What do you think?
Rate this book
History of Western Philosophy #4
عقلگرایان
قرن هفدهم میلادی شاهد تغییر نظری بنیادی در شیوه های اندیشیدن ما درباره خودمان و جهان بود. نظر اطمینان بخش قرون وسطی درباره جهانی زمین مرکز که به صراحت به سود بشر طرح شده بود پیوسته در حال فرسودن بود؛ ولی در همین هنگام خوش بینی تازه ای درباره امکان پرورش تبیینی روشن و جامع در خصوص چگونگی کار جهان سر بر آورد. این خوش بینی با عزمی برای رسوخ به طبیعت ذهن انسان و نسبت آن با جهان مادی نیز همراه بود.
جان کاتینگهام مولف کتاب «عقل گرایان (تاریخ فلسفه غرب ۴)» با توجه به همین زمینه فکری کوشش های سه فیلسوف بزرگ «عقل گرا» دکارت، اسپینوزا، لایبنیتس را پی می گیرد که برای دست و پنجه نرم کردن با نقش تازه انسان در طبیعت و فراهم کردن فهمی یک دست از واقعیت به طرح نظام های نوین فلسفه پرداختند.
جان کاتینگهام مولف کتاب «عقل گرایان (تاریخ فلسفه غرب ۴)» با توجه به همین زمینه فکری کوشش های سه فیلسوف بزرگ «عقل گرا» دکارت، اسپینوزا، لایبنیتس را پی می گیرد که برای دست و پنجه نرم کردن با نقش تازه انسان در طبیعت و فراهم کردن فهمی یک دست از واقعیت به طرح نظام های نوین فلسفه پرداختند.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
334 pages, Unknown Binding
First published September 1, 1988
12 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
About the author
John Cottingham
60 books25 followersJohn Cottingham is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Reading.
Professor of Philosophy of Religion, University of Roehampton, London.
Visiting Professor, King’s College London.
Honorary Fellow, St John’s College, Oxford University.
John Cottingham has published over thirty books – fifteen as sole author, a further nine editions and translations, plus (either as single or joint editor) eight edited collections – together with over 140 articles in learned journals or books. From 1993-2012 he was Editor of Ratio, the international journal of analytic philosophy.
Professor of Philosophy of Religion, University of Roehampton, London.
Visiting Professor, King’s College London.
Honorary Fellow, St John’s College, Oxford University.
John Cottingham has published over thirty books – fifteen as sole author, a further nine editions and translations, plus (either as single or joint editor) eight edited collections – together with over 140 articles in learned journals or books. From 1993-2012 he was Editor of Ratio, the international journal of analytic philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 25, 2021
In this book, Cottingham explains the philosophical systems of the three great 'rationalists', Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. I read this mainly for Descartes' philosophy, and found the comparisons with Spinoza and Leibniz helped to solidify my understanding. Cottingham is exceptionally good at explaining tricky concepts, and the book offers a thorough but easily understandable breakdown of the work of these three great philosophers.
May 31, 2023
کتابی خوش خوان و مفید در زمینه فلسفه عقل گرایان که به روش موضوعی نوشته شده و به شرح فلسفه فلاسفه ای چون دکارت، اسپینوزا و لایبنیتس می پردازد.
November 16, 2021
Henüz 19. ve 20. yy filozoflarını okumamış ve Descartes, Spinoza ve Leibniz'i yeni okumuşken, hem iyi bir toparlama yapmış oldum, hem de önümdeki okumaya güzel bir hazırlık olmuş oldu.
Temiz bir çeviri olmasının yanında metnin kendisi de yoğun ve güzel bir derleme diye düşünüyorum. Acele etmeden sindirerek okumanın faydalı olacağını da belirteyim.
Ampirist Filozoflar kitabı ile bir ikili oluşturuyorlar. Arka arkaya okuyabilirsiniz.
Temiz bir çeviri olmasının yanında metnin kendisi de yoğun ve güzel bir derleme diye düşünüyorum. Acele etmeden sindirerek okumanın faydalı olacağını da belirteyim.
Ampirist Filozoflar kitabı ile bir ikili oluşturuyorlar. Arka arkaya okuyabilirsiniz.
July 8, 2025
Although this is a somewhat older book (published before 2000) it is still a useful and informative introduction to three of the main ‘rationalist’ philosophers of the seventeenth century.
The introduction provides a good overview of the era, as well as of the difference between rationalists (such as Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) and empiricists (such as Locke, Berkeley, and Hume). Ultimately the distinction is not half as clear cut as some neat summaries of philosophy portray it. Yes empiricists focus on observation and what human senses can learn. And Yes rationalists focus on mental and psychological processes and what they contribute to philosophy. But rationalists are not dismissing empiricism. On the contrary, they presuppose its central ideas.
Those issues are explained well in the introduction and so the book opens with an overview which sets the scene with some commendable nuance.
The introductions to the lives of the philosophers is also clear and maintains a good balance between general summary and interesting details. For example, who would have thought that Descartes motto was ‘shun publicity.’
The main part of the book is simply an overview of important aspects of philosophy, with a summary of what each of the three rationalists had to say about those issues. It includes the issues of methodology, substance, causation and free will, with occasional forays further afield.
In places I thought that the summaries could have done with some additional explanation. For example, we hear that all three rationalists held theories of free will (liberty of spontaneity) which had more in common with versions of determinism, than modern ideas about free will. And yet Leibniz wrote a ‘theodicy’ defending free will. He argued in that book that humans have free will because their will is not necessitated towards any particular outcomes. But surely if their actions are dictated by their natures and circumstances, then what does it mean to talk of sin? That issue dangled in the background of several paragraphs in the book but it was never really explained.
I would have also welcomed a little more information about what Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz were reacting against in the scholastic theology of the day. There was an occasional reference to Suarez, as one of the principle sources of what they were reacting against, but a little more information about what his views were would have helped to clarify matters.
Textually the book was clearly laid out with material broken down into short sections within each chapter. There was the occasional misprint (such as ‘univenrse’ for universe, in the Introduction).
Overall, this is a scholarly book with around 20% of the text devoted to footnotes. It is pitched to be readable to students without prior expertise in the subject area or era, rather than to just established academics.
These comments are based on a reading of the 1988 OUP edition.
The introduction provides a good overview of the era, as well as of the difference between rationalists (such as Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) and empiricists (such as Locke, Berkeley, and Hume). Ultimately the distinction is not half as clear cut as some neat summaries of philosophy portray it. Yes empiricists focus on observation and what human senses can learn. And Yes rationalists focus on mental and psychological processes and what they contribute to philosophy. But rationalists are not dismissing empiricism. On the contrary, they presuppose its central ideas.
Those issues are explained well in the introduction and so the book opens with an overview which sets the scene with some commendable nuance.
The introductions to the lives of the philosophers is also clear and maintains a good balance between general summary and interesting details. For example, who would have thought that Descartes motto was ‘shun publicity.’
The main part of the book is simply an overview of important aspects of philosophy, with a summary of what each of the three rationalists had to say about those issues. It includes the issues of methodology, substance, causation and free will, with occasional forays further afield.
In places I thought that the summaries could have done with some additional explanation. For example, we hear that all three rationalists held theories of free will (liberty of spontaneity) which had more in common with versions of determinism, than modern ideas about free will. And yet Leibniz wrote a ‘theodicy’ defending free will. He argued in that book that humans have free will because their will is not necessitated towards any particular outcomes. But surely if their actions are dictated by their natures and circumstances, then what does it mean to talk of sin? That issue dangled in the background of several paragraphs in the book but it was never really explained.
I would have also welcomed a little more information about what Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz were reacting against in the scholastic theology of the day. There was an occasional reference to Suarez, as one of the principle sources of what they were reacting against, but a little more information about what his views were would have helped to clarify matters.
Textually the book was clearly laid out with material broken down into short sections within each chapter. There was the occasional misprint (such as ‘univenrse’ for universe, in the Introduction).
Overall, this is a scholarly book with around 20% of the text devoted to footnotes. It is pitched to be readable to students without prior expertise in the subject area or era, rather than to just established academics.
These comments are based on a reading of the 1988 OUP edition.
October 7, 2023
Θα μπορούσε να λείπει η αγωνία του συγγραφέα "μήπως οι σύγχρονοι, μη σχετικοί με τη φιλοσοφία αναγνώστες δεν καταλαβαίνουν το ιστορικό πλαίσιο, δυσκολεύονται να δουν το νόημα ορισμένων ερωτημάτων, εφόσον 'μερικά έχουν απαντηθεί, έχουν ξεπεραστεί'". Αν θέλει κανείς τη γνώση περασμένη απ' τον πολυκόφτη, δεν έχει κανέναν λόγο να διαβάσει βιβλίο φιλοσοφίας ή βιβλίο γ ι α τη φιλοσοφία (όπως αυτό εδώ).
May 30, 2017
كتاب بياخدك في رحلة الصراع ما بين الفلسفة التجريبية والعقلانية بحيادية، من أول أفلاطون لحد بعد تشومسكي في محاولة لإجلاء الفرق وتوضيح المعنى.
July 29, 2008
Descartes, Leibnitz and Spinoza, all in one. These authors represent the philosophical trend of the 17th century known as rationalism, an effort to ground the belief in God on logical principles. Together, they gave impetus to the deism of the Enlightenment and the concept of a Nature's God, a pantheistic or panentheistic explanation of what God might be.
Aside from the later criticisms of this trend by the empiricists, my personal reading left me with doubts as to whether the definitions and axioms offered by the philosphers would lead to precisely the interpretations of a deity they were aiming at. Their illustrious careers as mathematicians implied to me too much of an argument from authority in their approach, even apart from the empiricists' attention to the question of necessity versus contingency.
I worked through their demonstrations easily enough, but I wouldn't want to revisit them except for reference. The significance of this book is historical, considering the influence these thinkers had on future political thinkers.
Aside from the later criticisms of this trend by the empiricists, my personal reading left me with doubts as to whether the definitions and axioms offered by the philosphers would lead to precisely the interpretations of a deity they were aiming at. Their illustrious careers as mathematicians implied to me too much of an argument from authority in their approach, even apart from the empiricists' attention to the question of necessity versus contingency.
I worked through their demonstrations easily enough, but I wouldn't want to revisit them except for reference. The significance of this book is historical, considering the influence these thinkers had on future political thinkers.
February 23, 2015
Cottingham is an excellent interpreter of the Rationalists, especially Descartes who is his primary area of expertise. A lot of people unsympathetic to the Rationalists, straw man their position in books like these, or fail to understand, vital concepts like the concept of an idea. While I would not go so far as to say that I agree with everything that Cottingham writes here, it is the best general introduction to rationalist thought that I am personally aware of.
Read
August 9, 2023Clear, concise and is pretty substantial for a book of this length; has all the qualities of a good introduction (all it's missing is an appendix for further reading).
[UCL Library]
[UCL Library]
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews