals with subsequent movements.
Further Reading
I might start here:
A Hundred Years of Philosophy
AN UPENDED REVIEW:
Homo Logico-Philosophicus ("The Philosophic Conquest" or "The Attractatus of a Man for a Woman: A Thesis in 33 Sexual Propositions")
1. In the beginning, there was a Man.
2. Because there was nothing much else around or in his head, he was surrounded by Empiricism.
3. Just when Man had got his head around Empiricism, a Woman turned up.
4. From his dick, the Man heard a word, and the word was Lust.
5. When asked to put this thing there, the Woman had no logical reason to object.
6. The Man thought he had discovered the Good Life.
7. The next morning, there was a new word, and the word was Love.
8. The Man said, “What do you mean, Love, look at this. Why don’t you do that thing that you did last night?”
9. The Woman taught Man the meaning of Negation.
10. In a moment of weakness, the Woman later taught Man the meaning of Persistence.
11. Nine months later, a baby girl was born to the Woman.
12. Tragically, three months later, the baby died.
13. After much grieving and blaming, the Man decided that, if there was an Effect, there must be a Cause.
14. The Woman said, “Hmmm?” and folded her arms inquisitively.
15. The Man thought that, even though the Effect was Visible, the Cause must be Invisible.
16. The Man decided that the Cause must be something Perfect and that all People must be Imperfect.
17. People must be Bad and this other thing must be Good.
18. The Man suggested that the Good Thing should be called God and that God would be a Man.
19. The Woman objected, because she was a Good Thing and, up until then, the Man had called her a Goddess.
20. The Man consulted other Men, and decided to establish a Church that could defeat the arguments of the Goddesses.
21. In time, the Church oppressed not just Women, but Men as well.
22. Men started to question the existence of God and the authority of the Church.
23. Some Men wondered whether they should respect and worship Women instead of God.
24. “Don’t be fricken stupid,” said their male friends.
25. Men started to believe in one thing and one thing only, and that was their Consciousness.
26. Women looked at these Men and said, “What about us, what about the kids, what about real life?”
27. The Men said, “You do not exist. I am complete, unto myself.”
28. The Women looked at each other and said, “I told you they were fricken stupid.”
29. One of the Women said, “If we wait, maybe they will come around to our point of view?”
30. The other Women looked at her and said, “Are you fricken stupid?”
31. One of the Women said, “I think it’s time for some Music.”
32. One of the other Women said, “Do you think that we can sort this out while the Music is playing?’
33. All of the other Women looked at her and said, “Are you fricken stupid?”
Image: André Carrilho, New York Times
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE
Turning Your Back on Love
Love is not an express concern of Lavine, although it is something I started to wonder about as I read the book.
The earlier Philosophers were concerned with ethical questions about how to live a Good Life and how to be Happy.
Even now, if we want to think about these issues, the thoughts of the early Philosophers are just as valid and influential as they have been at any point in history, perhaps because it’s not possible to improve on what they said.
Possibly because they did their job so well, the concerns of Philosophy appeared to move on.
An early concern was the relationship between the Individual and God (or the Gods).
Similarly, the relationship between the Individual and the State became a concern.
Ultimately, the area of Philosophy which has attracted the most academic interest and continued to change or develop the most has been Metaphysics, which concerns the nature of Being and the relationship between the Individual and the World.
One reason for the developments was the influence of scientific theories and discoveries on the concept of Mind.
I Have Only My Self to Blame
My reading of the Philosophy described by Lavine was that it became increasingly abstract and focused on individual Consciousness, almost to the point of Solipsism (the belief that only your own mind is sure to exist).
Within this framework, there is only the Self, and Consciousness reigns.
The focus of Philosophy seems to have become the Self, in isolation.
Relational Philosophy
What has fallen by the wayside is any philosophical interest in relationships between the Individual or Self (on the one hand) and God, the State and other People (on the other hand).
Even Ethics seems to have perished, because the Individual has become the source of all value in substitution for Society.
I, the Individual, need only act in my own self-interest.
So, what has gone missing is any philosophical interest in Love and/or what I will call Fraternity (or Social Harmony), the relationship between People.
“We” have ceased to be of interest to Philosophy, only “I” am its concern.
What follows below are some speculative extrapolations on the views of the key Philosophers discussed by Lavine.
Descartes
While reading Lavine on Descartes, I felt that he was too analytical and was determined to place concepts and things in boxes.
At the risk of oversimplifying Descartes, what seemed to be missing was the relationship between the separate concepts or things or boxes.
While he still used a concept of cause and effect, there was no sense of dynamism.
There was no sense that sunburn is the reaction of one thing (the skin of the Self) to another thing (the sun).
Hume
By the time you get to Hume, the sensory takes over. Except that it becomes almost an over-reaction to the lack of relationship in Descartes.
The relationship between two concepts or things is all. The sensory is all.
What is missing in the case of Hume is the Self or the “I”.
Hume almost seems to argue that there is no ongoing "I" or Self or Ego, that we are constantly changing packages or buckets of sensory reactions or relationships.
I am what I feel. I feel therefore I am.
Except the "I" is different from the "I" of Descartes.
There is no sense of myself with which I can identify with.
So at this point in Lavine, something in me wanted to put the "I" back in the Self or Identity.
We are not just an aggregate of reactions or relationships.
There is a Self and there is an Other. There is an I and there is a You.
There is You, I and our Relationship or sensory experience of each other (of Each Other).
In other words, there is Love, but it is Love between two discrete People.
Descartes focussed on boxes. Hume focussed on sensory experience.
The synthesis is to come up with heart-shaped boxes that relate to each other.
Philosophy must make room for Love.
Hegel
By the time we get to Hegel, the relation of one Individual to another starts off as a Master and Slave Dialectic, the ultimate Stranger Danger, in which the two engage in a Struggle unto Death.
There is no sense of two warriors raising their open hands in a gesture of peace or two people falling in love at first sight.
The relationship is intrinsically suspicious and antagonistic. The two are a Negation of each other.
The exception for Hegel is the Family, in which the Individual is a Member, as opposed to an independent person.
Love, within the Family, is the Mind’s feeling or sense of its own Unity.
This sense of Unity or Oneness is something that the Individual cannot have in the broader Community.
Marx
Marx describes Love as a passion that undermines Tranquility.
Yet, he also seemed to view mutual Love as a condition that should be aspired to:
"If you love without evoking love in return — that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent — a misfortune."
Sartre
Sartre sees Love in similar negative terms to Hegel.
In all relationships, we either enslave the Other or the Other enslaves us.
Lavine’s section on Sartre finishes on this note, although in the final section on the Contemporary Philosophical Scene she analyses Sartre’s conversion to Marxism as an embrace of the social and an attempt to find a form of Humanism in Existentialism.
It’s interesting that, when France was occupied by Germany and the French people were oppressed by the German forces, Sartre turned to a philosophy of Fraternity and Engagement to help overthrow the Germans.
Making Our Own Way From Negation to Elation
The remainder of the book discusses Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
It is more overtly concerned with developments in the understanding of the working of the Mind and Consciousness.
Thus, it retreats from concepts that hint at, or would allow us to construct, a Social Philosophy and a Philosophy of Love.
Because these are not central concerns of Lavine, we never get to hear what she would have thought about these concepts, at least not in this book.
So, we are left alone, on our own, together.
We have to create our own Philosophy of Love.
My Love.
PHILOSOPHY FOR LEMONHEADS:
Musical Interlewd:
It’s impossible to understand Philosophy in the 21st century without being intimate with the lyrics of Evan Dando of the Lemonheads.
But first, check out these songs:
”Being Around”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNvXRJ...
”Big Gay Heart”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Fybv...
”It's About Time”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3B0CS...
”Bit Part”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca6N9F...
See what I mean, now how am I going to refocus you on Philosophy? Well, with a Glossary, only this is no common or garden variety Glossary.
A Glossary of Country and Western Philosophy (According to Evan Dando with a little help from Gram Parsons)
Bodyism
“If I was your body, would you still wear clothes?”
Boogerism
“If I was a booger, would you blow your nose?”
Exhibitionism
“I'm just trying really hard to make you notice me being around.”
Hedonism
“I don't need you to suck my dick or to help me feel good about myself.”
Logical Positivism
“If you can find a way to add it up, it might be hard, but it might be enough.”
Negativism
“ Nobody, nobody has got no one to go to.”
Nihilism
“They always go bye the bye. The great big no. The great big no.”
Objectivism
“Why can't you look after yourself and not down on me?”
Rationalism
“I'm just trying to give myself a reason for being around.”
Relativism
“It's about time.”
Sado-Masochism
“I'd be grateful, I'd be satisfied.”
Solipsism
“Take a look into some big grey eyes and ask yourself
You wanna make 'em cry?
Lookin' out of them it's just as well
But you're gonna live to see I'm gonna ask you why.”
Utilitarianism
“Do you have to try to piss me off just 'cause I'm easy to please?”
PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE WITH A FRIEND:
Friend:
Philosophy is the art and science of understanding the Invisible.
DJ Ian:
If you can't see it, how do you know it exists? How do you know it's there?
Friend:
Philosophy is like friends. The absence of a friend does not mean that they are not there or that they are not your friend.
Sextus Propertius:
Always toward absent lovers, love's tide stronger flows.
DJ Ian:
Thanks, Sextus...Sextus? Are you still there? Sextus?
Sextus Propertius:
Yes, Ian. Calm down, I'm still here. I just had my headphones up a bit loud.
DJ Ian:
What were you listening to?
Sextus Propertius:
R.E.M. I really love that band.
SOUNDTRACK:
R.E.M. - "I Believe" [from the album "Lifes Rich Pageant"]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umIMoy...
Buzzcocks - "I Believe"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmGvG7...
Magazine - "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfTqrQ...
Magazine - "Believe That I Understand"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...A Hundred Years of Philosophy
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4p8qx...
THE LAST OF THE GREAT METAPHYSICAL POETS
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
Lennon/McCartney
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time - It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
A Trainspotter's Guide to the Beatles Video
At 2:22, we see the back of a beautiful shirt. At 2:39, we see who is wearing it.
PLATO? ARISTOTLE?? SOCRATES??? MORONS!!!
The Princess Bride - Battle of Wits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6iUg2...
Sometimes it's easier to write a song than to read (and understand) Philosophy...
The Philosophers’ Song
Though Plato drank lots of expensive red wine
He could faithfully draw a Divided Line,
Work a Tripartite Soul into his story
And turn a Cave into an Allegory.
René Descartes knew when it was time to drink
He could not be, unless he was fit to think
Skepticism led to Self-Evident Truth
And a World with Mechanical Attributes.
Young David Hume was a well-meaning critter
The Empiricist learned, after a bitter,
It’s not Logic that guides all of our Actions
Reason itself is a slave of the Passions.
The Ideal form of a red wine and bagel
Appealed to German philosopher Hegel
While all History is Dialectical,
His Spirits were Phenomenological.
Revolutionary vision made Marx see red
So much so that Hegel was turned on his head
And Dialectical Materialists
Revolted, forever, German Idealists.
Jean Paul Sartre defined Existentialism
As the ultimate form of Humanism
He proved he was capable of Joie de Vivre
By not asking Simone de Beauvoir to leave.
METAPHYSICAL GRAFITTI:
Monty Python - "The Bruces' Philosophers’ Song" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJ...
Monty Python - "Philosophy Football: Germany vs. Greece" [Live at the Hollywood Bowl]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGS...
Thanks to Kris for reminding me about these performances.
Male Philosophy Student and Metaphysical Poet Seeks Indie Girl with Bob Haircut
I think, I hope
That I could be
What you long for
In a lover.
AN APPENDED REVIEW:
The Position of the Mission
I read this book as part of a private mission to acquire an historical context within which to do some more focused philosophical reading.
I never studied philosophy as a discrete subject or course. Instead, my background was in political philosophy and ideology.
I studied Modern Political Thought and the Theory and Practice of Marxism.
Later, I did some undergraduate studies in Semiotics through the French Department, which also gave me some access to Structuralism.
Modern Political Thought was Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Marxism was Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and various Euro-Communists.
I now feel frustrated that I only ever read Hegel through the eyes of Marx.
One of the goals of my mission is to better understand Hegel with a different set of eyes. Another is to better understand the implications of Marx turning Hegel on his head.
But ultimately, I wanted to understand how both Hegel and Marx fit into the History of Western Philosophy, including the period since Marx’ death.
I didn’t choose this work by Lavine for any reason other than the fact that I found a second hand copy for $4.50.
This is half the cost of a good glass of wine or beer, but I gained a lot more pleasure out of this book (and I still get to have a drink).
The Form
The title of the book says something of its scope. However, in truth, it’s a bit misleading.
Sixteen philosophers feature in the overview, only six of them have sections dedicated to them, and Socrates isn’t one of them.
Here is the list, with the six in bold:
Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Husserl, Heidgger, Wittgenstein.
Fans of Philosophy or Monty Python might quibble about the choice or the on-ground time of members of this squad, but ultimately I really enjoyed this primer.
The Substance
Up until the sections on Sartre and the back three, Lavine summarises the tenets of each philosopher’s work in an accessible manner, but also in a way that builds a 1,200 year narrative out of intensely conceived and projected philosophical memes.
The book isn’t just a personal race, an individual marathon, but a relay, with philosophers passing the baton across decades and centuries, until Lavine, their proxy, reaches us and places the baton in our hand, from which point, we’re supposed to think and be and do.
Maybe this analogy is a bit artificial, one that Lavine might not have related to, but her achievement has been to turn what could have been a dry topic into something that a larger audience could relate to.
In other words, if you’re a literary reader who’s happy to skim la crème de la crème, this isn’t a bad place to start.
The Spirit Leveller
My main reservation is the sections on Sartre and contemporaneous trends like Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
Up until Sartre, she structured each chapter in short succinct paragraphs, often with numbered arguments.
When she arrives at Sartre, the paragraphs are longer, as if she has swallowed, but not digested, and just regurgitated, material that she did not personally relate to.
Synthesis
So for me, this book is a great overview of philosophy up to Sartre in the sense that he built on both Kierkegaard and Marx, but we will need to supplement it with something else that deals with subsequent movements.
Further Reading
I might start here:
A Hundred Years of Philosophy
AN UPENDED REVIEW:
Homo Logico-Philosophicus ("The Philosophic Conquest" or "The Attractatus of a Man for a Woman: A Thesis in 33 Sexual Propositions")
1. In the beginning, there was a Man.
2. Because there was nothing much else around or in his head, he was surrounded by Empiricism.
3. Just when Man had got his head around Empiricism, a Woman turned up.
4. From his dick, the Man heard a word, and the word was Lust.
5. When asked to put this thing there, the Woman had no logical reason to object.
6. The Man thought he had discovered the Good Life.
7. The next morning, there was a new word, and the word was Love.
8. The Man said, “What do you mean, Love, look at this. Why don’t you do that thing that you did last night?”
9. The Woman taught Man the meaning of Negation.
10. In a moment of weakness, the Woman later taught Man the meaning of Persistence.
11. Nine months later, a baby girl was born to the Woman.
12. Tragically, three months later, the baby died.
13. After much grieving and blaming, the Man decided that, if there was an Effect, there must be a Cause.
14. The Woman said, “Hmmm?” and folded her arms inquisitively.
15. The Man thought that, even though the Effect was Visible, the Cause must be Invisible.
16. The Man decided that the Cause must be something Perfect and that all People must be Imperfect.
17. People must be Bad and this other thing must be Good.
18. The Man suggested that the Good Thing should be called God and that God would be a Man.
19. The Woman objected, because she was a Good Thing and, up until then, the Man had called her a Goddess.
20. The Man consulted other Men, and decided to establish a Church that could defeat the arguments of the Goddesses.
21. In time, the Church oppressed not just Women, but Men as well.
22. Men started to question the existence of God and the authority of the Church.
23. Some Men wondered whether they should respect and worship Women instead of God.
24. “Don’t be fricken stupid,” said their male friends.
25. Men started to believe in one thing and one thing only, and that was their Consciousness.
26. Women looked at these Men and said, “What about us, what about the kids, what about real life?”
27. The Men said, “You do not exist. I am complete, unto myself.”
28. The Women looked at each other and said, “I told you they were fricken stupid.”
29. One of the Women said, “If we wait, maybe they will come around to our point of view?”
30. The other Women looked at her and said, “Are you fricken stupid?”
31. One of the Women said, “I think it’s time for some Music.”
32. One of the other Women said, “Do you think that we can sort this out while the Music is playing?’
33. All of the other Women looked at her and said, “Are you fricken stupid?”
Image: André Carrilho, New York Times
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE
Turning Your Back on Love
Love is not an express concern of Lavine, although it is something I started to wonder about as I read the book.
The earlier Philosophers were concerned with ethical questions about how to live a Good Life and how to be Happy.
Even now, if we want to think about these issues, the thoughts of the early Philosophers are just as valid and influential as they have been at any point in history, perhaps because it’s not possible to improve on what they said.
Possibly because they did their job so well, the concerns of Philosophy appeared to move on.
An early concern was the relationship between the Individual and God (or the Gods).
Similarly, the relationship between the Individual and the State became a concern.
Ultimately, the area of Philosophy which has attracted the most academic interest and continued to change or develop the most has been Metaphysics, which concerns the nature of Being and the relationship between the Individual and the World.
One reason for the developments was the influence of scientific theories and discoveries on the concept of Mind.
I Have Only My Self to Blame
My reading of the Philosophy described by Lavine was that it became increasingly abstract and focused on individual Consciousness, almost to the point of Solipsism (the belief that only your own mind is sure to exist).
Within this framework, there is only the Self, and Consciousness reigns.
The focus of Philosophy seems to have become the Self, in isolation.
Relational Philosophy
What has fallen by the wayside is any philosophical interest in relationships between the Individual or Self (on the one hand) and God, the State and other People (on the other hand).
Even Ethics seems to have perished, because the Individual has become the source of all value in substitution for Society.
I, the Individual, need only act in my own self-interest.
So, what has gone missing is any philosophical interest in Love and/or what I will call Fraternity (or Social Harmony), the relationship between People.
“We” have ceased to be of interest to Philosophy, only “I” am its concern.
What follows below are some speculative extrapolations on the views of the key Philosophers discussed by Lavine.
Descartes
While reading Lavine on Descartes, I felt that he was too analytical and was determined to place concepts and things in boxes.
At the risk of oversimplifying Descartes, what seemed to be missing was the relationship between the separate concepts or things or boxes.
While he still used a concept of cause and effect, there was no sense of dynamism.
There was no sense that sunburn is the reaction of one thing (the skin of the Self) to another thing (the sun).
Hume
By the time you get to Hume, the sensory takes over. Except that it becomes almost an over-reaction to the lack of relationship in Descartes.
The relationship between two concepts or things is all. The sensory is all.
What is missing in the case of Hume is the Self or the “I”.
Hume almost seems to argue that there is no ongoing "I" or Self or Ego, that we are constantly changing packages or buckets of sensory reactions or relationships.
I am what I feel. I feel therefore I am.
Except the "I" is different from the "I" of Descartes.
There is no sense of myself with which I can identify with.
So at this point in Lavine, something in me wanted to put the "I" back in the Self or Identity.
We are not just an aggregate of reactions or relationships.
There is a Self and there is an Other. There is an I and there is a You.
There is You, I and our Relationship or sensory experience of each other (of Each Other).
In other words, there is Love, but it is Love between two discrete People.
Descartes focussed on boxes. Hume focussed on sensory experience.
The synthesis is to come up with heart-shaped boxes that relate to each other.
Philosophy must make room for Love.
Hegel
By the time we get to Hegel, the relation of one Individual to another starts off as a Master and Slave Dialectic, the ultimate Stranger Danger, in which the two engage in a Struggle unto Death.
There is no sense of two warriors raising their open hands in a gesture of peace or two people falling in love at first sight.
The relationship is intrinsically suspicious and antagonistic. The two are a Negation of each other.
The exception for Hegel is the Family, in which the Individual is a Member, as opposed to an independent person.
Love, within the Family, is the Mind’s feeling or sense of its own Unity.
This sense of Unity or Oneness is something that the Individual cannot have in the broader Community.
Marx
Marx describes Love as a passion that undermines Tranquility.
Yet, he also seemed to view mutual Love as a condition that should be aspired to:
"If you love without evoking love in return — that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent — a misfortune."
Sartre
Sartre sees Love in similar negative terms to Hegel.
In all relationships, we either enslave the Other or the Other enslaves us.
Lavine’s section on Sartre finishes on this note, although in the final section on the Contemporary Philosophical Scene she analyses Sartre’s conversion to Marxism as an embrace of the social and an attempt to find a form of Humanism in Existentialism.
It’s interesting that, when France was occupied by Germany and the French people were oppressed by the German forces, Sartre turned to a philosophy of Fraternity and Engagement to help overthrow the Germans.
Making Our Own Way From Negation to Elation
The remainder of the book discusses Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy.
It is more overtly concerned with developments in the understanding of the working of the Mind and Consciousness.
Thus, it retreats from concepts that hint at, or would allow us to construct, a Social Philosophy and a Philosophy of Love.
Because these are not central concerns of Lavine, we never get to hear what she would have thought about these concepts, at least not in this book.
So, we are left alone, on our own, together.
We have to create our own Philosophy of Love.
My Love.
PHILOSOPHY FOR LEMONHEADS:
Musical Interlewd:
It’s impossible to understand Philosophy in the 21st century without being intimate with the lyrics of Evan Dando of the Lemonheads.
But first, check out these songs:
”Being Around”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNvXRJ...
”Big Gay Heart”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Fybv...
”It's About Time”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3B0CS...
”Bit Part”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca6N9F...
See what I mean, now how am I going to refocus you on Philosophy? Well, with a Glossary, only this is no common or garden variety Glossary.
A Glossary of Country and Western Philosophy (According to Evan Dando with a little help from Gram Parsons)
Bodyism
“If I was your body, would you still wear clothes?”
Boogerism
“If I was a booger, would you blow your nose?”
Exhibitionism
“I'm just trying really hard to make you notice me being around.”
Hedonism
“I don't need you to suck my dick or to help me feel good about myself.”
Logical Positivism
“If you can find a way to add it up, it might be hard, but it might be enough.”
Negativism
“ Nobody, nobody has got no one to go to.”
Nihilism
“They always go bye the bye. The great big no. The great big no.”
Objectivism
“Why can't you look after yourself and not down on me?”
Rationalism
“I'm just trying to give myself a reason for being around.”
Relativism
“It's about time.”
Sado-Masochism
“I'd be grateful, I'd be satisfied.”
Solipsism
“Take a look into some big grey eyes and ask yourself
You wanna make 'em cry?
Lookin' out of them it's just as well
But you're gonna live to see I'm gonna ask you why.”
Utilitarianism
“Do you have to try to piss me off just 'cause I'm easy to please?”
PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE WITH A FRIEND:
Friend:
Philosophy is the art and science of understanding the Invisible.
DJ Ian:
If you can't see it, how do you know it exists? How do you know it's there?
Friend:
Philosophy is like friends. The absence of a friend does not mean that they are not there or that they are not your friend.
Sextus Propertius:
Always toward absent lovers, love's tide stronger flows.
DJ Ian:
Thanks, Sextus...Sextus? Are you still there? Sextus?
Sextus Propertius:
Yes, Ian. Calm down, I'm still here. I just had my headphones up a bit loud.
DJ Ian:
What were you listening to?
Sextus Propertius:
R.E.M. I really love that band.
SOUNDTRACK:
R.E.M. - "I Believe" [from the album "Lifes Rich Pageant"]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umIMoy...
Buzzcocks - "I Believe"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmGvG7...
Magazine - "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfTqrQ...
Magazine - "Believe That I Understand"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...A Hundred Years of Philosophy
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4p8qx...
THE LAST OF THE GREAT METAPHYSICAL POETS
Beatles - "All You Need is Love"
Lennon/McCartney
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time - It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
A Trainspotter's Guide to the Beatles Video
At 2:22, we see the back of a beautiful shirt. At 2:39, we see who is wearing it.
PLATO? ARISTOTLE?? SOCRATES??? MORONS!!!
The Princess Bride - Battle of Wits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6iUg2...
Read
May 7, 2020این کتاب رو میتونم صراحتا یکی از منابع نسبتا خوب برای فهم فلسفه عصر روشنگری و مدرن بدونم کمااینکه بخش اول کتاب مختص به سقراط و افلاطون هست. کتاب ترجمه خوبی داره نسبتا و قابل فهم برای افرادی هست که میخوان در مورد فلسفه و نظریات فلاسفه مدرن بیشتر آشنا بشن. یکی از جنبه های مثبت کتاب در این است که در انتهای هر بخش نویسنده یکسری پرسش هایی مطرح میکنه که خود دنباله روی بخش بعدی هست و پرسش به سوالات رو میشه در بخش های بعدی جستجو کرد، از دیگر جنبه های مثبت کتاب میتونم بگم هر بخش به بخش قبلی خود متصل است مثلا، بخش نظریات و تفکرات مارکس رو میشه به هگل نسبت داد و نظریات سارتر رو در گروی فلسفه مارکس میشه پیدا کرد ، البته این منبع کاملی برای فهم کل فلسفه از ابتدا تا دوره معاصر نیست البته کمک کننده به فهم این گذاره هست، چون تمام فیلسوفان رو مورد بررسی کامل قرار نمیده.
در انتها میخوام در مورد بخش ششم و آخر بگم، فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسم که کرکه گور از پیشگامان این فلسفه محسوب میشه. نظر کرکه گور در مورد بی معنایی زندگی و اینکه هستی انسان از بدو تولد با دلهره و دلمردگی گره خورده و انسان همواره تلاش میکند خود را برای رسیدن به خوشبختی نجات دهد، این خوشبختی تنها در گروی ایمان به خدای مطلق فراهم میشود در صورتی که تفکر متقابل کرکه گور، نیچه بر این باور است که نومیدی در انسان سبب از دست رفتن ایمان مطلق میشود و انسان مدرن با از دست دادن ایمان به خدا ارزش و حقیقت خود را از دست میدهد. ( در اینجا اشاره به یکی از فیلم های اینگمار برگمن میکنم که دیدنش خالی از لطف نیست، فیلمی که تمام مولفه های اگزیستانسیالیستی رو داراست، /winter light یا نور زمستانی)نیچه فیلسوفی که مرگ خدا را به معنای مرگ اعتقاد به خدا میداند.اعتقاد به( ابرانسان) شدن انسان در فلسفه نیچه شاید منشاء بسیاری از حاکمان در دوره تاریخی باشد، همچنان که شکلگیری حکومت فاشیستی در آلمان در دهه 40 میلادی رو بتوان نوعی حکومت برگرفته از فلسفه نیچه دانست. در ادامه با نظریات سارتر آشنا میشویم انسان مدرن، انسان شی شده در جهان مادی، انسانی از خودبیگانه، انسان محکوم به آزادی. یکی از مولفه های نظریه سارتر ( تقدم وجود بر ماهیت) است. آنچنان که میگوید(،من چونان وجود آگاه " ماهیت" خودم را تنها به واسطه گزینش های موقت و گذرای آنچه دوست دارم بشوم تعیین میکنم).انسان مختار، انکار هر اصول یا آرمان چونان مبنایی برای انتخاب اخلاقی، آگاه بودن چونان شی عینی یا همان درک خود براساس فهم دیگری، اینهاهمه در اندیشه سارتر نمایان است. در انتها کتاب در مورد فلسفه زبانگرا توضیح داده، فلسفه ایی که پایه گذار فلسفه تحلیلی و بر گرفته از نظریات فیلسوف تجربه گرا و هیوم است.
در انتها میخوام در مورد بخش ششم و آخر بگم، فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسم که کرکه گور از پیشگامان این فلسفه محسوب میشه. نظر کرکه گور در مورد بی معنایی زندگی و اینکه هستی انسان از بدو تولد با دلهره و دلمردگی گره خورده و انسان همواره تلاش میکند خود را برای رسیدن به خوشبختی نجات دهد، این خوشبختی تنها در گروی ایمان به خدای مطلق فراهم میشود در صورتی که تفکر متقابل کرکه گور، نیچه بر این باور است که نومیدی در انسان سبب از دست رفتن ایمان مطلق میشود و انسان مدرن با از دست دادن ایمان به خدا ارزش و حقیقت خود را از دست میدهد. ( در اینجا اشاره به یکی از فیلم های اینگمار برگمن میکنم که دیدنش خالی از لطف نیست، فیلمی که تمام مولفه های اگزیستانسیالیستی رو داراست، /winter light یا نور زمستانی)نیچه فیلسوفی که مرگ خدا را به معنای مرگ اعتقاد به خدا میداند.اعتقاد به( ابرانسان) شدن انسان در فلسفه نیچه شاید منشاء بسیاری از حاکمان در دوره تاریخی باشد، همچنان که شکلگیری حکومت فاشیستی در آلمان در دهه 40 میلادی رو بتوان نوعی حکومت برگرفته از فلسفه نیچه دانست. در ادامه با نظریات سارتر آشنا میشویم انسان مدرن، انسان شی شده در جهان مادی، انسانی از خودبیگانه، انسان محکوم به آزادی. یکی از مولفه های نظریه سارتر ( تقدم وجود بر ماهیت) است. آنچنان که میگوید(،من چونان وجود آگاه " ماهیت" خودم را تنها به واسطه گزینش های موقت و گذرای آنچه دوست دارم بشوم تعیین میکنم).انسان مختار، انکار هر اصول یا آرمان چونان مبنایی برای انتخاب اخلاقی، آگاه بودن چونان شی عینی یا همان درک خود براساس فهم دیگری، اینهاهمه در اندیشه سارتر نمایان است. در انتها کتاب در مورد فلسفه زبانگرا توضیح داده، فلسفه ایی که پایه گذار فلسفه تحلیلی و بر گرفته از نظریات فیلسوف تجربه گرا و هیوم است.
August 21, 2015
استعنت بهذا الكتاب في دراستي وقد استفدت منه كثيراً خاصة في معالجته لفكرة العلية عند ديفيد هيوم
وأيضاً تحليله لفلسفة كيركيجور وسارتر ..
قيمته بـ 5 نجمات للمعلومات المميزة التي وردت به
وكذلك لاسلوب العرض المميز غير المُلل علي الإطلاق ..
فجميل للغاية أن ينتقي لك الكاتب أهم وأجمل الأفكار الفلسفية
دون تطويل أو حشو زائد ..
August 28, 2011
So, you want to have a working understanding of Western philosophy, but you don't have the time or energy to read everything that's come out since Plato? Check this book out. Thorough without being overwhelming, the author walks the reader along as though by the hand: difficult concepts are well explained and some light-hearted passages reveal that even philosophers are human.
March 6, 2011
Thelma Lavine died about a week ago, and I realize that this book by one of my favorite professors was not included on my Goodreads list. Both her inspiring philosophy of lit class that I took at GW and her pbs series about this book are marked indelibly in my memory. A great teacher has left our midst but not our hearts and minds.
July 16, 2011
As the name shows. It is a Philosophic Quest. In case this will be your first philosophical book, then I will recommend to read, Sophie's World first.
August 1, 2025
মার্কিন লেখিকা Lavin এর এই বই বেশ বিখ্যাত। আশির দশকে টিভি সিরিজ হয়েছে এর থেকে। লেখিকা সক্রেটিস থেকে শুরু করে কান্ট হিউম হেগেল হয়ে সার্ত্রে পর্যন্ত দর্শনের একটি ধারাবাহিক বিবরণী দিয়েছেন সাধারণ আমজনতার কথা মাথায় রেখে। ভাষা প্রাঞ্জল, মোটামুটি সুৃখপাঠ্য। তবে দর্শনের এই ইতিহাস নিরপেক্ষ লাগেনি আমার কাছে। ন্যারাটিভের ফাঁকে ফাঁকে লেখিকার নাক উচুঁ মন্তব্যগুলো আমার কেমন যেনো লেগেছে। বিশেষ করে মার্ক্স আর সার্ত্রকে নিয়ে বেশ মন্তব্যগুলো দৃষ্টিকটু লেগেছে। যাইহোক দর্শনের শুরুর দিকের পাঠকেরা ট্রাই করতে পারেন।
(২.৫/৫)*
(২.৫/৫)*
April 23, 2020
شاید 5 ستاره دادن به این کتاب از نظر دوستانی که فلسفه خوان هستن کمی زیاده روی باشه . ولی من به این دلیل به این کتاب بالاترین امتیاز رو می دم چون شخصا نه اطلاعات زیادی درباره فلسفه دارم و نه علاقه ی آنچنانی . ولی از سالیان دور علاقه داشتم در بعضی زمینه ها مثل فلسفه و علم و هنر اطلاعاتی داشته باشم برا همین شروع به خوندن تاریخ علم و فلسفه و هنر کردم . برای من این کتاب خیلی مفید بود . چون هم شیوایی خاصی داشت و پر بود از مثال هایی و زوایایی از زندگی فلاسفه و سختی هایی که کشیدن و این برای من بیشتر جذاب بود تا تز و ایده ی فکری فلسفی شون . و هم به دور از قضاوت کردن و بررسی و تحلیل های خاصی بود که اغلب کتاب های فلسفی م��ناسب با مولفش دارا هستند.
من حتی الان هم بعد نزدیک 1 سال از خوندن کتاب گاهی که لازم باشه به یاداشت ها و نُت هایی که حین خوندن کتاب برداشتم مراجعه می کنم و ازشون استفاده می کنم که از این نظر هم تبدیلش می کنه به یه کتابِ به اصطلاح hand book
اگه دوست دارید شناخت کلی وجامعه ای از فلسفه و فیلسوفان بزرگی که شاید در زمان حیات خودشون هم نادیده گرفته شدن برسید و یا داستان مبارزه هاشون برای تثبیت نظرشون به عنوان یه سرفصل جدید در فلسفه آشنا بشید . پیشنهاد می دم این کتاب رو حتما بخونید .
من حتی الان هم بعد نزدیک 1 سال از خوندن کتاب گاهی که لازم باشه به یاداشت ها و نُت هایی که حین خوندن کتاب برداشتم مراجعه می کنم و ازشون استفاده می کنم که از این نظر هم تبدیلش می کنه به یه کتابِ به اصطلاح hand book
اگه دوست دارید شناخت کلی وجامعه ای از فلسفه و فیلسوفان بزرگی که شاید در زمان حیات خودشون هم نادیده گرفته شدن برسید و یا داستان مبارزه هاشون برای تثبیت نظرشون به عنوان یه سرفصل جدید در فلسفه آشنا بشید . پیشنهاد می دم این کتاب رو حتما بخونید .
December 31, 2021
Made notes. Took an eternity. Halfway into Russell's History of Philosophy, I took up this one. T.Z. Lavine puts Russell to shame.
June 16, 2016
This was exactly the book I was looking for after years of aimlessly reading philosophy and being exposed to it only superficially in school. I was familiar with the thought of a few philosophers and had a very general chronology in my head, but I wanted to start a more serious study by first reading an overview of Western philosophy. This book was exactly that.
There are seven parts: Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Sartre, and Contemporary Philosophy. In between discussion of each man's philosophy are details about his life, the conflicts of his time and location, and how his thought both affected and was affected by these circumstances. Lavine transitions from one section to the next by using these details as well as including other philosophers as transitional figures; examples include Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Husserl. This was useful because it provided only the information necessary to understand a transition, but also gave the reader a specific name or movement or ideology to search for later if he or she would like more details.
The end of each section was useful in a similar way, including a list of books relevant to that section for further reading. These lists include both works by the person being discussed as well as books critiquing those works. At the end of the entire book is another list like this, a brief glossary, and an index. The book is also easy to read, obviously made for simple folk such as myself, and conveniently broken into many relatively short chapters, i.e. for those who are busy, it is a good book to read in many short sittings; it is not necessary to sit and read 50 pages consecutively to get an idea as seems to be the case with some philosophy books.
As I said, it was just what I was looking for. I am now using it as a branching off point, and will keep it to reference basic ideas I'm sure I will have forgotten.
There are seven parts: Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Sartre, and Contemporary Philosophy. In between discussion of each man's philosophy are details about his life, the conflicts of his time and location, and how his thought both affected and was affected by these circumstances. Lavine transitions from one section to the next by using these details as well as including other philosophers as transitional figures; examples include Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Husserl. This was useful because it provided only the information necessary to understand a transition, but also gave the reader a specific name or movement or ideology to search for later if he or she would like more details.
The end of each section was useful in a similar way, including a list of books relevant to that section for further reading. These lists include both works by the person being discussed as well as books critiquing those works. At the end of the entire book is another list like this, a brief glossary, and an index. The book is also easy to read, obviously made for simple folk such as myself, and conveniently broken into many relatively short chapters, i.e. for those who are busy, it is a good book to read in many short sittings; it is not necessary to sit and read 50 pages consecutively to get an idea as seems to be the case with some philosophy books.
As I said, it was just what I was looking for. I am now using it as a branching off point, and will keep it to reference basic ideas I'm sure I will have forgotten.
July 21, 2017
مهما نضجت وتقدمت الفلسفات لا بد أن تجد جذورها في الفلسفة اليونانية ، والفلاسفة كذلك لابد أن تجد في عروقهم بقايا سقراط ، افلاطون ، وارسطو ، وهؤلاء الثلاثة يعود بعض الفضل لتقدمهم إلى الفلاسفة الماقبل سقراط .
هكذا هي الفلسفة في حالة تقدم أو حركة مستمرة ، لكنها لم تبدأ من لا شيء ، لا بد أن تكون هنالك فكرة أو بذرة تنطلق منها ، والعودة إلى الوراء جيل بعد جيل لمعرفة مكان او زمان إنبثاق الفلسفة هذا أمر صعب جدًا ، ومن يقول الفلسفة بدأت مع الأغريق أو اليونان هو مخطأ حتمًا .
ومن يقول هنالك فلسفات قامت بالتحليق ، بعيدًا عن الفلسفة اليونانية ، أقول له نعم ، لكنها بالتأكيد قد صنعت طائرتها فوق هذه الأرض التي شُيدت من قبل الفلاسفة الأسبقين .
يبدأ رحلتة هذا الكتاب من الفلسفة الاغريقية أو اليونانية ، وهو جاهلًا هل كانت هنالك فلسفات قبلها أم لا ، وهذا الأمر لم يحسم بسهولة ، لكن الفلسفة بدأت مع سقراط هذه معلومة خاطئة ، هنالك السفسطائيين والفلاسفة الذين يطلق عليهم ما قبل سقراط . فتنتهي الرحلة عند الفلسفة المعاصرة وتحديدًا عند الوجودي جان بول سارتر .
عارضًا لنا أهم الفلاسفة وتأثيرهم على كل عصر
اسلوب الكتاب ممتع وبسيط ، يستطيع الأشخاص الذين لم يدرسوا الفلسفة من الإطلاع علية ومعرفة وفهم مابداخلة ، عكس الكتب الاخرى التي تعاني من الجفاف .
December 30, 2015
পাশ্চাত্য দর্শন চিন্তার ওপর এটা এমন একটা বই, যেটা দর্শনের বিস্তৃতি, দার্শনিকদের চিন্তাভাবনাকে তুলে ধরে একের পর এক করে, এবং সেগুলোর পক্ষে বিপক্ষে ছুঁড়ে দেয় সেই সময়ের প্রেক্ষাপটে অসংখ্য প্রশ্ন, যেগুলো পাঠককে চিন্তায় আচ্ছন্ন করে। প্রতিটি পৃষ্ঠা পড়ার পর পাঠকের বয়স বাড়তে থাকে, বাড়তেই থাকে, তার মনে প্রশ্ন জমা হতেই থাকে, অবশেষে বইটি শেষ হয়, পাঠক অনুভব করে তার হৃদয়ে প্রায় তিন হাজার বছরের "Human spirit" এর বিকাশের একটা ঝলক সে দেখতে পেয়েছে।
এই ঝলকটাকে মর্মে অনুভব করানোর জন্যে ঠিক যেমন বর্ণনাভঙ্গি থাকা প্রয়োজন, দর্শনের মতো আপাতদৃষ্টিতে কাঠখোট্টা একটা বিষয়কে সুলেখক গল্পকারের মতো তুলে ধরার জন্যে ঠিক যেমনভাবে পাঠককে টেনে নেয়া প্রয়োজন, মিস ল্যাভিন ঠিক সেভাবেই কাজটি করেছেন।
এ বইয়ে অনেক কিছুকেই স্পর্শ করা হয়েছে, প্রতিটি দার্শনিকের সময়কালে সংশ্লিষ্ট ভূখণ্ডের অবস্থা, সেখানকার প্রচলিত রাজনৈতিক-অর্থনৈতিক চিন্তাধারা, বিপ্লব-বিক্ষোভের পটভূমি।
এই বইটি পড়লে আপনি জানতে পারবেন: জ্ঞান বিজ্ঞানের প্রতিটি শাখা প্রশাখা কীভাবে পরবর্তীতে একে অন্যের চিন্তাধারা কে প্রভাবিত করে।
যাঁরা দর্শন নিয়ে ভাবতে ভালোবাসেন, অথবা ভাবতে চান, তাঁদের জন্য অবশ্যপাঠ্য।
এই ঝলকটাকে মর্মে অনুভব করানোর জন্যে ঠিক যেমন বর্ণনাভঙ্গি থাকা প্রয়োজন, দর্শনের মতো আপাতদৃষ্টিতে কাঠখোট্টা একটা বিষয়কে সুলেখক গল্পকারের মতো তুলে ধরার জন্যে ঠিক যেমনভাবে পাঠককে টেনে নেয়া প্রয়োজন, মিস ল্যাভিন ঠিক সেভাবেই কাজটি করেছেন।
এ বইয়ে অনেক কিছুকেই স্পর্শ করা হয়েছে, প্রতিটি দার্শনিকের সময়কালে সংশ্লিষ্ট ভূখণ্ডের অবস্থা, সেখানকার প্রচলিত রাজনৈতিক-অর্থনৈতিক চিন্তাধারা, বিপ্লব-বিক্ষোভের পটভূমি।
এই বইটি পড়লে আপনি জানতে পারবেন: জ্ঞান বিজ্ঞানের প্রতিটি শাখা প্রশাখা কীভাবে পরবর্তীতে একে অন্যের চিন্তাধারা কে প্রভাবিত করে।
যাঁরা দর্শন নিয়ে ভাবতে ভালোবাসেন, অথবা ভাবতে চান, তাঁদের জন্য অবশ্যপাঠ্য।
June 5, 2011
I've never read a book that synthesizes so well the different philosophic currents that have existed throughout the ages, and somehow manages to keep them valid from a contemporary point of view at the same time. Thanks to that, I now understand Hume and Hegel much better than I did before. There's also this feeling of urgency that can be perceived as you read, this constant reminder that there's plenty of basis for new philosophies to be born, and that there's even an urgent need for them, since there are only destructive forces nowadays, such as Phenomenology and Linguistic philosophy.
Urgency in philosophy, can you believe that?
The one thing I didn't like about it was how it completely glossed over Schopenhauer, and how it paired up Nietzsche with the Existentialists (those douches).
Urgency in philosophy, can you believe that?
The one thing I didn't like about it was how it completely glossed over Schopenhauer, and how it paired up Nietzsche with the Existentialists (those douches).
February 23, 2024
کتاب راحت و جمع و جوریه.
December 26, 2019
T.Z. Lavine's From Socrates to Sartre is a relatively short history of philosophy that discusses the primary facets of the philosophies of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, and Sartre. These thinkers are connected and strung together via a narrative according to their cultural, political, historical circumstances as well as their ideas.
This book serves as a wonderful collection of highlights and viewpoints of its primary subjects and can be treated as a study guide to readers unfamiliar with philosophy. The text also works well as a brush up for those who are already familiar major philosophical figures. The chapter on Karl Marx is the book's best, and Hegel is treated much better here than in Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, but there are notable shortcomings: Aristotle is distilled to only a few pages, leaving the reader bereft of his historical influence on philosophy hundreds of years after his death; there is no discussion of medieval philosophy, which served as an extension of Aristotle's thought and a catalyst to the Enlightenment of Descartes, et al; and the book's treatment of phenomenology (in particular glossing over Heidegger's tremendous contributions to philosophy and casting them merely as existentialist thought) is sorely wanting. Also, the author's assessment of analytic philosophy's role in modern society is inaccurately measured, and she misses an important opportunity to link linguistic philosophy due to Wittgenstein (derived from the analytic tradition) to important, related work conducted in the Continental tradition a la Heidegger.
However, these shortcomings do little to detract from the work as a whole. The reader may not find anywhere else a more succinct, cogent summary of the primary philosophers discussed therein. Unlike Russell but very much like Flew, Lavine keeps bias at a minimum.
Upon completing the book, one wonders at the other narrative paths Lavine could have taken, other towering figures to focus on. Her narrative, both thoughtful and brilliant, takes the following path: First, a foundation is provided in the ancient tradition by covering Plato -- effectively where all Western philosophy gets its roots -- second, she shifts to the rationalism introduced by Descartes. Third, rationalism is contrasted with the empiricism of Hume. So far, so good, but Lavine throws in a curve ball on the fourth step. Instead of going straight to Kant from Hume, which is typical, she skips to Hegel, who laid the foundation for Marxism, who in turn made an impact on Sartre and all of the 20th century.
Now, Lavine could have chosen Kant instead of Hegel and Bergson, Heidegger, or even William James instead of Sartre, but she decided to focus the latter half of the book on Hegel's lingering influence and on existentialism, a topic of literature more than philosophy today. This choice may be disappointing to some, since Sartre's contemporary influence is minimal and pales in comparison to other existentialists such as Camus or de Beauvoir or larger Continental figures such as Derrida. But I suspect this boils down to personal taste.
In short, if you are ignorant of philosophy or already well informed, this easily digestible introduction is worth your consideration.
This book serves as a wonderful collection of highlights and viewpoints of its primary subjects and can be treated as a study guide to readers unfamiliar with philosophy. The text also works well as a brush up for those who are already familiar major philosophical figures. The chapter on Karl Marx is the book's best, and Hegel is treated much better here than in Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, but there are notable shortcomings: Aristotle is distilled to only a few pages, leaving the reader bereft of his historical influence on philosophy hundreds of years after his death; there is no discussion of medieval philosophy, which served as an extension of Aristotle's thought and a catalyst to the Enlightenment of Descartes, et al; and the book's treatment of phenomenology (in particular glossing over Heidegger's tremendous contributions to philosophy and casting them merely as existentialist thought) is sorely wanting. Also, the author's assessment of analytic philosophy's role in modern society is inaccurately measured, and she misses an important opportunity to link linguistic philosophy due to Wittgenstein (derived from the analytic tradition) to important, related work conducted in the Continental tradition a la Heidegger.
However, these shortcomings do little to detract from the work as a whole. The reader may not find anywhere else a more succinct, cogent summary of the primary philosophers discussed therein. Unlike Russell but very much like Flew, Lavine keeps bias at a minimum.
Upon completing the book, one wonders at the other narrative paths Lavine could have taken, other towering figures to focus on. Her narrative, both thoughtful and brilliant, takes the following path: First, a foundation is provided in the ancient tradition by covering Plato -- effectively where all Western philosophy gets its roots -- second, she shifts to the rationalism introduced by Descartes. Third, rationalism is contrasted with the empiricism of Hume. So far, so good, but Lavine throws in a curve ball on the fourth step. Instead of going straight to Kant from Hume, which is typical, she skips to Hegel, who laid the foundation for Marxism, who in turn made an impact on Sartre and all of the 20th century.
Now, Lavine could have chosen Kant instead of Hegel and Bergson, Heidegger, or even William James instead of Sartre, but she decided to focus the latter half of the book on Hegel's lingering influence and on existentialism, a topic of literature more than philosophy today. This choice may be disappointing to some, since Sartre's contemporary influence is minimal and pales in comparison to other existentialists such as Camus or de Beauvoir or larger Continental figures such as Derrida. But I suspect this boils down to personal taste.
In short, if you are ignorant of philosophy or already well informed, this easily digestible introduction is worth your consideration.
November 26, 2020
فلسفه به چه معناست؟ کارکرد فلسفه در زندگی بشر چیست؟ چرا باید سیر فلسفه را از آغاز تا اکنون مطالعه کرد ؟ فلسفه به معنای دانش دوستی است. به معنای پرسش درباره ی موضوعات اساسی و بنیادی زندگی بشر. فلسفیدن یا فلسفه ورزی میل به تفکر و لذت اندیشدن است و طرح پرسش هایی که گویا تمامی ندارند. ذهن فلسفی با ایجاد پرسش بنیادی در پی پاسخ هایی میگردد که گاها متضاد همدیگرند. و این تضاد باعث ایجاد فضایی انتقادی می شود که سبب رشد اندیشه کسانی می شود که دوستدار یافتن یک زندگی اندیشمندانه هستند.
فلسفه چگونه می تواند زندگی شخص را راحت تر کند؟ آیا اصلا هدف فلسفه یافتن راهکاری برای کمتر رنج کشیدن ماست؟
مهد فلسفه یونان باستان است. سقراط برای اولین بار با طرح سوالات ساده تفکرات بنیادی مردم عادی را زیر سوال برد تا آنها را به فلسفیدن وا دارد.
فلاسفه تاریخ با دیدگاه های متفاوت و از نقطه نظر خود به هستی، این موضوع تا به اکنون لاینحل می نگریستند و راهکار ارائه می دادند. نظراتی که با فلسفه های ارائه شده قبلی متفاوت و شاید حتا متضاد بودند.
اگر به فلاسفه به عنوان ابر قهرمان هایی که جواب تم��م سوال ها را دارند و میتوانند رنج بشر را کم کنند نگاه کنیم، نگاه اشتباه و خامی است.
نمیتوانیم انتظار داشته باشیم با دنبال کردن یک روش تمام گره های زندگی بشر باز شود. اما میتوانم ادعا کنم با مطالعه سیر فلسفه از آغاز تا اکنون و گذاشتن قطعات پازل کنار هم به تصویری گرچه ناواضح اما درستی برسیم که باعث شود اندکی تسلی پیدا کنیم.
هیچ فیلسوفی جواب کامل و درستی برایت نخواهد داشت. این هنر ماست که بتوانیم آن تکه هایی از عقاید شان را که مناسب وجود خودمان است برداریم تا در نهایت به تصویر بهتری گرچه ناواضح است برسیم. و بدانیم که این قاب کامل نخواهد شد...
این کتاب از سقراط تا سارتر می گوید. از فلسفه ای برای همه. و با دیدی انتقادی به عقاید شان نگاه می کند. و با ضعف و قوت دیدگاه شان آشنایت می کند.
پس...
1. با دنبال کردن عقاید یک نفر از آنها نمیتوانی به جواب برسی.( کلن تام و تمام دنبال کردن یک عقیده و یک آدم خطرناک است)
2. فلسفه به مانند یک زنجیره یا یک پیکر است که متصل بهم اند. پس باید با آرا و عقاید تمامشان آشنا شویم و بدون تعصب سعی کنیم به کلیتی موزون و متوازن دست پیدا کنیم.
3. در آخر اصلا چه دلیلی دارد که برای هر چیزی سوال ترتیب دهیم و در پی جواب باشیم؟ :))))
و در آخر شاید راه حل نهایی در این است که بیاندیشیم، بیاندیشیم، بیاندیشیم اما مته به خشخاش نگذاریم :)
فلسفه چگونه می تواند زندگی شخص را راحت تر کند؟ آیا اصلا هدف فلسفه یافتن راهکاری برای کمتر رنج کشیدن ماست؟
مهد فلسفه یونان باستان است. سقراط برای اولین بار با طرح سوالات ساده تفکرات بنیادی مردم عادی را زیر سوال برد تا آنها را به فلسفیدن وا دارد.
فلاسفه تاریخ با دیدگاه های متفاوت و از نقطه نظر خود به هستی، این موضوع تا به اکنون لاینحل می نگریستند و راهکار ارائه می دادند. نظراتی که با فلسفه های ارائه شده قبلی متفاوت و شاید حتا متضاد بودند.
اگر به فلاسفه به عنوان ابر قهرمان هایی که جواب تم��م سوال ها را دارند و میتوانند رنج بشر را کم کنند نگاه کنیم، نگاه اشتباه و خامی است.
نمیتوانیم انتظار داشته باشیم با دنبال کردن یک روش تمام گره های زندگی بشر باز شود. اما میتوانم ادعا کنم با مطالعه سیر فلسفه از آغاز تا اکنون و گذاشتن قطعات پازل کنار هم به تصویری گرچه ناواضح اما درستی برسیم که باعث شود اندکی تسلی پیدا کنیم.
هیچ فیلسوفی جواب کامل و درستی برایت نخواهد داشت. این هنر ماست که بتوانیم آن تکه هایی از عقاید شان را که مناسب وجود خودمان است برداریم تا در نهایت به تصویر بهتری گرچه ناواضح است برسیم. و بدانیم که این قاب کامل نخواهد شد...
این کتاب از سقراط تا سارتر می گوید. از فلسفه ای برای همه. و با دیدی انتقادی به عقاید شان نگاه می کند. و با ضعف و قوت دیدگاه شان آشنایت می کند.
پس...
1. با دنبال کردن عقاید یک نفر از آنها نمیتوانی به جواب برسی.( کلن تام و تمام دنبال کردن یک عقیده و یک آدم خطرناک است)
2. فلسفه به مانند یک زنجیره یا یک پیکر است که متصل بهم اند. پس باید با آرا و عقاید تمامشان آشنا شویم و بدون تعصب سعی کنیم به کلیتی موزون و متوازن دست پیدا کنیم.
3. در آخر اصلا چه دلیلی دارد که برای هر چیزی سوال ترتیب دهیم و در پی جواب باشیم؟ :))))
و در آخر شاید راه حل نهایی در این است که بیاندیشیم، بیاندیشیم، بیاندیشیم اما مته به خشخاش نگذاریم :)
July 24, 2018
A unique and insightful book that adds a relevant inquiry to Western Philosophy from a modern point of view. I love how one book can have between its covers the thought history of thousands of years!
What I liked most:
1- The author considered the personal life of each philosopher tackled, and how it affected his own philosophy. They were all the "children of their time."
2- She added a list of useful further readings and all books written by the philosopher at the end of every section of the book.
3- She doesn't merely state the schools of thought of different philosophers. More importantly, she adds the criticism directed at their ideas, and aims to answer: "In what way do we relate in the 21st century to their ideologies and perceptions?"
I enjoyed the journey from Socrates to Modernism!
What I liked most:
1- The author considered the personal life of each philosopher tackled, and how it affected his own philosophy. They were all the "children of their time."
2- She added a list of useful further readings and all books written by the philosopher at the end of every section of the book.
3- She doesn't merely state the schools of thought of different philosophers. More importantly, she adds the criticism directed at their ideas, and aims to answer: "In what way do we relate in the 21st century to their ideologies and perceptions?"
I enjoyed the journey from Socrates to Modernism!
December 1, 2018
I hope that none of my fellow dedicated readers and Goodreads friends will think less of me, because I have to admit that this book was totally and completely over my head, uninteresting, and a cumbersome, painful, super boring reading experience that has actually wanted me to beg off reading anymore general philosophy books, or most appropriately monikered TOMES in the future. This was a waste of my time.
Unless you are super interested in the discipline of philosophy, BEWARE before you start this one, and maybe find something else (almost anything else) to read.
I also want to note that if you scroll through my "Read" books (and my list is very long) list that it is very, very rare that I use a 1-star rating (and even 2-star ratings relatively infrequently).
Sorry to offend anyone who has read this book and liked it, but I HATED it.
OK, Folks, 'nuff said. You get the point.
Unless you are super interested in the discipline of philosophy, BEWARE before you start this one, and maybe find something else (almost anything else) to read.
I also want to note that if you scroll through my "Read" books (and my list is very long) list that it is very, very rare that I use a 1-star rating (and even 2-star ratings relatively infrequently).
Sorry to offend anyone who has read this book and liked it, but I HATED it.
OK, Folks, 'nuff said. You get the point.
November 12, 2019
This was a required text when I was getting my undergrad. It was in my Intro to Philosophy class, and I really enjoyed the broad spectrum of philosophy over time it provided. It gives a good overview of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Sartre. I later took on Philosophy as my second major and ended up having some second thoughts about my appraisal. First, it does not include Aristotle, which I think is essential to philosophical study, particularly if presenting a broad foundation of Plato. It also skips over Nietzsche, which I also think is essential. That being said, it's a good read, taking some pretty heady material and making it comprehensible. Recommended!
October 29, 2008
A great reference for beginners in philosophic inquiry.
It was very readable and filled with information and clarity. The primary philosophers addressed here are Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Sartre. However the contemporaries of those just mentioned are presented with great detail as well.
It is a book that should be read in high school. My opinion is that philosophy should be mandatory cirriculum to Juniors and/or Seniors, but I digress, this book certainly educated me on the pervading waves of thought throughout (Western) history.
It was very readable and filled with information and clarity. The primary philosophers addressed here are Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Sartre. However the contemporaries of those just mentioned are presented with great detail as well.
It is a book that should be read in high school. My opinion is that philosophy should be mandatory cirriculum to Juniors and/or Seniors, but I digress, this book certainly educated me on the pervading waves of thought throughout (Western) history.
February 16, 2015
أول تجربة مع الفلسفة و هتتكرر كتير و سعيد جداً إني فتحت الباب ده .
طريقة عرض المحتوى الأكاديمي اللي بيقدمه لافين عن عمالقة فى تاريخ الفلسفة البشرية تقدر تتفهم بكل المستويات العقلية و الثقافية ، مكنتش محتاج خلفية علمية عن اللي هقراه ، كل اللي هتحتاجه انك تسلم عقلك لعدد من العلامات الفلسفية بيناقشوا قضايا كبيرة تهمك فى حياتك .
كنت فى قمة السعادة لما قريت عن أفلاطون و ديكارت و لقيت طريقة تفكيري قريبة جداً منهم .
طريقة عرض المحتوى الأكاديمي اللي بيقدمه لافين عن عمالقة فى تاريخ الفلسفة البشرية تقدر تتفهم بكل المستويات العقلية و الثقافية ، مكنتش محتاج خلفية علمية عن اللي هقراه ، كل اللي هتحتاجه انك تسلم عقلك لعدد من العلامات الفلسفية بيناقشوا قضايا كبيرة تهمك فى حياتك .
كنت فى قمة السعادة لما قريت عن أفلاطون و ديكارت و لقيت طريقة تفكيري قريبة جداً منهم .
July 30, 2019
ابتداءاً من افلاطون ممثل المرحلة اليونانية القديمة بالفكر البشري مروراً بالعصور الوسطى وعصور النهضة وانتهاءً بالفلسفة المعاصرة حيث سارتر يتناول هالكتاب بطريقة ادبية سلسلة وممتعة بدايات المنهج الفكري منذ اكاديمية افلاطون وحتى الحركة الوجودية الفرنسية والفلسفات الحرة متناول اسماء مهمة مثل ديكارت وارسطو سارتر وتوما
كتاب مهم وغني وسهل الاسلوب
كتاب مهم وغني وسهل الاسلوب
April 25, 2017
روایتی سلیس و چشم نواز ار حرکت تفکر فلسفی در سیری تاریخی و معنایی که شما را با دنیای فلسفه به خوبی آشنا می کند. کتاب در به چالش کشیدن تفکر خواننده کاملا موفق نیست ولی اطلاعاتی را که در اختیار وی می گذارد می توان مواد خام مناسبی برای هدایت ذهن به سوی تعملات فلسفی دانست.
December 12, 2013
Forced to read as PHI 101 text book. I'm sure it's actually good for someone interested in the subject. It just wasn't for me.
August 30, 2014
One of two texts from my Philosophy class. The readings on Plato's Divided Line & David Hume alone make it worthwhile.
June 21, 2016
Insightful and interesting read
June 6, 2017
فيه مراجع كتير لتطور الفلسفة عبر التاريخ وكلها قيمة لكن مش بالسهولة والسلاسة دى ،كتاب قيم فعلا .
March 4, 2021
It's a great book, and makes a lot more sense than my other philosophy textbook, but it's still philosophy. I hate it. This is my personal opinion.
February 3, 2025
Excellent introduction to Philosophy! I’m sure much has happened since it was published (1984), but good enough to whet the appetite to proceed into deeper terrain.
November 28, 2025
An okay introductory book. I can't say I learned much from it, but if you're a true beginner then this is probably a decent starting point.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews