Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Kafka

by William Hubben

How four of Europe’s most mysterious and fascinating writers shaped the modern mind.

Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Kafka were all outsiders in their societies, unable to fit into the accepted nineteenth-century categories of theology, philosophy, or belles lettres. Instead, they saw themselves both as the end products of a dying civilization and as prophets of the coming chaos of the twentieth century. In this brilliant combination of biography and lucid exposition, their apocalyptic visions of the future are woven together into a provocative portrait of modernity.

“This small book has a depth of insight and a comprehensiveness of treatment beyond what its modesty of size and tone indicates. William Hubben…sees the spiritual destiny of Europe as one of transcending these masters. But to be transcended, their message must first be absorbed, and that is why the study of them is so important to us now.” —William Barrett, The New York Times

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Biography Memoir, Writing, Biography, 20th Century

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1952

Reviews

[محمد شکری · Rating 2 out of 5]

کتاب را صرفا به این دلیل خواندم که چندسال پیش یکی از دوستان به من داده بود بخوانم، و حالا پس از چندسال میخواهم کتاب را پس بدهم و... مطمئنم که میپرسد چطور بود و... گمان نمیکنم جالب باشد بعد از چندسال بگویم نخواندمش! ر


درباره محتوا
چهار سوار سرنوشت، یا به ترجمه دقیق عنوان، «چهار پیشگوی سرنوشت ما»*، قرار است مقدمه ای منسجم درباره چهارپیشگوی بحران عصر ما باشد: سورن کیرکگور، فئودور داستایوفسکی، ویلهم فردریش نیچه و فرانتس کافکا
انتخاب این چهار نفر منطق خوبی دارد اما مولف از پس معرفی خوب آنها بر نیامده است. من درمورد داستایوفسکی چیزهایی میدانم، درمورد کیرکگور کمتر، و درمورد نیچه باز هم کمتر، اما درمورد کافکا رسما هیچ چیز نمی دانستم. جالب آنکه حتی درمورد کافکا هم کتاب چندان جالبی برایم نبود و اگر بخش مربوط به داستایوفسکی و کافکا نبود، احتمالا یک ستاره به آن میدادم
کتاب مدام به مقایسه های سطحی با متون دیگر میپردازد، تعریفهای ژورنالیستی از قهرمان فصلش میکند و بین زندگینامه نویسی و ارائه تفکر قهرمانش مردد و در نوسان است

بی-انصافی است اگر بگویم هیچ چیز از کتاب دستگیرم نشد، اما نسبت به حجم کتاب، واقعا چیزهای ناچیزی بود
در همین حد که کیرکگور به کلیسا حمله میکند، چون به عنوان یک نهاد، مسیحیت (بگیرید هویت) را جایگزین مسیحی بودن (بگیرید ایمان ورزی) میکند و بجای اینکه مسیحی را مثل مسیح به تنهایی، نومیدی و پشیمانی و نهایتا توبه اصیل سوق دهد به توبه سازمان یافته و جا افتادن مسیحیت سطحی (بگیرید قدرت کلیسا-دولت) به وسیله خوش-باش نگه داشتن فرد مسیحی کمک میکند
یا اینکه داستایوفسکی معتقد است خدا هست چون شر هست، «جهان سراسر خیر نیازی به خدا ندارد»، چون در این صورت، خدا خود همین جهان است نه چیزی بیشتر، اما خدا هست زیرا شر و آزادی هست؛ یا اینکه مسیحیت راه زندگی و فهم موقعیت اگزیستانس ماست نه روش تفکر و استدلال: اینها هم برایم جالب بود چون به فهم آثار داستایوفسکی کمک میکند، و الا خودش نکته قابل بیانی نیست
ضمنا حرفهای کاملا غلطی هم درباره داستایوفسکی زده بود [ر.ک: توضیحات] ر
درمورد نیچه فقط تعریف جالبش از نیهیلیسم برایم ماند:
نیست انگار کسی است که جهان را آنچنان که هست و نباید باشد می بیند، درحالی که درباره جهان چنان سخن می گوید که باید باشد و نیست؛ این تعریفی برخلاف آن چیزی است که ما از نیهیلیستها در ذهن داریم
درمورد کافکا هم فقط فضای داستانهایش را فهمیدم و به خواندن آثارش کمی علاقمند شدم


درباره ترجمه
امتیازی که به کتاب داده ام، بدون درنظر گرفتن ترجمه بود و الا اوضاع این کتاب بدتر میشد
ترجمه آقای دستغیب، مانند دیگر ترجمه های نشر پرسش و طبق سنت این انتشارات، ترجمه ای بدخوان، بدون ویرایش و ادب-آزار است
من به ترجمه ای «ادب-آزار» میگویم که از استعداد حداقلی متن اصلی در ادبی بودن استفاده کرده، و متن را تاحدی ادبی میکند که به عمد یا به سهو، (ناتوانی) ترجمه علمی را بپوشاند و بسی بیشتر از متن اصلی دشوار جلوه کند، بجای عبارات مولف از شعر سعدی استفاده کند و معادلها را بنا به حال و هوای ادبی عبارت و مترجم، هرجا یک چیز انتخاب کند (از عنوان کتاب بگیرید تا جا و بیجا در متن)؛ در این زمینه بی-شک مرحوم ذبیح الله منصوری استادی بی-بدیل بود، تاحدی که ترجمه را به تالیف تبدیل میکرد! اما ترجمه های نشر پرسش هم گاه به همین سمت میل میکند، ازجمله همین ترجمه؛
مثلا به این ترجمه دقت کنید:
نیچه نوشت: «این واقعیت است که روح برتری میدهد بر بیماران و دردمندان فرود آید»ر
درحالیکه میفهمید منظور این بوده: «واقعیت این است (یا این واقعیتی است) که روح ترجیح میدهد بر بیماران و دردمندان نازل شود»
حال این یک نمونه قابل فهم است، تو خود نمونه های غیرقابل فهم بخوان از این کتاب


پیشنهاد
اگر به این متفکرین علاقمندید سراغ این کتاب نروید
برای کیرکگارد و داستایوفسکی بی-تردید کتابهای سوزان اندرسون از مجموعه «نام آوران فرهنگ» طرح نو را پیشنهاد میدهم
برای نیچه و کافکا هم، هرچند خودم این دو را نخواندم، اما گمان میکنم به ترتیب، کتاب نیچه از مجموعه «اندیشه گران انتقادی» و کتاب پل استراترن به نام «آشنایی باکافکا»، هردو از نشر مرکز باید بهتر از این مدخل باشد



*Four Prophets of Our Destiny


توضیحات
هوبن میگوید، داستایوفسکی با ناتورالیسهایی مثل بالزاک، ایبسن و فلوبر و کمونیستهایی مثل مارکس و هیپولیت تِن مخالف است که «انسان ساخته محیط خودش است» و به همین دلیل به پیشه و پیشینه افراد کار ندارد و فقط با شرح درونیات آنها، آنها را برای خواننده آشنا میکند
این کاملا درست است که داستایوفسکی به شرح درونیات اهمیت بیشتری میدهد تا پیشه افراد و اینجا با کمونیستها صراحتا درتضاد است، اما اولا هیچگاه آگاهانه مخالف اهمیت پیشه نبوده، به نحوی که همیشه پیشه افراد را حتی شده به اختصار بیان میکند و هیچگاه مثل کافکا که به عمد از بردن نام شخصیتهایش دوری میکند، داستایوفسکی از بردن عنوان پیشه چشم نمیپوشد، وهمیشه، از بازاری بودن و دانشجو بودن و نزولخوار بودن تا کشیش بودن و انقلابی بودن برایش مهم است. این از پیشه. درمورد پیشینه که اصلا نمیتوان حرف هوبن را پذیرفت. فصلهای مطولی از رمانهای اصلی داستایوفسکی به بیان پیشینه افراد میگذرد، به خصوص شخصیت های ریشه ای داستایوفسکی: پدرها (استفان تروفیموویچ در شیاطین، کارامازوف پدر و پدر زوسیما در برادران کارامازوف و مارمالادف در جنایت و مکافات)ر
این نقد از آن سو مهم است که هوبن نتیجه میگیرد «شخصیت های متعالی داستایوفسکی، مثل پرنس میشکین و آلیوشا روحی نه در خود و نه در جامعه، بلکه در ملکوت الهی داند». درحالیکه برای داستایوفسکی جایگاه اجتماعی آلیوشا و پرنس میشکین در پاک بودنشان بی-نهایت اهمیت دارد. هر دو بیرون از طبقات متوسط شهری تربیت شده اند (میشکین در دهکده و آلیوشا در دیر) و هر دو بجای متفکران بیمار و ثروتمندان پستی که در داستان میبینید بیشتر با کودکان سر و کار دارند
هوبن داستایوفسکی را به گونه ای تحلیل میکند که باید نام آن را بجای «مسیحی اگزیستانسیالیست»، «مسیحی تخیلی» گذاشت

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don’t exactly remember when or where I picked this book up but it has been sitting on my shelf for a few years now. After my last book review four days ago I realized that I didn’t have any more books waiting in queue. As a result I decided to grab this off the shelf as a fill-in while waiting for a couple of review books to arrive from the publishers.

I didn’t know what to expect. Being already familiar with the lives and writings of these four men, this book had the potential to be very good or very dry. I’m happy to say that it was not a disappointment. It wasn’t that Hubben introduced new facts about the lives of these four men; much has already been written in terms of their biographies. Nor was it that Hubben had any new interpretations of their works to offer. Rather, the strength of the book is in how it identifies common traits about their lives and the unique insight that each one had into the future of western civilization.

The book describes how Kierkegaard (Denmark, 1813 – 1855), Dostoevsky (Russia, 1821 – 1881), Nietzsche (Germany, 1844 – 1900), and Kafka (Czechoslovakia, 1883 – 1924) writing from their their own times peered into the future to see how the philosophies of their own time would cause a ripple effect resulting in a tidal wave of depravity in the subsequent generations. Many people like to make dire predictions about how current culture will result in disaster for the following generation. Rarely have any of these predictions come to pass with such startling accuracy.

As Hubben points out, these dire predictions did not win these men any friends. They lived as outcasts and their cries were seen as exaggerated fantasies of insane intellectuals. What makes these men different from the conspiracy theorists of today however is that they were not necessarily looking to make a name for themselves; they simply sounded a clarion call for their times. Their warnings were based on real observations and contained a strong moral element. For Kierkegaard, it was the conception of faith that stripped it of its individual nature and reduced it to mere intellectual assent in concert with the masses. In 19th century Denmark, to be a Dane was to be a Christian. After all, all Danes were Lutheran and that was enough. Dostoevsky mourned the loss of human dignity that came with the Utilitarianism and Rationalism that was starting to gain ground. Nietzsche, as debased as he was himself, saw Christianity as becoming so proud of her own status that they looked down upon sinners with contempt. Kafka died in 1924- well before the concentration camps and other atrocities of Nazi Germany which he predicted with precision.

I really enjoyed how Hubben wove their lives together and demonstrated that many of the things which we complain about today were seen well before they came to pass by four very different men living in different parts of the world, and yet observing the same condition in man. Not all of these men were Christian and certainly none of them were good moral examples in all their deeds, but their keen insight into the human condition and astute observations make them worth reading. In this book, Hubben has made them accessible to the beginner and has spotted a common theme in their writings which will thrill the existing fans

[حسن · Rating 2 out of 5]

انطباعياً بعد قراءته، هذا الكتاب أثار في ذهني عبارة من فيلم "أيظن" المصري الكوميدي: "إخس و انا اللي افتكرتك راجل .. طلعت لُك لُك لُك و فعل ما فيش".

هو بعنوانه الفضفاض الأصلي بالانجليزية مناقض لضمور محتواه، مثل صور الأطباق على لائحة المأكولات التي يناولك اياها النادل في مطعم، كبير و غني و ملون في الصورة و لكن صغير و باهت عندما يقدّم على الطاولة..
أو مثل تلك التجربة المتكررة في الطفولة، و هي لا بدّ عايشها الجميع، حين أستلمت علبة العاب موضبة كهدية في عيد الميلاد، فتحتها لأجد على علبتها رسماً فانتزاياً لطائرات تطير كأنها خارقة تثير خيالك الساذج الى أقصى الحدود لجهلك بقساوة الحياة الواقعية و انكارك لسموّ قانون الجاذبية، ثم تفتحها و تستدرك أن عليك الامساك بهذه الطائرات بيدك و تحريكها و أن عليك تخيّل الباقي لاثارة حماستك، ثم تملّ..

فعنوان الكتاب هذا يحمل كثيراً من الادعاء فيما لا يعدو كونه پورتريه لهذه الشخصيات [الترجمة العربية للأسف مجتزأة فلا تشتمل على الفصول حول المفكرين الآخرين] التي تتشارك في التضاد الفكري الريادي و التجريبي بينها و بين مجتمعاتها المتبنية للفكر السائد كما و في تمردها على المسلّمات و استباقيتها و تمايزها في السياق الاجتماعي.
الكتاب الصادر بالعربية اذاً ينحصر بالفصل المتعلق ب(كييركيجارد) و الذي يقدم خلفية بيوغرافية نوعاً ما [العلاقة بالأب، بالأخ، بحبيبته (ريجينا)، براهب الكنيسة..] متصلة بأفكاره اللاهوتية و إسهاماته في الثيولوجيا، أكثر منه دراسة نقدية مقارنة لعناوين عريضة في الإشكاليات الميتافيزيقية ��لكبرى التي انكب عليها طوال حياته و لمفاهيم بارزة في فكره أو تحليل توضيحي لنصوصه الفلسفية [يحلو لباحثين جمعها تحت تسمية الوجودية المسيحيّة.. وجودية سباقة في معالجة الماهية و الذات و معنى الوجود في ظل الايمان و قيمة الفضائل و الأخلاق]..
لدراسة شاملة و أعمق و پانورامية تحيط بفكر (كيركجارد)، أنصح بقراءة كتاب "كيركجور رائد الوجودية" بجزئيه، للكاتب و المترجم (إمام عبد الفتاح إمام).

يركز الكتاب بالدرجة الاولى على سيكولوجيا (كيركييجارد) و غرابتها و على انعزاله الاجتماعي [أقصد بالمعنيين، الوحدة، بل التوحّد اجتماعياً، و العزلة] مسلكياً و روحانياً، و درجة ايمانه العالية التي مارسها و ترجمها في حياته [الى درجة تماثل التبشير في قناعته بصوابية رسالته و اتباعه للحق] في مواجهة عنيدة لإكليروس الكنيسة اللوثرية [النقطة الجوهرية التي يسلط عليها الضوء هي تبعيتها للدولة و تآلفها و النظام بما يضعف رسالتها] و مجابهته للرأي العام كلامياً و فكرياً في كتاباته.. حيث كانت مواقفه مختلفة جذرياً عن المواقف الشعبية و المعتقدات الشائعة و الأحكام المبسترة التي قبولها عام.
هي حياة كاملة أمضاها في مقارعة المؤسسات الدينية و الاكاديمية، ارتدّت عليه فكلفته كما كل الأصوات المتفرّدة عبر التاريخ [و إن كان، بعكس كثير من المفكرين، مشهوراً و ذا ثقل فيما هو على قيد الحياة] كثيراً من التعذيب النفسي بسبب التهميش الاجتماعي [طوعي و قسري في آن معاً] و تلقّف آرائه بالسخرية و التهكم [الطريف أنه كتب دراسات مهمة حول التهكم].

شخصياً لا جديد استقيته من محتواه لأني طالعت في السابق كتاباً متخصصاً بطباعة فاخرة اشتريته من مكتبة في اسطنبول
‏Søren Kierkegaard & The Common Man/ Jørgen Bukdhal
كما سبق لي أن قرأت بضعة فصول في مؤلفات كيركيجارد مثل "إما/أو" و "خوف و رعدة" [و طبعاً مقالات أكاديمية شارحة على هامشها]، و هي للحق بالنسبة للأوتوديداتيين مثلي [أحاول تعلّم الفلسقة بنفسي، كما فعلت تقريباً في كل حقل آخر] حقل أوحال في عمقها الغير شفاف و في ضبابية أبعادها، بل و رمال متحركة لتعقيدها، تمتص كل مخزون الڤيتامينات في خلاياك العصبية لصعوبة تأويلها.

الكتاب برأيي اذاً فشل في تحقيق وعوده لأن عنوانه يدعي ما هو ليس موجود في محتواه.
فهو ليس حتى مدخل لفلسفته لاقصائه مفاهيم محورية كثيرة في فكر (كييركيجارد).
بالاضافة الى ذلك، أن تضيف في آخر كل موقف فكري أو رأي و اعتقاد شخصي منسوب الى (كييركيجارد) عبارات مثل "كما حدث لنيتشه بعده" أو "كذلك فعل دوستويفسكي في وجه الكنيسة الارثذوكسية" و "تجربة مشابهة لتجربة نيتشه" الخ. فهذا لا يعني بالضرورة أنك تصوغ مقاربات فلسفية قد تنبثق عنها خلاصات نظرية يُبنى عليها.. شتّان مثلاً و دراسة "تحطيم العقل" للفيلسوف الهنجاري الكبير (جورجي لوكاكش) و التي تعالج في الجزء الثاني مقاربة بين جوانب و مفاهيم [و ان ارتكزت على نقاط محددة] في فلسفة (كيركيجارد) و العظيمين (نيتشه) (شوبنهاور).

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a nice, quick read that sufficiently gives the reader a general understanding of each of these great thinkers. It is most interesting to see these writers through the eyes of someone who has just come through the second World War. Hubbard compares and contrasts these writers with more of a Christian theological leaning.

[Sara Elsaeed · Rating 4 out of 5]

"لا يحتاج من يحب الله إلي دموع وإلي كلمات إعجاب. إنه ينسي معاناته في الحب، ينساها بكاملها لدرجة أنه لا توجد لديه فكرة ولو ضئيلة عن آلامه لو لم يتذكرها الله. هو يري الخفي ويعرف العذاب، يحصي الدموع ولا ينسي شيئاً"

[Monique · Rating 3 out of 5]

My takeaway from this little book was that Kierkegaard was a protestant religious fanatic who criticized the hypocrisy of the Church, Dostoyevsky seemed to have been struggling with his Faith and criticized the Roman Catholic Church, Nietzsche was an atheist who did not believe in morals, and Kafka- well, God is just totally absent from Kafka's works, a fact which the author of this book seems to criticize.
The book touches only very superficially on these four writers' philosophies. The author claims that the common thread between these four writers is that they predicted the coming chaos of WWII, fascism in Germany and communism in Russia and China, but it does not make a clear and intelligible case for it. I believe I understood that the author claims that the reason for totalitarianism was that people had stopped believing in God, but I am not even sure. I blame my confusion on the lack of clarity of this book.

The most interesting part of the book for me was discovering the legend of The Grand Inquisitor.
In that story, Jesus appears in Spain during the Great Inquisition and the Grand Inquisitor arrests him for being a heretic.
The Grand Inquisitor then proceeds to explain why Jesus himself is a heretic in the Catholic Church of the day and why he will get burned at the stake: While Jesus believed in freedom of choice (whether to follow him or not) for every individual, the Church today believes that only a select few can bear that freedom. The "masses" prefer the security of bread and dogmas and that is why the Church does the masses a favor by imposing the faith on them by force. The Grand Inquisitor claims that the masses give up their freedom of thought for the feeling of security.
Through this parable Dostoyevsky criticizes the Catholic Church. The Grand Inquisitor personifies those dictators and tyrants who oppress the masses for their own benefit, while pretending that this is what the masses want and need.

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a decent book about the four proto-existentialists listed in the title as far as biographical information, basic concepts, and clear writing go. There are very few statements that I would consider inaccurate, and many of them can be chalked up to this book being written in the 50s, before certain things were known about the writers. So in this sense, the first 4 or 5 chapters are well done.

However the last two, where Hubben shows his true colors and fully presents his unique ideas, seem to miss the point. His basic thesis is that these four writers can be used by religious people, especially Christians, to fix the church and many of the modern, mainly spiritual issues that he discusses throughout the book. While I can see the argument for Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky being made (and he generally makes it well), it's much harder for Nietzsche and Kafka. The whole "use Nietzsche against Nietzsche" thing is pretty over-played at this point, and honestly I don't see how Kafka could be used this way at all (the final chapters barely mention him).

So for review of the basics regarding biography and thought of these authors, this book is not bad. I would not recommend it to anyone as introductory due to the last two chapters and Hubben's final spin on the issues.

[Liz Estrada · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointed with this little book. I really didn't learn anything new about these four great thinkers. Perhaps it is a good read for a beginner, but otherwise not really worth it.

[Conor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Misses the target a few times, as will happen with a 50-year-old text. Way too Christ-ish for me. Otherwise a good time.

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

A dated, superficial summary of 4 great writers. Sometimes you win with used books, sometimes not.

[Mina Elia · Rating 5 out of 5]

"الحق قوة، لكننا لا نراه إلا في حالات نادرة لأنه حق: يتألم دائماً ويجب أن يهزم طالما هو حق. أما عندما ينتصرهذا الحق فنري الأخرين ينصتون إليه. لماذا؟ ألأنه حق؟ لا، فلو كانوا لهذا السبب لأنضموا إليه عندما كان يتألم أيضاً. ولهذا فأن عدم إنضمامهم إليه ليس للقوة التي يمتلكها. إنهم ينضمون إليه بعد أن يصبح قوة لأن الآخرين يكونون قد سبقوهم لذلك"

"لا يحتاج من يحب الله إلي دموع وإلي كلمات إعجاب. إنه ينسي معاناته في الحب، ينساها بكاملها لدرجة أنه لا توجد لديه فكرة ولو ضئيلة عن آلامه لو لم يتذكرها الله. هو يري الخفي ويعرف العذاب، يحصي الدموع ولا ينسي شيئاً"

"دع الرجل يكون رجلاً، والمرأة أمرأة. عندها فقط يمكن أن تكون كل شيء بالنسبة للرجل. فلكونها امرأة يمكنها فهم المتناهٍ وبناءً عليه يمكنها منحه للرجل. إذ من غير المرأة يكون الرجل روحاً قلقاً متململة لا تجد سلاماً لأنها لا تجد استقراراً أينما توجهت.
لماذا لم يقل الكتاب المقدس إن علي المرأة أن تترك أباها وأمها وتلتصق برجلها؟ أليست هي الشخص الاضعف الذي يبحث له عن ملاذ مع الرجل؟ ولكن لا، يقول الكتاب المقدس، يترك الرجل أباه وأمه ويتلصق بزوجته. والكتاب المقدس علي صواب: فهي الأقوي نظراً لأن الزوجة تعطي الرجل ما هو متناهٍ؛ هي ملاذه.
أنا الآن مبتهج لكوني قد فهمت أهمية المرأة بهذه الطريقة؛ وهكذا فأنها تصبح بالنسبة لي رمزاً للجماعة. فالروح في موقف محرج إن عجزت عن الاستقرار داخل الجماعة وبالتالي إن لم تستطع أن تعطي ذاتها لهم. فبالنسبة للجماعة التي تحتاجها الروح لتجد لها مسكناً في هذا العالم المتناه لا يوجد حقيقة رمز أكثر جمالاً من الزوجة"
#سورين_كيركجارد

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book on these four prophetic thinkers who saw what was coming in the social landscape. It's a small book on the heavy topic of existentialism. It actually feels like a college paper or thesis, which didn't bother me too much as apparently I skipped Philosophy classes in college.

If you don't know much about Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Kafka, and don't mind getting a little depressed, this book will give you a grasp and make you feel more intelligent (!). Just mention Nietzsche or Dostoevsky at the dinner table, and see how people react.

I appreciate how the author points out common threads between these four men's lives: illness and suffering, unactualized love, early death, lack of acclaim during life, outcast positions in society and family, loneliness.

It would serve us to think more often on suffering, instead of avoiding the topic and self-medicating. "The thinking of all four occupied itself with suffering. Kierkegaard regarded it as the beginning of spiritual insight; Dostoevsky saw in it the key to understanding others; Nietzche felt it was an obstacle to be overcome. Only Kafka let it be a cruel and senseless fact" (p.164).

Excellent book. Pick it up, if you can find it. I'm amazed to have found it tucked away in a corner of India.

[Viji (Bookish endeavors) · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise, yet clear, introduction to the life and works of the four existentialist thinkers. The language is simple and can be understood even by a general reader. Space has been devoted to deal with each thinker individually and also for making comparisons. The discussion of the socio-political background during which the philosopher lived and his family background adds perspective to the book. Unlike the objective analysis in Russell's 'A history of western philosophy', the writing style was more close to John Cottingham's 'The rationalists' ( part of OPUS's western philosophy series).

All in all, this is a much better introduction to existentialism than the dry very short introductions out there. Highly recommended.

[Salima Ghzayel · Rating 3 out of 5]

إن كونية الحق تخترق بإشعاعها كل مكان؛ إنها أعظم من أن تحصر داخل نمط معين واحد

إن الدين يكمن في العالم الداخلي و الروحي ويمتنع على التواصل المباشر والمنطقي

إن جوهر الوجود الانساني هو عدم اليقين

.... كان في الحقيقة مديناً لذكراها بتلك البصيرة المتعمقة في علاقة الإنسان بالله

كان كيركيجارد كثيراً ما يشبه علاقة الإنسان بالله بخبرة العاشق لمعشوقته، فهي مؤلمة في الوقت الذي هي فيه مفرحة، وهي عاطفية لكن بلا إشباع، وحيّة في الزمان رغم أن لا نهاية لها

[Krystle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a fun or inspirational read, but a good overview. I also like the last chapter where Hubben compares and contrasts the 4 great thinkers. Very informative.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was and excellent introduction to existentialist philosophy, with the author William Hubben providing fascinating and complex commentary on the authors who founded what we conceive today to be the modern school of existentialism. Hubben’s writing is clear and precise, breaking down the complex ideas and narratives of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Kafka. In all, this is a superbly written book which compels the reader to pursue the human questions of meaning, purpose, and freedom in the context of an evolving modern world committed to evading these questions.

Some of the comments have criticized this book for not expressing a uniquely existential understanding of these authors. To this I would argue that existentialism is not entirely a form of thought in itself— it is not a systematic philosophy. Rather, existentialism is a perspective and a lens in which to examine modern life. It embraces the absurdity and contradictions of the world while simultaneously hoping to recover a semblance of meaning, purpose, and direction through the exercise of spiritual liberation. Existentialism is not a plan for life but a frame of thinking in which one can develop one’s own plan. In this sense, Hubben does a fantastic job revealing an approach to life through the works of these famous authors.

If you are looking to get started learning about existentialism, I highly recommend you pick up this book!

[Paulo Martínez · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible introductory book on the philosophical and religious views of the four authors featured in William Hubben’s narrative. For a book written in the 1950s, it presents several points that prove to be prophetic for today, especially regarding Western Europe. Highly recommended.

[Islam · Rating 2 out of 5]

كتاب لطيف ومبسط

[aman caur · Rating 1 out of 5]

one star for the chapter on Kierkegaard; otherwise, it was disappointing.

[Maheen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Things to know before reading this book:
History
Christianity
The author was a prominent Quaker (he can’t shut up about it) and died in 1974

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I owned this book for over a decade before reading it, thinking that I needed to have a solid background in the major works of each writer before delving into it. At the time of purchase, I had only read Kafka and Nietzsche. After finally getting around to reading a couple major works of Kierkegaard and almost all of Dostoevsky, I finally decided it was time to crack open this slim volume...only to discover that it would have made a better introduction to them! There is not much new here for anyone familiar with these writers or their biographies. The penultimate chapter is probably the best, as Hubben provides a nice synthesis of their similar personal traits and how these impacted their philosophies. It was also interesting to get a mid-twentieth-century American take on these writers amidst the fallout from the Third Reich, the ensuing Red Scare, and the rise of twentieth-century Protestant evangelicalism -- all of which permeate every section of the book.

At times, Hubben makes some dubious overgeneralizations, the oddest being that Germany has produced no political revolutionaries. (He dismisses Marx and Luther as economic and religious revolutionaries. Does this mean that neither had political implications? Very bizarre!) He also gives short shrift to Kafka, who gets only a couple brief chapters of surface-level discussion, and is almost ignored in the final two chapters that attempt to situate all the writers together in the context of the twentieth century (which is, again, quite odd, considering Kafka was the only twentieth-century writer of the bunch!). But even for these few flaws, I thought it was worth a read...I only wish I had done so fifteen years earlier as an introduction to their lives, work, and lasting influence in the first half the twentieth century.

[Leonard Klossner · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting little book examining the intersections and disconnects in the existentialist themes expounded upon by the four mentioned authors; Kierkegaard's emphasis on the Single One and Nietzsche's disdain of the all-too-many; Dostoevsky's belief that one must lower themselves in humility before Christ alongside all men, and his shared belief with Nietzsche that their native country will rise to guide the world into a utopic future. Kafka, much like his writing, and true to his constant theme of alienation, stands alone. While the other three in some way endeavor through suffering toward some sort of triumph--regarding the spirit, their country, the individual, etc.--Kafka's writing presents no other option or choice for his characters but an unmoving resignation for the succession of misfortunes that they stumbled through.

An easy breeze of a read written simply which is greatly appreciated since philosophical texts often tend to prefer obfuscation of ideas in cloaks of erudite language over clarity.

[Kyle · Rating 2 out of 5]

A decent survey of the four writers. The author's Christian beliefs led him to wrongly criticize Nietzsche and to criticize Kafka for his bleak stories, basically the central characteristic of their ideas.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the chapter on Nietzsche: "Society, considering itself moral and good in the conventional, Christian sense, hates the higher type of man and considers his isolation the result of guilt and the well deserved stigma of social unfitness."

[Waad Ar · Rating 3 out of 5]

اعجبني .

[Jey Kalimuthu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about the four authors, philosophers, and prophets whose work have a continuity that foresaw the spiritual crisis that was looming mankind.

It was a difficult read, and the section on Nietzsche is one I have to revisit.


This book was a difficult read. The author is not very clear, and I believe this was intended. The author describes the lives of the great thinkers for us to understand who they were as men, but warns not to overly psycho analyze them. Their works come from a place greater than just their experiences. And the narrative keeps your attention. It does feel that the author purposely kept things short and didn't delve too much into detail, as he gives the reader a bit of water, and hopes that the reader goes looking more deeply to quench their thirst.

It is evident that William Hubbert reveres these thinkers and he goes to lengths to explain why, without sounding too much like hero workship.

I can relate to this book as part of family belongs to the church, and there is a contradiction that I've noticed over the years of people who belong to the church but are not humble. The people that go to church form their own society that is filled with judgement and gossip. And this book covers this phenomenon, as it's not a new one. This has been happening for centuries.

Kierkegaard picked up on this, and also criticized the connection of church and state. In Denmark clergymen were given salaries from the state and were considered government workers. The church had power, and was dictating the morals of the day. Everything was a sin. And this kept Christians from exploring their own spirituality, and understanding that being a Christian is an ongoing process. It's not just about going to church, hearing a sermon, and living daily life. In this way Kierkegaard saw that spirituality was on the decline.

Dostoevsky felt similarly that the church was treating Christians like children. And this is what the Grand Inquisitor scene is all about. Jesus comes back during the Spanish Inquisition and the Grand Inquisitor arrests him. He tells him that man has no need for him. Man is like a child who was security and food, and does not want to venture out and find truth for himself.

The section of Nietzsche is harder to understand and I must go through it again. From what I understand, he attacked the church and the moral precepts (thought, order) that were being handed down by the church. He believed that there would be a superman race of men who would see this problem and think for themselves. He believed that most people followed blindly and considered them the masses. Unlike Dostoevsky, who believed the masses are valuable, and there is even value in criminals, Nietzsche felt that the masses were blind.

Finally, Kafka is described briefly. He carries out the spiritual crises that is described by the three other philosophers. In his books there is no god, no religion, no goodness or badness. People are in a system, and can't question. They go with whatever is told and there is a drab, dreariness. I've read the Trial and this is exactly how it feels. The bureaucracy that is described in Kafka's work is really the consequence of a society devoid of any passion or spiritual force.

The author concludes that all 4 philosophers were pointing to a point of no return for society. One where spirituality and morality would be torn down. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky felt that this would lead to a new spiritual awakening. The author poses these 4 great thinkers as the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse, and poses the question if the the angels are pointing their fingers at us in this age.

[Sarah Karasek · Rating 2 out of 5]

I went into this hoping it would be a decent introduction to Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and Kierkegaard. I'd never heard of Kierkegaard until reading this book, so it may have been a fantastic introduction to that particular person.

I have also, to my shame, never read Dostoevsky, although I've learned a bit about him from taking a Russian culture course and having friends who have read him. This did give me a new perspective to what I'd heard, however, I have trouble trusting that perspective given the information provided on Nietzsche and Kafka.

The reason I wanted an introduction to Nietzsche was because the only works I've read by him were late in his career. The other knowledge I've accrued comes from philosophy major friends and documentaries. The portrayal of him in this book did not line up with that for me.

Kafka is one of my favorite writers and although I haven't read all of his works (I plan to), I have solid background knowledge of him largely from my BA in English. I found the portrayal of him in this book rather abysmal and lacking nearly every interesting fact I've learned about him. I believe the author came to a conclusion about these men and then forced reality (maybe only a turn or two of the dial) to fit his conclusion. For my conclusion: largely more Christian-skewed than I anticipated from the title and description.

[Jack R.]

Written in the aftermath of World War II, Hubben paints these four figures (who during this book's publication were loosely canonized as the philosophico-literary basis for the popular Existentialist movement) as not only prophets for the catastrophes that beset Europe between 1914-1945 but also provide the the means toward solving (Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky) or at the very least understanding it (Nietzsche and Kafka). Hubben's analysis is not deep nor profound, and his interpretations of Nietzsche are much outdated. Kafka gets short shrift and Dostovesky's section belabors the themes of the Grand Inquisitor without further probing. Hubben, a Quaker Christian, is best when interpreting Kierkegaard, but that is likely because the Danish thinker is eminently interpretable! For philosophical analysis, you can skip Hubben and read the prodigious tomes that have been written in the last 70+ years. But, when grasping the political-theological importance and implications of the four thinkers, Hubben, I'd contend, functions as a handy resource, not less due to its proximity to those great global conflicts that the author contends the philosopher/novelists all predicted (vaguely, of course).

[Kristin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really tried with this book, but I had to quit half-way through. It has such a strange dichotomy... Some passages, especially at the beginning of the book, seemed scholarly, detailed, and objective, yet were delightfully eloquent and consumable. Other passages seemed to be constructed purely for the purpose of arguing the author’s own religious beliefs and opinions, often belittling any statement that didn’t fit in with his own belief system. I would have expected a book on this subject matter (a history and analysis on the lives and works of influential modern existential philosophers) to be all of the former and none of the latter. However, over time, the latter style became more and more frequent and blatant, to the point where I felt that I could no longer trust this author’s representation of the facts, and it wasn’t worth it for me to continue.

[Muhammad Murad · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few months ago, I came across a book on social media that caught my attention. I noticed comments on the post where people humorously questioned whether the readers of the book were okay, as those who delve into the works of certain philosophers are often viewed as unusual. This piqued my interest, so I decided to read the book myself before forming any conclusions.

The book provides a fascinating exploration of the works of four influential writers: Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky, Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and Czech (German) writer Franz Kafka. It effectively highlights how each of these authors, in their own way, occupied the role of outsiders in the societies that produced them. I highly recommend this book as a must-read for anyone who loves philosophy, as well as for general readers.