What do you think?
Rate this book
Vidas sujetas a escrutinio. De Sócrates a Nietzsche
Sócrates se pasó la vida sometiéndose a escrutinio y examinando las opiniones de otros. Su seguidor más conocido, Platón, arriesgó su reputación al ser tutor de un tirano. Diógenes llevaba una lámpara y proclamaba «estar buscando un hombre». La alianza de Aristóteles con Alejandro Magno presagia el complejo papel de Séneca en la corte de Nerón. Agustín descubrió a Dios dentro de sí mismo. Montaigne y Descartes indagaron sus más profundas convicciones en una era de criminales guerras religiosas. Rousseau aspiraba a una vida de virtud perfecta. Kant elaboró un nuevo ideal de autonomía. Emerson predicó un evangelio de autosuficiencia para una nueva nación. Y Nietzsche intentó «unificar y reunir lo que es fragmento y enigma y temible azar» en el hombre antes de sucumbir a la demencia.
508 pages, Paperback
First published January 4, 2011
120 people are currently reading
2471 people want to read
About the author
James Miller
594 books21 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
July 5, 2011
The father of Western philosophy was not a writer. He believed actions spoke louder than words, that you should be the same person in private that you are in public, and that men should live by laws. Condemned to death as a corrupter of youth, Socrates neither recanted nor ran. He ordered his hemlock straight up.
Socrates’ successors were committed to following the same moral code. Unlike him, they were involved in politics.
When Plato found himself stuck between two warring tyrants, Dion of Syracuse and Dionysus the Younger, former students who forgot everything he taught them about benevolent leadership, he survived by pandering to both.
Plato’s great student, Aristotle, advocated a form of constitutional government; in actual life, he allied himself with the brutal monarchy of Philip II, King of Macedonia.
Seneca, the great Stoic, wrote eloquently about overcoming the passions; but as PR man for the Emperor Nero, he never stopped indulging his own. Late in life, before cutting open his veins in his own state-sanctioned execution, he fessed up: The noble advice he spent his life writing “is not said of myself — I am sunk deep in vice of every kind — but said for someone who may actually achieve something great.”
“The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates famously preached, but as the 12 sages profiled in this erudite history attest, the examined one is no vacation, either. At the end of the day, people in the business of saying what life is all about have only their own life to work with. Contradictions abound, political reality shreds abstract thought, and getting the mind and heart on the same page can be exhausting.
Some, like Diogenes, take it to an extreme. No public-private disconnect with this guy. He thought people should be as free as animals, and he lived like one: sleeping in a clay tub, treating everyone the same way regardless of rank, even sh#!ting in public. He was the Iggy Pop of his day. He wanted to be your dog. People loved him, and he died like a rock star.
For the philosophers who have arrived since, living one’s beliefs has been a dicey proposition. Rousseau wrote volumes on the innate goodness of man and how best to educate children; his own children were dumped off at orphanages. Augustine went from being Manichean to Catholic, and from martyr to martinet; a “former member of a persecuted sect became a persecuting sectarian,” helping to stifle the very type of philosophical quest he himself had pursued.
Both Rousseau and Augustine wrote classic confessions that attest to their attempts to unite their divided selves; 16th-century French writer Montaigne might have told them not to bother. How can people be consistent when we all have so many selves? “We are all patchwork, and so shapeless and diverse in composition that each bit, each moment, plays its own game.”
How should be live? No easy answer. Descartes, in a religious age, defined reality and morality in relation to God; Kant, at the dawn of the Enlightenment, erased God from the equation, although he managed to shield that view from the authorities.
For Ralph Waldo Emerson, the ex-minister turned great essayist, God Himself was as hard to reject as he was to accept. “In my study my faith is perfect,” he wrote in his journal. “It breaks, scatters, becomes confounded in converse with men.”
By the time Nietzsche arrived on the scene, Darwin had changed the game: not only was there no God, but no rational basis for living. Nature survives independently of mankind.
“For a long time,” he wrote, “human beings did not exist … They have no further mission and no purpose.”
Miller’s point isn’t to debunk these great thinkers or to trivialize them, but to show how people came to think about the big questions, and how the questions themselves keep changing. He’s an excellent storyteller — whether his subjects have broad, tumultuous lives like Diogenes, Rousseau and Nietzsche, or barely left their desk, like Descartes and Kant — and he has the kind of command of the subject that lets him condense a lot of complex and important ideas without, so far as I can tell, losing much in the process.
Experts may feel the book lacks obscurity, that it’s weighted a little too much toward being comprehensible, but anyone with a high patience for clarity or concision will be rewarded.
This is a first-class meeting of first-class minds.
Socrates’ successors were committed to following the same moral code. Unlike him, they were involved in politics.
When Plato found himself stuck between two warring tyrants, Dion of Syracuse and Dionysus the Younger, former students who forgot everything he taught them about benevolent leadership, he survived by pandering to both.
Plato’s great student, Aristotle, advocated a form of constitutional government; in actual life, he allied himself with the brutal monarchy of Philip II, King of Macedonia.
Seneca, the great Stoic, wrote eloquently about overcoming the passions; but as PR man for the Emperor Nero, he never stopped indulging his own. Late in life, before cutting open his veins in his own state-sanctioned execution, he fessed up: The noble advice he spent his life writing “is not said of myself — I am sunk deep in vice of every kind — but said for someone who may actually achieve something great.”
“The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates famously preached, but as the 12 sages profiled in this erudite history attest, the examined one is no vacation, either. At the end of the day, people in the business of saying what life is all about have only their own life to work with. Contradictions abound, political reality shreds abstract thought, and getting the mind and heart on the same page can be exhausting.
Some, like Diogenes, take it to an extreme. No public-private disconnect with this guy. He thought people should be as free as animals, and he lived like one: sleeping in a clay tub, treating everyone the same way regardless of rank, even sh#!ting in public. He was the Iggy Pop of his day. He wanted to be your dog. People loved him, and he died like a rock star.
For the philosophers who have arrived since, living one’s beliefs has been a dicey proposition. Rousseau wrote volumes on the innate goodness of man and how best to educate children; his own children were dumped off at orphanages. Augustine went from being Manichean to Catholic, and from martyr to martinet; a “former member of a persecuted sect became a persecuting sectarian,” helping to stifle the very type of philosophical quest he himself had pursued.
Both Rousseau and Augustine wrote classic confessions that attest to their attempts to unite their divided selves; 16th-century French writer Montaigne might have told them not to bother. How can people be consistent when we all have so many selves? “We are all patchwork, and so shapeless and diverse in composition that each bit, each moment, plays its own game.”
How should be live? No easy answer. Descartes, in a religious age, defined reality and morality in relation to God; Kant, at the dawn of the Enlightenment, erased God from the equation, although he managed to shield that view from the authorities.
For Ralph Waldo Emerson, the ex-minister turned great essayist, God Himself was as hard to reject as he was to accept. “In my study my faith is perfect,” he wrote in his journal. “It breaks, scatters, becomes confounded in converse with men.”
By the time Nietzsche arrived on the scene, Darwin had changed the game: not only was there no God, but no rational basis for living. Nature survives independently of mankind.
“For a long time,” he wrote, “human beings did not exist … They have no further mission and no purpose.”
Miller’s point isn’t to debunk these great thinkers or to trivialize them, but to show how people came to think about the big questions, and how the questions themselves keep changing. He’s an excellent storyteller — whether his subjects have broad, tumultuous lives like Diogenes, Rousseau and Nietzsche, or barely left their desk, like Descartes and Kant — and he has the kind of command of the subject that lets him condense a lot of complex and important ideas without, so far as I can tell, losing much in the process.
Experts may feel the book lacks obscurity, that it’s weighted a little too much toward being comprehensible, but anyone with a high patience for clarity or concision will be rewarded.
This is a first-class meeting of first-class minds.
January 26, 2011
Enjoyable sketches of various philosophers' lives and their ideas. Perfect for daily commute reading since the chapters share a loose connection, but can be enjoyed on their own without loss of coherence. I think the epilogue ties it together well, too, how there's no great lesson to draw from all of these biographies, but just that living an examined life is one - possibly rewarding, but also possibly depressing - but in any case enriching way of living. Recounting the lives of various philosophers, even someone like Kant, who people don't usually think of as having led a colorful life, also grounds philosophy in humanism, and takes it away from airy abstraction. If that's the main goal of the book, then it succeeds wonderfully. I don't always get a feeling for why philosophy is relevant in anyone's life, but I do see the passion that philosophy evoked in these philosophers' lives. And I think that makes philosophy itself seem more human.
August 7, 2014
This was an interesting journey into the lives (for good and bad) of western civilization's greatest philosophers. An effort to examine whether this small group of our greatest thinkers could serve as role models for living. The concept behind the book is that philosophy began not as a dry subject of esoteric inquiry and knowledge, but rather as a model for a life well lived. Miller believes that the true use of philosophy as a guide to life has been lost. "The only critique of a philosophy that is possible and that proves something, namely trying to see whether one can live in accordance with it, hasn't been taught in universities; all that has ever been taught is a critique of words by means of other words."
He continues "once upon a time, philosophers were figures of wonder... a source of shared inspiration, offering, through words and deeds, models of wisdom, patterns of conduct, and, for those who took them seriously, examples to be emulated." It's obvious that Miller seeks to return philosophy to a place beside (or perhaps as a replacement for) theology as a guide to life.
From Socrates to Nietzsche, these philosophers were the source of some of the most brilliant, most troubling, most engaging thought in the history of the West. Surely. within the lives of these greatest of men, greatest of thinkers we must find the models on how to live life.... Actually, not so much. It turns out that as a group, they were a mess - hypocritical, unable to live up to their own personal standards and, in at least one or two cases, just plain crazy. Yet, as Miller notes, there is as much value in understanding their failure in actualization as their victory in thought.
In the midst of understanding the challenges of living a life to an exceptionally high moral and philosophical standard, Miller teaches us about the basic tenets of each philosopher's life view. It's a wonderful perspective from which to survey the history of western intellectual thought. However, I couldn't help but come away from the book a bit depressed. These are perhaps the greatest minds in history. If they couldn't help but screw up their own lives, what does that mean for me?
Nonetheless, I enjoyed the journey and if you have an interest in philosophy or even just a curiosity about the development of western intellectual thought, this is a relatively easy to access survey of philosophy with an author that makes a compelling case of striving for the goal of life well lived.
He continues "once upon a time, philosophers were figures of wonder... a source of shared inspiration, offering, through words and deeds, models of wisdom, patterns of conduct, and, for those who took them seriously, examples to be emulated." It's obvious that Miller seeks to return philosophy to a place beside (or perhaps as a replacement for) theology as a guide to life.
From Socrates to Nietzsche, these philosophers were the source of some of the most brilliant, most troubling, most engaging thought in the history of the West. Surely. within the lives of these greatest of men, greatest of thinkers we must find the models on how to live life.... Actually, not so much. It turns out that as a group, they were a mess - hypocritical, unable to live up to their own personal standards and, in at least one or two cases, just plain crazy. Yet, as Miller notes, there is as much value in understanding their failure in actualization as their victory in thought.
In the midst of understanding the challenges of living a life to an exceptionally high moral and philosophical standard, Miller teaches us about the basic tenets of each philosopher's life view. It's a wonderful perspective from which to survey the history of western intellectual thought. However, I couldn't help but come away from the book a bit depressed. These are perhaps the greatest minds in history. If they couldn't help but screw up their own lives, what does that mean for me?
Nonetheless, I enjoyed the journey and if you have an interest in philosophy or even just a curiosity about the development of western intellectual thought, this is a relatively easy to access survey of philosophy with an author that makes a compelling case of striving for the goal of life well lived.
February 13, 2012
If you find the works of the great philosophers too intimidating to approach, but have a secret love for the wisdom (making you too a philosopher in potentia) many of them seem to have approached and uncovered, James Miller's book is for you. He writes beautifully and makes the lives of the philosophers...come back to life, by suggesting their relevance to us. His theme is that real philosophy is the love of wisdom, and that the philosophers who matter most to us are those who struggled to live in accord with that wisdom. Of them all, Socrates alone seems to have succeeded in transforming his life into a school for learning. Plato, one step removed, started a school but regarded Socrates' wisdom as the lens through which he examined the questions he addressed. Diogenes the cynic comes across as what the Sufis call "majnun"-- someone possessed by a jinn-- who utters words of wisdom but whose habits of living called his sanity into question. Seneca was an idealist, who failed to live up to the beliefs that he had but sought to examine himself by those beliefs and ideals. Augustine, perhaps, came closer than Seneca to living his beliefs but seems to have turned against them as his loyalty to the organized church. He became cynical at the limits of the average believer's capacity to live with faith in God, and to believe that his mission was to enforce a dogma that as a young man he would never have accepted. Montaigne is interesting, but his wealth and social position gave him advantages that make him a poor role model for any but those who are both financially well-endowed and inclined toward self-reflection. Descartes again comes close, as well, but his genius sets him apart as well as someone whom it is difficult to feel any empathy. Rousseau sought truth and struggled, publicly and privately, with the gap between the truths he articulated and the weaknesses he displayed in his personal life. Kant was an academic who wrote in such dense, abstract terms that this reader was left wondering whether Kant himself could understand what he had written. Emerson was the democrat's philosopher, the philosopher of self-reliance whose words soared and penetrated hearts and inspired minds, like a man endowed with not-quite prophetic insights but who nonetheless made his listeners-- and readers-- believe they could indeed grow and improve and become better human beings. And Nietzsche, who was born to a father who became insane and himself became insane. A tragic figure, whom insanity seemed to bedevil throughout much of his life, who himself wanted to soar where no one had gone, yet ultimately found himself tortured by delusions of grandeur. All in all, a terrific book.
January 30, 2011
In "Examined Lives," James Miller (a professor at the New School) turns out to be a witty tour guide as he takes readers on a walking tour of the history of Western philosophy. He admits in the introduction that modern textbooks skimp on the lives of philosophers in favor of ideas, but, tracing Western philosophy to its roots in Greece, shows how the lives of these imminent thinkers influenced their thoughts (or vice versa).
Miller points out that there's bound to be disagreement from those who see this as a form of muck-raking. "The details of personal lives seem quite irrelevant to understanding a thinker's views," says philosopher Seyla Benhabib. If such an examination is not in vogue from an academic perspective, then so be it--it still makes for an entertaining and enlightening journey for the layman and scholar alike.
As Sarah Bakewell points out in her New York Times review of "Examined Lives," the takeaway that Miller leaves readers with is "neither simple nor uniformly edifying." Just like life.
Miller points out that there's bound to be disagreement from those who see this as a form of muck-raking. "The details of personal lives seem quite irrelevant to understanding a thinker's views," says philosopher Seyla Benhabib. If such an examination is not in vogue from an academic perspective, then so be it--it still makes for an entertaining and enlightening journey for the layman and scholar alike.
As Sarah Bakewell points out in her New York Times review of "Examined Lives," the takeaway that Miller leaves readers with is "neither simple nor uniformly edifying." Just like life.
May 21, 2015
As Tommy Wiseau eloquently puts in his film The Room: "Get out, get out, get out of my life!" This attempt to distill philosophy through the biographies of its practitioners quickly devolved into homework, slate-gray and uninteresting. I hoped it would be an introduction to these men's (all of them male, of course) ideas, but I was sadly disappointed. Bleh. On to the next.
May 3, 2011
I do legitimately enjoy reading light pop-biographical studies on famous philosophers. I admit it. I love 'Wittgenstein's Poker' and 'Montaigne's Fucking Cat' and all that. I liked that documentary about Derrida where he stumbles around in his office.
This is another fine specimen in that tradition, and where it kind of bores in its selection of subjects (from Socrates to Nietzsche with few surprises in between) the level of detail and the split between anecdotal spice and doctrinal analysis is pretty good. I wouldn't really hesitate to recommend this as a starting point for somebody interested in philosophy, and unless you're like, diehard intense about Rousseau it should be a pretty pleasant and inoffensive read for more intensive philosophy readers.
This is another fine specimen in that tradition, and where it kind of bores in its selection of subjects (from Socrates to Nietzsche with few surprises in between) the level of detail and the split between anecdotal spice and doctrinal analysis is pretty good. I wouldn't really hesitate to recommend this as a starting point for somebody interested in philosophy, and unless you're like, diehard intense about Rousseau it should be a pretty pleasant and inoffensive read for more intensive philosophy readers.
February 15, 2012
Admittedly I didn't finish the book before the library asked for it back but I'm not renewing it. The author attempts to examine the relationship between the philosopher's ideas and his actual life, but the result is a confusion between biography and a history of ideas. And there's not an attempt to justify his particular choices of philosophers to study. Picking four ancient philosopher is a puzzling choice when one's aim is to compare philosophy to the life lived as reliable information is not available. The confusion and haphazard selection leaves me wondering why I should continue to read.
September 8, 2020
A good introduction to to lovers of wisdom (literal meaning of philosophy) this book does a great job of diving into some of the greatest thinkers since the evolution of consciousness.
“The unexamined life is not worth living” “I think therefore I am” Human, all to Human” and “Will to power” this book touches on the Fathers of wisdom.
It does a great job of explaining how some schools of thought evolved, and especially for the early philosophers of Greece and Rome, how their schools of thought differed as well as the similarities.
“The unexamined life is not worth living” “I think therefore I am” Human, all to Human” and “Will to power” this book touches on the Fathers of wisdom.
It does a great job of explaining how some schools of thought evolved, and especially for the early philosophers of Greece and Rome, how their schools of thought differed as well as the similarities.
March 29, 2020
Miller takes a "lives of the philosophers" approach to about ten great philosophers, from Socrates to Nietzsche. He interweaves their lives with their ideas in an engaging and insightful way. His epilogue will make you think: what did he learn from writing these lives? Is it true that the examined life is not worth living, or is self-examination over-rated? :)
One small question I had: why no women philosophers in the book?
One small question I had: why no women philosophers in the book?
April 15, 2012
Mr. Miller summarizes the work and lives of 12 philosophers in a very readable manner mixing their thoughts and lives in a balanced perspective.
Summing up in an interesting Epilogue he finds their efforts to live philosophical lives of integrity thru introspection and reason to be hopeless tasks. The dictum, "Know thyself" doesn't live up to it's promise. The self "stands revealed as wretched, vain, and all too human," the author writes.
Instead, he writes, "...if we seek happiness or tranquillity or a transcendent meaning..., then it may be simpler to abandon both the search for" scientific knowledge and also for philosophical truth and to join some community of traditional worship or to explore other comtemporary alternatives. Meditation or Zen might work best for some of us. Philosophy as a way of life can be useful, he implies, but only if you elborate your own thoughts and not the thoughts of other people (Ralph Waldo Emerson posits this same theme in his writings on self-reliance.)
I liked the book and am glad I read it. It wiped away most of the awe which I felt for philosophy and I think that is a good thing. It leaves me free to be more "self-reliant." Montaigne and Emerson are the philosophers I find most 'simpatico.'
Summing up in an interesting Epilogue he finds their efforts to live philosophical lives of integrity thru introspection and reason to be hopeless tasks. The dictum, "Know thyself" doesn't live up to it's promise. The self "stands revealed as wretched, vain, and all too human," the author writes.
Instead, he writes, "...if we seek happiness or tranquillity or a transcendent meaning..., then it may be simpler to abandon both the search for" scientific knowledge and also for philosophical truth and to join some community of traditional worship or to explore other comtemporary alternatives. Meditation or Zen might work best for some of us. Philosophy as a way of life can be useful, he implies, but only if you elborate your own thoughts and not the thoughts of other people (Ralph Waldo Emerson posits this same theme in his writings on self-reliance.)
I liked the book and am glad I read it. It wiped away most of the awe which I felt for philosophy and I think that is a good thing. It leaves me free to be more "self-reliant." Montaigne and Emerson are the philosophers I find most 'simpatico.'
March 22, 2022
Espectacular. Revela con profundidad y gracia la vida y pugna interna de cada uno de estos personajes.
Me quedo con la idea de que, quizá, el escrutinio de uno mismo carezca de todo propósito práctico y, paradójicamente, también cueste verlo como un fin en sí mismo. Puede ser fuente de tanto horror como dicha, pero como diría Sócrates: "una vida no sujeta a escrutinio no vale la pena de ser vivida".
Quizás nunca podamos ser totalmente coherentes con nosotros mismos (como sí lo fue Sócrates) ni ser capaces de imitar la vida de los filósofos que aparecen en el libro. Pero ante eso, el hecho de formular aquellas preguntas fundamentales sobre uno y el todo es precisamente lo que brinda sentido a nuestro breve paseo por el mundo: arrojándose a ese vacío, desprovisto de certezas y dogmas, desbordados de preguntas incesantes, pero sin desintegrarse, es el acto de vivir, con sinceridad, la máxima délfica.
Me quedo con la idea de que, quizá, el escrutinio de uno mismo carezca de todo propósito práctico y, paradójicamente, también cueste verlo como un fin en sí mismo. Puede ser fuente de tanto horror como dicha, pero como diría Sócrates: "una vida no sujeta a escrutinio no vale la pena de ser vivida".
Quizás nunca podamos ser totalmente coherentes con nosotros mismos (como sí lo fue Sócrates) ni ser capaces de imitar la vida de los filósofos que aparecen en el libro. Pero ante eso, el hecho de formular aquellas preguntas fundamentales sobre uno y el todo es precisamente lo que brinda sentido a nuestro breve paseo por el mundo: arrojándose a ese vacío, desprovisto de certezas y dogmas, desbordados de preguntas incesantes, pero sin desintegrarse, es el acto de vivir, con sinceridad, la máxima délfica.
January 25, 2018
Quite lively little accounts of some very interesting, and increasingly sad, men. The building on History building on ideas building but the interesting thing with someone of the similar approach or at least similar goal and then showing how a similar goal with a different approach can lead to wildly different ideas based on context historical context locational context timing.., what's interesting is how they all posed similar question about life happiness God and how to get back but still kind of came up with different ideas I think it shows that the timing of the idea and the development of the society is really what squeezes out the truth rather than the particular question person
June 4, 2019
Socrates of wares exposed for sale, he would say to himself, "How many things I can do without!" * * * the part I understand is excellent, and so too is, I dare say, the part I do not understand: but it needs a Delian diver to get to the bottom or if." p. 25
. . . charges of impiety. . . p. 32
. . . there is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse. p. 58 !!!!!!
Antisthenes . . . . found useful about philosophy . . .. the ability to converse with myself. p. 77
Diogenes (after watching a mouse eat a crumb of his bread) If a mouse could be satisfied with so little, he thought , why not a man. p. 78
Diogenes ( on needs of king and needs of Diogenes) You are too powerful to need me --- and I am too self-sufficient to need you. p. 82
. . . why live if you do not care to live well. p. 84
Aristotle . . . nature creates nothing that does not fulfill a purpose. p. 102 cf. Emerson have nothing around you unless you find it useful of beautiful.
Seneca I am satisfied if every day I reduce my vices and reprove my errors. p. 129
Montaigne there is no beast in the world so much to be feared by man as man himself. p. 172
one of the chief goals of a philosopher: tranquility. p. 196
desCartes I was completely free to converse with myself about my own thoughts. 207
it might be wise to jettison his prior beliefs all at one go, in order to replace them afterwards with better ones. ***
Rousseau How sweet it would be to live among us if exterior appearance were always the image of the heart's disposition. p. 234
What is the origin of inequality among men and is it authorized by natural law? p. 236 !!!!!
Madmen who ceaselessly complain of nature, learn that all your evils arise from yourselves! p. 237
Voltaire had first become famous as an outspoken critic of superstition and Christian bigotry.p. 241
Kant: Epicurus, Zeno, Socrates . . . the principal object of their science has been the destination of man, and the means to achieve it.p. 260
a constitution allowing the greatest possible human freedom in accordance with laws by which the freedom of each is made to be consistent with that of all others is a necessary idea. p. 274
The saying, Perfect yourself -- to say simply Be good, make yourself worthy of happiness, be a good man, and not merely happy -- can be seen as the principle of ethics. p. 275
for from such crooked timber as man is made, nothing perfectly straight can be built. p. 278
human beings vary greatly in their ability to live with uncertainty. * * * Kant personally felt no need to believe that God exists or that the soul is immortal. p. 278
sapere aude Dare to know! p. 280
If a man were to say and write all he thinks, there would be nothing more horrible on God's earth than man. p. 283
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and reverence, the more often more steadily one reflects on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. p.285
Emerson "scorn trifles" p. 291 lover of indolence. p. 294
N.B. The difficulty is that we do not make a world of our own but fall into institutions already made and have to accommodate ourselves to them to be useful at all, and this accommodation is, I say, a loss of so much integrity and of course of so much power. p. 297
. . . forever I forgo the yoke of men's opinions. p. 298
The purpose of life seems to be to acquaint a man with himself. p. 299 !!!!!!!! (know thyself)
Nietzsche Tell me what you need, a German satirist quipped, and I will supply you with a Nietszche quote. p. 317
[task is to] organize the chaos within. . . p. 328 !!!!!!
Beware when fate lets loose a thinker on their planet. p. 329
Zoroaster zoros, meaning undiluted and astra, or stars p. 336
zeno, Socrae
. . . charges of impiety. . . p. 32
. . . there is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse. p. 58 !!!!!!
Antisthenes . . . . found useful about philosophy . . .. the ability to converse with myself. p. 77
Diogenes (after watching a mouse eat a crumb of his bread) If a mouse could be satisfied with so little, he thought , why not a man. p. 78
Diogenes ( on needs of king and needs of Diogenes) You are too powerful to need me --- and I am too self-sufficient to need you. p. 82
. . . why live if you do not care to live well. p. 84
Aristotle . . . nature creates nothing that does not fulfill a purpose. p. 102 cf. Emerson have nothing around you unless you find it useful of beautiful.
Seneca I am satisfied if every day I reduce my vices and reprove my errors. p. 129
Montaigne there is no beast in the world so much to be feared by man as man himself. p. 172
one of the chief goals of a philosopher: tranquility. p. 196
desCartes I was completely free to converse with myself about my own thoughts. 207
it might be wise to jettison his prior beliefs all at one go, in order to replace them afterwards with better ones. ***
Rousseau How sweet it would be to live among us if exterior appearance were always the image of the heart's disposition. p. 234
What is the origin of inequality among men and is it authorized by natural law? p. 236 !!!!!
Madmen who ceaselessly complain of nature, learn that all your evils arise from yourselves! p. 237
Voltaire had first become famous as an outspoken critic of superstition and Christian bigotry.p. 241
Kant: Epicurus, Zeno, Socrates . . . the principal object of their science has been the destination of man, and the means to achieve it.p. 260
a constitution allowing the greatest possible human freedom in accordance with laws by which the freedom of each is made to be consistent with that of all others is a necessary idea. p. 274
The saying, Perfect yourself -- to say simply Be good, make yourself worthy of happiness, be a good man, and not merely happy -- can be seen as the principle of ethics. p. 275
for from such crooked timber as man is made, nothing perfectly straight can be built. p. 278
human beings vary greatly in their ability to live with uncertainty. * * * Kant personally felt no need to believe that God exists or that the soul is immortal. p. 278
sapere aude Dare to know! p. 280
If a man were to say and write all he thinks, there would be nothing more horrible on God's earth than man. p. 283
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and reverence, the more often more steadily one reflects on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. p.285
Emerson "scorn trifles" p. 291 lover of indolence. p. 294
N.B. The difficulty is that we do not make a world of our own but fall into institutions already made and have to accommodate ourselves to them to be useful at all, and this accommodation is, I say, a loss of so much integrity and of course of so much power. p. 297
. . . forever I forgo the yoke of men's opinions. p. 298
The purpose of life seems to be to acquaint a man with himself. p. 299 !!!!!!!! (know thyself)
Nietzsche Tell me what you need, a German satirist quipped, and I will supply you with a Nietszche quote. p. 317
[task is to] organize the chaos within. . . p. 328 !!!!!!
Beware when fate lets loose a thinker on their planet. p. 329
Zoroaster zoros, meaning undiluted and astra, or stars p. 336
zeno, Socrae
January 4, 2021
Twelve great thinkers and philosophers, from Socrates to Nietzsche. What strikes me is that each was a reflection of his situation and that was mostly governed by the time in which he lived. Philosophers tend to have hard lives, they also tend to have ill health. Pain makes them think more. But my thought is that life is not about happiness. It's about dealing with life's challenges and having courage, and through this appreciating the things which are easily missed when we superficially believe we are 'happy'.
Harmony with nature is critical because the natural world around us is beautiful even when it's harsh. We should not build too much artificial comfort although I do appreciate how attractive this is, there is of a price of a disconnect which is important to our balance.
Socrates - the father of philosophy - his principles have never been equalled. How many of us are willing to die for what we believe in?
Plato - a genius, a politician. But many of his very believed ideas have stood in the way of modern progress.
Diogenes - the ultimate minimalist who thew away his cup because he realized he could cup his hands at the fountain. He was certainly so right that physical possessions do much less for our satisfaction than we imagine before we have them.
Aristotle - the great genius and father of modern science.
Seneca - The great Stoic who wrote about the principles but who sometimes felt tested in his own life. Life was so hard in the ancient world, especially if you where the advisor to Nero!
Augustine - 'Oh Lord give me celibacy, but not yet.' Who cannot relate to this. He managed to incorporate the philosophy of Plato into the Catholic church.
Montaigne - It's OK to fail - it brings dignity. This is very soothing and human.
Descartes - I think therefore I am. The ultimate logician.
Rousseau - The Noble Savage. Are we born good then corrupted? This father of the French Revolution seems to have been proved wrong through history over and over in my mind.
Kant - Enlightenment secularist and scientific genius. Searching for the morality in humans with less religious guidance. The rule of do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Emerson - The father of literature in the US. Great men are ordinary men and therefore ordinary women can be great women.
Nietzche - What doesn't kill me makes me stronger. The rejector of Christianity and the belief we must be powerful instead. Deep indeed beyond what can be summarized.
This book is a great introduction to each of these great thinkers and their respective ideas which often conflict across the spectrum through the time and between the man. It can leave us confused and disillusioned, but then we can come back to Socrates and bold statement 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing'.
Harmony with nature is critical because the natural world around us is beautiful even when it's harsh. We should not build too much artificial comfort although I do appreciate how attractive this is, there is of a price of a disconnect which is important to our balance.
Socrates - the father of philosophy - his principles have never been equalled. How many of us are willing to die for what we believe in?
Plato - a genius, a politician. But many of his very believed ideas have stood in the way of modern progress.
Diogenes - the ultimate minimalist who thew away his cup because he realized he could cup his hands at the fountain. He was certainly so right that physical possessions do much less for our satisfaction than we imagine before we have them.
Aristotle - the great genius and father of modern science.
Seneca - The great Stoic who wrote about the principles but who sometimes felt tested in his own life. Life was so hard in the ancient world, especially if you where the advisor to Nero!
Augustine - 'Oh Lord give me celibacy, but not yet.' Who cannot relate to this. He managed to incorporate the philosophy of Plato into the Catholic church.
Montaigne - It's OK to fail - it brings dignity. This is very soothing and human.
Descartes - I think therefore I am. The ultimate logician.
Rousseau - The Noble Savage. Are we born good then corrupted? This father of the French Revolution seems to have been proved wrong through history over and over in my mind.
Kant - Enlightenment secularist and scientific genius. Searching for the morality in humans with less religious guidance. The rule of do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Emerson - The father of literature in the US. Great men are ordinary men and therefore ordinary women can be great women.
Nietzche - What doesn't kill me makes me stronger. The rejector of Christianity and the belief we must be powerful instead. Deep indeed beyond what can be summarized.
This book is a great introduction to each of these great thinkers and their respective ideas which often conflict across the spectrum through the time and between the man. It can leave us confused and disillusioned, but then we can come back to Socrates and bold statement 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing'.
May 1, 2020
It took me almost two months to get halfway this book. I finally gave up and it feels good. While the subject is extremely appealing to me, the implementation of the idea is very poor. Miller's academic background is no longer a background but something that constantly pokes you in the eye while reading, to my great disgust. The extensive usage of strange English words that usually never see any daylight do not help. I'm not a native English speaker, but having to drag along a dictionary just to be able to keep up with what the author is trying to say is NOT a good idea - however good the contents may be.
Still, I feel sad. This could have been so much more... I really want to like it, but I can't. Writing means appealing to your readers, and I guess I'm just not one of Miller's readers.
Still, I feel sad. This could have been so much more... I really want to like it, but I can't. Writing means appealing to your readers, and I guess I'm just not one of Miller's readers.
August 9, 2021
If you are looking for philosophy, this is not probably the best place to turn. The book is instead a biography of 12 philosophers and a brief introduction to their lives and work. Philosophy is usually a dry subject when it comes to actual text in most forms and is not easily accessible. This may vary from philosopher to philosopher but it remains a steady rule of thumb. Therefore, this book is more of a first read on philosophy in order to form a sense of interest when it comes to which philosopher you might want to investigate further. Fortunately we live in a time where the internet has made these texts more accessible. American philosophy? Perhaps start with Emerson. Christian philosophy? Perhaps Augustine. These and more are included and their work might even be free in some instances in the form of PDF. This book is a starting place and not a book of philosophy in and of itself.
December 4, 2017
I used this book to introduce myself to these philosophers. It did an alright job giving me textbook level information on their lives, but I felt like overall themes could have been more fully explored. The only thing that gets through is, "Practice what you preach." But there were a few more threads I was hoping would be explored, such as the philosopher's role in the political world. The author also failed to pass judgement on certain philosophers, even though his main premise above implied that he should do so. So no judgement of Nietzsche's egotism and descent into madness, just a cold retelling.
July 23, 2024
Doce breves reseñas biográficas de autores -todos varones- qué han ayudado a dar forma a la filosofía en occidente durante los pasados dos milenios, desde el hito fundacional del gesto socrático, hasta las revelaciones epifánicas de Nietzsche. El autor, historiador de profesión e interesado en la filosofía, perfila a cada autor vinculando a la persona con su obra, desde una perspectiva humana con matices que destacan grandeza y aportes tan bien como sus notables incongruencias, intentando demostrar la brecha de cada uno para estar a la altura de sus propias declaraciones -en palabras de Adela Cortina-, en la búsqueda de verdad y coherencia que caracteriza al filosofar.
May 28, 2019
This is nice. It’s written clearly and informatively, with good references. It’s a good general audience salvo, a handy answer to my grandfather’s question: how did Socrates (and philosophers generally) behave.
More broadly, it’s a good way to reflect on the modes of Examined our Lives could be, which begs contemplation of the best life, not just for Seneca or Socrates or Spinoza but for human beings as such.
More broadly, it’s a good way to reflect on the modes of Examined our Lives could be, which begs contemplation of the best life, not just for Seneca or Socrates or Spinoza but for human beings as such.
July 16, 2019
This book was ok. It was interesting. But it wasn't clear to me what the common thread between the philosophers was. The author says that philosophy (esp. in ancient times) was meant to answer the question of "how to live the best life" so he focused on the biographies more than the writings/teachings of these philosophers. However, I was still left wondering why he chose these particular philosophers.
February 13, 2023
This is a fine book. Nothing wrong with it. However I thought it was something different than it was.
I thought it was a short primer on the philosophy of each of these philosophers. However, that is not what it was. It was actually a short biography of each of these philosophers. The mistake is mine, and not the authors.
I thought it was a short primer on the philosophy of each of these philosophers. However, that is not what it was. It was actually a short biography of each of these philosophers. The mistake is mine, and not the authors.
July 23, 2019
Interesting canter through the lives of 12 key figures in philosophy. Does a great job of humanising the great thinkers and putting their works into context - would have liked their contributions to thought be brought out more compellingly, but I guess there are other places you can go for that.
December 22, 2019
Useful history of some exemplars of philosophy for life
Well written overview of certain philosophers who grappled with philosophy as a way of life, rather than some abstruse academic enterprise.
Well written overview of certain philosophers who grappled with philosophy as a way of life, rather than some abstruse academic enterprise.
August 22, 2024
Unfortunately I did not finish this novel — though not as a result of its content or prose. I lost it and occurred a criminal amount of fees from the public library before later finding it beneath bed.
April 18, 2020
A must read for those who are looking for answers in all corners of life.
November 22, 2022
Some essays focus on thought; others on biography. Uneven quality.
November 10, 2024
A chapter dedicated to a different philosopher, narrating their lives from the perspective of living an examined life. I found it moving, generous, and insightful.
June 16, 2018
I recommend Durant's The Story of Philosophy.
March 3, 2017
the chapters on descartes and kant, weirdly enough, are especially good and compelling.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews