Domhnall

A huge book and I read every page because it captured my imagination once I got accustomed to the style and approach. The rewards justified the invested time but there were dark periods, especially in the opening chapters.

The book gives a detailed history of the evolution of philosophy in Europe, India, China, Japan, the Islamic world, the modern world and as such risks becoming a list of one damned thing after another. It could be all the more confusing because there is so much repetition and circularity in the story of human thought. The book takes its life from the original way the story is told and is pulled into the form of an interesting narrative because it is continually cross-referenced to an overarching argument about the nature of philosophy and the way it proceeds.

The unique method used is to construct a genealogical tree describing the chains of personal linkages for nearly every significant philosopher to all the others. The links may be positive (teacher - pupil say) or adversarial but they are always significant and the links inform the argument of the text.

If this book was compared to other histories of philosophy, it would be hard to recommend it as a first introduction and it will be much more accessible to people with an existing grasp of at least the outline of both world history and at least the major philosophers. Each significant development in philosophy is described, sometimes with a discussion, but most often in mere outline. In exchange for this loss of detail, the book offers quite a lot of insights by virtue of its particular approach to the topic.

The impression I took from my reading is that philosophy, for all its complexity and its diversity, is also circular and surprisingly repetitious. That does not mean it makes no progress. There is certainly a long term accumulation of knowledge and technique, albeit there are also periods of stasis and regression. Later thinkers often do build their work on traditional sources, but this actually entails borrowing "intellectual capital" with which to proceed to far more ambitious and sophisticated goals. "Conservative" appeals to tradition are invariably original and inventive.

There are constraints and limitations to what is possible, and those constraints - the book argues - arise from the objective, brute reality of the social and natural world in which philosophy takes place as a human activity. There are periodic claims to have made philosophy redundant and "metaphysics" is routinely derided as no longer relevant, but the brave new structures soon reveal their traditional scaffolding and invariably philosophy is called upon to excavate the foundations yet again.

The book describes and explores for each philosophical tradition the social and historical context in which it emerged and thrived. It demonstrates the extent to which ideas are the product of particular circumstances. One cannot predict what particular ideas will emerge in any given situation but one can predict the shape of the options available for thinking and the directions that might prove most fruitful. For example, at a very general level, there are contexts permitting the flourishing of many divergent strands of thought, and contexts in which that diversity will certainly be pruned and brought together into a coherent synthesis. As another example, there is a discussion of the way monotheism opens up major lines of argument and debate that a polytheist society does not require at all. A final example is the way scepticism emerges repeatedly in predictable scenarios and the role it plays, notably to defend religion.

Describing philophical history in this way, the book puts forward its own theories about a whole range of developments over time, for example the reason why Idealism was associated with the emergence of modern universities, the reason why Science after about 1700 was so dramatically different to science in the past, the reason why mathematics and philosophy have had such an important relationship over time. In doing so, it takes some truly intimidating names - such as Wittgenstein or Frege say - and cuts them down to a size that is far less frightening. That does not mean that this book is right - half the pleasure of such material is the opportunity to get angry with it, the desire to take out a green pen and write NO across the page. I am not sure yet, for example, what I make of the way Science is depicted. It means, rather, that the book is often totally engaging, brings the material to life and offers original insights into apparently well worn topics.

This is a challenging book and definitely a big one. It is not for everyone and, for most people, it will be sufficient to grab a brief account of its main arguments and a link to the genealogical trees, which can be found on the net.

http://kevinscharp.com/Sociology%20of...

But for those with the time who would appreciate a guide to the history of ideas that is genuinely global and wide ranging, this one not only takes us through an immense maze without mishap, but also unravels a continuous ball of string with which to find our way back. (less)