The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson

The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson

Most historians of thought have a tendency to skip over what they refer to as "The Dark Ages," going straight from ancient Greece and Rome to the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Sure, there was some literature and art in this Christian-dominated period, but philosophy did not develop at all (so the historians claim) until people like Descartes arrived. Gilson examines if there was a mediaeval philosophy. Clearly, European thought was dominated by Christianity but it did not develop in a vacuum and plenty of authors in Jewish and Muslim traditions commented and expanded upon classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

Gilson has a lot of issues to grapple with. Theological reflection was the primary interest in the middle ages, but that did not exclude the application and adaptation of philosophical ideas to their Biblical understanding of the world. "Faith Seeking Understanding" is the motivation and inspiration of thinkers from Saint Augustine to Saint Thomas Aquinas (held as the exemplar of Christian philosophy). Syncing up philosophical insights with theological insights creates a new system, built on the shoulders of what came before, but clearly going higher and in different directions from what came before.

After affirming the existence of mediaeval philosophy, Gilson runs through many other issues, showing the mediaeval Christian anthropology, including epistemological and moral concepts unknown or underdeveloped in the classical period. The meaning and purpose of human life has a tremendous shift with the revelation of a personal God who becomes man and shares in our life. The age did have a distinctive philosophy (often imbedded in the theology).

The book is a very technical and detailed discussion of these issues. Gilson is a persuasive writer but the text is dry and aimed at an audience that has a lot of familiarity with mediaeval Christianity and classical issues in philosophy. I found it tough going in spots, even with a lot of prior knowledge of the issues involved.

Mildly recommended--this requires some pre-requisites to appreciate fully.

Sample quote, the key shift that distinguished medieval thought:

"There is but one God and this God is Being, that is the corner-stone of all Christian philosophy, and it was not Plato, it was not even Aristotle, it was Moses who put it into position." p. 51

Book Review: Conversations of Socrates by Xenophon

Conversations of Socrates by Xenophon

Socrates is one of those historical characters who is famous but never wrote anything himself, so people rely on others' testimonies. Plato is the most famous source, though scholars readily acknowledge that after the first couple of writings, Socrates turns into a mouthpiece for Plato's philosophy rather than Socrates' own. Aristophanes wrote a satirical play with Socrates portrayed in a lesser light. Xenophon, like Plato, was a follower of Socrates. He wrote several Socratic dialogues, collected here.

First is "Socrates' Defense," a recounting of Socrates's trial when he was accused of impiety and corrupting youth. Socrates cites examples of him offering gifts to the Athenian gods and that he has always taught that people, especially youth, might improve themselves. He's a bit arrogant and might come off as self-righteous. Even so, Socrates does not resist the death sentence, claiming it is better to die under the law (even with a false accusation) than to live to old age where his faculties will deteriorate. He offers no alternate punishment and refuses to let his friends do so. The style of writing is not as polished and vivid as Plato's, who presents Socrates with a more humble attitude toward the jury and accusers. Also, Plato's Socrates says nothing about senility while accepting the judgment of the state.

Second is "Memoirs of Socrates," a collection of random dialogues where Socrates investigates various topics. Socrates asks a lot of questions, looking to find the truth. The topics ramble a bit and there is some repeated material from other works. Each little section has some moral or some opinion that Socrates wants to get across, almost like Aesop's fables with people rather than animals. This part is interesting enough but has nothing great to offer.

Third is "The Dinner-Party." After a meal and a libation to the gods, the attendees discuss various subjects and entertainers perform. In this text, Callias, an ambitious but young man, invites Socrates and his friends to a dinner party to show off his learning. Others state their finest abilities as a young couple provides acrobatic and musical entertainment. The narrative has less of the moralizing of the "Memoirs" and has some nice, funny moments. It touches on love, like Plato's Symposium (another dinner party narrative), but not in nearly as much depth.

Fourth is "The Estate-Manager," a discussion about managing one's possessions well. Socrates plays the usual naive interlocutor. The first part has a discussion with Critobulus, where Socrates clarifies that the best possessions are what are useful to the owner. Also, hard work and self-discipline are the key to success in estate management and life in general. He gets into more detail in the second part where Socrates recalls a conversation with Ischomachus, a farmer reputed to be a "good man." Ischomachus describes how he trained his wife to managed the household, how they both govern their slaves, and some technical bits about farming. The Isomachus discussion is interesting as he is the active questioner/explainer and Socrates has the passive learner part in the dialogue.

This book is interesting as a different perspective on Socrates, though the editor comments that, like with Plato, often Socrates is more of a mouthpiece for Xenophon's ideas than for Socrates. I found it interesting as a student of philosophy but probably won't reread it.

Mildly recommended.

Book Review: The Hound of Distributism ed. Richard Aleman

The Hound of Distributism edited by Richard Aleman

In the early twentieth century, Catholic thinkers G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc advocated for social and political reform guided by Christian principles. They called it "Distributism" and based it on the Catholic idea of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity, in its most basic form, has social or community problems dealt with at the lowest level of society that can solve the problem. A local doctor can and does deal with a variety of common maladies, there's no need to go to a larger institution to get basic care or prescription medicines. Such a system results in better and more personal care for people without a lot of bureaucracy, delay, and waste. In fact, if government agencies are not involved in the solution, so much the better. Locally-run food banks are better than federally-run food stamps.

The other Distributist principle is identifying the basic unit of society. In Capitalism, the basic social unit is the individual, whose needs are paramount and whose prosperity is the focus of the system. Wealth and property can be concentrated in the hands of a few individuals if they are the most clever, hard working, or organized. In Socialism, the State is the basic social unit. Wealth and property are owned and managed by the central government for the benefit of citizens who are expected to contribute as they are able. For Distributists, the basic unit of society is the family. An individual cannot constitute a social unit and the state is not a necessary institution. Families can exist more or less independently, though groups of families create greater economic potential by allowing groups to focus on individual goods or services that they produce. The first society people experience is the family, a very formative and influential time that cultivates attitudes for life.

A great deal of admiration is held for the guilds of medieval Europe. Professionals would band together to help each other by providing resources and common standards and expectations, creating fine craftsmanship in medicine, arts, construction, etc. Decentralized authority and ownership is the ideal of Distributism. Also, the workers own their own tools and have care of their own products, giving those workers personal dignity and proper self-assurance. Such an ideal (owning the tools of labor) can be found today in co-operatives and in employee ownership through stock incentives. Remnants still remain and can be revived in modern society.

The authors of the various essays admit that a Distributivist system will not be perfect but claim it will be much better than either Socialism or Capitalism. Some essays are more persuasive than others especially as they are applied to specific situations like banking, farming, and education. The implementation is tricky since it requires a larger cultural shift in attitudes towards wealth and responsibility. This book winds up being a call for that shift.

Recommended--this provides a good overview of Distributism and a fine effort to pull it into contemporary society.

Book Review: Emile by J. J. Rousseau

Emile, or On Education by Jean Jacques Rousseau, introduction, translation, and notes by Allan Bloom 

Rousseau is famous for a "back to nature" philosophy. In The Social Contract, he famously claims that men are born free but everywhere in chains. Before living in society, humans were free to do what they wanted and lived in an idyllic harmony. Entering into a larger society put restraints on human freedom that are, in Rousseau's philosophy, deleterious to human happiness. Here he discusses his ideal of education, following the same path toward human fulfillment. Emile is a fictional child put in Rousseau's care and he carefully describes how he would raise the young boy.

In addition to rejecting society life like in the big cities, Rousseau also rejects formal schooling, seeking to put Emile in nature as much as possible. Emile is to explore the world, ask questions about it, and solve problems on his own if he can. He isn't supposed to be "raised by wolves" because Rousseau carefully orchestrates and manipulates situations to ensure an optimal outcome. His concepts are interesting and have occasional persuasive moments but I found it hard not to see a lot of artificiality creeping in to Emile's natural development. He is not stuck in a classroom or in social situations but he is, to a great extent, still slotted into a specific path by his instructor. Nature isn't as wild, woolly, and dangerous as it looks to eyes other than Rousseau's. This disconnect from real experience is the problem with imagined situations. While I appreciate his optimism, he needs a bit more realism to be persuasive.

The writing style is clever and entertaining. Many moments are charming. This can be fun to read though I don't know how valuable it is. The book runs long with a lot of digressions into other topics, including a reprise of The Social Contract at the end that feels shoehorned in.

Not recommended.

Book Review: How to Destroy Western Civilization by Peter J. Kreeft

How to Destroy Western Civilization and Other Ideas from the Cultural Abyss by Peter J. Kreeft

Kreeft provides eighteen essays on the current state of our Western culture from a (mostly) philosophical view. A lot is going on that undermines the basic principles of our society, often in the name of being "tolerant" or "open-minded." The ongoing sexual revolution highlights the shift away from reality-based thinking. Truth and meaning are not found outside of ourselves; we choose them for ourselves. Reality is not something to discover and explore, which would mean that we need to be beholden to it. We need to accept reality and learn from it according to classical and Christian thinking. According to modern thought, we need to dominate, control, and define reality. 

Kreeft's discussion of the problems that arise is very insightful and interesting. He has a very entertaining style and is easy to read, thus making his ideas easy to understand and digest. He uses a lot of common sense, a tool often neglected in modern thinking. Providing solutions and ways to shift back into a better, more realistic way of thinking is refreshing. So many doom and gloom books are about how terrible things are without any sense of a way out. Kreeft does talk about our problems but provides plenty of answers too.

Recommended.

Book Review: Philosophy of Democratic Government by Yves Simon

Philosophy of Democratic Government by Yves Simon

Back in the 1950s, people had a lot of concern for anti-democratic forms of government like communism and fascism, which were shockingly popular and even more shockingly anti-humanistic. An effort was made to defend the idea of democracy, resulting in a series of books. Yves Simon, a Aristotelian-Thomistic philosopher and professor at the University of Chicago, wrote a philosophical book in defense of democracy for the series.

The book starts with a general theory of government and determines that even a well-educated and morally-virtuous population would still need a form of government to deal with issues around the common good, since there are many ways to promote the common good. An authority is required to choose wisely and enact a specific strategy. Simon goes on to argue how freedom and authority are properly used in a democratic government. He reflects often and deeply about equality and how it should and should not be manifested in a government, especially a democracy. He even comments on the harmful and helpful impacts of technology on human life (from seventy years ago and still relevant!), as well as on the difference between rural and urban citizens' participation in democracy.

The book is very well written from an academic point of view. The logic is very tight and the text is very exact. He does use examples, often using the same example several times to bring out the nuances of his argument. He is very clear and very direct, which I appreciate greatly. The writing requires a lot of attention--this is not bedtime reading! But the book is very well worth reading, even three-quarters of a century later.

Recommended, highly if you are disciplined enough to enjoy this style. The content is very important and very relevant today.

Sample quote: 

In spite of most uncongenial connotations, a despotic system is not necessarily iniquitous. The idea of enlightened despotism, popular among eighteenth-century intellectuals, is not absurd, it is only disquieting and suspicious. One feels suspicious about whoever claims to know better than the people the ways and means to make the people happy. Yet, so far as vaccination was concerned, Catherine the Great was right; cases of smallpox would have been more numerous if an ignorant people had been provided with adequate means of resisting the will of its sovereign. [p. 73]

Book Review: Pensees by Blaise Pascal

Pensees by Blaise Pascal

In addition to being a mathematical wiz, Blaise Pascal also wrote on theology and philosophy. He left a lot of unfinished fragments that he was in the process of organizing into categories or topics. Not every piece found a spot, so this loose collection of writings is available in many editions with many different orderings of the material. Some items are just a sentence or two; others are a page or two.

Despite the unfinished nature of this set of writings, several themes and ideas reoccur. He is well aware of the tension in people between their higher, nobler aspirations and their baser, viler desires. He writes eloquently about needing a balance between the two since we are all in a state of more or less equilibrium between those extremes. As a Christian, he acknowledges our dependence on God to achieve redemption and happiness. Having a genuine faith is challenging because of the pitfalls of our natural inclinations. Pascal engages in some contemporary disputes between the Jesuits and the Jansenists. The text describing his famous wager about the existence of God is also in this book. 

As with any book of aphorisms and short arguments, some are more compelling and interesting than others. I found the haphazard nature a bit off-putting and would have liked something more concrete. The texts do give a lot to think about many times. I wish I had done some highlighting or marking off of passages since I did find many parts harder or less interesting to go through.

Mildly recommended.

Sample quotes:

#121 It is dangerous to explain too clearly to man how like he is to the animals without pointing out his greatness. It is also dangerous to make too much of his greatness without his vileness. It is still more dangerous to leave him in ignorance of both, but it is most valuable to represent both to him.

Man must not be allowed to believe that he is equal either to animals or to angels, nor to be unaware of either, but he must know both. [p.60]

#562: There are only two types of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and the sinners who think they are righteous. [p.222]

#671 If you want people to think well of you, do not speak well of yourself. [p.242]

#949 It is false piety to preserve peace at the expense of truth. It is also false zeal to preserve truth at the expense of charity. [p.325]

Book Review: Hooked on Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas Made Easy by Robert A. O'Donnell, PhD

Hooked on Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas Made Easy by Robert A. O'Donnell, PhD

The philosophy and theology of Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican monk from the 1200s, follows in the steps of Aristotle (from the 300s BC!), covering almost every topic imaginable. This book moves through Aquinas's philosophy systematically, starting with epistemology (how we know things, both ideas and the world around us) and moving through metaphysics and natural theology ending in philosophical anthropology, considering human psychology and morality. O'Donnell does a good job summarizing topics and giving enough from other philosophers to situate the ideas in the broader context of the history of philosophy.

The book is very brief (barely 100 pages) so he has to condense a lot. Some bits felt oversimplified but that is a limitation in a basic introductory book. This makes a good starting point to get into more difficult summaries or into reading Thomas himself.

Mildly recommended.

Book Review: Socrates' Children Vol. IV by Peter Kreeft

Socrates' Children Volume IV: Contemporary Philosophers by Peter Kreeft

See my review of volume I here, volume II here, and volume III here.

Kreeft concludes his survey of philosophy with thinkers from the past 150 years. The philosophers are grouped topically rather than ordered chronologically. Existentialists, pragmatists, phenomenologists, and analytic philosophers are presented in sets, making them a little easier to understand with their similar (though often contrasting) ideas. This scheme works well since modern thinks have more complicated philosophies that are easier to understand in their immediate contexts.

This book is not as good as previous volumes. One difficulty is his struggle to resist just quoting the thinkers rather than explaining their theories. Sometimes he intersperses his own comments, other times he just leaves the reader with a core dump. After excellent summaries and commentaries in the first three volumes, this one is occasionally disappointing. Sometimes Kreeft provides a list of recommended books by an individual thinker, sometimes he does not, in a seemingly haphazard manner. 

Kreeft concludes with five philosophers in the Thomistic school. They follow Thomas Aquinas, but like Aquinas, build up from previous foundations, incorporating knowledge and ideas from other thinkers. Obviously Aquinas had no access to modern existentialism or phenomenology, so using the best from the new fields is certainly a plus. The final thinker covered in the book is G. K. Chesterton, whom Kreeft readily acknowledges is not thought of as a philosopher. Chesterton was an essayist and pundit in the early 1900s and is known for his witty style and commonsense insights into all sorts of topics. Chesterton is another thinker who gets more quoted than commented. Kreeft provides enough to justify Chesterton's joining the ranks.

This volume ends with a nice call to action by readers to take on these great ideas and discern which ones are true and applicable in life.

Recommended.

Book Review: Socrates' Children Vol. III by Peter Kreeft

Socrates' Children Volume III Modern Philosophers by Peter Kreeft

See my review of volume I here and volume II here.

Kreeft continues his survey of the 100 most important philosophers, ranging in this volume from Rene Descartes (1596-1650) to Karl Marx (1818-1883). He mostly follows his previous format of giving some biographical information and context for the thinker and then a summary of their thought. Many of the philosophers are also subject to various critiques, some from subsequent philosophers and some from Kreeft himself. While the summaries reference key texts by these philosophers, no bibliographies are added at the end of each as in previous volumes.

The text, as before, is very readable and entertaining. While Kreeft delves into the ideas of these thinkers, he doesn't get lost or lose the reader by moving too quickly. He has some comic asides and is generally pleasant to read.

The big challenge in this volume is some of the summaries (especially Rousseau and Marx) have a lot commentary about their lives and how they do not at all match up to the philosophies they espouse. While the contrast is important to point out, Kreeft becomes very heavy-handed and judgmental at times. I am sympathetic with his disdain but I wish he were more scholarly and less vindictive.

I am still enjoying this series and will continue on to the Contemporary Philosophers.

Recommended.

Sample quote, on Kant's idea of the highest good being pleasure:

Contrast what premodern philosophers like Aristotle meant by "happiness": not mere subjective contentment but objective perfection or completeness. The test that distinguishes the two is suffering: happiness in the sense of contentment excludes suffering, but happiness in the sense of perfection or completeness includes and even requires suffering. (As Rabbi Heschel said, "The man who has not suffered--what could he possibly know, anyway?") The ancients typically identified happiness (in this rich, deep, moral sense) as the greatest good, the summum bonum, and the greatest question in their ethics was what it consisted of and how to attain it. [p. 136]

Book Review: Socrates' Children Vol. II by Peter Kreeft

Socrates' Children Volume II Medieval Philosophers by Peter Kreeft

See my review of volume I here.

After the regular introduction to philosophy in general and justification for this series in particular, Kreeft covers numbers 34 to 54 of his 100 most important philosophers in the Western tradition. He starts off surprisingly with Saint John the Evangelist, who wrote the fourth gospel in the New Testament. John was a harbinger of things to come, not just theologically, but philosophically. To be more precise, he began the serious union of theology and philosophy that would dominate the Medieval period. 

Most of the philosophers in this period were Christians; most of them were theologians who used philosophy to help understand the Christian faith. The texts of Aristotle (except for his works on logic) were lost at the beginning of this period, leading to a dominance of the Platonic tradition. Resolving Platonic and Neo-Platonic theories with Christian teaching proved difficult, though St. Augustine did a masterful job reconciling the two in the late 300s and early 400s. In the 1100s, the texts of Aristotle came back to Europe by way of the Muslims (who had them in translation), creating a new need for a synthesis between the popular philosophy and Christian understanding. Thomas Aquinas stands as the best at uniting the two, taking the good things out of Aristotle to help explain and understand the Christian faith. Some theologians put more emphasis on Aristotle, leading to various dubious ideas like the "two truths" theory where what is known from philosophy sometimes contradicts what is known from Christian faith. To resolve the problem, thinkers posited that both were accurate in their own way, a not very satisfactory solution. The Medieval period wound down with William of Ockham's theory that there are no universals and that everything has its being in God. Moral goodness only comes from the divine fiat, not from the nature of reality, because there is no nature. All things are individuals, generalizations like "cat," "dog," or "human" do not exist in reality, but only Fifi and Fido and Frank. Ockham set up a lot of ideas that would get champions later on (probably in the next volume?).

The book is entertainingly written, with a nice blend of clarity and humor. Kreeft does a good job reviewing various people even when he disagrees with them (he even calls Ockham a villain!). Augustine and Aquinas, the two big thinkers from this period, get much longer descriptions. The others are reviewed in three to five pages. It is easy to ready for amateurs and a great review for those who have already studied philosophy.

Highly recommended.

Book Review: The Republic by Plato

The Republic by Plato, translated, with notes, an interpretive essay, and a new introduction by Allan Bloom

Plato's Republic is one of the greatest philosophical and literary works of western civilization. Socrates and some friends start a dialogue concerning what justice truly is, leading into a myriad of other topics. To describe the just man, Socrates proposes that a city is much like a person, but larger and easier to observe. The group considers what a just city would be like and makes the comparison to what a just man would be like. The just city has a lot more going on in it, leading them to describe an idealized government and society where people would be given the jobs that naturally fit their nature. With everyone where they are supposed to be, the city and people would thrive even if it would not be wealthy, because the citizens pursue excellence above all. Thus Socrates and his companions see how an individual can pursue excellence to achieve fulfillment. 

The book has lots of side discussions and famous images. Socrates separates the idealized populous into three categories: the rulers, the warriors, and the craftsmen. These are paralleled with the individual's intelligence (that should rule), the desire to overcome hardships (that is useful in surmounting obstacles and maintaining order), and the desire for basic goods (that is useful in getting the necessities of life--food, clothing, shelter, and offspring). The classes need to be separate and need to work in harmony under the rulers, who should really be the most intelligent people in society--the philosophers should be kings (a bit self-serving, perhaps?). Such rulers would govern for the sake of the city as a whole, not for their own benefit.

Later, they discuss the different forms of government, from the ideal king to oligarchy to democracy to tyranny. He shows both how societies can fall apart and how individuals can move down from the pinnacle of virtue into a more disordered and dangerous life. The shifting of government away from the ideal is very contemporary and provides an interesting political commentary that can be applied today and in many ages in the past.

The most famous part of the book is the allegory of the Cave, where Socrates describes a fantastical situation where most people are stuck in a cave looking at a wall where shadows of puppets and objects go by. One person escapes this prison and discovers what is really going on. Eventually, he leaves the cave and discovers the world of real things and the ultimate source of light, the sun. Socrates describes the difficulty in making this ascent and the importance of returning to free the others from ignorance, though they would be less receptive because of their ignorance. The allegory describes both Plato's metaphysics and his epistemology in a vivid way. )The book is also the shifting point away from Plato presenting Socrates's thoughts and theories to using Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own theories.) 

The translation is deliberately literal with many notes to explain cryptic references (Plato cites pop culture from his time) and concepts less familiar today, along with the occasional play on words in Greek that don't come over in English. Plato's writing style is much easier to read than technical philosophers like Aristotle or Kant. The conversations flow naturally from topic to topic and the different people give a lot of different points of view.

I did not read the interpretive essay (another 130 pages) and have no comment on it.

Highly recommended--this is a great translation of a great work.

Book Review: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

Following the classical format of Plato and other ancient philosophers, David Hume presents his arguments around natural religion as a dialogue with several characters discussing the topic from their points of view. Natural religion is distinguished from revealed religion by Hume and most others. Revealed religion is based on revelation, either Biblical or from another religious tradition. Natural religion is what humans can discover about the divine through reason and reflection about the world around us. The characters in this dialogue take the existence of God as a given. What they discuss is the nature of the Divine Being. 

The characters in the dialogue represent various positions. Demea is an orthodox rationalist who lets his faith guide his reasoning and suppositions about God. Philo is a skeptical rationalist who holds a very high standard for what can and cannot be said about God. He gives way on very few points. In between is Cleanthes, a more philosophical theist who winds up more on the side of Philo than of Demea. Hume's personal leanings are not explicitly stated in the dialogue, but based on his other works he is much more like Philo than the other two. 

Philo argues against concepts like the rational order of the universe, saying the comparison to human creation of objects is a superficial parallel. A biological model, with the universe growing like it was a plant or animal, seems just as likely as a constructed universe, with the universe built like it was a machine. Most human attributes that are transferred to the divine nature also seem unlikely and unworthy of a divine being. Infinity is also a concept that has no real meaning for Philo, it being so far from human experience and the natures of the universe and of the things within it. Philo's point of view is the most prominent, most sympathetic in the text. Demea storms off at the end, leaving Philo and Cleanthes to summarize and finalize the conversation.

Hume's arguments are all couched from a point of view that focuses on the limits of human knowing, on a type of pessimistic epistemology (theory of knowing) that sets very sharp limits on what can be known. It's no surprise that the Divine has hardly any knowable attributes. The only surprise is that the interlocutors even agree on the existence of God when many of the arguments refuted by Philo are ones used to prove His existence (like well-ordered nature of the universe). Historically, Hume claimed he was a Christian though most people who knew him personally thought he was an atheist.

Mildly recommended--Hume gives solid reasoning but premises that are hard to agree with.

Book Review: Socrates' Children Vol. 1 by Peter Kreeft

Socrates' Children Volume 1: Ancient Philosophers by Peter Kreeft

Unable to find a satisfactory introduction to philosophy text for beginners, Peter Kreeft wrote his own four-volume work. His idea was to have a text that covers the history of philosophy by discussing the one hundred greatest philosophers. The text has four volumes, covering (1) the ancient philosophers (roughly 1000 BC to AD 400s), medieval philosophers (500s to 1300s), modern philosophers (1400s to 1700s), and contemporary philosophers (1800s to present). Most books that cover all this range are too long or too dry or too simplistic (or some combination of the three) for someone first learning about philosophy. Kreeft argues that the best thing is to read these authors in their original texts, but sometimes that is not easy. Like Netflix or YouTube, there are too many options to choose from without some sort of guide. This series provides that sure start to further investigation.

He calls the book "Socrates' Children" because Socrates is both the prime example of what a philosopher should be like and it can be argued that every thinker after him grappled with one or more ideas Socrates philosophized about. Twentieth-century philosopher Alfred North Whitehead is famous for saying that European philosophy is "a series of footnotes to Plato." Plato was the student of Socrates and wrote extensively about his teacher, though at some point in Plato's works he switched from presenting Socrates' ideas to using Socrates as a mouthpiece for Plato's own ideas. Socrates never wrote anything, so we rely on Plato and other authors. Since they were contemporaries of each other and of Socrates, they surely would have ratted each other out if they misrepresented the Socratic method.

Socrates did not claim to be wise but to be a lover (philia) of wisdom (sophia). He went about asking questions of people, trying to clarify their thoughts and ideas, which were often muddled and imprecise. This method leads to a deeper understanding even when it didn't come to a decisive conclusions. He used logic and common sense to get to the bottom of things, or as close as he could come. This method, which tends to point out errors and misjudgments, was not very popular with people on the receiving end of a Socratic conversation. Socrates was tried for impiety (he taught the Greek gods (Zeus, Hera, Ares, etc.) were not true gods) and for corrupting youth (he passed on his "impiety" to others). Found guilty by the court, Socrates was executed, a martyr for the truth.

Subsequent philosophers (and the handful before Socrates) all looked for truth, even if it was hard to find. This volume starts with the pre-Socratic philosophers and even goes back further to the ancient sages like Solomon, Zoroaster, Shankara, Confucius, and Jesus, who provide great insights and have had substantial influences on intellectual life the world over. After Socrates, Kreeft presents Greek and Roman philosophers, working his way through skeptics, cynics, hedonists, and ending with Plotinus, the founder of neo-Platonism. Well, that's the end of the ancient philosophers.

Kreeft presents brief overviews of each philosopher (though Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are much longer than others because they had much more to say and much more impact). He recommends key texts and secondary sources for learning more. And he tells their stories, often humorous incidents that show their beliefs in action. A reader can easily skip to people of interest (or come back to them) and branch out into other works to get an even better understanding. Kreeft's style is very readable and accessible. This book is an excellent start to learn more about philosophy and how it grew.

Highly recommended. I am looking forward to the other three volumes.

Book Review: On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill edited with an introduction by Elizabeth Rapaport

A core problem in democracies is balancing the freedom of individuals to act in ways they think are acceptable against the restraints of government protecting social order. Mill lays out a lot of philosophical groundwork in support of the rights of individuals against the will of the majority, which can often feel like (and sometime is) tyrannical. Mill's first attempt to resolve this problem is by invoking the principle of doing no harm to others. A person can decide for themselves what is okay to do and, as long as no one else is effected, that person should not be interfered with. His first chapter is about freedom of thought and discussion. He advocates for very broad freedoms with regard to opinions and recognizes a need for ideas to be presented and argued over in order to prove their worth. He objects to opinions that are held by tradition or authority without knowing the reasoning behind those opinions. 

Mill acknowledges that the problem of liberty becomes trickier when moving from individual opinions to individual actions. While he believes in a free market of ideas, he states that opinions which encourage or inspire bad actions can legitimately be limited by society. All the more so, the actions that harm others (his idea of "bad actions") can and must be held in check by society. He recognizes that very few actions are not public actions--as long as any other person is involved, the action is public. Also, actions provide examples or ideas to other people, possibly causing harm. Further, there can be circumstances where the state has an obligation to protect someone from harming themselves. So he needs to refine the No-Harm-To-Others principle to allow exceptions. 

His new criterion for social obligation is to act in a way not to violate a specific obligation to another person or group of persons. Some relationships create obligations (which are often mutual or complimentary), like between husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees. One can't spend money recklessly and cause harm to family members or failure to make payroll. Contractual obligations need to be fulfilled and can be enforced. Mill cites two types of public coercion. First, public opinion can and does punish people who do harm through their actions; fear of public, social criticism is a motivator not to do acts contrary to what's publicly acceptable. Second, legal punishments are used to redress grievances between individuals or groups. The tricky part of the system is to find the dividing line between practices that can be tolerated by society (Mill cites the example of Mormons) and those that cannot. At the end of this essay, he provides some examples of applying his principles.

Mill presents a clear and thorough argument for his position. While his investigation is interesting, I found it incomplete. As a utilitarian, his idea of liberty is built on what makes one happy and he depends on people to discover what their own happiness is and pursue it in their own ways. There is no depth of understanding human nature, no authentic human anthropology, underpinning Mill's theory. Anyone can chose any form of happiness and claim it is authentic regardless of its actual compatibility with their own human nature, as long as they are not harming others. Mill needs a more robust anthropology in order to understand and explain what constitutes harm for other people and how much harm can be tolerated in a democratic society.

Mildly recommended--this is a classical philosophical text but it is not the best there is.

Book Review: The Four Dimensions of Philosophy by Mortimer J. Adler

The Four Dimensions of Philosophy: Metaphysical, Moral, Objective, and Categorical by Mortimer J. Adler

Philosophy gets little to no respect in the contemporary world. It's considered too abstract and not relevant, the sort of thing that gets discussed in a college dorm room or during the later half of a cocktail party. Mortimer Adler, the chief editor of Encyclopedia Brittanica's Great Books of the Western World series, gives a defense of philosophy through a clarification of its place in human knowing. 

Philosophy, with its root meaning (the love of wisdom--philo sophia), began in Greek and Roman antiquity as the primary way to know the world. The first great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, laid the foundation for almost all subsequent philosophical investigation. In their time, philosophy and science were practically synonymous, creating an awkward on-going relationship that has plagued philosophy for thousands of years. The competition between science and philosophy has reduced philosophy's public relevance since the seventeenth century, when science blossomed into its own distinct discipline. Adler distinguishes the two disciplines by their source material. Science uses specialized observations to increase knowledge of specific aspects of the physical world. Philosophy uses common experience and common sense to reflect on the world in general. 

Philosophy looks at both first-order question (about the world itself) and second-order questions (about how we know the world). The first-order questions are divided into the descriptive (thus metaphysical knowledge of the being of things) and the proscriptive (thus moral knowledge of how to behave). The second-order questions also have two dimensions, based on the two meanings of the word "idea." "Ideas" in the sense we get from Plato are the intelligible objects of the mind, thus objective knowledge. "Ideas" are also the various types or categories of knowledge, thus categorical knowledge (so there's a philosophy of history or of psychology or other intellectual disciplines).

This book is very thorough and disciplined. Adler does a good job making distinctions between various concepts. He has a good grasp of the history of thought and the roles that philosophy, theology, science, and mathematics have played at various times. The text might be difficult for people who haven't read much philosophy before, i.e. he's a bit technical.

The book ends with a summation of the strengths and weaknesses of philosophical thinking in various ages (the classical, the medieval, and the contemporary). His analysis of the problems of philosophy and his proscriptions for a better philosophical future are interesting and inspiring.

Recommended for a good understanding of philosophy in general and its tumultuous relationship with science in particular.

Book Review: Saint Thomas Aquinas by G. K. Chesterton

Saint Thomas Aquinas by G. K. Chesterton

Most biographies run through the story of someone's life in chronological order, from birth to death. Sometimes, the era in which they were born or lived is described at the start, to give a setting. Often, the impact of their life on history or people is at the end, justifying the importance of writing the biography in the first place. Chesterton has found a third path for his biographical sketch of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican teacher and writer from the 1200s who has had a lasting impact on Catholic theology and philosophy. 

This biography starts with a comparison of Saint Thomas with Saint Francis of Assisi. Both were friars in new mendicant orders, Francis having died the year Thomas was born. Both sought to renew Christian piety in Christendom. Francis's Franciscans used humility and service. Thomas, as part of the Dominicans, used intelligence and education. They had different paths but the same goal, bringing people deeper into a Faith that had become shallow and stultified. 

Chesterton uses the various famous events of Thomas's life, like fighting off a prostitute with an iron from the fire or disrupting the king's feast by shouting "That will settle the Manichees!", as launching points to discuss what prompted those actions. Chesterton delves into how his contemporaries see such things in contrast with how Thomas's contemporaries saw those same things. Thomas himself had a third way of looking at those. Chesterton shows the character, the humility, and the simplicity of Thomas and how that character could be mistaken (then as now) for stupidity or aloofness. Aquinas's humility covers a great many of his excellences, clouding the vision of people who knew (or nowadays claim to know) him well.

The book ends with a comparison of Saint Thomas with Martin Luther, another monk who had a lasting impact on Christendom, though it is more of a contrast than comparison. Aquinas had faded into the background of history and theology for a long time, only to have his own renaissance in the 1800s and 1900s as Catholic scholars and ecclesiastics renewed their interest in his writings. Thomas has become an important intellectual figure, being referenced at least sixty-one times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church produced in 1992. 

Chesterton has a delightful command of the English language, being able to craft paradoxes and puns as he is making his points. The text is joyful to read. It was written for his contemporary audience with plenty of references to popular figures who are much less known nowadays--how many people know the atheistic outlook of H. G. Wells or even the Aquinas biography written by Fr. D'arcy? From context, a reader can figure out what Chesterton means or, at least, the direction he is aiming at. He's almost poetic in his prose.

Recommended, though you might want to supplement with a more conventional biography like Louis de Wohl's fictional The Quiet Light (which is historically reliable) or James Weisheipl's academic biography. 

This book is discussed on episode #299 of A Good Story is Hard to Find podcast. Check it out!

Book Review: The Confessions by Saint Augustine

The Confessions by Saint Augustine translated by Rex Warner with an introduction by Vernon J. Bourke

In this classic autobiography, Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) tells both his life story and his spiritual journey, with a lot of theological and philosophical reflections along the way. He uses the word "confession" in a very Catholic sense--the book is addressed to God and is an explanation of the things he has done.

Augustine starts with a detailed description of his memories of childhood, growing up the son of a Christian mother (St. Monica) and a pagan father (Patricius Aurelius). He grew into a secular intellectual, hoping to teach the art of rhetoric. He fell in with the Manichean crowd. Mani taught that the world was dual, deriving from a good spiritual principle and a bad material principle. Those two principles are in conflict. As Augustine grew older and moved to Italy to further his career, he learned more about the paradoxes in Manicheanism and slowly discovered the beauty and the truth of the Catholic faith. He realized which of his friends helped his search for truth and which were holding him back in ignorance. After a long time of living the "high life," which included mistresses, an illegitimate child, and the accolades of his fellow intellectuals, Augustine came into the church thanks to the influence of Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan and great orator for the Faith. Augustine's mother rejoiced at his conversion and the narrative of Augustine's life ends with his sorrow at her death.

Augustine describes his spiritual journey in detail, especially admitting his moral failings and how they hurt both him and his mother, though he was unaware of the pain until much later. He's surprisingly frank about doing bad things just to get away with them and being addicted to sexual pleasure. He quotes Scriptures often and has an ongoing monologue with God, not to justify his actions but to review them in light of his later understanding (the whole confession thing). The final two chapters are an extended reflection on the creation account in Genesis.

The writing is so honest and straightforward that a reader naturally sympathizes with Augustine and is fascinated with his life. Even though he lived 1600 years ago, the problems are familiar--not appreciating parents, the allure of an easy and public life, the need to tame one's own will for one's own good. He has genuine struggles and comes to a better place. His life is an inspiration and is well worth reading more about.

Highly recommended.

Book Review: Natural and Divine Law by Jean Porter

Natural and Divine Law: Reclaiming the Tradition for Christian Ethics by Jean Porter

Contemporary natural law theories are a bit like contemporary existentialism. Both accommodate many different opinions, even diametrically opposed positions. Existentialists, taken as a whole, run the gamut from atheism to agnosticism to theism. Natural law theorists include those who want a completely medieval understanding (Aquinas being the paradigmatic thinker), those who want a Biblical though contemporary focus, and those who want the theory built entirely on rationality and human nature without dependence on Revelation (the Finis/Grisez crowd). Porter's theory strives to be in the second group. She looks to the traditional Christian foundation from the eleventh and twelfth centuries but also wants to engage contemporary thinkers while still retaining a strong (though more contemporary) Scriptural basis. 

She begins her argument by looking at the historical context of Christian natural law thinking, which indeed hit a high water mark in the 1200s with thinkers like Thomas Aquinas. The period was hardly a stagnant and fundamentalist time for academics. The society had changed substantially during the period from AD 1000 to 1300. Governments were become more centralized (i.e., the highest legal authority was not necessarily the lord of the manor or the town magistrate). People's lives were more mobile both physically and economically. Travel was much safer and more possible than in previous centuries. With the rise of the middle class (the guilds and the merchants), people had an easier time changing from peasant farmers or nobility to other ranks in society. The rise of the mendicant orders (primarily the Franciscans and the Dominicans) and of the universities brought new ideas and new challenges. The time was very fruitful for intellectual development. Natural law theory, taken from the Stoics and the Church Fathers, developed as a way to look at moral and social issues. The main groups of legal theorists were (1) the civilians (who came at issues from a secular government perspective), (2) the canonists (who focused on church law), and (3) the theologians (who looked to church tradition and Scripture). The time had a lot more diversity which Porter sees as a strength unacknowledged in our day.

As she looks at the medieval history of natural law, she compares their thoughts with those of contemporary thinkers like John Finis, Germain Grisez, Karl Barth, and Stanley Hauerwas. The instances of similarities and differences are fascinating and show how the tradition of natural law is worth studying and had insights that are useful for modern thinkers. What laws and obligations are natural to humans and what are social constructs? How can an understanding of human sinfulness (i.e. defects in human nature) be accounted for in Natural Law theory? How does that change what is considered "natural"? Modern Christian ethicists debate about what is the distinctive Christian basis for ethics--is it the radical equality of "love your neighbor as yourself" or the "do no harm" focus on non-violence (a more contemporary understanding). Both are true but which is primary? The issues Porter grapples with are contemporary and engaging.

The one challenge with the book is that it presents a high-level overview of natural law theory and how it has been applied in many different ways. She considers how it could be applied in other situations, occasionally without committing to one solution or another. She endorses the overall system, but like in the big tents, she allows for possible solutions that don't all fit together. In the conclusion, she writes that her argument has been to show the relevance of natural law theory to Christian ethical thinking and hopes that others will use this as a launching point for a deeper and finer understanding of who we are and what we need to do, especially with modern issues. So the lack of decisiveness is deliberate, but I also found it a little off-putting.

Recommended, this is a good scholarly look at the ideas without being brutally academic and difficult to read (or requiring a substantial foundation in the theory before being read).

Book Review: A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory by Russell Hittinger

A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory by Russell Hittinger

Natural Law Theory has its roots in the ancient Greco-Roman world, though its greatest flowering has been in Catholic ethical teaching in the Middle Ages. Contemporary ethics shies away from what seems out-of-date and specifically Christian, hence utilitarianism and deontology have become popular. In an attempt to update the theory and establish a starting point not dependent on Christianity, Germaine Grisez and John Finnis have spent much effort in crafting a new theory of Natural Law. They enumerate several goods that are conducive to human fulfillment (e.g., life, knowledge, justice, religion) and explain how these goods are irreducible to each other. Since they are irreducible, these goods cannot be put in a hierarchical order. Since they are specifically human, they ought to be pursued. Morally good behavior acts according to these goods, seeking no particular good in a way that would jeopardize the other goods. Grisez and Finnis establish some first principles of practical reason and morality to guide people on their search for these goods.

In a brilliant analysis of their reflections, Russell Hittinger lays out the basic considerations of the Grisez-Finnis theory of natural law. One of the biggest problems in their theory is what constitutes the good of religion. As one sort of human fulfillment, religion is being open to a relationship with the Being that creates and sustains the world (Grisez has a proof for the existence of an uncaused cause that does not get into specifics about the Creator). How this is meaningfully instantiated is difficult to pin down and shifts based on the acceptance of Christian revelation. Both Grisez and Finnis are Catholics and argue for Christian positions on marriage and contraception. Their new formulation of Natural Law lets them develop other arguments which are less than rigorous and convincing for Hittinger.

The book is not for the faint of philosophy and theology. The discussions are well explained but very technical and get far into the minutia of the Grisez-Finnis theory. It strikes me as written more for an academic community or for people already deeply invested in natural law theory. While he is sympathetic to the endeavor to make natural law more appealing, he does make a good argument that the Grisez-Finnis method does not do the job.

Recommended, with the caveat that you need some prep work beforehand to get the most out of it.