<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Magisterial
Review: Bryan Magee's 'Introduction to Western Philosophy' is a brilliant analysis of the works of the most important Western philosophers from Plato to Bertrand Russell.
This book is based on a BBC TV series which was presented as a discussion between the author and one of the leading authorities on every philosopher.
During the discussions all the most important philosophical problems were tackled. To name a few: causality, determinism, free will, freedom, the existence of the self, the body-mind problem, the subject-object relationship, the problem of induction, tolerance, the problem of the just war or the basics of human nature ('the would-be knower is a biological organism struggling for survival').
This book is written in very clear, straightforward and very comprehensive prose, rather exceptional for this kind of work.
It gives a magisterial summary of the basic ideas of every philosopher. Into the bargain, it can be consulted easily for every chapter can be read independently.
I have only a few remarks. First, I miss one great philosopher of the 20th century: Karl Popper. I suppose that he was left out because he was still living when the book was published. On the other hand, Bryan Magee filled the gap by writing a separate book on Popper, which I recommend to everyone.
Secondly, I don't share his enthusiasm for the 'second' Wittgenstein and the latter's disastrous sliding into the morass of linguistics with his language games.
All in all, this book is a magisterial summary of 2500 years of Western philosophy. A must read.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Exposition of Difficult Material
Review: Derived from a British t.v. series on the great philosophical thinkers in the Western intellectual tradition, this book is a finely done entry point for those with an interest in this field. Because it is largely a record of conversations, albeit edited afterwards by the participants, it is necessarily superficial in some areas and, therefore, does not always give the fullest rendition of the ideas of the thinkers who are its subjects. And yet it offers some very nice explications of some rather difficult stuff. In some sense it is probably of more interest to the professional (or those, at least, with some real background in philosophy) since so much of the material is highly technical and handled so quickly that, lacking a preliminary understanding of the concepts being elucidated, one is likely to miss much. Still some of the material is absolutely superb. The section on Heidegger, for instance, helped me to understand that very obscurantist thinker in a way that elucidated what had always been opaque for me before. And the last section, on Wittgenstein, gave me a new feel for his very subtle and profound view of things. In fact, I read the section on Wittgenstein first (even though it's the book's final offering) and then, having finished the rest of the book, returned to it again. And then I found it even richer than on the first go-round. Other areas particularly worth delving into included the sections on Plato and Aristotle, and on Locke and Hume. On the other hand, I thought the exposition of Kant's thought a bit lacking and that on the Pragmatists rather too swiftly dealt with and not nearly as useful as I'd hoped. Berkeley, too, gets short shrift; but the offerings on Spinoza and Leibniz and, later Frege and Russell were very useful. In sum, a good intro for those who are not starting in this business from scratch and, certainly, a fine platform from which to go on to further readings, as one must, after this, given the fact that that so much of the material is so cursorily handled. -- SWM
Rating:
Summary: A great popularizer without apologies
Review: For many years in Britain Bryan Magee has been a popularizer of philosophy-and unashamedly so. In his view philosophy is too important and relevant a subject to be left to academics. There are few who can elucidate and demystify as capably. Accordingly, when you have Magee interviewing famous philosphers about very famous philosophers you have the ingredients of an exciting recipe-and the product is not disappointing. There is Bernard Williams on Descartes, Geoffrey Warnock on Kant and J P Stern on Nietzche-all outstanding. Beyond this though there is Dreyfus on Heidigger- a remarkable insight into a difficult philosopher and John Searles cool exposition of Wittgenstein. However, the very best is Coppelston and Magee on Schopenhaeur. Here Magee departs from his role as lucid interrogator and engages with the expert, often disagreeing. This is (as he explains) because Schopenhauer has been the subject of one of his own books. All of this makes for a lively exchange which led this reader to research further. While he popularizes Magee never cheapens. You should not expect this to survey all the thoughts of any one writer, but rather to stimulate your interest to read some great minds yourself. If this does so for any thinker the the author will have served his purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Great Introduction to the History of Philosophy
Review: I know of no better introduction to the history of philosophy than this volume, which is about as engaging as books on philosophy get. The conversations are easy to follow; no knowledge of arcane terminology is presupposed; and every attempt is made to bring out why these ideas are important and worthy of serious study today. Furthermore, the book's coverage is quite broad for its length of three hundred pages. It manages to cover philosophy from Plato to Wittgenstein, and I can't think of a single absolutely essential figure in the history of philosophy whose work isn't discussed here. Nevertheless, this book is less ambitious than many other shorter books on the history of philosophy in that it doesn't attempt to cover the entire history of philosophy. Instead, Magee and his interlocutors focus in on the most important figures in the history of philosophy and devote an entire chapter to each of them. Where historical trends in philosophy or other, less important figures are mentioned, they're mentioned in relation to the figures to whom the particular chapters are devoted. This strikes me as a significant strength of this book as a book for someone coming to philosophy for the first time. A beginner needs to know about Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, et al.; she doesn't need to know a little bit about every figure who has introduced an important idea or two. Finally, most of the interviews are with thinkers who are themselves good philosophers, and, in several cases (e.g., Bernard Williams on Descartes, Miles Burnyeat on Plato, Michael Ayers on Locke, and Hubert Dreyfus on Heidegger), the interviewee has done first-rate work on the very philosopher(s) he or she is discussing. Each interview begins with a short biographical sketch of the subject by Brian Magee, and some attempt is made, in these introductions and in the interviews, to place each figure's ideas into the history of philosophy and into the history of ideas more generally. Still, there is no general format for these discussions. Some of the interviews begin with a sketch of the thinker's methodology or conception of philosophy; some begin with an account of one of the thinker's distinctive views that provides an entry into his thinking; some begin with a discussion of a problem to which the thinker was responding. From these beginnings, the conversation tends to develop and cover more of the thinker's views, with the dialogue format keeping things fairly informal without being superficial. It's not that this book makes all of these things easy to understand. Some of them just aren't easy to understand, and there is no way to accurately describe their views while making those views easy to understand. And, in some cases, the difficulty of their views isn't simply a matter of unnecessary pedantry or willful obscurity on their part--though, in other cases, it may be partly a matter of these things. In fact, some of these figures (i.e., Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein) are notorious for the difficulty of their work. But, even in these cases, the conversations here go some way in helping to introduce their thought. I recommend this book to anyone who wants an entry into the study of the history of the philosophy. In addition, if you simply memorize most of the information in this volume, you'll know enough to understand just about any reference to a famous philosopher and his ideas that you find outside of a philosophy classroom or journal. In other words, you'll look smarter if you read this book. Heck, reading this book might even make you smarter. What more can you ask for?
Rating:
Summary: Great Introduction to the History of Philosophy
Review: I know of no better introduction to the history of philosophy than this volume, which is about as engaging as books on philosophy get. The conversations are easy to follow; no knowledge of arcane terminology is presupposed; and every attempt is made to bring out why these ideas are important and worthy of serious study today. Furthermore, the book's coverage is quite broad for its length of three hundred pages. It manages to cover philosophy from Plato to Wittgenstein, and I can't think of a single absolutely essential figure in the history of philosophy whose work isn't discussed here. Nevertheless, this book is less ambitious than many other shorter books on the history of philosophy in that it doesn't attempt to cover the entire history of philosophy. Instead, Magee and his interlocutors focus in on the most important figures in the history of philosophy and devote an entire chapter to each of them. Where historical trends in philosophy or other, less important figures are mentioned, they're mentioned in relation to the figures to whom the particular chapters are devoted. This strikes me as a significant strength of this book as a book for someone coming to philosophy for the first time. A beginner needs to know about Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, et al.; she doesn't need to know a little bit about every figure who has introduced an important idea or two. Finally, most of the interviews are with thinkers who are themselves good philosophers, and, in several cases (e.g., Bernard Williams on Descartes, Miles Burnyeat on Plato, Michael Ayers on Locke, and Hubert Dreyfus on Heidegger), the interviewee has done first-rate work on the very philosopher(s) he or she is discussing. Each interview begins with a short biographical sketch of the subject by Brian Magee, and some attempt is made, in these introductions and in the interviews, to place each figure's ideas into the history of philosophy and into the history of ideas more generally. Still, there is no general format for these discussions. Some of the interviews begin with a sketch of the thinker's methodology or conception of philosophy; some begin with an account of one of the thinker's distinctive views that provides an entry into his thinking; some begin with a discussion of a problem to which the thinker was responding. From these beginnings, the conversation tends to develop and cover more of the thinker's views, with the dialogue format keeping things fairly informal without being superficial. It's not that this book makes all of these things easy to understand. Some of them just aren't easy to understand, and there is no way to accurately describe their views while making those views easy to understand. And, in some cases, the difficulty of their views isn't simply a matter of unnecessary pedantry or willful obscurity on their part--though, in other cases, it may be partly a matter of these things. In fact, some of these figures (i.e., Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein) are notorious for the difficulty of their work. But, even in these cases, the conversations here go some way in helping to introduce their thought. I recommend this book to anyone who wants an entry into the study of the history of the philosophy. In addition, if you simply memorize most of the information in this volume, you'll know enough to understand just about any reference to a famous philosopher and his ideas that you find outside of a philosophy classroom or journal. In other words, you'll look smarter if you read this book. Heck, reading this book might even make you smarter. What more can you ask for?
Rating:
Summary: Great Philosophers . . . Great Fun!
Review: The basis of this wonderful book is a series of television programs first telecast by the BBC in 1987. However, while most would have stopped there and merely published the book as a transcript of the shows, Magee takes it one, two, and even three steps farther. As editor, he reworked the transcripts and even brought back his contributors for further revisions and improvements. The result is a delightful book that easily exceeds one's expectations, and mine were not so high given the fact the book is a series of conversations with academics about a particular philosopher or school of philosophy. In the wrong hands, this can be certain death by boredom. But in the right hands . . . Can academics keep our interest while discussing philosophy? They can easily do so when: (1) they are allowed to rework and improve their material; and (2) when they are talking with Bryan Magee. Magee is no mere interviewer; he prods, interjects, disagrees, and yet allows his subject to shine when conversing about their subject. This is no mean feat; it takes a delicate skill to pull this off and still keep it entertaining. And this is exactly what Magee does. Whether he's asking Anthony Kenny his opinion on why so many great medieval philosophers come from The British Isles, asking Anthony Quinton to more exactly define Leibniz's Monad, debating Schopenhauer's philosophy with Frederick Copleston, or just sitting back and allowing Geoffrey Warnock to explain Kant's mataphysics, Magee keeps his readers not only entertained, but delightfully informed. The highlights of the book are Passmore's explanation of Hume, Magee's defense of Schopenhauer during his conversation with Copleston (was included because he penned book, albeit hostile, about Schopenhauer), Warnock's easy explation of Kant's sometimes difficult metaphysics, Hubert Dreyfus on Husserl and Heidegger, and John Searle explaing the wonder that is Wittgenstein. Quite a lot of highlights for such a book, but as I said before, this is no ordinary book. One final word: Magee is often described as a popularizer, a word that is often used disparingly, as in "He's not an expert, he's just a popularizer." Nonsense. A popularizer is at root a teacher, and to be a popularizer, one must really have a firm grasp of the subject matter. There are good popularizers and bad popularizers. Magee is among the very best. He not only knows his subject matter, but has the unique talent of making the experts not only entertaining, but also amazingly lucid. This book is a bargain at any price.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully clear & understandable
Review: This book does an amazing job of CLEARLY explaining the philosophies of the preeminent modern philosophers (and a few earlier ones as well). It's wonderful how it's written in plain english -- all too rare in philosophy books. But it's also written on a high level and doesn't "dumb down" anything. Both this book and Magee's similar "Talking Philosophy" (focusing on more recent philosophers) are highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: An educational series with some great issues
Review: This book from 1987 was a result of a BBC television series in which living philosophers talked about the great philosophers, most of whom have been dead for a long time. On questions like morality, it really isn't polite to question people the way Socrates did, upsetting them with abrupt confrontation in the hope of defeating superficialities to produce thought about how little we know about the things we can't define. Plato, who was 31 when Socrates died from the hemlock in 399 BC, is the first philosopher to leave a series of books in which the ideas of Socrates combine with his own. Plato also founded a school in Athens, and expected readers of his books to be familiar with what had previously been taught. Television is the ultimately unlimited classroom in which two people discussing such ideas can be broadcast to those who want to be educated, and the book provides a format with an index, so those who wonder, later, what was said can look it up. The first discussion in the book is about Plato, praises THE REPUBLIC as the book most responsible for philosophy's examination of the concept of justice, praises THEAETETUS for raising the question "What is knowledge?" in a way that knocks down the answers in Socratic style, forcing more thought about the issue than people have time for in real life, and calling that "a highly suitable response to this kind of dialogue." (p. 29). Those who might want to be philosophers are sure to be inspired by such thoughtful responses, and could enjoy devoting themselves to the further development of philosophy contained in the rest of this book and all the written works it discussed. People who read up to the Nietzsche discussion will find that life can be more tragic. THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY "is concerned with pre-Socratic tragedy and with pre-Socratic Greece, which for him was a kind of golden age. And the whole thing goes flat at the point when Euripides, Aristophanes and Socrates come on the scene." (p. 237). Politics replaced drama, much as television turned from being an entertainment media to being the news center likely to be bombed by any global superpower that does not approve of what governments in control of their own stations are likely to say in their broadcasts. Events which happened since 1987 are not contained in this book, which was written while Richard Nixon (19xx-1994) was still alive. In 1974, Nixon resigned as President and told his staff, "My mother was a saint," the kind of evaluation which powerful people can utter about the dead without fear of immediate and sustained contradiction, but serious questioners might wonder if she had any more insight than Socrates when it came to politics. This book makes it easy to understand Socrates as Nixon understood his mother, but it fails to reflect how strongly political writers like I. F. Stone could be convinced that the execution of Socrates had more to do with the effects of civil war on politics in Athens after Socrates "taught others to think for themselves." The democratic majority in Athens was distraught at those who did not agree with them. Intellectually, Socrates was the target for their anger that made the most sense. Giving hemlock to Socrates was as just as the accidental bombing in May 1999 of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade might seem most inappropriate to journalists who were spending the night in the embassy because they didn't want to get killed for staying in the hotel which was bombed the same night. War is only considered as a topic, briefly, in this book, and not as a context which determines what is, as opposed to what used to be. Even the doctrine of just war is considered merely a balance between the feelings of pacifists, who consider war so wicked that each and every one ought to be condemned, and those who fall for "the only moral imperative is to win the war by the most effective means possible." (p. 72). Thermonuclear weapons are likely to be used only by those who expect the total destruction of life on earth, since the philosophers have spoken. "This medieval `just war' tradition lies behind two of the most significant contributions to the recent debate about nuclear weapons: in Britain, the Church of England book THE CHURCH AND THE BOMB, and in the United States the Pastoral Letter of the American Catholic Bishops on Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence." (p. 72). The word *debate* is the furthest possible choice of words from the reality. Nuclear weapons have only been used as a secret project, and the use of the second atomic bomb was as secret as the first, as far as everyone in the world was concerned, except those who knew it was going to happen. In the meantime, philosophy has turned into something that reflects the nature of war more than any other form of knowledge. You might not be able to figure that out from this book. A couple people talking about ultimate issues on television hardly seems like the catastrophic world in which disaster movies connect with audiences far more frequently than great art, music, or anything between the covers of books. This book is highly educational about concepts that are educational, but don't be surprised to get past the middle of the book and still find thoughts like, "Right again. Philosophers since Descartes had been trying to prove the existence of the external world. Kant said it was a scandal that no one had successfully done it." (p. 261).
Rating:
Summary: An educational series with some great issues
Review: This book from 1987 was a result of a BBC television series in which living philosophers talked about the great philosophers, most of whom have been dead for a long time. On questions like morality, it really isn't polite to question people the way Socrates did, upsetting them with abrupt confrontation in the hope of defeating superficialities to produce thought about how little we know about the things we can't define. Plato, who was 31 when Socrates died from the hemlock in 399 BC, is the first philosopher to leave a series of books in which the ideas of Socrates combine with his own. Plato also founded a school in Athens, and expected readers of his books to be familiar with what had previously been taught. Television is the ultimately unlimited classroom in which two people discussing such ideas can be broadcast to those who want to be educated, and the book provides a format with an index, so those who wonder, later, what was said can look it up. The first discussion in the book is about Plato, praises THE REPUBLIC as the book most responsible for philosophy's examination of the concept of justice, praises THEAETETUS for raising the question "What is knowledge?" in a way that knocks down the answers in Socratic style, forcing more thought about the issue than people have time for in real life, and calling that "a highly suitable response to this kind of dialogue." (p. 29). Those who might want to be philosophers are sure to be inspired by such thoughtful responses, and could enjoy devoting themselves to the further development of philosophy contained in the rest of this book and all the written works it discussed. People who read up to the Nietzsche discussion will find that life can be more tragic. THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY "is concerned with pre-Socratic tragedy and with pre-Socratic Greece, which for him was a kind of golden age. And the whole thing goes flat at the point when Euripides, Aristophanes and Socrates come on the scene." (p. 237). Politics replaced drama, much as television turned from being an entertainment media to being the news center likely to be bombed by any global superpower that does not approve of what governments in control of their own stations are likely to say in their broadcasts. Events which happened since 1987 are not contained in this book, which was written while Richard Nixon (19xx-1994) was still alive. In 1974, Nixon resigned as President and told his staff, "My mother was a saint," the kind of evaluation which powerful people can utter about the dead without fear of immediate and sustained contradiction, but serious questioners might wonder if she had any more insight than Socrates when it came to politics. This book makes it easy to understand Socrates as Nixon understood his mother, but it fails to reflect how strongly political writers like I. F. Stone could be convinced that the execution of Socrates had more to do with the effects of civil war on politics in Athens after Socrates "taught others to think for themselves." The democratic majority in Athens was distraught at those who did not agree with them. Intellectually, Socrates was the target for their anger that made the most sense. Giving hemlock to Socrates was as just as the accidental bombing in May 1999 of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade might seem most inappropriate to journalists who were spending the night in the embassy because they didn't want to get killed for staying in the hotel which was bombed the same night. War is only considered as a topic, briefly, in this book, and not as a context which determines what is, as opposed to what used to be. Even the doctrine of just war is considered merely a balance between the feelings of pacifists, who consider war so wicked that each and every one ought to be condemned, and those who fall for "the only moral imperative is to win the war by the most effective means possible." (p. 72). Thermonuclear weapons are likely to be used only by those who expect the total destruction of life on earth, since the philosophers have spoken. "This medieval `just war' tradition lies behind two of the most significant contributions to the recent debate about nuclear weapons: in Britain, the Church of England book THE CHURCH AND THE BOMB, and in the United States the Pastoral Letter of the American Catholic Bishops on Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence." (p. 72). The word *debate* is the furthest possible choice of words from the reality. Nuclear weapons have only been used as a secret project, and the use of the second atomic bomb was as secret as the first, as far as everyone in the world was concerned, except those who knew it was going to happen. In the meantime, philosophy has turned into something that reflects the nature of war more than any other form of knowledge. You might not be able to figure that out from this book. A couple people talking about ultimate issues on television hardly seems like the catastrophic world in which disaster movies connect with audiences far more frequently than great art, music, or anything between the covers of books. This book is highly educational about concepts that are educational, but don't be surprised to get past the middle of the book and still find thoughts like, "Right again. Philosophers since Descartes had been trying to prove the existence of the external world. Kant said it was a scandal that no one had successfully done it." (p. 261).
Rating:
Summary: An Awesome Launch Pad
Review: This is a terrific book for some one who is a novice in the area of philosophy. I initially picked up this book to learn. I didn't think that it would be a "fun" read, but I thought the concepts I would learn would be of real value. As it turns out it was a very good read. This is an enjoyable work that conveyed some great information on some very interesting topic. This is a very very readable and enjoyable book. In addition, this book is tremendously helpful in that it points the way to the next set of books to read. This book first gives you a taste for these topics and then it points to where we could learn more. As each school of thought is discussed some of the chief works for those schools are discussed. It has launched me on a totally new area of study and research. Prior to reading this book I had no appreciation for any of the different schools of philosophy. For example, I know that many of the founding fathers of our nation based their thoughts on men like Hume. However, I did not know the specifics of the relationship. This book clarified that as well as many other points of interest. It has also helped substantiate many of my Christian beliefs. There are things in Christianity, communion for example, which I did not understand. After reading this book and getting a taste for some philosophical schools of thought, I now have a deeper understanding of some of our basic Christian principles. If you are at all interested in philosophy and are a novice to the field, READ THIS BOOK.
<< 1 >>
|
