Magazine article The Humanist

The History of Philosophy

Magazine article The Humanist

The History of Philosophy

Article excerpt

The History of Philosophy

BY A.C. GRAYLING

Penguin Press, 2019

704pp.; $35.00

If A.C. Grayling's The History of Philosophy were a river, it would be shallow with a strong current. Traveling down it, you'd have little to see and little time to see it. Because the water is shallow, your legs would always be bumping up against the debris (a stand-in for academic jargon). Or, to change metaphors, the book is a bullet train rather than a car ride. It offers no moment or incentive to stop, meander, or backtrack, the goal being not to enjoy the journey but to reach the end. Even these metaphors don't really capture the difficulty in reading it. It takes effort. If anything, you're traveling against the river's current. If anything, you'd be working in the train's engine room. A few people will read the book once; I can't imagine anyone will read it twice.

Grayling's tome is exactly what it says it is: the history of philosophy. It starts with the pre-Socratic philosophers and ends with today's academic philosophy. Already you can see what the primary dilemma of such a project is: how to make such an expansive history with so many characters orderly in composition yet alive to the reader. Grayling says the book is "an invitation and an entrance" for the philosophically curious but philosophically ignorant, however, I can't imagine someone vaguely curious about something they vaguely understand as "philosophy" will get much out of the book--or even get past the first few pages. The writing is encyclopedic rather than engaging. There are a few sections later on that aren't bad--the ones on Jean Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example--but the first two hundred pages are flat: uninspired and therefore uninspiring. Many sections read not as summaries of ideas but as summaries of summaries, all with the enthusiasm and lucidity of a mortician's report.

The dilemma is that the book's intention and its form are at odds. That is, you can either write a book that actually invites and draws people to philosophy (or, more specifically, the philosophical canon; most people are already attracted to philosophy as a practice of deeper thinking) or you can write a history of philosophy that covers all the canonized philosophers (many of whom aren't worth covering anyway). Grayling's confessed intention is the former, but The History of Philosophy only seems to try for the latter.

To get people interested in the philosophical canon (again, different than philosophy itself), a popularizer would be better off focusing on just a few canonized philosophers (like what Will Durant did in The Story of Philosophy) or taking a subject that almost any reader will be interested in and finding out what the canonized philosophers had to say about it (like what Simon Critchley did with death and dying in The Book of Dead Philosophers). Both these books succeed at being invitations and entrances to the philosophical canon. If neither succeeded at getting anyone to rush out to read Plato and Aristotle, they at least succeeded in getting people excited to think about what Plato and Aristotle thought about.

I don't normally focus on representation, but I'm really at a loss trying to understand how Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur each got their own sections but Hannah Arendt gets just a paragraph, and the only mention of Simone Weil is in a list. I didn't know who Gadamer and Ricoeur were before I read The History of Philosophy and still have no idea why Grayling thinks I should after reading it. And why is Simone de Beauvoir not given her own section but instead relegated to sidekick in Jean Paul Sartre's? …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.