5 comments about The Making of a Philosopher: My Journey Through Twentieth-Century Philosophy.

1. This book is both a memoir and yet another introduction to philosophy. McGinn tries to come at introducing philosophy in a different way: through his autobiography and through the issues that prompted his interests in philosophy, the ideas he found interesting as a young man studying philosophy, and what he has thought about at particular times in his career as an academic.

   The results are rather mixed. You don't get much of substance here, and so you should look somewhere else if you're searching for a serious and comprehensive introduction to philosophy. But this book does cover enough ground to give you a taste of what current academic philosophizing is like. It includes a breezy, straightforward picture of the life of an academic along with brief sketches of lots of interesting philosophical issues. Furthermore, there's not a lot of history covered here; the emphasis is on a few historically important philosophical issues and the more striking arguments and positions that have been defended in contemporary analytic philosophy. So this really gives you an account of what professional life is like for people working in contemporary Anglo-American analytic philosophy, the tradition in which McGinn works.

   It appears McGinn intends the reader to come to philosophy in the same way he did. We go from the vague, somewhat confused ideas and concerns that first led McGinn to philosophy to immersion in ideas and concerns of current-day professional philosophers. Now, this emphasis on the intellectual development might seem too limited a perspective from which to introduce a subject. But this isn't such a problem here since specialization isn't as extreme in philosophy as it is in other parts of the academy. Since the division of intellectual labor here isn't as extreme as it is in the sciences, all philosophers tend to know a lot of the same stuff.

   The book is quite interesting at the beginning, and I think the first couple of chapters would be a good introduction to just what philosophical thinking is like. Here there are very few details about McGinn's early life, and he concentrates on only those elements of his autobiography that are relevant to his intellectual development and his eventual interest in philosophical questions. So these chapters are concerned with the kinds of philosophical problems that are likely to be of interest to those without much, or any, background in the subject. Skepticism, free will, the existence of God--these are the sorts of issues that are introduced in this chapter. McGinn doesn't say a great deal about these issues here, though he says enough to reveal how philosophers attempt to answer them and how they criticize or defend the answers given by others.

   The latter chapters come to focus more on the nature of life in academia and the issues that get discussed in contemporary analytic philosophy along with McGinn's own intellectual development as an academic. So we really get two stories here. The first story is the one of McGinn's rise to prominence in academia, and the other is the story of major issues in U.S. and U.K. philosophy from the sixties to the present. And these stories are interconnected since McGinn is a prolific thinker who has published on nearly everything of central importance in contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language. Some of the highlights he mentions are Davidson and Quine on meaning, Wittgenstein and Kripke on rule-following, Kripke and Putnam on reference, David Lewis on possible worlds, Dummett's anti-realism, Nagel's views about the mind and its relation to the body. And whenever McGinn discusses someone's ideas, he attempts to provide a brief portrait of them.

   Whatever one thinks about McGinn's personality--and some aspects of it can be off-putting--his discussions of issues here is pretty even-handed. While he occasionally says unflattering things about other philosophers, but he's more even-handed when it comes to their ideas--even those ideas with which he isn't sympathetic. He doesn't ridicule the ideas of others; nor does he use the book to push his own ideas on the topics he discusses.




2. I learned about McGinn via the work of Jerry Fodor. "The Making of a Philosopher" was the first book I read from him. This book is a rather good portrait of the intellectual development of a person. It is fascinating to see how his interests in philosophy develop and the persons involved. The book has the additional benefit of containing philosophical explanations that are short, to the point and clear.
   McGinn also comes across as a very likable chap, unlike some of the pompous gits one finds frequently in philosophy (for a sample of these individuals just take a look at the reviews in this page).



3. Ontogeny describes the origin and the development of an organism from the fertilized egg to its mature form. Ontology is the philosophic study of being or existence. Colin McGinn takes the reader on a ontogenic journey from his youth in a mining town in northeast England to his arrival as a Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University. His journey takes us through his choice of philosophy as a career, his personal philosophic questions, his answers (or non-answers), his initial rejection and later rise in prominence at Oxford University. We can sense his existential questions as he tries to apply the philosophy he teaches, the questions of ontology, epistomology, free will, fate and luck, to his own life. This personal history is very engaging and serves to humanize the scholar and soften the aloofness and arrogance we usually associate with a world class academic.



4. In his book The Making of a Philosopher, McGinn seamlessly weaves in and out of autobiography and concise explication of the most notable contemporary philosophical concepts with uncanny agility. In doing so, McGinn creates a new and entertaining genus of philosophical writing. Very often, philosophy seems so cold and abstract; almost inhuman. In addition to McGinn's extremely clear treatment of the most notable contemporary philosophical concepts, the Making of a Philosopher defies tradition by putting a human face to such popular contemporary philosophy, from describing Saul Kripke's table manners (p. 66) to David Lewis' driving habits (p. 101) and much, much more.
   
   I happened to stumble across this book just after I graduated from Berkeley, and as it happened, reading it was a great way for me to reflect on and summarize a good deal of material that I was exposed to as an undergraduate. Feeling somewhat burnt out and jaded about philosophy at the time, what sold me on the book initially was the very beginning of the preface (a section of the book that can make or break a purchase for me), "The purpose of this book is to explain philosophy in an accessible, engaging way. But how best to do that? After trying out a number of plans for such a book, I hit upon the autobiographical format. More orthodox formats inevitably became too textbooklike, and while there is a place for such books I didn't want my book to remind the reader of school."
   
   Needless to say, given my current mood at the time, I was sold. I was happy to buy the book too, because I had been meaning to read more of McGinn's work anyway, since I found the few scraps of his work that I had been exposed to exceptionally clear and intriguing. It was a natural purchase for me.
   
   One negative about the book: I do wish that McGinn had taken it upon himself to go into greater detail about his life. To his credit, he does a good job of highlighting the good and the bad, but you finish this book with a sense that McGinn has left out many, many important details about his life. Not that it's that philosophically important, but he fails to mention any of those gritty details that make biographies so interesting--he fails to mention anything about his love life, for example. Before I give too much away, let me just say that biographies in philosophy are extremely rare. If anything, I recommend that anyone remotely interested in the subject should read this book to get a different perspective of philosophy that isn't very common.



5. How do people become professional philosophers? Why are some so strongly compelled by the analytic (philosophy of language) tradition in philosophy? It is these questions that CM illuminates in his brief but very readable 'intellectual' memoir. If these questions don't interest you -- as it appears they did not interest certain reviewers on this page -- don't bother reading TMoaP. If they do, read on. You're sure to be rewarded for the few hours' effort. 4 stars, not 5, only because the rewards -- in my view -- were not as ample as they might have been. By which I mean: I greatly enjoyed reading TMoaP; I only wish it had gone longer and at greater depth into the areas of CM's philosophical interest. Guess I'll have to give CM's 'serious' philosophy a read sometime. TMoaP succeeds on two levels: it is an interesting and entertaining memoir, and a spur to further -- and deeper -- reading in philosophy. What more should a reader expect?

No comments about John of Salisbury (Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies).

No comments about Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue, 1913-1922.

5 comments about Voltaire in Love.

1. I couldn't put this book down, and tore through it in a matter of days. Despite being a voracious reader, it's (sadly) seldom that such a book comes along for me. The main draw for me in purchasing this book is being an avid fan of Voltaire. I had wondered just how strongly the "love story" element of the book would play out, as I'd known prior to purchasing this book that all of the intimate correspondence between Voltaire and Emilie has been lost. I'm not a "love story" kind of person, and was hoping this book would provide more of a strong picture into the personalities, foibles, strengths, habits, and routines of Voltaire primarily, and Emilie secondarily. I was not disappointed.

   If you count yourself a lover of Voltaire -- the man and his writings -- then this book is truly a must-read for you. I've read much of his essays, philosophy, short stories, et cetera, and finally (to my immense delight) feel I "know" the man.

   The personalities and temperaments of both Voltaire and Emilie were rather as I'd figured they would be, although there were a couple of genuine surprises -- some flattering, some not so flattering.

   What continues to make me curious is how these two persons defined the word "love"...the dynamics of their relationship and love was interesting, and sometimes confusing, to say the very least. Ah well, I'm speaking of dead persons here. Respect for their personages and for the deceased prohibit me from going further. And besides, after nine years of marriage, I too admit the word "love" has a myriad of nuances.

   Please enjoy this book! Ecrasez l'infame!




2. Nancy Mitford was a brilliant writer, and the bedrock of virtually all her works - even the histories - was satire. And, true to the first law of all satirists, she takes no prisoners, even in dealing with such luminaries as Voltaire and his lover, Mme du Chatelet. From the very start, for instance, she tells us that Voltaire rarely had any original thoughts: his true genius was in his turn of phrase. In fact, to Mme du Chatelet's great embarassment, he was likely impotent, was virtually banished from Versailles, flirted outrageously with the openly gay King Frederick of Prussia and, later, developed an infatuation for his own niece.

   Mme du Chatelet does rather better in Mitford's estimation - she is portrayed as a gifted scientist and an independently important literary figure - but as a lover, she too is deeply flawed. Time and again, she drove Voltaire close to bankruptcy with her gambling debts. And her premature death was brought on by childbirth - not Voltaire's baby, mind, but those of her "toy boy" lover. Yet it is clear that, for all that, she had met in Voltaire her true life partner, and within their own adulterous union, they tolerated each other's infidelities with good grace.

   A classic chronicle of human foibles by an author who is utterly unintimidated by her biographical subjects.




3. The hilarious modern comedy featuring the Ghost of Voltaire returning to the 21st century, "A Visit From Voltaire" Visit from Voltaire, A cites this book as one of the main sources for the period spanning the love affair of Madame de Chatelet and the King of the Englightenment, Voltaire. Another book that updates this information is Passionate Minds by David Boganis,Passionate Minds: The Great Love Affair of the Enlightenment, Featuring the Scientist Emilie du Chatelet, the Poet Voltaire, Sword Fights, Book Burnings, Assorted Kings, but this is the book that hooked me first. And it remains one of the best books to date, despite a few little hitches in her facts, for readability, entertainment and capturing the spirit of Voltaire's middle years. Anybody who reads it will finish with a wonderful understanding of the man's energy, resilience and courage. A must.



4. it is NOT a biography. It is a bounch of events glued together. At times I felt lost because she jumps from one topic to another and makes the reader confused when she throws a few strange sounding names without explaining who they were. As for the research of the subject I can't comment on the french part, however, on the polish side, the author didn't do a whole lot research because she couldn't even spell the name of an ex-King of Poland correctly! It's Stanis³aw Leszczyñski, not Stanislas Leczinski!!! She also undermines the linguistic abilities of the readers, thinking maybe that no-one but the French can really figure out the french language. I would not recommend this book if you really want to learn something about Voltaire and his love life, because there was no love life in that book!!



5. Nancy Mitford's Voltaire in Love is an entertaining book, full of historic characters, revealing both their best and worst attributes in politics, society, the arts, and the bedroom.
   
   The book is primarily about the long affair between Voltaire and his mistress, Mme. Emilie du Chatelet, which was certainly a meeting of two exceptionally brilliant minds of the Enlightenment. Yet the book really covers the early adult years of Voltaire and does not cover his later successes and fame.
   
   Voltaire, a graduate of Louise-le-Grand Jesuit School, was a brilliant but sarcastic student, who became popular with his witty poems and plays. Yet his satire often went to far which on more than one occassion resulted in imprisonment in the Bastile. Like Moliere, Voltaire wrote witty comedy that appealed to the sophisticated upperclasses. Yet early in his career he is forced into exile to London where he wrote plays for Queen Caroline and King George. Gradually his star rose in the French court of Louis XV. Queen Marie Leczinska found him charming and gave him a pension. Louis XV also gave him a pension but was less comfortable with Voltaire than was his wife and his father in law, Stanislas Leczinska, ex-king of Poland. The king's famous mistress, Mme. Jeanne-Antoinette de Pompadour, was an admirer of Voltaire also and there is some evidence that she came to his rescue when he ran afoul of the censors of Louis XV. Thus much of the book is about the highest levels of French society and their impact on the arts, sciences, and humanities.
   
   As is the case with many bright and opinionated thinkers, rivalry and jealousy and ambition create the conditions for long lasting enemies. This is the case between Voltaire and Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, a philosopher whom Voltaire seemed to disdain. However Voltaire's primary rivalry was with Abbe Desfontaines. Abbe Desfontaines was found molesting male adolescent chimney sweeps and was sentenced to burn at the stake for sodomy. Voltaire was one of his only allies and Desfontaine was saved. Yet, amazingly, Desfontaine became extremely critical and bitter and vindictive toward Voltaire leading the reader to recognize that no good deed goes unpunished.
   
   The attempts of Frederick II of Prussia to lure Voltaire into his court was amazing underhanded strategy. Frederick II, creating a completely male homosexual court, seemed to be obsessed with Voltaire and secretly tried to undermine him in France so that offers to come to Prussia would be more appealing.
   
   The book however is primarily about the affair of Voltaire and Emilie du Chatelet. They were quite a pair, both studious and brilliant, who allowed each other ample space to think and create. Voltaire and Emilie both popularized the works of Sir Issac Newton and advanced the fields of science and mathematics. French scholarly society prefered to continue to support Descarte's theories, primarily because he was French, a loyalty that Voltaire saw as standing in the way of rational thought. The book takes us through the many journeys of Voltaire and Emily outside of their remote mansion in the countryside. We see Emilie struggle in a game of strategy with King Frederick II for the loyalty of Voltaire. We see Voltaire trying to be supportive during Emilie's outrageous gambling addition. Her son, Florent-Francois is virtually raised in a home with two fathers. Eventually Emilie falls into lust for the handsome bright Saint-Lambert and wishes to continue her 3 man life with a rich lenient legal husband, her older more mature lover who has become her best friend, and her younger sex toy boyfriend. Unfortunately she becomes pregnant with Saint-Lambert and at age 43 dies 2 days after giving birth.
   
   Well written, well documented, engaging, entertaining, and full of witty satiric details, this is an accomplishment that you will enjoy.

1 comments about Osho: Autobiografia De Un Mistico Espiritualmente Incorrecto.

1. Muchos de los libros de Osho paresen tener puntos en contradiccion, pero en verdad no la hay. Su autobiografia me ayudo a entender a fondo muchos de sus otros libros y discursos. Lo recomiendo ampliamente para las personas que ya hayan leido algunos de sus otros libros.

3 comments about John Scottus Eriugena (Great Medieval Thinkers).

1. John Scottus Eriugena - WHO? This man was one of the great thinkers of the "Dark Ages" and this book goes a long way in bringing his work the respect it deserves. The book is an overview of his works with an emphasis on the "Periphyson", but it also includes other works as well. The author seems to have a good working knowledge of John Scottus and does a good job of not only uncovering his work, which may be new for many readers of philosophy, but also at uncovering the man and his passions as well. This is a book I can recommend for anyone with an interest in philosophy and/or theology. For students of theology who are interested in the topic of predestination it can be a thought provoking resource. Well written and entertaining as well.



2. Deirdre Carabine has written a concise, well thought out and extremely well written account of the life and philosophy of John Scottus Eruigena.

   Although time has not been kind to Eriugena, his contibution to both philosophy and Christian theology cannot be denied. He stands out as an intellectual bridge between the age of Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysus and Anselm during an age when Europe was only beginning to get back on its intellectual feet. His most original and important work, the "Periphyson", remains as possibly the most important philosophical text of its time.

   Carabine examines not only Eriugena the teacher and translator of Greek thought, but also Eriugena, upon whom that Greek thought, especially in its Neoplatonic form, lay at the heart of his metaphysics and his attempt to reintroduce the notion of Being back into philosophy.

   An introduction, especially to such an original and compelling thinker as Eriugena can either scare us away from further studies or prod us on to learn more. Carabine has successfully accomplished the latter, and more power to her.




3. This short monograph by D.Carabine offers a useful introduction to the philosophy of Eriugena, one of the best Christian philosophers of the early medieval period. This book is not as comprehensive as Dermot Moran's, but nevertheless remains a useful guide to Eriugena's thought.

1 comments about Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science.

1. Hillary Gatti gets to heart of Giordano Bruno and his work and philosophy. It is a wonderful honour to the family and his decendants.

2 comments about Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche (European Perspectives).

1. The first thing that I am likely to notice about a book is whether it has an index. This book has no index. I have the 1991 English translation by Gillian C. Gill of Luce Irigaray's book MARINE LOVER OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE in paperback, and between pages 75 and 119, the only indication at the top of the page to show what this part is about are the words, "Veiled Lips." This is not too surprising for a book that seems to be mainly about the attractions of Nietzsche's ideas because it builds on a section of SPURS / NIETZSCHE'S STYLES by Jacques Derrida called `Veils' in which truth is compared to woman as "Nietzsche revives that barely allegorical figure (of woman) in his own interest. For him, truth is like a woman. It resembles the veiled movement of feminine modesty. Their complicity, the complicity (rather than the unity) between woman, life, seduction, modesty--all the veiled and veiling effects . . ." (SPURS, p. 51).
   
   Fortunately, there is an index in WOMANIZING NIETZSCHE / PHILOSOPHY'S RELATION TO THE FEMININE by Kelly Oliver, and "Veiled Lips" even appears in her index, for a discussion of this book in a chapter on Jacques Derrida (3 The Question of Appropriation). Kelly Oliver suggests, "Irigaray's criticism could be seen as a lesson in psychoanalytic theory." (Womanizing Nietzsche, p. 81). The theory here is not as interesting to me as the possibility of gaining a woman's perspective on a point at which philosophy seems to be close to humor, if modern comedy is recognized in the playful manner in which Derrida explains the great question "Supposing truth to be a woman--what?" found at the opening of Nietzsche's BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL. His translation gains clarity by emphasizing a term of contempt: ". . . all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women . . . [and] the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity with which they have been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper means (ungeschickte und unschickliche Mittel) for winning a wench (Frauenzimmer is a term of contempt: an easy woman)?" (SPURS, p. 55).
   
   Do I need to be forgiven for such a rude interruption? By emphasizing the comic aspects of modern society, I often make myself feel that I am interrupting people who have far more serious concerns. This could be a good time for appreciating the earnest efforts of a woman to meet Nietzsche halfway on ideas which he chose, as Luce Irigaray attempts to do in MARINE LOVER OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE. The section `Veiled Lips' opens with a few paragraphs containing words that might be found in joking about which lips are meant: "if not its accessories and its underside. And the opposite remains caught up in the same. . . . With a flip of the coin," (p. 77). She knew what Nietzsche's laughter was: "And you laughed at having been so blindly trusting. And burned as you reclaimed the flames once devoted to their cult." (p. 53). I have not usually been too concerned with the interpretation which might be placed upon Nietzsche by typical modern scholarship, such as it is, but the problem of the education of women looms large in trying to understand what moderns might consider the worst things he wrote.
   
   Nietzsche had excelled in school in studies of the ancient Greeks, and he was made a professor at the age of 24 in 1869 so he could teach Greek ideas to boys in an educational system that was primarily about dead European males. His first book, THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY, praised the Greeks as surviving from one culture to another:
   
   "And so one feels ashamed and afraid in the presence of the Greeks, unless one prizes truth above all things and dares acknowledge even this truth: that the Greeks, as charioteers, hold in their hands the reins of our own and every other culture, but that almost always chariot and horses are of inferior quality and not up to the glory of their leaders, who consider it sport to run such a team into an abyss which they themselves clear with the leap of Achilles." (BIRTH OF TRAGEDY, section 15, Kaufmann translation, p. 94).
   
   Taking such a long view of things hardly helps the modern student who is looking for something useful, but this book is not likely to find readers for whom it accomplishes much. Women having equal access to such an education could hardly fail to make their own proclamations about what might be worth knowing, and the chaos of modern society gets boosted for diversity in the process, but my personal theme of praising the hemlock which Athens granted Socrates as a sentence for engaging in philosophy is not too wild to be found in this book, even where it is not stated explicitly. "What are you unable to abandon? What place are you unwilling to leave? What weight always holds you back at the same point? The will to live or to die? . . . Because to receive, without swallowing up what has been given to you . . ." (p. 42).
   
   "Socrates desiring death, and achieving it thanks to a drink given to him by the citizens, signifies his allegiance to the Dionysiac. It is by this means that he will take away its power. . . . the death `for a laugh' of the philosopher whose potion is the logos." (p. 98).
   
   I probably left out the best parts (for everybody but me), but by cherrypicking a few themes and some indication of who might consider this book important, some people might get the idea that guys aren't likely to do great in the humanities anyway, so why try?



2. While there is so much talk about Irigaray's lack of understanding of Neitzsche, it is obvious that previous reviewers have a lack of understanding of Irigaray. Her inquiries are focused around language and how it is used. Her analysis is nothing short of detailed. "Man-hating" it is not, patriarchy-hating it is, what is more this book draws attention to the language that perpetuates patriarchal society and the damage it does to women, but also to men.

5 comments about A.J. Ayer: A Life.

1. A.J. Ayer,whose book "Language,Truth,and Logic" introduced logical positivism to the English-speaking world, and which has become and remains a classic of philosophy, finally gets the biography he has long deserved. Ben Rogers,a philosophically-trained journalist, does a fine job of not only giving the details of Ayer's life,but of explicating his philosophy,as well as criticisms of it. The Oxbridge and London milieu in which Ayer moved is wittily and affectionately portrayed, so that we get to meet characters on the order of Wittgenstein,Ryle,Russell,and other dons and eccentrics. Ayer,after the success of Language,Truth and Logic,was once asked what came next, and he replied "Nothing comes next. Philosophy is over." An anecdote like this gives one both the flavor of the enfant terrible that was the young A.J. Ayer,as well as that of this interesting book. For an academic philosopher,Ayer had a surprisingly interesting life,and for those who want to discover its details this biography is highly recommended, to be placed along side Monk's Wittgenstein.



2. A.J. Ayer was a second rate thinker not worthy of serious consideration. Unfortunately, many do not agree with my assessment of Ayer's ideas and his ill earned fame and influence persists even in this century. One may prefer to ignore Ayer, but pragmatically this is not wise. Ben Roger's splendid book does much to assist us to learn more about Ayer and those who worship the ground he walked on. Ayer is a quintessential example of how a highly rewarding career can be built upon deliberate iconoclasm and trendiness. Pseudo intellectualism is often warmly received by the Left leaning members of Great Britain's university milieu. In such a dilettante environment, one's ability to shock and entertain is valued far more than true intellectual brilliance. The author spends significant time dealing with Ayer's relationships with members of England's upper crust. This class of people psychologically eviscerated by self doubts and low self esteem are perfect cannon fodder for Ayer's pernicious charm.

   Ayer gravitated towards a personal philosophy that served to rationalize away his faults and mistreatment of other human beings. The central premise of Ayer's so called philosophy (which is actually an anti-philosophy) is that only phenomena that can be ascertained within the severely limited parameters of Logical Positivism merit our attention. Thus, nothing is worthy of valid interest that cannot be empirically verified. Questions concerning love, God, values, evil, the possibility of life after death, are to be relegated to the dust bin of history. The very underpinnings of a viable social order are inevitably threatened by the tacit conclusion of Ayer's thoughts. Ayer was a charlatan who seduced his adoring faithful into embracing a way of looking at matters that legitimately belong to the realm of the hard sciences. Unfortunately, this approach fails miserably when addressing the unavoidable existential issues of human life.

   I suspect that I'm encouraging people to read Ben Roger's book for reasons that will not entirely thrill the author. Roger almost certainly doesn't share my caustic appraisal of Ayer. That, however, is Roger's problem and not mine. We should read Roger's book to learn from the past so not to fall prey to similar nonsense in the future. Karl Popper, an ardent foe of Ayer's central beliefs deserves your rapt devotion. Popper is truly a giant for all time, and scathingly took Ayer and his ilk to task. I also whole heartily encourage the reader to obtain a copy of the recently released --The Abolition of Britain--by Peter Hitchens. Another work , --The Intellectuals--by Paul Johnson, takes an insightful look at other high profile individuals who have also done much damage to civilization. Johnson whole thesis revolves around the absurdity of pretending that one's personal behavior does not influence their intellectual life.




3. "I warned you," Anthony Blanche said to Charles Ryder in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. "I took you out to dinner to warn you of charm. . . Charm is the great English blight. It does not exist outside these damp islands. It spots and kills anything it touches. It kills love; it kills art; I greatly fear, my dear Charles, it has killed you."

   Anthony Blanche could have just as well been speaking of A.J. "Freddie" Ayer, for he was to philosophy what Waugh's Charles Ryder was to art: a celebrity more noted for being such rather than for his work, which is found to come up short. Overshadowed in philosophy by Wittgenstein and in both philosophy and celebrity by Russell (who had a unique talent of reinventing himself so as to appear new to each generation), Ayer is mainly known for one work, Language, Truth and Logic, a depressing tome that relegates anything that is not empirically verifiable or true in virtue of linguistic rules as meaningless. Questions of God and metaphysics are lumped in this category.

   Despite being overshadowed by Russell and Wittgenstein, Ayer may have had the last laugh, for his influence on philosophy far surpassed theirs. As Rogers notes, Ayer wanted to put an end to philosophy. For Ayer, the only role for philosophy is the logical clarification of the concepts of science, rather than the quest for truth and ultimate reality.

   With that stroke of the pen, Ayer succeeded to dealing philosophy a near mortal wound from only which she is now recovering. Ayer took philosophy from the general reader and rarefied it to the world of specialization and academia. Where once philosophers as Hegel, Schopenhauer, McTaggart, Bergson and Russell wrote for an educated public, today philosophers write for other philosophers. Instead of a search for ultimate truths, philosophy has become a series of problems made sterile in the world of academia.

   But how could the iconoclastic Ayer accomplish this? The answer is simple: charm. Rogers astutely chronicles Ayer's smooth relationship and movement through the upper classes so often found in the environment of the English university. Ayer grasped quite quickly that if one can't out-think one's opponent, it is just as well to out-entertain him. And for that task Ayer was well suited. He became a sort of celebrity on the BBC, always playing the iconoclastic philosopher, whether debating Frederick Copleston on the existence of God for BBC radio or discussing the nature of knowledge for a televised lecture series. Learning from Russell's mistakes, Ayer eschewed the leftist radicalism that defined the later Russell in favor of a trendy leftist posture that guaranteed entree to the moneyed classes that dominated England and America.

   Bur the real delight in Rogers's book comes when he describes not A.J. Ayer, thinker, but "Freddie" Ayer, hedonist, filling in what Freddie does not tell us in two volumes of autobiography. Unilke Alfred Jules, the Thinker, Freddie the Fop thought with a different organ, judging from his marriages and numerous affairs, sometimes seeing two or more women at the same time. There is a strange hilarity is seeing one of England's foremost practitioners of rationality being such a slave to his libido when not on duty. And Rogers does a first-rate job interlocking the two into a seamless whole, knowing when to switch gears and keep the reader's interest on the page.

   The funniest passage in the book is the confrontation between Ayer and one Mike Tyson (yes, that Mike Tyson) who shanghaied a young Naomi Campbell into a spare bedroom during the course of a posh party with something other than debate on his mind. How does it turn out? I leave it to you to find out the power and limits of charm.




4. Excellent! A very enjoyable read about a man I've heard disparaged more often than most in 20th century philosophy. While it's true Ayer's work seems to be fairly derivative, and still extremely influential, he was restating a vein of British philosophy that I for one feel pretty favorable about. On reading his life story, I find that Ayer did more than I knew to bring the anti-metaphysical views of his hero Hume to the public, the academy, and a large and interesting slice of cultural limelights. Sure, his flaws were many and glaring, and you'll find a clear cataloging of his vices in these reviews as well as the book itself. What was surprising to me was to read of his many less reported virtues, including an aversion to discipleship, an agile interest in philosophical developments throughout the world, courage in the face of wooly-headed public theism, and a valiant record of worthwhile public service (a rarity in the history of PHI giants). While Wittgenstein romantically isolated himself wringing his hands in the service of a semi-secular priesthood, Ayer made real gains in reforming British adoption, schooling, and discrimination against homosexuals.

   And this points to what makes this book far more interesting to read than the lives of most British philosophers - He actually lived a life worth reading about! Hardly a famous cultural figure lived through post-war Britain without having dinner with Ayer. He even lectured the Kennedy family! For Ayer, philosophy and life were separate affairs for the most part (and of affairs you'll read plenty). He firmly believed that when one began to speak beyond the realms of empirical evidence, one risked speaking nothing but nonsense, and to his credit he seemed to mostly avoid the temptation. In my humble opinion, that is good for philosophy, bad for your fan club.

   I for one gained from reading this book. While I don't see Ayer as a member of heroic pantheon to be emulated, I do have a new respect for this most "sensible" public intellectual.




5. A.J.Ayer stood in the tradition of David Hume, Bertrand Russell and the early Wittgenstein. For all of these, metaphysical statements, because they could never be verified by sense observation, were, in a philosophical sense "meaningless". Meaningful statements had to be precisely phrased and then verified by sense observation.
   
   When Ayer was still a classical scholar at Eton, his interest in philosophy was aroused by Bertrand Russell; and his tutor at Christ Church, Gilbert Ryle, introduced him to Wittgenstein's work. Ryle was the only Oxford academic to have taken an interest in Wittgenstein; nor for that matter did Russell figure in the Oxford philosophy syllabus. Oxonian philosophers almost all came to the subject through the classics, whereas the Cambridge men had a mathematical or scientific background, which was so much more congenial to a branch of philosophy which aimed to pursue the subject with scientific rigour. Ayer's background was classical, too; but he responded enthusiastically to Wittgenstein (whom he still thought to be the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus: when the Philosophical Investigations were published, Ayer, like Russell, would think that Wittgenstein had gone soft.) He wanted to use the interval between his Finals and taking up a lectureship at Christ Church, to study under Wittgenstein. But Ryle thought the Wittgenstein cult was bad for both of them, and persuaded him instead to go to Vienna and study under Moritz Schlick, one of the leaders of the Vienna Circle. The Circle's philosophy, itself originally inspired by the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, was becoming known under the name of Logical Positivism.
   
   It could be said that Ayer was already a Logical Positivist before he went to Vienna; but certainly by the time he returned to Oxford, there was noone in England better informed about Logical Positivism than he. Ayer was the first to lecture in Oxford on Russell, Wittgenstein and Rudolf Carnap (a member of the Vienna Circle).
   
   Isaiah Berlin persuaded Ayer to write a book on his theories, and the result was Language, Truth and Logic, published in 1936, when Ayer was only 26. The book itself would become a standard text of 20th century British philosophy. Ben Rogers writes: "The position he defended had become canonical, which was strange considering that it was hard to find anyone who agreed with it. Logical Positivism, as represented by Language, Truth and Logic was probably the school that under-graduate philosophers knew best, but it was a school that, from the beginning, most were taught to refute." But the refutations, such as they were, eventually came not from metaphysicians who had attacked the book so much from the beginning, but from philosophers who, like Ayer himself, were concerned with the meaning of propositions; and they included Ayer himself, who over the remainder of his life fine-tuned or modified several theories he had put forward as an impetuous and (Rogers maintains) as an angry young man - angry with the establishment at Oxford which, he felt, had at that time denied him the prizes and promotions that were his due, for reasons that had to do both with philosophical vested interests and with antisemitism.
   
   One shortcoming of Rogers' book is that the arguments of scarcely any of Ayer's critics, with the exception of his main rival, J.L.Austin, are given a proper airing; and the criticisms that are stated of Language, Truth and Logic in the biography are largely those of Ayer himself in later life as he modified his original thesis.
   
   The part of Language, Truth and Logic that drew the severest criticism from outside was the position known as "emotivism", which declared that moral judgments (as well as aesthetic ones) are no more than the expression of a speaker's approval or disapproval. Moral statements have to do with values, and values are not a proper subject of philosophy as such. This position made some opponents agree with a Westminster housemaster who described Ayer as "the most wicked man in Oxford". (Doubtlessly Ayer's reputation as a libertine was also seen as consequence of what he had written about morals.)
   
   And yet Ayer, like Bertrand Russell, did have strong moral feelings and felt that he had to live up to them. Certainly these did not include conventional moral feelings about sexual behaviour; but he actively supported a number of progressive social and political causes. He even agreed in his retirement to become founder President of the Society for Applied Philosophy -an odd position for someone who had argued that philosophy had no role in advising people how to live. He now described that earlier idea as "rather insular": although philosophy cannot lay down moral codes, it can at least help people to clarify their moral choices. And, as a human being, we ought to make choices - as long as we don't think that they are grounded in philosophy as such. In this respect he spoke of commitment in much the same way as did the existentialists, for whose general philosophy, with its strong element of metaphysics, he of course had no sympathy. Ayer knew well that there were things outside of philosophy which were wonderful but about which philosophy as such has nothing to say.
   
   The philosophical parts of Rogers' book are not always easy: he takes quite a lot of philosophical knowledge for granted. But even readers who do not have such knowledge will be fascinated by the image he gives us of this zestful man and of the society in which he moved. With all the many reservations one can make of Ayer's character (and about which even his wives were fully aware and articulate), he was hugely admired and loved as a person by a great many people: women, colleagues, students, and others. The author, who met him only once and for the most fleeting of moments, admits to liking and respecting him. One can deduce this also from the fact that the people who detested him (and there were some) make only a marginal appearance in the book.

4 comments about The Pre-Platonic Philosophers (International Nietzsche Studies (INS)).

1. This book is remarkable on several levels. As a work of scholarship, it is an awesome achievement, considering that Greg Whitlock was able to produce a coherent text of Nietzche's lecture notes, and performed the most helpful task of looking up every citation, confirming its source, and providing extensive notes to clarify the details of the lectures.

   But even more surprising and satisfying is the section that Whitlock modestly calls a "Translator's Commentary", which is actually a challenging and profound engagement with Nietzsche, the various Greek philosophers under discussion, Nietzsche's near contemporaries in German science, philosophy, and philology, and later thinkers as well. In fact, one of the more exciting parts of the text is where Whitlock challenges various statements by Heidegger and, I think, comes out on top. This is not mere history of philosophy, but a genuine encounter with some very provocative ideas.

   At the end of this book, the reader must be absolutely conviced that the Pre-Platonic philosophers are not just interesting historically, but that each of them was a brilliant thinker with a highly developed intuitive gift for charging ahead into new intellectual territory. Nietzsche's deep passion for these thinkers is irresistible, and the reader cannot help but marvel at his ability to synthesize the Greeks with the science of his day and then use that to begin his own extraordinary philosophical journey.




2. As always, Nietzsche demonstrates an incredible grasp of theology, and it is merely our own stupidity that someone who is so much smarter than his teachers in this way is in so much trouble in the field of public opinion, which demands a much more comfortable stupidity than any reader of this book is likely to sympathize with. In the midst of this book, the judgment which Nietzsche pursues about very early Greek thinkers is "These religious insights originated from a need to eliminate anthropomorphism, but they still show the primordial Hellenic sensitivity toward the gods." (p. 78) The fragment of Xenophanes, given in Greek in footnote 15 on that page, which preceded his observation, was: "Always he remains in the same place, not moving at all; Nor is it fitting for him to go to different places at different times." As Nietzsche thought Plato and Aristotle understood this, "the entire dichotomy between spirit and matter, deity and world, is absent here. He resolves the identification of God and man in order to equate God and nature." (pp. 78-79). In humor, a high spot is a poem by Planudes about Seven Wise Men, with a line, "But Bias of Priene declared, The majority are the worse." (p. 22). Nietzsche makes the effort to sort them all out. On Anaximander, he said, "Thus he made two great advances over Thales, to wit, a principle of water's warmth and coldness and a principle of the Unlimited, the final unity, the matrix of continuous arising." (p. 33). People who are new to philosophy might think that there is too much which is new here, but it's really very old.



3. Let me start out by saying that this text is a welcome addition to the serious attempts made to bring Nietzsche's notebooks into publication. Not only, for those of us who are serious Nietzsche schorlars, does The Will To Power have many faults (see my review for it) but we also do not have much if any serious work being done in attempting to translate these 16,000 pages or so of notebook material.

   One will see in this text Nietzsche's extraordinary knowledge of the greeks. Most of us know that Nietzsche started his academic life as a philologist, and found in the Greek culture something which pointed him towards the philosophical inquiry he would come to make in his life. I encourage all to partake in Nietzsche's discussion with the Greeks, for it will provide critical insight into the devlopment of his philosophy.

   This text is the lecutre course that he gave at Basel in 1868. It provides an account of the most important thinkers before the time of Plato, in accordance to Nietzsche's own struggle with their (the thinkers) fragments. If one finds this text interesting, I would recommend looking into the Birth of Tragedy, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, and just to get some background info on the lives and fragments obtained from these thinkers, Kirk, Raven, and Schofield's The Pre-Socratic Philosophers.

   With that said, this text does have its limitiations. At some moments the translation is very good, and at other moments rather poor. There are sections, for example, in the Chapter on Empedocles that are very important that do not make it into the English translation. Moreover, the translation seems to make use of common English expressions when the actual German dictates a more dramatic expression. Like I say in all my reviews of Nietzsche's notebooks, his texts makes one want to learn German, so do that if you can. If one cannot, read it alongside an expert in German and you will be able to see the rather superficial areas of translation.

   So, an important text with some mechanical problems in the translation. Still worth the investment though, and it provides a good intro in NIetzsche's insight into the Greek world.

   Amor fati




4. The other reviews cover the details. I recommend this book; it is excellent and a bargain for the price and quality. Read this and R J Hollingdale's biography and you will have a strong grounding grounding to start with. Also: Mazzino Montinari's Nietzsche Lesen, also translated by Whitlock.