Scan barcode
A review by dunigan
The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy by Anthony Gottlieb
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.