Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
I’ll admit, the history of philosophy is one of my favorite genres, having read the works of Bertrand Russell, Will Durant, Anthony Kenny, Bryan Magee, Nigel Warburton, and others. Each has its pros and cons, so it’s hard to rank them, but if I had to, Russell’s The History of Western Philosophy and Magee’s Confessions of a Philosopher would top the list. (A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton would come in a close third, for those looking for a quicker read.)
But now, if I had to recommend one book to someone interested in the subject, it would be A. C. Grayling’s latest, The History of Philosophy, and here’s why.
For a single-volume work, this book has the most extensive coverage, not only because of its higher page count, but also because it packs the most content into each page. Grayling states in the introduction that his goal is to write about each philosopher as clearly and concisely as possible without sacrificing the complexity and subtlety of their thinking, which he masterfully achieves.
Whereas Russell’s history only covers up to John Dewey, Grayling takes the reader through the entire twentieth century up to Kripke, and even manages to squeeze in a section on Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African philosophy, in addition to an appendix on logic, all in roughly the same number of pages.
How does he do this? Other than by writing clearly and concisely, unlike Russell, who spends 190 pages on Catholic philosophy, Grayling covers Medieval and Renaissance philosophy in 58 pages. Grayling’s principle of selection is more focused, as he makes the valid point that theology is not philosophy and that it requires its own history, much like science. As Grayling wrote, “if the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of religious doctrine, then the reflection that follows is theology, or theodicy, or exegesis, or casuistry, or apologetics, or hermeneutics, but it is not philosophy.” This allows him to dedicate more space to modern and contemporary philosophy.
This is not to say that he ignores Medieval philosophy, just that he covers it in a rather brilliant way. Rather than focusing on the philosophical debates regarding imaginary entities (e.g., the nature of the holy trinity), he simply comments on the legitimate philosophical issues that “arise from or impinge upon” theological thought, i.e., the philosophical problems of time, free will, ethics, etc.
In addition to more focused content, you might think that Grayling would have the edge on Russell for no other reason than the fact that his history was published 74 years after Russell’s, incorporating the latest research and progress in philosophy over the last three quarters of a century. But it’s not only for this reason.
Russell’s account has been legitimately criticized for lacking objectivity and for providing inadequate or misleading coverage of several philosophers. Grayling’s history is an improvement in this regard, as it provides both a more objective and deeper account of each philosopher. Not that Grayling will escape the criticism of bias; for as Russell said, “a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."
Grayling is not such a man, but this is a good thing. He does a commendable job of walking the fine line between the objective presentation of each philosopher’s ideas and the analysis and commentary that by definition must be biased toward a particular perspective. (A completely objective history of philosophy without commentary would be nothing other than a series of dull Wikipedia entries.) That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Grayling is criticized for not hiding his atheism and contempt for religion, but, as he accurately noted, religion is most definitely not philosophy, for several reasons he makes perfectly clear.
Last, I can confidently say that, out of the many works on popular philosophy I’ve read, Grayling provides the clearest accounts of the even the most difficult philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Heidegger). I came away from this book with a sense of greater understanding of the most challenging ideas thanks to what I’m sure was a tremendous amount of work that Grayling put in to make the ideas come to life for a non-philosopher (this is a majorly underrated skill).
Grayling is simply a masterful writer, providing a clear, concise, and entertaining narrative of the deepest and most profound thinking in the history of our species, updated for the twenty-first century (a time in which we need philosophy more than ever). While I wouldn’t say that Grayling’s history replaces Russell’s (Russell is not replaceable), if you decide to read only one book about the history of philosophy, make it this one.
But now, if I had to recommend one book to someone interested in the subject, it would be A. C. Grayling’s latest, The History of Philosophy, and here’s why.
For a single-volume work, this book has the most extensive coverage, not only because of its higher page count, but also because it packs the most content into each page. Grayling states in the introduction that his goal is to write about each philosopher as clearly and concisely as possible without sacrificing the complexity and subtlety of their thinking, which he masterfully achieves.
Whereas Russell’s history only covers up to John Dewey, Grayling takes the reader through the entire twentieth century up to Kripke, and even manages to squeeze in a section on Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African philosophy, in addition to an appendix on logic, all in roughly the same number of pages.
How does he do this? Other than by writing clearly and concisely, unlike Russell, who spends 190 pages on Catholic philosophy, Grayling covers Medieval and Renaissance philosophy in 58 pages. Grayling’s principle of selection is more focused, as he makes the valid point that theology is not philosophy and that it requires its own history, much like science. As Grayling wrote, “if the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of religious doctrine, then the reflection that follows is theology, or theodicy, or exegesis, or casuistry, or apologetics, or hermeneutics, but it is not philosophy.” This allows him to dedicate more space to modern and contemporary philosophy.
This is not to say that he ignores Medieval philosophy, just that he covers it in a rather brilliant way. Rather than focusing on the philosophical debates regarding imaginary entities (e.g., the nature of the holy trinity), he simply comments on the legitimate philosophical issues that “arise from or impinge upon” theological thought, i.e., the philosophical problems of time, free will, ethics, etc.
In addition to more focused content, you might think that Grayling would have the edge on Russell for no other reason than the fact that his history was published 74 years after Russell’s, incorporating the latest research and progress in philosophy over the last three quarters of a century. But it’s not only for this reason.
Russell’s account has been legitimately criticized for lacking objectivity and for providing inadequate or misleading coverage of several philosophers. Grayling’s history is an improvement in this regard, as it provides both a more objective and deeper account of each philosopher. Not that Grayling will escape the criticism of bias; for as Russell said, “a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."
Grayling is not such a man, but this is a good thing. He does a commendable job of walking the fine line between the objective presentation of each philosopher’s ideas and the analysis and commentary that by definition must be biased toward a particular perspective. (A completely objective history of philosophy without commentary would be nothing other than a series of dull Wikipedia entries.) That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Grayling is criticized for not hiding his atheism and contempt for religion, but, as he accurately noted, religion is most definitely not philosophy, for several reasons he makes perfectly clear.
Last, I can confidently say that, out of the many works on popular philosophy I’ve read, Grayling provides the clearest accounts of the even the most difficult philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Heidegger). I came away from this book with a sense of greater understanding of the most challenging ideas thanks to what I’m sure was a tremendous amount of work that Grayling put in to make the ideas come to life for a non-philosopher (this is a majorly underrated skill).
Grayling is simply a masterful writer, providing a clear, concise, and entertaining narrative of the deepest and most profound thinking in the history of our species, updated for the twenty-first century (a time in which we need philosophy more than ever). While I wouldn’t say that Grayling’s history replaces Russell’s (Russell is not replaceable), if you decide to read only one book about the history of philosophy, make it this one.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
A great survey of philosophy written in an approachable--but not dumbed down--style from a philosopher of note. I enjoyed a bit of this with my morning coffee for quite some time. The experience of reading this has likely made me a lifelong fan of [a:A. C. Grayling|30405155|A. C. Grayling|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]. I'm going to keep one of his in rotation from now on.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced