What do you think?
Rate this book
An Introduction to Greek Philosophy
The first philosophers in Western history—the ancient Greeks—asked the most fundamental questions about human beings and their relationship to the world. More than 2,500 years later, the issues they pondered continue to challenge, fascinate, and instruct us. Is reality stable and permanent or is it always changing? Are ethical values like justice and courage relative? Or are values "absolute"—simply and forever right and true? What is justice? What is happiness? How shall we best live our lives? An Introduction to Greek Philosophy beckons you to join this eternal discussion. For that is what this subject truly a conversation among thinkers that has continued through the centuries and remains accessible to us today. You find it constantly stimulating, sometimes controversial, and nearly always remarkably relevant.
12 pages, Audio CD
First published January 1, 2002
16 people are currently reading
179 people want to read
About the author
David Roochnik
15 books19 followersDavid Roochnik is Professor of Philosophy and Maria Stata Professor of Classical Greek Sudies at Boston University. Prior to that he was Associate Professor of Philosophy and Classical Studies at the Iowa State University, and during the 1992/93 year Visiting Associate Professor at Williams College.
He joined Boston University in the fall of 1995. In 1996, he was awarded the Excellence in Teaching Award by the Undergraduate Philosophy Club. In 1997, Dr. Roochnik was awarded both the Gitner Award for Distinguished Teaching at the College of Arts and Sciences and the Outstanding Teaching Award by the Honors Program in the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Roochnik is also winner of Boston University’s 1999 Metcalf Award for Excellence in Teaching. Recipients of this award are chosen after a university-wide competition and assessment. Most recently Dr. Roochnik won the John Donovan Best Paper Award, New England Political Science Association. May, 2004 (for a paper given in May, 2003: “Plato’s Defense Of Diversity.”)
Dr. Roochnik is the author of thirty-five articles on Greek philosophy, Greek literature, rhetoric ancient and modern, post-modernism, and the nature of philosophy. He is the recipient of grants and fellowships from the NEH and the Earhart Foundation. He was also invited to give the inaugeral lecture of the Ancient Philosophy Society in Eugene, Oregon, October 7, 1999.
He joined Boston University in the fall of 1995. In 1996, he was awarded the Excellence in Teaching Award by the Undergraduate Philosophy Club. In 1997, Dr. Roochnik was awarded both the Gitner Award for Distinguished Teaching at the College of Arts and Sciences and the Outstanding Teaching Award by the Honors Program in the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Roochnik is also winner of Boston University’s 1999 Metcalf Award for Excellence in Teaching. Recipients of this award are chosen after a university-wide competition and assessment. Most recently Dr. Roochnik won the John Donovan Best Paper Award, New England Political Science Association. May, 2004 (for a paper given in May, 2003: “Plato’s Defense Of Diversity.”)
Dr. Roochnik is the author of thirty-five articles on Greek philosophy, Greek literature, rhetoric ancient and modern, post-modernism, and the nature of philosophy. He is the recipient of grants and fellowships from the NEH and the Earhart Foundation. He was also invited to give the inaugeral lecture of the Ancient Philosophy Society in Eugene, Oregon, October 7, 1999.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
June 10, 2024
It so happens that I've listened to three courses on Greek philosophy produced by the Great Courses (formerly known as Teaching Company and recently trying to reimagine itself under the ridiculous soubriquet of Wondrium, but that's another story) practically in a row: "Masters Of Greek Thought: Plato, Socrates, And Aristotle" by Robert Bartlett, "Plato, Socrates and the dialogues" by Michael Sugrue, and this one ("An Introduction to Greek Philosophy" by David Roochnik).
Each of these courses differ in their scope and goal. All of them discuss Plato and Socrates and two discuss Aristotle, but only "An Introduction to Greek Philosophy" provides a wider picture and includes more than a passing discussion of presocratics and sophists.
All the three professors are passionate about their subject, with Michael Sugrue undeniably the champion where emotional charge is concerned. All have something different and interesting to add to the interpretation of the same material.
David Roochnik stands out in clarity and conciseness. To my delight he finally directly addressed an obvious question which I kept asking myself and which other professors did not deign to answer. He even formulated it in exactly the same words as it sounded in my mind: where does Socrates end and Plato begin? And even though this question cannot be answered with any measure of certainty, at least it deserves being raised.
Unfortunately, besides being knowledgeable and passionate about their subject, all these three philosophy professors share another similarity: a deep-rooted disdain towards modern natural sciences and especially towards the theory of evolution and modern physics. I'm beginning to think that this is a unifying quality of all the American philosophy professors represented in the Great Courses, with the sole exception of Steven Gimbel who specializes in the philosophy of science and, unlike these three specialists in Greek philosophy, actually knows what he is talking about when he mentions modern physics, Einstein etc.
David Rochnik's perception of modern physics seems to be based mainly on a bunch of mad scientist clichés offered by popular culture. According to him, physicists like Einstein operate solely in the world of pure math, devoid of any connection with reality, and they are all emotionally inept introverts. It's as if he has never heard either of Einstein's thought experiments or of physicists like Richard Feynman.
But Aristotle or Plato, on the contrary, being philosophers, can never go completely wrong. So even when Aristotle states that Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it, this shouldn't be simply discarded as him not being up to date on the astronomical picture (which in my opinion is totally understandable and forgivable for a veteran philosopher like Aristotle;)). No, first we should try to be sympathetic (OK, let's), and then we should find the value of Aristotle's perception: he sees and explains the world as we humans experience it in everyday life and not as these soulless modern scientists discovered it actually is.
Seriously? That's the big value? That while reading Aristotle we can fondle our deep-rooted ignorance and cater to our limited self-centered perception? Then why not praise flat-earthers as well for their insistence upon the world being just as it seems?
Each of these courses differ in their scope and goal. All of them discuss Plato and Socrates and two discuss Aristotle, but only "An Introduction to Greek Philosophy" provides a wider picture and includes more than a passing discussion of presocratics and sophists.
All the three professors are passionate about their subject, with Michael Sugrue undeniably the champion where emotional charge is concerned. All have something different and interesting to add to the interpretation of the same material.
David Roochnik stands out in clarity and conciseness. To my delight he finally directly addressed an obvious question which I kept asking myself and which other professors did not deign to answer. He even formulated it in exactly the same words as it sounded in my mind: where does Socrates end and Plato begin? And even though this question cannot be answered with any measure of certainty, at least it deserves being raised.
Unfortunately, besides being knowledgeable and passionate about their subject, all these three philosophy professors share another similarity: a deep-rooted disdain towards modern natural sciences and especially towards the theory of evolution and modern physics. I'm beginning to think that this is a unifying quality of all the American philosophy professors represented in the Great Courses, with the sole exception of Steven Gimbel who specializes in the philosophy of science and, unlike these three specialists in Greek philosophy, actually knows what he is talking about when he mentions modern physics, Einstein etc.
David Rochnik's perception of modern physics seems to be based mainly on a bunch of mad scientist clichés offered by popular culture. According to him, physicists like Einstein operate solely in the world of pure math, devoid of any connection with reality, and they are all emotionally inept introverts. It's as if he has never heard either of Einstein's thought experiments or of physicists like Richard Feynman.
But Aristotle or Plato, on the contrary, being philosophers, can never go completely wrong. So even when Aristotle states that Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it, this shouldn't be simply discarded as him not being up to date on the astronomical picture (which in my opinion is totally understandable and forgivable for a veteran philosopher like Aristotle;)). No, first we should try to be sympathetic (OK, let's), and then we should find the value of Aristotle's perception: he sees and explains the world as we humans experience it in everyday life and not as these soulless modern scientists discovered it actually is.
Seriously? That's the big value? That while reading Aristotle we can fondle our deep-rooted ignorance and cater to our limited self-centered perception? Then why not praise flat-earthers as well for their insistence upon the world being just as it seems?
October 23, 2017
Fantastic introduction to Greek Philosophy! Professor Roochnik brings the individual philosophers to life, setting them in their cultural and historical context. He also helps clarify concepts through comparisons to contemporary situations. And most important, he showed that despite their separation from us, the Greek thinkers and the ideas proposed by them over 2000 years ago, are still inspiring, relevant, and have so much to offer us today.
First listened to this course in 2002, but got so much more out of it this time! Last time I took a month to finish it; this time I raced through it.
Excellent, Excellent! EXCELLENT!
First listened to this course in 2002, but got so much more out of it this time! Last time I took a month to finish it; this time I raced through it.
Excellent, Excellent! EXCELLENT!
June 1, 2025
Let me preface this review with stressing that this book delivers exactly what it promises: an introduction to Greek philosophy- and a pretty good one at that. The introduction is given by David Roochnik, who is professor of philosophy at Boston University and who manages to present his area of expertise in an enthusiastic yet cohesive way. It was easy and nice to listen to his lectures.
What I found the biggest strength here was the very clear and focused way everything was presented. Roochnik really wanted people to gain a glimpse into the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, so he avoided overloading his lectures. In this manner you get a good overview of the Presocratics, the Sophists, Socrates, Platon and Aristoteles. Since many of them didn’t leave written records or only fragments survived, Roochnik makes it clear that he has to interpret a lot. In short, there is much we can’t know for certain and therefore theorising is all that we can do.
I get that. I also get that Roochnik, being who he is, is naturally lenient towards a…let’s say benevolent interpretation of the old Greek philosophers. This is sort of rooted in his attempt to present their way of thinking as still relevant for people today, aside from the obvious historical significance. He does this by contrasting them with modern science and society, which to me wasn’t always convincing. He sometimes overstepped the mark here. And I am saying this as someone who doesn’t think reading the old Greeks is a worthless pastime.
What I found the biggest strength here was the very clear and focused way everything was presented. Roochnik really wanted people to gain a glimpse into the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, so he avoided overloading his lectures. In this manner you get a good overview of the Presocratics, the Sophists, Socrates, Platon and Aristoteles. Since many of them didn’t leave written records or only fragments survived, Roochnik makes it clear that he has to interpret a lot. In short, there is much we can’t know for certain and therefore theorising is all that we can do.
I get that. I also get that Roochnik, being who he is, is naturally lenient towards a…let’s say benevolent interpretation of the old Greek philosophers. This is sort of rooted in his attempt to present their way of thinking as still relevant for people today, aside from the obvious historical significance. He does this by contrasting them with modern science and society, which to me wasn’t always convincing. He sometimes overstepped the mark here. And I am saying this as someone who doesn’t think reading the old Greeks is a worthless pastime.
July 1, 2016
The Professor does an incredibly good job of making Greek Philosophy understandable. Today as well as during the ancient Greeks there's been the outstanding disagreement for what the nature of Knowledge really entails. Importantly the lecturer covers the comparisons and contrast between the pre-Socratic, the sophists, with Plato and Aristotle.
The being and becoming, the crossing a river or never crossing it, the atom or the void, the essence verse the existence, those are all aspects of nature and were the main concerns of the pre-Socratics. So often, I'll read something and they will refer to Parmenides ('nothing is not possible"), Heraclitus ("we never cross the river"), Democritus ("all is atom"), or another pre-Socratic philosopher and they would expect me the reader to understand the complete context by what was meant by the single name. Now I can understand.
This lecture series will put each of the main thinkers into context and compare them between each other, and tell you how they are similar and where they differ, and also never overly confusing the listener by giving too much to process at once.
There are many great gems within this series. Plato knew his "nature was not to know nature" and he would be better served by focusing on what our 'values' and 'virtues' should be and realized he was best able to work with logos (rational discourse), but always realizing that the sophisticated sophists (non-absolutist or relativist) had a strong argument and could not be defeated on their own terms. By just asking the question, "what is justice" is equivalent to as the Professor says, asking the question "who won the game last night", by the very fact of asking the question presumes there was a game and a winner, just as asking the question "what is justice" can imply things beyond the question itself.
I now know why my heart lies with the pre-Socratics (and sophists), why Plato is always more worth while than I've known and Aristotle with his common sense approach and his belief in reality being knowable is still relevant today, and ultimately the foundation laid down by these great thinkers are still just as relevant today.
The being and becoming, the crossing a river or never crossing it, the atom or the void, the essence verse the existence, those are all aspects of nature and were the main concerns of the pre-Socratics. So often, I'll read something and they will refer to Parmenides ('nothing is not possible"), Heraclitus ("we never cross the river"), Democritus ("all is atom"), or another pre-Socratic philosopher and they would expect me the reader to understand the complete context by what was meant by the single name. Now I can understand.
This lecture series will put each of the main thinkers into context and compare them between each other, and tell you how they are similar and where they differ, and also never overly confusing the listener by giving too much to process at once.
There are many great gems within this series. Plato knew his "nature was not to know nature" and he would be better served by focusing on what our 'values' and 'virtues' should be and realized he was best able to work with logos (rational discourse), but always realizing that the sophisticated sophists (non-absolutist or relativist) had a strong argument and could not be defeated on their own terms. By just asking the question, "what is justice" is equivalent to as the Professor says, asking the question "who won the game last night", by the very fact of asking the question presumes there was a game and a winner, just as asking the question "what is justice" can imply things beyond the question itself.
I now know why my heart lies with the pre-Socratics (and sophists), why Plato is always more worth while than I've known and Aristotle with his common sense approach and his belief in reality being knowable is still relevant today, and ultimately the foundation laid down by these great thinkers are still just as relevant today.
May 18, 2011
For those of us who successfully avoided philosophy classes in college fearing classroom comas, Professor Roochnik presents this introductory material in an engaging and well-organized manner. In addition to overviewing the major philosophical players and the literature and history of their time, Roochnik often reflects on the modern day relevancy of the subject matter. Upon finishing, I am surprised to find myself hankering for more a second helping.
October 23, 2022
I tried to like it, I really did; just not my cuppa
Since I've been on such an extended deep dive into Greek and Roman history and culture, I knew I'd have to learn more about the famous Greek philosophers who provided the underpinnings of much of Western political thinking, ethics, philosophy, law, etc. So I gave this a listen, and did my best to engage with it. I did find it somewhat interesting as I do so how their thinking really does form the core of political & ethical thinking in the West, and I can appreciate their willingness to tackle the most fundamental of questions with such rigor and originality. It's just not as stimulating for me as history, especially political, military, religious, cultural, and linguistic. I suspect that I take the Greek philosophical concepts so much for granted in my own system of ethics that I don't both questioning them much. In a sense, they've been very successful if most people indeed take those ideas for granted. Still, it is worth knowing, and their backgrounds as well.
Since I've been on such an extended deep dive into Greek and Roman history and culture, I knew I'd have to learn more about the famous Greek philosophers who provided the underpinnings of much of Western political thinking, ethics, philosophy, law, etc. So I gave this a listen, and did my best to engage with it. I did find it somewhat interesting as I do so how their thinking really does form the core of political & ethical thinking in the West, and I can appreciate their willingness to tackle the most fundamental of questions with such rigor and originality. It's just not as stimulating for me as history, especially political, military, religious, cultural, and linguistic. I suspect that I take the Greek philosophical concepts so much for granted in my own system of ethics that I don't both questioning them much. In a sense, they've been very successful if most people indeed take those ideas for granted. Still, it is worth knowing, and their backgrounds as well.
April 16, 2021
A pretty good avenue into a basic understanding on the Greeks.
May 22, 2024
This is one of the greatest lectures one can find in the Great Courses series, and I really advise everyone to get this one. Professor Roochnik is a great philosopher and educator. He knows how to give lectures, and he presents them in a very fascinating and interesting way. He does as Nietzsche does in his book, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks going from the age of pre-philosophy, even before Thales. From the myths of the Greeks, where he demonstrates why the myths themselves offered the perfect framework for the beginning of physics, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy. This volume is a true introduction, as it sets the best background for anyone to take the next step in actually reading the Greek thinkers. In his lectures, he provides bases for the pre-philosophic myths and supports them with strong ideas as one might find in Nietzsche's book. What's to be found here is an apology for early Greek thought, and a structure to those ideas we would not take seriously because of our preconditioning.
After the mythic era, the lecturer presents the thinkers, both physicists, and metaphysicians in chronological order, showing us a progression of thought and framing the lineage of thinkers in a way the modern reader will find coherent. What each thinker thought, what contemporary thinkers replied with, contradicted, or offered in its stead. The lecturer explains in every step the major ideas we might still encounter in contemporary philosophy, like the concept of being, existence, nothing, and form, that have a metaphysical dimension as well as the common usage that we would encounter out of philosophy.
The two main philosophers of Greece, being, of course, Plato and Aristotle, are given the lion's share of the lectures, and in many ways, the whole course is geared to explaining their ideas in a way that would allow the contemporary reader to associate their ideas with the ideas philosophers discuss today. Whitehead's claim that the whole of philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato is taken to heart and forms the purpose of this course. One leaves the course with a bird's eye view of the history of philosophy through the works and ideas of the Greeks. Not everything is covered given the limited time the lecturer is given to prepare the course, but it is enough as a starting point and a motivation to enter the realm of the ancient Greeks.
It is important to stress how charismatic the lecturer is, and how well prepared and tidy the lectures are. Everything is prepared to perfection. The lecturer never shies away from using modern and contemporary examples, and that gives a certain appeal to this course. The biblical quotation and his comparison of the Sophists to the modern post-modernists helps one see how much our religious heritage owes to those Greek thinkers, and that truly among our Derrida's, Foucault's, and Butler's, there is that element of Sophistry that philosophy was created to destroy.
***
Muthus, Phusus, Phenomena! Who can resist the wonderful lectures of Professor Roochnik. He makes ancient Greek philosophy so wonderful. I am a bit sad that there aren't any chapters on the Stoics, but this course is as spectacular as ever, as is. I recommend it.
After the mythic era, the lecturer presents the thinkers, both physicists, and metaphysicians in chronological order, showing us a progression of thought and framing the lineage of thinkers in a way the modern reader will find coherent. What each thinker thought, what contemporary thinkers replied with, contradicted, or offered in its stead. The lecturer explains in every step the major ideas we might still encounter in contemporary philosophy, like the concept of being, existence, nothing, and form, that have a metaphysical dimension as well as the common usage that we would encounter out of philosophy.
The two main philosophers of Greece, being, of course, Plato and Aristotle, are given the lion's share of the lectures, and in many ways, the whole course is geared to explaining their ideas in a way that would allow the contemporary reader to associate their ideas with the ideas philosophers discuss today. Whitehead's claim that the whole of philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato is taken to heart and forms the purpose of this course. One leaves the course with a bird's eye view of the history of philosophy through the works and ideas of the Greeks. Not everything is covered given the limited time the lecturer is given to prepare the course, but it is enough as a starting point and a motivation to enter the realm of the ancient Greeks.
It is important to stress how charismatic the lecturer is, and how well prepared and tidy the lectures are. Everything is prepared to perfection. The lecturer never shies away from using modern and contemporary examples, and that gives a certain appeal to this course. The biblical quotation and his comparison of the Sophists to the modern post-modernists helps one see how much our religious heritage owes to those Greek thinkers, and that truly among our Derrida's, Foucault's, and Butler's, there is that element of Sophistry that philosophy was created to destroy.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: And there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
— Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 (KJV)
***
Muthus, Phusus, Phenomena! Who can resist the wonderful lectures of Professor Roochnik. He makes ancient Greek philosophy so wonderful. I am a bit sad that there aren't any chapters on the Stoics, but this course is as spectacular as ever, as is. I recommend it.
February 19, 2025
I really appreciated this Introduction to Greek Philosophy. I may rate this introduction higher than 3 stars later, but for now while I’m still new to the subject, I am going to assume this work is average. I’ll be picking up more introductions like this one to compare later, but I think I am very happy that I started here.
David Roochnik gave a fair warning before this course that it would involve a lot of his own speculation on these amazing philosophers. As I was speculating from him, I think I am very different from Roochnik in how I might interpret these philosophers, but I reserve to say where I stand until I’ve studied as much as he has. Despite our possible differences, Roochnik was still able to help me piece together the puzzle without intruding much on my own thoughts. I don’t feel deceived from my own thoughts, necessarily, but I also don’t think there is such thing as learning anything without a certain amount of bias involved which I’m sure I’m currently blind to. Roochnik’s perspective was enlightening but I would recommend a healthy dose of skepticism as you listen to him. I think he does a pretty good job selling the opposing sides of a debate in his honest effort for us to understand each equally. But I also think the world could understand these philosophers from 1 million different careful perspectives and none of them could represent the philosopher with 100% accuracy. But the questions they left behind are free game for speculation which is what makes philosophy so interesting for me. You’ll explore a good handful of these timeless questions with Roochnik which is where I found the most value from these lectures.
These lectures were absolutely fascinating! I almost want to go back and listen to them again but I’m afraid I’ll start thinking too much like Roochnik. Like I said, I’ll have to come back later and rate this again (possibly to 4 stars?) when I have a more well rounded understanding on what’s out there.
Another thing I appreciated was the handy little PDF attachment with an outline of each lecture that I used as a primer while taking this course. I don’t think the lectures were scripted but that didn’t hurt its presentation at all. They were possibly recorded directly from the classes David Roochnik was giving in 2001. Roochnik made it easy for me to connect with even the more complicated philosophical thoughts these famous thinkers brought to our world.
I hope you give this book a chance if you’re new to philosophy like I am!
David Roochnik gave a fair warning before this course that it would involve a lot of his own speculation on these amazing philosophers. As I was speculating from him, I think I am very different from Roochnik in how I might interpret these philosophers, but I reserve to say where I stand until I’ve studied as much as he has. Despite our possible differences, Roochnik was still able to help me piece together the puzzle without intruding much on my own thoughts. I don’t feel deceived from my own thoughts, necessarily, but I also don’t think there is such thing as learning anything without a certain amount of bias involved which I’m sure I’m currently blind to. Roochnik’s perspective was enlightening but I would recommend a healthy dose of skepticism as you listen to him. I think he does a pretty good job selling the opposing sides of a debate in his honest effort for us to understand each equally. But I also think the world could understand these philosophers from 1 million different careful perspectives and none of them could represent the philosopher with 100% accuracy. But the questions they left behind are free game for speculation which is what makes philosophy so interesting for me. You’ll explore a good handful of these timeless questions with Roochnik which is where I found the most value from these lectures.
These lectures were absolutely fascinating! I almost want to go back and listen to them again but I’m afraid I’ll start thinking too much like Roochnik. Like I said, I’ll have to come back later and rate this again (possibly to 4 stars?) when I have a more well rounded understanding on what’s out there.
Another thing I appreciated was the handy little PDF attachment with an outline of each lecture that I used as a primer while taking this course. I don’t think the lectures were scripted but that didn’t hurt its presentation at all. They were possibly recorded directly from the classes David Roochnik was giving in 2001. Roochnik made it easy for me to connect with even the more complicated philosophical thoughts these famous thinkers brought to our world.
I hope you give this book a chance if you’re new to philosophy like I am!
September 6, 2019
I was a bit disappointed in these, to be honest. I've listened to a number of philosophy-related great courses now, so I have some material to compare it to, and frankly it doesn't stand up to the quality of the others.
There is a lot of generalizing and trivializing, modern-day examples and interpretations that detract from the original material, and an overall failure to grasp and present the subtlety of the material. Even for an entry-level course I think there's a lot of room to present material with an appreciation for depth. But this is not what you find here! I'm looking at the excellent Introduction to Existentialism lectures as an example of how to do this the right way.
Instead, in these lectures you get one-off comments like "unlike Plato the existentialists argue that life is meaningless" , which is 1) patently false and 2) extremely trivializing, to the extent that it stifles intellectual curiosity.
I would warn against these lectures. Though I've finished them now, I'm going to look elsewhere for a fuller treatment of this material.
There is a lot of generalizing and trivializing, modern-day examples and interpretations that detract from the original material, and an overall failure to grasp and present the subtlety of the material. Even for an entry-level course I think there's a lot of room to present material with an appreciation for depth. But this is not what you find here! I'm looking at the excellent Introduction to Existentialism lectures as an example of how to do this the right way.
Instead, in these lectures you get one-off comments like "unlike Plato the existentialists argue that life is meaningless" , which is 1) patently false and 2) extremely trivializing, to the extent that it stifles intellectual curiosity.
I would warn against these lectures. Though I've finished them now, I'm going to look elsewhere for a fuller treatment of this material.
September 26, 2024
This is a relatively clear and insightful introduction to Greek Philosophy. I have now listened to this course twice ( and I majored in philosophy, so this box was already checked). At the outset of the course, Professor Roochnik offers two reasons to study the ancient Greek thinkers; their historical significance and their current relevance. He demonstrates both, and he does this so well that I took notes and listened to questions and criticisms as if I were going to get a chance to share them. How good is Professor Roochnik at what does here? I'm reading Plato and Aristotle again. And I even read a biography of Derrida just to see what the fuss was all about.
Thank you Professor Roochnik!
Thank you Professor Roochnik!
December 28, 2020
A good overview of Greek Philosophy from the Presocratics and Sophists through Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Professor Roochnik encourages listeners to think about the subject and draw their own conclusions about what the philosophers meant and how it applies to our own lives.
July 7, 2022
Both a good introduction to Greek philosophy, and also a very insightful and unique interpretation of Plato. I especially enjoyed Roochnik's musings on Plato's choice to write in dialectics.
However, he often draws comparisons between Greek philosophers and modern and post-modern thinkers that are overgeneralized, and often just misconceived. For example, in the chapters on Plato, he repeatedly lumps together modern thinkers such as Richard Rorty and Derrida with the Greek sophists, claiming they essentially rehash a Greek relativism that reduces truth to a nihilistic anything-goes situation. He even goes as far as to brand sophism and every other anti-metaphysical philosophy since as not philosophy at all. Since it rejects objective truth, and therefore can only concern itself with winning debates never finding real truth or wisdom.
This is a huge misinterpretation of thinkers such as Derrida (who, by the way, explicitly reiterated throughout his life that he was not a relativist). To say that we have no access to universal truth, but only subjective, human interpretations, is not the same as saying all subjective interpretations are equally right or wrong, good or bad. We can both acknowledge truth to be subjectively constructed, and still decide upon what is true or false given the subjective context. And to suggest that knowledge can have no real value if it doesn't speak to some integral aspect of the universe - as Roochnik implicitly does - seems an arbitrary expectation to put on philosophy. This debate is far too complicated to get any further into here. But what Roochnik does in this course is discount any non-metaphysical epistemology as incapable of improving human knowledge, and thus rejects it as philosophy completely. This is a very extreme and, I would argue unsubstantiated view of philosophy and epistemology, and not one, in my opinion, that should be presented to students in a introductory course on Greek philosophy . Especially as Roochnik is an expert on Greek philosophy, not post-modernism.
However, he often draws comparisons between Greek philosophers and modern and post-modern thinkers that are overgeneralized, and often just misconceived. For example, in the chapters on Plato, he repeatedly lumps together modern thinkers such as Richard Rorty and Derrida with the Greek sophists, claiming they essentially rehash a Greek relativism that reduces truth to a nihilistic anything-goes situation. He even goes as far as to brand sophism and every other anti-metaphysical philosophy since as not philosophy at all. Since it rejects objective truth, and therefore can only concern itself with winning debates never finding real truth or wisdom.
This is a huge misinterpretation of thinkers such as Derrida (who, by the way, explicitly reiterated throughout his life that he was not a relativist). To say that we have no access to universal truth, but only subjective, human interpretations, is not the same as saying all subjective interpretations are equally right or wrong, good or bad. We can both acknowledge truth to be subjectively constructed, and still decide upon what is true or false given the subjective context. And to suggest that knowledge can have no real value if it doesn't speak to some integral aspect of the universe - as Roochnik implicitly does - seems an arbitrary expectation to put on philosophy. This debate is far too complicated to get any further into here. But what Roochnik does in this course is discount any non-metaphysical epistemology as incapable of improving human knowledge, and thus rejects it as philosophy completely. This is a very extreme and, I would argue unsubstantiated view of philosophy and epistemology, and not one, in my opinion, that should be presented to students in a introductory course on Greek philosophy . Especially as Roochnik is an expert on Greek philosophy, not post-modernism.
June 25, 2018
If Western Philosophy is just footnotes to Plato, does that mean western society is just all Greek to us?
Professor Roochnik presents 24 lectures as an introductory course to Greek Philosophy... as it says in the title. This was quite a good overview of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Like any lecture, insights are given into the further scholarship that can inform a topic - such as how Plato structures his writing so as to make you think rather than tell you what he thinks - and some points are hammered repeatedly for the sleepy students in the back row.
Having recently read The Republic, the insights this book offered would have been handy beforehand. The advantage of having a philosophy professor step you through philosophy rather than just winging it yourself is well worth it. So as a background pre-reading, this is a good place to start.
I was also reminded during one of the earlier chapters of how much knowledge has been lost to history. We have this common misconception about great works rising to the top and being revered through the ages. But the example of the prolific writer Democritus whose works have largely been lost shows us how even recognised intellectual giants can't be guaranteed their works will be preserved.
Professor Roochnik presents 24 lectures as an introductory course to Greek Philosophy... as it says in the title. This was quite a good overview of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Like any lecture, insights are given into the further scholarship that can inform a topic - such as how Plato structures his writing so as to make you think rather than tell you what he thinks - and some points are hammered repeatedly for the sleepy students in the back row.
Having recently read The Republic, the insights this book offered would have been handy beforehand. The advantage of having a philosophy professor step you through philosophy rather than just winging it yourself is well worth it. So as a background pre-reading, this is a good place to start.
I was also reminded during one of the earlier chapters of how much knowledge has been lost to history. We have this common misconception about great works rising to the top and being revered through the ages. But the example of the prolific writer Democritus whose works have largely been lost shows us how even recognised intellectual giants can't be guaranteed their works will be preserved.
October 2, 2019
I bought this title after reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, to further explore the topics presented in that book.
"An Introduction to Greek Philosophy" is an excellent--if not essential--companion to ZMM. Prof. Roochnik covers a wide body of ancient works clearly and efficiently. He also references numerous other A.D. philosophers throughout his lectures, creating new paths of exploration for you if you enjoyed this title.
Perhaps my largest takeway was Roochnik's urging to take the side of the philosopher before offering your own critique, no matter how ludicrous their writings initially sound. Sound advice outside, as well as inside, the classroom. Other personal takeaways I enjoyed include:
- The Pre-Socratics (more enjoyable than I initially thought they would be)
- Relativism vs. Absolutism
- Plato's Forms
- Aristotle's God: "God does not love, because God does not hate."
The entry/exit of each chapter is laughable--I don't remember attending any college course that opened each lecture with a string quartet and a rousing ovation. Don't let that skew your perception of the quality of the material covered. This title was well worth the cost of an Audible credit (and -way- cheaper than the equivalent university credit).
"An Introduction to Greek Philosophy" is an excellent--if not essential--companion to ZMM. Prof. Roochnik covers a wide body of ancient works clearly and efficiently. He also references numerous other A.D. philosophers throughout his lectures, creating new paths of exploration for you if you enjoyed this title.
Perhaps my largest takeway was Roochnik's urging to take the side of the philosopher before offering your own critique, no matter how ludicrous their writings initially sound. Sound advice outside, as well as inside, the classroom. Other personal takeaways I enjoyed include:
- The Pre-Socratics (more enjoyable than I initially thought they would be)
- Relativism vs. Absolutism
- Plato's Forms
- Aristotle's God: "God does not love, because God does not hate."
The entry/exit of each chapter is laughable--I don't remember attending any college course that opened each lecture with a string quartet and a rousing ovation. Don't let that skew your perception of the quality of the material covered. This title was well worth the cost of an Audible credit (and -way- cheaper than the equivalent university credit).
November 14, 2025
I listened to Dr. Roochnik's lecture on Plato's Republic in order to help me read the book. My friend Ryan suggested that this lecture series was also really good, and I agree with him.
Dr. Roochnik separates the lecture series into four parts. The first part is on pre-socratic philosophers, the second part is about Socrates, the third Plato, and the concluding part is about Aristotle.
I thought that his approach was excellent. He starts with Thales of Miletus who is recognized as the first philosopher. Throughout the course, he refers back to previous philosophers because most of the philosophers did their work by reacting to the philosophers that went before them. Similar to his lectures on Plato's Republic, Dr. Roochnik is really good about encouraging the listener to question and think about the things that he talks about. When there are controversial or unclear items, he highlights those and gives his opinion or the opinion of other scholars and encourages the listener to make their own conclusions.
I learned more about the pre-socratics especially in relation to later philosophers, and I also somewhat rehabilitated my opinion of Plato, which had suffered from my reading of the Republic. This was time well spent.
Dr. Roochnik separates the lecture series into four parts. The first part is on pre-socratic philosophers, the second part is about Socrates, the third Plato, and the concluding part is about Aristotle.
I thought that his approach was excellent. He starts with Thales of Miletus who is recognized as the first philosopher. Throughout the course, he refers back to previous philosophers because most of the philosophers did their work by reacting to the philosophers that went before them. Similar to his lectures on Plato's Republic, Dr. Roochnik is really good about encouraging the listener to question and think about the things that he talks about. When there are controversial or unclear items, he highlights those and gives his opinion or the opinion of other scholars and encourages the listener to make their own conclusions.
I learned more about the pre-socratics especially in relation to later philosophers, and I also somewhat rehabilitated my opinion of Plato, which had suffered from my reading of the Republic. This was time well spent.
October 14, 2022
In Greek philosophy, you'll see the eternal debate between Being and Becoming, between Truth (alêtheia) and appearance (doxa), between the rational and the empirical, between logos and muthos, between philosophy and poetry, between reason and passion, between the Apollonian and the Dionysian ... (all of these are along the same vein); you'll see how the Sophists are similar to today's postmodernists, or the relativists (although I don't completely agree that they're the same as Professor Roochnik claims, as the postmodernists do rely on some underlying truth for their critique to make sense); you'll also see how Aristotle is the first phenomologist ... All of these are presented clear-and-distinctly in these lectures. It is intriguing how a lot of modern schools of thoughts and debates can trace back to the Greeks. I guess in philosophy, there is really nothing new under the sun.
September 3, 2022
Covers 4 eras of classic Greek philosophy:
1. Pre Socratics - Laid the foundation of the nature of reality. Their biggest debate is over being vs becoming.
2. Socrates - Uses dialectic logos. Probably a sith (because he deals in absolutes). Hated relativistic sophists. Never wrote anything down on principle.
3. Pluto - Captured Socrate’s teachings in dialogues. Best known for The Republic.
4. Aristotle - Humanistic scientist. Extended the conversation of earlier thought leaders. Separated formal logic into disciplines.
This audiobook’s author’s writing is clear and easy to understand. Great crash course. I found myself wanting to engage with the conflicts raised in the philosophers’ various arguments.
1. Pre Socratics - Laid the foundation of the nature of reality. Their biggest debate is over being vs becoming.
2. Socrates - Uses dialectic logos. Probably a sith (because he deals in absolutes). Hated relativistic sophists. Never wrote anything down on principle.
3. Pluto - Captured Socrate’s teachings in dialogues. Best known for The Republic.
4. Aristotle - Humanistic scientist. Extended the conversation of earlier thought leaders. Separated formal logic into disciplines.
This audiobook’s author’s writing is clear and easy to understand. Great crash course. I found myself wanting to engage with the conflicts raised in the philosophers’ various arguments.
February 29, 2024
I have come to really like Prof. David Roochnik. When I had first taken his lectures on the Republic, I thought he was a little bit dry, but soon realized that his enthusiasm for the subject matter far exceeded any lack of excitement in his voice.
This was a great course, and the choice to move through it by creating a dialogue between the philosophers through the ages was incredibly insightful. As we moved from the Pre-Socratics, to Socrates, to Plato, to Aristotle, the western tradition was slowly built before our eyes.
This was a great course, and the choice to move through it by creating a dialogue between the philosophers through the ages was incredibly insightful. As we moved from the Pre-Socratics, to Socrates, to Plato, to Aristotle, the western tradition was slowly built before our eyes.
August 14, 2020
This took me a long time to get through, but it felt ultimately worth it. I loved the way Roochnik presented the material, I could understand all the concepts he was discussing even though I have no background in the field. I loved the discussion of the Greek language, I never felt patronized, and he talked about things in multiple ways so that if I didn't understand it at first, I was able to get there later. A really good way to be introduced to Greek philosophy.
August 18, 2024
Fantastic course - even for those of us who have read a ton of Greek philosophy. Course material is well structured and organized so it’s not only easy to understand, but it clearly builds on itself. He speaks about many Greek philosophers and situates them in history and Greek philosophy well. Can’t recommend highly enough if you’re into the material. Lecturer is also really rather engaging for what can easily become a borefest or deeply confusing if taught the wrong way.
Read
January 10, 2026This was so cool to listen to!! Nice to have some base level understanding of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
I think I’m more Aristotelian than Platonic if it really comes down to it, I like the idea of a philosophical system based on “doxa” rather than the pure abstract forms of Plato. But maybe in the end I’m more drawn to the mythos of Hesiod vs the logos of philosophy..
I think I will go on a great courses audiobook spree now because listening to nonfiction is so fun
I think I’m more Aristotelian than Platonic if it really comes down to it, I like the idea of a philosophical system based on “doxa” rather than the pure abstract forms of Plato. But maybe in the end I’m more drawn to the mythos of Hesiod vs the logos of philosophy..
I think I will go on a great courses audiobook spree now because listening to nonfiction is so fun
June 20, 2021
A great introduction to Greek philosophy. Explored the ideas of the Presocratics, Sophists, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The concept I found most profound was that of Plato's forms. If I had to rank my favorite Greek philosophers in order, it would be (1) Plato, (2) Aristotle, and (3) Xenophanes.
4.3/5
4.3/5
May 9, 2024
Very good introduction to a topic that really is quite difficult to make much sense of otherwise! I recently read some Plato and while I enjoyed it and understood it to a degree, the teaching in these lectures will help me to understand it in much more depth and to appreciate philosophers like Plato properly. Really pleased to have had this experience.
June 11, 2017
I've been listening to the Great Courses for over 25 years. A lot easier and cheaper now that they are on Audible.com. This was a very good one with half of the time spent on pre-socratics and the rest on Plato/ Aristotle.
October 26, 2018
This audible course is worth every second. The Sofisties, Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and many others.
I have learned a lot indeed.
By the way, the .PDF that comes with the audio is very helpful.
I have learned a lot indeed.
By the way, the .PDF that comes with the audio is very helpful.
September 5, 2024
Surprisingly I haven’t studied Greek philosophy at all in my 27 years, and for that reason gave this a go. It was a wonderful listen. Roochnik is a great teacher.
I learned a lot and have questions I want to look further into.
Parmenides was right.
I learned a lot and have questions I want to look further into.
Parmenides was right.
September 10, 2020
I don't remember when I first read this, but it is really good.
August 20, 2023
Read 25%.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews