History of Philosophy, Volume 2

Rating:
Summary: An outstanding general overview, but not without faults
Review: Anyone acquainted with the history of philosophy knows there is a tendency to treat Medieval philosophy as a low point between the grandeur of Greece and the radiant glow of Descartes, who salvaged philosophy from the dim ruminations of Christian theology. This theme is given notable currency in popular histories like Russell's _History of Western Philosophy_, Durant's _The Story of Philosophy_, and Gottlieb's more recent _Dream of Reason_. While these books might pay homage to Aquinas as a synthesizer of Aristotle and Catholicism, his eminent contemporaries hardly merit a sentence. Supposedly, real philosophy did not begin in earnest until it was reawakened by the "kiss of Descartes." Here Frederick Copleston, a great Jesuit scholar, seeks to remedy the damage by recreating the rich philosophical tapestry of Medievalism, a time in which philosophy hardly slept, but was full of energy and acerbic controversy.

While Christianity was definitely the philosophical template that all Medievalists began with, there was still an enormous range of conflict and disputation. Just as there is not a single issue that ensnares modern philosophy, the Medievalists were engrossed with a whole range of issues -- epistemology, politics, rationalism, and so on. A prickly controversy that the Medievalists dwelt on was the "problem of universals", an enigma that dates back to Plato and Aristotle, who each took opposing sides to the problem. On the surface the problem of universals might not seem like a problem at all, and indeed most people do not recognize it as such until they encounter it in Philosophy 101. While different formulations can be given to the problem the most succint way of presenting it is as follows: what, if anything, in extramental reality corresponds to the universal concept in the human mind? In other words, our minds (or brains) can only produce thoughts and conepts, but the world (extramental reality) is made up of particular, individual things. So what is the relationship between our thoughts and individual things, between between the intramental concept and the extramental reality? For instance, when the scientist expresses his knowledge of things he does so in abstract and universal terms, he does not make a statement about a particular atom, but atoms in general, and if the universal term has no foundation in extramental reality, his science is a social construction. This is one of the vexing issues the Medievalists tried to confront and resolve and fortunately progress was made in the area.

The crude, "exaggerated" realism of Christian Platonists, like Saint Anslem, eventually gave way to the more moderate realism of Aquinas. The extreme realists were under the impression that class-names for genera and species -- things like trees, elms, felines, cats, dogs, etc -- had a real existence -- the mental concept was indentical to extramental reality. There is a unitary nature between our minds and the world, terms had a real existence, and were not just a useful means of mental economy. Of course the brilliant dialectician Abelard exposed the nonsense behind this crude realism and paved the way for the moderate realism of Aquinas.

The existence of God, the immortality of the individual soul, the Trinity, the Resurrection and all the other facets of Christianity were accepted as self-evident by almost all Medieval philosophers. However, such theological unanimity did not guarantee philosphical unanimity. In fact, there is a great controversy throughout the Middle Ages on the proper role of reason, what role it plays in servicing theology, and what its ultimate limits are. The debate between St. Bonaventure and St. Aquinas over the existence of God and the possibility of an eternal universe highlights this admirably. While Aquinas surely thought the universe had a beginning in time, he thought reason was impotent in proving it does. Bonaventure dissents, and unleashes a series of ingenious arguments that expose the absurdity of an eternal universe. For instance, he notes that the idea of an eternal universe (one with no beginning) leads to obvious antinomies: for every solar revolution there are twelve lunar revolutions, so if the universe was infinite how could there be twelve times more lunar revolutions than solar revolutions? There can not be twelve times infinity. Also, how could we ever have arrived at this point, since that would mean we would need to pass through infinity, an impossibility. So clearly reason can establish the finite nature of the universe, and hence a contingent world requiring an infinite Creator.

This is just a sample of the issues that Copleston illuminates in this thorough, scholarly, and higly academic work. Other writers of philosophy hardly measure up to his exactness and comprehensiveness. He shows no hesitation in making short work of the often careless and erroneous pontificating of other writers, like Bertrand Russell. One gets to enjoy the subtle sparring matches that Copleston participates in, skewering Russell's simplistic understanding of Aquinas, his pretentious denunciation of Aristotle's logic, and the backward tendency of Medieval philosophy. Finally, Copleston reminds us that the Middle Ages were not a dark period where learning and progress were stagnant, but a time when Europeans immersed themselves in knowledge and learning, an age that saw the founding and spreading of the university system, a phenomenon that directly lead to the rise of science throughout the West.

Rating:
Summary: IN DEPTH STUDY
Review: Copleston is in his element here, in the second volume of his mammoth history. He writes on every philosopher imaginable giving good space to obscure and otherwise ignored minor thinkers of the period in question. As to be expected, Copleston gives the major share to Aquinas with Scotus following closely. Recommended for readers with some knowledge of philosophical concepts only as it is a difficult text for beginners new to the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but...
Review: Copleston's series is eruditious, but this particular volume falls short of an orthodox Catholic expectation. Copleston's treatment of Aquinas mixes Kantian ideas and is not purely Thomist, as philosopher Fr. Stanley Jaki, OSB, notes. A better treatment of Aquinas and other mediaeval philosophers is given by Etienne Gilson.

Rating:
Summary: The Bridge from Ancient to Modern Philosophy
Review: I have now read the first two volumes of Copleston's History of Philosophy, and plan to read the remaining seven. Based on reviews and the monumental scope of the work itself, I had high expectations coming in, and I must say that the books have so far exceeded these expectations. My only prior experience with philosophy had been Bertrand Russell's history, which I thoroughly enjoyed, although in retrospect I gleaned more entertainment from it than any real knowledge of the history of philosophy. Copleston's work is much more academic and it does, to a degree, presuppose at least a cursory knowledge of the history of philosophy as well a foundation of philosophic terminology. However, if you are willing to put some work and thought into the books, especially at the outset, it is possible, I believe, to fully understand these volumes without a prior knowledge of the history of philosophy. For example, I've taken notes as I've read, and have found that many of the philosophical terms used, while not always defined explicitly, are used frequently enough that their meaning can be inferred satisfactorily.

I'll attempt to summarize what I took from this particular volume, that on Medieval philosophy: The philosophy of Aristotle represents a complete system and was the pinnacle of the ancient philosophies. However, his complete system was not known in the West until the twelfth century -only his logic and fragments of other parts was known before this and mostly indirectly. Philosophy in medieval Europe prior to this had been inextricably tied up with Christian theology -the Church fathers and medieval theologians had used what they knew of ancient philosophy to rationally support what they knew through revelation. Now confronted with Aristotle's complete system -a system derived without the aid of revelation -it was only a matter of time before thinkers began developing systems independently of Christian dogma. This began with St. Thomas Aquinas who attempted to reconcile Aristotle with Christian revelation. Despite the value of this -and Aquinas is still considered THE Catholic philosopher -Copleston argues that St. Thomas's system paved the way for future philosophers to develop philosophies independent of theology and even, in fact, to take the subject matter of theology as their own, for better or for worse.

One other comment I'd like to make: it is impossible to have a completely objective history of philosophy (or history of anything for that matter); the author picks and chooses what topics to include and emphasize, how to classify the topics, in what order, etc. Copleston was a Jesuit theologian and his expertise is medieval philosophy, especially Thomas Aquinas. Therefore, I fully expected a bias in this book towards that philosophy. This bias is present to a slight degree, as probably can't be helped; for example, Copleston will often show how a particular philosophic idea contrasts to the Scholastic philosophy. However, I can only recall one or two times where the author, in this or the previous volume, gives his own opinions as to the value of the philosophical ideas presented. Copleston simply states that this was the idea of this particular philosopher and leaves it at that. He will on occasion give his thoughts as to the importance or the future impact of an idea or philosopher, but that is the job of any good historian; he rarely assigns a value to a particular idea, and the few times he does, it is explicit that he is doing so.

Rating:
Summary: The Bridge from Ancient to Modern Philosophy
Review: I have now read the first two volumes of Copleston's History of Philosophy, and plan to read the remaining seven. Based on reviews and the monumental scope of the work itself, I had high expectations coming in, and I must say that the books have so far exceeded these expectations. My only prior experience with philosophy had been Bertrand Russell's history, which I thoroughly enjoyed, although in retrospect I gleaned more entertainment from it than any real knowledge of the history of philosophy. Copleston's work is much more academic and it does, to a degree, presuppose at least a cursory knowledge of the history of philosophy as well a foundation of philosophic terminology. However, if you are willing to put some work and thought into the books, especially at the outset, it is possible, I believe, to fully understand these volumes without a prior knowledge of the history of philosophy. For example, I've taken notes as I've read, and have found that many of the philosophical terms used, while not always defined explicitly, are used frequently enough that their meaning can be inferred satisfactorily.

I'll attempt to summarize what I took from this particular volume, that on Medieval philosophy: The philosophy of Aristotle represents a complete system and was the pinnacle of the ancient philosophies. However, his complete system was not known in the West until the twelfth century -only his logic and fragments of other parts was known before this and mostly indirectly. Philosophy in medieval Europe prior to this had been inextricably tied up with Christian theology -the Church fathers and medieval theologians had used what they knew of ancient philosophy to rationally support what they knew through revelation. Now confronted with Aristotle's complete system -a system derived without the aid of revelation -it was only a matter of time before thinkers began developing systems independently of Christian dogma. This began with St. Thomas Aquinas who attempted to reconcile Aristotle with Christian revelation. Despite the value of this -and Aquinas is still considered THE Catholic philosopher -Copleston argues that St. Thomas's system paved the way for future philosophers to develop philosophies independent of theology and even, in fact, to take the subject matter of theology as their own, for better or for worse.

One other comment I'd like to make: it is impossible to have a completely objective history of philosophy (or history of anything for that matter); the author picks and chooses what topics to include and emphasize, how to classify the topics, in what order, etc. Copleston was a Jesuit theologian and his expertise is medieval philosophy, especially Thomas Aquinas. Therefore, I fully expected a bias in this book towards that philosophy. This bias is present to a slight degree, as probably can't be helped; for example, Copleston will often show how a particular philosophic idea contrasts to the Scholastic philosophy. However, I can only recall one or two times where the author, in this or the previous volume, gives his own opinions as to the value of the philosophical ideas presented. Copleston simply states that this was the idea of this particular philosopher and leaves it at that. He will on occasion give his thoughts as to the importance or the future impact of an idea or philosopher, but that is the job of any good historian; he rarely assigns a value to a particular idea, and the few times he does, it is explicit that he is doing so.

Rating:
Summary: Great source but dry
Review: The History of Philosophy series by Copleston is an excellent reference for anyone interested in philosophy. My only problem with them is that they are crammed with information. I cannot read over 100 pages without getting a headache. None the less, they are excellent books to have, I would recommend them to anyone who has as serious interest in the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Some caveats
Review: The readers were originally seminarians. Often a critical word or phrase is rendered in Latin or Greek. You can work around that by treating the word as a symbol for an idea otherwise explicated, but sometimes in this book (less so in the prior ones) a critical eplanation or reference is entirely in Latin. The book, as is true with all of the others, is well worth the work involved in studying it. It is neither an in depth analysis of everything, nor a beginner's text. Excellent for college students and particularly philosophy students who have finished the survey courses.

Rating:
Summary: I hate to say it but.....
Review: This isn't really a critique of this one edition in Copleston's history of Philosophy. I have a BA in Philosophy and many of my professors look at this work as THE definitive work in the history of Philosophy. I bought the first couple editions with aspirations of preparing for a Masters degree in Philosophy.

I ended up reading the first two thirds of book one. I read the first 100 pages several times over the course of two plus years. I found myself falling asleep or having my mind wander.

Mr.Copleston is long winded in my judgement. I have read difficult books. This series took a long time to get to any kind of point. I guess I missed the point. I am sure there are many reviews extolling the wonders of these works. That is why I gave it three stars.

For me I just didn't have the time or patience to deal with these books. I did try the other two books in spots. The positive is that these books look really cool. They made me feel smart and they look good in book case!

I would suggest reading the actual philosophical texts or finding readers about the philosopher. My main book was "Philosophy for Begginers", by Richard Osborne. Yes it is a comic book and oversimplified. This "comic book" was my most quoted source on my way to a Bachelors degree in Philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: An outstanding general overview, but not without faults
Review: Volumne II is a great introduction to one of the least covered areas of Western philosophy. Copleston did a great job giving a general overview of the major figures (and a few lesser known), their views from a philosophical angle, and showed why they are important. He also makes clear several important issues, such as the lack of distinction between philosophy and theology and the influence of some of the Islamic philosophers (inasmuch as they affected Europeans).

This book is so valuable because the medieval works are less accessable from a philosophical point of view than ancient and modern works. If you want to know Kant's or Plato's philosophy you can read their actual writings to get a clear understanding. But the theological nature of the medieval works makes that difficult. While it is true that they cannot be completely seperated, the anachronistic distinction does exist to us, and Copleston did a great job cutting through the theology to get to the philosopy.

The major problem is the lack of translation at certain points. When the author lists the works of Augustine, he lists them in Latin. I found myself just glossing over several lines of Latin text. He also used Latin throughout the book to list arguements. Since I don't speak Latin I either guessed what he meant, looked it up, or glossed over it.

Rating:
Summary: The finest history of philosophy ever written
Review: Warning: this book is not for the faint-of-heart -- or faint-of-mind! Staggeringly detailed, Copleston's history of philosophy is one of the masterworks of twentieth century scholarship, but should only be assayed by those who have done their basic work in philosophy already. As a Jesuit, this volume is perhaps the closest to Copleston's heart, given that it covers Catholic philosophy from Augustine to Thomas Aquinas (who Copleston believes is his own truest philosopher), as well as a few odds and ends of medieval philosophy. The sections on Augustine and Aquinas are still required reading for anybody wanting to understand the attempt to reconcile philosophy and theology, the primary intellectual debate of the middle ages in Europe. For many readers, the debate simply won't matter any longer, but anybody wishing to understand the medieval mind absolutely needs to read this book. Yes, your head may swim in keeping the arguments over what now seems to many to be inconsequential trivia, but the terms and arguments that Aquinas defined set the ground for many unresolved arguments to follow.