Stanley Rosen (1) (1929–2014)

This volume is a very well curated overview of the history of Western Philosophy prior to the 20th century.

For those of us who have read and studied the (nearly) complete works of all of these philosophers, though, this book feels a bit hollow. Philosophy is full of nuance, the exploration of detail, and the evolution of ideas. You simply can't capture the ideas of a philosopher with only a few readings of their works. Many of these philosophers changed their ideas over time - or expounded on them at such length throughout their careers as to completely alter our understanding of them - and I'm left too aware of how much this book leaves out, and how the philosophies are pared down to such a degree as to almost misrepresent them.

But this is the challenge of all general histories of philosophy. This book does better than most. Any disappointments are mine for buying a general history when I didn't really need one.… (más)

I am a busy man. I may not be the CEO of a corporation or someone whose schedule is always full, but I value my time. In that line of thinking they made The Philosopher’s Handbook, a collection of essays and excerpts from longer works.

The book is divided into six major sections that each focus on one aspect of philosophy. These sections are introduced by an expert in that field with an essay that talks about that focus. Following the essay is a number of short portions from different longer works. For example, the first section focuses on Social and Political Philosophy. It has an introductory essay from Paul Rahe and goes into pertinent sections of Symposium, Gorgias, and Republic by Plato; Politics by Aristotle; The Prince by Machiavelli; Leviathan by Hobbes; and the First and Second Discourses by Rousseau. The other five sections are Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Art and Culture, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science.

The book is good. I like how it focuses on a particular subject rather than having the entire work. The excerpt from Leviathan has that quote on how human life is, for example. I also like how the introductory essays focus your attention on the important parts of the work. As far as an introductory work, this book is well-suited to that task.… (más)

This book is a collection of works from various authors that demonstrate major themes in philosophy. The book is split into six main parts with each part concentrating on a main theme of philosophy. These parts are as follows;

Part One: Social and Political Philosophy
Part Two: Philosophy of Religion
Part Three: Philosophy of Art and Culture
Part Four: Metaphysics
Part Five: Epistemology
Part Six: Philosophy of Science.

Each part contains an introduction by a doctorate toting professor meant to increase your understanding and provide a framework to the general ideas. For instance, in Part Two, we are introduced by William Desmond, and the first work is a selection from the Confessions of St. Augustine of Hippo.

With thirty-six selections of philosophers from Plato to Nietzsche to Kant to Kierkegaard, you are bound to find a pretty good introduction to Western Philosophy between these pages.

My only real complaint is that the book takes a great many works from Plato, which only shows how influential Plato was in the Western Canon. Of the thirty-six works, five of them are from Plato. Now that I am counting though, Aristotle has four of the thirty-six, so...

In any case, this was a good introduction. It also has a guide to overarching themes, so if you are into that then check this one out I guess.… (más)

This book is an extended discussion and critique of Heidegger. While he acknowledges many of Heidegger's insights and is in agreement on a number of matters, Rosen contends that his central claims about the history of philosophy and metaphysics in general, and its birth and death in Plato and Nietzsche in particular, involve serious misinterpretations and confusions. Moreover, Rosen considers Heidegger's philosophy of Being to be essentially vacuous, having at best no effect on our grasp of beings and at worst promulgating a sort of "European Buddhism," as Nietzsche puts it, in which we end up involved in absurd theoretical posturing over the event of Being which is nothing: perversely, "The more we meditate on Being, the less we see of beings" (Rosen 314).

While it would be inaccurate to say that Rosen attempts to mount a defense of Platonism against the onslaught of Heidegger's critique of the metaphysics of presence, Rosen persuasively argues that Heidegger's Plato is distorted beyond recognition by the being read through Aristotle. Where Heidegger sees Aristotle as having deepened Plato's thought (though also taken us further astride from the grasp of Being articulated by the pre-Socratic philosophers), Rosen sees the two thinkers as quite different, and indeed holds that certain deep problems of Aristotle's ontology and theory of perception point (back) to Platonic solutions. In any case, if we are to buy into Heidegger's reading of the history of philosophy as that of the metaphysics of presence, Rosen suggests that this history is one of Aristotelianism, not Platonism. Rosen comes across for the most part as a sophisticate and nuanced interpreter of Plato, though even he seems too willing at some points to take Socrates at his word, and unproblematically treat him as Plato's mouthpiece.

Rosen similarly spends a good deal of time arguing against Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche. The crux of Rosen's point here, if I read him correctly, is that Nietzsche's two doctrines of the Will to Power and the Eternal Return must, *pace* Heidegger, be read as incompatible and (respectively) exoteric and esoteric claims---not of a metaphysical nature, but of a practico-productive nature, i.e., claims about how to live, and what is best for life. Contrary to Heidegger's attempt to read an inner law in Chaos, and hence to Heidegerreanize (and rationalize, says Rosen) Nietzsche, chaos has no inner law, no structure. Man as will to power is simply a random output of what is at heart chaos and unreason. This is clearly incompatible with Nietzsche's product of inaugurating a new type of human, and of ranking types and attitudes, insofar as these all rely on the reality of a will to power that can be heightened or lessened, this (ultimate) reality being precisely what is denied by the metaphysics of chaos. Heidegger's main error with regard to Nietzsche is in foisting a reconciliation onto these irreconcilable positions.

The Question of Being is engaging, stimulating, and often very persuasive. Yet Rosen's too-frequent derisions of Heidegger's "bad poetry" get a bit tiring, and he occasionally moves far too quickly through what should be slow, careful argumentation (e.g. when discussing the criteria for an adequate theory of perception. Though a largely generous commentator, he also sometimes gets lazy and dismissive, which is unfortunately when he tends to issue his most trenchant and interesting criticisms of Heidegger.

Without at least a basic familiarity with Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Husserl (obviously Heidegger as well), and ideally a more advanced understanding of at least some of these figures, you'll have a hard time getting much out of this book.… (más)