The Truth About Everything: An Irreverent History of Philosophy : With Illustrations Hardcover – January 1, 1997

I can only give 4 stars thus far because I haven't finished reading the book. However, I am thoroughly enjoying it.

I previously read Stewart's "The Courtier and the Heretic" about Leibniz (the Courtier) and Spinoza (the Heretic). In that book, Stewart wove together biographical information about the key figures along with explanations of their philosophical views. In The Truth About Everything, Stewart again provides his interpretations--irreverent, as noted in the title--about various philosophical figures.

Since I am only minimally familiar with the history of philosophy, I see this book as a kind of snarky Cliff notes to help me get started.

Did you ever think of a history of philosophy that was not just interesting but funny? This is that book. Prepare to laugh and to find chapters like "Descartes : I drink therefore I am" and "Sartre : Being-in-the-Cafe". But, in my opinion, this most unusual adjective for a philosophy book --funny-- is not the principal one that I can say of it. Oddly as it may seem, at the end of the book, the adjectives that came to my mind (or body?) were : saddening, shocking, distressful. Because it woke me up from my dogmatic dream : that philosophy was important and useful. This book imposes a dramatic change of view about philosophy and the great philosophers. For example, after reading the chapter on the sophists, I got the impression that they were just "consultants" of their time. If this is true, they contributed much more to the welfare of their society than the lazy Socrates. Of course, nobody is saying that this book contains THE truth about philosophy, but it contains ENOUGH truth for me to unhesitatingly make the decision NOT to read any other philosophy book in my life. Besides, I've already read more philosophy books than I want to remember. If you are an amateur philosophy fan as I WAS, don't miss this book, it might be your last.
P.S. : Whatever you do, don't skip the chapter "Heidegger : Much Ado about Being"

Even where I disagree with the author, the book offers insights that are both compelling and unique to the genre. The Courtier and the Heretic by the same author I would recommend without any reservations.

[Note – I read the Kindle, which does not seem to be currently available.]

This book takes the reader on a tour of the history of philosophy, and the author attempts to show the problem with practically all philosophies through history. The generalized problem is that philosophy as practice in the past and present attempts to provide a theory of everything—the ultimate why question—or, as he calls it the “Holy Grail.” Philosophies differ in what exactly is the why, but all have historically sought it, as Matthew Stewart sees it. He works his way beginning with the pre-Socratic philosophers through the big three (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) into the Hellenistic period. From there he covers Neoplatonism, early, mid, and late middle ages, Renaissance, early modern, modern, and recent philosophies, culminating in philosophy of mind. At the end of the book he tells what philosophy should be doing and practicing, including the hiring of non-Ph.D.s for regular college teachers.

Here are some specific comments based on pieces of text and some general remarks formulated at certain points as I was reading. Kindle locations are given in brackets [] with @ indicating a general remark.

[758] In commenting on Socrates’ idea that “virtue is knowledge,” and “that being good will also make you happy.” Stewart says, “presumably, those bank robbers [mentioned earlier] are miserable.” If they are angry bank robbers, this may well be the case. I feel that it is either impossible or very hard for angry and mean people to be happy. He states shortly after [806]: “Likewise there is much evidence to suggest bad people can be happy . . .” First, I ask what evidence? He provides none. However, this does not affect my feeling because I am claiming it for angry and mean people.

[847] “Nothing can kill a philosophical discussion as quickly as a fact.” That is why philosophy must be informed by science.

[1233] Stewart says that Aristotle thinks: “Wisdom is true knowledge.” I would say instead that wisdom is the ability to use knowledge in making good life decisions.

[1467] “The first kind of skepticism is closest to the original meaning of the word, and perhaps best captures the insight behind philosophy. <i>Skepsis</i> is simply a nontechnical word for thinking, or reflective inquiry—in brief, ‘searching,’ in the mental rather than physical sense of the term.” (italics in the original) This is inline with my belief that philosophy is all about exploring and not necessarily about finding an answer. When an answer is found it becomes knowledge, and it is no longer philosophy.

[1484] As a parenthetical remark to the Liar’s paradox he says: “(The answer, of course, is that he is a philosopher and should be ignored in polite society.)” :-)

[1494] “From the smorgasbord of three millennia of philosophy, writers today simply mix and match their own strange dishes.” I could be accused of this. But, I hope my dishes are tasty.

[1517] Speaking in relation to the time of the cult of Mithras: “The philosophies and religions all promised consolation. They offered happiness to those who were unhappy.” This has probably never been true, and when we look at Schopenhauer and Nietzsche it is definitely not true.

[1621] “Whether or not this kind [never mind what kind] of quasi-truth therapy works in individual cases, it is by no means a sure-fire cure. After all, it is just <i>talk</i>.” (author’s italics) Does he mean they need anti-philosophy drug like an anti-depressant, when therapy is not enough. Therapy is just talk after all.

[1681] “The first truth [of Buddhism] is that life is quite unpleasant. It’s one bad thing after another . . .” Maybe some people’s lives are like this, but I think most people find a certain amount of good things in life in addition to the bad that unavoidably occurs. “Second, the cause of our suffering in life is our own desires.” Oh yeah, my desires really gave me a stomach mass. “Third, the cessation of suffering is possible if we give up on our desires and our illusory notion of self.” This is idiotic and impossible despite what the gurus claim. And, disassociation is considered a mental illness. “The result [of all of this], if you’re lucky, is a dissolution of the self and an encounter with <i>Nirvana</i>, or the Nothing, which is what is ultimate reality.” So you give up and live with a mental illness.

[1740] “Yet so much, perhaps all, of philosophy seems to end in a form of religion—even if a bizarre religion, like that of Socrates. How is this possible?” When philosophy becomes dogma, and is no longer an exploration of things and ideas.

[2066] “Put another way existence is part of the definition of God.” Only as much as anything else. Why should god be so privileged? That is why “is” is not considered in logic a predicate that is attached to a subject.

[2595] “Our eyes, after all, merely offer us a pallid and probably false representation of what things really look like.” Things do not look like anything at all without eyes and a nervous system.

[2747] “How can the mind want anything, if it has no passions?” It cannot—feelings and thoughts are interconnected.

[3327] I agree with Stewart. If Kant’s treat others as ends and not as means really means just to respect others, then it is an admirable principle to aim for.

[@3888] At points in this chapter on Kant it seems like gobbledygook explaining gobbledygook. The same could be said in other chapters on idealists and existentialists.

[5179] In a section where Stewart takes on the persona of Hegel he writes: “Hegel (or was it I?) said, the introduction, the statement of the aim of a philosophical work, is nothing; it is the doing that counts.” Am I in agreement with Hegel here? Well, I see philosophy as an exploration, but an introduction serves as a kind of road map; it furnishes the things to be explored, so I guess I am not really in agreement with Hegel (or is it Stewart) after all.

[5292] “<b>The Principle of Intellectual Indigestion.</b> Consumption of too many philosophies interferes with clear thinking, and may induce apocalyptic nightmare and/or delusions of grandeur.” His humor is visible throughout the book, but this is one of his best.

[5800] Stewart writing about the logical positivists states: “Philosophy can still be a universal science if it limits itself to questions about what can and cannot be expressed sensibly. But the bounds of sense are the bounds of what can be expressed, and the bounds of what can be expressed are the bounds of thought.” So, philosophy turns into a kind of proofreading of sentences and the propositions they state.

[5807] Continuing with the analytic philosophers, he further states: “If something can be thought, it can be expressed. If it cannot be expressed, it cannot be thought.” I am not so sure of this position because I tend to think that we do not think in language anyway. Our thoughts are translated into language is my notion. So, neither part of this quotes appears to be correct if I am right in this notion.

[5844] “Hegel was reduced to an empty cover.” An excellent dig at Hegel.

[5944] Quoting Ludwig Wittgenstein in his <Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus</i>, “6.43 The mystical lies in accepting what <i>is, that</i> it is. It is accepting the form of life.” Sounds more like stoicism to me.

[6070-91] In connection with his “THE TENURE SUTRA,” [His dig at the tenure track] Stewart has a webpage @ http://mwstewart.com/about/ where he claims: “I graduated from Princeton University in 1985 with a concentration in political philosophy. I was awarded the Sachs Scholarship from Princeton for study at Oxford University, where I earned a D.Phil. in philosophy in 1988. In the course of my doctoral studies, I discovered what I took to be irrefutable philosophical objections to pursuing a career in academic philosophy.” This along with his suggestion to hire university teachers without Ph.D.s [6399], where he writes: “The Ph.D. in its present form is a membership purchased by economic indentureship in an exclusive guild whose function is to restrict the natural activity of the marketplace,” suggests he did not feel well about his university education experience. I still wonder if he just did not find an academic position upon graduating. I do not know; it is just a suspicion (probably false). Anyway the economic situation is probably similar in all fields of study once you reach graduate studies.

This last point is maybe why he decided to write such a book, that attacks practically every form of philosophy. He only seems partially pleased at the work of Hume, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. But, it also appears that he had an immense amount of fun writing it. I would also agree for the most part, but especially so for philosophical positions that deem to know the answer for certain, instead of being an exploration. I believe that anything in philosophy that asserts itself as an absolute truth is no longer philosophy, but something more akin to theology, which seeks to prove dogma. And then over time some of philosophy has been turned over to science. Science, while always open to revision, is the closest we can come to know what is what in the universe. Overall, I enjoyed the book a lot. I only wish he spent less time on idealism and existentialism, but again there is a lot to critique in these parts of philosophy. I also found the book to be very amusing in places. Stewart certainly has a wry sense of humor.

My recommendation for this book is for those that have any interest in philosophy. But, especially those who desire to see philosophy criticized in all its twists and turns. There is a lot to learn about philosophy in this book even if you do not agree with Stewart’s conclusions. It reminds me of Walter Kaufmann’s <i>Critique of Religion and Philosophy</i> with the exception that Kaufmann’s book lacks the sense of playfulness that this book has.