This is a very important, well written and dense treatise about the history of ideas in Western Civilization.
The author manages to condense, in a single book, all the major stepping stones of the intellectual history of the West, and he manages to achieve this result without seriously compromising on depth and accuracy.
The great drama of the evolution of the Western Mind is described passionately and in a gripping and enjoyable book, where the critical concepts and world-views, as expressed by the major philosopher throughout history, are beautifully expressed in a concise but scholarly valuable way. Remarkable.
Let me highlight some of the points made by the author that I found particularly worth discussing:
- The author remarks that the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece did not happen in a vacuum, significantly owing to the cultural substrate existing at the time (where the mythological structure of the Olympian world presented the Universe as an ordered and structured whole, a cosmos rather than a chaos, where the natural and the human world are not distinguishable domains).
In particular, Hellenic culture attained a delicate and fertile balance between the ancient mythological tradition and a more “modern” secular rationalism. The temples to Zeus, Athena and Apollo are clearly a celebration of mathematical elegance and human rationality as much as a celebration of the divine.
- The author manages to express the beauty and complexity of Plato's philosophical system, stressing how for Plato the ultimate reality is not only rational and mathematical in nature, but also profoundly aesthetic. In Plato, the Good, the True and the Beautiful are united. In this, Plato represents the pinnacle of the unique synthesis of "eros" and "logos" – of passion (love of wisdom), and rational mind. For Plato (and for most of the ancient Greek philosophers), the direct apprehension of the world' deeper reality satisfies not only the mind but also the soul.
- The Greek fundamental concept of “logos” (that incredibly beautiful and quintessentially Greek concept representing mind, reason, intellect, organizing principle, word, wisdom and meaning) is also nicely explained as developed and enriched in history by the Western philosophical thought.
- Finally, here we have one author who does not follow the politically correct current trend of negating the important part played by the legacy of the Classical Era in the subsequent evolution of the Western Mind and of the Western World, which ultimately was one of the causes and enablers of the revolutionary developments of the Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution. It is good to see an author who is not scared to stress the uniqueness of Western intellectual thought and civilization, and its debt to the Classical World legacy - even if he correctly recognizes the also very important contribution of the Eastern Civilizations to the formation of the Greek civilization.
- Neo-Platonism is briefly explained by the author, who recognizes that it became the final expression of classical Pagan philosophy. Unfortunately, I must say that here I was disappointed by the lack of depth with which the author treats the amazingly beautiful and very important philosophical system of Plotinus, system which left a very important intellectual legacy influencing, directly or indirectly, many subsequent important Western systems of thought (including Christianity).
- No sufficient recognition is given by the author to the intellectual developments of the Roman Civilization which, while being substantially influenced by the Greek Civilization, nevertheless (and contrary to what many may think) actually did develop its own peculiar and unique culture.
- The author beautifully conveys the inner tensions between the different ideologies, approaches and world-views of what is called “Christianity”, which has never been a monolithic system of thought. The great tension between the Judaic and the Hellenistic legacies of the Christian Creed is compellingly highlighted.
The intimacy between the “Hellenistic” side of Christianity and (Neo)Platonism is clearly highlighted: after all, Augustine regarded Plato's thought as the “most pure and bright in all philosophy” and he also posited that the Platonic Forms existed within the creative mind of God. On the other hand, while God was seen by the Hellenic Christian perspective as the universal Mind, the Logos, the Neoplatonic One, the Judaic conception leaned towards a jealous, almost capricious, almost nationalistic, completely transcendent entity to be feared as much as loved.
The Hellenic Christian God was quite different to the Judaic God promising a political victory for "Israel" and the physical destruction of the political enemies of the Judaic State.
- I really liked how the author highlights how the Christian world view, even in its most “medieval” form, was not as simple or one-sided as many may think. And the great scholastic awakening which happened in the late Middle Ages is a testament to this, as represented in its most magnificent form by the intellectual quest of Thomas Aquinas.
The greatness of the intellectual synthesis accomplished by Aquinas is beautifully expressed by the author. I also like how the author dispels the myth that Aquinas' philosophical system is purely Aristotelian in character: Aquinas quintessentially Neoplatonic notion of participation in “being” is an example of the influence of Neoplatonism in Aquinas thought.
- The author very nicely demonstrates how the “Neoplatonist mathematics, added to the rationalism and nascent empiricism of the late Scholastics, provided one of the final components necessary for the emergence of the Scientific Revolution.”
It was Copernicus and Kepler's tenacious Neoplatonic faith that the Universe was regulated and structured according to simple, elegant and beautiful mathematical forms that allowed them to go beyond any form of naïve empiricism and trigger the Scientific Revolution.
- The extremely important role played by the Classical Legacy (and in particular, Neoplatonism) in the explosion of the Renaissance intellectual revolution is nicely explained. The multifaceted complexity of this period is also conveyed very effectively.
- I really enjoyed how the author lucidly and compellingly explains, without trying to be politically correct, the profoundly contradictory and ambivalent character of the “Reformation” triggered by Luther. The Reformation was as much a reactionary counter-revolution against the relaxed cultural syncretism displayed by the Renaissance Church's embrace of the Classical pagan culture, as it was a quest for the Church purification (undoubtedly needed at the time) and return to its "pure" roots.
It was the Reformation which was pushing for a literal, word-by-word interpretation of the Scripture, which was pushing for a Bible-based Christianity ontologically dualistic and very pessimistic in relation to the rational capabilities of the human mind. It was first Protestants who initially reacted almost violently against the Copernican world-view revolution.
But, on the other hand, the focus on the individual freedom from institutional constraints, and the breach of the monolithic, potentially suffocating spiritual an intellectual power of the Church, proved in the longer term very positive developments for the evolution of the modern Western Mind.
- Jumping now to more modern philosophers, I did like how the author explains the Cartesian-Kantian thought revolution. However I am not sure that I fully agree with some aspects of the author's interpretation of the Kantian thought, in particular I think that the stress on Kant's subjectivism is not warranted. I also think that the author should really have explained the absolutely critical Kantian concept of “synthetic a-priori”, without which the Kantian system cannot really be fully appreciated.
-The Romantic sensibility is nicely explained in its important philosophical implications, and I really liked how the author manages to highlight the most important features of Hegelian's thought. Hegel has been always misunderstood and underestimated in the post-modern thought, and the author renders him justice.
- On the other hand, I disagree with the author's view of post-modern existentialism, which the author perceives as being profoundly pessimistic. I actually think that this is a profoundly misguided perspective of existentialism, whose main message is, in my opinion, profoundly optimistic and liberating, a deeply Promethean cry for the power of man to choose, to radically self-define and create the meaning of himself and his own role in the Universe: “existence precedes essence”.
- I also profoundly disagree with the author's myopic view of the aims and character of the scientific inquiry: the author has a quite restricted and one-sided view of the scientific enterprise, which he tends to see as a purely quantitative, reductionistic and reductive approach to the understand of the Universe, and as such not spiritually fulfilling.
This is simply NOT what science is about: science is as much about an holistic, passionate approach to the understanding of the Universe as it is about a rigorous and structured approach based on mathematical consistency and experimental accuracy and confirmation. The author probably never took the time to read the likes of Penrose, Bohm, Wheeler, Davies, Einstein or Feynman. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is an attitude that can be seen in many individuals who had an education only in the so-called humanities and who had never been seriously exposed to the beauty of mathematics and of the sciences on general, and who simply do not understand them.
- Finally, the author believes that the missing key in the philosophical quest can be found in depth psychology and the exploration of the unconscious. He uses Freud and Jung as compelling examples and he also believes we have to “embrace the feminine in all its various forms” as well as ecological, mystic, and other counter cultural and multicultural perspectives.
Well, to be honest I find this mumble-jumble, out-of-the-70's, LSD-driven approach deeply unsatisfactory and obsolete (Freud in particular has been discredited and even within the psychologists confraternity his views are not widely popular either).
Overall, it is a really important, provocative, insightful book worth reading and well deserving a 4 stars. Highly recommended.