<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Bathetic
Review: Arriving after so many good reviews I feel rather self-conscious, (as if I have somehow not gotten "the joke") in saying that this book is dreadful. I do not mean that this book didn't appeal to me or my sensibilities; this book is totally and utterly wrong from the first page. To paraphrase a popular saying, "it's not even wrong; it's bunk!" Let me provide an example at the very beginning of the book. Nehamas states "[My] own view...is that the philosophical life is only one among many praise-worthy ways of living." This is as effective a demonstration as I can muster that Nehamas, a professor of philosophy at Princeton, has never understood the very subject matter he claims to speak about. What one is constantly told from every major ancient and modern philosopher is that philosophy is **the only** life worth living. All other lives are steeped in superstition, ignorance, and self-delusion. I can point to Book 10 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics or Plato's Phaedrus (249ff) as adequate justification for this claim. I repeat: philosophy is the only life worth living! All other lives are radically inferior because all other lives involve blind acceptance of unexamined opinion. Nietzsche spoke of philosophy as the most spiritual will-to-power. This implies that all other types are reactive and decadent at best; prey to their own illusions at worst. With that opening salvo Nehamas has demonstrated conclusively that he does not know what philosophy is or why one should practice it. Let me put this another way: Nehamas is a relativist with a bad conscience. I would like to praise Nehamas for finally "getting it" and realizing that Plato never cared about "aesthetics" or "epistemology" (both academic sub-fields created within the last 300 years) but was always concerned about the best life and how to live it. I cannot, however, because Nehamas believes the exact opposite of what Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Hegel, Cicero, Maimonides, Averroes, etc. taught on no other basis than it offends his egalitarian sensibilities. He has no real understanding of philosophy because philosophy is not a living option for him. It is simply one more dead museum piece which we have thankfully overcome because now, for some reason, we are superior and know that Plato's claim is an illusion. History has ended and the last man now triumphs: "'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink.'"(Thus Spake Zarathustra 1.5). Nehamas cannot understand why Plato wrote in the peculiar way that he did but Nehamas somehow cannot believe that Plato would ever lie to us. "O Plato, so much admired, I fear that you have told us nothing but fables..." (Voltaire, "Great Chain of Being", Philosophical Dictionary). He blindly asserts that Plato was hardly guilty of creating fictions and resorting to slippery ironies. Why? Because he assumes that philosophers must behave like bourgoeis university professors who worry about whether they will receive calls from The New York Review of Books. The book reeks with the failure to conceed that the greatest souls create and think upon a level which the overwhelming majority of us cannot reach. Plato is just a stuffed corpse to our Princeton professor. Lest my animus be mistaken for personal vindictiveness, I wish to state upfront that I have never met Prof. Nehamas. Based upon my reading of his work, however, I can say that he cannot tell us anything intelligent about philosophy and its practitioners. If this book were a high-priced academic monograph, destined to moulder on the shelf of research libraries, I would not care. Unfortunately, this work has been priced and marketed to the individual consumer who is interested in philosophy and it's to him/her that I direct my comments. Do not buy this book for you are wasting your money. The favorable reviews by Lear and Nussbaum only confirm the fact that neither professor *ever* understood a word of Plato (indeed, both are pseudo-aristotleans of a peculiarly noxious stripe). If you want to learn about Plato as a living, breathing author of a radically compelling, profound vision of the world and man, buy Sallis's "Being and Logos", Rosen's "Plato's Symposium", Sayre's "Plato's Literary Garden", Bloom's "The Republic of Plato", or Griswold's "Plato's Phaedrus". All of those books are about a Plato who entreats us to change our lives from passive lemming to active seeker of the truth. All of them are about an elitist Plato who is not concerned with rescuing the rabble because he knows that such things are futile and stupid. All of them are about a Plato who is both profound and profoundly human. Leave this book to the paper pulpers who will make good use of its materials, after destroying its worthless contents.
Rating: 
Summary: every one should read this book who study phil.
Review: Art of living is a context which is discussed by every one -not by only philosophers- since the mankind have created. Why do we get angry when Nehamas brings a new view about this topic? I interpret Nehamas' argues as a kind of deconstraction about the texts of Plato and Nietzsche -a useful one!- Nehamas is not an oponnent against to philosophic living; his objection is against to "the philosophic living". We must separete these two different things as Nehamas did.
Rating: 
Summary: The Art of Living
Review: Contrary to what one of the reviewers below contends, little knowledge of the figures under discussion is required on the part of the reader. This is owing to Alexander Nehamas's skill in lucidly and masterfully conveying the key ideas of the philosophers he brings under analysis. Although "The Art of Living" is not an explicit demand for a reorientation of philosophy, and a call for its rechannelling towards abandoning the realm of pure theory in favour of a more practical end, it nevertheless attempts to draw attention to an alternative style of philosophising which enjoins that philosophy ought to make itself subservient to the practicalities of life. This trend flourished mainly in ancient Greece, particularly in the enigma of Socrates, (the preeminent exemplum of the "art of living") until it was eclipsed by the now dominant tradition that emphasises theoretical knowledge, later to be revived by such figures as Montaigne, Nietzsche and Foucault, whose aesthicist stance Nehamas chooses as a point of departure. He evaluates, in the first book of his study, the figure of Socrates, as presented in the dialogues of Plato, and how he, in his philosophical endeavour, succeeded in fashioning a work of art out of himself or, in Nehamas's words, creating himself as a unique personality. Nehamas also explains how Montaigne, Nietzsche and Foucault, sought and, succeeded in realising, similar projects for themselves, absorbing Socrates's ironic silence about himself as well as reacting against it, in their bid for "self-creation" via the medium of their texts. It is by this aestheticist turn that Nehamas designates the "art of living", a uniquely particularlist and individualist praxis of philosophising, enabling a subordination of theoretical knowledge to actual experience. Knowledge, as Nehamas seems to imply, must be lived in order to be truly understood. The major shortcoming of the book, I felt, was the chapter on Montaigne, which was extremely tedious, though, on the whole, an outstanding and fulfilling treatise.
Rating:
Summary: O Philebus!
Review: I have just read Philebus's comments. If there ever was a good example of the messenger's ethos discrediting the message, this is it. Philebus's personality seems so, how to put it, offputting, that one wonders whether acquaintance with philosophy can have any sort of beneficial effect. Perhaps, ironically, his ringing condemnation will have a good outcome: if someone with so distasteful a character finds this book wanting, it may be that it's quite a book. His outburst will motivate readers to read Nehamas. As for Philebus's strictures and his apology for philosophy, surely they need a corrective which might come after a review of the lives of any number of philosophers, which would lead even philosophy's most ardent defenders to the conclusion that being called to the philosophic life does not confer the status Philebus, following Plato, would claim for it. Pointing that out does not necessarily lump one with relativists. It simply acknowledges human frailty and refuses, unlike religious fundamentalists, to legislate a single path to salvation
Rating:
Summary: A must read for fans of classical philosophy
Review: If you are reading this, you already know this is a great book. Buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Understand Socrates is philosophy in act
Review: Socrates is the personification of philosophy. Who loves this way needs to make the effort of trying to understand the enigma that is Socrates and the problematic knowledge of ethics values he's questionning.
Nehamas makes a excelent book on that matter. Interesting and not too academic. Writting books of philosophy is already a way of living and it seems that he's good in that!
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful, with a caveat
Review: The author frames his philosophical inquiry in terms of questions which have inspired great thinkers. He does not write a "how to" book or offer recipes for readers interested in a quick fix. Readers interested in thoughtful consideration of such issues may find that here. This book is not recommended, however, as an introduction to Socrates/Plato with respect to the art of living. Here, I suggest that one would do much better by consulting sources such as Robert Cushman, E.J. Urwick, or Eric Voegelin, each of whom offers unique insight into the perennial wisdom of Platonic thought. Cushman, explicitly on Platonic philosophy as "therapeia," ever-relevant to the human condition; Urwick on a comparative understanding of common ground shared between the ancient wisdom of Socrates/Plato in the West and ancient wisdom in the East, with respect to the art of living; and Voegelin, for a set of "anamnetic" insights, including the fundamental Platonic insight of human life -- not as a reductive affair -- but as lived multi-dimensionally within the experiential parameters of the "metaxy," or "in-between" transcendent and immanent dimensions of life. The author of this text is apparently more comfortable, and the book is clearly stronger when it comes to treatment of philosophers in the modern period. Readers should be aware that the conversation across the centuries here is read through a modern philosophical bias or lense. With this caveat in mind, readers with such an interest, may find something of value they may enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, though not essential
Review: The subtitle SOCRATIC REFLECTIONS FROM PLATO TO FOUCAULT introduces ambiguity that I feel the need to resolve. It should be rendered--most properly--as REFLECTIONS ON SOCRATES FROM PLATO TO FOUCAULT as opposed to SOCRATIC-LIKE REFLECTIONS FROM PLATO TO FOUCAULT. First and foremost, this work is about Socrates, the interpretation and re-creation of Socrates, and [to a limited extent] the uses to which the fictional character Socrates (not saying that Socrates didn't ever exist, but the figure we have inherited is fictional) has been put by Plato, Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault. Those four figures (with the possible exception of Plato, are NOT the main focus of this work, but subsidiary). What this book is NOT is a work and synthesis of the theme of the "Art of Living" from Plato to Foucault (as I had hoped). Nehamas's book is much less grand of a project than that--once again, a focus on Socrates and how he embodies the care of oneself. [Perhaps THE ART OF LIVING should have been made the subtitle of REFLECTIONS ON SOCRATES.] Nonetheless Nehamas's analysis is interesting (and would be more so, I imagine, if I were a classics scholar). His Nietzsche (a figure with whom Nehamas has a lot of experience) chapter is notable. There is a little bit of explication of the "Art of Living" for Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault outside of the realm of Socrates, but not much. Nehamas focuses on a type of ethic, an art of living, a self-creation of one's life as a work of art, that he views as deriving (in some way, however nonlinear or even through confrontation) from the practice of the Socrates of Plato's early dialogues that results in a creation of a self that is not universalistic but that "only [Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault] and perhaps a few others can follow. They do not insist that their life is a model for the world at large" (10). This is interesting, but instead of going deep within each of the later figures that he studies to pull out the details of their projects of self creation, the "Care of the Self", the "Art of Living", etc, Nehamas focuses on their relationship to Socrates in regard to their project. It is only in this regard that I am disappointed. I got a scholarly study when I expected a great synthesis. But, I guess a scholarly study is what this was supposed to be, though the title certainly is ambiguous. Interesting, though--I argue--not essential, especially if you are familiar with Nietzsche and Foucault (the "ethics" part of his work near the end of his life). For someone interested in the classics, maybe it is important, but on that I don't feel qualified to pass judgment. (i.e., there is quite a bit of critical engagement with classics scholars like Vlastos)
Rating:
Summary: A tour de force
Review: To paraphrase Nehamas' Montaigne quote on page 187 of this book, there really are no definitive books on anything; there is always something more to be said about a given subject. In this context, especially if you're interested in the figure of Socrates, this book is a fulfilling read. However, this is said presupposing one has previously read Thomas Mann's 'Magic Mountain,' a lengthy novel in itself, as well as some Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault, since Nehamas predicates his thoughts about Socrates on much these writer's extant works. If not, then I suppose the reading of 'The Art of Living' could get rather meaningless outside of the context of the afore mentioned authors. As it happened, I had read Mann's 'Magic Mountain,' along with quite a bit of Montaigne and Neitzsche, and fortunately Kierkegaard's 'The Concept of Irony,' which Nehamas refers to as well, prior to taking 'The Art of Living' off the shelf. I had previously only read two of Foucault's books, so a lot of what Nehamas had to say in the last chapter I just had to take on his word. Having said this, that one needs to be well read in the previously mentioned authors in order to get the most out of this book (not to mention Plato's work alone), it's a worthwhile addition to the body of Socratic analysis in terms of what is germane to philosophy at large and how it applies to those of us alive today. Also, if you're into the group of authors previously mentioned, I think Nehamas contributes wonderfully to their memory as well. Not having read much Foucault, I rather enjoyed the last chapter by getting to know more about this philosopher. As for Nehamas' thesis, of which another reviewer alluded to that there wasn't one, I'd say that to miss it is akin to missing a drive-in theater screen with a laser guided missle. The thesis is: 'what is philosophy and how can it be applied to everyday, flesh and blood life?' This is an existential view which I've often wondered about myself. How can philosophy be applied to real time living from its theoretical position? Although a thesis as such is clear, I don't think Nehamas tries to show specifically how such a thing is accomplished; which is the good thing about this book: it doesn't try to proselytize. It lays out a series of examples of this thesis and invites the reader to come to their own conclusions. The book also creates a decent bridge from ancient to modern philosophy. It's a serious book and a good book, but not worth the time I think if you lack the background to appreciate it; better to spend your money on some Plato, Montaigne, or Neitzsche than jump into these waters without a life raft.
Rating:
Summary: A tour de force
Review: What is philosophy? Most people today assume that its primary task is to offer convincing answers to a set of well-known questions. But many philosophers, from the fifth century onwards, have felt that thinking well is only a secondary task, always in the service of *living* well; and living well may not be something for which there is a single helpful definition. Taking Socrates as their paradoxical model--a model, precisely, of how to do without models--these philosophers thus set about forging a life which is both coherent and unique, often considering their own views as simply raw material for that fashioned life. They do not tell others what to believe or even how to behave, but provide instead an *example* of a compelling mode of existence. This, argues Alexander Nehamas in his brilliant new book, is the tradition Socrates began, and which Montaigne, Nietzsche and Foucault--perhaps Plato too, in some respects--have continued. That it is still alive today is evident in the fact that Nehamas himself practices what he preaches: not content with a presentation of the theory, Nehamas exemplifies it by bringing together, in this one work, the various strands of his intellectual life. A veritable tour de force, and one which may have lasting consequences on the world of philosophy.
<< 1 >>
|
