Customer Reviews

What Is Ancient Philosophy?

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Pierre Hadot's approach, which studies the ancient Greek philosophers with an emphasis on the existential choice that lies at the heart of their philosophical life, is generally well respected but also rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Some have entirely subsumed philosophy under the category of 'philosophical discourse', and thus consider the ancient notion of philosophia with skepticism; others might accuse Hadot of turning his back to modernity and its urgent interrogations, choosing instead to seek refuge in a remote past; theorists of a supposed 'crisis of values' who have apparently disqualified the ancients regarding ethics, or proponents of 'applied ethics' who have taken a similar road. What is ironic is that those who adopt a secular point of view and fear that Hadot wants to bring ancient philosophy dangerously close to a religious, monastic life, tend to use arguments very similar to those of the Christians who gradually stripped that philosophy of its ethical, spiritual roots (Hadot writes about this latter theme here). Meanwhile, one should note that Hadot's book is anything but dogmatic: the author does not posit a 'peak' of philosophy and then an unremediable decadence afterwards; he rather argues that the notion of philosophy as a way of life has in fact survived, however unevenly, throughout the history of philosophy. Thus, the object of the book is less some sort of remote past and ideas, but a very healthy and living line of thought that still feeds modern thinkers and can obviously enable us to face the problems modernity entails. This crucial book should be read by every philosopher.

The crucial thing about this book is that its author, while a noted practicing Philospher himself, clearly understands, and can clearly explain, the deep divide between what passes for Philosophy today and what it once was. Ancient Philosophy was a way of looking at one's life, and a way of living one's life. But don't expect a new-agey self-help book, either! This is not a book of platitudes - it is a thoughtful and at times difficult book.

The main focus of the book is on the development of Platonism and Stoicism - but Hadot takes us on a few side-roads as well. There is a great deal of attention given to later Platonism in particular. This aspect of the book is what makes it so important, in my opinion. Hadot tells the story of how the "Hellenes" circled their philosophical and spiritual wagons in the waning days of Classical Civlization - so-called Late Antiquity. But there is no sentimentality or histrionics.

If you are like me then as soon as you finish this book you will get and read Aurelius' "Meditations" - and then promptly move on to reading Plato. More than anything else this book is a perfect starting point for reading Plato.

Pierre Hadot's thesis is that the ancient Greek philosophical schools did not view philosophy merely as an abstract theoretical discipline, but as a transformative spiritual path. He also shows how this view became incorporated into Christianity and how it has definite similarities to Buddhism and Taoism. Ancient Greek philosophy has much to teach us, and Plato would have agreed with Marx that philosophy should not just interpret the world, but also change it. A fairly easy book to read, and (if you are interested in philosophy) enjoyable.

Accessible to any reader interested in what philosophy was like before it was taken over by the academic professors, especially under the influence of Christianity. This book is an introduction to the problems and arguments that constitute ancient philosophy. In keeping with Socrates' dictum that the unexamined life is not worth living, Hadot shows that philosophy was not simply a process for creating theories but, more importantly, a way of life for many.

Although we should be grateful to the translator for performing the tedious task; the translation is somewhat flat. However, I doubt there is a specialist in ancient philosophy who will not be enriched by reading this book and warmly recommend it to those in between.

The idea of philosophy as a lived practice, rather than an academic discipline from which one retires at the end of the work day, is articulated by Hadot through the many examples of ancient philosophy in the western tradition. The writing here is engaging enough that it doesn't matter if you don't know Epictetus from Epicurus, you will get something out of this book. That aside, even the most lofty, Greek-reading classicist should be able to find something of interest since Hadot presents his ideas (and the ancients themselves) with such life. This book is another reminder that the history of philosophy isn't just the history of ideas and disembodied arguments, it is the history of people, their situations, and their practices.

Hadot's What is Ancient Philosophy is the summation of a lifetime of research and practice in philosophy.
His thesis is fairly simple. Ancient philosophy begins in an existential choice. That choice is based on a vision of the world and a way of life based on that vision. It results in both a philosophical practice and a philosophical discourse. The practice has become largely ignored in favor of focusing on the discourse and this has resulted in a fairly complete misunderstanding of ancient philosophy.
I am not claiming that Hadot's presentation of ancient philosophy is completely correct. I think there are some problems with his formulation but before I get into that, I want to broadly outline his thesis.
First, when Hadot say ancient philosophy he means Greek and Roman philosophy- in spite of some other reviewers he is very cautious about comparisons to other traditions, such as Buddhism, Judaism or Taoism.
He sees that tradition of philosophy as largely composed of the Platonic Academy, Aristotle's school, Epicureanism and Stoicism. He also talks about the Cynics and the Pythagoreans although not in as much detail.
At the end of the book (p.278) he suggest that these schools represent fundamental alternatives toward human existence. All cultures can probably be shown to exhibit some variant of these alternatives.
Each of these schools posits an ethics, a physics and a theology. These three components were mutually supportive and served to explain the role of humanity in the cosmos and the role of the individual in the city, with their family and in the development of their own soul. The expression of these three components made up the philosophers discourse.
But that discourse was just empty words without the philosophers practice.
This practice took many forms some of which were specific to one school but many of which were common to all the schools. There was frequently a social component which might be the dedication to philosophical dialogue (as exemplified in Plato and some of the writings of Cicero), or to living together as a group following rules and regulations (which likely heavily influenced the monastic orders that Christianity developed). There were spiritual exercises that served to distance the individual philosopher from her everyday point of view. For example, she might be encouraged to develope the "view from above" which tried to see all of her life as if from a great almost cosmic distance. From this perspective, all her hopes, disappointments, stivings as well of those of others seemed equally petty and small. All events and all things seemed of equal value. She became detached from her everyday human ties to these things.
Or she might be encouraged to be mindful of the omnipresence of the possibility of her death. From this perspective, each moment became incredibly precious, an unfolding experience that she must give herself over to with all her being.
I want to throw in a personal aside here. I studied philosophy at Sir George Williams University in Montreal, Quebec in the '70s. I do not want to diminish in any way what I learned there. I took a year long seminar in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason from Prof. Vladimir Zeman that changed my life and taught me what little I know about being a scholar.
But the sort of exercises that Hadot describes as being the core of the daily life of the ancient philosopher were completely unheard of in what I was taught. Or, I suspect, in what most of our universities teach. Hadot dissects the meaning of the word philosophy as the lover of wisdom- not she who is wise but she who persues wisdom.
As Hadot points out, that lack of focus on philosophical practice distorts that history. By focusing on theoretical discourse and its most coherent expression, we lose sight of the possibility that these things were not what was most valued in ancient philosophy. Ancient philosophers were trying to work with their friends, their associates, their families and their communities to effect changes in their souls. Their written material was teaching material designed to be used by different types of students. Consistancy is not to be expected (p. 274) Aporiai happen.
So what are the flaws in this account? Let me suggest two. First, Hadot like many others, sees the ancients as too much of a piece for my taste.
Read Part Two of his book carefully. He had wonderful sections devoted to each school- to their fundamental outlook, their ethics, physics, theology and their spiritual exercises. Read the section on Aristotle and his school. They were a little different. They come across in Hadot's narrative almost like a research program a là Lakatos (I am showing my philosophical age). In other words, they do not come across as particularly spiritual. They read more like a bunch of secular humanist scientists out to destroy Christmas. More seriously, they don't sound interested in spiritual practices. Their practice was to accumulate knowledge. I think Hadot tries a little too hard to force them into his framework.
Which segues into my second issue with Hadot. He sees philosophy as necessarily a rational enterprise. It seems to me in my investigations into spiritual practice that at some point one is brought face to face with the ineffable. Not the irrational but the ineffable. One is brought into contact with that which cannot be spoken, let alone put into a propositional logic. To the extent that ancient philosophy is grounded in rationality is the extent to which it cannot deal with this.
But I think that some of the spiritual exercises Hadot discusses are designed to bring our friend the philsopher face to face with just that. If I am reading Hadot correctly, I believe that he gets this aspect of the history wrong.
These are minor complaints about what is a magnificent work. I have been strongly influenced by my readings in Strauss of late. There are many similarities (the insistence on philosophy as a way of life) and many differences to explore between these two. More universally, Hadot is a challenge to almost everyone's approach to ancient philosophy. His work simply has to be faced and learned from.
Anyone who reads the Greek and Roman philosophers and who tries to learn from them has much to gain from this book. It is one thing to read Cicero or Seneca or Plato. It is another to try to live one's life based on such reading. Hadot just might inspire you to try.

Accessible to any reader interested in what philosophy was like before it was taken over by the academic professors, especially under the influence of Christianity. This book is an introduction to the problems and arguments that constitute ancient philosophy. In keeping with Socrates' dictum that the unexamined life is not worth living, Hadot shows that philosophy was not simply a process for creating theories but, more importantly, a way of life for many. <br /> <br /> Although we should be grateful to the translator for performing the tedious task; the translation is somewhat flat. However, I doubt there is a specialist in ancient philosophy who will not be enriched by reading this book and warmly recommend it to those in between.

This is a good book for reviewing the main features of the ancient philosophical schools. Hadot's thesis is that ancient philosophers lived their philosophy and didn't just teach it, as modern philosophy professors do. For Socrates and other ancient thinkers, philosophy meant a way of life and not just a body of doctrines. The book then shows how the rise of the universities in the Middle Ages diluted this ancient concept. Hadot ends with a brief summary look at modern philosophers (Descartes to the present) who stressed the importance of actually living according to their philosophies. What I found strange is that Hadot never mentions Heidegger, and this is a little cowardice on the author's part. Hadot assumes that living philosophically means living like a good modern liberal, but in Heidegger's case it meant adhering to the Nazi regime. Strong philosophical convictions aren't necessarily sound ones, so maybe it's a blessing that more philosophy professors don't "act out" their beliefs. In short, this book is best at presenting an overview of ancient philosophy and weakest in its attempt to extrapolate from this era to our own.

This book is not an introduction to ancient thought, but rather a seriously in-depth inquiry into the Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Skeptic, and other Hellenistic schools way of thinking and living. The subject matter is very interesting; unfortunately, the writing style is turgid and tedious. The repetitions involved provoke way too much yawning. Hadot is not what you would call a lively writer.

The gist of Hadot's book is this: The ancients lived their philosophies as a way of life; thinking about the big questions was embedded in the mundane and quotidian routines they lived through. This practice of living consciously slowly evaporated as Christianity began to dominate the European world. Thus began the rift between theory and practice.

The primary point that Hadot wants to indicate is that philosophical discourse assumes philosophical reflection; they are not separate processes but rather a totality for living a philosophical existence qua way of life. Yet, the philosophical living supersedes philosophical discourse; that is, action is more fundamental than language.

While the subject matter is fascinating at times, Hadot's own discourse is anything but lively. Is this the fault solely of the writing style? Or is it partially resulting from a poor translation? Or a combination of the two? Not being able to answer these questions, I can only forewarn the reader - the going gets pretty tough. Perseverance is required here.

Parataxis

The Cloud Reckoner

Extracts: A Field Guide for Iconoclasts

Pierre Hadot has spent his lifes work uncovering the reasons why philosophy was conceived, especially by the ancients. His credentials show forth with greatness in this beautiful complilation. There are to many discoveries here to mention, however two main points seem to be stressed, the philosophy of belief of faith and the practice of such, the other is,,,"Would it be wise to return to such philosophy? A moving forward seems to spring from within Pierre. No other book looks at these ancients in the way Hadot does, I do not recall a piece that analyzes in his way, it is as though he is using the same historic philosophy, but melds with 21st century thinking. A very good book that moves in this direction with parallel analysis is SB: 1 or God, I strongly recommend this authors philosophy, Karl Mark Maddox.