<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The "sophists" as just "consultants" of their time.
Review: Did you ever think of a history of philosophy that was not just interesting but funny? This is that book. Prepare to laugh and to find chapters like "Descartes : I drink therefore I am" and "Sartre : Being-in-the-Cafe". But, in my opinion, this most unusual adjective for a philosophy book --funny-- is not the principal one that I can say of it. Oddly as it may seem, at the end of the book, the adjectives that came to my mind (or body?) were : saddening, shocking, distressful. Because it woke me up from my dogmatic dream : that philosophy was important and useful. This book imposes a dramatic change of view about philosophy and the great philosophers. For example, after reading the chapter on the sophists, I got the impression that they were just "consultants" of their time. If this is true, they contributed much more to the welfare of their society than the lazy Socrates. Of course, nobody is saying that this book contains THE truth about philosophy, but it contains ENOUGH truth for me to unhesitatingly make the decision NOT to read any other philosophy book in my life. Besides, I've already read more philosophy books than I want to remember. If you are an amateur philosophy fan as I WAS, don't miss this book, it might be your last.
P.S. : Whatever you do, don't skip the chapter "Heidegger : Much Ado about Being"
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting reading that makes you think
Review: I like to read about various subjects, philosophy is one of them. This book is funny, and at the same time critical. At times I think it's too critical, it's not fair when the one being criticized is not there to defend his ideas or himself (note: himself, some ad hominem attacks are being stated). The title is too ambitious and pretentious, but then again, so is philosophy as a whole. This book certainly is not for beginners, though it doesn't cover all important philosophers in depth, it is still not the best read if this is your first or second philosophy book. I enjoy the book from start to finish, and recommend it to anyone interested in a critical not to deep philosophy book (but only if you too are a critical reader).
Rating: 
Summary: Don't buy this book!
Review: No serious student of philosophy will appreciate this book, the stated purpose of which is to end philosophy as an independent discipline. That might not be so bad if the arguments were good. But the criticisms of the philosophers consist mostly of Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments. Stewart is clearly not interested in actively engaging with the philosophers to understand what they are saying, but only in mocking them. If you want humorous books about philosophy, try the books by Palmer.
Rating: 
Summary: Funny, but a bit...biased?
Review: The book is written in a good style, is funny and contains, without doubt, interesting reflections on the history of philosophy. Particulary interesting is the last dialogue of plato, where the author turns Socrates against Plato. But the book has also its fails. Those include an obsesion with the idea that philosophers are "mystical" thinkers ( without bothering why mysticism will be wrong if that was the case) and thus wrong, and that they all of them practically are searching for a holly grial of philosophy. One can think that there is some misrepresentation on philosophical positions, and that they are dismissed out of hand without a serious analisis. A good example of that is the presentation the author makes of Marx. I am not a marxist myself, neither I pretend to be a marxist apologist, but definitevely his short review of Marx is, to say it in a word, a strawman. Also the bias of the author is seen on his slight preference for analitic philosophy over continental ( even if the author claims that both are irrelevant). I will say that you better read the philosophers themselves after reading this book, and then compare both views. As an introduction to the history of philosophy and philosophers views this book is defintevely not a good idea.
Rating:
Summary: necessary, but not sufficient
Review: this book is right about many things, but wrong about some important things. philosophy certainly has a lot of sacred cows in need of skewering, and stewart does an admirable job of satirizing popular (and academic) notions of just what philosophy is...however, even he admits in the end that his critique is not only inadequate but somewhat ironically self-refuting...and his exclusive attention to the metaphysical and epistemological traditions leaves out pretty much everything written in ethics, political theory, and aesthetics, all of which are certainly central to philosophy! i find this strange and hypocritical for someone who admonishes us to teach philosophy as a part of other disciplines, rather than as a discipline in its own right. his treatment of certain areas--kant's ethics, the american pragmatists--is pitifuly brief and inadequate, and one gets the feeling that the author is out of his league in certain areas (not surprising, since he does try to cover all the big names to at least _some_ degree!) but then i'm not sure how seriously the author wishes us to take him...in the end, his closing words of advice "be responsible! be good! be true to yourself!" only beg the questions philosophy wishes to answer: _why_ should we be good? _why_ should we be responsible? _why_ should we be true to ourselves? more importanly, _HOW_ does one act good, responsible, stay true to one's self, etc...i get the feeling the author doesn't think these are particularly philosophical questions. but they are--and that's the point. i'm all for recognizing that philosophy isn't something professors do at college--it's something we all do, every day. but then we should take such questions as seriously as possible, right? so what exactly is it the philosophers are doing wrong? still, an enjoyable read, and educational, for philosophers of all kinds, whether professional or amateur.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent
Review: Well, this might not be the greatest book of philosophy, but it sure gives you a whole new idea behind the subject. Didn't Nietzsche say sckepticals were the only acceptable kind of humans? Well this book has a great sckeptical idology behind it, with a wisp of humor, of course, not adequate for Americans. Though the author is American, he's clearly what Nietzsche defined as a free spirit. If you wish to understand philosophy and haven't quite withstood the ideas behind plato or find most books to institutional, you should read this book. Zarathustra was different before and after this book, this is how far it goes into explaining the ideas behind each philosopher, destroying it with the same Nietzschean hammer. (Read the epilogue also).
Rating:
Summary: Flawed, but nearly unique
Review: While Stewart's book is certainly neither exhaustive or perfect in its portrayl of every significant philosopher, it certainly is a rather unique entry into worthwhile philosophy reads. For one its rather humourous, and two, it attempts to be critical. While most introductions to the subject tend to be far to pious and pedantic, Stewart can point out an obvious flaw or two in nearly anyones favorite philosopher (unless your favorite is David Hume). This book is probably a better read for the novice rather than the newbie, but all the same it pokes much needed holes in the rather pompous tradition of the History of Philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed, but nearly unique
Review: While Stewart's book is certainly neither exhaustive or perfect in its portrayl of every significant philosopher, it certainly is a rather unique entry into worthwhile philosophy reads. For one its rather humourous, and two, it attempts to be critical. While most introductions to the subject tend to be far to pious and pedantic, Stewart can point out an obvious flaw or two in nearly anyones favorite philosopher (unless your favorite is David Hume). This book is probably a better read for the novice rather than the newbie, but all the same it pokes much needed holes in the rather pompous tradition of the History of Philosophy.
<< 1 >>
|
