Dünya Felsefe Tarihinin Oluşumu: Filozoflar Birbirlerini Nasıl Etkiledi?

by Randall Collins, Tufan Göbekçin (Translator)

Randall Collins bu kitabında Doğu ve Batı toplumlarında iki bin yılı aşkın bir süredir varlığını sürdüren entelektüel ağları analiz ediyor. Farklı coğrafyalardaki felsefi düşüncelerin nasıl ortaya çıktığını ve filozofların birbirini nasıl etkilediğini anlatıyor. Dünya üzerindeki en köklü felsefi gelenekler arasındaki çatışmaları ve ittifakları mercek altına alıyor.

“Bu inanılmaz kitap, Doğu ve Batı felsefesinin büyük bir kısmına dair yıllarca süren bir çalışmanın sonucu.” –Leslie Armour, Library Journal

“Üç uygarlıktaki entelektüel değişim hakkında zengin, sistematik ve bilimsel temele dayalı bir değerlendirme. Dünya felsefelerinin gelişim süreci hakkında iddialı, kapsamlı ve parlak bir anlatım.” –Ilan Talmud, European Sociological Review

“Entelektüel hayatı anlamak isteyen hiçbir sosyolog, Randall Collins’in yaptığı bu büyük katkıyı görmezden gelemez.” –Peter Baehr, Canadian Journal of Sociology

Genres: Philosophy, Sociology, History, Nonfiction, Science, Social Science, Theory

1168 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

Dr. Randall Collins is an American sociologist who has been influential in both his teaching and writing. He has taught in many notable universities around the world and his academic works have been translated into various languages. Collins is currently Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a leading contemporary social theorist whose areas of expertise include the macro-historical sociology of political and economic change; micro-sociology, including face-to-face interaction;and the sociology of intellectuals and social conflict. He has devoted much of his career and research to study society, how is it created and destroyed through emotional behaviors of human beings. He is considered to be one of the leading non-Marxist conflict theorists in the United States, and served as the president of the American Sociological Association from 2010 to 2011.

Dr. Collins' first position in academia was at UC Berkeley, followed by many other universities including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, followed by the UC San Diego, the University of Virginia, then UC Riverside, and finally the University of Pennsylvania. He took intermittent breaks from academia, as a novelist, and as a freelance scholar. He has also been a visiting professor at Chicago, Harvard, and Cambridge, as well as various schools in Europe, Japan, and China. Collins has published almost one hundred articles since finishing his undergraduate education. He has also written and contributed to several books with a range of topics such as the discovery of society to the sociology of marriage and family life.

Dr. Collins grew up in a slew of different cities and countries, his father being a diplomat (and possible spy) with the US State Department during the Cold War. They lived in Germany immediately following World War II, and later in Moscow, among other places such as Uruguay.

Reviews

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

A huge book and I read every page because it captured my imagination once I got accustomed to the style and approach. The rewards justified the invested time but there were dark periods, especially in the opening chapters.

The book gives a detailed history of the evolution of philosophy in Europe, India, China, Japan, the Islamic world, the modern world and as such risks becoming a list of one damned thing after another. It could be all the more confusing because there is so much repetition and circularity in the story of human thought. The book takes its life from the original way the story is told and is pulled into the form of an interesting narrative because it is continually cross-referenced to an overarching argument about the nature of philosophy and the way it proceeds.

The unique method used is to construct a genealogical tree describing the chains of personal linkages for nearly every significant philosopher to all the others. The links may be positive (teacher - pupil say) or adversarial but they are always significant and the links inform the argument of the text.

If this book was compared to other histories of philosophy, it would be hard to recommend it as a first introduction and it will be much more accessible to people with an existing grasp of at least the outline of both world history and at least the major philosophers. Each significant development in philosophy is described, sometimes with a discussion, but most often in mere outline. In exchange for this loss of detail, the book offers quite a lot of insights by virtue of its particular approach to the topic.

The impression I took from my reading is that philosophy, for all its complexity and its diversity, is also circular and surprisingly repetitious. That does not mean it makes no progress. There is certainly a long term accumulation of knowledge and technique, albeit there are also periods of stasis and regression. Later thinkers often do build their work on traditional sources, but this actually entails borrowing "intellectual capital" with which to proceed to far more ambitious and sophisticated goals. "Conservative" appeals to tradition are invariably original and inventive.

There are constraints and limitations to what is possible, and those constraints - the book argues - arise from the objective, brute reality of the social and natural world in which philosophy takes place as a human activity. There are periodic claims to have made philosophy redundant and "metaphysics" is routinely derided as no longer relevant, but the brave new structures soon reveal their traditional scaffolding and invariably philosophy is called upon to excavate the foundations yet again.

The book describes and explores for each philosophical tradition the social and historical context in which it emerged and thrived. It demonstrates the extent to which ideas are the product of particular circumstances. One cannot predict what particular ideas will emerge in any given situation but one can predict the shape of the options available for thinking and the directions that might prove most fruitful. For example, at a very general level, there are contexts permitting the flourishing of many divergent strands of thought, and contexts in which that diversity will certainly be pruned and brought together into a coherent synthesis. As another example, there is a discussion of the way monotheism opens up major lines of argument and debate that a polytheist society does not require at all. A final example is the way scepticism emerges repeatedly in predictable scenarios and the role it plays, notably to defend religion.

Describing philophical history in this way, the book puts forward its own theories about a whole range of developments over time, for example the reason why Idealism was associated with the emergence of modern universities, the reason why Science after about 1700 was so dramatically different to science in the past, the reason why mathematics and philosophy have had such an important relationship over time. In doing so, it takes some truly intimidating names - such as Wittgenstein or Frege say - and cuts them down to a size that is far less frightening. That does not mean that this book is right - half the pleasure of such material is the opportunity to get angry with it, the desire to take out a green pen and write NO across the page. I am not sure yet, for example, what I make of the way Science is depicted. It means, rather, that the book is often totally engaging, brings the material to life and offers original insights into apparently well worn topics.

This is a challenging book and definitely a big one. It is not for everyone and, for most people, it will be sufficient to grab a brief account of its main arguments and a link to the genealogical trees, which can be found on the net.

http://kevinscharp.com/Sociology%20of...

But for those with the time who would appreciate a guide to the history of ideas that is genuinely global and wide ranging, this one not only takes us through an immense maze without mishap, but also unravels a continuous ball of string with which to find our way back. (less)

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s an overriding theory that the author uses to combine and explain the development of thinking about thinking and the author masterfully weaves his theory with the development of worldwide thought through time and space and the recursive nature of how the world of thought functions while this book’s thesis starts to jump out at the reader such that the patterns become recognizable before the author even restates them.

I loved having read all the great philosophers (Western) from the past. Heidegger was my entry point and that led to 200 or so books by the Western philosophers for me. This book got to tie all my readings together for me and was the summary I had been looking for. The truth is that the world we live in is part of a network across time and space and our understanding gets jumbled by our distractions at a particular time, and religions take the transcendent and pervert our understanding by fabricating meaning when nothing meaningful is there. The author cleverly includes religious mumbo-jumbo while they pretend to understand not-being as part of his study of philosophy throughout history, while substances get assumed as real by philosophers giving certainty to monads.

I’d be hard pressed to acknowledge a better book about the development of the love of wisdom throughout human history than this book. The sociological patterns that repeat over time and through space become obvious as they are demonstrated by the author. Bertrand’s Russell’s “A History of Western Philosophy” is juvenile compared to this book (Russell gets Hegel wrong!), and Durant’s “Story of Philosophy” would have been more appropriate as a graphic novel.

There is a hidden unfolding of thought that progresses through networks across time and space such that recursive patterns become obvious when revealed and Collins enlightens his reader through elucidating the history of thinking about thinking by looking at the social construction of reality as humans learn more about who we are and what it’s all about!

I can’t recommend this book too highly!

[Dustyn Hessie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The sheer audacity of this book's mission is worthy of praise.

Unfortunately, our author should have been a little more specific about his aims. What I am referring to is his tendency to use "creativity" in place what should (probably) be termed "large-scale creative influence." There are creative philosophers he didn't mention who have had mightier creativity than many of the philosophers he mentioned in his book. Fernando Pessao certainly deserves some consideration, seeing as though he has a mightier subjective philosophy than Nietzsche does. Jacques Lacan also deserve mention. Psychoanalysis, as a whole, deserved a lot of recognition....

But, for the most part, I enjoyed it. Definitely the best sociology book I've ever read. The theory is okay; the terms used seem a little botched up; but the writing is smooth and crisp.

[Jon Stout · Rating 3 out of 5]

The blurb of this book describes it as a “cross-cultural comparative philosophy,” which seems like a fascinating project. But it is really something a little different. It is a sociological description of philosophers throughout the world and throughout history. There is no philosophy done, no arguments or philosophical reasoning, rather the book describes the social dynamics of philosophical movements from about the fifth century BCE until the present day, individual by individual, generation by generation.

I was attracted by the prospect of understanding Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy and Arab philosophy in such a way that they could be put alongside Greek and western philosophy in order to provide a global perspective. This book accomplishes that but it overwhelms with its detail. I confess I did not read the whole book. I read 245 out of 892 pages, the sections on Greek and Chinese and Indian philosophies, and then I skipped around and read another 100 pages, mostly about contemporary philosophy. I realized that, while there were interesting insights, the transitions between philosophers I recognized, such as Confucius and Lao Tzu, were many generations long and so complicated that I would never master them. I came to the conclusion that, for me, the best approach would be the “Great Books” approach, reading the classics of each tradition.

There are sociological observations which are interesting, such as the “rule of small numbers.” In the attention space of any generation, there can be only three to six notable philosophers. More than that, there are too many voices for a public discussion. Fewer than that, there is not enough disagreement to generate discussion. In the intellectual communities there is a struggle to become a leading voice. One quote caught my attention: “Depression, writer’s block, the shifting of one’s attention away from intellectual projects and back onto the everyday world: these are the typical pathways by which would-be intellectuals fail to make a mark and drop out of the field.” I have been there.

There were other observations of great interest. From a philosophical point of view, Buddhism was once the philosophy of India. Hinduism started as very diverse commentary on the ancient Vedas, but did not have a cohesive point of view which was defining. It was in the struggle with Buddhism (according to the author) that both Hinduism and Buddhism defined themselves and each other. For example, the caste system and reincarnation were not essential parts of Hinduism until Buddhism developed an attitude toward them, and positions solidified on both sides. Hinduism and Buddhism were in dialogue with each other until the Moghul invasion. At that point, Hinduism, based on Brahman heads of family, was able to resist the invaders better than Buddhism, based on monasteries allied with royal courts. Buddhism dispersed to Sri Lanka, Nepal, Tibet and southeast Asia, while Hinduism survived the Moghul invasion to become the dominant religion (and philosophy) of India.

There were many other interesting insights, for example showing the family relationships among the branches of contemporary western philosophy, Anglo-American and Continental. “In reality, the two allegedly antithetical traditions are network cousins, full of common ancestors two and three generations back.” This is a fascinating project, but I would prefer to read philosophy rather than the genealogy of philosophy.

[Andrew Carr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinary. Collins provides the clearest explanation I've encountered of what it is intellectuals do, how they work and why some succeed. For academics, the first 75 pages should be mandatory reading.

'Sociology of Philosophies' is a comparative study of intellectual networks of philosophers. It ranges from Ancient Greece, China and India, through the medieval period, and the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. It is a lifetime of work.

Collins argues that the foundation of intellectual life is 'first of all conflict and disagreement'. All thought he believes is an 'aftermath or preparation of communication'. As such, by tracing who argued with who, we can see the development of ideas, and learn about why ideas change, what counts as creativity, and how networks and arguments evolve. There is useful, fascinating and well explained detail on what the content of those ideas are across these many epochs, but Collins focus is how the ideas-work was done.

Thanks to the multi-decade study behind this book, Collins comes to a few important conclusions about intellectual life. First, he argues there is rarely more than 3-6 centers of 'attention' which define the core of the intellectual world. There is limited capacity for attention, and so what defines the 'superstars' from the rest of us, is their timing and networks for locating their work within one of these centers of attention. Drawing on related studies, the eminent tend to be slightly more prolific and slightly better at identifying puzzles that draw others in (creating an incentive for a response), but this network hub position is essential.

In explaining the intellectual world in this way, Collins makes the best argument I've yet encountered for the role of the Literature Review. That most hated of PhD labours, and a tiresome challenge for many a scholar. Yet it is only by showing how our ideas connect to the core arguments that attention is likely to come our way. Creativity comes from the merging of ideas in new places, and thus it is a communicative act.

For this reason Collins also argues that there are almost no isolated geniuses. Instead he emphasises the role of face-to-face networks.First, he shows that superstar scholars typically have superstar supervisors. This may be because of location and selection (today the very best want to study at Harvard etc), but Collins suggests it is also because the eminent have the clearest insight into how the networks, arguments and puzzles are emerging and pass on these insights to their students.

Collins also makes the case for the academic lecture and workshop, face-to-face are the 'core activities from which the sacred object "truth" arises". Despite the introduction of the written word, and the mass distribution of books across recent centuries, he shows that the academic networks of ancient china or India resemble those of Western Europe in the early 20th centuries. Thinking is done together, not as one genius with a book and a pen. An insight I firmly agree with, and think could be much more usefully brought into contemporary academic analysis.

There is much much more to this book, not least the content of it, offering an engaging network analysis with many fresh insights into why names such as Socrates come down to us, while the more influential-in-their-own-time sophists are forgotten. Likewise, I learned much about the structure of Chinese and Indian philosophy, though at least a passing knowledge of each would benefit the reader.

I cannot claim to have read all the book. Much as I wanted to lose a month doing nothing else, I reluctantly had to give an 'academic read' to many of the empirical chapters. Still, I know I will return time and again to them. And the theoretical work, the broader insights into what intellectuals do, and why they act as they do, are compelling and can and should be read for their own sake.

There are some rare books which you read and suddenly the world makes a little more sense. As an academic, this is one of those books.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some thoughts about thinking. Validated my compulsion to put words in the world.

[Nicole Bouvrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book, something I will probably refer to again and again in my future research.

[Solomiya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essentially, a perfect reference book

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok, to be honest I gave out and didn't actualy finish reading all of this; skipped/skimmed the last few chapters and still felt like a received a beat-down. An incredibly long, complex sociological history of the great movements in philosophy (and philosophical religion/theology). Apparently Collins researched this book for something like 30 years and his grasp of the different schools of thought is nothing short of astounding; I'm srue there's never been a book produced like it. And that leads to the book's one large fault: his overall thesis, which regards how sociology sheds light on the waxing/waning of philosophical endeavors, tends to get lost in the historical details he presents. Though I'm sure Collins only just skimmed the surface of most of what he talks about, the reader is still left swimming in dozens of (often) unfamiliar names, technical terms, twists and turns of this or that movement.
However, the book does serve as a great history of the important world philosophies.
And there is much to learn here about how great ideas gain prominence and the social conditions that aid propogation. A good reading strategy for this book would be to read the introduction and one or two chapters on a certain philosophical movement (his chapters on the ancient Greeks and German Idealism stand out) and to read his chapter where he lays out the main components of his thesis (I believe chapter 3).

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very long combination of social influencer networks, philosophy, and intellectual history. Traces lineages of eminent philosophical and natural philosophy schools in terms of rising and falling who gets remembered how schools of thought evolve over time. They lump together in defense when losing to challenging school or split up into rival factions when triumphant. an interesting sociological study of intellectual history and networks of eminence.

[Newsblogger · Rating 5 out of 5]

He is a very good writer. He even wrote a good novel.

It starts out with a theoretical sociological analysis of interactions between intellectuals and then it is mostly narrative. Warning, 800 pages of sociology, not evaluation of the philosophical ideas.

[Deniz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book maps the social relationships between the greatest thinkers in history from all around the world. From this global viewpoint, it offers a theory of intellectual change. What an achievement! It is the most impressive book I have ever read in my life.

[Richard Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full of information you can't find elsewhere. And this is as far as I know a unique way of looking at philosophic systems.

[Aldair Sevilla]

Randall Collins es un ejemplo perfecto de un modo puro de pensar sociológicamente.
En este libro nos presenta una teoría que da cuenta de la dinámica en la histórica conceptual de la filosofía. Para él no es central, por ejemplo, que exista el dato histórico llamado Hegel a partir del cual se deba explica el antes y el después de todo el devenir y porvenir de la historia de la filosofía, no es la aparición de este personaje (ni de ninguno) lo que determina el rumbo de la historia de las ideas, pues en el fondo pudo ser cualquier otro de lo muchos jóvenes susceptibles de representar aquellas ideas.
Lo importante es reconstruir esa red de interacciones que le permitía a un determinado grupo de pensadores o pensador tomar el papel de determinado actor social y representar determinadas ideas.

Este es el modo de proceder de Antonio Piñero en Los cristianismos derrotados, donde dice que Cristo era uno de muchos otros anacoretas con ideas muy similares, que se internaban en el desierto, tenían seguidores y eran crucificados por ser una amenaza al orden, el que Cristo fuera reconocido por la historia de entro tantos otros iguales es lo que explica la estructura reticular de las relaciones entre los grupos cuya influencia social construye las ideas.

[Özgür Şanlan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitap öncelikle literatüre büyük katkı yapan akademi kitabı. Bol bol referans alacak kendisine atıf yapılacak bir kaynak. Kitabın içeriği ve fikirleri veriş şekli tam anlamıyla muhteşem. Yalniz kitabin edebi kaygi gutmemesi yazarın akademisyen olusu ve felsefe tarihini doğrudan nesnel ve bilimsel argümanlarla vermesi okumayı epey bir zorlaştırıyor. Bir ders kitabı okur gibi okumak zorunda kalıyorsunuz. Üzerine düşünmeli ve konuyla ilgili altyapıya sahip olmalısınız. Ayrica seçilen dil felsefik argümanların temeline ve felsefik kavramlara aşina olmanızı gerektiriyor.

[سلمان · Rating 4 out of 5]

مجلدين كبار ، ممتلئة معرفة وحكمة، قراءتها بعين المتفحص يعطيها متعة إضافية.

[Julio Eduardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

❤️

[Ángel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Y ME LA PELA

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admire the effort. I mean, I can’t imagine myself writing a book this long! The work itself, though, seemed to be me very superficial in its treatment of philosophers, as if he’s only read their biographies and none of their actual works. But don’t let that fool you—because, truly, he’s only read their biographies and none of their actual works. It’s an exemplary case of sacrificing depth for breadth. Collins is like a Benihana chef whose performance is awesome, but whose food tastes... awful.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too big to ignore altogether, which probably would have been the best option, or to read carefully. I still look at the index approximately once a year.