Customer Reviews

A History of Philosophy, Vol. 7: Modern Philosophy - From the Post-Kantian Idealists to Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche

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

 

 

Copleston's series, "The History of Philosophy", is quite possibly the best introduction to the history of philosophical thought that has ever been published and certainly the best currently in print.

You will be hard pressed to find a better collection of solid philosophical surveys in one place. The beauty of the series is that Copleston has clearly done his research on each period and each thinker of Western philosophy.

I cannot recommend this series any more highly. It is a must-have collection for anyone who is a scholar (professional or casual) of philosophy, theology or any of the arts.

If this isn't on your bookshelf, it should be!

My Credentials:

I'm merely a student of philosophy for the time being, not a teacher, so I'm no scholar. I have, however, read Copleston through the seventh volume, so I'm certainly a veteran of his History; I know its strengths and weaknesses.

Review:

The volume does a wonderful job of delineating the complex systems of metaphysical idealism, which I was somewhat intimated to approach. Copleston is esoterically extensive in his consideration of Fitche, Schelling and Hegel. Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard are well-treated.

The volume is also strong in its covering of minor thinkers (as are ALL Copleston volumes).

The volume is utterly pathetic in its examination of the twentieth-century German titans: Husserl and Hiedegger. I would also argue that it is weak in its examination of Nietzsche, but I may be over estimating this philosopher's position in history.

Copleston's history is a good introduction to the main currents of philosophy. It contains more solid information and less fluff than Will Durant's books. Copleston covers almost every philosopher that a good student would need to know, and does so accurately. My only criticism is that he sometimes inserts a few sentences of vague generalizations into an otherwise content-rich chapter. Some editor should have removed those prior to publication. Nonetheless, an excellent book!

This is the seventh volume of Frederick Copleston's classic "History of Philosophy". It covers what is easily the golden age of philosophy - or at least German philosophy.

Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer are treated at length (Copleston is surprisingly positive towards Hegel). There are also chapters on Marx and Engels, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and the Neo-Kantian movement, plus some lesser known thinkers.

When reading Copleston's overview, I somehow got the feeling that I finally understood Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, three thinkers notoriously difficult to "grok". An illusion? Perhaps, but I like to remain in that state for a while... Besides, it says something about Copleston's ability as a communicator.

Incidentally, Kant is treated already in the sixth volume. But then, his philosophy is pure cant, anyway!

Five stars.

The post Kantian metaphysical idealists are perhaps impossible to understand if you are a realist like me (trained in the 50's by the Jesuits and a former fighter pilot) Working on notes for a book I realized that modern philosophy from Descartes on is simply an exercise in "beings of reason" (entia rationis in Latin) creations or products of the mind alone and strictly mind dependent, inspired perhaps by other philosophers or traditional philosophy but NOT founded on the only reality which is the the order of Creation, real beings created and UNCREATED, substance, accident, cause etc.; the real contingency of created things lead with inevitable logic to the Creator, a non contingent being whose essence is to exist.

After Kant left wreckage of classical philosophy, but leaving fundamental flaws in his own Copernican Revolution, it seems the people after him took to such lengths as to add to his errors, hence the dawning of the idealists.

They were obsessed with the idea of subject and object. The idealists thought that there was an infinite will. They started with Philosophy of the first science, stating fundamental truths. Why are they fundamental truths? Because they said so. Hence was the problem. They threw around infinite will, absolute ego, absolute consciousness, ad nauseum until it made you wonder whether they had any idea what they were talking about.

The main problem is that they essentially thought the individual is the way the absolute ego becomes conscious of himself, so in essence we're all the same unified blob that simply thinks we're completely separate entities. They keep talking about self-realization and other warm fuzzies that just struck this reader as silly sophistry.

In all honesty, Fichte and Schelling had some good things to say, though their underlying mentality was flawed. Hegel was nauseating, and the worst case of mental masturbation this reader has ever encountered. Copleston defended Hegel a few times, essentially saying "It isn't completely empty-headed blather, hear him out a little." No, it really was that dumb.

After their silly ponderings the cynical but down to earth writing of Schopenhauer was welcomed.

It's really a shame such little space was devoted to Kierkegaard, who had more poignant things to say than all the idealists combined. Nietzsche gets more attention, but his musings are less philosophical investigations as vicious ranting.

A shame Copleston chose to focus so much on such lightweights, but this reader might have missed something too.