What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Philosophy
The story of philosophy is an epic tale: an exploration of the ideas, views and teachings of some of the most creative minds known to humanity. But since the long-popular classic Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, first published in 1945, there has been no comprehensive and entertaining, single-volume history of this great intellectual journey.
With his characteristic clarity and elegance A. C. Grayling takes the reader from the world-views and moralities before the age of the Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, through Christianity's dominance of the European mind to the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and on to Mill, Nietzsche, Sartre, and philosophy today. And, since the story of philosophy is incomplete without mention of the great philosophical traditions of India, China and the Persian-Arabic world, he gives a comparative survey of them too.
Intelligible for students and eye-opening for philosophy readers, he covers epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of language, political philosophy and the history of debates in these areas of enquiry, through the ideas of the celebrated philosophers as well as less well-known influential thinkers. He also asks what we have learnt from this body of thought, and what progress is still to be made.
The first authoritative and accessible single-volume history of philosophy for decades, remarkable for its range and clarity, this is a landmark work.
With his characteristic clarity and elegance A. C. Grayling takes the reader from the world-views and moralities before the age of the Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, through Christianity's dominance of the European mind to the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and on to Mill, Nietzsche, Sartre, and philosophy today. And, since the story of philosophy is incomplete without mention of the great philosophical traditions of India, China and the Persian-Arabic world, he gives a comparative survey of them too.
Intelligible for students and eye-opening for philosophy readers, he covers epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of language, political philosophy and the history of debates in these areas of enquiry, through the ideas of the celebrated philosophers as well as less well-known influential thinkers. He also asks what we have learnt from this body of thought, and what progress is still to be made.
The first authoritative and accessible single-volume history of philosophy for decades, remarkable for its range and clarity, this is a landmark work.
704 pages, Hardcover
First published June 20, 2019
About the author
A.C. Grayling
91 books608 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews
May 3, 2023
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.
December 3, 2019
If you are going to read a 700+ page work on the history of one of the most fascinating yet also at times most academically impenetrable subject areas, you definitely want someone like A.C. Grayling as your guide. The title and nature of this work inherently lend themselves to comparisons with Bertrand Russell's, "History of Western Philosophy," and, most amazingly, this is a comparison from which Grayling emerges quite well.
Single volume works of history are an oddity and a rare event. Not only living in this age of disinformation and genuine mistrust of academic study, we are also living in the age of hyper-specialization which, though it creates incredible advances, also can contribute to a myopic sense of one's own current field, let alone the entire history of it. Also, where previously we looked to the most erudite and learned people for this information, accepting that we are also getting one person's viewpoint, there is now a lack of interest in generalist knowledge for its own sake. The important distinction would be that at no point does Grayling pretend to be the foremost scholar of any of these periods or thinkers, rather, he writes with great depth of insight but in cursory fashion, giving you enough of a sense of the landscape to determine not only this person's/idea's lasting impact on the field but also whether or not you yourself wish to pursue study in that area further.
Perhaps the finest aspect of this work is the clarity of language used when discussing various thinkers and also the frankness with which he deals with their more convoluted notions/topics. He is perhaps strongest on Leibniz, Kant, Rousseau, Aquinas, and Plato, though through each century and each movement he provides the relevant information in beautiful prose while not getting bogged down in unnecessary technicality or points of quibbling that sometimes create uneven reading in works such as these. Also unique to this volume is a series of four précis on areas outside of what is traditionally called Western Philosophy, those are, Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African Philosophy. Again not claiming to be an expert in a field where he is not, these introductions are remarkably cogent and honest with the relationship of these areas to Western Philosophy while also dealing with the difficulty of labeling them as he did.
As an example of his lucid yet frankly opinionated style:
"In the interest of dispassion I have to say the following. It would seem that there is a recipe for being a great civilization-dominating figure such as the Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, and Muhammad. It is this: Write Nothing. Have devoted disciples. Be lucky. Note that this recipe does not include be original or be profound. None of these figures were either of these things, though in the be lucky department they had followers who were both, and who made from the remembered fragments of their sayings, and the legends that embroidered memory of their persons, whole systems of thought and practice which they themselves might not have recognized or even perhaps approved."
The work is not only written as a history of this discipline but also as a love letter to the area of study that has been his life's work. While we constantly hear Philosophy and the Humanities in general as being areas that are worthless, ivory tower, impractical, or out-dated; Grayling provides a fitting conclusion that displays how fundamental this inquiry is to us all, even if we would never think of ourselves as such:
"We still do not know what ultimately exists. We still wrestle with problems about what is good and right, about how society should be organized, about meaning and value, and especially about the quest for the good and worthwhile life. Many people do not think that about these things, preferring instead to take a prepacked set of views from some tradition, typically a religion, from which most of them cherry-pick what is convenient, and ignore what is inconvenient. But philosophy is the refusal to be lazy about the great questions. It patrols the circumference of the little patch of light that is knowledge, looking out into the dark of ignorance to seek the shapes there. Even though most people why away from accepting the challenge to think (Bertrand Russell said, most people would rather die than think, and most people do), they still find themselves often enough confronted by a philosophical question: about right and wrong, about what choice to make in some fundamental respect, about what it all really means. Thus everyone is a philosopher at times; everyone takes part. And that makes us all players in the history of philosophy."
Single volume works of history are an oddity and a rare event. Not only living in this age of disinformation and genuine mistrust of academic study, we are also living in the age of hyper-specialization which, though it creates incredible advances, also can contribute to a myopic sense of one's own current field, let alone the entire history of it. Also, where previously we looked to the most erudite and learned people for this information, accepting that we are also getting one person's viewpoint, there is now a lack of interest in generalist knowledge for its own sake. The important distinction would be that at no point does Grayling pretend to be the foremost scholar of any of these periods or thinkers, rather, he writes with great depth of insight but in cursory fashion, giving you enough of a sense of the landscape to determine not only this person's/idea's lasting impact on the field but also whether or not you yourself wish to pursue study in that area further.
Perhaps the finest aspect of this work is the clarity of language used when discussing various thinkers and also the frankness with which he deals with their more convoluted notions/topics. He is perhaps strongest on Leibniz, Kant, Rousseau, Aquinas, and Plato, though through each century and each movement he provides the relevant information in beautiful prose while not getting bogged down in unnecessary technicality or points of quibbling that sometimes create uneven reading in works such as these. Also unique to this volume is a series of four précis on areas outside of what is traditionally called Western Philosophy, those are, Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African Philosophy. Again not claiming to be an expert in a field where he is not, these introductions are remarkably cogent and honest with the relationship of these areas to Western Philosophy while also dealing with the difficulty of labeling them as he did.
As an example of his lucid yet frankly opinionated style:
"In the interest of dispassion I have to say the following. It would seem that there is a recipe for being a great civilization-dominating figure such as the Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, and Muhammad. It is this: Write Nothing. Have devoted disciples. Be lucky. Note that this recipe does not include be original or be profound. None of these figures were either of these things, though in the be lucky department they had followers who were both, and who made from the remembered fragments of their sayings, and the legends that embroidered memory of their persons, whole systems of thought and practice which they themselves might not have recognized or even perhaps approved."
The work is not only written as a history of this discipline but also as a love letter to the area of study that has been his life's work. While we constantly hear Philosophy and the Humanities in general as being areas that are worthless, ivory tower, impractical, or out-dated; Grayling provides a fitting conclusion that displays how fundamental this inquiry is to us all, even if we would never think of ourselves as such:
"We still do not know what ultimately exists. We still wrestle with problems about what is good and right, about how society should be organized, about meaning and value, and especially about the quest for the good and worthwhile life. Many people do not think that about these things, preferring instead to take a prepacked set of views from some tradition, typically a religion, from which most of them cherry-pick what is convenient, and ignore what is inconvenient. But philosophy is the refusal to be lazy about the great questions. It patrols the circumference of the little patch of light that is knowledge, looking out into the dark of ignorance to seek the shapes there. Even though most people why away from accepting the challenge to think (Bertrand Russell said, most people would rather die than think, and most people do), they still find themselves often enough confronted by a philosophical question: about right and wrong, about what choice to make in some fundamental respect, about what it all really means. Thus everyone is a philosopher at times; everyone takes part. And that makes us all players in the history of philosophy."
April 13, 2021
Essentially a compilation of "XX philosophy: A very short introduction" into one book. The scope is extremely impressive, covering ancient Greek to modern times, with added bonuses of Eastern and African philosophy. The author is also very helpful in setting up the cultural contexts which gave birth to the ideas, as well as in explaining and clarifying terms which may be confusing to readers.
As a survey of philosophy, I think it is inevitable that space is an issue, but devoting only 6-7 pages to discuss Kant, Marx or Nietzsche is scratching the surface too thin... So for me, this book serves more like a (secular) philosophy curriculum outline / bibliography for further study than anything else; one cannot even begin to have any meaningful conversation with friends with so little covered for each character.
Finally, the author's biases and prejudice against religion (particularly Christianity) really shows, which is unfortunately for a work like this. This bias inevitably affects how he interprets certain ideas and historical events (for example he spends disproportionately more air time in personally refuting the Medieval thinkers which he doesn't do in other sections), as well as his selection of what to include or not.
As a survey of philosophy, I think it is inevitable that space is an issue, but devoting only 6-7 pages to discuss Kant, Marx or Nietzsche is scratching the surface too thin... So for me, this book serves more like a (secular) philosophy curriculum outline / bibliography for further study than anything else; one cannot even begin to have any meaningful conversation with friends with so little covered for each character.
Finally, the author's biases and prejudice against religion (particularly Christianity) really shows, which is unfortunately for a work like this. This bias inevitably affects how he interprets certain ideas and historical events (for example he spends disproportionately more air time in personally refuting the Medieval thinkers which he doesn't do in other sections), as well as his selection of what to include or not.
February 24, 2021
"The main reason that so little attention is paid to Continental philosophy by Analytic philosophers has to be frankly acknowledged. It is that the latter are impatient with (at best; at worst, contemptuous of) — and here I will illustrate the point — what they see as the ab/uses and con/fusions of language, which, in its unexplained neologising, its deliberate ambiguity and its overloading, attenuating or deflating of meanings (the use of the virgule is a common device, as above; a form of 'phallus/y'?) seems impressionistic and slippery, the unclarity a mask for unclarity of thought, or worse, a pretence of profundity."
April 24, 2020
When I spotted Grayling’s History of Philosophy on the new acquisitions shelf of my library, I thought back fifty years ago to reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Russell’s book was one man’s opinionated take on the whole gamut of philosophy, and Grayling’s book is much the same. One major difference is that seventy-five years have elapsed, so that Grayling’s book contains developments that I wish I had known more about when I was in graduate school. Another major difference is that “western philosophy” has evolved in a multicultural direction, so that Grayling’s book contains sections on Indian, Chinese and Arabic-Persian philosophy, as well as briefer parts on African and feminist philosophy.
It’s wonderful to get a review of material with which I have had some acquaintance. For example, though I have an idea what each of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers thought, Grayling supplies biographical material and discusses how they influenced each other, as well as later philosophers.
Grayling sometimes gives sweeping overviews which are impressive. For example he says that Baruch Spinoza had a greater influence on world history than Descartes or Newton or Locke. While Descartes influenced philosophy and mathematics, and Newton transformed science, and Locke impacted social and political thinking, Grayling argues that Spinoza had “a greater and more general influence… because of the impact of his ideas on the Enlightenment.”
Comparably sweeping comments are made about Avicenna (six centuries earlier than Spinoza). “The God of Avicenna is very close to the abstract, non-personal ‘thought thinking about itself’ God of Aristotle… This conception of God prompts two associated thoughts: one is of Spinoza… and the other is that if references to a deity in Avicenna’s account were replaced by references to the natural universe, it is hard to see what difference it would make.” Grayling goes on to say that Avicenna’s thought had a large influence on both Arabic and Western thought, particularly on Thomas Aquinas.
Grayling makes the point that he avoids discussing philosophy that verges on theology. He avoids discussing religion, just as he avoids discussing science as such. This leads to a somewhat limited discussion of the middle ages, and also of contemporary philosophers such as Karl Jaspers or Alfred North Whitehead or Charles Hartshorne. While he gives sympathetic treatment to philosophers who have an abstract conception of God, he seems to edit out other conceptions. Whether one likes a particular concept or not, it seems inappropriate to ban certain tools from the philosopher’s toolbox.
Grayling’s discussion of contemporary philosophers is excellent, and brings me up-to-date in the twenty-first century on both Anglophone and Continental philosophy. His discussion of Indian philosophy seems to me somewhat sketchy, describing the interplay of schools, without engaging any interesting problems. His discussion of Chinese philosophy is better, with a good account of the flow from Confucius to Mencius to Daoism. All in all, Grayling’s book is thought-provoking and entertaining, and I am likely to reread large parts of it.
It’s wonderful to get a review of material with which I have had some acquaintance. For example, though I have an idea what each of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers thought, Grayling supplies biographical material and discusses how they influenced each other, as well as later philosophers.
Grayling sometimes gives sweeping overviews which are impressive. For example he says that Baruch Spinoza had a greater influence on world history than Descartes or Newton or Locke. While Descartes influenced philosophy and mathematics, and Newton transformed science, and Locke impacted social and political thinking, Grayling argues that Spinoza had “a greater and more general influence… because of the impact of his ideas on the Enlightenment.”
Comparably sweeping comments are made about Avicenna (six centuries earlier than Spinoza). “The God of Avicenna is very close to the abstract, non-personal ‘thought thinking about itself’ God of Aristotle… This conception of God prompts two associated thoughts: one is of Spinoza… and the other is that if references to a deity in Avicenna’s account were replaced by references to the natural universe, it is hard to see what difference it would make.” Grayling goes on to say that Avicenna’s thought had a large influence on both Arabic and Western thought, particularly on Thomas Aquinas.
Grayling makes the point that he avoids discussing philosophy that verges on theology. He avoids discussing religion, just as he avoids discussing science as such. This leads to a somewhat limited discussion of the middle ages, and also of contemporary philosophers such as Karl Jaspers or Alfred North Whitehead or Charles Hartshorne. While he gives sympathetic treatment to philosophers who have an abstract conception of God, he seems to edit out other conceptions. Whether one likes a particular concept or not, it seems inappropriate to ban certain tools from the philosopher’s toolbox.
Grayling’s discussion of contemporary philosophers is excellent, and brings me up-to-date in the twenty-first century on both Anglophone and Continental philosophy. His discussion of Indian philosophy seems to me somewhat sketchy, describing the interplay of schools, without engaging any interesting problems. His discussion of Chinese philosophy is better, with a good account of the flow from Confucius to Mencius to Daoism. All in all, Grayling’s book is thought-provoking and entertaining, and I am likely to reread large parts of it.
February 24, 2020
In his concluding remarks, Professor Grayling notes that philosophy rests on two "deep and fundamental questions". The questions are "What is there?" and "What matters".
This ability to cut through the thicket of concepts and emerge with a clear and concise statement is the genius of this book.
The fact that we are still seeking answers to these questions after all of human history does not invalidate the 582 pages in the History of Philosophy which precede the conclusion. Grayling takes the reader on a grand tour of the thoughts of some of the most creative minds who have tried to answers these and other questions. Those who go on the journey with him will be rewarded.
This ability to cut through the thicket of concepts and emerge with a clear and concise statement is the genius of this book.
The fact that we are still seeking answers to these questions after all of human history does not invalidate the 582 pages in the History of Philosophy which precede the conclusion. Grayling takes the reader on a grand tour of the thoughts of some of the most creative minds who have tried to answers these and other questions. Those who go on the journey with him will be rewarded.
November 15, 2020
I give this 3 stars because Grayling has done a tremendous amount of work and research to compile this book, and anything less than 3 stars is an insult to his tremendous effort. I deeply his respect effort, and the task is certainly not easy, perhaps little is more difficult.
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein
“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom."
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Grayling too often fails Einstein's test for understanding and Nietzsche's test for depth. When Grayling understands what he is writing about, he does strive for clarity, and these are the strongest areas of the book. However he does not truly understand much of what he writes about, and he strives to obscure this lack of understanding more often than he strives for clarity.
To be fair, the philosophers he is attempting to summarize are uniquely guilty of not understanding what they're talking about and famously guilty for striving for obscurity.
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein
“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom."
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Grayling too often fails Einstein's test for understanding and Nietzsche's test for depth. When Grayling understands what he is writing about, he does strive for clarity, and these are the strongest areas of the book. However he does not truly understand much of what he writes about, and he strives to obscure this lack of understanding more often than he strives for clarity.
To be fair, the philosophers he is attempting to summarize are uniquely guilty of not understanding what they're talking about and famously guilty for striving for obscurity.
October 26, 2019
Almost 600 pages historical account of how our ways of thinking have evolved since 600 BCE until as present as Saul Kripke (1940-...) - all written in clarity and coherence.
As a non-scholar I find this book truly helpful, accessible, and fascinating. To some stretch it is even entertaining.
I doubt I am the right person to recommend this to Philosophy students, but to curious minds such as mine, this book is essential.
As a non-scholar I find this book truly helpful, accessible, and fascinating. To some stretch it is even entertaining.
I doubt I am the right person to recommend this to Philosophy students, but to curious minds such as mine, this book is essential.
April 10, 2020
It's okay. His juvenile new atheism unfortunately muddies this works quality. Antony Kenny's is the superior contemporary work.
January 14, 2022
Russell and Durant have written timeless classics on the History of Philosophy, but their now-dated work gives readers the impression that significant philosophical developments stopped in the twentieth century. Nothing is farther from the truth, and Grayling's tome is a must-read for anyone interested in the genre most for its detailed sections and analytical and continental philosophies.
Extensive scientific and technological discoveries have necessitated equally significant changes in philosophical thoughts on existence, epistemology, mind/matter duality, ethics/morality, and the likes. Given that the last hundred years have marked the most significant scientific progress in every realm conceivable, it is not surprising that philosophical quests have also taken a turn that appears everything that came before looks antiquated, like Newtonian physics. This is not to degrade the work of the giants on whose shoulders we stand but to emphasize the tremendous value of the book for its sections on the most recent century.
There is a lot to learn from every section of this well-written, fast-moving book. One develops a deep appreciation for a host of philosophers for the advances they made in our understanding. Some of the credit for this must go to the author for making complicated subjects understandable to the non-experts.
The reviewer would like to use the space to jot some of his thoughts on where the next generation of philosophers could be headed. Progress in the fields of logic, inductive and deductive, was along a specific path with the Western Philosophers until relativity and quantum physics. The new sciences upstaged axiomatic foundations like the principle of bivalence or the law of excluded middle. They created the need for a far more nuanced approach than the one followed for millennia.
One gets a feeling that the technological developments of the last two decades are about to upstage analytical and phenomenological approaches as future philosophers digest the implications of machine learning.
In a way, a being's progress - irrespective of whether the being is sentient or conscient, naturally evolved or artificially built, a carbon-based form or something different - is in its ability to manipulate the surround better. Manipulability, which is generally an offshoot of some sort of comprehension, emanates from developments in two divergent forces the being constantly works on.
The surround is numerically vast. No amount of processing power of the being is enough to understand the surround in toto or more. The being is forced to generalize what it senses in the surround through categorization, pattern recognition, causal chains, and likes. These abstractions - and reductionisms - are dependent on language tools the being has developed until the point in time (which makes everything path and history-dependent). The language tools are definitionally always inadequate - aka less than the vast reality they are to comprehend - and self-referential. Their inevitable self-referential nature causes inescapable debate-inducing trappings. They frustrate the parties involved in stymieing them from improving their comprehension.
Let's understand the contradictions in two diversionary forces: a whole world must be abstractionally split by the being to be understood and manipulated better. The way a length of a non-linear shore depends on the minimum on the scale used to measure (with no upper bound), the finer the ability to sieve the reality, the more is a being's ability to comprehend and manipulate. And yet, the finer the splits into categories/names/analytical relationships, the more are the doubts and unanswered questions (like the way linear equations squeeze out less and less utility with every lesser degree of freedom). Stupidly, a language that uses only two words to describe human emotions is likely to have the underlying humans with far fewer psychological, social, economic, or philosophical issues.
Over time, as programming developments have shown, the descriptive power of languages continues to improve while always staying grossly inadequate. With the higher ability to detail the surround, past conclusions always appear simplistic. Some old queries get answered, but one feels like the list of the unanswered keeps getting bigger. The language complexities compound and intricate self-referentiality make path dependence important as well.
The rising abilities of our machines will help us understand the extent to which abstractions like intentionality or consciousness are nothing but emergent phenomena of highly complex circuitries. With our abilities to see the evolution of machines to a near-zero matter state, we will develop a far more profound understanding of what we mean by understanding while looking at our machines' machinations with data.
The evolution of programming languages already tells us that a being's extent of comprehension is a function of the language tools at disposal. As a being's material analytical capacity grows, it spends ever more resources into ever more refined categorization - the process at the heart of what we call artificial intelligence - and the interactions within. No model of reality can fully reflect all that is our reality, and more frustratingly, a more detailed model will also reflect how much more remains unreflected.
Simplistically put, many supposedly subjective, descriptive, emotive, behavioural, abstract, or transcendental concepts will undergo a re-interpretation as we observe what our machines can do. When one reads a book like Grayling's, one of the biggest lessons is how philosophical topics and queries have changed over the last two thousand years. They will likely change even more rapidly as and when philosophers spend time understanding the new machine learning era while doffing the historical-philosophical baggage from previous eras, including from the likes of Russell, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger.
Extensive scientific and technological discoveries have necessitated equally significant changes in philosophical thoughts on existence, epistemology, mind/matter duality, ethics/morality, and the likes. Given that the last hundred years have marked the most significant scientific progress in every realm conceivable, it is not surprising that philosophical quests have also taken a turn that appears everything that came before looks antiquated, like Newtonian physics. This is not to degrade the work of the giants on whose shoulders we stand but to emphasize the tremendous value of the book for its sections on the most recent century.
There is a lot to learn from every section of this well-written, fast-moving book. One develops a deep appreciation for a host of philosophers for the advances they made in our understanding. Some of the credit for this must go to the author for making complicated subjects understandable to the non-experts.
The reviewer would like to use the space to jot some of his thoughts on where the next generation of philosophers could be headed. Progress in the fields of logic, inductive and deductive, was along a specific path with the Western Philosophers until relativity and quantum physics. The new sciences upstaged axiomatic foundations like the principle of bivalence or the law of excluded middle. They created the need for a far more nuanced approach than the one followed for millennia.
One gets a feeling that the technological developments of the last two decades are about to upstage analytical and phenomenological approaches as future philosophers digest the implications of machine learning.
In a way, a being's progress - irrespective of whether the being is sentient or conscient, naturally evolved or artificially built, a carbon-based form or something different - is in its ability to manipulate the surround better. Manipulability, which is generally an offshoot of some sort of comprehension, emanates from developments in two divergent forces the being constantly works on.
The surround is numerically vast. No amount of processing power of the being is enough to understand the surround in toto or more. The being is forced to generalize what it senses in the surround through categorization, pattern recognition, causal chains, and likes. These abstractions - and reductionisms - are dependent on language tools the being has developed until the point in time (which makes everything path and history-dependent). The language tools are definitionally always inadequate - aka less than the vast reality they are to comprehend - and self-referential. Their inevitable self-referential nature causes inescapable debate-inducing trappings. They frustrate the parties involved in stymieing them from improving their comprehension.
Let's understand the contradictions in two diversionary forces: a whole world must be abstractionally split by the being to be understood and manipulated better. The way a length of a non-linear shore depends on the minimum on the scale used to measure (with no upper bound), the finer the ability to sieve the reality, the more is a being's ability to comprehend and manipulate. And yet, the finer the splits into categories/names/analytical relationships, the more are the doubts and unanswered questions (like the way linear equations squeeze out less and less utility with every lesser degree of freedom). Stupidly, a language that uses only two words to describe human emotions is likely to have the underlying humans with far fewer psychological, social, economic, or philosophical issues.
Over time, as programming developments have shown, the descriptive power of languages continues to improve while always staying grossly inadequate. With the higher ability to detail the surround, past conclusions always appear simplistic. Some old queries get answered, but one feels like the list of the unanswered keeps getting bigger. The language complexities compound and intricate self-referentiality make path dependence important as well.
The rising abilities of our machines will help us understand the extent to which abstractions like intentionality or consciousness are nothing but emergent phenomena of highly complex circuitries. With our abilities to see the evolution of machines to a near-zero matter state, we will develop a far more profound understanding of what we mean by understanding while looking at our machines' machinations with data.
The evolution of programming languages already tells us that a being's extent of comprehension is a function of the language tools at disposal. As a being's material analytical capacity grows, it spends ever more resources into ever more refined categorization - the process at the heart of what we call artificial intelligence - and the interactions within. No model of reality can fully reflect all that is our reality, and more frustratingly, a more detailed model will also reflect how much more remains unreflected.
Simplistically put, many supposedly subjective, descriptive, emotive, behavioural, abstract, or transcendental concepts will undergo a re-interpretation as we observe what our machines can do. When one reads a book like Grayling's, one of the biggest lessons is how philosophical topics and queries have changed over the last two thousand years. They will likely change even more rapidly as and when philosophers spend time understanding the new machine learning era while doffing the historical-philosophical baggage from previous eras, including from the likes of Russell, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger.
July 30, 2020
Maybe this wasn't the right format for me to get a wider grounding in philosophy. I found the book quite dry and hard to follow. As you'd expect for a book trying to cover the history of philosophy you get a small taster of everything but not much to satisfy you.
May 26, 2021
I wrote a very long review of this book and then lost it. I will never get that hour back, and I don't have the energy to put in another hour of work to rewrite it. Suffice it to say that I enjoyed this book, even though (as I see it) there are glaring and fundamental problems with it.
January 3, 2020
I can heartily recommend this to the curious layperson (I am one) looking for a summary of the rich history of philosophical thought. This is the third I've read, after Will Durant's Story of Philosophy (in my early 20s) and Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy (a couple of years ago). I consumed them all in audiobook form because life.
The history of philosophy is one of those subjects that is such of flood of ideas that after such a book you end up only clinging to a few scraps of insight while most of flows over the rim of your overwhelmed mind... it's just too much to file neatly away. And so I think it's worth wading through it repeatedly over the course of your life, hopefully accumulating a little more wisdom each time.
Even though it hasn't been long since I read Russell's work, much of it had already faded from memory. But that book is the most obvious one to compare this one to. The two primary differences with that book are Grayling's deliberate exclusion of purely theological thought, and the inclusion of the not insignificant work done in the 20th century since Russell's publication (not least Russell himself!). Additionally in this new book Grayling includes worthwhile sketches of Indian, Chinese and Arabic/Persian philosophy.
Despite those additions, I also found Grayling's treatment of the classic philosophers common to all these histories to be fresh and engaging - such that I still felt I was almost always learning something new. So if you've read Russell's book and are wondering whether this one will be redundant: I would say no.
For the most part Grayling's approach is to write a chapter on each major thinker in chronological order. Each chapter starts with a short summary of the place of their ideas in the context of adjacent thinkers, followed by an often entertaining biographical sketch, then taking a deeper dive into their ideas, contributions and legacy. I really liked the rhythm of this template, which was a gentle switching back and forth between biography and technical philosophy - each playing usually off the other. This history of philosophy is full of compelling and strange characters.
There are of course deviations from the plan where necessary. Some chapters are named after schools of thought or groups of related thinkers, containing smaller portraits of the associated philosophers or summaries of ideas with no reference to a particular thinker. This becomes more frequent later in the book, especially as the number of active philosophers multiply in the 20th century.
Grayling makes it clear from the outset what he has decided falls within his definition of philosophy. In particular he chooses to exclude religiously-influenced thought, which he thesaurusily describes (multiple times!) as "theology, theodicy, exegesis, casuistry, apologetics or hermeneutics, but ... not philosophy". As someone not religiously inclined myself, this was a great relief and a selling point.
This meant that the section on the middle ages with mercifully short compared to Russell's book, although certainly not devoid of content! Regrettably I felt that while sparing the reader these angels-on-pins debates, we are served an oversized portion when it comes to Grayling's own area of study: the philosophy of language in 20th century Analytical philosophy. This section seemed to get much more into the weeds compared to the other sections and I found myself unable to keep up with the jargon here and tuning out as a result. (And for the record I find the philosophy of language and its neighbouring pursuits - like computer science - particularly interesting). This was happily the exception rather than the rule for the book, which for the most part seemed to keep things at a reasonable difficult level for a motivated layperson.
Grayling spends a considerable amount of time musing on what is fair to include and apologising for leaving people out. A few times - particularly during 20th century continental philosophy - he takes on a quick tour of a "salon des refusés", giving quick sketches of important thinkers who don't meet the criteria as philosophers but who remain influential writers or critics nonetheless. For some, like Hannah Arendt, who refused the title of philosopher, he seems positively regretful.
Grayling is conscious that he is writing a history of western philosophy, which is an integrated flow or web of ideas and influences. But there are other philosophical traditions in the world which have developed mostly (though not entirely) independently. He spends the last few chapters on these, but it would be a mistake to dismiss these as optional appendices. Grayling has put a worthy amount of effort into wonderfully distilled summaries of Chinese, Indian and Arabic/Persian philosophy (the latter his name for what has otherwise been called "Philosophy in the Islamic world").
Grayling blames language barriers as the reason for the relative shallowness of these summaries, although I'm sure there are many deeper dives into each to be found in English. That said, these work very well as "short histories" of the traditions in each of these cultures. As to the quality and accuracy of these depictions, I'll have to leave criticism to the experts, of which I am certainly not one.
He also makes an attempt at covering "African" philosophy but spends most of that chapter explaining why he can't - having painted himself into a corner with his earlier definitions of what does and doesn't count as philosophy. And what comes from Africa, as he sees it, while of enormous value, counts more as folk wisdom, myth, religion etc. Or simply western philosophy being done in by Africans in post-colonial times. Again, I'll leave the experts to judge the fairness of his assessment, and I'm sure they will.
Overall, this book is a massive achievement. I have no idea how one person can do all the reading required to distill so much into one volume. There are some fascinating people and mind-bending ideas to be found in this book. It's a well-written, engaging ode to one of humanity's most important endeavours: trying to understand who we are, what on Earth is going on, how we could possibly know any of this, and what we should be doing about it.
The history of philosophy is one of those subjects that is such of flood of ideas that after such a book you end up only clinging to a few scraps of insight while most of flows over the rim of your overwhelmed mind... it's just too much to file neatly away. And so I think it's worth wading through it repeatedly over the course of your life, hopefully accumulating a little more wisdom each time.
Even though it hasn't been long since I read Russell's work, much of it had already faded from memory. But that book is the most obvious one to compare this one to. The two primary differences with that book are Grayling's deliberate exclusion of purely theological thought, and the inclusion of the not insignificant work done in the 20th century since Russell's publication (not least Russell himself!). Additionally in this new book Grayling includes worthwhile sketches of Indian, Chinese and Arabic/Persian philosophy.
Despite those additions, I also found Grayling's treatment of the classic philosophers common to all these histories to be fresh and engaging - such that I still felt I was almost always learning something new. So if you've read Russell's book and are wondering whether this one will be redundant: I would say no.
For the most part Grayling's approach is to write a chapter on each major thinker in chronological order. Each chapter starts with a short summary of the place of their ideas in the context of adjacent thinkers, followed by an often entertaining biographical sketch, then taking a deeper dive into their ideas, contributions and legacy. I really liked the rhythm of this template, which was a gentle switching back and forth between biography and technical philosophy - each playing usually off the other. This history of philosophy is full of compelling and strange characters.
There are of course deviations from the plan where necessary. Some chapters are named after schools of thought or groups of related thinkers, containing smaller portraits of the associated philosophers or summaries of ideas with no reference to a particular thinker. This becomes more frequent later in the book, especially as the number of active philosophers multiply in the 20th century.
Grayling makes it clear from the outset what he has decided falls within his definition of philosophy. In particular he chooses to exclude religiously-influenced thought, which he thesaurusily describes (multiple times!) as "theology, theodicy, exegesis, casuistry, apologetics or hermeneutics, but ... not philosophy". As someone not religiously inclined myself, this was a great relief and a selling point.
This meant that the section on the middle ages with mercifully short compared to Russell's book, although certainly not devoid of content! Regrettably I felt that while sparing the reader these angels-on-pins debates, we are served an oversized portion when it comes to Grayling's own area of study: the philosophy of language in 20th century Analytical philosophy. This section seemed to get much more into the weeds compared to the other sections and I found myself unable to keep up with the jargon here and tuning out as a result. (And for the record I find the philosophy of language and its neighbouring pursuits - like computer science - particularly interesting). This was happily the exception rather than the rule for the book, which for the most part seemed to keep things at a reasonable difficult level for a motivated layperson.
Grayling spends a considerable amount of time musing on what is fair to include and apologising for leaving people out. A few times - particularly during 20th century continental philosophy - he takes on a quick tour of a "salon des refusés", giving quick sketches of important thinkers who don't meet the criteria as philosophers but who remain influential writers or critics nonetheless. For some, like Hannah Arendt, who refused the title of philosopher, he seems positively regretful.
Grayling is conscious that he is writing a history of western philosophy, which is an integrated flow or web of ideas and influences. But there are other philosophical traditions in the world which have developed mostly (though not entirely) independently. He spends the last few chapters on these, but it would be a mistake to dismiss these as optional appendices. Grayling has put a worthy amount of effort into wonderfully distilled summaries of Chinese, Indian and Arabic/Persian philosophy (the latter his name for what has otherwise been called "Philosophy in the Islamic world").
Grayling blames language barriers as the reason for the relative shallowness of these summaries, although I'm sure there are many deeper dives into each to be found in English. That said, these work very well as "short histories" of the traditions in each of these cultures. As to the quality and accuracy of these depictions, I'll have to leave criticism to the experts, of which I am certainly not one.
He also makes an attempt at covering "African" philosophy but spends most of that chapter explaining why he can't - having painted himself into a corner with his earlier definitions of what does and doesn't count as philosophy. And what comes from Africa, as he sees it, while of enormous value, counts more as folk wisdom, myth, religion etc. Or simply western philosophy being done in by Africans in post-colonial times. Again, I'll leave the experts to judge the fairness of his assessment, and I'm sure they will.
Overall, this book is a massive achievement. I have no idea how one person can do all the reading required to distill so much into one volume. There are some fascinating people and mind-bending ideas to be found in this book. It's a well-written, engaging ode to one of humanity's most important endeavours: trying to understand who we are, what on Earth is going on, how we could possibly know any of this, and what we should be doing about it.
February 2, 2023
This is an incredibly comprehensive overview of philosophy, and Grayling takes you through its history with clarity and wit. His refusal to include any religious thinkers is reiterated throughout, and though I think this is a little bit of a shame, it is nonetheless an important and fascinating read for those interested in Theology, religious studies or any other social science as well as philosophy.
June 15, 2023
The book was absolutely amazing! It had all the essential knowledge about the history of philosophy. Though, I must admit, some parts, like analytic philosophy, were a bit dry and not as enjoyable. Plus, it was a massive textbook, so it was a challenge to soak up everything. Still, I learned a ton from it. One thing I noticed was the author's criticism of theology and the atheist perspective on history, which I think could have been left out. But overall, I'd give it 4.8 stars!
December 8, 2021
What’s more apt as an introductory book on Philosophy than a complete historical account? Ideas can be better grasped when mapped onto a timeline with historical context, and it has been the case for me. Not that I can, or sought to memorise the total enterprise of Philosophy, as if what it studies was clear-cut. I took this reading as a chance to immerse in whatever contexts are there, and make my best effort to understand the enquiries unbeknownst to me. The results are pretty remarkable, in terms of not how many giants I can name but what position each of them stands in relations to the bigger picture.
Grayling has a conception about who should be included here as a parallel to what should be called Philosophy. While he has incorporated all major philosophers, there are such thinkers flourishing in the twentieth century in practical areas outside of philosophy as Foucault and Arendt who for this reason does not receive a separate treatment but under an umbrella chapter drolly called le Salon des Refusés. But as he explains elsewhere, the qualification is not fame but one’s contribution in the subject-matter. The list goes on beyond Continental Philosophers. Grayling rejects African “Philosophy” wholesale, and all “philosophical” ideas that rest their cases with a theistic answer. Unsure of my take on the ethnophilosophical approach on one hand, I am satisfied by the atheistic treatment, which of course suspends itself in the chapter of Medieval Philosophy.
The understatements of some names and philosophies remind me of the importance of having a suis generis body of work to be remembered. Not that applaud has been more rewarding than doing philosophy per se (neither is it a problematic view, as I don’t want to sound too morally ascetic). Facts reveals that, a theorist or theory will be extensively studied only when they add considerable values to answering an enquiry. Recall how Grayling rejected the seemingly most quasi-philosophical idea that finds its roots in sub-Saharan Africa—ubuntu. It was too easy a principle compared with Indian and Chinese Philosophies, that Grayling had ingeniously subscribed to it by ascribing human race migrating out of Africa as its result (of some sort). How many a philosophers strive to write up a groundbreaking work, mostly without running away from the fate of footnoting a predecessor. After reading the book, one recognises that the timelessly influential figures are (not without controversy) Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel and Russell.
After some too-meta-too-psychological-too-deep comments, I would like to make a note of several funny (to my uneducated brain) discoveries. As an avid hater of Continental Philosophy, now I know that my disinclination iss warranted and I was quite caught up when reading. My ability to further study is however limited by my inability to fully understand Hegel, who is central to everything else. Let’s move on to Analytic Philosophy, what I worship. My experience plodding through Dummett’s theory of meaning for the 5th attempt might have hinted at my illiteracy and ADHD. I also couldn’t wrap my head around Strawson’s and Davidson’s theories. I still remember a college Professor denouncing Ordinary Language Philosophy in class that he could dismiss it singlehandedly, although he never did it. I wish I were as bright as he is to comprehend all this matter.
The book offers an unbridled panorama of philosophers. Although the Analytic Philosophy part makes up the whole reason of my purchase, it opens my eyes wide to a plethora of other bright minds. An unexpected benefit is that I get to identify those whose notions have enthralled me such that I can read their work extensively later. Also the highlights (annotation is not my thing) are at my disposal when I re-read the chapters. I will surely come back very often. What an excellent buy and entertaining read!
Grayling has a conception about who should be included here as a parallel to what should be called Philosophy. While he has incorporated all major philosophers, there are such thinkers flourishing in the twentieth century in practical areas outside of philosophy as Foucault and Arendt who for this reason does not receive a separate treatment but under an umbrella chapter drolly called le Salon des Refusés. But as he explains elsewhere, the qualification is not fame but one’s contribution in the subject-matter. The list goes on beyond Continental Philosophers. Grayling rejects African “Philosophy” wholesale, and all “philosophical” ideas that rest their cases with a theistic answer. Unsure of my take on the ethnophilosophical approach on one hand, I am satisfied by the atheistic treatment, which of course suspends itself in the chapter of Medieval Philosophy.
The understatements of some names and philosophies remind me of the importance of having a suis generis body of work to be remembered. Not that applaud has been more rewarding than doing philosophy per se (neither is it a problematic view, as I don’t want to sound too morally ascetic). Facts reveals that, a theorist or theory will be extensively studied only when they add considerable values to answering an enquiry. Recall how Grayling rejected the seemingly most quasi-philosophical idea that finds its roots in sub-Saharan Africa—ubuntu. It was too easy a principle compared with Indian and Chinese Philosophies, that Grayling had ingeniously subscribed to it by ascribing human race migrating out of Africa as its result (of some sort). How many a philosophers strive to write up a groundbreaking work, mostly without running away from the fate of footnoting a predecessor. After reading the book, one recognises that the timelessly influential figures are (not without controversy) Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel and Russell.
After some too-meta-too-psychological-too-deep comments, I would like to make a note of several funny (to my uneducated brain) discoveries. As an avid hater of Continental Philosophy, now I know that my disinclination iss warranted and I was quite caught up when reading. My ability to further study is however limited by my inability to fully understand Hegel, who is central to everything else. Let’s move on to Analytic Philosophy, what I worship. My experience plodding through Dummett’s theory of meaning for the 5th attempt might have hinted at my illiteracy and ADHD. I also couldn’t wrap my head around Strawson’s and Davidson’s theories. I still remember a college Professor denouncing Ordinary Language Philosophy in class that he could dismiss it singlehandedly, although he never did it. I wish I were as bright as he is to comprehend all this matter.
The book offers an unbridled panorama of philosophers. Although the Analytic Philosophy part makes up the whole reason of my purchase, it opens my eyes wide to a plethora of other bright minds. An unexpected benefit is that I get to identify those whose notions have enthralled me such that I can read their work extensively later. Also the highlights (annotation is not my thing) are at my disposal when I re-read the chapters. I will surely come back very often. What an excellent buy and entertaining read!
March 10, 2021
Laskeskelin, että kirjoittaja mainitsi 21. vuosisadan alkaneen vasta 1.1. 2001 kuusi tai seitsemän kertaa teoksen aikana, sillä vuosi 2000 kuului edelliseen vuosituhanteen. Näistä jännittävistä knoppifiksaatioista huolimatta oikein mukiinmenevä ja kompakti yleiskatsaus (länsimaisen) filosofian historiaan ja kehitykseen.
Paikoin tosin paistoi läpi ja jopa ääneen kehuskellen mainittiin sellainen militantti uusateismi, jonka vaikutuksesta muutamia filosofiankin kannalta keskeisiä henkilöitä, isoimpana vaikkapa Søren Kierkegaard, kieltäydyttiin käsittelemästä näiden uskonnollisuuden takia, mikä on toki sääli.
Paikoin tosin paistoi läpi ja jopa ääneen kehuskellen mainittiin sellainen militantti uusateismi, jonka vaikutuksesta muutamia filosofiankin kannalta keskeisiä henkilöitä, isoimpana vaikkapa Søren Kierkegaard, kieltäydyttiin käsittelemästä näiden uskonnollisuuden takia, mikä on toki sääli.
April 20, 2022
I am skipping around in this volume so this review is based on a partial reading and I should state here that I am much more Hegelian when it comes to the history of philosophy than Grayling. Or perhaps I am sympathetic rather argumentative reader of the history of philosophy; that is, ready to read most thinkers without judging whether their arguments work or not, but ultimately in some approximation of the spirit the author intended their work to be read. However glowing the newspaper reviews of this book are, this "History" is even more condescending than Russell's. And as the co-author of Principia Mathematica, Russell earned a right to disdain Hegel. I am not aware of anything Grayling has done technically that is remotely as interesting.
This is not to say that the Professor of Humanities does not adequately explain the traditional big players, nor that his emphasis on the 20th c is entirely misguided. But his argumentative history of philosophy does give the lie to it actually being a history. There is no more anywhere in comparison with Russell finding a precursor in Leibniz's monadology for his logical atomism. (Wittgenstein basically swept Russell off the map, but the PM in its times was as much a revelation as non-Euclidean geometry: it took what was thought to be a settled subject (Aristotelian logic) and showed how there could be a system above which has been turned and edified into symbolic logic. Grayling by contrast turns to positivist scientism whenever he has to explain anything beyond his ken.
In actual fact, this is a history written to satisfy philosophy entrepreneurs, which Grayling was at the time of this writing, as he was a founder of a Blairite scheme of post-secondary education called "the New School". (Not the one in Manhattan begun in conjunction with the exiled Frankfurt School.) Any number of American analytic or Oxfordian philosophers have wished to trim the history of philosophy back to logic, scientific method and clubby debating about ethics and metaphysics. Again, the traditional major players are adequately explained in this history, but ultimately this "History of Philosophy" is as blinkered and judgmental as one could encounter.
This is not to say that the Professor of Humanities does not adequately explain the traditional big players, nor that his emphasis on the 20th c is entirely misguided. But his argumentative history of philosophy does give the lie to it actually being a history. There is no more anywhere in comparison with Russell finding a precursor in Leibniz's monadology for his logical atomism. (Wittgenstein basically swept Russell off the map, but the PM in its times was as much a revelation as non-Euclidean geometry: it took what was thought to be a settled subject (Aristotelian logic) and showed how there could be a system above which has been turned and edified into symbolic logic. Grayling by contrast turns to positivist scientism whenever he has to explain anything beyond his ken.
In actual fact, this is a history written to satisfy philosophy entrepreneurs, which Grayling was at the time of this writing, as he was a founder of a Blairite scheme of post-secondary education called "the New School". (Not the one in Manhattan begun in conjunction with the exiled Frankfurt School.) Any number of American analytic or Oxfordian philosophers have wished to trim the history of philosophy back to logic, scientific method and clubby debating about ethics and metaphysics. Again, the traditional major players are adequately explained in this history, but ultimately this "History of Philosophy" is as blinkered and judgmental as one could encounter.
October 1, 2019
I was rather looking foward to reading this book. And, for the first half it was rather informative. Dry, but informative. Then Grayling got to Modern Philosopy. Oh dear, how drear. Half of the book illustrating why modern philosophy is stuck in a rut. Not only that but he kept (it appears) conducting "philosophical discussions" on the book's pages. Bluntly the second half consists of an uncritical summary of one boring unknown after another. Plus he keeps troughing "philosophical jargon" in. Thereby further showing why modern philosophy is largely irrelevant to anything practical. And he couldn't even start taking the mickey when he got to Derrida and Foucalt. His summaries of Indian, Islamic and Chinese philosophy are, likewise, plodding and uninformative.
Bluntly, don't waste your money on this thing. I stopped reading it. And I very seldom do that to a book. In fact this is the first book I've stopped reading in decades. And that included working my way through Penrose's "The road to Reality"
Bluntly, don't waste your money on this thing. I stopped reading it. And I very seldom do that to a book. In fact this is the first book I've stopped reading in decades. And that included working my way through Penrose's "The road to Reality"
Read
May 7, 2020This is not the type of book I would pick up or have the patience for in normal life, but during the Coronavirus Epidemic I've really enjoyed it. I can't really speak to the fidelity of A.C. Grayling's sketches of different philosophers' ideas to their original works like some other readers, but what I can speak to the style and content of the book from an outsider's perspective, as someone who's only taken a couple of history classes.
Overall, I was really impressed by clear, succinct, and accessible managed Grayling managed to be. You could give this book to a clever ninth-grader and they wouldn't have any trouble with it. Grayling will reference freely philosophers and philosophical ideas he's already covered in later chapters, but if you already have a general understanding of philosophical ideas or you've skimmed the book up to the point you're currently reading everything makes sense.
Overall, I was really impressed by clear, succinct, and accessible managed Grayling managed to be. You could give this book to a clever ninth-grader and they wouldn't have any trouble with it. Grayling will reference freely philosophers and philosophical ideas he's already covered in later chapters, but if you already have a general understanding of philosophical ideas or you've skimmed the book up to the point you're currently reading everything makes sense.
February 1, 2020
Boy, oh boy, does this book have problems. The treatment of 20th century philosophy of language isn't bad but at times it's like the author is trying to be the caricature of the narrow-minded analytic philosopher, eg Gadamer isn't a philosopher. His treatment of religion is a mess. The result is a lot of inconsistent and ad hoc line drawing that gratuitously excludes some thinkers as not really philosophers. Then he repeatedly says just stupid things about the history of philosophy like that there was no moral philosophy from antiquity to Hume.
This is just a bad book.
This is just a bad book.
August 17, 2019
A very different book from the one of Russel. Having read the former does not mean the this one is to be ignored. Great side table book for a quick reference for those, who have not made the history of philosophy an integral part of their life’s, yet do want to stay informed properly and provide correct references.
June 6, 2022
A more accurate history of philosophy book than A History of Western Philosophy, but not as enjoyable as the latter.
April 25, 2020
It is certainly worthwile to plow through a history of philosophy (or science) every once in a while. It helps to put things into context, to relativize the often quite considerable egos of these creative, solitary writers.
This one by Grayling is certainly a lot of fun. And /long/! (28 hours on audible) It is well written (stylistically) and manages to convey something of the depth, breadth and variety of the philosophical tradition. Unexpectedly interesting were two later sections on Indian and Chinese philosophy which, though they were presented as rather primitive and Grayling emphasizes his non-expert status with regards to them, are able to put a thought-provoking spin on ideas that resemble those of the west through subtle differences in vocabulary.
However, though I suppose that such a thing is inevitable in this kind of work, the thought of some mayor philosophers (I am thinking of Leibniz, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Peirce in particular) really /was not/ represented accurately or completely in this text, and the discription of them ventured into caricature at times. This shortcoming seems to be connected to Grayling's frankly quite boring conception of what 'philosophy' actually means and what 'kind of questions' are properly part of its domain. He actually writes at one point that his conception of philosophy is largely determined by the 'practice of philosophy departments' (I paraphrase), that is to say by a general gest of the 'expert' / folk opinion of academic philosophers...
Last but not least, though the book actually has a lot to offer (more than expected!) in terms of recent developments in philosophy (which it is always risky to include in any 'history'), I would have liked it very much if many of the interesting (relatively) new domains in analytic philosophy (especially subdomains of non-classical logics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science) would have been given as prominent a place as other almost-contemporary 'schools' have, such as deconstructivism and feminism.
All in all: an interesting read with some very much worthwile anecdotes. Good as an introduction to the subject, I think, though the length of the book will likely put off the true novice.
This one by Grayling is certainly a lot of fun. And /long/! (28 hours on audible) It is well written (stylistically) and manages to convey something of the depth, breadth and variety of the philosophical tradition. Unexpectedly interesting were two later sections on Indian and Chinese philosophy which, though they were presented as rather primitive and Grayling emphasizes his non-expert status with regards to them, are able to put a thought-provoking spin on ideas that resemble those of the west through subtle differences in vocabulary.
However, though I suppose that such a thing is inevitable in this kind of work, the thought of some mayor philosophers (I am thinking of Leibniz, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Peirce in particular) really /was not/ represented accurately or completely in this text, and the discription of them ventured into caricature at times. This shortcoming seems to be connected to Grayling's frankly quite boring conception of what 'philosophy' actually means and what 'kind of questions' are properly part of its domain. He actually writes at one point that his conception of philosophy is largely determined by the 'practice of philosophy departments' (I paraphrase), that is to say by a general gest of the 'expert' / folk opinion of academic philosophers...
Last but not least, though the book actually has a lot to offer (more than expected!) in terms of recent developments in philosophy (which it is always risky to include in any 'history'), I would have liked it very much if many of the interesting (relatively) new domains in analytic philosophy (especially subdomains of non-classical logics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science) would have been given as prominent a place as other almost-contemporary 'schools' have, such as deconstructivism and feminism.
All in all: an interesting read with some very much worthwile anecdotes. Good as an introduction to the subject, I think, though the length of the book will likely put off the true novice.
July 7, 2023
The History of Philosophy is one of the most complete books offered that summarizes extremely well the history of philosophy. I’ve read many books similar to this one, but I consider this one to be one of the best by far. Not only does it adequately and astutely portray the philosophies of various philosophers over time, but also their lives and the quirks that made them differ from one another. It evaluates the context of the philosopher’s time in it’s presentation. In this regard, it is very informative, simple to read and understand and does not pander to difficult terms or subjects that would be too difficult for a beginner to understand. If you’re searching for an in-depth review of the history of philosophy, this book is definitely the right one. It does have a personal flaw though: it avoids the theologians of the medieval age and thus we see a huge hole in the timeline. It would have been fair for them to be discussed in a separate section or in the middle of the book, regardless of their status as philosophers, because they shaped immensely the coming philosophy after the renaissance. By following certain philosophers so closely rather than the tendencies of history, the book also fails, in my opinion, to fluidly transition from one topic to another. Nevertheless, this book is an absolute must if one wants to refresh their knowledge of philosophy or even for beginners to start with. There is something for the student as well as for the teacher.
June 22, 2021
I rate this book higher than Bertrand Russell's classic. Grayling says more using fewer words, that is the main difference. Another difference is that Grayling is much clearer and stricter about what he considers to be philosophy and what not. I recall from Russell's book that he is too permissive with regard to Medieval philosophers; much of what they wrote does not deserve the name philosophy. The same holds true for many continental philosophers. Lastly, Grayling's range is wider — though of course he benefits from the passage of time — including also a lucid summary (not an easy feat) of a large chunk of the history of analytic philosophy as well as some continental philosophy. I do think Grayling should have included a summary of Foucault, surely one of the most important among his ilk. It is strange that he included Derrida, given his lack of any substantial philosophical views and arguments.
Parts that stood out for me were the chapters on Hume and Kant and the chapter on analytic philosophy in its entirety.
Parts that stood out for me were the chapters on Hume and Kant and the chapter on analytic philosophy in its entirety.
August 30, 2022
I don’t think a book called “history of *field*” is ever going to feel satisfying to experts, and I think that checks out. For me, this book was a really lovely tour through the big ideas and big people in the development of this field. Don’t expect to be even close to an expert in any sort of philosophy after this book, but do expect to get a ton of food for thought.
I also think this book is a great way to get a survey of the field and see who/what you might wanna research more - so many names, books, and essays are referenced (this was my primary motivation for reading it). The table of contents is laid out clearly and you can jump around to whichever time period / region / thinker you want, but I just read it though in order and was pleased.
The author also does a good job of connecting ideas to their predecessors, saying something like “this is similar to Aristotle’s xxxxx” or “in contrast to Berkeley’s xxxx, this person thinks xxxx.” This helps me not forget all the sections I finished reading and also illuminates the ways in which philosophy changes over time while not forgetting its past.
Lastly, the writing is somewhat dry, but for this sacrifice the author gains clarity and some opportunities for cheeky humor. I won’t say this is an easy book because it took me forever and there is a lot of philosophical jargon (that he does explain, but still), but if you are interested in this subject and feel like you don’t know where to start (kinda like me), I would definitely recommend.
This one was great kindling.
I also think this book is a great way to get a survey of the field and see who/what you might wanna research more - so many names, books, and essays are referenced (this was my primary motivation for reading it). The table of contents is laid out clearly and you can jump around to whichever time period / region / thinker you want, but I just read it though in order and was pleased.
The author also does a good job of connecting ideas to their predecessors, saying something like “this is similar to Aristotle’s xxxxx” or “in contrast to Berkeley’s xxxx, this person thinks xxxx.” This helps me not forget all the sections I finished reading and also illuminates the ways in which philosophy changes over time while not forgetting its past.
Lastly, the writing is somewhat dry, but for this sacrifice the author gains clarity and some opportunities for cheeky humor. I won’t say this is an easy book because it took me forever and there is a lot of philosophical jargon (that he does explain, but still), but if you are interested in this subject and feel like you don’t know where to start (kinda like me), I would definitely recommend.
This one was great kindling.
September 16, 2020
This book is a phenomenal introduction for someone with little or no knowledge of philosophy. I listened to the audiobook, but will order the physical copy to have as a reference -- that's how well-organized and detailed this work is! Dr. Grayling has broken the book into historical periods and covers one philosopher at a time, giving background on each's life, focusing on their ideas by highlighting them in discussions of their works. And he goes into quite some depth, even re-representing the arguments in his own words and inserting conclusions of his own here and there to allow the reader to connect the flow of ideas across history. While there is very much depth, Dr. Grayling's writing style keeps the book very accessible and engaging. The narrator of the audiobook, Neil Gardner, is such a pleasure to listen to. He is British, and he sounds so funny (in a charming way) when he speaks in an American accent to quote American philosophers!
September 28, 2023
For anyone toddling into beginning philosophy, this book is pure enlightenment. Took me months to get through this, but what a pleasurable few months it was! You‘re chewing over and rereading each page, from the Presocratics to Continental Philosophy, a selection (emphasis on "selection") of the most eminent Western thinkers (emphasis on “Western": Grayling acknowledges there is a lamentably short chapter at the end devoted to Indian, Arabic-Persian, Chinese and African philosophical thinking). As any good book should, "History" has spring-boarded me into further interest and pursuit of arguably the best faculty we human beings possess, the ability to reason and question our existence, our perception of that existence and the best way to live that existence.
July 27, 2023
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. C. Grayling. I'm going to keep one of his in rotation from now on.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 157 reviews