Book Review: The History of Philosophy

The History of Philosophy by A.C. Grayling is the first book I have read on the subject of philosophy. Although leadership often involves philosophical concepts—especially when discussing ethics and morals as leadership traits—the study of philosophy never caught my attention. I suppose, as I mature as a reader and learner, my interests are also expanding.

The best way to describe this book is by quoting the first sentence in the preface. The author writes,

“This survey of philosophy’s history is intended for the general interested reader and for those embarking on the study of philosophy.”

The book is a survey—an introductory or general overview of the major figures and schools of thought in the long history of philosophy. It is 595 pages long, excluding the bibliography (about six pages) and the index.

The book is divided into five parts: Ancient Philosophy, Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, Modern Philosophy, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, and Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African Philosophy. For each philosopher, the author provides a brief biography and a summary of their main ideas.

The section on Ancient Philosophy begins with a discussion of philosophy before Plato and the amount of writing that was lost once Christianity received legal status from Emperor Constantine in 313 Common Era (CE). Of note, the author uses CE instead of AD (Anno Domini—In the year of the Lord) and Before the Common Era (BCE) instead of BC (Before Christ) to identify those periods. BCE and CE are neutral, non-Christian terms. Back to the review: the author mentions that, “In 313 CE, Emperor Constantine gave Christianity legal status and protection through the Edict of Milan, and not long afterward, in 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius I decreed through the Edict of Thessaloniki that Christianity was to be the official religion of the empire, outlawing others. The change brought rapid results. From the fourth century of the Common Era onwards, a vast amount of the literature and material culture of antiquity was lost, much of it purposefully destroyed. Christian zealots smashed statues and temples, defaced paintings, and burned ‘pagan’ books… It has been estimated that as much as 90 percent of the literature of antiquity perished in the onslaught” (p. 3).

After this introduction to pre-Platonic philosophy, the author discusses the Presocratic philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and the Sophists, to name a few. This group of philosophers was concerned with questions about the nature and origins of the world.

The book then moves on to Socrates, who focused on ethics, followed by Plato, Aristotle, and Greek and Roman philosophers after Aristotle, including Cynicism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Skepticism, and Neoplatonism.

The section on Ancient Philosophy was one of the best parts of the book, and Stoicism in particular caught my attention, leading me to study it further. Here are some highlights from this part:

  • “Plato’s belief that political chaos must inevitably result in tyranny—because a tyrant would step in to restore order, only making matters worse—underlay his view that the state should be run by ‘philosopher-kings’ living in monk-like freedom from the corrupting influences of wealth-seeking and family ties that could warp their judgment” (p. 66).
  • “Aristotle argues that the state came into existence so that men might live, but as the state matures, its purpose develops into ensuring ‘that men might live well.’ Only in the settled and secure circumstances of a state can people have the leisure and opportunity to develop their intellectual interests, which provide them with what makes life supremely worthwhile” (p. 95).
  • “The fundamental Stoic idea in ethics is that happiness—which they agreed is the end or goal (telos) of life—consists in ‘living in accordance with nature.’ What is in accordance with nature is what is good. The good is what benefits us in all circumstances… things that are always good are the virtues of prudence, courage, moderation, and justice” (p. 111).

In Part Two, covering Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, the author discusses figures like Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and William of Ockham. Here are some highlights:

  • “The Pope excommunicated Ockham, and Ockham charged the Pope with heresy for denying the poverty of Jesus and the apostles” (p. 164).
  • “In direct opposition to Aquinas, Ockham argued that theological truths can be grasped only through faith, not by reason. ‘The ways of God are not open to reason, for He has created the world and set the way of salvation in it independently of any laws of logic or rationality that humans can discover’” (p. 164).
  • “Today the word ‘humanist’ denotes a person who has a non-religious ethical outlook. In the Renaissance context it denotes scholars and intellectuals who believed that the studia humanitatis of grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and ethics would help to develop rounded and effective citizens dedicated to an intelligent vita activa.” (P. 175)

In Part Three, the author discusses modern philosophy, examining the thoughts of Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, and others. Bacon was an empiricist, believing that “all genuine knowledge must originate in or be testable by experience of the world.” Descartes, on the other hand, was a rationalist, asserting that “genuine knowledge can be attained only by reason.”

  • On Spinoza’s The Ethics (philosophical treatise), “His aim was to show that the best life is a life in which reason reveals the true nature of things, so that by understanding them we can be liberated from the bondage both of false beliefs and of misdirected, because inevitably futile, passions.” (P. 212)
  • On Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, “The Tractatus is a plea for toleration and the freedom to think and enquire…it is a mistake for a state to think that it can control what people inwardly think, although it is right that it should aim to encourage outward behavior that ensures peace, safety and well-being in society. He described the ‘ultimate purpose’ of the state as being ‘not to dominate or control people by fear or subject them to the authority of another. On the contrary, its aim is to free everyone from fear, so that they may live in security…that they may retain to the highest possible degree their natural right to live and to act without harm to themselves or to others… to allow their minds and bodies to develop in their own ways, in security, and enjoy the free use of reason, and not to participate in conflicts based on hatred, anger, or deceit, to in malicious disputes with each other. Therefore, the true purpose of the state is in fact freedom.” (P. 216-217)
  • On Kant, “Intellectual immaturity is characterized by a need for direction from others; intellectual maturity is characterized by independence. ‘Nothing is required for enlightenment except freedom,’ Kant wrote, ‘and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters.’” (P. 269)

Part Four focuses on twentieth-century philosophy, including analytical and continental philosophy. This was my least favorite section; it felt dry and slow to read.

Finally, Part Five on Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African Philosophy was particularly stimulating.

  • Under Indian philosophy, the author describes the schools of Indian philosophy known as darshanas. He covers the six orthodox schools: Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa and Vedanta and the three main heterodox schools: Carvaka, Buddhism and Jainism. (P. 519 – 521)
  • For Chinese philosophy, the author discusses the principal schools of thoughts in China: Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism and Legalism. From the first century CE Buddhism became an influence also, being dominant during the Sui (581-618) and Tang (618-960) dynasties. (P. 534)
  • On Confucius, “if those in government behave ethically – which means: with propriety and benevolence – they will create the good society.” (P. 536) “The idea of reciprocity, shu, at work here underlies the Confucian Golden Rule: ‘do not do to others what you would not wish them to do to you.’” (P. 537)
  • “Another conduit of philosophy into the Islamic world was Persia. The Emperor Justinian closed the Academy in Athens in 529 CE, confiscating its property and expelling the philosophers. They went as refugees to Persia, to the court of Chosroes Anushirvan (Khosrow I, 501-79 CE), King of the Sassanian Empire, who had a reputation for wisdom.” (P. 557)
  • “The Mu’tzazila remained influential among Shi’a, and is today regarded as authoritative by the Zaydi Shi’a school of law. Islamic philosophy has mainly been associated with Shi’a Islam as a result; the Sunni schools, based on the ideal of following the ‘tradition of Muhammad and the consensus of the ummah (community)’, are inhospitable to philosophizing and cleave instead to orthodoxy.” (P. 559)
  • Al-Farabi, who spent most of his life in Baghdad and is known as the “second teacher” after Aristotle, addresses the question about why and how societies decline from the ideal. “He said this happens for one of three reasons: because of ignorance, or because of wickedness, or because of error. Ignorant cities fail to grasp the true nature of humanity and the reason for its existence. Wicked and errant cities once knew, or perhaps still know, what the reason is for humanity’s existence, but they fail to act on that knowledge. The wicked ones fail to act on the knowledge because they are wicked, the errant ones because they misapply the knowledge or because their rules mislead them.” (P. 562)
  • The African concept of Ubuntu—emphasizing mutuality and interconnectedness—also stood out. “It is a definition of human moral existence in terms of mutuality, a recognition of the essential and therefore constitutive, defining, humanity-forming interconnectedness of persons to each other… The constellation of ideas captured by Ubuntu includes kindness, goodness, generosity, friendliness, compassion, caring, humane attitudes and actions, and the recognition of interdependence which confers a freely claimed entitlement and, simultaneously, a willingly accepted obligation to reciprocity.” (P. 580)

I liked how the author ended his concluding remarks.

“Even though most people shy away from accepting the challenge to think (Russell said, ‘Most people would rather die than think, and most people do’), they still find themselves often enough confronted by a philosophical questions: about right and wrong, about what choice to make in some fundamental respect, about what it all really means. Thus everyone is a philosopher at times; everyone takes part. And that makes us all players in the history of philosophy.” (P. 584).

I highly recommend this book if you’re interested in an introduction to the major schools of thought in philosophy.

About the Author:

Anthony Grayling CBE, MA, DPhil (Oxon) FRSL, FRSA is Master of the New College of the Humanities, and a Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne’s College, Oxford. 

56 thoughts on “Book Review: The History of Philosophy”

  3. Thank you for the review, Edward. Because this is a topic of great interest to me and has been since my early introductions to the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, I am going to take my time reading through your post. 🙏🏻

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

      1. Thanks again for the mind-expanding review.

        Some standout points, for different reasons:

        “90 percent of the literature of antiquity perished in the onslaught” Fahrenheit 451

        “to develop their intellectual interests, which provide them with what makes life supremely worthwhile” Yes!

        “its aim is to free everyone from fear, so that they may live in security…that they may retain to the highest possible degree their natural right to live and to act without harm to themselves or to others… to allow their minds and bodies to develop in their own ways, in security, and enjoy the free use of reason… “

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

            1. Excellent! I’m adding it to my reading list. Regarding the rest of your comment, the concept of freedom to develop intellectual interests without fear—so that we may live in security—the natural right to live and act without harming others, and allowing our minds and bodies to develop in their own ways, also interests me. It’s just fascinating, and finding ways to achieve that kind of freedom is the ultimate goal, I think.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

              1. The ultimate goal, and ideal way of living and being, yes. Bradbury’s book feels a must read for those who are interested in the overstepping of censorship and loss of personal freedoms and contains themes that are in alignment with the quote you’ve just shared. 👍🏻

                Liked by 2 people

                Reply

    1. Wow, I just found this comment hiding in my spam folder. Weird. Not really, but I want to expand my interests a little. Stoicism sounds like something I would like. I was very impressed with the book and the great overview it provided.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. That’s the weird thing—it wasn’t there before, and I checked almost every day. It was probably a WP glitch that held your comment somewhere in cyberspace before finally pushing it to my spam folder.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  7. Spinoza opened my eyes with his philosophical approach. Tried sharing it with one of my bros, but he said it was above his head. It led to some heated debates with my conservative Christian family.. all healthy of course lol. The book sounds like quite a heavy read, but also like it would be a good addition to my personal library. Thanks for the share, sir. 🙏

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I’m going to read Spinoza once I finish with the Stoics. The Stoics and Spinoza were the ones that caught my attention. It was a heavy read and sometimes dry, but it provides a great overview of philosophical thought throughout history, and the bibliography was excellent. An outstanding reference book.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  8. You may have read this already, but a Stoic recommendation is “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius. I have many passages underlined in my modern translated copy of this book. There’s so much good that’s applicable today – “be neither of the green nor of the blue party”. His words highlight the search for inner peace and ethical certainty in a chaotic world. When suffering, detach from that which you can’t control and focus on what you can.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Rose, for sharing this and for the recommendation. Since this is new to me, I bought a book titled Stoic Foundations: The Cornerstone Works of Stoicism. It includes Meditations, Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic, and Epictetus’ Enchiridion. I’m hoping this will give me a sense of their philosophy, and then I can go deeper.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  9. It’s always good to have an overview of the history of philosophy. This point of your post spoke to me the most:
    “The fundamental Stoic idea in ethics is that happiness—which they agreed is the end or goal (telos) of life—consists in ‘living in accordance with nature.’ What is in accordance with nature is what is good. The good is what benefits us in all circumstances… ”
    I resonate here and I believe it would help us a lot on the whole. Thank you, my friend, for enriching our perspective and fomenting thinking. Lots of light and blessings to you 🙏 🌟

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, my friend. This part of the book really drew me in, the same way that your writing does. I guess I’m a Stoic at heart, trying to live by the four virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice, while connecting with nature.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  10. In reading your excellent synopsis of human philosophical history I am struck with much the same conviction I’ve reached, myself, in studying human religious history: that, as a species, we keep coming to the same few conclusions, over and over, and approaching them from different experimental angles. In writing, “Nothing is required for enlightenment except freedom,’ Kant is only echoing every Eastern sage who has ever taught, and I can’t think of any recognized class of spiritual striving which does not feature the Golden Rule prominently in its teachings…

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Ana, and you are so right. It’s fascinating, and I noticed some of the same trends while reading books about the history of Christianity. It seems like many philosophers and religious leaders often go in circles discussing the same philosophical ideas. Even though we are making some progress as a society, we could become exponentially better if people actually applied some of these concepts. Well, I guess selfishness is a tough one to crack.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. As soon as the average citizen learns to think in words of more than one syllable we’ll start on the principles of “enlightened self interest.” Selfishness as we know it now really isn’t selfish at all ~ just shortsighted and self defeating…

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  12. That is quite the detailed review! I’ve been in an informal philosophy group with a handful of retired profs for 10+ years now, and we spend every week discussing/questioning/scratching our heads over these many diverse approaches to looking at life. It seems to me you’re ready to join a similar group!

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Jane. I’d go crazy if I joined a philosophy group—I think my head would explode. 😂 All jokes aside, I could definitely join a group to discuss the Stoics and Spinoza. They were interesting to me, and I’ve already bought a book about the Stoics to continue learning about them. Spinoza is next, and someone recommended a book that I plan to buy in the future.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Mary, you are so right about that. Frankly, I gained a good basic understanding (key word: basic) of what he discussed in parts 1, 2, and 5. Parts 3 and 4 are way above my head—there’s some very complicated stuff there. Part 3 highlighted Spinoza, and I understood his basic philosophy. I’m definitely going to read more about him and the Stoics. This is one of those books where you highlight, take notes, and revisit sections for future reference. Like you said, it will take years and a PhD to fully grasp all the concepts.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Word to the wise: in my experience, while the field of spiritual philosophy focuses on finding and living answers, that of intellectual philosophy, which becomes increasingly divorced from both heart and soul over historical time, is similarly dedicated to proliferating the questions themselves.

        After all, if these things were acknowledged to follow a few very simple and understandable laws, who would be paid astronomical sums to convince others that they’re much more complex than we unpayers suspect??

        Purveyors of the twentieth century’s ugly art and nonsense poetry jumped right on that bandwagon, too.

        I don’t mind if they want to contort and gesticulate on the perimeter of actually fine arts, and actual spiritual inspiration. But you won’t catch me wasting any school time trying to “figure them out.”

        Jus’ sayin’. From 180 IQ, though. 👌

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. This is so good, Ana. I also get the sense that some philosophers are detached from reality. There are a lot of utopias and questions but not many common-sense solutions. This was my first book on philosophy; I’ll see what the Stoics have to offer.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. The Stoics are unusual in that their philosophies were pretty much right on, but rather than not being applied they were so excessively applied that most of the joy was taken from life. Stone pillows ~ come on…

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

Leave a reply to Pooja G Cancel reply