The Story of Philosophy

by James Garvey, Jeremy Stangroom

The Story of Philosophy is a brand new and highly ambitious survey of the thinkers and ideas that have perplexed humanity from time immemorial. Accessible writing, brilliant scholarship and over 150 colour illustrations combine to form a richly informative and highly entertaining work of narrative history. Starting with the most important figures in the Greek era, including Thales of Miletus - often referred to as the first philosopher - Pythagoras and Plato, the story continues with the great religious thinkers of medieval Europe such as Augustine, Aquinas and Maimonides, key players of the Enlightenment such as Descartes, Hobbes and Voltaire, their successors in the Romantic era such as Marx and Nietzsche, and concluding with a survey of 20th and 21st century philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Academic

384 pages, Paperback

First published May 17, 2012

Reviews

[S.Ach · Rating 5 out of 5]

So far, my inquiry in to the field of philosophy has not managed to cross even the introductory phase. Sometimes, I think, probably I will never be able to go beyond, as most introductory book that I have read covers overwhelmingly the 2500+ years of history from the pre-Socratic era to the 21st century, from natural sciences and ethics to the latest philosophy of linguistics and modern science, from ethics and logic to politics and existentialism; covering hundreds of spearheads who changed the human comprehension of the world and the life in it. And this is only about western philosophy. And, we have similar evolution of the oriental, African and religious philosophies.

Condensing this spread of philosophy into a single book of 400 pages, seems impossible. But that has not stopped scholars of the subject to attempt that, and I must admit, many of them have done it wonderfully. This book is a good example of that. The authors' attempt to present the history of western philosophy in a structured manner, is surely commendable, as you can see how wittily they have tried to create synthesis of various thoughts of many philosophers separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles.

Like most philosophy for beginners' book, this one also narrates the evolution of human inquiry in chronological manner, but clubs the thoughts of different times into some themes. Unlike most other introduction that I have read, instead of stopping the modern philosophy at Sartre and Camus, it goes little further exploring the ideas of Derrida, Wittgenstein‎, Russel, Heidegger, Foucault, Nagel, et al.
However, by the time you reach these philosophers, you would be so exhausted with the thoughts of their predecessors, that you would be gasping for breath. I won't blame you, if you would just skim through the last pages, like I did, keeping a note to yourself to come to back to these great men some later time.

All in all, this is a very good book that I would recommend, which gives an introduction to the people in a hurry of western philosophy.

[Hesham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unexpectedly,this book turned out to be useful,enjoyable,introductory and informative.

I have delayed reading this book for almost one year since I have bought it ,and lately after I have finished reading Leo the African, I was looking for something non-fiction,so I delved through my library and I stumbled upon this book which I have avoided for many times.

and from the first pages , I was immersed in this book till the end , I even made some few notes(something which rarely I do).

a good feature about this book , is that it covers a lot of the philosophical territory,and after having found my way through this book, I can now know really what catch my interest more in philosophy .

[Don · Rating 4 out of 5]

How does one write a complete overview of western philosophy in 400 pages? It would be a very difficult task I would imagine--yet the authors did a particularly decent job of doing just that. I read this book for a different reason, most likely, than most others would. Having some background in philosophy my particular goal was to find specific gaps in both concepts and philosophers that I may have overlooked or simply just missed in my classwork or other readings. Surprisingly, it paid off.

A general historical coverage book like this is very difficult to review since it does take some time to digest the material. Additionally, reading books like this can be a bit of a motivational drag. Philosophical concepts can be very exciting when you get a chance to dig deeper into them. However, historical surveys must pass through them quickly and succinctly. The danger is that the reader gets inundated with a new philosophical context within 3 to 5 pages (generally speaking). I had moments where I had to just push through a section hoping that I could find another spark.

Were the authors fair to the material? I would say there was a bit of unevenness to the coverage with a significant portion of the book devoted to ancient philosophy at the expense of some extra pages on the classical 'modern' philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz, Descartes, etc. Nevertheless, they do spend some extra time on on Hume, Kant and Hegel which I really appreciated. It was a bit odd that they devoted some more pages on Freud (Freud, really???) and Marx (no real mention of Husserl?), yet, later in the book I see how they folded in social/political philosophy as relevant to the reader's current conditions. And, actually, the last chapters were the best on where logic, language and consciousness fit in with the concerns of today's philosophers. All in all I would say a reader would get a very good feel of philosophy with this book vs. some of the others I've seen - plus, it is quite readable.

So, hinting at my philosophical gaps earlier - here's where I'll be following up in the future: Ibn Rushd, Anselm, Bacon, Spinoza, Frege, and Foucault.

[Trent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Similar to Bryan Magee's book of the same name, although this one contains a fair share more of philosophical terminology. This makes for a more thorough albeit less accessible summary of each philosophy covered. I would recommend Magee's book over Garvey's for someone just starting with philosophy, but this book could be read shortly afterwards as a good alternative perspective. I also love the design of the cover and the way it subtly critiques empiricism with the title refracting through the glass.

[Drew Pyke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Introduction

Philosophy comes in four forms:

Metaphysics: “the study of what exists”
Value theory: which can be broken further down into ‘Normative ethics’ (the attempt to find “rules or principles” to abide by) and Meta-ethics (what does justice mean and its inherent assumptions).
Epistemology: “the nature of knowledge”
Logic: which is up to debate whether this is philosophy or not

The beginning of Philosophy

The Greek Miracle

Western Philosophy began 2.5 thousand years ago with the Milesians and is the reason “we don’t burn bulls” (i.e. sacrifices) as they move towards empiricism, where “our thoughts about the way the world is …must fit in a certain way with what our senses tell us”. This is a move away from the superstitious, looking to gods as an “explanation for everything from shipwrecks to the rise and falls of armies”. Creation stories can be found in “Maori, Babylonian, Egyptian” traditions and of course, in Genesis.

Greeks had a desire for knowledge, learning “geometry from the Egyptians” and “mathematics from the Babylonians”. This because of the practical application of finance, where people “could claim a reduction in tax based on the surface area that dipped underwater when the Nile flooded. So you had to know some geometry”.

The First Philosophers

The first pre-Socratic philosopher, Thales of Miletus, was from this epoch, even visited Egypt. He even predicted the solar eclipse, meaning “no longer any need to invoke the gods to explain”. But then he does slide back a bit, using empiricism to derive that “water is the origin of everything”, where everything turns “to ice in cold weather and evaporating when it gets hot”.

Anaximander, also a Milesian, attempted the similar pursuit of universal law, where “forces such as hot, cold, wet and dry are engage in a constant battle for supremacy” which are “governed and regulated externally by the Unbounded [Time]”.

Anaximenes (pupil of Anaximander) thought “air explained pretty much everything” and the “continual motion of air …is a prerequisite for any sort of change”.

Heraclitus took a more critical approach, claiming “men do not have thoughts corresponding to what they encounter”. For example, “you cannot step twice into the same river”; “we both step and do not step into the same rivers”. Essentially, “contradictions …dissolve on further examination”. “Something is up or down depending on one’s perspective”, not opposites.

Parmenides, 515BC from south of Naples (then a Greek colony), introduces a level of abstraction. Reality is illusory and contradictory to the world of facts. Birth, death, change, death do not exist. It is our only our perception of things that make it seems so. This is the complete opposite of Heraclitus (that everything is in flux) since, according to Parmenides, nothing moves (only seems so from our perspective).

The Love of Wisdom

Socrates’ ideas are told through his student Plato (as he never wrote anything down). It’s only when he’s in 70’s (after a life as a stone cutter) “with no visible means of support and an obsession with virtue” that he becomes a philosopher. Not by presenting his own views, but by asking questions that “guides his interlocutors to deeper insights through meticulous interrogation”. The result of this introspection is that “no one does wrong willingly”. “If a person really has a comprehensive grip on virtue, then he or she would never choose vice”. He was charged with impiety (with the threat to Athenian youth) and died by drinking hemlock.

Plato has a focus on universal laws, what he calls “forms”, that are “true objects of knowledge”. What we see though is made up of “imperfect copies of what truly exists”. To exemplify this point he uses the famous allegory of the cave men. This is where there are prisoners in a cave with a lit fire behind them, casting shadows of animals and people to the front of them. They “mistake the shadows for real objects” and that is their “reality” (imperfect forms). Except one of them escapes and sees the real objects for the first time (truer forms, but still not true). When he comes back to the prisoners still tied-up they do not believe what he has seen and consider him crazy.

Purpose

There is a painting by Raphael called ‘The School of Athens’ which depicts Plato pointing to the heavens (with the universal forms) and Aristotle to the ground (with ordinary things). Aristotle teacher of Alexander the Great accidently came up with the term metaphysics through his book of the same name which came after his first book (on natural things); so “meta” meaning after is how this philosophy got its name. It starts with the premise that “all men by nature desire to know”, including questions such as how are things made, the essence of things, and what purpose is there in things? He even criticises Plato in his theory of Forms because it doesn’t help us understand change (a table is something with four legs, but what happens when the legs are being reduced?). What is driving everything is happiness, which, as a virtue, is measured by the object itself. For example, a “virtuous horse gallops well” and “an excellent sculptor is exercising the virtues distinctive of the sculptor”. As humans though, this virtue is “our capacity to think as we do”. Ultimately though, “there’s no set of moral rules to follow”, and it “changes with context, depends on all sorts of factors”.

Greeks and Romans

Cynics, Stoics and Sceptics

Greece disintegrated after the death of Alexander the Great and saw Rome take supremacy in Europe (albeit with a look back to Greek traditions). Diogenes the Cynic was a Greek ‘dog philosopher’ who urinated and defecated in public as shameless protestations to conventions (even gate-crashing a party held by Plato) and “shared Socrates disdain for money and social standing”. There is even suggestions Jesus was a Cynic (who was in close proximity, with cynics being only 30 kilometres from Nazareth).

Stoicism, founded by Zeno (popularised by Marcus Aurelius), took the Cynic approach and transformed it “into a world view synonymous with calm” and “indifference”. Essentially, it states that “every event is predetermined, governed by fate” within some form of “benevolent plan”. This “divine plan will work itself out no matter what” and “there’s nothing anyone can do about that”. You can be “dragged kicking and screaming …or …we can recognize what really matters, and live according to nature”. As an aside, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil rebuffs this ideal because nature is inherently dangerous, whereas Stoics believe it is aspirational. Indifference comes from the fact Stoics believe there is “nothing gained in worrying about them [circumstances]”. That isn’t to say that you should just let yourself give in to fate, virtue is still important for this school of thought, “what matters most is the inner you, your soul”.

Sceptics for a long period of time concerned “itself with little more than formulating counterarguments and objections”. An exemplary question is “how can we know what an apple really is, when our senses report such different things compared to one another?” (i.e. how can there be objectivity and universal laws when there is so much subjectivity).

Atomists & Epicureans

Epicurus from Samos 341 BC founded a philosophy that some consider a “reaction against the grand theorizing of Plato and Aristotle” and “in some ways a return to the philosophical style of Socrates”. One of his consolations is that death is inevitable and should not fear it, “I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born”, “being dead is the same as being unborn”. The end goal here is the good life.

Atomists were able to deliver a theory very close to what has been proven. That is, “reality is unchanging and eternal, but it combines together to form the objects of our experience”. Democritus, a proponent of Atomism, had a commitment to materialism to the point which eradicates any suspicion of a soul.

Epicurus shares this sentiment, that “the soul is a corporeal thing” which “when the whole frame is broken up, the soul is scattered”. This reduces life to material terms, including with the gods who are “fundamentally absent from the world” and there is “no reason to dread the possibility of divine capriciousness”, paving the way to excess and hedonism. However, we “should avoid those pleasures that are likely to set up for unhappiness in the future” as a check. Justice too has an organic limit, not because it is bad in itself, but because of the “fear of not escaping those who are appointed to punish actions marked with that character”. Epicureanism died out with the introduction of Christianity in the West.

Religion

Faith and Reason

Starts with Augustine of Hippo in the 12th Century, who had an obsession with “the merits of sexual purity” whilst the Roman Empire was collapsing. He himself considered his youth corrupted with scandal which “plunged me into a gulf of infamy”. Therefore, he was a strong believer that after God created Adam with free will and he then ate fruit from the tree of knowledge, people were then forever enslaved by sin; a complete contrast to Epicureanism. A “state can only be fully just if it is informed by Christian principles” (Tower of Babel an example of this). This creates a clear distinction between “philosophy and dogmatic theory”, since universal laws “cannot be changed by the mind” and grounded in God. He essentially goes back to Plato with Universal forms, instead applying the source in the “divine realm”: “if we turn our gaze towards the intelligible world, towards God, …and cease to be seduced by the glitter of the material world, then we’ll find eternal …Truth”.

600 years later, it isn’t until Islamic scholarship that philosophy picks up again (after the limits put on philosophical thought by Christendom) who rediscovered Aristotle.

The Scholastics

Also, in the theologically dominated Middle Ages came the Scholastics, who took the “Scholastic method” which comprises of “masters reading aloud from canonical texts”. The Father of this movement was Anselm of Canterbury who also sought to prove the existence of God with the following argument: if you think of the most wonderful thing, you’ll never be able to think of anything better than if that wonderful thing was real; therefore he must be real. This is easily destroyed in ‘God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins.

Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, was full of sin in his youth, whose family saw him as “a lost cause”. In his adult years, he took a more scientific approach in the proof of God: “one must recognize the difference between what is assumed and what is proven”. His evidence was that “whatever moves is moved by something else – there’s no such thing as spontaneous”. Therefore, “there must be some first Unmoved Mover” who started the chain of events. Again, this is rubbished by Dawkins in ‘God Delusion’.

Knowledge

Renaissance and Enlightenment

Renaissance humanism, starting in Florence, was “a reaction against Scholasticism” and the “philosophy done in a straight jacket”. A proponent of this movement was Machiavelli who proposed that politics should be amoral, seeking “strategies that would maximise their chance of securing and maintaining political power and glory” and not “what political leaders ought to do”. Effectively applying rationality over morals of the day. He devised policy such as the “display of spending might bring popularity in the short term, in the long term it will entail higher taxation, and a prince will end up resented and disliked as a result”. This is politics of self-interest over theology and morality.

Francis Bacon, was the culmination of this scientific approach who had a focus on epistemology with the aim to “transform the world in the interest of the common good”. He believes the “tribe” (the common people) who have a “tendency …to impose order on sensory experience where there is no order to be found in nature”. Man has the answer in mind before he asks the question (confirmation bias), “believing things to be true because one wants them to be”. “The human intellect is like a distorting mirror, which …mixes its own nature with the nature of things”. Instead, “eliminative induction” should be applied, which makes summary statements based on observations but is reduced with each observation you add to the narrative (building up more and more laws). This is a scientific approach that moves away from the grand theories of Plato and Aristotle (and religion) and takes a bottom-up empirical and scientific model.

Reason

There are two of knowing something: Empiricism, which you acquire by “our experience of the world” and Rationalism, which you know by deduction. Descartes in the mid 16th century was a pioneer in Reason (knowing from deduction) and that “no truth so hidden …that we won’t eventually uncover it”. It is helped by the premise that “senses deceive us”. Whilst you can’t deny experience, Descartes believes they still stem from something corporeal. “Dreams have to be built up out of something basic that’s real” and if that is the case, retrievable through logic and reason.

Descartes goes a step further with his cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) with this Dualism theory. This states that the only thing that is certain is the fact we’re thinking (everything else can be an illusion). This is because there are two kinds of substances: the body and the mind, where one is physical and the other a ghostly essence which drives our thinking, feelings, hopes and dreams. Unfortunately he thinks this immaterial substance also goes back to God as the Scholastics proclaimed (rather than what has proven now to be neurobiology).

Spinoza, again from a religious perspective, also took a scientific approach. His theory was that there is “just one substance, which might be called God or Nature”. This takes away the criticism of Theism (that there is a supreme being who does intervene in everyday circumstances), because Spinoza puts God in nature itself. Our disposition to self-preservation is a sign that “everything [is] flowing necessarily from God’s nature”. This takes a normative dimension when he advises we take “charge of the passions by owning them”, “the trick is to understand exactly what is going on, and thereby take control of one’s responses”. This is because passions “like fear, anger and joy” are outside of us (not inherent to our being) and so to be true to our God given nature means buffering yourself against these vices. This is the complete opposite of the spectrum when it comes to Nietzsche and the Existentialists who believe we have our own virtues within us for which we have to engender and live authentically (not avoiding them at all costs like Spinoza advises).

[ word count limit ]

[Lone Wong · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

To be very frank, I got the wrong book. I intend to read "The story of Philosophy by Will Durant. But it turns out to be quite an essential read for me.

I have taken down a lot of notes and highlights for me to read further ideas of all the giant philosopher (Friedrich Nietzsche, Rene Descartes, Karl Marx, Baruch Spinoza, David Hume etc)

I think this book gave me a notion of understanding and skeleton of the history of western thought. But this book only is written with the interpretation and understanding from the third person point of view. I definitely will go back to the original source and assimilate more about the teaching of the philosophy.

Recommend for readers who are interested in western philosophy and wondering where to start.

[Tuan Doan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Philosophy, we saw from the beginning, begins in curiosity and wonder. It's tempting to think that curiosity will not go away any time soon. Philosophy, whatever it is, will stick around too." - The story of philosophy.

This is a good introduction to the history and the connections between several school of thoughts in Philosophy. I have done some courses on Ancient/Modern Philosophy before and this book serves as a good refresher on the main idea behind Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Sartre, etc. The book feels extremely rushed towards the end, where the authors give undue treatment to what I thought was extremely interesting and at least warranted more than a few pages of discussion: moral theory, Foucault's power struggle, existentialism, Wittgenstein's language game or the Philosophy of the mind, etc.

To be fair to the authors, the book was not set out to be ambitious, and there is only so much you can fit in 400 pages. One may find values in reading this book as a preparation for more involved works: Russel's classic A History of Western Philosophy or any of the original philosophical works come to mind.

[Linda Vismane · Rating 4 out of 5]

neticami, bet ar kādu piekto piegājienu beidzot izlasīju no sākuma līdz beigām. manuprāt, ļoti aptverošs ievads filozofijā, kas sniedz ieskatu tās vēsturē un īsi apraksta slavenākos filozofus. tagad man ir lielāka skaidrība, kurus filozofu darbus vēlos izlasīt nākotnē.

[Peter Baker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great read in parts. Written from an academic perspective so gets a little bogged down in parts

[Jamal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, this book does what it intended to do. The authors successfully accounted, arguably, on the major issues of philosophy from its beginnings till its 'future'. Upon reading this book I got the essentials of what ancient, recent and current philosophers did or are doing for that matter. To put it reverently, this book took me on a bullet train from the birth of philosophy into the present station from which I can carry on the journey myself. I didn't rate it as five stars though. The reason why is simply the way it tries to make philosophy as a separate discipline that should have nothing to do with religion, thus viewing religious philosophy as a matter of theology and theology only. I have always wondered and still, if philosophy is the activity of thinking about things and/or finding the right way to think about things and so many distinguished philosophers, occidentales or orientales, have busied themselves with religious truth teasing; why would we disregard their work just because it tackles religious dilemmas?
Anyone staring their journey in philosophy this is a goodread though. I over liked the further reading section.

[Hannah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bought as a review of philosophy from uni. Realised it isnt me but philosophy is hard to read. Lots of thinking and is very upper class and male centric. Interesting but lots very irrelevant to life and meaning. Uses inaccessible language in places too which is just dull.

[Roof Beam Reader (Adam) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fairly excellent and readable introduction to western philosophy. Great for those with little experience, perhaps too much for those with absolutely no experience.

[Puttipong K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Story of Philosophy is a great introduction to western philosophy thanks to the strong authorship and insightful discussion throughout the book.

Starting from the vague philosophy of presocratic figures to an insight of contemporary analytic & continental philosophy, the book immerses you through history and philosophical enquiry–both prose and poetry–throughout the entire existence of western philosophy. The narrative feels you are an observer that observe the development of philosophy from the mythos of the Odyssey to Frankfurt school during the turmoil time of 20th century. Sure, it is not as sophisticated as pseudo-novel like the Splendid and the Vile in terms of narrative, though two millennia of chronology is more than enough for one to immerse themselves in to the story.

Another strong point of the narration is the strong authorship by the author. Suppose that a philosophy statement is vague or illogical, the author isn’t scared to show their statement of what they might think of the statement. Whether you agree with it or not, it certainly creates an insightful and contentious information of what you might miss (or should miss) rather than being left in directionless understanding after a certain page.

Still, the book is, nevertheless, an introductory book. One shouldn’t use this book as an entire understanding history of philosophy, but rather an introduction to it for since not every story in two millennia of history can be told in 400 pages book. Though, by the end of the book, you will easily know what you want to read next.

Overall, the Story of Philosophy is a great for introduction to the history of ideas and for general reading overall. Still, it is an introductory book after all.

4.6/5

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conclusion: 4/5. A compilation of major historical landmark events in field of philosophy, that serves as an introductory work to philosophy . Now-a-days philosophy might have receded into the background of humanitarian sciences, however the history of philosophy is the history of societal order/thinking.

!SPOILERS!

A short book of around 400 page that does what it sets out to do very well. I liked the simple language and cross-referencing throughout the book, made it easier to follow through to more complicated matters. Text holds many mentions of historically important figures to philosophy and other fields of science. I see it essential to reward humanity's greatest minds (scientists (especially in STEM fields)), by preserving their legacy. It's least that can be done as positive reinforcement to encourage scientific prosperity. "Further reading" was the cherry on top. Felt a thirst to read more in field of philosophy and this chapter encourages it.

As the book's title says - book contains only history of western thought. I would like to educate myself more on history of Eastern thought. That's my responsibility. For a medium of 400 pages what's been done is splendid as is.

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. Not perfect, and perhaps not deserving 5/5, but accessible, easy to read and informative in what I feel is the most important subject there is: Philosophy.

An overview of philosophy which filled some of the gaps in my knowledge of the history of. Packed in almost every chapter and section with gems of ageless wisdom and encouragement to consider important ideas in a variety of different ways.

Has reignited my passion for the subject, and broken paths in my mind for new treads of thought.

One thing that struck me was the complexity nuance of contemporary philosophy compared to more elemental ways of perceiving the world in ancient times. My ambivalence toward current ways of viewing the world, is now easier to analyse as, at least in part, a result of underlying, much older contradictions and paradoxes in the human capacity to perceive and understand the world and universe.

[Martin Omedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophical reads are largely esoteric in their nature and finding books that break the philosophical concepts down to their most swallowable morsel is the most gracious thing. Most importantly, the read is a journey of philosophical reflection.

The Story of philosophy is an engaging read that tries to break down philosophical chronological accounts of events and change of ideation over time across the various philosophical figures from the pre-socratic to the Socratic era.

While there a mountain of philosophical ideologies to be covered, the author does a great job of summarizing the ideologies in an accessible way without necessarily losing nuances and making everything abstract in slightly over 400 pages.

It is a book that I would recommend to anyone who wants to venture into the realm of philosophy. It makes a great introductory book with a great postscript on how to charter the philosophical and recommendations of books you can read to that end.

[Euwyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading philosophy in chronological order is super interesting and adds a lot of context to the philosophical schools of thought. I would highly recommend studying it.

In more detail, it's fascinating how most major schools of thought are (merely) responses to whatever preceded it / sometimes overcorrections to it, and also in response to the times e.g. Stoicism out of the downfall of the Greek empire.

As for this book specifically, it's a nice and approachable read, with a nice bits of humour injected in various parts. But overall I didn't find it particularly memorable. Something to do with how the book summarises or treats each philosopher, but perhaps that is always going to be case with a book that is going for breadth rather than depth. Nevertheless, a recommended read I enjoyed.

[Deepak Saxena · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have unsuccessfully tried reading philosophy books earlier but bogged down by the jargon or the author's unstated assumptions about readers' knowledge. This book provides an accessible, non-academic, and (surprisingly) interesting account of western philosophy. As authors themselves admit it - its not a history, not a summary but a story of western philosophy. An interesting story indeed that motivated me to dig deeper on certain topics. I tempted to give it five stars but still giving it four since I haven't read other versions of the 'story'.
P.S. When you read on existentialism from the book, do watch the movie 'Groundhog Day'

[Patrícia Raquel Pereira · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is definitively worth a read for anyone wanting a basic introduction to philosophy. It covers its history —from the Pre-Socratics to the Middle Ages, and finally to Modern Philosophy. I began yesteryear studying these matters which I find quite unique and delightful, as a way of trying to decipher a way on how to live a good life. How should a human being live? is the central question. I live in this constant quest of trying to make sense of things and by engaging in philosophical matters, I, therefore, wish to attain important reasoning and understanding. Hopefully, it will all make sense one day. As for now, I am here thriving and indulging in philosophical bliss and wonder.

[Krissy Callahan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introduction to philosophy, and accessible. There was one chapter that went completely over my head, but other than that, I felt like the ideas were laid out well. I enjoyed learning about how philosophical ideas have changed over the last two thousand years, and I also enjoyed thinking through the ideas for myself. I like the idea that philosophy is curiosity about the world around us, and it’s a way to make sense of how and what life is.

[Jade Geleynse · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well thought out book of introduction to and understanding of philosophy. Organized in such a manner as to reflect history and interrelation. This is one that demanded nearly 200 sticky notes and if utilized, can act as a beginner's textbook with many reference points and people to further education.

[MH · Rating 4 out of 5]

A friendly, readable history of Western philosophy, with clear examples, excellently chosen quotations, and humanizing details about the lives of the great thinkers. Despite the warmth of the writers it still gets understandably dense in places, particularly as we hit the modern era, but overall an excellent introduction to a deep and complicated subject.

[Chandra Mohan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book was a bit boring in the beginning, owing to unnecessary details of the early lives of philosophers, however, once I got the hang of it, it turned out to be an informative and interesting read. Having no background in philosophy, I didn't find it an easy read, but the book definitely does what it says, gives a beginner a good enough introduction to western philosophy.

[Peach Resurreccion · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. the broad scope was just what I needed to get a grasp of how philosophy came to be and how it’s evolved. Altho I sometimes struggle with some concepts but I appreciate how the authors managed to give more digestible examples and “layman’s terms” for them. This is also a good jump-off point to figure out which thinkers works i want to delve deeper into.

[Bogdan Păun · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good enough summary of and pass through the history of western philosophy (pre-Socratics to Existentialism). I don't know how accurate and complete it is (not a single word about Schopenhauer, for example) but it's worth a read.

[Jesse Boon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Found it an interesting read and giving it 5 stars because it is written in easy and understandable language.

This book is a recommendation for anyone who wants to start learning more about philosophy.

[Saheli Bhattacharya · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really good introduction to history of the western philosophy as well as to the philosophy itself. It is an easy to understand book ( as easy as explaining philosophical thought can be) and good for the beginners in the philosophical field like me.

[Simon Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written, with a mercifully decent narrative that helps link all the ideas as they evolved. Good work.

[Roli Sehgal · Rating 5 out of 5]

good over view in teh progress of teh subject of philiosophy.

[Sam Qiu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of western philosophy from Hellenic times until modern day. A bit dense but worth the read for a philosophy neophyte.