شور خرد: تاریخ بسیار مختصر فلسفه

by Robert C. Solomon, Kathleen Higgins, کیوان قبادیان (Translator)

فلسفه همیشه نماینده‌ی انسانی‌ترین بخش وجود ما بوده است. شاید آنچه به آن نیاز داریم فرهیختگی بیشتر نیست بلکه فراخ‌اندیشی‌ست. نیازی نیست باهوش‌تر از اینی که هستیم باشیم، نیازمندیم که شنونده‌های بهتری باشیم. فلسفه، بیش از هر چیز، فراخ‌اندیشی عمیق درباره‌ی دنیاست، شور خرد است.
جاپ ۱۳۸۷

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Religion, Feminism

204 pages, Paperback

First published January 4, 1996

About the author

Robert C. Solomon (September 14, 1942 – January 2, 2007) was a professor of continental philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.

Early life

Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).

He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.

His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.

Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"

Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.

Reviews

[Jeremy Allan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book attempts a fairly impossible task and does it fairly well: a short history of philosophy that covers the main European tradition thoroughly while still giving proper attention to (nearly) all subdisciplines as well as world philosophies. When I say it accomplishes its task "fairly well," this doesn't mean that the book is exactly a success, but rather it is a good failure. Telling the story of philosophy is problematic, when trying to consider which writers and thinkers to include, when trying to decide how in depth to analyse their texts, and even simply the question of when and/or where to begin. To their credit, the authors, Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, present these problems directly, and make an attempt to be transparent about how they hope to deal with them. That effort at transparency is present throughout the book, and this is something I truly appreciated about the work. The authors are not without their biases and interpretations, but they do the work to make sure those biases are exposed rather than hidden, and that mostly fair treatment is given outside the boundaries of their personal/professional tendencies.

But what is most important to know about this history? Well, honestly, if it is of any use. And it is. I don't think this book would be very useful for anyone deep in the study of philosophy, other than as something quick to glance at in order to see how a particular philosopher or text is "glossed." For someone trying to orient themselves in the field, though, trying to have a better grasp of the relationships between concepts, and seeking a general primer to how ideas have transformed (or not) over the millennia that philosophy has been practiced, this is a good resource. But it is, at its foundation, not a philosophical text. It is a historical, descriptive text that incorporates some philosophical ideas and narratives. That distinction might seem unimportant, except that I think some students of philosophy should be clear on it, in order not to incorrectly consider this text as support for a philosophical exercise. No, it would not be appropriate for that. But it definitely helped me, like, for example, I was asked to consider Duns Scot, and I had a general concept of his relationship with the scholastic philosophers who proceded him shortly. That being said, I expect that what I have learned from this text will eventually be replaced by more thorough knowledge, yet it isn't a terrible framework from which to begin.

[Aykut Özkan · Rating 3 out of 5]

bir sayısalcı için pek de kısa değil .s

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

A clear and engagingly written book, that falls completely flat on its face after Kant. It gives a broad and even-handed look at many before Kant... but once they come to the home-stretch, these authors close their eyes and race for the finish line.

I may be overly sentimental toward some of the persons and concepts that this text gives short shrift to, but I think the authors also make a profound mistake in their misunderstanding of the possibilities represented by recent criticism and thinking in the fields of literature, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, economics, etc....

Simply because certain ideas and trends do not fit under the moniker of their choice, "philosophy", doesn't mean that philosophy isn't still happening.

I mean, my god, they gave Foucault only three paragraphs... and still in that short time had to admit in a quick parenthetical that his critique of history applied so tellingly to this very text. But they had no time to dig deeper, explore the ramifications of this... they were too busy wrapping up their "history" and bemoaning the possible end of philosophy.... philosophy as they know it.

[J. Reihner · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a good book to be introduced to the various philosophers throughout history. I really enjoyed the fact that they included philosophy not just from the West but from other parts of the world as well. The authors are very open to the idea that mysticism and religion play just as important of a role as logic and reasoning, which I think is often balked at by those in any "respectable" field. Philosophy is more about the "sense of wonder" in the world rather than achieving some formulaic goal. Unfortunately, the chapters are really too short to get a full grasp of the ideas presented, but I took many notes so I can dive further into certain time periods, people, and topics when I get the chance. It's very easy to read at times, but I wouldn't recommend just casually blasting through the book. Some of the harder metaphysics will build upon each other in each chapter, so if you were lost at one point you will likely struggle in those sections as well. The authors do try to nudge your memory at times, but don't feel bad if the ideas don't always sink in. It's a very ambitious effort and I'd say overall it is an enjoyable read for beginners and could be a good launching point for self study.

[Jackson Lindsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

"We want what we cannot have, or we want what we already have (but do not know we have). Spinoza's vision teaches us that it is pointless to want that which we are not determined to have, and that much of what we want—union with other people, oneness with God—we already have. Most of our emotions are thoughts based on desires, typically bodily desires, and insofar as we are the slaves of our emotions and desires, we are passive and not in control of ourselves. But the "control" implied here is ultimately the control of one's attitudes, and the proper attitude is acceptance or resignation.

Unlike the ancient Stoics, however, Spinoza does not reject the emotions in general in favor of apatheia or apathy. Quite to the contrary, he assures us that the emotion that comes with an attitude of acceptance is bliss, and it is a far preferable emotion than any other, including the fleeting feeling of satisfaction of bodily desires. The feeling of power we gain, the feeling of control we get over ourselves, lies not in rebellion but in this philosophical vision, which Spinoza also calls the intellectual love of God."

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are a lot of names you would normally not find in a history of Philosophy. Like Luther and Freud or Mary Wollstonecraft. To call this idiosyncratic would certainly hit the mark. The authors try to be politically correct. Events, for example, occur B.C.E. before the common era. But all in all, it is not absurdly politically correct but quite refreshingly. That woman (and presumably Blacks) have the same philosophical talent as white males is taken as an indubitable dogma.
Short means of course that nothing gets really explained and that e.g. Leibniz gets fewer lines than Freud can and should be criticized but they do achieve their purpose namely to show that philosophy “begins with - and continues as - a sense of wonder. Anything less just isn’t worth the name.”

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great synopsis of some of the most important philosophical ideas through the ages, from ancient Greece to the postmodern age. Insight into how one generations' philosophy led to the next and how social structures and world governments influenced schools of thought and their subsequent counterparts.

[Jin Shusong · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is well written and explain the essential ideas of philosophy. However, in my opinion, the author puts too much pages on the philosophy before I. Kant.

[The_J · Rating 3 out of 5]

The trail of thought to find a way in the dark

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wasn't sure what rating to give this book. As the title suggests, it's hardly a page-turner; on the other hand--again, as the title suggests--it clearly isn't trying to be. As a matter of fact, the book is a fairly easy read--and it is, indeed, short: all of world philosophy in 300 pages. I know next to nothing about philosophy, and this book was my first step on the road to philosophical self-improvement. (If you don't know what that means, that's fine; I don't know either.) I plan to move on to some more in-depth stuff next; and the idea was that reading this book first would give me some helpful grounding. Whether this strategy will work remains to be seen; but I feel like I've retained very little from this book, which is likely my fault rather than the authors'. Still, in order to fit all this material into 300 pages, the authors need to move pretty fast, with the result that a lot of extremely complex ideas don't get the space they need to become memorable or intelligible. I felt, from sentence to sentence, that I was understanding things pretty well; but then when I went back to think about what I'd read, I had the feeling that the sentences barely scratched the surface of the ideas they were describing--and that these ideas remained fairly mysterious to me, with the exception of a few Big Points and Famous Phrases. (Plato is all about the Forms; Nietzsche is into the Will to Power, etc.)

The aspect of the book that I suspect will stick with me is the authors' anxious insistence on widening the focus of their history to include the whole world, and not just the "West." While I agree that any understanding of philosophy that focuses solely on Europe is bound to be incomplete and impoverished, I'm not convinced that the global focus enriches this particular book. First of all, with the exception of a few sections on Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, etc., the non-Western world remains on the margins; and it disappears altogether when we hit the Enlightenment, to pop up only at the end in the postcolonial section. (Called, appropriately enough, "The Return of the Oppressed.") Why is this? Well, for one thing, there's just too much Western Philosophy to cover. Rousseau only gets a page as it is. For another, it's hard to construct a coherent narrative about ideas and systems of thought and belief that have no influence on each other. At the beginning, the authors can get around the world by looking comparatively at different cultures and religions; but once the big Enlightenment-Revolution-Romanticism narrative gets going, it gets more and more difficult to throw in sections beginning, "By the way, in China..." The authors repeatedly insist that all sorts of exciting and complex things are going on elsewhere, and that we should question traditional ways of telling the history of philosophy; but they don't do too much with this point besides repeatedly bringing it up. There's a very brief section on philosophy in Africa and the Americas, where the authors admit that we know little to nothing about the philosophy of the many cultures inhabiting these continents before the arrival of the Europeans; nevertheless, the authors assure us that these cultures must have had philosophy, and that their philosophical ideas must have been very, very interesting. And then it's on to Descartes!

How would I write a world history of philosophy? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't; and as I write this, I'm beginning to have a guilty feeling that I ought to have more respect for the people who have tackled this impossible endeavor. And in fact, it seems as if this book has given me quite a bit to think about (even if I still don't have a handle on Hegel). I've probably gotten more out of this book that it seems to me right now. Still, I think that anyone with an interest in any of the topics covered by this book would be better served by going directly to something more in-depth. Ultimately, the convenience of having all of philosophy wrapped up in 300 easy-to-read pages doesn't compensate for losses.

[Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Twentieth Century saw the meteoric rise of empirical realism, which is, the belief that the observable universe is as it appears and it can be deeply understood through the rigorous analysis of experiential evidence. This rise is in no small part due to its immense success: among other things, it is the epistemology (and, for that matter, ontology) that allowed for the development of computers and the Internet. Philosophy has latched on to empirical realism, and like the dog that finally catches a car, philosophers seem unsure what to do now.

The authors of this book, which might better be titled A Short Historical Commentary on Philosophy, seem dead-set on pushing back against this trend. In some ways this is justified, since philosophy encompasses much, much more than just grabbing fruitlessly at the coattails of science, and philosophy's greatest successes (besides of course the legitimization of empirical realism) fell outside science -- though most of the actually noteworthy ones concerned either moral epistemology or social philosophy.

The problem with this book, and the reason that several sections were almost physically painful to read, is that the authors seem to think the solution to the the stranglehold of empirical realism is to push the exact opposite: mysticism, which might otherwise be termed "bullshit." They like Nietzsche, but not for any of the reasons that matter, and admonish the reader for being dismissive of Lao Tzu. They discuss Aristotle's teleology like it has any relevance to the modern world whatsoever, and while they mention Kant's singularly interesting idea -- that understanding oneself is an empirical process -- they're much more interested in his uninteresting views of morality.

If one is willing to consciously ignore the commentary and focus on the facts, though -- who said what, when, and in what context -- then this is a valuable book. Just make sure to keep a grain of salt firmly in hand.

[Mick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This will not be a review of the book per se, for the simple reason that I am not qualified to do so adequately. I have studied a little classical philosophy at university, but that was years back. I am interested in philosophy, but hardly have the level of expertise needed to do an adequate review. So instead I will limit myself to what I liked, and what I disliked.

There are two main areas of philosophy that intrigue me at the moment: pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and medieval Scholasticism. Both do not seem to be dealt with in any depth of understanding that I would expect from professors of philosophy at a major university. For instance, when discussing Thales we are helpfully told that Thales did not really think that the world was literally made out of water. Well, no shit. Fortunately, the section on Scholasticism is a little more satisfying in its treatment of figures like Abelard and Duns Scotus.

Throughout the book makes forays into non-Western philosophy to provide a balance and make it more of a worldwide overview. On the one hand, this is useful. On the other hand, these sections are necessarily overly perfunctory, especially the sections on Indian philosophy. The latter has such a rich philosophical history and really needs a book length overview of its own. I would much rather that the authors had stuck to western philosophy. As it is, the book has a self-consciously "look how multicultural I am!" feel to it, especially in the later sections, which was more irritating than informative.

On the other hand, the book did hit all the major figures of western philosophy from Plato to Wittgenstein, so is valuable to anyone needing an overview, such as myself. As such, although I only gave it two stars (as "It was OK"), I would still recommend it.

[David S. T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

To keep this as a short history, the authors of this book tried to keep it around 300ish pages, yet they tried to cover as much as possible of both eastern and western philosophies. Obviously with this difficult task each philosopher is only briefly covered (some with only a few paragraphs). With this speed, I think that many who don't already have a knowledge of philosophy or haven't read some other histories will be confused by the constant introduction of new people. What I did like about this format was that it seemed to make it easier to follow the progression of philosophy through history. I also liked that out of the three history of philosophy books I've read this is the only one that's covered Eastern Philosophies and this was by far the least biased.

[Mary Karpel-Jergic · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an ambitious book, almost an impossibility; so this husband and wife team should be applauded for attempting such a heroic task. It's very difficult to retain the wide array of information that is provided although the authors do their best to make links wherever possible. The historical links that philosophy has with mythology and religion are very interesting narratives but the later parts of the history - from the enlightenment onwards - could have done with a few graphics, maybe flow charts or graphs; there are such a lot of new ideas and new names that enter at a ferocious speed.

Nevertheless an enjoyable read and worthy of a read to help any understanding of what philosophy is and how it has developed over the years.

[Ashley Bessire · Rating 4 out of 5]

I took a philosophy class in AP English in high school, and unfortunately some (um.....maybe 70%??) went in one ear and out the other. i think i had been daydreaming. Anyway, Solomon´s review of philosophy was perfect. It chronologically touches on all aspects of philosphy. A good read if you have any interest in philosophy or just need to brush up on it.

[John Roberson]

A fantastic second or third survey of philosophy. Gives a balanced presentation of philosophy across the world, and it's surprisingly readable for a book written by philosophers. Underlying the entire book is the thesis that philosophy should be about the real world of real people, not strictly a specialized discipline for eggheads.

[Kevin Montes · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a beginner in philosophy, I found this book very helpful. It's a great summary that seemed to cover a wide range of approaches and contributors to mostly the Western but also the Eastern tradition. Fairly unbiased and easy to read, I recommend it to anyone interested in grasping a deeper understanding of philosophy and how it has developed.

[Bahman Bahman · Rating 2 out of 5]

رابرت سالمن (1942 – 2007) در دانشگاه تگزاس استاد فلسفه بود. او بیش از 40 کتاب در زمینه فلسفه منتشر کرد که بسیاری از آنها با همکاری همسرش کتلین هیگینز نوشته شده است.

کتلین هیگینز (متولد 1952) نیز در دانشگاه تگزاس استاد فلسفه است. پژوهش های او درباره نیچه بسیار مورد توجه بوده است و کتاب "زرتشت نیچه" که در سال 1989 چاپ کرد، یکی از کتاب های مهم دانشگاه های امریکا محسوب می شود.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

OK, if you're looking for a good primer on philosophy, and looking to continue your study of humankind (why we do what we do as the humanrace--philosophy, math, science, arts, etc.) then this is a good book to understand philosophy, it's history, and those who made it.

[azi · Rating 5 out of 5]

فلسفه همیشه نماینده ی انسانی ترین بخش وجود ما بوده است شاید آنچه به آن نیاز داریم فرهیختگی بیشتر نیست بلکه فراخ اندیشی ست. نیازی نیست باهوش تر از اینی که هستیم باشیم نیازمندیم که شنونده های بهتری باشیم. فلسفه بیش از هرچیز فراخ اندیشی عمیق درباره ی دنیاست شور خرد است.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of major philospophical themes.

[Projwal Shrestha · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is brief, and carries a rich history from the Greeks to contemporary philosophy. A good overview of the subject.

[Vera · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read if you want to know more about philosophy as a whole, but don't need extreme attention to details. This was easy to read, and just in depth enough for me.

[عاطف عثمان · Rating 4 out of 5]

New;
To sell for 20 pounds, or
swap for: Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville.