A New History of Western Philosophy: In Four Parts

Product Information

Anthony Kenny-гийн A New History of Western Philosophy байж болох юм шиг санагдлаа. Философичдыг бүгдийг нь уншина гэж байхгүй (философийн доктор хамгаалдаггүй л юм бол). Тэгэхээр дутуугаа нөхөхөд нэг ийм ном хэрэгтэй байх. Зүйрлэвэл байшингий�� хундамент зуурч байхад хайрга чулуу [анхдагч эх сурвалж], тэдгээрийг хооронд нь авцалдуулах шавар [багшийн хичээл лекц, иймэрхүү ном, подкаст] хэрэгтэй. Mиний хувьд Аристотелийг уншиж байгаагүй, эн�� тал дээрх хэрэгцээг бага зэрэг нөхөөд, Early Modern үерүү ороход нэмэр болж байна. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy интернэт дээр байнга шинэчлэгдэж байдаг мэдээж хамгийн шилдэг нь. Publisher description:One of the great unexplained wonders of human history is that written philosophy flowered entirely separately in China, India and Ancient Greece at more or less the same time. These early philosophies have had a profound impact on the development of distinctive cultures in different parts of the world. What we call ‘philosophy’ in the West is not even half the story. Julian Baggini sets out to expand our horizons in How the World Thinks, exploring the philosophies of Japan, India, China and the Muslim world, as well as the lesser-known oral traditions of Africa and Australia’s first peoples. Interviewing thinkers from around the globe, Baggini asks questions such as: why is the West is more individualistic than the East? What makes secularism a less powerful force in the Islamic world than in Europe? And how has China resisted pressures for greater political freedom? Offering deep insights into how different regions operate, and paying as much attention to commonalities as to differences, Baggini shows that by gaining greater knowledge of how others think we take the first step to a greater understanding of ourselves. Interview: Anthony Kenny, philosopher". www.churchtimes.co.uk . Retrieved 16 March 2019. I'm agnostic about the existence of God. I don't find the arguments of atheists like Dawkins convincing, nor the arguments of Aquinas. The sensible thing to say is that I don't know.

During the 2000s Kenny wrote a history of Western philosophy, released in four parts from 2004 to 2007; the four books were released together as A New History of Western Philosophy in 2010. [11] Intelligible for students and eye-opening for philosophy readers, he covers epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of language, political philosophy and the history of debates in these areas of enquiry, through the ideas of the celebrated philosophers as well as less well-known influential thinkers. He also asks what we have learnt from this body of thought, and what progress is still to be made. Kenny was made a Knight Bachelor by Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in 1992 and has been an Honorary Bencher of Lincoln's Inn since 1999.

I also found a statement made by Kenny early on in volume I quite interesting. Write a list of “a dozen really great philosophers’ he says and you are “likely to discover that the list consists almost entirely of bachelors.” Kenny then presents the reader his own list (of 11) philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein “none of whom were married” (p. 5). Kenny, A. (1986) A Path from Rome: An Autobiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283050-3

Now, despite my criticisms I did actually like this book. It did what it promised and gave me a good basis on the earliest parts of Western Philosophy and it wasn’t nearly as much of a chore as I would have expected. Yes, I think it could’ve been organized more efficiently but it still didn’t totally flop. If you’re looking for a decent intro to the topic or merely a refresher I think this book could be good asset before taking a more in depth look at the work of various individual philosophers. I fully intend on reading the next installment in this series. Unfortunately, the cosmopolitanism characteristic of late 19th and early 20 th century philosophy did not survive beyond that point. In the preamble to the "Freud to Derrida" chapter, Kenny recounts that "by the middle of the twentieth century all this had changed. Continental and Anglophone philosophers went their separate ways, hardly speaking the same language as each other" (p. 72). I do not wish to deny altogether Kenny's claims concerning the emergence of a gap between different styles or schools of philosophy in the 20 th century. That certain stripes of philosophers have in recent decades considered it important to think of themselves as unable to talk to those of a different stripe (and these determinations of inability run in more than one direction) is itself an important fact about the history of recent philosophy. Kenny would thus be remiss were he not to be sensitive to such a gap. What I find problematic in Kenny's exposition, however, is, first, his estimation of the persistence of this gap, and, second, the extent to which his own narrative exemplifies, rather than just documents, such a gap.

The history of philosophy is one of those subjects that is such of flood of ideas that after such a book you end up only clinging to a few scraps of insight while most of flows over the rim of your overwhelmed mind... it's just too much to file neatly away. And so I think it's worth wading through it repeatedly over the course of your life, hopefully accumulating a little more wisdom each time.

Let's understand the contradictions in two diversionary forces: a whole world must be abstractionally split by the being to be understood and manipulated better. The way a length of a non-linear shore depends on the minimum on the scale used to measure (with no upper bound), the finer the ability to sieve the reality, the more is a being's ability to comprehend and manipulate. And yet, the finer the splits into categories/names/analytical relationships, the more are the doubts and unanswered questions (like the way linear equations squeeze out less and less utility with every lesser degree of freedom). Stupidly, a language that uses only two words to describe human emotions is likely to have the underlying humans with far fewer psychological, social, economic, or philosophical issues.Ancient Philosophy has two distinct parts - historical and theoretical. The first part of the book takes on the task to convey general succession of philosophers and development of their thought in relation to historical events and their interconnections. The second part is mainly focused on the ideas and is separated into several chapters called, God, Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Soul and so on. Here every chapter accumulates the positions of different philosophers of the era on a certain topic, brings them together and shows how they influenced one another and the modern thought. In addition to more focused content, you might think that Grayling would have the edge on Russell for no other reason than the fact that his history was published 74 years after Russell’s, incorporating the latest research and progress in philosophy over the last three quarters of a century. But it’s not only for this reason. In Grayling’s guide, continental thinkers such as Walter Benjamin, Jacques Lacan and Simone Weil don’t merit enough attention to have their ideas mangled. Instead, they receive honorary mentions as “having made a difference to the wider landscapes of recent and contemporary thought”, language more suitable to a blurb writer than to the self-styled Master of the New College of the Humanities. The eminent Jewish thinker Emmanuel Levinas takes religion seriously, which clearly disqualifies him from being a philosopher; but Grayling, still in blurbish mode, is gracious enough to describe him as “an attractive figure whose ethical concerns exerted a life-transforming influence on some”. He could be talking about Bernie Sanders. inevitable march of ideas were in their own time often considered radical, if not revolutionary. Thus we are treated, for example, to lively accounts of how Plato's "theory of forms" and Aristotle's pioneering exercises in logic broke with the past to irrevocably alter the course of Western thought. The reviewer would like to use the space to jot some of his thoughts on where the next generation of philosophers could be headed. Progress in the fields of logic, inductive and deductive, was along a specific path with the Western Philosophers until relativity and quantum physics. The new sciences upstaged axiomatic foundations like the principle of bivalence or the law of excluded middle. They created the need for a far more nuanced approach than the one followed for millennia.

Kenny, A. (ed) (1994) The Oxford History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-824278-6 After some too-meta-too-psychological-too-deep comments, I would like to make a note of several funny (to my uneducated brain) discoveries. As an avid hater of Continental Philosophy, now I know that my disinclination iss warranted and I was quite caught up when reading. My ability to further study is however limited by my inability to fully understand Hegel, who is central to everything else. Let’s move on to Analytic Philosophy, what I worship. My experience plodding through Dummett’s theory of meaning for the 5th attempt might have hinted at my illiteracy and ADHD. I also couldn’t wrap my head around Strawson’s and Davidson’s theories. I still remember a college Professor denouncing Ordinary Language Philosophy in class that he could dismiss it singlehandedly, although he never did it. I wish I were as bright as he is to comprehend all this matter. This is not to say that the Professor of Humanities does not adequately explain the traditional big players, nor that his emphasis on the 20th c is entirely misguided. But his argumentative history of philosophy does give the lie to it actually being a history. There is no more anywhere in comparison with Russell finding a precursor in Leibniz's monadology for his logical atomism. (Wittgenstein basically swept Russell off the map, but the PM in its times was as much a revelation as non-Euclidean geometry: it took what was thought to be a settled subject (Aristotelian logic) and showed how there could be a system above which has been turned and edified into symbolic logic. Grayling by contrast turns to positivist scientism whenever he has to explain anything beyond his ken.During 1963–64, Kenny was a lecturer in Philosophy at Exeter and Trinity Colleges, Oxford, and he served as University Lecturer 1965–78. From 1964 until 1978, he was a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford and Senior Tutor during the periods 1971–72 and 1976–78. He was Master of Balliol from 1978 to 1989 and subsequently an Honorary Fellow. During the period 1989–99, he was both Warden of Rhodes House (manager of the Rhodes Scholarship program) and Professorial Fellow of St John's College and thereafter Fellow Emeritus. He was Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford from 1984 to 2001 (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Development, 1999–2001). He retired in 2001.