Scan barcode
theaurochs's review against another edition
4.0
An engaging overview of renaissance philosophy.
The various portraits of specific philosophers are set in as much context of the age as possible, which by the end of the book really gives a great picture of the overall intellectual state of affairs.
Gottlieb is so careful to not make a misstep that it comes across almost as comedic in points, but it is clear that his aim is to disabuse us of any common misconceptions we may have, which is appreciated.
Interesting read!
The various portraits of specific philosophers are set in as much context of the age as possible, which by the end of the book really gives a great picture of the overall intellectual state of affairs.
Gottlieb is so careful to not make a misstep that it comes across almost as comedic in points, but it is clear that his aim is to disabuse us of any common misconceptions we may have, which is appreciated.
Interesting read!
weltenkreuzer's review against another edition
4.0
Umfassender und gut zu lesender Überblick über einige wichtige Denker der Aufklärung. Allerdings sind mir Struktur und der übergreifende rote Faden nicht ganz klar geworden.
mikecross's review against another edition
4.0
An excellent overview of the latest, greatest minds. A little difficult to differentiate between the philosophers, but a great introduction!
dunigan's review against another edition
4.0
A nice crash course on some famous philosophers from the Enlightment era. There are chapters on Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Bayle, Leibniz, and Hume. I hadn't even heard of some of these lads, so I guess I was the right audience for a book like this. I can't imagine anyone who is really knowledgeable about this era would get much out of this, but thankfully for me I'm totally ignorant.
I read it over a long period of time. I would pick it up and read a chapter here or there and then set it back down for a while. Because I have the retention capacity of a guppy, I've long forgotten most of the early chapters, but I remember enjoying them!! That should count for something.
Of the chapters I do remember, I really liked the one on Hume. Hume seems like such a cool dude. He was skeptical about just about everything (arguably even in the value of skepticism itself). This typically would have gotten him into a lot of trouble back in the day when you could get in trouble for roasting the church. But Hume was such a smooth operator that he always wrote in a way that seemed to avoid anybody getting offended. This is at least partially do to Hume consciously not going over the line of outright heresy. But the bigger reason for the lack of Hume-hating just seems to be that Hume was nice guy and people liked him. Niceness seemed to be a rare quality in the people described in this book, so Hume sort of stood out in this regard. Another reason Hume is a badass is because his writings seemed to be a wonderful mix of western and eastern philosophy. Which is surprising considering most people believe Hume would have had little knowledge of Buddhist writings at the time (though there is an interesting article discussing this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/). Anyways, the bottom line is that Hume is an interesting guy. I mean, how could you not be if you have a quote like this:
Aside from the Hume chapter, I liked the Spinoza one quite a bit, but they were all pretty good. The author definitely lets his own biases and preferences shine through in the chapters, which I actually enjoyed. The changing tones made some otherwise dry material a little more enjoyable to read, even if it came at the cost of some objectivity. You can tell Hume is his idol, and you can also tell he straight up hates John Locke. Overall, the book was a good time.
I read it over a long period of time. I would pick it up and read a chapter here or there and then set it back down for a while. Because I have the retention capacity of a guppy, I've long forgotten most of the early chapters, but I remember enjoying them!! That should count for something.
Of the chapters I do remember, I really liked the one on Hume. Hume seems like such a cool dude. He was skeptical about just about everything (arguably even in the value of skepticism itself). This typically would have gotten him into a lot of trouble back in the day when you could get in trouble for roasting the church. But Hume was such a smooth operator that he always wrote in a way that seemed to avoid anybody getting offended. This is at least partially do to Hume consciously not going over the line of outright heresy. But the bigger reason for the lack of Hume-hating just seems to be that Hume was nice guy and people liked him. Niceness seemed to be a rare quality in the people described in this book, so Hume sort of stood out in this regard. Another reason Hume is a badass is because his writings seemed to be a wonderful mix of western and eastern philosophy. Which is surprising considering most people believe Hume would have had little knowledge of Buddhist writings at the time (though there is an interesting article discussing this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/). Anyways, the bottom line is that Hume is an interesting guy. I mean, how could you not be if you have a quote like this:
Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.
Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.
Aside from the Hume chapter, I liked the Spinoza one quite a bit, but they were all pretty good. The author definitely lets his own biases and preferences shine through in the chapters, which I actually enjoyed. The changing tones made some otherwise dry material a little more enjoyable to read, even if it came at the cost of some objectivity. You can tell Hume is his idol, and you can also tell he straight up hates John Locke. Overall, the book was a good time.
paulataua's review against another edition
3.0
A reasonably interesting read, but tends to fall between two stools in trying to combine rather than separate the life and works. You get a taste, but are never allowed to take a good mouthful. Good if your aim is to get a very simple outline of roughly what a particular philosopher is saying.
rpmiller's review against another edition
3.0
As an introductory text with a broad scope, this book is quite good. However, as with the preceding book in the series (The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance), there is insufficient depth in some of the chapters. In several cases, I feel Gottlieb has not understood the philosophers he is writing about.
As far as scope, I wanted to see if there was past thought along the lines of some of my own thinking. It appears that Spinoza and Leibniz share some of those ideas, as did Parmenides from the previous work. Oddly, Gottlieb missed the mark on all three, in my opinion, even digging a deeper hole by bringing up Parmenides several times in this book. Still, for me, it was worth reading this book to find those later philosophers without reading all of the rest.
An example: "This sounds a little like Parmenides’s famously implausible theory that everything is unreal except for 'the One.'" Little remains of Parmenides actual writings, and his contemporaries probably misunderstood him as well. My reading of those fragments leads to a different conclusion than being implausible.
Or this example: Leibniz wrote "the universe—which is “all of one piece, like an ocean”
There are some interesting quotations as well. Leibniz "time and space are purely relative. They are not entities in their own right, but consist merely in the relations between objects" or about Voltaire, Gottlieb wrote "He also profitably exploited a loophole in French lotteries that had been pointed out to him by a mathematician."
As far as scope, I wanted to see if there was past thought along the lines of some of my own thinking. It appears that Spinoza and Leibniz share some of those ideas, as did Parmenides from the previous work. Oddly, Gottlieb missed the mark on all three, in my opinion, even digging a deeper hole by bringing up Parmenides several times in this book. Still, for me, it was worth reading this book to find those later philosophers without reading all of the rest.
An example: "This sounds a little like Parmenides’s famously implausible theory that everything is unreal except for 'the One.'" Little remains of Parmenides actual writings, and his contemporaries probably misunderstood him as well. My reading of those fragments leads to a different conclusion than being implausible.
Or this example: Leibniz wrote "the universe—which is “all of one piece, like an ocean”
There are some interesting quotations as well. Leibniz "time and space are purely relative. They are not entities in their own right, but consist merely in the relations between objects" or about Voltaire, Gottlieb wrote "He also profitably exploited a loophole in French lotteries that had been pointed out to him by a mathematician."