The Story of Philosophy: Will Durant Book Review
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 3 months ago to Books
The Story of Philosophy: Will Durant Book Review
Philosophy, 397 pgs. ISBN-13: 978-0-671-20159-3 & ISBN-10: 0-671-20159-x
Will Durant (1885-1981) Pulitzer Prize (1968) and Medal of Freedom (1977) recipient was also the author of the best selling eleven-volume series, The Story of Civilization as well as several other classics.
From Socrates to Santayana this book explores many of the most significant contributions of Western Philosophy prior to its publishing. First published in 1926 this book tells the stories of the lives as well as the primary and unique insights that have shaped the philosophy of the ages. It is a compact volume of outlines/essays, a joy to read, sometimes humorous and always in a prose that is understandable to today’s modern reader. I only wish I had not passed this book by many years ago. It should have been one of the first.
Essentially it is the equivalent of a first year Western Philosophy course. I would highly recommend it for beginners who wish to dip their feet in the waters before delving into the depths of the featured philosophers. The overall examination of the various philosophers will help lead one on the path that is of most interest to the reader, while exposing them to trains of thought both agreeable and disagreeable to the predilections of the reader, thus challenging them to examine their own philosophy and perhaps reinforce, as well as challenge.
I find myself surprised to recommend a book filled with so much I disagree with, yet there is much to be learned from perspectives contrary to one’s own thinking. As Voltaire has said, “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” There is value and illumination in understanding the thinking of others.
The section on Kant was quite helpful in clarifying his most difficult to comprehend material. The sections on Aristotle and Voltaire were most enjoyable. My only significant criticisms (and they are only a trifle) are with some of the assertions of the author himself, for example, his own philosophy on the matter of Individualism’s declining necessity of dominance in the face of a modern world with decreasing wilderness to be tamed... The fact that Rand did not make it into the book is also a shortcoming, but understandable since it was written before her time.
With that: I leave you with one more most agreeable quote from Voltaire on pg. 186, “Those who say that all men are equal speak the greatest truth if they mean that all men have an equal right to liberty, to the possession of their goods, and to the protection of the laws”; but “equality is at once the most natural and the most chimerical thing in the world: natural when it is limited to rights, unnatural when it attempts to level goods and powers.” From: Dictionary, art. “Equality.”
Respectfully,
O.A.
Philosophy, 397 pgs. ISBN-13: 978-0-671-20159-3 & ISBN-10: 0-671-20159-x
Will Durant (1885-1981) Pulitzer Prize (1968) and Medal of Freedom (1977) recipient was also the author of the best selling eleven-volume series, The Story of Civilization as well as several other classics.
From Socrates to Santayana this book explores many of the most significant contributions of Western Philosophy prior to its publishing. First published in 1926 this book tells the stories of the lives as well as the primary and unique insights that have shaped the philosophy of the ages. It is a compact volume of outlines/essays, a joy to read, sometimes humorous and always in a prose that is understandable to today’s modern reader. I only wish I had not passed this book by many years ago. It should have been one of the first.
Essentially it is the equivalent of a first year Western Philosophy course. I would highly recommend it for beginners who wish to dip their feet in the waters before delving into the depths of the featured philosophers. The overall examination of the various philosophers will help lead one on the path that is of most interest to the reader, while exposing them to trains of thought both agreeable and disagreeable to the predilections of the reader, thus challenging them to examine their own philosophy and perhaps reinforce, as well as challenge.
I find myself surprised to recommend a book filled with so much I disagree with, yet there is much to be learned from perspectives contrary to one’s own thinking. As Voltaire has said, “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” There is value and illumination in understanding the thinking of others.
The section on Kant was quite helpful in clarifying his most difficult to comprehend material. The sections on Aristotle and Voltaire were most enjoyable. My only significant criticisms (and they are only a trifle) are with some of the assertions of the author himself, for example, his own philosophy on the matter of Individualism’s declining necessity of dominance in the face of a modern world with decreasing wilderness to be tamed... The fact that Rand did not make it into the book is also a shortcoming, but understandable since it was written before her time.
With that: I leave you with one more most agreeable quote from Voltaire on pg. 186, “Those who say that all men are equal speak the greatest truth if they mean that all men have an equal right to liberty, to the possession of their goods, and to the protection of the laws”; but “equality is at once the most natural and the most chimerical thing in the world: natural when it is limited to rights, unnatural when it attempts to level goods and powers.” From: Dictionary, art. “Equality.”
Respectfully,
O.A.
Thank you, for your interest and comment. It is true, we are all captive to our own understanding; the perceptions of our minds... So long as we keep in mind that A is A, existence exists and remain open to checking our premises we are using reason, IMHO.
Regards,
O.A.
Many of Durant’s criticisms are framed in such a way that he pits other philosophers against each other, leaving you to wonder of his own opinion and it seems as if he is equivocating. I do not agree with many of his opinions when he makes them clear, but I do agree with his expression of the various philosophers’ positions. He does understand them. He is not critical enough of Kant.
Overall, I would not be a proponent of much of Durant’s own philosophy as I understand it.
I would be surprised if you were proponent with Durant's philosophy. For instance, wikipedia states:
Will Durant fought for equal wages, women's suffrage and fairer working conditions for the American labor force. Durant not only wrote on many topics but also put his ideas into effect
He also said according to wikipedia:
"Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike to conscious poverty and to weary wealth."
I would describe Durant as a soft socialist sort of like George Orwell
How delightful to hear from you! I read all of your input with great relish. I have yet to read anything from you that I would add anything to or dare venture an objection.
You are quite right about my appraisal of Durant. Of course in this book he expresses much more about the thoughts of others than his own, but much of what he did express had me scratching my head.
Regards,
O.A.
Looks good and I have not read it. I just added it along with the ISBN to my list.
I am planning a trip to B&N in the next couple of weeks.
Regards,
O.A.
I am used to reading philosophy with many Latin references and old English. Dictionaries at the ready... This was easier than reading much of the original source material for me. Rand was right. Kant was a mystic and a mindist. He relied on a-priori and did not believe in tabla rasa. He tried to destroy atheism and materialism, but failed in my mind. His own fabricated terms like noumenal, even once fully explained, do not make his case. His explanation of the relation between that and the phenomenal and how it relates to the world sounds like he was trying too hard to baffle, to convince... His "categorical imperative" is also difficult to accept: "Always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle of your action to become universal law; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action." Really?!?! Yeah... that seems reasonable... Not!
This is my understanding and some of my criticisms. I am at work and the book is at home. If you want the words of Mr. Durant I will have to open the chapter at a later time and respond with his exact words. Let me know if what I have provided is insufficient for your interest and I will comply.
Regards,
O.A.
Good comment. I quite agree, one should investigate the source of the works that interest you in full context, which I have done for many philosophers that I find of interest, but this is full of direct quotes and a good overall view for those without the time. Generally I agree with his assessments with a few exceptions and find them quite fair.
Thank you,
O.A.