What do you think?
Rate this book
La banda de los tres. Sócrates, Platón y Aristóteles: Modificaron su mundo, definieron el nuestro
¿Quiénes formaban la famosa banda de los tres griegos y cómo crearon los hábitos de pensamiento de la cultura occidental?
Para bien o para mal, Sócrates, Platón y Aristóteles dieron vida a la filosofía occidental. Los tres eran parte de un movimiento que se encontraba en la encrucijada entre el razonamiento mitológico y científico-racional; el mito y el logos. Son ellos, la banda de los tres, quienes dieron forma a nuestra manera de pensar mediante la argumentación y la reflexión crítica.
Este libro se propone hacer tres trazar el viaje desde el mito hasta el logos; describir la vida y el pensamiento de los tres filósofos; y considerar su legado y lo que aún se puede obtener de ellos; especialmente en lo concerniente a la reflexión filosófica y el bienestar personal, poniendo en diálogo el modelo clásico con metodologías actuales.
Sócrates, Platón y Aristóteles conocían la lógica y la dialéctica, pero también sabían cómo vivir y cómo morir, y es en esto, tal vez, donde reside su mayor fuerza.
Para bien o para mal, Sócrates, Platón y Aristóteles dieron vida a la filosofía occidental. Los tres eran parte de un movimiento que se encontraba en la encrucijada entre el razonamiento mitológico y científico-racional; el mito y el logos. Son ellos, la banda de los tres, quienes dieron forma a nuestra manera de pensar mediante la argumentación y la reflexión crítica.
Este libro se propone hacer tres trazar el viaje desde el mito hasta el logos; describir la vida y el pensamiento de los tres filósofos; y considerar su legado y lo que aún se puede obtener de ellos; especialmente en lo concerniente a la reflexión filosófica y el bienestar personal, poniendo en diálogo el modelo clásico con metodologías actuales.
Sócrates, Platón y Aristóteles conocían la lógica y la dialéctica, pero también sabían cómo vivir y cómo morir, y es en esto, tal vez, donde reside su mayor fuerza.
374 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 22, 2025
217 people are currently reading
470 people want to read
About the author
Neel Burton
47 books259 followersDr Neel Burton is a psychiatrist, philosopher, and wine-lover who lives and teaches in Oxford, England. He is a Fellow of Green-Templeton College in the University of Oxford, and the winner of several book prizes including, the feather in his cap, a Best in the World Gourmand Award. His work features regularly in the likes of Aeon and Psychology Today and has been translated into several languages. When he is not reading or writing, or imbibing, he enjoys cooking, gardening, skiing, learning languages, visiting museums and gardens, and travelling, especially to wine regions.
His books include:
- The Meaning of Myth (Ancient Wisdom 1)
- Stoic Stories (Ancient Wisdom 2)
- The Gang of Three: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (Ancient Wisdom 3)
- The Meaning of Madness (Ataraxia 1)
- Hide and Seek: The Psychology of Self-Deception (Ataraxia 2)
- Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions (Ataraxia 3)
www.neelburton.com
His books include:
- The Meaning of Myth (Ancient Wisdom 1)
- Stoic Stories (Ancient Wisdom 2)
- The Gang of Three: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (Ancient Wisdom 3)
- The Meaning of Madness (Ataraxia 1)
- Hide and Seek: The Psychology of Self-Deception (Ataraxia 2)
- Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions (Ataraxia 3)
www.neelburton.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 25, 2024
4,5 stars; finally, somebody taking the time to actually make these philosophers digestible in an easy to read, but detailed enough, discussion of their lives, their world, and their thoughts; highly recommended reading, ideal primer for making the jump into the original works.
"Nietzsche, in his unfinished and posthumous Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, makes much out of the Anaximander fragment in Simplicius. Underlying the notion of a single arkhē, especially an abstract one called the boundless, is a dualism of appearance and essence, and a disregard for the empirical world of appearance which is subject to time and change. More than that, Anaximander seems to imply that all coming-to-be out of apeiron is an injustice, or arises out of an injustice, which must be atoned for by a return to apeiron. Thus, all coming-to-be is an aberration, ‘an illegitimate emancipation from eternal being… for which destruction is the only penance.’ Nietzsche quotes a ‘similar reflection’ from Schopenhauer, whom he calls ‘the only serious moralist of our century’: The proper measure with which to judge any and all human beings is that they are really creatures who should not exist and who are doing penance for their lives by their manifold sufferings and their death. The significance in our context is that this early dichotomy between appearance and essence, and the devaluation of appearance, prefigures Plato and his Theory of the Forms. Indeed, in another work, the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche goes so far as to call Plato ‘the sincerest advocate of the beyond, the great slanderer of life’."
"Pythagoras’ teachings as represented in the Metamorphoses of Ovid influenced the modern vegetarian movement to such an extent that, until the word ‘vegetarianism’ was coined in the 1840s, vegetarians were simply referred to as ‘Pythagoreans’."
"Socrates may even have been acquainted with Hippocrates of Kos (c. 460-c. 370), an almost exact contemporary who, in his own field of medicine, was caught up in the same broad humanist movement. Plato certainly knew of ‘Hippocrates of Kos, the Asclepiad’, who he mentions twice: once in the Protagoras and again in the Phaedrus."
"The world really came together, perhaps for the first time, in the fifth century BCE, with both Confucius and the Buddha echoing from afar the words of Socrates: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. SOCRATES Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s own ignorance. CONFUCIUS A fool who recognizes his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man. BUDDHA From then onwards, Socrates dedicated himself to the service of the gods by seeking out anyone who might be wise and, ‘if he is not, showing him that he is not’."
"Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were epitomes of sanity. If they visited us today and sat in our clinics, they would be appalled by our short-termism and short-sightedness. Surely, they would say, the best way to feel better is to be better, and we have shown you how. Your salvation lies simply in being what you were meant to be: a human being in the fullest sense. If you only aim at that, everything else will fall into place."
"Nietzsche, in his unfinished and posthumous Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, makes much out of the Anaximander fragment in Simplicius. Underlying the notion of a single arkhē, especially an abstract one called the boundless, is a dualism of appearance and essence, and a disregard for the empirical world of appearance which is subject to time and change. More than that, Anaximander seems to imply that all coming-to-be out of apeiron is an injustice, or arises out of an injustice, which must be atoned for by a return to apeiron. Thus, all coming-to-be is an aberration, ‘an illegitimate emancipation from eternal being… for which destruction is the only penance.’ Nietzsche quotes a ‘similar reflection’ from Schopenhauer, whom he calls ‘the only serious moralist of our century’: The proper measure with which to judge any and all human beings is that they are really creatures who should not exist and who are doing penance for their lives by their manifold sufferings and their death. The significance in our context is that this early dichotomy between appearance and essence, and the devaluation of appearance, prefigures Plato and his Theory of the Forms. Indeed, in another work, the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche goes so far as to call Plato ‘the sincerest advocate of the beyond, the great slanderer of life’."
"Pythagoras’ teachings as represented in the Metamorphoses of Ovid influenced the modern vegetarian movement to such an extent that, until the word ‘vegetarianism’ was coined in the 1840s, vegetarians were simply referred to as ‘Pythagoreans’."
"Socrates may even have been acquainted with Hippocrates of Kos (c. 460-c. 370), an almost exact contemporary who, in his own field of medicine, was caught up in the same broad humanist movement. Plato certainly knew of ‘Hippocrates of Kos, the Asclepiad’, who he mentions twice: once in the Protagoras and again in the Phaedrus."
"The world really came together, perhaps for the first time, in the fifth century BCE, with both Confucius and the Buddha echoing from afar the words of Socrates: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. SOCRATES Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s own ignorance. CONFUCIUS A fool who recognizes his own ignorance is thereby in fact a wise man. BUDDHA From then onwards, Socrates dedicated himself to the service of the gods by seeking out anyone who might be wise and, ‘if he is not, showing him that he is not’."
"Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were epitomes of sanity. If they visited us today and sat in our clinics, they would be appalled by our short-termism and short-sightedness. Surely, they would say, the best way to feel better is to be better, and we have shown you how. Your salvation lies simply in being what you were meant to be: a human being in the fullest sense. If you only aim at that, everything else will fall into place."
January 29, 2025
Good basic review
Glad to have read, would recommend to anyone interested in these philosophers. It’s better on Kindle. Makes it easy to look up names, places, wars, etc. I also use the clipping function and find reviewing these is helpful. Studied philosophy earlier in life. Now back at it.
Glad to have read, would recommend to anyone interested in these philosophers. It’s better on Kindle. Makes it easy to look up names, places, wars, etc. I also use the clipping function and find reviewing these is helpful. Studied philosophy earlier in life. Now back at it.
August 23, 2025
4.5 stars, if I could.
It’s been a while since I read much of our Ancient Greek roots of philosophy and science. I figured I’d take a detour from my current course of reading and get a little refresher in.
I was not disappointed. This is a great book surveying the major works and ideas of the pre-Socratic, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle philosophers. Definitely high level, survey in nature, succinct but pretty thorough.
The thing I liked most about this work, at least the first half, up to and including the biographical aspects for Aristotle was the historical context and connectedness of all of these and many more players surrounding, inspiring and influencing their works and ideas. Previously I have read up to 200 level philosophy courses material, original works and contextual summaries. But this book has done an amazing job trying these works together in historic and biographical context.
One of the things putting me in awe and wonder is reflecting on the scholarly work by presumably historians through time piecing together the relations and picture of these characters and their ideas through existing fragments of works, mentions or quotations of their works in other fragmentary works, and perhaps imperfect copies, translations, and reinterpretations of surviving works through time. This book does an impressive (to me) job in suggesting the historic reconstructed relations between many of the people involved. For instance, previously reading any of Plato’s dialogues, I would read the abstract names, say Glaucon, Thrasymscus, Phaedrus, and blindly accept them as abstract players in the story. This book gives the social, political, relational context of these people, so in knowing that so and so is Plato’s brother or son, or Aristotles father or sons, and that certain players fought together with Socrates in such and such a war, or were students of various other pre-Socratic teachers, or prominent sophists on the town square… all of this context gives so much more insight and sense to the dialogues.
Now the catch-22, having previously read many of these works and other Ancient Greek history and philosophy, at least for me, the names and pronunciations in my mind were common. I think reading this book as a first introduction, alone would be overwhelming with all of the character references. But at the same time, reading it late, as in my case, would come across as fairly summary, cliff notes-like, glossing over in nature.
I think this book would be best paired with reading it in parallel with the original/translated works together. Great context, introductory insights and summary commentary, but doesn’t replace the need to read the full works asking side.
My main criticism, again recognizing it as a summary survey, is that at times it seems pretty choppy, fast and too far summarizing unless someone already has the history, ideas, or context in mind. This work isn’t going to make you proficient in Ancient Greek philosophy… perhaps as I have read it as a long time refresher, I read it in the right time and place for me.
It’s been a while since I read much of our Ancient Greek roots of philosophy and science. I figured I’d take a detour from my current course of reading and get a little refresher in.
I was not disappointed. This is a great book surveying the major works and ideas of the pre-Socratic, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle philosophers. Definitely high level, survey in nature, succinct but pretty thorough.
The thing I liked most about this work, at least the first half, up to and including the biographical aspects for Aristotle was the historical context and connectedness of all of these and many more players surrounding, inspiring and influencing their works and ideas. Previously I have read up to 200 level philosophy courses material, original works and contextual summaries. But this book has done an amazing job trying these works together in historic and biographical context.
One of the things putting me in awe and wonder is reflecting on the scholarly work by presumably historians through time piecing together the relations and picture of these characters and their ideas through existing fragments of works, mentions or quotations of their works in other fragmentary works, and perhaps imperfect copies, translations, and reinterpretations of surviving works through time. This book does an impressive (to me) job in suggesting the historic reconstructed relations between many of the people involved. For instance, previously reading any of Plato’s dialogues, I would read the abstract names, say Glaucon, Thrasymscus, Phaedrus, and blindly accept them as abstract players in the story. This book gives the social, political, relational context of these people, so in knowing that so and so is Plato’s brother or son, or Aristotles father or sons, and that certain players fought together with Socrates in such and such a war, or were students of various other pre-Socratic teachers, or prominent sophists on the town square… all of this context gives so much more insight and sense to the dialogues.
Now the catch-22, having previously read many of these works and other Ancient Greek history and philosophy, at least for me, the names and pronunciations in my mind were common. I think reading this book as a first introduction, alone would be overwhelming with all of the character references. But at the same time, reading it late, as in my case, would come across as fairly summary, cliff notes-like, glossing over in nature.
I think this book would be best paired with reading it in parallel with the original/translated works together. Great context, introductory insights and summary commentary, but doesn’t replace the need to read the full works asking side.
My main criticism, again recognizing it as a summary survey, is that at times it seems pretty choppy, fast and too far summarizing unless someone already has the history, ideas, or context in mind. This work isn’t going to make you proficient in Ancient Greek philosophy… perhaps as I have read it as a long time refresher, I read it in the right time and place for me.
September 9, 2025
I’m going to say 3.5, the author is thorough but it comes off a little dry and dense. It does accomplish giving you background, context, and insight into the ideas of the three fathers of philosophy and modern thinking. They deeply considered topics of interpersonal relations and emotional intelligence, life/biology/science, morality and social/political structures. The influence in our culture today remains clear.
October 11, 2024
Combining biography, summary (of major works), and commentary, The Gang of Three is a good introduction to the lives, works, and major ideas of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Peter Kreeft is a better commentator, and the Oxford Classics have better introductions to major works, but Burton is much more accessible than Hackett (series) and his biographies and summaries are quite good.
Peter Kreeft is a better commentator, and the Oxford Classics have better introductions to major works, but Burton is much more accessible than Hackett (series) and his biographies and summaries are quite good.
December 1, 2023
Skepsis
A fine read that remains true to the spirit of the great Master Socrates and his followers (chronologically if not 100% logically), without being sycophantic towards them or condescending toward readers. Very informative and cheering.
A fine read that remains true to the spirit of the great Master Socrates and his followers (chronologically if not 100% logically), without being sycophantic towards them or condescending toward readers. Very informative and cheering.
December 29, 2024
The book was hard to follow at times since I’m not well versed in philosophy but I believe it gave me good exposure and a re-introduction to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. I’m better for it, although I won’t retain the names of different movements but should retain their overall sense and logic.
July 3, 2025
While difficult to read, I thought the author did a good job pretty succinctly going over the main points that we can learn from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This is not an easy endeavor, and I believe a wide range of people could find this impressive work useful.
September 3, 2025
Frankly, disappointed. Had hoped for more of a comparison and critique of the views of the three but it was just a high level biography of each. A 'Brief history of.....' listing friends and acquaintances.
May 25, 2025
Couldn’t even finish
December 24, 2025
good survey smooth read
May 7, 2025
This promised a lot and the first half is exceptionally readable. However, the work to make some of the material accessible dries up in the second half, leaving much of Plato and Aristotle in baffling philosophical jargon which is not well explained. On the surface, this is a text for beginners in Greek philosophy, but it is a very dense read by the end.
May 31, 2024
Read about one third (introduction and section on Socrates).
“Popular philosophy”, at its best striving towards the clarity of Sarah Bakewell, with a very easy, conversational style, made awkward with the use of occasional obscure words, whose meaning you can infer from context and derivation, but which cheapen the prose (for example, perdure).
Often paragraphs are “factoids” or anecdotes, as Burton races to provide historical context for his main chapters, or provide an amusing or interesting story, which only tangentially touch on the main subjects of the book. This can make it feel that having made a note of some story, Burton packs it into the book even though it doesn’t really add anything. Perhaps inevitably there is repetition of facts/stories across chapters, although sometimes this feels like lazy editing.
I sometimes felt that I was reading a rant by an imbalanced writer, such as: The pre-Socratics began the monumental shift from mythos to logos, even if the two remain entwined in their thought—as perhaps they should when we consider how their divorce has led to the rape of the planet and a dehumanizing loss of vigour and imagination. This unsupported personal opinion detracted from my confidence in the rigour and balance of the author in presenting his analysis of these philosophers.
“Popular philosophy”, at its best striving towards the clarity of Sarah Bakewell, with a very easy, conversational style, made awkward with the use of occasional obscure words, whose meaning you can infer from context and derivation, but which cheapen the prose (for example, perdure).
Often paragraphs are “factoids” or anecdotes, as Burton races to provide historical context for his main chapters, or provide an amusing or interesting story, which only tangentially touch on the main subjects of the book. This can make it feel that having made a note of some story, Burton packs it into the book even though it doesn’t really add anything. Perhaps inevitably there is repetition of facts/stories across chapters, although sometimes this feels like lazy editing.
I sometimes felt that I was reading a rant by an imbalanced writer, such as: The pre-Socratics began the monumental shift from mythos to logos, even if the two remain entwined in their thought—as perhaps they should when we consider how their divorce has led to the rape of the planet and a dehumanizing loss of vigour and imagination. This unsupported personal opinion detracted from my confidence in the rigour and balance of the author in presenting his analysis of these philosophers.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews