What do you think?
Rate this book
Teaching Plato in Palestine: Philosophy in a Divided World
A global journey showing how philosophy can transform our biggest disagreementsTeaching Plato in Palestine is part intellectual travelogue, part plea for integrating philosophy into our personal and public life. Philosophical toolkit in tow, Carlos Fraenkel invites readers on a tour around the world as he meets students at Palestinian and Indonesian universities, lapsed Hasidic Jews in New York, teenagers from poor neighborhoods in Brazil, and the descendants of Iroquois warriors in Canada. They turn to Plato and Aristotle, al-Ghaz?l? and Maimonides, Spinoza and Nietzsche for help to tackle big Does God exist? Is piety worth it? Can violence be justified? What is social justice and how can we get there? Who should rule? And how shall we deal with the legacy of colonialism? Fraenkel shows how useful the tools of philosophy can be—particularly in places fraught with conflict—to clarify such questions and explore answers to them. In the course of the discussions, different viewpoints often clash. That's a good thing, Fraenkel argues, as long as we turn our disagreements on moral, religious, and philosophical issues into what he calls a "culture of debate." Conceived as a joint search for the truth, a culture of debate gives us a chance to examine the beliefs and values we were brought up with and often take for granted. It won’t lead to easy answers, Fraenkel admits, but debate, if philosophically nuanced, is more attractive than either forcing our views on others or becoming mired in multicultural complacency—and behaving as if differences didn’t matter at all.
238 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 25, 2015
14 people are currently reading
244 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 18, 2019
Idolatry in the Modern World
The thesis of Teaching Plato in Palestine is that honest philosophical discussion creates understanding among people with conflicting interests. Such understanding, Fraenkel believes, can lead to truths which can be recognised and appreciated by all. To achieve this we must create a “‘culture of debate’” [the double quotes are necessary since he constantly uses them in the text].
In taking such a stand, Fraenkel appears as a typically liberal academic who, perhaps a little naively, thinks that talking is better than fighting. Who could possibly disagree? But his rather sentimental attachment to academic philosophy masks his deeply ingrained dedication to continuing the error that is the cause of much violence in the first place: the idolatry of language.
The thought that argument - a logical progression of statements based on explicit presumptions - can lead to changed minds much less human solidarity is simply ludicrous. He forgets that there are two principle forms of logical argument: modus tollens and modus poenens. The latter takes the form of ‘if p then q’ and then seeks to prove that ‘p’ is the case thus establishing the truth of the conclusion ‘q’. Modus poenens is how we typically make our argument, moving step by step up a chain of reasoning.
But modus tollens is how we listen to someone else’s argument. This has a similar initial logical structure: ‘if p then q.’ But then there’s a turnaround because this also implies ‘if not-q then not-p.’ Few of us pay attention to an ascending chain of reasoning. We know by experience that this is inefficient. We know instinctively that if we don’t agree with a conclusion, it’s because buried deeply in any argument is an implicit ‘p’ that is untenable. And we know that those making arguments are keen to hide this hidden ‘p’ from us. Since we disagree with the conclusion ‘q’, we know there is dud link somewhere in the chain of reasoning.*
And there is indeed such a dud link in Fraenkel’s argument. He believes that agreement about words and how they fit together - things like principles, moral codes, philosophical systems, indeed logic itself - implies agreement about what might be called our life-interests, those things that are not words which are important to us. The words we use to describe these things - family, nation, God, wealth, reputation, culture of debate - mean very different things to different people. Words are only defined in terms of other words, never in terms of personal experiences. This quite apart from the fact that some of these experiences have never been or even can be described in words.
Fraenkel thinks that words are the ultimate bringers of peace. He’s delusional. At best they are agreements to suspend hostilities (treaties). At worst words are what create and solidify animosity (manifestos). The various Christian creeds provide ample proof of the use of words to establish tribal solidarity at the expense of violence in a larger community. Words become idols more readily and more pervasively than any golden calf or Roman house-god.
The danger of agreement about words is far greater than the opposite. Agreement gives the illusion of fixity, that the words are more than words, that they describe reality. Words are not reality. This is the liberal political fallacy. And it is Fraenkel’s erroneous presumption. His argument is vacuous. It can lead nowhere rational. It is also dangerous because the making of such arguments can only increase mutual suspicion and hostility when their vacuity becomes clear.
I believe that violence is always evil, that power which can exercise violence must always be mistrusted, that power exists in society primarily as a consequence of words, and that words are therefore as dangerous as they are useful. Words like Islam, Israel, Christianity are obviously so. Words like Rationality, Debate, Clarity are less obvious but no less potent forms of potential power. Arguments always contain inherent interests, which may not even be visible to those arguing. Debate may reveal those hidden interests, or make known ones more entrenched. But they never can resolve interests which conflict. Such resolution is a matter of religious conversion, love, or mental imbalance, not good arguments.
*As I write this, I am listening to the latest news about the Trump impeachment hearings. The public response to allegations about Trump has always demonstrated modus tollens as the dominant mode of listening. Almost all Democrats think the man is a crook. Almost all Republicans think he is being persecuted. The arguments presented are virtually meaningless.
The thesis of Teaching Plato in Palestine is that honest philosophical discussion creates understanding among people with conflicting interests. Such understanding, Fraenkel believes, can lead to truths which can be recognised and appreciated by all. To achieve this we must create a “‘culture of debate’” [the double quotes are necessary since he constantly uses them in the text].
In taking such a stand, Fraenkel appears as a typically liberal academic who, perhaps a little naively, thinks that talking is better than fighting. Who could possibly disagree? But his rather sentimental attachment to academic philosophy masks his deeply ingrained dedication to continuing the error that is the cause of much violence in the first place: the idolatry of language.
The thought that argument - a logical progression of statements based on explicit presumptions - can lead to changed minds much less human solidarity is simply ludicrous. He forgets that there are two principle forms of logical argument: modus tollens and modus poenens. The latter takes the form of ‘if p then q’ and then seeks to prove that ‘p’ is the case thus establishing the truth of the conclusion ‘q’. Modus poenens is how we typically make our argument, moving step by step up a chain of reasoning.
But modus tollens is how we listen to someone else’s argument. This has a similar initial logical structure: ‘if p then q.’ But then there’s a turnaround because this also implies ‘if not-q then not-p.’ Few of us pay attention to an ascending chain of reasoning. We know by experience that this is inefficient. We know instinctively that if we don’t agree with a conclusion, it’s because buried deeply in any argument is an implicit ‘p’ that is untenable. And we know that those making arguments are keen to hide this hidden ‘p’ from us. Since we disagree with the conclusion ‘q’, we know there is dud link somewhere in the chain of reasoning.*
And there is indeed such a dud link in Fraenkel’s argument. He believes that agreement about words and how they fit together - things like principles, moral codes, philosophical systems, indeed logic itself - implies agreement about what might be called our life-interests, those things that are not words which are important to us. The words we use to describe these things - family, nation, God, wealth, reputation, culture of debate - mean very different things to different people. Words are only defined in terms of other words, never in terms of personal experiences. This quite apart from the fact that some of these experiences have never been or even can be described in words.
Fraenkel thinks that words are the ultimate bringers of peace. He’s delusional. At best they are agreements to suspend hostilities (treaties). At worst words are what create and solidify animosity (manifestos). The various Christian creeds provide ample proof of the use of words to establish tribal solidarity at the expense of violence in a larger community. Words become idols more readily and more pervasively than any golden calf or Roman house-god.
The danger of agreement about words is far greater than the opposite. Agreement gives the illusion of fixity, that the words are more than words, that they describe reality. Words are not reality. This is the liberal political fallacy. And it is Fraenkel’s erroneous presumption. His argument is vacuous. It can lead nowhere rational. It is also dangerous because the making of such arguments can only increase mutual suspicion and hostility when their vacuity becomes clear.
I believe that violence is always evil, that power which can exercise violence must always be mistrusted, that power exists in society primarily as a consequence of words, and that words are therefore as dangerous as they are useful. Words like Islam, Israel, Christianity are obviously so. Words like Rationality, Debate, Clarity are less obvious but no less potent forms of potential power. Arguments always contain inherent interests, which may not even be visible to those arguing. Debate may reveal those hidden interests, or make known ones more entrenched. But they never can resolve interests which conflict. Such resolution is a matter of religious conversion, love, or mental imbalance, not good arguments.
*As I write this, I am listening to the latest news about the Trump impeachment hearings. The public response to allegations about Trump has always demonstrated modus tollens as the dominant mode of listening. Almost all Democrats think the man is a crook. Almost all Republicans think he is being persecuted. The arguments presented are virtually meaningless.
June 23, 2025
Taqlid And A Culture Of Debate
One of the best recent books I have read is Carlos Fraenkel's deeply learned and thoughtful work, "Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza: Reason, Religion, and Autonomy” (2012), The book aims, in the author's words to “lay the groundwork for understanding and tracing the history of what I call a philosophical religion.” The book is a difficult historical study of the relationship of philosophy, reason, and religion from Plato to Spinoza. Fraenkel teaches philosophy and religion at McGill University and at Oxford. He has a varied background which is reflected in his work as he has lived and studied in Germany, Brazil, Israel, and Paris.
While Fraenkel's first book was lengthy and erudite, the book I am reviewing here, "Teaching Plato in Palestine: Philosophy in a Divided World" (2015) is relatively short, and it is written for lay readers. Fraenkel sees philosophy more as a process of thinking than as a particular doctrinal teaching, such as existentialism, idealism, logical positivism. He writes: "What I mean is the practice of philosophy; acquiring techniques of debate -- logical and semantic tools that allow us to clarify our views and to make and respond to arguments ..... and cultivating virtues of debate -- valuing the truth more than winning an argument and trying one's best to understand the viewpoint of the opponent." Fraenkel's goal is to show how the study and practice of philosophical thinking as so understood is not merely a matter for academics but rather might help individuals in their own thought on what is important and might also help cultures and groups of different views to understand each other and to get along better. The goal of getting people of different views to understand one another without necessarily giving up their own position would be of great worth in our currently polarized country. But the examples Fraenkel offers are taken from different sources, some of which might be even more seemingly intractable.
The book is in two parts. In the first part, Fraenkel describes five philosophical workshops he conducted between 2006 -- 2011 to try to show students and non-specialists the value of thinking philosophically. The first chapter, for which the book is named, describes Fraenkels' experience in a Palestinian University in which he encourages students to reflect on their strongly-held religious and political commitments. Fraenkel next describes a three-week visit to Indonesia -- a very different Moslem country where he encouraged his interlocutors to think about the long intellectual history of Islam and its relationships to other religions and to a pluralistic society. In the third chapter, Fraenkel explores a variety of theological and philosophical issues with a small group of Hasidic Jews, from both the Satmar and the Lubavitcher sects, who have become uncomfortable with their Orthodoxy. For me, this was the most personal and fascinating part of the book. Then, Fraenkel visits Brazil, the country of his birth, and describes the workings of the government-mandated program of teaching philosophy in high schools and the different ways such a program might be implemented. In the final chapter, Fraenkel meets with Mohawk Indians on the Canadian-United States border and discusses questions of personal identity, history, and government.
The second part of the book consists of a single chapter "Diversity and Debate". It is a philosophical essay in which Fraenkel tries to draw lessons from his experiences teaching philosophical thinking to peoples from different cultures. The most striking part of this chapter is the discussion of taqlid. The medieval Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali came to realize that the thinking of most people, himself included, was based on taqlid -- the views he had uncritically absorbed from his early years from family and surroundings. He came to realize the importance of reflecting and perhaps surmounting taqlid -- seeing for example that had he been raised in a Jewish or Christian instead of an Islamic home and land, he surely would have understood things differently. Taqlid becomes a basis for reflecting on one's unexamined assumptions and ideas, much as Socrates tried to get his fellow Athenians to reflect and to think critically.
With taqlid comes a sense of fallibilism -- which means that most human beliefs, even those held most strongly, could be otherwise and might be wrong or subject to change and interpretation. Much contemporary philosophy, including that of the American pragmatists, is heavily influenced by concepts of fallibilism. In his free- flowing essay, Fraenkel uses taqlid and fallibilism to encourage what he calls a culture of debate -- in which people of different points of view talk to each other honestly and in friendship to try to discover the bases for their different approaches to important questions for life to promote both understanding of oneself and others. Fraenkel argues that the culture of debate differs from both multiculturalism and relativism in that it is truth directed -- individuals are encouraged to search for what is true and what is right rather than rest in cultural differences. Fraenkel believes that the project of instilling a culture of debate during the latter years of high school would help people develop the conceptual and reflective skills to understand themselves and others.
The book is written in an engaging, accessible manner. Fraenkel encourages the reader to think about important questions and brings wonderful company to bear in the figures of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Maimonides, Nietzsche, al-Ghazali, and more. In this American election year, if nothing else, people need to be reminded to reflect on their ideas in a careful, critical way while being mindful of other points of view. This book will appeal to philosophically-inclined readers who want to reflect on the nature of philosophical thought and on its value.
Robin Friedman
One of the best recent books I have read is Carlos Fraenkel's deeply learned and thoughtful work, "Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza: Reason, Religion, and Autonomy” (2012), The book aims, in the author's words to “lay the groundwork for understanding and tracing the history of what I call a philosophical religion.” The book is a difficult historical study of the relationship of philosophy, reason, and religion from Plato to Spinoza. Fraenkel teaches philosophy and religion at McGill University and at Oxford. He has a varied background which is reflected in his work as he has lived and studied in Germany, Brazil, Israel, and Paris.
While Fraenkel's first book was lengthy and erudite, the book I am reviewing here, "Teaching Plato in Palestine: Philosophy in a Divided World" (2015) is relatively short, and it is written for lay readers. Fraenkel sees philosophy more as a process of thinking than as a particular doctrinal teaching, such as existentialism, idealism, logical positivism. He writes: "What I mean is the practice of philosophy; acquiring techniques of debate -- logical and semantic tools that allow us to clarify our views and to make and respond to arguments ..... and cultivating virtues of debate -- valuing the truth more than winning an argument and trying one's best to understand the viewpoint of the opponent." Fraenkel's goal is to show how the study and practice of philosophical thinking as so understood is not merely a matter for academics but rather might help individuals in their own thought on what is important and might also help cultures and groups of different views to understand each other and to get along better. The goal of getting people of different views to understand one another without necessarily giving up their own position would be of great worth in our currently polarized country. But the examples Fraenkel offers are taken from different sources, some of which might be even more seemingly intractable.
The book is in two parts. In the first part, Fraenkel describes five philosophical workshops he conducted between 2006 -- 2011 to try to show students and non-specialists the value of thinking philosophically. The first chapter, for which the book is named, describes Fraenkels' experience in a Palestinian University in which he encourages students to reflect on their strongly-held religious and political commitments. Fraenkel next describes a three-week visit to Indonesia -- a very different Moslem country where he encouraged his interlocutors to think about the long intellectual history of Islam and its relationships to other religions and to a pluralistic society. In the third chapter, Fraenkel explores a variety of theological and philosophical issues with a small group of Hasidic Jews, from both the Satmar and the Lubavitcher sects, who have become uncomfortable with their Orthodoxy. For me, this was the most personal and fascinating part of the book. Then, Fraenkel visits Brazil, the country of his birth, and describes the workings of the government-mandated program of teaching philosophy in high schools and the different ways such a program might be implemented. In the final chapter, Fraenkel meets with Mohawk Indians on the Canadian-United States border and discusses questions of personal identity, history, and government.
The second part of the book consists of a single chapter "Diversity and Debate". It is a philosophical essay in which Fraenkel tries to draw lessons from his experiences teaching philosophical thinking to peoples from different cultures. The most striking part of this chapter is the discussion of taqlid. The medieval Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali came to realize that the thinking of most people, himself included, was based on taqlid -- the views he had uncritically absorbed from his early years from family and surroundings. He came to realize the importance of reflecting and perhaps surmounting taqlid -- seeing for example that had he been raised in a Jewish or Christian instead of an Islamic home and land, he surely would have understood things differently. Taqlid becomes a basis for reflecting on one's unexamined assumptions and ideas, much as Socrates tried to get his fellow Athenians to reflect and to think critically.
With taqlid comes a sense of fallibilism -- which means that most human beliefs, even those held most strongly, could be otherwise and might be wrong or subject to change and interpretation. Much contemporary philosophy, including that of the American pragmatists, is heavily influenced by concepts of fallibilism. In his free- flowing essay, Fraenkel uses taqlid and fallibilism to encourage what he calls a culture of debate -- in which people of different points of view talk to each other honestly and in friendship to try to discover the bases for their different approaches to important questions for life to promote both understanding of oneself and others. Fraenkel argues that the culture of debate differs from both multiculturalism and relativism in that it is truth directed -- individuals are encouraged to search for what is true and what is right rather than rest in cultural differences. Fraenkel believes that the project of instilling a culture of debate during the latter years of high school would help people develop the conceptual and reflective skills to understand themselves and others.
The book is written in an engaging, accessible manner. Fraenkel encourages the reader to think about important questions and brings wonderful company to bear in the figures of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Maimonides, Nietzsche, al-Ghazali, and more. In this American election year, if nothing else, people need to be reminded to reflect on their ideas in a careful, critical way while being mindful of other points of view. This book will appeal to philosophically-inclined readers who want to reflect on the nature of philosophical thought and on its value.
Robin Friedman
September 26, 2016
I think Fraenkel was right, a Marxist may dismiss this book as the clash between religious and bourgeois ideologoies, a Nietzchean may call it as a disguise fight for domination, and a Freudian may find it as a manifestation of supressed desires. However I think it is an interesting attempt to have a healthy debate between rationality and Islam.
Having said that, the author ignores real confrontation between religious doctrines, which go directly against the idea of social justice, gender equality, just resource redistribution, idea of examined life and diversity. So this book is only a good introduction for a debate between Islam and philosophy, not an end in itself.
As an old rule of philosophy goes- first attempt is the worst attempt (but nonetheless an important attempt).
Having said that, the author ignores real confrontation between religious doctrines, which go directly against the idea of social justice, gender equality, just resource redistribution, idea of examined life and diversity. So this book is only a good introduction for a debate between Islam and philosophy, not an end in itself.
As an old rule of philosophy goes- first attempt is the worst attempt (but nonetheless an important attempt).
April 21, 2022
Dengan judul yang cukup eksentrik, buku ini mengusung misi mulia untuk mengeluarkan filsafat dari ruang-ruang sumuk akademis menjadi milik siapapun. Mengeluarkan sisi inklusif filsafat serta mengemasnya sebagai ilmu yang tidak hanya bisa dinikmati oleh segelintir orang.
Tujuan ini difasilitasi melalui berdebat, penulis beranggapan bahwa filsafat dapat bermanfaat selain menuntun berfikir runut juga bisa digunakan ketika berdebat.
Seni berdebat menggunakan filsafat ini dapat dipakai untuk melihat kebenaran dan perbedaan pendapat yang terjadi kiwari yang diakibatkan oleh kemajemukan dari berbagai agama, budaya, dan kondisi sosial budaya.
Untuk itu buku ini akan terasa penting karena pada kenyataannya filsafat tetap bisa kita nikmati tanpa perlu memedulikan anggapan bahwa ilmu ini rumit dan memusingkan.
Tujuan ini difasilitasi melalui berdebat, penulis beranggapan bahwa filsafat dapat bermanfaat selain menuntun berfikir runut juga bisa digunakan ketika berdebat.
Seni berdebat menggunakan filsafat ini dapat dipakai untuk melihat kebenaran dan perbedaan pendapat yang terjadi kiwari yang diakibatkan oleh kemajemukan dari berbagai agama, budaya, dan kondisi sosial budaya.
Untuk itu buku ini akan terasa penting karena pada kenyataannya filsafat tetap bisa kita nikmati tanpa perlu memedulikan anggapan bahwa ilmu ini rumit dan memusingkan.
December 14, 2024
Boa lectura para refrescar, fixar e descubrir nocións básicas da Historia da Filosofía e o pensamento de determinados autores clave, especialmente con respecto ao orixe das relixións e conceptos como o ben e a xustiza. Resultoume de gran interés o capítulo 5, relativo á poboación mohawk e a súa loita pola autonomía política en Canadá. Porén, tampouco é a divina papaia e non me convence o "etnocentrismo crítico" que defende o autor. Lle daría 2,5 stars pero non sei como se fai así que queda en 2.
dnf
March 20, 2024had to read a few chapters of this for college lol
July 11, 2015
Carlos Fraenkel argues that argument is essential. Argument, he says, is the collaborative search for truth, the willingness to compare ideas and insights with other people in order to build an understanding of our world and our place within it.
He illustrates what he means by reporting on philosophical arguments all over the world. Each conversation begins with Aristotle and Plato, and then moves on to consider philosophers who speak to the truths and conflicts of society. The conversations explore the role of God's law, the role of government, the relationship between people in civil societies, morality, colonialism, and self identity, and they reveal not only paradoxes but the historical and social contexts of the various societies. In Palestine and New York (where he converses with a group of ultra orthodox Jews), many participants acknowledge that even talking about ideas in such a way is completely forbidden. In Brazil and the Mohawk Nation, meanwhile, discussing philosophical questions is regarded as social necessity, though both groups acknowledge that it doesn't happened enough.
The conversations are fascinating and wide ranging, so it's difficult to read them without trying to engage the people around you in the discussions that you're having with those on the page. Sometimes, it's the ideas that you want to talk about; other times, it's the philosophical traditions or the conversations themselves.
At one point, he quotes Nietzsche: "Imagine a divine messenger who reveals to you that 'this life, as you now live it and as you lived it in the past, you will have to live again and another infinite times; and there will be noting new, but every pain and every pleasure, every thought, and every sigh, and every unspeakable smallness and greatness of your life will come back, in the same sequence and order.'
What would you do --' gnaw your teeth and curse him,' or say 'you are a god; I've never heard of anything more divine!'"
As you ponder this question, you can see why it's a difficult book to read by yourself...
He illustrates what he means by reporting on philosophical arguments all over the world. Each conversation begins with Aristotle and Plato, and then moves on to consider philosophers who speak to the truths and conflicts of society. The conversations explore the role of God's law, the role of government, the relationship between people in civil societies, morality, colonialism, and self identity, and they reveal not only paradoxes but the historical and social contexts of the various societies. In Palestine and New York (where he converses with a group of ultra orthodox Jews), many participants acknowledge that even talking about ideas in such a way is completely forbidden. In Brazil and the Mohawk Nation, meanwhile, discussing philosophical questions is regarded as social necessity, though both groups acknowledge that it doesn't happened enough.
The conversations are fascinating and wide ranging, so it's difficult to read them without trying to engage the people around you in the discussions that you're having with those on the page. Sometimes, it's the ideas that you want to talk about; other times, it's the philosophical traditions or the conversations themselves.
At one point, he quotes Nietzsche: "Imagine a divine messenger who reveals to you that 'this life, as you now live it and as you lived it in the past, you will have to live again and another infinite times; and there will be noting new, but every pain and every pleasure, every thought, and every sigh, and every unspeakable smallness and greatness of your life will come back, in the same sequence and order.'
What would you do --' gnaw your teeth and curse him,' or say 'you are a god; I've never heard of anything more divine!'"
As you ponder this question, you can see why it's a difficult book to read by yourself...
May 6, 2017
Thought provoking book with a wonderful premise of holding philosophical discussions in Palestine, and Sulawesi in particular communities where religious belief is strong.
It also argues that a lively debate in relation to theology, values and beliefs could be encouraged by mandatory education in philosophy ala Brazil, and the need for this cultural debate even in multicultural societies which tend to suppress differences rather than discuss them.
It also argues that a lively debate in relation to theology, values and beliefs could be encouraged by mandatory education in philosophy ala Brazil, and the need for this cultural debate even in multicultural societies which tend to suppress differences rather than discuss them.
April 24, 2017
The author's discussions about ethics and morality were interesting, but this book assumes that the reader has completed---or remembers---a college-level Philosophy class.
August 5, 2018
Inspires you into seeing the merit of philosophy
May 26, 2020
If I had not been reading it for a book discussion, I would have put it down halfway through. His premise had promise, but I found his writing to be needlessly confusing; he jumped between topics often, usually refused to come to any conclusions (which is fine for discussions, but bad for composition), quoted conversations inorganically, and name-dropped in every other sentence. If he really intended this book for a non-academic audience, he failed to alter his style to his audience.
Besides that, I had a personal aversion to this book. He takes any chance he can to antagonize Christian tradition, and the fact that he NEVER mentions St. Thomas Aquinas as a fellow Aristotelian (with the Muslim Averroes and the Jewish Maimonides) seems like a prideful and petty omission. Aquinas is a giant in the world of historical philosophy; I could not take the author seriously with his absence.
Go read Josef Pieper’s “The Philosophical Act” instead.
Besides that, I had a personal aversion to this book. He takes any chance he can to antagonize Christian tradition, and the fact that he NEVER mentions St. Thomas Aquinas as a fellow Aristotelian (with the Muslim Averroes and the Jewish Maimonides) seems like a prideful and petty omission. Aquinas is a giant in the world of historical philosophy; I could not take the author seriously with his absence.
Go read Josef Pieper’s “The Philosophical Act” instead.
January 19, 2024
This book is part travelogue and part a plea for integration of philosophy in both public and private lives.. His journey includes meeting students in Palestine and Indonesia, lapsed Hasidic Jews in New York,, teenagers in the poor areas of Brazil and the descendants of the Iraquois warriors in Canada.
Topics discussed include - does God exist?, is violence justified?,v id piety worth it?, what is social justice? and what is the legacy of colonialism. All these subjects are examined in relation to some of the world's greatest philosophers icluding Nietzsche, Plato and Aristocle
I found the book and its discussions thought provoking and interesting despite being a difficult read. On a first read I found each subject needs further thought so I intend to re read the book in the near future.
If you are interested, or new to philosophy I would recommend this book.
Topics discussed include - does God exist?, is violence justified?,v id piety worth it?, what is social justice? and what is the legacy of colonialism. All these subjects are examined in relation to some of the world's greatest philosophers icluding Nietzsche, Plato and Aristocle
I found the book and its discussions thought provoking and interesting despite being a difficult read. On a first read I found each subject needs further thought so I intend to re read the book in the near future.
If you are interested, or new to philosophy I would recommend this book.
May 18, 2020
Cool premise. The first two chapters were over my head...and there were definitely portions throughout that I didn't understand. Mainly when he'd go off on specific philosophers. I really enjoyed chapts 3-5, especially with the Mohawks. I wish it was a bit easier to understand for a layman philosopher such as myself.
December 24, 2023
Tadinya ku pikir pembahasannya akan banyak seputar filsafat Plato, ternyata pada setiap negara berbeda pembahasan satu dengan lainnya. Membuat pikiranku lebih terbuka tentang filsafat dunia, tidak hanya filsafat Yunani dan Eropa. Untuk yang awam dengan topik ini sepertiku, aku merasa belajar banyak sekali. Jujur, temanya berat banget dan ditulis sebagaimana jurnal oleh Fraenkel.
November 30, 2019
It’s a boring travelogue sprinkled with some philosophical quotes. Total disappointment.
December 29, 2023
Muy recomendable. Temas actuales con referencia a filosofía clasica. Aborda temas que me gustan personalmente y creo que de interés común.
January 1, 2023
Belajar filsafat untuk kalangan awan
December 3, 2016
Some good things, some bad things. I will have a review up soon.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews