What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dream of Reason: A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance
The author turns the history of philsophy on its head, re-examining the basic assumption of philosophical thought from the pre-Socratic philosophers to Erasmus.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published December 30, 2000
474 people are currently reading
6239 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Gottlieb
21 books146 followersAnthony Gottlieb is a British writer, former Executive Editor of The Economist, historian of ideas, and the author of The Dream of Reason. He was educated at Cambridge University and has held visiting fellowships at All Souls College, Oxford, and Harvard University. He has taught at the CUNY Graduate Center and the New School in New York, and been a visiting scholar at New York University and fellow at the Cullman Centre for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. He is a fellow of the New York Institute for the Humanities and the series editor of The Routledge Guides to the Great Books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 215 reviews
August 21, 2017
كتاب حلم العقل هو واحد من أمتع ما يمكن أن تقرأ عن تاريخ الفلسفة، كتبه أنتوني جوتليب ونشره في الثلاثين من ديسمبر عام (2000). للكتاب جزء ثاني نُشر في أغسطس 2016 ولم يترجم إلى الآن.
رحلة مذهلة ومدهشة في عوالم مختلفة بأفكار مختلفة.. أنا أؤمن بأن الفلسفة تبني فكر الإنسان وتجعله أكثر تقبلًا للآراء حتى لو كنت تتعارض معها، وهي أم العلوم كما ندرك. من بعد قراءتي لعالم صوفي وأنا أسعى لقراءة أخرى في الفلسفة إلى أن وقع في يدي هذا الكتاب، وما أروعه!
في هذا المقال عرض موجز للكتاب.
https://www.sasapost.com/opinion/the-...
رحلة مذهلة ومدهشة في عوالم مختلفة بأفكار مختلفة.. أنا أؤمن بأن الفلسفة تبني فكر الإنسان وتجعله أكثر تقبلًا للآراء حتى لو كنت تتعارض معها، وهي أم العلوم كما ندرك. من بعد قراءتي لعالم صوفي وأنا أسعى لقراءة أخرى في الفلسفة إلى أن وقع في يدي هذا الكتاب، وما أروعه!
في هذا المقال عرض موجز للكتاب.
https://www.sasapost.com/opinion/the-...
October 17, 2010
I am absolutely floored that people did not give this book five stars. I was so impressed that now that I am done with the book I am planning on turning right around to read it immediately again. Absolutely a new favorite. I have studied the more ancient philosophers very heavily and have never read such beautiful correlations between great minds as put forth by Gottlieb. Extremely simple and very elegant. This is exactly what I was looking for to solidify time periods and thinkers together. I don't care what anyone else says this book was hands down fantastic!
April 20, 2020
من المحزن أنني أجلت هذا الكتاب منذ صدور ترجمته في عام 2014 حتي الأن، ربما كان الفراغ الذهني هو ما كان ينقصني كي أخوض في تلك الرحلة من الإحالات والتدقيقات في القواميس الفلسفية ولكن ما أجملها رحلة حين تأتي في علم نحبه وفي كتاب قيم وجوهري لتأريخ الفلسفة كهذا الكتاب، لن أطيل في التقديم ولكنني سأطيل بالأسفل لتلخيص بعض أجزاء الكتاب عسي أن ينتفع بها غيري وتجذب إنتباهه أو تنفعني أنا شخصياً بعد ذلك .
ينقسم الكتاب إلي ثلاثة فصول، الفصل الأول يتحدث عن فلاسفة الطبيعية - ما قبل سقراط - بداية بالملطيون ونهاية بالسفسطائيون مروراً بمذاهب فلسفية عظيمة مثل الفيثاغورثية - والتي أثرت في كل الفلاسفة من وقتها وحتي الأن - والتي كانت أقرب للديانة منها للمذهب الفلسفي فروادها اعتنقوا النباتية إيماناً منهم بتناسخ الأرواح كما كانوا يقدسون الحروف ويطلقون علي الموجودات الأساسية مثل العقل والعدل أرقام مثل 1 و 4، ومرواً أيضا ببارمنيدس اول من خالف الفكرة السائدة بحركة كل الأشياء وبدء يحاول أن يبرهن علي أن كل شئ ثابت لا يتحرك من أول السهم المنطلق للنجوم والكواكب وبهذا إذا فالكون أزلي - ربما تري أن أفكاره ضرباً من الجنون ولكن حين تري الأثر التي تركته في علم المنطق ستعدل عن رأيك - وتلميذه زينون الذي حاول أن يبرهن بالرياضيات علي صحة ادعاءات معلمه فبالتفاضل مثلا يمكن تجزئه حركة القوس إلي مستطيلات صغيرة في كل مستطيل القوس لا يتحرك وهو ما تم تفنيده بعد ذلك .
أما نهاية الفصل الأول فقد جاءت لتتحدث عن ديموقراطيس والسفسطائين، فديموقراطيس أول من أحس بمفهوم الذرة ليس كما نعرفه تماماً ولكنه أمن بوجود مكونات داخل كل المواد أصغر من أن نراها وأصغر من أن تُكسر وتحمل في طياتها تركيب المادة نفسها ثم وصف أشكالها بأن الملح مثلا ذراته مدببة والسكر ذراته دائرية الشكل وهو تفسير بديهي تماماً رغم خطئه فالملح يلسع اللسان فتحسس بأنه مادة مدببة وهكذا، وفي نهاية الفصل حديث عن السفسطائين أول من أنزل الفلسفة من برجها العاجي وجعلها متاحة لعوام الشعب، يتعلمون منها الجدال والفلك وبعض من الرياضيات وهو ما أزعج محتكري الفلسفة - كأفلاطون علي سبيل المثال - فقولهم مثلا بأن " النصر لا يكون حليفا إلا لمن يتحدث أفضل " كان لب المذهب السوفسطائي في تعليم الجدال كما أن النسبية في كل شئ كانت مذهبهم الحياتي مما أثار حفيظة حتي الغير مهتمين بالفلسفة .
في الفصل الثاني كان تلخيص لفترة سقراط وما بعده، يشير بعض الفلاسفة لسقراط وأفلاطون وأرسطو ب (ثالوث الفلسفة) نظراً لتأثيرهم الشديد علي سير الفلسفة حتي الأن، فسقراط حكيم عصره كان يري أن الفطرة في الإنسان هي التقوي، فكل إنسان تقي وتكمن مهمته في البحث عن الحكمة المولودة في داخله منذ ولادته ، كما كان يري أن كل إنسان يحتوي علي كل العلوم وإجابات كل الأسئلة الممكنة تكمن الصعوبة فقط في توجيه السؤال المناسب لاستخراج المعلومة والمعرفة وفي نهاية حياته أُتهم بالانتماء للسفوسطائين بجانب اللواط وحُكم عليه بالإعدام ولكنه أختار تنفيذه بنفسه وأنتحر في بيته . ، أما أفلاطون فكان صغيراً أبان انتحار سقراط فتأثر به أشد تأثير وكتب محاوراته الشهيرة لوصف المحاكمة بالكامل وفي الواقع كل فلسفة سقراط الموجودة حاليا وصلتنا عن طريق أفلاطون بعد ضياع كل ما كتب سقراط ، أنشأ أفلاطون أكاديمية رياضية لتعليم الفلسفة للمهتمين بالرياضيات (كتب علي بابها لا يدخلها إلا رياضي) ومن أهم أعماله أفكاره عن عالم يحتوي علي جميع المثل من كل الموجودات علي الأرض من جمال وعدل وخير وإلخ ، كما أنه حاول أن يتخيل شكل المدينة الفاضلة من قوانين تحكمها وصفات حكامها الذي كان يري أنهم يجب أن يدرسوا الفلسفة وحتي تعليم الأطفال فيها ولخص كل تلك الأفكار في كتابه (المدينة الفاضلة) .
أما عن أرسطو فهو أبو المنطق الذي يحضر أسمه الأن حين نتحدث عن المنطق او عن تعليم الفلسفة للحكام - فأرسطو معلم الإسكندر الأكبر - علي خلاف أفلاطون معلمه لم يؤمن أرسطو تماماً بوجود عالم من المثل العليا كما لم يؤمن بالآلهة اليونانية بمعناها المتعارف عليه فالألة من وجه نظره كان مكبل اليدين أمام كل المغالطات والقوانين الموجودة في العالم ولكنه أمن كمثله وقتها أن الكون بالكامل مسخر للإنسان، المختلف في أرسطو عن معلمه أفلاطون أيضاً هو اشتغال أرسطو بالطب والمنهج التجريبي فيه كما كان مهووس بتصنيف الكائنات الحية كلها من الطيور والزواحف مما أثر علي تفكيره قليلاً فترك الفلسفة الروحية كما يقولون وأهتم أكتر بالفلسفة الأرضية مما يراه علي أرض الواقع .
في نهاية الفصل تحدث عن المذاهب الثلاثة لتحقيق السكينة (الشكوكية والأبيقورية والرواقية) ولتلخصيهم يمكن القول ببساطة أن الشكوكية تشك في كل شيء من أول الغرض من الطعام للغرض من النوم بداعي النسبية في كل شيء فلسنا جميعاً نحس بنفس الدرجة من البرد أو الحر - راجع أفكار السوفسطائين - وأنتهي الأمر ببعضهم للشك في وجود نفسه من الأساس، أما الأبيقورية فتري أن هنالك قدر مكتوب نسير عليه جميعا مسيرين لا نستطيع أن نخالفه ولكن نستطيع أن نقتصد في كل اللذات من أول الطعام للشهوة الجنسية كي نصل لحالة من السلام النفسي تأهلنا لاستشفاف هذا القدر، أما الرواقية فكانت تري في قدر الأبيقورية شئ يحترم فأمنوا بالقضاء والقدر وعلي أساسه رفضوا الحزن علي وفاة شخص عزيز علي سبيل المثال أو التعبير عن الامتعاض من شدة البرد .
أما الفصل الثالث فقد بدء بالحديث عن (متي انفصلت الفلسفة عن العلم) وأنتهي ب (متي انفصلت الفلسفة عن الدين ) وفي المنتصف جاء الحديث عن فلاسفة كبار مثل القديس أوجستين وتوماس الأكويني وغيرهم ، كما تحدث عن تأثر العلماء المعاصرين بالفلسفة ك نيوتن و هوبز وجاليلو وحاول أن يختمها بالحديث عن فلاسفة العصر الهلينسيتي - بعد انهيار المملكة اليونانية - وعصر النهضة مع أني أجد أن هذا الجزء من الكتاب مقتضب حد الملل سواء من الكاتب نفسه الذي كان يرقص بين مائة فيلسوف ومائة مذهب في صفحة واحدة والمترجم الذي لم يكمل الكتاب بنفس الإتقان كما بدئه للأسف، رغم عيوب الفصل الثالث فهذا لا يقلل من الكتاب قيد أنمله فقد أصبح بين يدي أول ترشيح لمن يريد أن يخوض في الفلسفة .
تم بحمدالله
19-4-2020
ينقسم الكتاب إلي ثلاثة فصول، الفصل الأول يتحدث عن فلاسفة الطبيعية - ما قبل سقراط - بداية بالملطيون ونهاية بالسفسطائيون مروراً بمذاهب فلسفية عظيمة مثل الفيثاغورثية - والتي أثرت في كل الفلاسفة من وقتها وحتي الأن - والتي كانت أقرب للديانة منها للمذهب الفلسفي فروادها اعتنقوا النباتية إيماناً منهم بتناسخ الأرواح كما كانوا يقدسون الحروف ويطلقون علي الموجودات الأساسية مثل العقل والعدل أرقام مثل 1 و 4، ومرواً أيضا ببارمنيدس اول من خالف الفكرة السائدة بحركة كل الأشياء وبدء يحاول أن يبرهن علي أن كل شئ ثابت لا يتحرك من أول السهم المنطلق للنجوم والكواكب وبهذا إذا فالكون أزلي - ربما تري أن أفكاره ضرباً من الجنون ولكن حين تري الأثر التي تركته في علم المنطق ستعدل عن رأيك - وتلميذه زينون الذي حاول أن يبرهن بالرياضيات علي صحة ادعاءات معلمه فبالتفاضل مثلا يمكن تجزئه حركة القوس إلي مستطيلات صغيرة في كل مستطيل القوس لا يتحرك وهو ما تم تفنيده بعد ذلك .
أما نهاية الفصل الأول فقد جاءت لتتحدث عن ديموقراطيس والسفسطائين، فديموقراطيس أول من أحس بمفهوم الذرة ليس كما نعرفه تماماً ولكنه أمن بوجود مكونات داخل كل المواد أصغر من أن نراها وأصغر من أن تُكسر وتحمل في طياتها تركيب المادة نفسها ثم وصف أشكالها بأن الملح مثلا ذراته مدببة والسكر ذراته دائرية الشكل وهو تفسير بديهي تماماً رغم خطئه فالملح يلسع اللسان فتحسس بأنه مادة مدببة وهكذا، وفي نهاية الفصل حديث عن السفسطائين أول من أنزل الفلسفة من برجها العاجي وجعلها متاحة لعوام الشعب، يتعلمون منها الجدال والفلك وبعض من الرياضيات وهو ما أزعج محتكري الفلسفة - كأفلاطون علي سبيل المثال - فقولهم مثلا بأن " النصر لا يكون حليفا إلا لمن يتحدث أفضل " كان لب المذهب السوفسطائي في تعليم الجدال كما أن النسبية في كل شئ كانت مذهبهم الحياتي مما أثار حفيظة حتي الغير مهتمين بالفلسفة .
في الفصل الثاني كان تلخيص لفترة سقراط وما بعده، يشير بعض الفلاسفة لسقراط وأفلاطون وأرسطو ب (ثالوث الفلسفة) نظراً لتأثيرهم الشديد علي سير الفلسفة حتي الأن، فسقراط حكيم عصره كان يري أن الفطرة في الإنسان هي التقوي، فكل إنسان تقي وتكمن مهمته في البحث عن الحكمة المولودة في داخله منذ ولادته ، كما كان يري أن كل إنسان يحتوي علي كل العلوم وإجابات كل الأسئلة الممكنة تكمن الصعوبة فقط في توجيه السؤال المناسب لاستخراج المعلومة والمعرفة وفي نهاية حياته أُتهم بالانتماء للسفوسطائين بجانب اللواط وحُكم عليه بالإعدام ولكنه أختار تنفيذه بنفسه وأنتحر في بيته . ، أما أفلاطون فكان صغيراً أبان انتحار سقراط فتأثر به أشد تأثير وكتب محاوراته الشهيرة لوصف المحاكمة بالكامل وفي الواقع كل فلسفة سقراط الموجودة حاليا وصلتنا عن طريق أفلاطون بعد ضياع كل ما كتب سقراط ، أنشأ أفلاطون أكاديمية رياضية لتعليم الفلسفة للمهتمين بالرياضيات (كتب علي بابها لا يدخلها إلا رياضي) ومن أهم أعماله أفكاره عن عالم يحتوي علي جميع المثل من كل الموجودات علي الأرض من جمال وعدل وخير وإلخ ، كما أنه حاول أن يتخيل شكل المدينة الفاضلة من قوانين تحكمها وصفات حكامها الذي كان يري أنهم يجب أن يدرسوا الفلسفة وحتي تعليم الأطفال فيها ولخص كل تلك الأفكار في كتابه (المدينة الفاضلة) .
أما عن أرسطو فهو أبو المنطق الذي يحضر أسمه الأن حين نتحدث عن المنطق او عن تعليم الفلسفة للحكام - فأرسطو معلم الإسكندر الأكبر - علي خلاف أفلاطون معلمه لم يؤمن أرسطو تماماً بوجود عالم من المثل العليا كما لم يؤمن بالآلهة اليونانية بمعناها المتعارف عليه فالألة من وجه نظره كان مكبل اليدين أمام كل المغالطات والقوانين الموجودة في العالم ولكنه أمن كمثله وقتها أن الكون بالكامل مسخر للإنسان، المختلف في أرسطو عن معلمه أفلاطون أيضاً هو اشتغال أرسطو بالطب والمنهج التجريبي فيه كما كان مهووس بتصنيف الكائنات الحية كلها من الطيور والزواحف مما أثر علي تفكيره قليلاً فترك الفلسفة الروحية كما يقولون وأهتم أكتر بالفلسفة الأرضية مما يراه علي أرض الواقع .
في نهاية الفصل تحدث عن المذاهب الثلاثة لتحقيق السكينة (الشكوكية والأبيقورية والرواقية) ولتلخصيهم يمكن القول ببساطة أن الشكوكية تشك في كل شيء من أول الغرض من الطعام للغرض من النوم بداعي النسبية في كل شيء فلسنا جميعاً نحس بنفس الدرجة من البرد أو الحر - راجع أفكار السوفسطائين - وأنتهي الأمر ببعضهم للشك في وجود نفسه من الأساس، أما الأبيقورية فتري أن هنالك قدر مكتوب نسير عليه جميعا مسيرين لا نستطيع أن نخالفه ولكن نستطيع أن نقتصد في كل اللذات من أول الطعام للشهوة الجنسية كي نصل لحالة من السلام النفسي تأهلنا لاستشفاف هذا القدر، أما الرواقية فكانت تري في قدر الأبيقورية شئ يحترم فأمنوا بالقضاء والقدر وعلي أساسه رفضوا الحزن علي وفاة شخص عزيز علي سبيل المثال أو التعبير عن الامتعاض من شدة البرد .
أما الفصل الثالث فقد بدء بالحديث عن (متي انفصلت الفلسفة عن العلم) وأنتهي ب (متي انفصلت الفلسفة عن الدين ) وفي المنتصف جاء الحديث عن فلاسفة كبار مثل القديس أوجستين وتوماس الأكويني وغيرهم ، كما تحدث عن تأثر العلماء المعاصرين بالفلسفة ك نيوتن و هوبز وجاليلو وحاول أن يختمها بالحديث عن فلاسفة العصر الهلينسيتي - بعد انهيار المملكة اليونانية - وعصر النهضة مع أني أجد أن هذا الجزء من الكتاب مقتضب حد الملل سواء من الكاتب نفسه الذي كان يرقص بين مائة فيلسوف ومائة مذهب في صفحة واحدة والمترجم الذي لم يكمل الكتاب بنفس الإتقان كما بدئه للأسف، رغم عيوب الفصل الثالث فهذا لا يقلل من الكتاب قيد أنمله فقد أصبح بين يدي أول ترشيح لمن يريد أن يخوض في الفلسفة .
تم بحمدالله
19-4-2020
August 2, 2017
رویای خرد نوشته ی آنتونی گاتلیب را نشر ققنوس در سال 1384 با ترجمه ی لی لا سازگار روانه بازار کرد که به تاریخ فلسفه ی غرب از پیش سقراطیان تا رنسانس می پردازد. آنچه که کتاب را از نوشته های همانند متمایز میکند پدیدآورنده ی آن است،برخلاف دیگر کتاب های تاریخ فلسفه این اثر توسط یک فیلسوف یا تاریخدان نوشته نشده بلکه گاتلیب روزنامه نگار مجله "اکونومیست" بوده و نگاهی که به تاریخ فلسفه و فلسفه غرب داشته، دید یک ژورنالیست است که باعث خوانش آسان و انتقادی از فلسفه می شود
ازدیگر ویژگی های آن می توان به بحث کامل درباره ی پیش سقراطیان اشاره کرد که یک سوم کتاب را به خود اختصاص داده، اما در سوی دیگر فلاسفه و اندیشه ی قرون وسطی تنها به یک فصل محدود می شود.
این کتاب به کسانی پیشنهاد می شود که فرصت خواندن اثر ارزشمندن کاپلستون را ندارند یا نمی توانند با تاریخ فلسفه راتلج ارتباط بر قرار کنند
پاینده و پیروز باشید
ازدیگر ویژگی های آن می توان به بحث کامل درباره ی پیش سقراطیان اشاره کرد که یک سوم کتاب را به خود اختصاص داده، اما در سوی دیگر فلاسفه و اندیشه ی قرون وسطی تنها به یک فصل محدود می شود.
این کتاب به کسانی پیشنهاد می شود که فرصت خواندن اثر ارزشمندن کاپلستون را ندارند یا نمی توانند با تاریخ فلسفه راتلج ارتباط بر قرار کنند
پاینده و پیروز باشید
August 21, 2009
For some reason I’ve always felt essentially uneducated because I didn’t have a “classical education”. I didn’t learn Latin or Greek (though I worked a fair way through a Teach Yourself Latin book once when I was reading Ulysses and felt my lack most particularly). I never studied Greek or Roman history either after high school. My interests tended to be contemporary and American. I also only remember taking one philosophy class and it was not very memorable. I’ve read some Plato and Aristotle, The Iliad and the Odyssey and a fair number of Greek plays. I want to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but I started it and was lost because I had so little background (though I could see the writing was superb—no wonder it’s lasted so long.). Hence my interest in this book.
It’s well written and even humorous in spots; Gottlieb doesn’t stand in awe of classical philosophy as a subject or of classical writers because they’re classical. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether he treats them fairly. It made sense to me. I note that Amazon reviewers rate the book either 5 or 1 which means it’s probably a book worth looking at, certainly by non-specialists. I was least interested in the pre-Socratics though and most interested, modernist that I am, in the last chapter, called The Haven of Piety: From Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. It was particularly interesting to see how increasingly western philosophy had to “accommodate itself” to Christianity. The themes were not all that different from controversies which have been raging ever since, no matter how often they were put to rest, like whether the world was created all at once by God or existed or evolved independently.
Two things this book reminded me of particularly. First that philosophy first embraced all learning and only later separated itself out into first philosophy and theology and later into literature and science and history and mathematics, etc. etc. It was particularly interesting to see the evolution of science out of what was called “natural philosophy” and to discover that pre-Socratic philosophers first came up with the “atomistic theory”—a crude hypothesis about the “tiny particles” that made up all matter. Secondly, it reminded me that in the period that we call the “Dark Ages” in Europe, much of the learning of the classical period was preserved and advanced by Arab scholars. It’s so easy to forget, in today’s focus on fundamental Islamist politics that glorious period of academic brilliance in the Arab world
It’s well written and even humorous in spots; Gottlieb doesn’t stand in awe of classical philosophy as a subject or of classical writers because they’re classical. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether he treats them fairly. It made sense to me. I note that Amazon reviewers rate the book either 5 or 1 which means it’s probably a book worth looking at, certainly by non-specialists. I was least interested in the pre-Socratics though and most interested, modernist that I am, in the last chapter, called The Haven of Piety: From Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. It was particularly interesting to see how increasingly western philosophy had to “accommodate itself” to Christianity. The themes were not all that different from controversies which have been raging ever since, no matter how often they were put to rest, like whether the world was created all at once by God or existed or evolved independently.
Two things this book reminded me of particularly. First that philosophy first embraced all learning and only later separated itself out into first philosophy and theology and later into literature and science and history and mathematics, etc. etc. It was particularly interesting to see the evolution of science out of what was called “natural philosophy” and to discover that pre-Socratic philosophers first came up with the “atomistic theory”—a crude hypothesis about the “tiny particles” that made up all matter. Secondly, it reminded me that in the period that we call the “Dark Ages” in Europe, much of the learning of the classical period was preserved and advanced by Arab scholars. It’s so easy to forget, in today’s focus on fundamental Islamist politics that glorious period of academic brilliance in the Arab world
September 29, 2025
For a long time, I’ve been looking for that book that explains early Western philosophy succinctly. Listening to this the second time round I realize it is this one. Like the first time I did get lost with the mention of many, many names and events, but one of the things I have discovered about reading is this is okay, and the wonderful things about books is I can read them again and as often as I want to,
What made this an interesting read is how Anthony Gottlieb compares the beginnings of Western philosophy to have it would be interpreted later. I am still assimilating all this and have a lot more books to read, but if there was only one book to get me started, then I would choose this one. This is not an easy read, but the big plus it is all the way through it made me feel like this was not impossible subject for me to grasp.
What made this an interesting read is how Anthony Gottlieb compares the beginnings of Western philosophy to have it would be interpreted later. I am still assimilating all this and have a lot more books to read, but if there was only one book to get me started, then I would choose this one. This is not an easy read, but the big plus it is all the way through it made me feel like this was not impossible subject for me to grasp.
July 20, 2015
اليوم انتهيت أخيراً من قراءة هذا الكتاب الملحمى :-)
يتجول بنا " أنتونى جوتليب " فى رحلة طويلة عن تاريخ الفلسفة ، منذ عصر اليونان .. متمهلاً عند الثلاثة الكبار: سقرا ط - أفلاطون - أرسطو
ثم مسرعاً عند المدارس: الأبيقورية ، الرواقية ، الشكوكية
واختتم بجولة سريعة على من ظهروا من فلاسفة بعد المذهب الشكوكى وتزامنوا مع بدء ظهور المسيحية والصدامات القوية مع الكنيسة فيما بعد.
مع ثقل هذا الكتاب (لطول الفترة الزمنية التى يستعرضها ) نجح المؤلف فى جعل قرائته عملاً شيقاً .. وإن عابه التشتت وكثرة المقارانات خاصةً فى آخر فصل (قلعة الورع: من العصور القديمة حتى عصر النهضة).. وأيضاً الآراء الشخصية للكاتب
أعتبره مقدمة لموسوعة برتراند راسل عن تاريخ الفلسفة فى الحضارة الغربية والذى سوف أقوم باستكماله قريباً ..
يتجول بنا " أنتونى جوتليب " فى رحلة طويلة عن تاريخ الفلسفة ، منذ عصر اليونان .. متمهلاً عند الثلاثة الكبار: سقرا ط - أفلاطون - أرسطو
ثم مسرعاً عند المدارس: الأبيقورية ، الرواقية ، الشكوكية
واختتم بجولة سريعة على من ظهروا من فلاسفة بعد المذهب الشكوكى وتزامنوا مع بدء ظهور المسيحية والصدامات القوية مع الكنيسة فيما بعد.
مع ثقل هذا الكتاب (لطول الفترة الزمنية التى يستعرضها ) نجح المؤلف فى جعل قرائته عملاً شيقاً .. وإن عابه التشتت وكثرة المقارانات خاصةً فى آخر فصل (قلعة الورع: من العصور القديمة حتى عصر النهضة).. وأيضاً الآراء الشخصية للكاتب
أعتبره مقدمة لموسوعة برتراند راسل عن تاريخ الفلسفة فى الحضارة الغربية والذى سوف أقوم باستكماله قريباً ..
April 15, 2016
I will confess to having a degree in Philosophy, which, from a practical stand point, may seem kind of pointless. My father certainly thought so when I was in college. 'What are you going to do with that?' he would say. 'There's no jobs in it.' His degree was in accounting and he worked as an auditor. He knew about money. And because he did, I didn't feel I needed to. That was back when I was young and not especially aware of the need to actually earn an income of my own some day. My insufferable reply was usually something like, 'I'm going to college for an education, not for job training.' Yeah, great comeback. Very philosophical, but try paying the rent with it!
Admittedly, a degree in Philosophy isn't for everyone, but we all have a philosophy, at least as it's broadly defined. We each have a particular way of looking at the world, complete with reasons (or at least rationalizations) of why we see it this way. Our personal philosophies form the foundations of everything we think and do. They color our perceptions and shape our actions. In this respect, our philosophies are pretty important, so sparing a thought or two for them is probably worthwhile.
In this book, Gottlieb takes us back to some of the earliest recorded reflections on ways of seeing the world, from ideas about what it 'really' is, to how people should live in it. I don't recall ever reading a better summation of the main points of the most prominent thinkers: from ancient Greece (where all sorts of ideas, both wild and insightful were espoused and criticized) to the Renaissance (when rationalization tended to dominate over rationality). He also clears up a few common misconceptions about some philosophers. I, personally, gained a greater appreciation for Aristotle from this book. Like many, I tended to view his philosophy as one of the things impeding progress in the Middle Ages. But it wasn't the fault of Aristotle or Ptolemy or Galen that their works were regarded as something close to sacred long after their deaths, and they probably would not have approved to learn that they were.
The Dream of Reason is a great read. It's concise, informative, even entertaining. Gottlieb achieves the latter through clear prose and by providing just a bit of analysis from a modern perspective, which puts the ideas he's explaining in context and shows their progression over time. If you're a student of philosophy or just someone with a mild interest, you should read this.
Admittedly, a degree in Philosophy isn't for everyone, but we all have a philosophy, at least as it's broadly defined. We each have a particular way of looking at the world, complete with reasons (or at least rationalizations) of why we see it this way. Our personal philosophies form the foundations of everything we think and do. They color our perceptions and shape our actions. In this respect, our philosophies are pretty important, so sparing a thought or two for them is probably worthwhile.
In this book, Gottlieb takes us back to some of the earliest recorded reflections on ways of seeing the world, from ideas about what it 'really' is, to how people should live in it. I don't recall ever reading a better summation of the main points of the most prominent thinkers: from ancient Greece (where all sorts of ideas, both wild and insightful were espoused and criticized) to the Renaissance (when rationalization tended to dominate over rationality). He also clears up a few common misconceptions about some philosophers. I, personally, gained a greater appreciation for Aristotle from this book. Like many, I tended to view his philosophy as one of the things impeding progress in the Middle Ages. But it wasn't the fault of Aristotle or Ptolemy or Galen that their works were regarded as something close to sacred long after their deaths, and they probably would not have approved to learn that they were.
The Dream of Reason is a great read. It's concise, informative, even entertaining. Gottlieb achieves the latter through clear prose and by providing just a bit of analysis from a modern perspective, which puts the ideas he's explaining in context and shows their progression over time. If you're a student of philosophy or just someone with a mild interest, you should read this.
July 31, 2019
One of the things that I wish that I could have had in my youth is a classical education. Economic impracticality aside, at the time I did not even know that such a thing even existed so needless to say it was impossible on multiple levels. Over the years though I've tried to supplement the gaps in my knowledge with a basic overview of classical philosophy, provided by people like Bertrand Russell, Will Durant and Arthur Herman. I've noticed other people doing this today through YouTube popularizers of vastly uneven quality. Classical knowledge has a growing prestige in our minds today. That makes sense given the epistemological crisis that we are collectively experiencing.
Perhaps since I've already read many similar surveys, this book did not reveal much about classical philosophy that I was not already familiar with. It did teach me a valuable lesson though: how not to write a book. It's not that the writing was bad, it was fine. It is just that there was nothing impelling the book along. There was no original argument or contention underlying the chapter discussions. They were just like individual Wikipedia articles stacked on top of each other without any necessary relationship. Maybe I am asking a lot, but in Arthur Herman's sublime The Cave and the Light he manages to make a compelling argument for the continuing relevance and dynamism of Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the present day. In comparison this book by Gottlieb is like an encyclopedia. That is, superfluous in the age of the cloud.
Gottlieb has a certain contempt or dismissiveness towards many of the ancient philosophers he is writing about. This critically undermines the book in my opinion. To put it this way: if some obscure ancient guy was just wrong and believed a bunch of nonsense with no impact on the present day; why should we care about them then? Just vanity knowledge? It actually needs to be explained afresh, or with some enthusiasm for he subject.
The author's own apparent positivistic/materialistic leanings are not so subtly expressed throughout the book. If your own beliefs are similar it might make the overall discussion more tolerable. To be fair, I always appreciate the effort to present anew old knowledge. It is vital and needs to be done for every generation, lest they fall under the sway of charlatans. And it's not that this book is without redeeming qualities — it does teach you the basics of Aristotle and Plato for example. But if you are a philistine who feels pained by your lack of classical knowledge please read The Cave and the Light instead. You will get something more clearly meaningful, relevant and enjoyable out of it.
Perhaps since I've already read many similar surveys, this book did not reveal much about classical philosophy that I was not already familiar with. It did teach me a valuable lesson though: how not to write a book. It's not that the writing was bad, it was fine. It is just that there was nothing impelling the book along. There was no original argument or contention underlying the chapter discussions. They were just like individual Wikipedia articles stacked on top of each other without any necessary relationship. Maybe I am asking a lot, but in Arthur Herman's sublime The Cave and the Light he manages to make a compelling argument for the continuing relevance and dynamism of Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the present day. In comparison this book by Gottlieb is like an encyclopedia. That is, superfluous in the age of the cloud.
Gottlieb has a certain contempt or dismissiveness towards many of the ancient philosophers he is writing about. This critically undermines the book in my opinion. To put it this way: if some obscure ancient guy was just wrong and believed a bunch of nonsense with no impact on the present day; why should we care about them then? Just vanity knowledge? It actually needs to be explained afresh, or with some enthusiasm for he subject.
The author's own apparent positivistic/materialistic leanings are not so subtly expressed throughout the book. If your own beliefs are similar it might make the overall discussion more tolerable. To be fair, I always appreciate the effort to present anew old knowledge. It is vital and needs to be done for every generation, lest they fall under the sway of charlatans. And it's not that this book is without redeeming qualities — it does teach you the basics of Aristotle and Plato for example. But if you are a philistine who feels pained by your lack of classical knowledge please read The Cave and the Light instead. You will get something more clearly meaningful, relevant and enjoyable out of it.
November 25, 2016
One can learn Philosophy best of all by going to the primary sources themselves and studying them, but by doing it that way the student losses the context and the relationship between the different schools of thought and how a school of thought relates to the others of its time period and how it is relevant today. The author, a journalist, does that connecting for the reader by analyzing what each school of thought says and how it connects giving the reader the modern perspective the school requires.
I can give a for instance what the author does with the school of thought with the Skeptics. First he puts them in the context after the Socratics and why they relate as they do, then he shows the contrast they had with the Epicureans and Stoics, and then how they relate to the Logical Positivists of the relatively modern Vienna Circle by the fact that the Skeptics see the world at most by the empirical facts based upon the absolute foundation and aren't necessarily needing the theory (theoria, the binding glue that holds the world together by a narrative or description) to understand the world (Hume, a Skeptic and empiricist would say you never can see the effect, just the cause, and the vase staying upon the table is all that you can really see and the 'gravity' is not materially real and is just a 'construct', a narrative, within the mind).
I think the author some what excels at explaining each school of thought and putting the context and relevance in its proper place. I think Bertrand Russel and Will Durant each have written a very similar book as this one and did as good or better job. I'm not sure if there was anything really new within this book that wasn't in the other two books, but he is a good writer and the book is an interesting read.
(The author really likes the short play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes and must have mentioned it 10 times with the pre-Socratics and the Socratics. I would recommend listening to the free version available at LibriVox before listening to this story since it is entertaining, laugh out loud funny, free, and is such a big part of the narrative to the first part of this book).
I can give a for instance what the author does with the school of thought with the Skeptics. First he puts them in the context after the Socratics and why they relate as they do, then he shows the contrast they had with the Epicureans and Stoics, and then how they relate to the Logical Positivists of the relatively modern Vienna Circle by the fact that the Skeptics see the world at most by the empirical facts based upon the absolute foundation and aren't necessarily needing the theory (theoria, the binding glue that holds the world together by a narrative or description) to understand the world (Hume, a Skeptic and empiricist would say you never can see the effect, just the cause, and the vase staying upon the table is all that you can really see and the 'gravity' is not materially real and is just a 'construct', a narrative, within the mind).
I think the author some what excels at explaining each school of thought and putting the context and relevance in its proper place. I think Bertrand Russel and Will Durant each have written a very similar book as this one and did as good or better job. I'm not sure if there was anything really new within this book that wasn't in the other two books, but he is a good writer and the book is an interesting read.
(The author really likes the short play "The Clouds" by Aristophanes and must have mentioned it 10 times with the pre-Socratics and the Socratics. I would recommend listening to the free version available at LibriVox before listening to this story since it is entertaining, laugh out loud funny, free, and is such a big part of the narrative to the first part of this book).
November 18, 2024
Really good summary of western philosopher before the Renaissance.
1. Earliest philosophy is 6th c. BC in Miletus, allegedly predicting a solar eclipse.
2. c. 500 BC, the Pythagoreans studied the harmony of the universe and worshipped numbers.
3. Heraclitus (540-480 BC): one cannot step twice in the same river.
4. Parmenides wrongly believed we can’t talk about non-existence. A good joke about nobody (p. 56).
5. Zeno is Parmenides’s student and had an infinity paradox refuted every century.
6. Empedocles (no note).
7. Anaxagora (500-428 BC) developed materialist thinking which led to “atomists” Leucippus and Democritus.
8. Atomists: Incidentally, the latter reached the conclusion of the paradox of Zeno is wrong because he assumed everything can be divided ad infinitum.
9. Sophists: One of the first to teach all kinds of things and earn money is Protagoras. Before this time, sophists meant wise men and sages. Plato is against their unprincipled approach of teaching practical success. In one of his plays, Aristophanes framed Socrates as a sophist.
10. 4 main witnesses of Socrates’s thought: Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Xenophon implausibly tried to pass on his own tips about farming and military tactics through the figure of Socrates. If X tried too hard to make S respectable, Aristophanes tried the opposite. S’s character strength is his weakness in philosophy: he believes that once people really know justice, they would immediately become just themselves. Plato describes Cynic Diogenes as S gone mad.
11. Plato’s Academy teaches well-off elite who were hungry for higher education. The utopia in the Republic is in one sense not ideal. What he is really urged is no more than what guides a prudent parent: we don’t allow children to be free until we establish a constitution in them, just as in a city, we try to equip them with a guardian and rule within them to take our place. For Plato, being rational does not primarily mean being calculating and intellectual. Greek reason is not cold, but hot. It has been aptly defined as “that in a man which enables him to live for something”.
12. Aristotle:
1. His contribution in logic and biology stands above other contributions.
2. He writes like a modern professor (because we copied dutifully his style). So much so, someone aptly said “A’s works are full of platitudes in much the same way as Shakespeare’s Hamlet is full of quotations”.
3. His concepts of 4 causes, quintessence.
4. His syllogism is perhaps due to Socrates’s style of argument. It needs to be complemented by propositional logic.
5. To A, virtue is the ability to steer a middle course between defect and excess.
6. To A, a good life will require a certain minimum of material comfort and general good fortune, but the crucial thing is to do all the characteristically human things well and from the right motives. Such a life will bring the sort of pleasures that a wise man judges to be best. A new twist is added to the story when it emerges that one particular activity is even more valuable than the rest, so that the very best form of life would be the one devoted to that. This activity turns out to be (risking a bit of self-serving on A’s part) theoria: intellectual contemplation.
7. Mere rational argument is not enough. Virtue is a matter of character, which is in turn a matter of habits.
8. In A’s view, poetry (à la Iliad and Oedipus Tyrannus) is something more worthy of serious attention than history (by which he means mere particular facts).
13. Epicurean, Stoics, and Skeptics. Aristotle died one day after his student AtG. The subsequent Hellenistic period brought a new era in philosophy in which it is above all a guide to life and source of comfort. Though a bit too oversimplified, the following Victorian profiles of Epicureans and Stoics are quite useful:
1. There have ever been stern, upright, self-controlled, and courageous men, actuated by a pure sense of duty, capable of high efforts of self-sacrifice, somewhat intolerant of the frailties of others, somewhat hard and unsympathizing in the ordinary intercourse of society, but rising to heroic grandeur as the storm lowered upon their path, and more ready to relinquish life than the cause they believed to be true. There have also always been men of easy tempers and of amiable dis-position, gentle, benevolent, and pliant, cordial friends and forgiving enemies, selfish at heart, yet ever ready, when it is possible, to unite their gratifications with those of others, averse to all enthusiasm, mysticism, utopias, and superstition, with little depth of character or capacity for self-sacrifice, but admirably fitted to impart and to receive enjoyment, and to render the course of life easy and harmonious. The first are by nature Stoics, and the second Epicureans.
2. On the other hand, the earliest Skeptics were hoping to find tranquillity by finding out the truth about things. They were unable to find the truth, so they gave up and suspended judgement-whereupon they instantly started to feel better. Thus it turns out to be the suspension of judgement, and not the pursuit of inquiry, which brings contentment.
14. Late antiquity and the Middle Ages: By year 1000, all branches of knowledge collapse in the west. Christianity bears some blame as it emphasizes that the only thing to know about the world is that it’s made by God. During this period, Hypatia’s story is recycled onto St. Catherine of Alexandria. There were already argument against heavier objects falling much faster than lighter ones (by Philoponus), 1000 years before Galileo.
15. Renaissance: By that time, Platonists restored love of math and also venerated sun. These help prepared the ground for 17th.c. development. Mid 15th. C., European books numbered in the 1000s, by the end of the century, there were at least 10M in circulation. Luther and the Protestants unleashed the “how do you know” question. Montaigne brought the issue to a wider audience. Both Descartes and Bacon resolved to try and put human knowledge on a firmer footing.
1. Earliest philosophy is 6th c. BC in Miletus, allegedly predicting a solar eclipse.
2. c. 500 BC, the Pythagoreans studied the harmony of the universe and worshipped numbers.
3. Heraclitus (540-480 BC): one cannot step twice in the same river.
4. Parmenides wrongly believed we can’t talk about non-existence. A good joke about nobody (p. 56).
5. Zeno is Parmenides’s student and had an infinity paradox refuted every century.
6. Empedocles (no note).
7. Anaxagora (500-428 BC) developed materialist thinking which led to “atomists” Leucippus and Democritus.
8. Atomists: Incidentally, the latter reached the conclusion of the paradox of Zeno is wrong because he assumed everything can be divided ad infinitum.
9. Sophists: One of the first to teach all kinds of things and earn money is Protagoras. Before this time, sophists meant wise men and sages. Plato is against their unprincipled approach of teaching practical success. In one of his plays, Aristophanes framed Socrates as a sophist.
10. 4 main witnesses of Socrates’s thought: Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Xenophon implausibly tried to pass on his own tips about farming and military tactics through the figure of Socrates. If X tried too hard to make S respectable, Aristophanes tried the opposite. S’s character strength is his weakness in philosophy: he believes that once people really know justice, they would immediately become just themselves. Plato describes Cynic Diogenes as S gone mad.
11. Plato’s Academy teaches well-off elite who were hungry for higher education. The utopia in the Republic is in one sense not ideal. What he is really urged is no more than what guides a prudent parent: we don’t allow children to be free until we establish a constitution in them, just as in a city, we try to equip them with a guardian and rule within them to take our place. For Plato, being rational does not primarily mean being calculating and intellectual. Greek reason is not cold, but hot. It has been aptly defined as “that in a man which enables him to live for something”.
12. Aristotle:
1. His contribution in logic and biology stands above other contributions.
2. He writes like a modern professor (because we copied dutifully his style). So much so, someone aptly said “A’s works are full of platitudes in much the same way as Shakespeare’s Hamlet is full of quotations”.
3. His concepts of 4 causes, quintessence.
4. His syllogism is perhaps due to Socrates’s style of argument. It needs to be complemented by propositional logic.
5. To A, virtue is the ability to steer a middle course between defect and excess.
6. To A, a good life will require a certain minimum of material comfort and general good fortune, but the crucial thing is to do all the characteristically human things well and from the right motives. Such a life will bring the sort of pleasures that a wise man judges to be best. A new twist is added to the story when it emerges that one particular activity is even more valuable than the rest, so that the very best form of life would be the one devoted to that. This activity turns out to be (risking a bit of self-serving on A’s part) theoria: intellectual contemplation.
7. Mere rational argument is not enough. Virtue is a matter of character, which is in turn a matter of habits.
8. In A’s view, poetry (à la Iliad and Oedipus Tyrannus) is something more worthy of serious attention than history (by which he means mere particular facts).
13. Epicurean, Stoics, and Skeptics. Aristotle died one day after his student AtG. The subsequent Hellenistic period brought a new era in philosophy in which it is above all a guide to life and source of comfort. Though a bit too oversimplified, the following Victorian profiles of Epicureans and Stoics are quite useful:
1. There have ever been stern, upright, self-controlled, and courageous men, actuated by a pure sense of duty, capable of high efforts of self-sacrifice, somewhat intolerant of the frailties of others, somewhat hard and unsympathizing in the ordinary intercourse of society, but rising to heroic grandeur as the storm lowered upon their path, and more ready to relinquish life than the cause they believed to be true. There have also always been men of easy tempers and of amiable dis-position, gentle, benevolent, and pliant, cordial friends and forgiving enemies, selfish at heart, yet ever ready, when it is possible, to unite their gratifications with those of others, averse to all enthusiasm, mysticism, utopias, and superstition, with little depth of character or capacity for self-sacrifice, but admirably fitted to impart and to receive enjoyment, and to render the course of life easy and harmonious. The first are by nature Stoics, and the second Epicureans.
2. On the other hand, the earliest Skeptics were hoping to find tranquillity by finding out the truth about things. They were unable to find the truth, so they gave up and suspended judgement-whereupon they instantly started to feel better. Thus it turns out to be the suspension of judgement, and not the pursuit of inquiry, which brings contentment.
14. Late antiquity and the Middle Ages: By year 1000, all branches of knowledge collapse in the west. Christianity bears some blame as it emphasizes that the only thing to know about the world is that it’s made by God. During this period, Hypatia’s story is recycled onto St. Catherine of Alexandria. There were already argument against heavier objects falling much faster than lighter ones (by Philoponus), 1000 years before Galileo.
15. Renaissance: By that time, Platonists restored love of math and also venerated sun. These help prepared the ground for 17th.c. development. Mid 15th. C., European books numbered in the 1000s, by the end of the century, there were at least 10M in circulation. Luther and the Protestants unleashed the “how do you know” question. Montaigne brought the issue to a wider audience. Both Descartes and Bacon resolved to try and put human knowledge on a firmer footing.
February 14, 2019
أنتوني جوتليب له من السمات المميزة ما يجعل كتابه هذا في مقدمات الكتب المعروفة في تاريخ الفلسفة.. أسلوبه ممتاز في الربط بين الأحداث، والجمع بين أكبر قدرٍ من المعلومات في أصغر حيّز ممكن، وذلك بالمزج بين تيسير الأفكار واستخدام الحكي بحيث الفقرة تكون مكثّفة بشكل كبير ومتماسكة. يحرص دائمًا على ألا تكون المفاهيم الفلسفية عائقًا أمام القراءة المسترسلة، ويُظهر التأثّرات التي حدثت بين الفلاسفة وظهور ذلك على أفكارهم، خصوصًا ربطُه الفلسفات القديمة بأصدائها في الفكر الحديث، كالربط مثلًا بين مقولة السفسطائيين في نسبية الحقيقة والنزعات النسبية الحديثة في مجال الأخلاق والثقافة، وصولًا إلى الفلسفة البرجماتية الحديثة لدى وليام جيمس، مراعيًا بدقة بيان أوجه الاختلاف بين الاثنين. أما أهم ما في الكتاب وما كان يعطيني الدافع لإكماله بشكل مستمر فهو الحياد، فرغم ولوج جوتليب إلى كثير من الأفكار في أغوار الفلسفة لكنه لم يفقد حياده ولو قليلًا، وإنما كان يراعي دائمًا التقصي والوضوح السليم الصادق لعرض لأفكار بقدرته المذهلة على البحث والجمع، واضعًا حجج المفكرين أمام القارئ ليصبح مستوعبًا للخطوط الأساسية.
الكتاب يحتوي على ثلاثة أقسام:
القسم الأول من تسع فصول، الأول عن حقبة ما قبل السقراطية، الفلاسفة الأوائل/الملطيين، مع الحديث عن أفكار كل منهم على حدة: طاليس، وأناكسيماندر، وأناكسيمينس. ثم الفصل الثاني منه عن الفيثاغوريين، والثالث عن هيرقليطس، الرابع عن بارمنيدس، الخامس عن زينون تلميذ بارمنيدس، السادس عن إمبيدوكليس الأكراجاسي، السابع عن أناكساجوراس، الثامن عن ديموقرطيس، وأخيرًا التاسع عن السفسطائيين، وبذلك ينتهي القسم الأول من الكتاب.
القسم الثاني عن حقبة سقراط وأفلاطون وأرسطو، مع حديث مفصل ومتشعب عن فكر كلٍ منهم والتأثير الذي نتج عنه لدى الإغريق أو الرومان، والمذاهب الناتجة عن أفكارهم وهو أساس القسم الثالث.
القسم الثالث من فصلين، الأول عن الأبيقورية والرواقية والشكوكية، والثاني عن الشكل الذي اتخذته الفلسفة بعد انتهاء العصر الهيلينستي حتى العصور الوسطى وانتهاءً بديكارت أبو الفلسفة الحديثة. وبذلك ينتهي الجزء الأول من حلم العقل.
هذا الكتاب يتسم بقدرة عالية على المزج بين تبسيط المعنى الفلسفي ووجازة الشرح التي تطّرد في جميع فصول الكتاب، وهو ما يعطيه ما له من سمة مميزة وشعبية مستحقَّة ويجعله من أوائل الكتب الممتازة في عرضها لتاريخ الفلسفة.
الكتاب يحتوي على ثلاثة أقسام:
القسم الأول من تسع فصول، الأول عن حقبة ما قبل السقراطية، الفلاسفة الأوائل/الملطيين، مع الحديث عن أفكار كل منهم على حدة: طاليس، وأناكسيماندر، وأناكسيمينس. ثم الفصل الثاني منه عن الفيثاغوريين، والثالث عن هيرقليطس، الرابع عن بارمنيدس، الخامس عن زينون تلميذ بارمنيدس، السادس عن إمبيدوكليس الأكراجاسي، السابع عن أناكساجوراس، الثامن عن ديموقرطيس، وأخيرًا التاسع عن السفسطائيين، وبذلك ينتهي القسم الأول من الكتاب.
القسم الثاني عن حقبة سقراط وأفلاطون وأرسطو، مع حديث مفصل ومتشعب عن فكر كلٍ منهم والتأثير الذي نتج عنه لدى الإغريق أو الرومان، والمذاهب الناتجة عن أفكارهم وهو أساس القسم الثالث.
القسم الثالث من فصلين، الأول عن الأبيقورية والرواقية والشكوكية، والثاني عن الشكل الذي اتخذته الفلسفة بعد انتهاء العصر الهيلينستي حتى العصور الوسطى وانتهاءً بديكارت أبو الفلسفة الحديثة. وبذلك ينتهي الجزء الأول من حلم العقل.
هذا الكتاب يتسم بقدرة عالية على المزج بين تبسيط المعنى الفلسفي ووجازة الشرح التي تطّرد في جميع فصول الكتاب، وهو ما يعطيه ما له من سمة مميزة وشعبية مستحقَّة ويجعله من أوائل الكتب الممتازة في عرضها لتاريخ الفلسفة.
January 12, 2018
so my man Harjan Singh at the BK lounge on Manor Park Rd be all lyk "Lookie here paji: I'm not saying that Aristotelean syllogism necessitates the interminable pretzels of dem analyticz, but all Whopperz be teh cholesterol; all Harjan Singhz be da Whopperz; ergo all Harjan Singhz be the cholesterol. Yar wut u eat, boiiieeee." Indeed, the man had a point, spumey froth of mustard oozing from his lips, and who was I to argue the niceties of Medieval theologians, pan-seared or otherwise? Lamentably, I digress; Goobles presents a swarthy survey, less curmudgeonly than the Roosel yet chock with verve. Kudos, fine sir!
February 22, 2017
This is an enjoyable and thorough overview of Western Philosophy from its origins in Greek Asia Minor up through the 16th century. Gottlieb has dug in and his deep understanding of the schools of thought and their intricate relationships makes this the ideal book to get the timelines straight without just skimming the surface.
I can't decide if his humor (which I like) detracts a little from the grandeur of the subject or makes what could be an overwhelming trudge much lighter. I think I just decided, when in doubt go with humor, that's my philosophy.
I'm interested in the current revival of Stoic philosophy. There is a Stoic Week and good discussions led by Massimo Pigliucci on youtube and blogs.
I can't decide if his humor (which I like) detracts a little from the grandeur of the subject or makes what could be an overwhelming trudge much lighter. I think I just decided, when in doubt go with humor, that's my philosophy.
I'm interested in the current revival of Stoic philosophy. There is a Stoic Week and good discussions led by Massimo Pigliucci on youtube and blogs.
December 1, 2016
حلم العقل (تاريخ الفلسفة من عصر اليونان إلي عصر النهضة)
أنتوني جوتليب
.............................
انتهيت الآن من قراءة هذا الكتاب، وفي الحقيقة كنت قد أجلت قراءته لأكثر من مرة؛ نظرا لحاجة الفلسفة إلي فراغ لزمن طويل، ليس فراغ الوقت فقط، بل فراغ الذهن من المشاغل والمشاكل أيضا، وهي حالة قلما تتحقق.
ولما انتهيت من قراءة الكتاب، عرفت أنه فعلا كان في حاجة إلي عقل مستعد للسفر في واحدة من الرحلات القوية جدا داخل حلم عظيم جدا عاشه العقل الإنساني علي مدار آلاف السنين، هي عمر العقل الإنساني في رحلته مع الفلسفة.
لقد أحسن الكاتب اختيار اسم الكتاب، فحلم العقل الإنساني في الفهم، فهم الطبيعة ومكانه فيها، وعلاقته بالكون وخالق الكون، هو رحلة هذا العقل مع الفلسفة.
يقع هذا الكتاب في أربعمائة وستين صفحة مقسمة إلي ثلاث أجزاء، يتحدث الجزء الأول عن عصر ما قبل سقراط، والثاني عن عصر الفلسفة اليونانية، والثالث عن عصر النهضة.
في الجزء الأول تحدث الكاتب عن فلاسفة لم نعتقد أنهم وجدوا قبل عصر سقراط، فمن هؤلاء الفلاسفة هرقليطس، وبارمنيدس، وزينون، وإمبيدوكليس، وأناكساجوراس، وديموقريطيس.
كل هؤلاء الفلاسفة كانت لهم آراء في طبيعة الكون وعلاقتهم بالمعبود، كما كانت لهم آراء حول الفيزياء وطبيعة المادة، وهذه الآراء لازالت متداولة بين صفحات الكتب حتى الآن.
من هذه الآراء التي رآها الفلاسفة قديما حول طبيعة المادة أن المادة كلها خلقت من الماء، وأنها خلقت من النار، وأن المادة خلقت من عناصر أربعة هي التراب والماء والنار والهواء، وغيرها من نظريات تعرضت لأصل مادة الكون.
وضح الكاتب بسهولة كيف أن هؤلاء الفلاسفة المتقدمون مهدوا لظهور جيل العظماء من الفلاسفة المشهورين، وهؤلاء هم فلاسفة اليونان الأكثر شهرة وهم سقراط وأفلاطون وأرسطو.
في فصل طويل حكي الكاتب تاريخ كل فيلسوف وأهم آرائه في الطبيعة والإلهيات ومنهج كل فيلسوف في التفكير، ورؤية كل منهم للعالم، فمنهم من يري الفكر أسبق من المادة في الوجود، ومنهم من يعيش بفكره في عالم المثاليات، ومنهم من أنزل الفلسفة من السماء إلي الأرض.
كل فيلسوف كانت له في هذا الكتاب حكاية، شارك بها في تحقيق الحلم العظيم، حلم العقل. استشهد سقراط لأجل الحقيقة، ورفض الفرار من أمام أعدائه رغم توافر الفرصة، وبني أفلاطون جمهوريته الخيالية الأفلاطونية في كتابه الشهير، باحثا عن عالم أفضل للإنسان، وحاول أرسطو أن يعلم الإنسان طريقة يحكم بها علي القضايا والمسائل التي يتعرض لها في حياته، فبني منطقه الخاص للحكم علي مدي صحة وخطأ القضايا التي يحتاج الإنسان إلي الحكم فيها.
في الجزء الثالث من الكتاب يتحدث عن الطرق الثلاثة إلي السكينة، ويقصد هنا المذاهب الأبيقورية والرواقية والشكوكية. فهذه المذاهب الثلاثة قد كان همها الأول البحث عن الخلاص وسكينة الإنسان المفقودة. فالأبيقورية قد بحثت عن السكينة من خلال الانغماس الكامل في الملذات، وعلي عكسها الرواقية التي اتخذت طريق الزهد للوصول إلي سكينة النفس واتخذت الشكوكية موقفا يدل اسمها عليه، وتعتبر هذه المرحلة من الفلسفة كانت الممهدة للعقل الغربي لقبول العقيدة المسيحية كما قال الكاتب.
رغم صعوبة مادة الفلسفة ووعورتها، إلا أن هذا الكتاب قد أحسن مؤلفه تتبع نمو الفكر الفلسفي، وخطا بالقارئ معه كأنه ينتقل معه علي درجات سلم، كل نقله تهدي إلي التي تليها تلقائيا.
أحسن الكاتب في الربط بين أجزاء الكتاب، حتي أنه كان يستطرد أحيانا وينتقل من موضوعه كي يعرف القارئ أن هذه الفكرة لهذا الفيلسوف امتد بها الزمن حتي أثرت في عصرنا، ويذكر من تأثر في العصر الحديث بفيلسوف من العصر القديم، كما ينقل الآراء النقدية الحديثة لهم.
رغم أن مادة هذا الكتاب صعبة وليس من السهل أو من المستحيل استيعابها كاملة، بل يمكن القول إن ما استوعبته منها وما بقي منها في ذاكرتي قليل جدا، لكن لا يمكن القول أنني خسرت بقراءتي لكتاب لقلة ما بقي في ذاكرتي من محتواه؛ لأن متعة متابعة أفكار الفلاسفة علي مر العصور في حد ذاتها مكسب كبير، والتعرف علي هم أكبر العقول في العالم، ومشاغلهم علي مر العصور في حد ذاته مكسب، فيكفي أن تعرف هموم الكبار كي تتخلي عن الهموم الصغيرة التي قد تشغل حياتنا ��وما ما.
ويكفي أن أقول أن ما حصلت عليه من هذا الكتاب هو بقدر غرفة بيد من نهر جار، أو كبلل أصاب ملابسي عندما غسلتها في بحر الفلسفة، لكنها كانت مفيدة جدا جدا.
أنتوني جوتليب
.............................
انتهيت الآن من قراءة هذا الكتاب، وفي الحقيقة كنت قد أجلت قراءته لأكثر من مرة؛ نظرا لحاجة الفلسفة إلي فراغ لزمن طويل، ليس فراغ الوقت فقط، بل فراغ الذهن من المشاغل والمشاكل أيضا، وهي حالة قلما تتحقق.
ولما انتهيت من قراءة الكتاب، عرفت أنه فعلا كان في حاجة إلي عقل مستعد للسفر في واحدة من الرحلات القوية جدا داخل حلم عظيم جدا عاشه العقل الإنساني علي مدار آلاف السنين، هي عمر العقل الإنساني في رحلته مع الفلسفة.
لقد أحسن الكاتب اختيار اسم الكتاب، فحلم العقل الإنساني في الفهم، فهم الطبيعة ومكانه فيها، وعلاقته بالكون وخالق الكون، هو رحلة هذا العقل مع الفلسفة.
يقع هذا الكتاب في أربعمائة وستين صفحة مقسمة إلي ثلاث أجزاء، يتحدث الجزء الأول عن عصر ما قبل سقراط، والثاني عن عصر الفلسفة اليونانية، والثالث عن عصر النهضة.
في الجزء الأول تحدث الكاتب عن فلاسفة لم نعتقد أنهم وجدوا قبل عصر سقراط، فمن هؤلاء الفلاسفة هرقليطس، وبارمنيدس، وزينون، وإمبيدوكليس، وأناكساجوراس، وديموقريطيس.
كل هؤلاء الفلاسفة كانت لهم آراء في طبيعة الكون وعلاقتهم بالمعبود، كما كانت لهم آراء حول الفيزياء وطبيعة المادة، وهذه الآراء لازالت متداولة بين صفحات الكتب حتى الآن.
من هذه الآراء التي رآها الفلاسفة قديما حول طبيعة المادة أن المادة كلها خلقت من الماء، وأنها خلقت من النار، وأن المادة خلقت من عناصر أربعة هي التراب والماء والنار والهواء، وغيرها من نظريات تعرضت لأصل مادة الكون.
وضح الكاتب بسهولة كيف أن هؤلاء الفلاسفة المتقدمون مهدوا لظهور جيل العظماء من الفلاسفة المشهورين، وهؤلاء هم فلاسفة اليونان الأكثر شهرة وهم سقراط وأفلاطون وأرسطو.
في فصل طويل حكي الكاتب تاريخ كل فيلسوف وأهم آرائه في الطبيعة والإلهيات ومنهج كل فيلسوف في التفكير، ورؤية كل منهم للعالم، فمنهم من يري الفكر أسبق من المادة في الوجود، ومنهم من يعيش بفكره في عالم المثاليات، ومنهم من أنزل الفلسفة من السماء إلي الأرض.
كل فيلسوف كانت له في هذا الكتاب حكاية، شارك بها في تحقيق الحلم العظيم، حلم العقل. استشهد سقراط لأجل الحقيقة، ورفض الفرار من أمام أعدائه رغم توافر الفرصة، وبني أفلاطون جمهوريته الخيالية الأفلاطونية في كتابه الشهير، باحثا عن عالم أفضل للإنسان، وحاول أرسطو أن يعلم الإنسان طريقة يحكم بها علي القضايا والمسائل التي يتعرض لها في حياته، فبني منطقه الخاص للحكم علي مدي صحة وخطأ القضايا التي يحتاج الإنسان إلي الحكم فيها.
في الجزء الثالث من الكتاب يتحدث عن الطرق الثلاثة إلي السكينة، ويقصد هنا المذاهب الأبيقورية والرواقية والشكوكية. فهذه المذاهب الثلاثة قد كان همها الأول البحث عن الخلاص وسكينة الإنسان المفقودة. فالأبيقورية قد بحثت عن السكينة من خلال الانغماس الكامل في الملذات، وعلي عكسها الرواقية التي اتخذت طريق الزهد للوصول إلي سكينة النفس واتخذت الشكوكية موقفا يدل اسمها عليه، وتعتبر هذه المرحلة من الفلسفة كانت الممهدة للعقل الغربي لقبول العقيدة المسيحية كما قال الكاتب.
رغم صعوبة مادة الفلسفة ووعورتها، إلا أن هذا الكتاب قد أحسن مؤلفه تتبع نمو الفكر الفلسفي، وخطا بالقارئ معه كأنه ينتقل معه علي درجات سلم، كل نقله تهدي إلي التي تليها تلقائيا.
أحسن الكاتب في الربط بين أجزاء الكتاب، حتي أنه كان يستطرد أحيانا وينتقل من موضوعه كي يعرف القارئ أن هذه الفكرة لهذا الفيلسوف امتد بها الزمن حتي أثرت في عصرنا، ويذكر من تأثر في العصر الحديث بفيلسوف من العصر القديم، كما ينقل الآراء النقدية الحديثة لهم.
رغم أن مادة هذا الكتاب صعبة وليس من السهل أو من المستحيل استيعابها كاملة، بل يمكن القول إن ما استوعبته منها وما بقي منها في ذاكرتي قليل جدا، لكن لا يمكن القول أنني خسرت بقراءتي لكتاب لقلة ما بقي في ذاكرتي من محتواه؛ لأن متعة متابعة أفكار الفلاسفة علي مر العصور في حد ذاتها مكسب كبير، والتعرف علي هم أكبر العقول في العالم، ومشاغلهم علي مر العصور في حد ذاته مكسب، فيكفي أن تعرف هموم الكبار كي تتخلي عن الهموم الصغيرة التي قد تشغل حياتنا ��وما ما.
ويكفي أن أقول أن ما حصلت عليه من هذا الكتاب هو بقدر غرفة بيد من نهر جار، أو كبلل أصاب ملابسي عندما غسلتها في بحر الفلسفة، لكنها كانت مفيدة جدا جدا.
March 16, 2020
Interesting and information overview of early philosophy. Highly ennjoyable.
May 14, 2017
Gottlieb’s focus is on the ancient Greeks who laid out the main themes found in Western philosophy, including whether ultimate reality is something that transcends the natural world. The Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) first articulated the materialist side of this debate by dispensing with supernatural explanations and looking for the “natural causes of things.” Parmenides and Pythagoras provided an alternative reality, a world of eternal oneness that superseded the world of senses, change and multitude.
The book’s title, “The Dream of Reason,” captures this debate between these two metaphysical positions, but the meaning of “Dream” and “Reason” is ambiguous. For the Milesians and their successors, reason was about looking for the material, logical linkages between cause and effect. It was a mind frame that would lead to Western science and the progressive explanation about how the material world worked. This was one way to define the “dream of reason.”
Plato’s “reason” was the other. Here, Gottlieb’s account is problematic. “What struck Plato about the objects dealt with in mathematics,” Gottlieb writes, “is that they are ideal, eternal, unchanging and pleasingly independent of earthly, visible things.” This is the world of Forms and it’s difficult to read the dialogues without this as the overarching perspective. But Gottlieb does not go there. Socrates, the dominant voice in Plato’s dialogues, is said by Gottlieb to be a figure who is not interested in the cosmic underpinnings of philosophy. The dialogues were, he says, “generally explanatory discussions” by Socrates about how we “ought to live” and that, in a “non-dogmatic” way, Socrates was interested only in questioning established wisdom and ferreting out the truth through dialogue. Though this is the standard account of Socrates, it is counter to what Gottlieb says elsewhere and what one might gather from reading of Socrates, directly, without filters, in the dialogues. (1) For his interpretation of Socrates’ views, Gottlieb relies mainly on Plato who, he writes, put “mystical glasses on Socrates” and eventually, “coming under the influence of Italian Pythagoreans,..invoked the name of Socrates to expound on all sorts of subjects.”
Gottlieb steers his presentation on Plato away from any other-worldly orientation. Early on, commenting on the similarities between Plato’s philosophy and the Christianity that developed a few centuries later, Gottlieb notes that “the [Platonic] God of the Timaeus” could be misinterpreted as “the God of Genesis,” stating that,“Reading Plato without biblical blinkers, we can see that this required plenty of imaginative interpretation.” Gottlieb then notes the “specific differences” where this is so. While it’s not surprising that there would be differences in specific details between Genesis and Plato, it does not take “biblical blinkers” to reasonably speculate about the Christian roots in Plato's thought - the notion of another world, the badness of this world, the need to perfect our being to be worthy of an ascent to this higher world. (2) Now “the dream of reason” means something other than what Gottlieb conveys. In Gottlieb’s take on Plato, happiness is the rule of reason. It’s to “rule oneself properly.” Is that, though, about this world? Or is it about mirroring the world of Forms, of Perfection and Harmony that stand in contrast to “earthly good” and the “relativist and subjectivist Sophists?”
“For the first twelve centuries of the Christian era,” Gottlieb states, “the Timaeus formed the basis of most cosmology in the West” and “philosophy...remained more or less the slave of Christianity.” He calls this “a posthumous conversion of Plato.” From 529 A.D. (the Roman ban on non-Christian philosophy), he says that “Reason got sidetracked by faith.” Commenting on Proclus’s Elements of Theology, this was all about an attempt of “antiquity to provide an elaboration of the ‘Platonic’ system that had sprouted on Plato’s grave.” Gottlieb tells us that these reputed other-worldly elements stem from Neoplatonism, a term coined in the 19th century to refer to those religious elements that, in Gottlieb’s words, went “beyond anything found in Plato.”
In Gottlieb’s view, Plato “did little more than gesture towards a higher world.” Gottlieb rescues Plato from Christianity by having Plato’s thought reflect a more modern-day conception of reason, one that is stripped of mysticism yet alludes to an independent, objective reality nonetheless. (3) For Gottlieb, the antecedents of this modern-day perspective on Plato go back to the atomists and to Aristotle. (4) After the long Christian interlude, this tradition was resuscitated in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which began the process that would “replace faith with earthly reason.” In the end, the reader of Gottlieb’s book is left with the impression that the reason of Plato was reunited with the reason of science.
But it could be argued just as well that such reconciliation never happened and that a good part of the ancient debate about the two conceptions of “Reason” continues to this day. In science, this ambivalence is not consequential as reason is applied to understanding cosmic realities regardless of their ultimate origin and it’s not uncommon to learn of mathematicians and scientists who are drawn to something like Plato’s Forms. In moral philosophy, though, it is different. Some Plato adherents posit the existence of a universal and eternal moral realm, which is accessed by reason in Plato’s sense. For many, that world has been seriously undermined by modern-day science that operates, comfortably, within a purposeless universe. Without Plato’s overarching firmament, what happens then to moral philosophy? Is it the relativism of the Sophists or is it, worse, nihilism? But in a Platonic framework we are not able to look to science for answers. That’s a subjectivism that is not allowed, even though, along with the problem of self-interest, the foundation for philosophical values and principles such as freedom and equality, compassion and mutual respect are embedded in, or logically derived from, who we are as biological beings.
(1) A straight-up reading of Socrates in the dialogues can reveal a man on a mission, a man with a hidden agenda, a man who engages in one-way dialogue. In other words, not a person one might want to hang out with.
(2) Of Marsilio Ficino’s translation (1484) that “brought Plato back into circulation” Gottlieb writes that, “Like St Augustine, Ficino believed that Platonism contained important anticipations of Christianity.”
(3) See Frank M. Turner, The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (1981), for a discussion of 19th century efforts to rehabilitate Plato’s thought.
(4) Gottlieb is excellent in his treatment of Aristotle, correcting the misimpression given by a mechanistic conception of life that humans are not goal-driven beings: “Having Darwinian details does not mean that we can do without Aristotle’s final causes. Quite the reverse: the mechanism of natural selection spells out how nature involves final causes, not how it can dispense with them….Bacon, and many others since, have said that Aristotelian final causes are a piece of juvenile rubbish that has to be cleared out of the way before any grown-up science can move in. This may be true of the pseudo-Artistotelian final causes of some of his followers, but not of Aristotle’s own.”
The book’s title, “The Dream of Reason,” captures this debate between these two metaphysical positions, but the meaning of “Dream” and “Reason” is ambiguous. For the Milesians and their successors, reason was about looking for the material, logical linkages between cause and effect. It was a mind frame that would lead to Western science and the progressive explanation about how the material world worked. This was one way to define the “dream of reason.”
Plato’s “reason” was the other. Here, Gottlieb’s account is problematic. “What struck Plato about the objects dealt with in mathematics,” Gottlieb writes, “is that they are ideal, eternal, unchanging and pleasingly independent of earthly, visible things.” This is the world of Forms and it’s difficult to read the dialogues without this as the overarching perspective. But Gottlieb does not go there. Socrates, the dominant voice in Plato’s dialogues, is said by Gottlieb to be a figure who is not interested in the cosmic underpinnings of philosophy. The dialogues were, he says, “generally explanatory discussions” by Socrates about how we “ought to live” and that, in a “non-dogmatic” way, Socrates was interested only in questioning established wisdom and ferreting out the truth through dialogue. Though this is the standard account of Socrates, it is counter to what Gottlieb says elsewhere and what one might gather from reading of Socrates, directly, without filters, in the dialogues. (1) For his interpretation of Socrates’ views, Gottlieb relies mainly on Plato who, he writes, put “mystical glasses on Socrates” and eventually, “coming under the influence of Italian Pythagoreans,..invoked the name of Socrates to expound on all sorts of subjects.”
Gottlieb steers his presentation on Plato away from any other-worldly orientation. Early on, commenting on the similarities between Plato’s philosophy and the Christianity that developed a few centuries later, Gottlieb notes that “the [Platonic] God of the Timaeus” could be misinterpreted as “the God of Genesis,” stating that,“Reading Plato without biblical blinkers, we can see that this required plenty of imaginative interpretation.” Gottlieb then notes the “specific differences” where this is so. While it’s not surprising that there would be differences in specific details between Genesis and Plato, it does not take “biblical blinkers” to reasonably speculate about the Christian roots in Plato's thought - the notion of another world, the badness of this world, the need to perfect our being to be worthy of an ascent to this higher world. (2) Now “the dream of reason” means something other than what Gottlieb conveys. In Gottlieb’s take on Plato, happiness is the rule of reason. It’s to “rule oneself properly.” Is that, though, about this world? Or is it about mirroring the world of Forms, of Perfection and Harmony that stand in contrast to “earthly good” and the “relativist and subjectivist Sophists?”
“For the first twelve centuries of the Christian era,” Gottlieb states, “the Timaeus formed the basis of most cosmology in the West” and “philosophy...remained more or less the slave of Christianity.” He calls this “a posthumous conversion of Plato.” From 529 A.D. (the Roman ban on non-Christian philosophy), he says that “Reason got sidetracked by faith.” Commenting on Proclus’s Elements of Theology, this was all about an attempt of “antiquity to provide an elaboration of the ‘Platonic’ system that had sprouted on Plato’s grave.” Gottlieb tells us that these reputed other-worldly elements stem from Neoplatonism, a term coined in the 19th century to refer to those religious elements that, in Gottlieb’s words, went “beyond anything found in Plato.”
In Gottlieb’s view, Plato “did little more than gesture towards a higher world.” Gottlieb rescues Plato from Christianity by having Plato’s thought reflect a more modern-day conception of reason, one that is stripped of mysticism yet alludes to an independent, objective reality nonetheless. (3) For Gottlieb, the antecedents of this modern-day perspective on Plato go back to the atomists and to Aristotle. (4) After the long Christian interlude, this tradition was resuscitated in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which began the process that would “replace faith with earthly reason.” In the end, the reader of Gottlieb’s book is left with the impression that the reason of Plato was reunited with the reason of science.
But it could be argued just as well that such reconciliation never happened and that a good part of the ancient debate about the two conceptions of “Reason” continues to this day. In science, this ambivalence is not consequential as reason is applied to understanding cosmic realities regardless of their ultimate origin and it’s not uncommon to learn of mathematicians and scientists who are drawn to something like Plato’s Forms. In moral philosophy, though, it is different. Some Plato adherents posit the existence of a universal and eternal moral realm, which is accessed by reason in Plato’s sense. For many, that world has been seriously undermined by modern-day science that operates, comfortably, within a purposeless universe. Without Plato’s overarching firmament, what happens then to moral philosophy? Is it the relativism of the Sophists or is it, worse, nihilism? But in a Platonic framework we are not able to look to science for answers. That’s a subjectivism that is not allowed, even though, along with the problem of self-interest, the foundation for philosophical values and principles such as freedom and equality, compassion and mutual respect are embedded in, or logically derived from, who we are as biological beings.
(1) A straight-up reading of Socrates in the dialogues can reveal a man on a mission, a man with a hidden agenda, a man who engages in one-way dialogue. In other words, not a person one might want to hang out with.
(2) Of Marsilio Ficino’s translation (1484) that “brought Plato back into circulation” Gottlieb writes that, “Like St Augustine, Ficino believed that Platonism contained important anticipations of Christianity.”
(3) See Frank M. Turner, The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (1981), for a discussion of 19th century efforts to rehabilitate Plato’s thought.
(4) Gottlieb is excellent in his treatment of Aristotle, correcting the misimpression given by a mechanistic conception of life that humans are not goal-driven beings: “Having Darwinian details does not mean that we can do without Aristotle’s final causes. Quite the reverse: the mechanism of natural selection spells out how nature involves final causes, not how it can dispense with them….Bacon, and many others since, have said that Aristotelian final causes are a piece of juvenile rubbish that has to be cleared out of the way before any grown-up science can move in. This may be true of the pseudo-Artistotelian final causes of some of his followers, but not of Aristotle’s own.”
March 10, 2024
“The Dream of Reason” by Anthony Gottlieb is a comprehensive book which scrupulously explores the philosophy of the Greeks to the Renaissance period. Admittedly, I did struggle through the early pre-Socratic chapters a bit. Thales (the water guy), Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Democritus and their collective atomic musings, frankly, didn’t really do it for me; but I suppose the fact that they were even talking about atoms in 4th century Athens is worthy of a bit of respect!
Interestingly, the Sophists were cast in an entirely different light by Gottlieb, not necessarily the scourge of the earth as Plato and Aristotle would condemn them. Gottlieb explains the practical applications of Sophist teachings on rhetoric, and how their contributions to theories of morality - particularly in the context of law and jurisprudence - cannot be dismissed as merely subversive teachings.
Also exonerated are the Epicureans, who apparently were quite partial to a bit of physics when they weren’t indulging in more carnal pleasures.
The Stoics were covered a tad prosaically for my taste; a slightly rudimentary “oh do I have to, they’re not that good”. Interestingly, Gottlieb notes Cicero as being quite philosophically capricious, bit of a fence-sitter as it would turn out; half-epicurean, half-stoic - my eyebrow imperceptibly rose under the incandescence of the lamplight, and I damn near lost a half-soaked digestive biscuit to the murky depths of my scolding tea on learning of this revelation dear reader.
Of course, Plato and Aristotle take centre stage, and their respective philosophies are assiduously balanced and explained with refreshing clarity. If you have read the Platonic dialogues or Aristotle’s ethics, these chapters will serve as an indispensable supplementary refresher. Gottlieb is adept at preempting the questions that invariably arise in our minds and elucidating conflicting aspects of philosophical theories. He explains what issues were resolved, at least temporarily, by the work of one thinker, and what questions their philosophy engendered.
“The Dream of Reason” ends up reading like a continuous dialogue between the entire pantheon of philosophers throughout the ages. We end up in the Middle Ages after centuries of theologians squabbling amongst themselves or ganging up on the reject basket of mystics, alchemists, astrologists, and Neoplatonists, ironically enough, almost back where we started - as Platonic and Aristotelian ideas are incorporated into or reconciled with Christianity. The extent to which Plato’s Forms and Aristotle’s ideas on substance/matter have influenced and shaped Christian thought is far greater than I think most people realise.
Interestingly, the Sophists were cast in an entirely different light by Gottlieb, not necessarily the scourge of the earth as Plato and Aristotle would condemn them. Gottlieb explains the practical applications of Sophist teachings on rhetoric, and how their contributions to theories of morality - particularly in the context of law and jurisprudence - cannot be dismissed as merely subversive teachings.
Also exonerated are the Epicureans, who apparently were quite partial to a bit of physics when they weren’t indulging in more carnal pleasures.
The Stoics were covered a tad prosaically for my taste; a slightly rudimentary “oh do I have to, they’re not that good”. Interestingly, Gottlieb notes Cicero as being quite philosophically capricious, bit of a fence-sitter as it would turn out; half-epicurean, half-stoic - my eyebrow imperceptibly rose under the incandescence of the lamplight, and I damn near lost a half-soaked digestive biscuit to the murky depths of my scolding tea on learning of this revelation dear reader.
Of course, Plato and Aristotle take centre stage, and their respective philosophies are assiduously balanced and explained with refreshing clarity. If you have read the Platonic dialogues or Aristotle’s ethics, these chapters will serve as an indispensable supplementary refresher. Gottlieb is adept at preempting the questions that invariably arise in our minds and elucidating conflicting aspects of philosophical theories. He explains what issues were resolved, at least temporarily, by the work of one thinker, and what questions their philosophy engendered.
“The Dream of Reason” ends up reading like a continuous dialogue between the entire pantheon of philosophers throughout the ages. We end up in the Middle Ages after centuries of theologians squabbling amongst themselves or ganging up on the reject basket of mystics, alchemists, astrologists, and Neoplatonists, ironically enough, almost back where we started - as Platonic and Aristotelian ideas are incorporated into or reconciled with Christianity. The extent to which Plato’s Forms and Aristotle’s ideas on substance/matter have influenced and shaped Christian thought is far greater than I think most people realise.
December 20, 2016
في البداية كنت لا استطيع تمييز قلم الكاتب بين كم النقولات الهائلة التي ينقله , كان كثيرا ما يُسهب في بعض التفاصيل بشكل ممل على الأقل بالنسبة لي أنا .
لكن المتعة الحقيقية تبدأ بعد فصل سقراط , متعة حقيقية جعلتني أغفر له ما مضى من ملل , فهمت الكثير من الأمور التي كانت غائبة عن الحضور .
أجمل ما في الكتاب أنه يعلمك كيف تناقش فلسفيا , فطريقة الكاتب في النقاش و سرد الأفكار جميلة جدا , كما أنه حاول التمحيص في القصص التي أوردها قدر المستطاع , مع إيراده لآراء فلاسفة آخرين و ذكر رأيه و هكذا .
*/*/*
آمن هيرقليطس بأن المبادئ التي تحكم العالمين انما تنبع من مشكاة واحدة , فالبحث في هذا العالم المادي هو في الحقيقة بحث بشكل غير مباشر في العالم الآخر .
لو أعملنا المجاز قليلا في هذه العبارة سنجدها نوعا ما صحيحة بشكل أو بآخر ... نعم العلم يقربك من الخالق المبدع .. فقط العلم و العلم وحده ... كأن الله وضع لنا كتابه المقدس و فيه العديد من الإرشادات و الخطوط العريضة العميقة و أعطانا العالم أيضا لنشاهده عن كثب و أعطانا العقل لنتأمل و نتعلم , و أعطانا المشاعر لنندهش من هذا العالم على سبيل المثال .
كأن اسرار هذا العالم توصلنا إلى حقيقة أبدية قديمة , و كأن اللحظة التي نصل فيها الى تلك الحقيقة ستكون نهاية كل شيء .
كما أن آيات القرآن التي تتناول الخلق و النشأ و الكون عجيبة في تكونيها , حيث يطغى عليها طابع من عدم التحديد حيث يصبغها الشكل المجازي ! و من المثير للدهشة امكانية تفسيرها بأكثر من شكل و أكثر من معنى حسب الحقبة و العصر و الإمكانية المعرفية المتاحة ! كل هذا عجيب , كل هذا يدعوك كبشري للتمرد على كل معرفة قديمة و إعادة اختبارها من جديد , كل هذه الآيات كأنها تقول لك : من يبحث يجد , و الأعجب من هذا أن مرسل هذه الرسالة يتبعها بآيات تدعوك الى الحرية الفكرية , تدعوك الى أن تكون أنت و أن تكون أنت و تبقى أنت و أن لا تسمح لمن يريد أن يجعل منك غيرك , مرسل هذا الكتاب أيضا يستفزك لتفكر فملئ كتابه بمصطلحات كثيرة كــ " أفلا يعقلون " , " أفلا يتدبرون " , " إن في ذلك لآيات لأولي الألباب " و العديد الذي يطول احصاءه .
مالذي يريده المُنشئ الأول و صاحب الرسالات السماوية من هذا كله !! لماذا يصبغ أغلب كلماته التي تتحدث عن الوجود و الخلق و الكون بلون المجاز !! ؟ انه يقول لك ابحث عني و ستجدني عندك .
*/*/*
" وجدير بالذكر أيضا أنه عندما كانا لفلاسفة الأوائل يُلقون الخطب و يحتجون على أي شيء كان ذلك على مرأى ومسمع من جمهور تزداد ثقافته يوما بعد يوم "
وهذا بالضبط عكس الذي يحصل في زماننا
حيث كلما ظهر أناس للمناظرة و المحاورة
ذموهم و قالوا لهم لا تفسدوا على الناس دينهم
هم عندهم هوس يتمثل في أن يروا الناس فقط جاهلة و بحاجة لهم
ديدنهم , ارجع لإمام المسجد كما ترجع للطبيب
و ابن عمك شخص مثالي و له سلطة الأمر و النهي فقط لأنه ملتحي
كما أن مصطح "حرمة " مناظرة أهل البدع يملئ أفواه أدعياء العلم اليوم
دائما ما نسمع : " العوام قوم بسطاء لا يفقهون الكثير "
نعم , أنتم من تريدونهم هكذا
الشعور بالسلطة يبعث النشوة في النفس
لكن الوصاية على الآخرين مرض يجب التخلص منه .
*/*/*
هذا الكتاب تجربة فلسفية جميلة بحق .
*TMT*
لكن المتعة الحقيقية تبدأ بعد فصل سقراط , متعة حقيقية جعلتني أغفر له ما مضى من ملل , فهمت الكثير من الأمور التي كانت غائبة عن الحضور .
أجمل ما في الكتاب أنه يعلمك كيف تناقش فلسفيا , فطريقة الكاتب في النقاش و سرد الأفكار جميلة جدا , كما أنه حاول التمحيص في القصص التي أوردها قدر المستطاع , مع إيراده لآراء فلاسفة آخرين و ذكر رأيه و هكذا .
*/*/*
آمن هيرقليطس بأن المبادئ التي تحكم العالمين انما تنبع من مشكاة واحدة , فالبحث في هذا العالم المادي هو في الحقيقة بحث بشكل غير مباشر في العالم الآخر .
لو أعملنا المجاز قليلا في هذه العبارة سنجدها نوعا ما صحيحة بشكل أو بآخر ... نعم العلم يقربك من الخالق المبدع .. فقط العلم و العلم وحده ... كأن الله وضع لنا كتابه المقدس و فيه العديد من الإرشادات و الخطوط العريضة العميقة و أعطانا العالم أيضا لنشاهده عن كثب و أعطانا العقل لنتأمل و نتعلم , و أعطانا المشاعر لنندهش من هذا العالم على سبيل المثال .
كأن اسرار هذا العالم توصلنا إلى حقيقة أبدية قديمة , و كأن اللحظة التي نصل فيها الى تلك الحقيقة ستكون نهاية كل شيء .
كما أن آيات القرآن التي تتناول الخلق و النشأ و الكون عجيبة في تكونيها , حيث يطغى عليها طابع من عدم التحديد حيث يصبغها الشكل المجازي ! و من المثير للدهشة امكانية تفسيرها بأكثر من شكل و أكثر من معنى حسب الحقبة و العصر و الإمكانية المعرفية المتاحة ! كل هذا عجيب , كل هذا يدعوك كبشري للتمرد على كل معرفة قديمة و إعادة اختبارها من جديد , كل هذه الآيات كأنها تقول لك : من يبحث يجد , و الأعجب من هذا أن مرسل هذه الرسالة يتبعها بآيات تدعوك الى الحرية الفكرية , تدعوك الى أن تكون أنت و أن تكون أنت و تبقى أنت و أن لا تسمح لمن يريد أن يجعل منك غيرك , مرسل هذا الكتاب أيضا يستفزك لتفكر فملئ كتابه بمصطلحات كثيرة كــ " أفلا يعقلون " , " أفلا يتدبرون " , " إن في ذلك لآيات لأولي الألباب " و العديد الذي يطول احصاءه .
مالذي يريده المُنشئ الأول و صاحب الرسالات السماوية من هذا كله !! لماذا يصبغ أغلب كلماته التي تتحدث عن الوجود و الخلق و الكون بلون المجاز !! ؟ انه يقول لك ابحث عني و ستجدني عندك .
*/*/*
" وجدير بالذكر أيضا أنه عندما كانا لفلاسفة الأوائل يُلقون الخطب و يحتجون على أي شيء كان ذلك على مرأى ومسمع من جمهور تزداد ثقافته يوما بعد يوم "
وهذا بالضبط عكس الذي يحصل في زماننا
حيث كلما ظهر أناس للمناظرة و المحاورة
ذموهم و قالوا لهم لا تفسدوا على الناس دينهم
هم عندهم هوس يتمثل في أن يروا الناس فقط جاهلة و بحاجة لهم
ديدنهم , ارجع لإمام المسجد كما ترجع للطبيب
و ابن عمك شخص مثالي و له سلطة الأمر و النهي فقط لأنه ملتحي
كما أن مصطح "حرمة " مناظرة أهل البدع يملئ أفواه أدعياء العلم اليوم
دائما ما نسمع : " العوام قوم بسطاء لا يفقهون الكثير "
نعم , أنتم من تريدونهم هكذا
الشعور بالسلطة يبعث النشوة في النفس
لكن الوصاية على الآخرين مرض يجب التخلص منه .
*/*/*
هذا الكتاب تجربة فلسفية جميلة بحق .
*TMT*
May 25, 2010
He makes some shallow and, I think, unnecessary criticisms of religion throughout the book, even when it seems like a side track.
For example, the implication that Milesian philosophers are somehow more rational for trying to explain things via naturalism seems absurd. Why should the reader think a naturalistic explanation is more rational than an agential one? This criticism seems more poignant since the Milesian theories often seem even more absurd than some of the agential theories they would have had access to.
Gottlieb also implies that these naturalistic explanations are superior than the overly complex and mysterious godidit explanations. But how is "waterdidit" simpler and less mysterious? Or how about undefined-substance-did-it??
These sort of quick surface-level criticisms of religion and, specifically, Christianity, are present throughout the book.
His treatment of the Greeks is pretty good. It would be great, but his bias against any form of supernaturalism leads him to take a revisionist approach towards the supernaturalism that was present in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and virtually every other thinker he covers.
Of course, according to Gottlieb, respectable minds like Socrates and Plato couldn't have seriously entertained ideas about gods and being commissioned by gods. After all, that would mean they were superstitious "goddidit" types, and we know they were too smart for that sort of thing. So when we read anything in their writings about gods or the supernatural, we have to realize that they didn't really mean any of that. Of course, that's absurd and one could apply Gottlieb's methodology to also try and prove that Moses or any of the other biblical authors didn't really believe in God.
His treatment of Medieval philosophy is horrible. His attitude towards it is summed up in the following: "Given limited time and space, most medieval philosophy is best left to slumber in its arguably dark and undeniably thorny forrest" (348). Although he does admit that "to imply that the best minds of the medieval West had produced nothing of any 'substance or profit' was going too far" (ibid; said in references to other criticisms of medieval philosophy).
Basically, I think Gottlieb sees the "dream of reason" dying in the medieval era. It was only fully alive with those Greeks who took a naturalistic view of the world, but this is partly just wishful thinking on Gottlieb's part. There was no naturalism in any of the thinkers that he covers, at least not in the modern sense of the word. And why did philosophy start to die off? Well because virtually all of the prominent philosophers from then on were Christian, supernaturalist godidit types. For example, "In one sense, Augustine turned back the clock of intellectual history" (383). Why? Because he believed in stories about God (384).
One begins to suspect that for Gottlieb the history of "the dream of reason" is a history of the battle between faith and reason. But this wouldn't be too fair. Gottlieb doesn't seem to consciously set out to write the book in this way. He's no Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Rather, he simply has a prejudice against religion and he lets that come out clearly in his evaluative remarks throughout the book.
I guess I can't fault him too much for that. He has every right to give his evaluations of the matters and if he thinks religion is the bane of reason he has every right to say so. But I disagree and I don't think his criticisms were very reasonable.
I also didn't like the note format. There were not endnote markings in the book (and I prefer footnotes) and aside from his block-quotes, it was very hard to tell when he was paraphrasing something a philosopher said or whether this was just his own spin on the philosopher's words. And given his clear bias, it would be nice to distinguish the two.
If he treated the medieval philosophers with the same respect that he treated the Greeks and if he had toned down the surface level shots at religion, I would have given the book at least 4 stars. I would like to give it at least 2 1/2, since I thought it was more than just "okay," but that option isn't available.
For example, the implication that Milesian philosophers are somehow more rational for trying to explain things via naturalism seems absurd. Why should the reader think a naturalistic explanation is more rational than an agential one? This criticism seems more poignant since the Milesian theories often seem even more absurd than some of the agential theories they would have had access to.
Gottlieb also implies that these naturalistic explanations are superior than the overly complex and mysterious godidit explanations. But how is "waterdidit" simpler and less mysterious? Or how about undefined-substance-did-it??
These sort of quick surface-level criticisms of religion and, specifically, Christianity, are present throughout the book.
His treatment of the Greeks is pretty good. It would be great, but his bias against any form of supernaturalism leads him to take a revisionist approach towards the supernaturalism that was present in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and virtually every other thinker he covers.
Of course, according to Gottlieb, respectable minds like Socrates and Plato couldn't have seriously entertained ideas about gods and being commissioned by gods. After all, that would mean they were superstitious "goddidit" types, and we know they were too smart for that sort of thing. So when we read anything in their writings about gods or the supernatural, we have to realize that they didn't really mean any of that. Of course, that's absurd and one could apply Gottlieb's methodology to also try and prove that Moses or any of the other biblical authors didn't really believe in God.
His treatment of Medieval philosophy is horrible. His attitude towards it is summed up in the following: "Given limited time and space, most medieval philosophy is best left to slumber in its arguably dark and undeniably thorny forrest" (348). Although he does admit that "to imply that the best minds of the medieval West had produced nothing of any 'substance or profit' was going too far" (ibid; said in references to other criticisms of medieval philosophy).
Basically, I think Gottlieb sees the "dream of reason" dying in the medieval era. It was only fully alive with those Greeks who took a naturalistic view of the world, but this is partly just wishful thinking on Gottlieb's part. There was no naturalism in any of the thinkers that he covers, at least not in the modern sense of the word. And why did philosophy start to die off? Well because virtually all of the prominent philosophers from then on were Christian, supernaturalist godidit types. For example, "In one sense, Augustine turned back the clock of intellectual history" (383). Why? Because he believed in stories about God (384).
One begins to suspect that for Gottlieb the history of "the dream of reason" is a history of the battle between faith and reason. But this wouldn't be too fair. Gottlieb doesn't seem to consciously set out to write the book in this way. He's no Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Rather, he simply has a prejudice against religion and he lets that come out clearly in his evaluative remarks throughout the book.
I guess I can't fault him too much for that. He has every right to give his evaluations of the matters and if he thinks religion is the bane of reason he has every right to say so. But I disagree and I don't think his criticisms were very reasonable.
I also didn't like the note format. There were not endnote markings in the book (and I prefer footnotes) and aside from his block-quotes, it was very hard to tell when he was paraphrasing something a philosopher said or whether this was just his own spin on the philosopher's words. And given his clear bias, it would be nice to distinguish the two.
If he treated the medieval philosophers with the same respect that he treated the Greeks and if he had toned down the surface level shots at religion, I would have given the book at least 4 stars. I would like to give it at least 2 1/2, since I thought it was more than just "okay," but that option isn't available.
June 25, 2017
This three-star review is the product of my completist tendencies. The book I really wanted to read is the sequel, Gottlieb's The Dream of Enlightenment, and I should have just started there. Gottlieb is a former journalist, and I love his writing: entertaining and to-the-point and frequently points out nonsense. But the book spends so much time on pre-Socratic philosophers—those very ancient Greeks who were just making shit up with no discipline—and I don't care about them AT ALL. The rest of the book was an excellent refresher on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In particular, Gottlieb has rehabilitated Aristotle in my eyes. What an ambitious thinker! I had no idea that we still have millions of his words intact, which is wonderful even if he was convinced that ladies have fewer teeth (?!?!) than gentlemen.
I was also interested to learn about the Stoics and Epicureans, which are both pretty interesting and totally misrepresented by the zeitgeist. Whatever associations you have with them are likely wrong.
So yes, in these troubled times, this book is a mostly soothing look back at ancient naval-gazers. Plato's discussion of tyrants was a bit of a gut-punch, but hey, it still rings true after all these centuries.
I was also interested to learn about the Stoics and Epicureans, which are both pretty interesting and totally misrepresented by the zeitgeist. Whatever associations you have with them are likely wrong.
So yes, in these troubled times, this book is a mostly soothing look back at ancient naval-gazers. Plato's discussion of tyrants was a bit of a gut-punch, but hey, it still rings true after all these centuries.
December 5, 2016
I was not very enthusiastic about this book to start with; I agreed with some of the reviews that there was a lot of interpretation from the author. However, a few chapters into the book, I started to find this a strength. It certainly is not a history book like the Copleston-series (or even Russell), but it provides much more context. Some parts were very well written. To name just a few: Plato on democracy; Aristotle’s logic, Epicurism. The book could use a better editor, as there are some simple factual mistakes. E.g. the elementary particles are not divided into two classes of quarks and leptons (p108). Such minor mistakes are not sufficient to give anything less than 5 stars.
August 5, 2017
It took me a while to finish, but it was definitely worth the read. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn/read something about philosophy, but doesn't know where to begin. It is a difficult read because of its subject, not its writer. Gottlieb writes about philosophy as if it is a story, offers interesting and funny comments, and repeats himself to make the content of his writing more accessible. I have never enjoyed reading scholarly writing this much.
April 26, 2013
too much of the author's opinion, not enough history. The author seems to think he can know what someone's intentions were 2500 years ago.
April 7, 2022
The Dream of Reason takes a human, popular view at philosophy from the ancient Greeks forward to the Renaissance, treating this conversation as one of wise, fallible, and occasionally funny humans through the ages. These were people grappling with Big Questions, namely what is the universe made of, how did it come to be, and how do people lead meaningful lives, and while their answers do not match modern understandings, they are foundational. For someone with a fairly weak background in philosophy, especially the older stuff, it's a good supplement to a missed classical education.
The first few chapters, on the pre-Socratics, are necessarily weaker, given that the surviving works of these authors is measured in a few hundred lines, and sometimes even a handful of direct words and a maze of quotations and commentaries. The book fully arrives with Socrates, who's method of systematic questioning set the form for much of what follows. Plato and Aristotle get detailed overviews as well, with their foundational works on ethics, metaphysics, as well as more practical topics like logic and biology.
What follows after the big three is less good. Gottlieb has less sympathy for the efforts of the stoics, epicureans, and skeptics to flesh out frameworks in the wake of Aristotle. Medieval theology, and the effort to synthesize non-heretical Christian theology with neoplatonist mysticism is mostly a dead end. One thing which I learned was that the scientific reaction against Aristotle was more rhetoric than reality. Aristotle couldn't have been the stifling authority on Western learning during the Middle Ages, because he was almost lost entirely, only being preserved by Arab philosophers (a sadly absent chapter). The abstruse commentary style of the scholastics has little in common with Aristotle, who can be tedious, but is generally a model of clarity. While Aristotle's physics lack the tools of quantified measurement which make modern physics work, he was a dedicated empiricist.
Fun and informative, and not exactly unbiased, The Dream of Reason is a solid introduction and overview.
The first few chapters, on the pre-Socratics, are necessarily weaker, given that the surviving works of these authors is measured in a few hundred lines, and sometimes even a handful of direct words and a maze of quotations and commentaries. The book fully arrives with Socrates, who's method of systematic questioning set the form for much of what follows. Plato and Aristotle get detailed overviews as well, with their foundational works on ethics, metaphysics, as well as more practical topics like logic and biology.
What follows after the big three is less good. Gottlieb has less sympathy for the efforts of the stoics, epicureans, and skeptics to flesh out frameworks in the wake of Aristotle. Medieval theology, and the effort to synthesize non-heretical Christian theology with neoplatonist mysticism is mostly a dead end. One thing which I learned was that the scientific reaction against Aristotle was more rhetoric than reality. Aristotle couldn't have been the stifling authority on Western learning during the Middle Ages, because he was almost lost entirely, only being preserved by Arab philosophers (a sadly absent chapter). The abstruse commentary style of the scholastics has little in common with Aristotle, who can be tedious, but is generally a model of clarity. While Aristotle's physics lack the tools of quantified measurement which make modern physics work, he was a dedicated empiricist.
Fun and informative, and not exactly unbiased, The Dream of Reason is a solid introduction and overview.
January 11, 2021
I’ve read of lot of greek and Roman histories, but my lack knowledge of the ancient philosophers caused me to pick up this book. I was looking for a general survey so that I could pick and choose the thinkers that I wanted to learn about. Gottlieb does an amazing job of summarizing the different schools of thought and personalities of over a thousand years of thought. There is a lot to digest here, but the narrative flows well and I’ve already learned so much.
December 28, 2018
I took me nearly 5 months to finish this book and it only has 500 pages. This is not always the book's fault. Sometimes my life is too hectic to focus on reading a certain book or books in general. This time, it was the book's fault.
You see, I love philosophy. I studied it for a couple of semester. Being familiar with the basic facts I don't expect too learn lots of new things but I believe you can always find something new to think about. Even a book like this which promised a general overview on western philosophy. In fact, Sophie's World is an all-time favorite of mine.
When I first picked up the book I liked it. The part on early Greek philosophy was well-written and offered some new insights. However, the book became difficult once it reached Socrates and lost me with Plato. Honestly, I love to read about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle but the author managed to write lots of different aspects together without a central theme. The chapters were longer than necessary and instead of focusing on certain topics the author tried to talk about all the aspects. Seriously, you can only do one thing. Either write a book on Plato and his philosophy and discuss everything in detail or focus on some parts. All the information was just thrown in there and I believe it would have been more than difficult to follow the author's discussion if I hadn't known about them that much beforehand. For me, it was more than confusing because I can't understand why any author would want to cram all the information together.
In the end, the book is not all bad. I liked the beginning and enjoyed the ending. It was the middle part that killed any joy I had.
Luckily, there are awesome books on philosophy out there and I look forward to pick up another one.
You see, I love philosophy. I studied it for a couple of semester. Being familiar with the basic facts I don't expect too learn lots of new things but I believe you can always find something new to think about. Even a book like this which promised a general overview on western philosophy. In fact, Sophie's World is an all-time favorite of mine.
When I first picked up the book I liked it. The part on early Greek philosophy was well-written and offered some new insights. However, the book became difficult once it reached Socrates and lost me with Plato. Honestly, I love to read about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle but the author managed to write lots of different aspects together without a central theme. The chapters were longer than necessary and instead of focusing on certain topics the author tried to talk about all the aspects. Seriously, you can only do one thing. Either write a book on Plato and his philosophy and discuss everything in detail or focus on some parts. All the information was just thrown in there and I believe it would have been more than difficult to follow the author's discussion if I hadn't known about them that much beforehand. For me, it was more than confusing because I can't understand why any author would want to cram all the information together.
In the end, the book is not all bad. I liked the beginning and enjoyed the ending. It was the middle part that killed any joy I had.
Luckily, there are awesome books on philosophy out there and I look forward to pick up another one.
May 3, 2020
A powerhouse of a study on the foundation and evolution of western philosophy. Beginning with pre-Socratic thinkers and going all the way up to post-Reformation theologians, Gottlieb takes the reader on a journey of critical examination through the names many people hear, but seldom take the time to understand.
The bulk of the book naturally covers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but later delves into the writings and discoveries of these thinkers' followers, notably the Epicureans, Stoics, and Cynics. We then see how middle-age Christianity largely pushed aside these Hellenistic writers, and then their re-emergence in the time of the Renaissance and beyond.
Gottlieb not only provides a history of what these thinkers thought and said, but impressively compares their notions of reality, science, God, etc. in a way that highlights the important similarities and differences. We see where certain schools of thought built off of and diverged from each other. Ultimately, the reader is able to see how throughout the long march of time, our notions of justice, morality, virtue, pleasure, purpose, etc. came about and evolved. To a casual reader such as myself, this book occasionally got bogged down in mundane specifics. Overall, however, it was a highly-enjoyable read and one that I will probably read again at some time in the future.
The bulk of the book naturally covers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but later delves into the writings and discoveries of these thinkers' followers, notably the Epicureans, Stoics, and Cynics. We then see how middle-age Christianity largely pushed aside these Hellenistic writers, and then their re-emergence in the time of the Renaissance and beyond.
Gottlieb not only provides a history of what these thinkers thought and said, but impressively compares their notions of reality, science, God, etc. in a way that highlights the important similarities and differences. We see where certain schools of thought built off of and diverged from each other. Ultimately, the reader is able to see how throughout the long march of time, our notions of justice, morality, virtue, pleasure, purpose, etc. came about and evolved. To a casual reader such as myself, this book occasionally got bogged down in mundane specifics. Overall, however, it was a highly-enjoyable read and one that I will probably read again at some time in the future.
June 7, 2017
This whole book read as if the writer had an unpleasant smile on his face as he wrote it. Only Aristotle escapes his relentless condescension, in truth it reads like a heart felt apology on his behalf. As history is partisan, as cultural analysis it's incomplete, as philosophy it's flat. I have no idea why this is highly respected. Saved from a single star purely because the account of Aristotle is quite compelling.
October 21, 2019
Gottlieb does not live up to his name (i.e. he does not like God)!
His presentation of ancient philosophy is both profoundly erudite and interesting to read/listen.
But his evaluation of anything Christian from late antiquity to the 16th century is dishonest and quite shameful. He certainly let his emotions get the hold of him and ruined what started as a fantastic history of philosophy.
His presentation of ancient philosophy is both profoundly erudite and interesting to read/listen.
But his evaluation of anything Christian from late antiquity to the 16th century is dishonest and quite shameful. He certainly let his emotions get the hold of him and ruined what started as a fantastic history of philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 215 reviews