16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brevity without sacrificing depth, January 11, 2006
I stumbled upon this book, upon Gombrowicz, really, purely by chance. The man was a true artist and genius--if you like fiction, read Cosmos; one of the best novels I have read recently.
I would only recommend his Guide to Philosophy, though, to those with either a deep interest in Gombrowicz or a deep interest in Continental philosophy. I, being a student of philosophy, really loved this book, and found it helpful in forming an understanding of the bigger picture presented in the unfolding of Continental philosophy.
First, it must be noted that the entire book is basically assembled from notes and scribbles; many incomplete thoughts, a lot of rambling and jumping from one idea to a completely different one, even some words missing, etc. But for anybody with a decent understanding of philosophy, his discussions can reach great depth.
He discusses Kant's first two Critiques in a fair amount of detail (but in my opinion he gets some stuff wrong, or at least oversimplifies it too much). He also spends some time elaborating on particular ideas recurrent in Sartrean/Heideggerian existentialism, and also Marxism. His discussions of Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche are all very brief, and seem mainly to supplement the others. Best of all, though, is Gombrowicz's keen insight on Schopenhauer. He goes to some lengths to interpret and praise the largely neglected pessimist.
All of this in a little over 100 pages--I read it in a couple hours. Makes you wish he had a chance to spend more time finishing and revising it. Honestly, despite being unpolished and unfinished, this is the best history of philosophy primer out there, save for Karl Jaspers' unfinished volumes. Gombrowicz' humor and insight definitely make this book worth the effort and money.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
deathbed philosophy for the depressed, July 27, 2010
This review is from: A Guide to Philosophy in Six Hours and Fifteen Minutes (Paperback)
Wealthy people have lost the ability to produce anything but trouble, so it is about time people started to pay attention to how immature the big shots in philosophy have always been for someone like Gombrowicz who sees through the confusion. I love this book. Nietzsche did not write philosophy because he was too busy shredding its intellectual underwear. Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche were Polish. The leftists were killed in Poland when they had a revolution because the proletariat is ruled by the needs of the people and leftists are aristocrats. Kant established that space and time come from us. Religion has allowed the upper crust to put a limit on what ordinary people are allowed to do, but justice in the sky when you die is just a trick to keep those who suffer chained in their servitude. Descartes and Sartre were afraid: God and Marxism were the outlets for their need to rationalize their own misery. The more I think about this book, the better I like it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Don't learn philosophy from a novelist!, January 11, 2008
This review is from: A Guide to Philosophy in Six Hours and Fifteen Minutes (Paperback)
Maybe someone in the Amazon community can disabuse me of this notion, but this book seems almost entirely worthless. If you want a very quick introduction to these philosophers, you would do better on Wikipedia (especially the German version). Gombrowicz is, I think, one of the principal novelists of the last century. His short stories are tremendous; "Cosmos" in the new translation is a masterpiece. I thought that even if I wasn't persuaded by his take on philosophy, I might learn something about him, or about his novels; and I also thought I'de be entertained, because he can be fabulously funny.
But I can't get any insight into his novels from this; it's apparently intended to be whimsical, but for me, at least, there isn't much whimsy here. And I would not read it for information about these philosophers.
But if someone out there can make the connection between his novels and this book, I'd be happy to hear about it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No