Customer Reviews

Greek and Roman Philosophy After Aristotle (Readings in the History of Philosophy)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For people like me, books like this are a great benefit. I'm not a philosopher, but I frequently run across references to ancient philosophers in my reading. At the same time, reading pre-digested summaries or histories is usually not as interesting or challenging as reading extended, essential exerpts first-hand. "Geek and Roman Philosophers After Aristotle" covers Hellenistic philosophy from ca.322 BCE to ca.300 CE. The book is divided into six sections: I.Epicureanism, II.Stoicism, III.Skepticism, IV.Philo of Alexandria, V.Plotinus, and VI.Early Christian Thought. There is a 12-page general introduction, and a short introduction for each of the six sections. Jason Saunders lets the philosophers speak for themselves, sometimes at length, particularly Lucretius, Philo and Plotinus. The book may seem to some to be overly Christian, but that's at least partly why I wanted it. The translations vary from the classic (McKenna) to clunky antiques, but as noted above, it's a handy, concise, 360-page collection, so my thumb is up.

As religious fanaticism makes a big comeback in the US it is important to remember that rational understanding has a longer tradition in the West than the popularity of the current most widespread organized supersitions. This book gathers under one cover most of the major philosophical systems of the Hellenistc Greeks-- the Epicureans, Stoics and the Skeptics (always valuable to read as an antidote to dogmatism). Neo-Platonists (from whom the Christians copped their theology) are also represented--i.e., Philo and Plotinus. There is also a section on early Chrisitan "thought"-- "With our faith, we desire no further belief"-- Tertullian ( of 'credo quia absurdum' fame). Having all this variety of philosophy and anti-philosophy in one book will give you a good mental workout.

I gave this book a very condiscending review a couple of years ago, and I admit I was far too critical... It does have its flaws, but I reviewed it without a thorough enough reading of it, and the faults are not with the author, but with the simple fact that there just weren't any really forceful philosophers living in this age. I give it three stars instead. I offer my aplogies to the author, and anyone else who may have been mislead by my previous rview. I give it three stars.