The History of Philosophy

This is the best history of philosophy currently on the market. Grayling’s explanations are clear and summarize well all the philosophers covered. He does not agree with several of the views but that fact never gets in the way of an objective presentation of the philosophers. At times he shows his hand at the end of a section, for example, the “genius” of Aristotle, Spinoza’s “extraordinary achievement,” Kripke’s Naming and Necessity is “a modern classic of philosophy,” and his pungent comment at the end of the section on Derrida: “Therefore despite…the refusal to acknowledge a therapy that can stand still long enough for evaluation by the canons of a philosophical approach that Derrida is at pains to deconstruct, it is hard to see how to avoid the charge that if he is right, forty books about it would be thirty-nine (and perhaps forty) too many.” The comment about Derrida aside, the presentation of Continental thinkers is fair. I especially thought his sections on Gadamer and Ricoeur were enlightening. Grayling has a long section on analytical philosophy – its proponents, what they held (or hold), their weaknesses, and the movement of philosophy today away from the strictures of the 20th century analytical tradition. His twelve-page summary on the development of the philosophy of mind and the issue of consciousness as discussed today is excellent. His overview of the vast field of ethics may appear truncated but his discussion of the rise of virtue ethics is first-rate. In all the divisions of the book Grayling had to decide which elements should be emphasized and which not. I found his editorial decisions excellent. This is a clear, readable, and engaging history. Grayling often adds touches of humor that light up the life of the philosopher or the issues of a particular position. He has brief discussions of Indian, Chinese, Muslim, and African philosophy at the end. (I found the section on Chinese philosophy the best.) Near the end of the book he has this apt quote from Russell: “Most people would rather die than think, and most people do.” This book goes a long way toward summarizing the thought of those humans who would rather think deeply and carefully about life than just accept what they are given and die.

For those who, like me, want to understand at least a little something about philosophy, but aren't prepared to spend a lifetime of hard labor reading the works of the great philosophers, this is the perfect book. Grayling does an outstanding job of explaining the most important ideas of Western philosophy from the Greeks up to right now, and also gives a quick overview of Indian, Persian, Chinese and African philosophy. And he does it in very readable language, enlivened by flashes of dry wit and occasional comments less than reverent comments. His book is emphatically not a quick read--figure on a couple of months--and the ideas he's trying to communicate to the nonspecialist reader are often frustratingly difficult to grasp. Expect to work hard. But it's the sort of book that really stimulates the mind (or, occasionally, numbs it) and I feel it gave me a much better understanding of the various strands of philosophic thinking than I've ever had before. Still a very superficial understanding, of course. It also motivated me to read more of a few philosophers whose ideas I found most interesting. Highly recommended.

I am not a philosopher. I don’t belong to Mensa. But I love philosophy. So here’s my review for the ones like me: average Joes, hopelessly in love with philosophy. As others have said, this is a close contender for the best single volume history of philosophy. I felt that it succeeded in many areas except for two points. Successes: 1. Grayling’s history is one of the best written of the various histories of philosophy that I’ve read - he has an expansive vocabulary, an engaging, active style and interesting asides and anecdotes without dipping into story-telling. The book is more readable than Kenny’s and Evans’ histories while avoiding strong opinions as in Russell’s and Durant’s histories. (Note that Russell’s is at times inaccurate). 2. The book seriously attempts to cover all philosophy, not ”Western philosophy” but “Philosophy”. The coverage of non-western philosophy in the last section was a welcome and enjoyable read, though its entirely forgivable brevity and lack of depth makes me question whether a dedicated single-volume history of “Eastern” philosophy wouldn’t have been more appropriate. Though the book’s title hints at hubris, Grayling gets close enough to a full and meaningful overview of “Philosophy” without melting his wings. Failures 1. While Grayling deftly explains the individuals and schools of philosophy, he does not center these around the central questions through history. For each era he relates how various philosophers riffed off their predecessors and related or not to their contemporaries and handed ideas on to their successors, I felt that he forgot the trunk for the branches. There is little ”bringing it back” to the big questions. I found myself struggling to understand why exactly the complex explanation of some philosophers or schools of thought even mattered. Maybe I wanted more philosophy than history. In my opinion, there is a much better discussion of “relevance” in Anthony Kenny’s somewhat larger history. 2. The author, himself a well-known philosopher, stands in the Analytic tradition which provides a useful vantage point on the history of philosophy. However while the book seems to be written for the amateur, the chapter on Analytic philosophy felt dense and difficult. I’ve read numerous philosophical works and historical accounts that were difficult yet rewarding endeavors. After I slogged through the chapter on Analytic philosophy, I felt more confused in some respects than when I started. While I understand that this is Dr. Grayling’s “homeland”, perhaps he could have slowed down his tour a bit for the average reader. The lack of keeping the fundamental questions in plain view and the torturous chapter on Analytic philosophy, dropped it one-star for me. Nota Bene: The author makes his reasons for exclusion of theistic philosophy very clear. (Probably best expressed on pp 555-556.) Though I disagree with his premises, he states them upfront and recognizes that some will disagree. I can’t fault him for representing his beliefs. That said, I find his complete and unapologetic omission of Kierkegaard staggering. Even more so, some might argue, is his very brief and dismissive treatment of Aquinas. For an excellent history of philosophy which includes theistic philosophy (though of smaller scope and just slightly less engaging of a read), consider C. Stephen Evans’ history.

Great product

Very fun to read and interesting. The inclusion of eastern philosophies and more biographical details than usual was a pleasant surprise. Grayling exhibits an extreme, maybe irrational, anti-religious (or at least anti-theistic) bias as well as an unfortunate (an what comes across as arrogant/snobby) dismissal of the incredible work being done by religious and non-religious scholars in contemporary philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. C. Stephen Evans’ History of Philosophy is better. Anthony Kenny’s is way better.

Perfect!!!

An excellent text for the curious reader who wants to understand in more details the origins and development of our philosophical history and culture. Grayling managers to make complex topics very readable.

Worth the price

Grayling tiene la capacidad de explicar de un modo claro lo que otros autores son incapaces de hacer. Muy divulgativa.

È un testo di agevole lettura per chiunque, con un approccio non accademico. Molto più approfondita la trattazione della filosofia analitica. Per la filosofia europea o continentale alcuni capitoli sono troppo sintetici. Consegna rapida. Lettura consigliata a chiunque.