What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Western Philosophy and Theology
Christians should evaluate philosophy by biblical criteria. This will shed greater light on the developments in the history of philosophy and better prepare us for the intellectual challenges of our time. The fall of Adam brought intellectual as well as moral corruption on the human race, and the effects of the fall can be seen in the work of philosophers, most of whom try to understand the world autonomously—through reasoning apart from God’s revelation. Some philosophers have appealed to God’s revelation, but their work has often been compromised with the wisdom of the world. Revelation should inform reason, and not the other way round. In the past, even Christian theology was corrupted by the movement toward intellectual autonomy, creating the tradition of liberalism, which has unhappily dominated academic theology down to the present day. But there is hope—a new generation of Christian thinkers take God’s Word seriously. Frame’s unique new contribution augments that process.
912 pages, Hardcover
First published October 23, 2015
184 people are currently reading
1321 people want to read
About the author
John M. Frame
92 books222 followersFor his education, Frame received degrees from Princeton University (A.B.), Westminster Theological Seminary (B.D.), Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil., though he was working on a doctorate and admits his own failure to complete his dissertation), and Belhaven College (D.D.). He has served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of their California campus. He currently (as of 2022) teaches Apologetics and The History of Philosophy and Christian thought at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
July 17, 2019
P&R kindly provided a free copy of this book for review, asking only that I write an honest review of the book. What follows, is my opinion of the book, free from outside influence, including P&R's.
C. Gregg Singer, a fairly obscure historian, in the tradition of Cornelius Van Til, wrote "From Rationalism to Irrationality" in 1979, published by P & R. The book was written as a history of philosophy from the ancient Greeks through the early to mid-twentieth century. The book, for what it was, was outstanding. It is, however, dense, frequently obtuse, and for as short as it was (479 pages) it was a difficult read. It was also one of my first introductions to the presuppositionalist framework. I still highly recommend the book, though it is hard reading, and even more difficult to find--it is well worth it.
Now, 36 years later, P & R has published a similar work, by one of the pre-eminent theologians of our day. Singer brought a keen historical mind, aware of the impact philosophical movements have had upon history, see also his "A Theological Interpretation of American History, for example. Frame, on the other hand, brings a whole arsenal of theological insights and philosophical perceptions to the same material.
Those that are familiar with Frame, will be delighted to see that this is vintage Frame. The book covers difficult material, but rarely ever goes over your head. The footnotes are full of wonderful gems, answering the questions that you ponder, but no other author actually answers for you. For example, his section on one philosopher leaves you wondering if we should consider him a Christian, or not. Frame gives his answer in the footnote--it is small things like this, that Frame's readers have come to expect from him, and which gives you an appreciation for his thoroughness in covering the material.
Similar to his "Systematic Theology", at the end of each chapter there is a list of key terms, a list of study questions, a bibliography for the material in the chapter, a list of books to read for further study, a link to lectures on the material in iTunes (seriously!), and famous quotes related to the chapter. Some will find this a great aid (students, teachers, pastors, etc.), It is great that P & R put time into doing this.
In addition to the readability, Frame applies his perspectivalism to the analysis of philosophical movements and philosophers themselves. Frame begins the book by arguing that the Bible, does in fact, have something to say about philosophy. The first chapter is an introduction to philosophy, as well as a summary of the presuppositionalist system--which argues that the world can only be understood rightly, by presupposing the Trinitarian God of the Bible.
One of the interesting decisions that Frame made in writing this book, is intentionally devoting most of the book to the more modern philosophers and movements--a decision that may seem questionable at the outset, but I think was wise. There are other books out there, Singer's "From Rationalism to Irrationality", that I already mentioned, that fulfill that purpose. But not only that, Frame knows that it is the more modern philosophers that have the most influence today, and his desire is to serve the church today, in critiquing and responding to those that have the most influence today.
Frame covers all the major movements and thinkers, so it is easy to read through one section at a time, and break the large book into smaller readings. You could use it as a reference book, but the chapters build on one another, in a way that means it is best read from beginning to end.
The book is what you would expect it to be. He writes in the preface, "You won’t find in this book many (if any) new interpretations of the philosophers and theologians. I have followed, for the most part, the consensus interpretations, because I want to mainly assess the impact that each thinker has had on the consensus. But in this book there will be many evaluations of thinkers that I suspect will be found unconventional."
But, with Frame, your expectations are high, and rightfully so. For example, while reading of the deists, one has a good idea of what to expect, but Frame does surprise you with an insight I've never heard another Christian write of, in covering the deists. He writes:
"What amazes me most is this: Deism in particular and liberalism in general are the most serious doctrinal deviations that the church has ever experienced. Deism is certainly worse than Arianism, or Sabellianism, or any of the other heresies. But the churches fought pitched battles over those heresies. They denounced, they excommunicated. At the extreme they held church councils and formulated creeds and confessions to repudiate (“anathematize”) these false doctrines. But when deism and other forms of liberalism appeared, the churches did nothing comparable. There were no church councils, no new confessions, no anathemas. The churches were asleep, powerless. They seemed to take for granted that the universities would be in the hands of liberals, and that their pastoral candidates would be educated in that intellectual climate. But they seemed to assume that it would all work out in the end. They seemed to have no idea of the horrible consequences of this tolerance. So again, we must take account of a convulsion in the history of philosophy that continues to afflict Christianity in our own time. "
That is an amazing insight, in my opinion, neatly tucked away on page 204. But, of course, this just reinforces my point, that with Frame, such a keen insight is to be expected. I was also impressed with Frame's section on Barth, whom Singer (as Van Til did) had no patience for, and rejected outright. Frame, however, is more measured, though also very critical. But, with Frame, you get the sense that he is willing to be very gracious in reading Barth, complimenting him where he can, but generally cautioning readers from his theology. This more cautious critique goes a long way to show a more balanced perspective, and more confidence in Frame, knowing he is familiar with the material, and has interacted with it in a very serious way.
Reading this work, I was amazed with Frame's familiarity with the vast writings by so many of the philosophers he covers. It is not many people, outside of the academy, that can actually read the bulk of the works by these philosophers, but Frame has clearly steeped himself in them, and distilled them for our benefit.
One of the main contrasts between Frame and Singer's work, is that Frame spends more time reviewing the line of faithful Christian historians and philosophers. Singer covers Calvin, and others, but Frame spends more time with Kuyper, Dooyeward, Clark, Plantinga, and some more interesting choices such as Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, and Vern Poythress.
No John Frame book would be complete without a huge list of appendices. There are some great selections in this volume as well--one hundred and twenty pages of them. There is also a thirty-page glossary, defining key terms.
This is a great, great book, that should be the foundation for any Christian evaluation of philosophy, as taught in colleges, seminaries, and in the church. Seeing someone of Frame's stature, writing a book of this kind, gives me hope that this book will minister to the needs of the church in this age, and give Christians confidence in fighting the "spiritual warfare in the life of the mind." (p. 17) I expect that in 36 years that this book will be easier to find, and more widely read, than Singer's book is today.
C. Gregg Singer, a fairly obscure historian, in the tradition of Cornelius Van Til, wrote "From Rationalism to Irrationality" in 1979, published by P & R. The book was written as a history of philosophy from the ancient Greeks through the early to mid-twentieth century. The book, for what it was, was outstanding. It is, however, dense, frequently obtuse, and for as short as it was (479 pages) it was a difficult read. It was also one of my first introductions to the presuppositionalist framework. I still highly recommend the book, though it is hard reading, and even more difficult to find--it is well worth it.
Now, 36 years later, P & R has published a similar work, by one of the pre-eminent theologians of our day. Singer brought a keen historical mind, aware of the impact philosophical movements have had upon history, see also his "A Theological Interpretation of American History, for example. Frame, on the other hand, brings a whole arsenal of theological insights and philosophical perceptions to the same material.
Those that are familiar with Frame, will be delighted to see that this is vintage Frame. The book covers difficult material, but rarely ever goes over your head. The footnotes are full of wonderful gems, answering the questions that you ponder, but no other author actually answers for you. For example, his section on one philosopher leaves you wondering if we should consider him a Christian, or not. Frame gives his answer in the footnote--it is small things like this, that Frame's readers have come to expect from him, and which gives you an appreciation for his thoroughness in covering the material.
Similar to his "Systematic Theology", at the end of each chapter there is a list of key terms, a list of study questions, a bibliography for the material in the chapter, a list of books to read for further study, a link to lectures on the material in iTunes (seriously!), and famous quotes related to the chapter. Some will find this a great aid (students, teachers, pastors, etc.), It is great that P & R put time into doing this.
In addition to the readability, Frame applies his perspectivalism to the analysis of philosophical movements and philosophers themselves. Frame begins the book by arguing that the Bible, does in fact, have something to say about philosophy. The first chapter is an introduction to philosophy, as well as a summary of the presuppositionalist system--which argues that the world can only be understood rightly, by presupposing the Trinitarian God of the Bible.
One of the interesting decisions that Frame made in writing this book, is intentionally devoting most of the book to the more modern philosophers and movements--a decision that may seem questionable at the outset, but I think was wise. There are other books out there, Singer's "From Rationalism to Irrationality", that I already mentioned, that fulfill that purpose. But not only that, Frame knows that it is the more modern philosophers that have the most influence today, and his desire is to serve the church today, in critiquing and responding to those that have the most influence today.
Frame covers all the major movements and thinkers, so it is easy to read through one section at a time, and break the large book into smaller readings. You could use it as a reference book, but the chapters build on one another, in a way that means it is best read from beginning to end.
The book is what you would expect it to be. He writes in the preface, "You won’t find in this book many (if any) new interpretations of the philosophers and theologians. I have followed, for the most part, the consensus interpretations, because I want to mainly assess the impact that each thinker has had on the consensus. But in this book there will be many evaluations of thinkers that I suspect will be found unconventional."
But, with Frame, your expectations are high, and rightfully so. For example, while reading of the deists, one has a good idea of what to expect, but Frame does surprise you with an insight I've never heard another Christian write of, in covering the deists. He writes:
"What amazes me most is this: Deism in particular and liberalism in general are the most serious doctrinal deviations that the church has ever experienced. Deism is certainly worse than Arianism, or Sabellianism, or any of the other heresies. But the churches fought pitched battles over those heresies. They denounced, they excommunicated. At the extreme they held church councils and formulated creeds and confessions to repudiate (“anathematize”) these false doctrines. But when deism and other forms of liberalism appeared, the churches did nothing comparable. There were no church councils, no new confessions, no anathemas. The churches were asleep, powerless. They seemed to take for granted that the universities would be in the hands of liberals, and that their pastoral candidates would be educated in that intellectual climate. But they seemed to assume that it would all work out in the end. They seemed to have no idea of the horrible consequences of this tolerance. So again, we must take account of a convulsion in the history of philosophy that continues to afflict Christianity in our own time. "
That is an amazing insight, in my opinion, neatly tucked away on page 204. But, of course, this just reinforces my point, that with Frame, such a keen insight is to be expected. I was also impressed with Frame's section on Barth, whom Singer (as Van Til did) had no patience for, and rejected outright. Frame, however, is more measured, though also very critical. But, with Frame, you get the sense that he is willing to be very gracious in reading Barth, complimenting him where he can, but generally cautioning readers from his theology. This more cautious critique goes a long way to show a more balanced perspective, and more confidence in Frame, knowing he is familiar with the material, and has interacted with it in a very serious way.
Reading this work, I was amazed with Frame's familiarity with the vast writings by so many of the philosophers he covers. It is not many people, outside of the academy, that can actually read the bulk of the works by these philosophers, but Frame has clearly steeped himself in them, and distilled them for our benefit.
One of the main contrasts between Frame and Singer's work, is that Frame spends more time reviewing the line of faithful Christian historians and philosophers. Singer covers Calvin, and others, but Frame spends more time with Kuyper, Dooyeward, Clark, Plantinga, and some more interesting choices such as Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, and Vern Poythress.
No John Frame book would be complete without a huge list of appendices. There are some great selections in this volume as well--one hundred and twenty pages of them. There is also a thirty-page glossary, defining key terms.
This is a great, great book, that should be the foundation for any Christian evaluation of philosophy, as taught in colleges, seminaries, and in the church. Seeing someone of Frame's stature, writing a book of this kind, gives me hope that this book will minister to the needs of the church in this age, and give Christians confidence in fighting the "spiritual warfare in the life of the mind." (p. 17) I expect that in 36 years that this book will be easier to find, and more widely read, than Singer's book is today.
May 27, 2025
This tome was a fantastic walk through the history of Western Philosophy, and took me nearly a year to get through! Although the title mentions theology as well, the book focuses only on the theologians that have influenced the trajectory of philosophy, so it’s really a book on the history of philosophy that also includes theological philosophy. I was slightly disappointed by this - however the book was excellent for what it was; and it was great that it included key theologians that influenced the history of philosophy - a somewhat neglected aspect of modern historical philosophy treatments.
Frame also makes the case from Romans 1, that each philosophy other than Christianity is ultimately self contradictory in at least one of several ways. As he gives the historical overviews of each philosophy and the developments, he also explains the self contradictory elements. This was a fascinating part of his history, and it made for a very interesting read. I would have also loved a concluding section defending Christian philosophy from this same accusation (and although he does touch on this in his introduction, unfortunately he didn’t include a larger treatment on this).
Though, much of the philosophies were summaries, Frame did do a remarkable job, considering the breadth of material he covered. All in all, this was a great intro to this vast subject.
Frame also makes the case from Romans 1, that each philosophy other than Christianity is ultimately self contradictory in at least one of several ways. As he gives the historical overviews of each philosophy and the developments, he also explains the self contradictory elements. This was a fascinating part of his history, and it made for a very interesting read. I would have also loved a concluding section defending Christian philosophy from this same accusation (and although he does touch on this in his introduction, unfortunately he didn’t include a larger treatment on this).
Though, much of the philosophies were summaries, Frame did do a remarkable job, considering the breadth of material he covered. All in all, this was a great intro to this vast subject.
December 30, 2015
I won’t give a whole review of each thinker in this book. I’ve done some of that here.
https://patristicevangelism.wordpress...
What new material can a survey of Philosophy cover? I was wrong. Frame’s text has numerous ‘lagniappe’ that you won’t find in other texts (links to audio, references to modern Reformed thinkers, etc). In other words, it’s fun. But more importantly, it’s conducive to piety. Frame defines theology as the application, by persons, of God’s word to all of life (Frame 4). Sure, there is a Kuyperian thrust and that can be abused, but on the whole I appreciate it.
He reduces metaphysical discussions to: Is reality One, Many, or Both? (Hint: It’s both). *God is absolute tri-personality (16-17). He relates to his creation in terms of Lordship. Lordship is explained as authority (normative), control, and presence.
I think this is a good move, but there is a subtle anti-substance metaphysic involved. Substance metaphysics would usually say that reality is “cut at the joints,” meaning a universe of parts, whole, etc. That’s fine as far as it goes and few would disagree. Traditionally, though, that concept would get applied to God.
Frame (perhaps subconsciously) does not allow that. We aren’t now speaking of God’s transcendence in a way that he is spatially “above” or separated from the universe (though certainly not identical with it). The language is no longer spatial, but covenantal.
Perspectives on Human Knowledge
*Our knowledge is related to God in 3 ways (19):
1. Control (our situation governed by his providence)
2. Authority (what God reveals in his Word and Creation)
3. Presence (Covenant)
Frame’s account is light on early philosophy and focuses more on early modern and recent philosophy.
His thesis: The two renaissance themes–humanism and antiquarianism–couldn’t be integrated. Do we gain knowledge by reflecting on the past or do we gain knowledge by using our autonomous reason divorced from tradition (167)?
The Reformation
Presented alternatives in metaphysics and epistemology. Luther: in his metaphysics he turned away from the NeoPlatonic “One” and back to the absolute and personal God of revelation (169).
Calvin marks a new move: he begins his Institutes with the knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is never apart from reverence and love towards him. This also determines man’s self-knowledge: “how can we imagine knowing anything without knowing ourselves, that is, knowing our knowing” (Frame 173 n16)? Calvin’s epistemology breaks with Renaissance and medieval models. Correlated with Calvin’s absolute personal theism.
After the Enlightenment, Frame makes the rather strange suggestion that the two worst heresies the church faced are Deism and Liberalism (220). I…um…don’t know about that. But it does explain much of the book. He defines liberal as anyone who doesn’t submit to the authority of Scripture (216ff). This definition of liberalism is very important for Frame’s text and it allows him to misinterpret a number of key thinkers.
Frame has a magnificent chapter on Kant and Hegel. Without explaining Kant’s philosophy, it allows Frame to make another important observation: the conservative drift in liberal theology. Liberals began to use more conservative language while retaining liberal constructs.
His chapter on Barth is just bad. I’ve blogged on it elsewhere. His take on Pannenberg is slightly better, though ruined by Frame’s definition of liberal theology. Pannenberg is not a liberal just because he doesn’t hold to inerrancy.
But when Frame sticks to material in which he is an acknowledged authority, such as linguistic analysis, he shines. The chapters on Russell and Wittgenstein were outstanding. He ends his text with a survey of recent Evangelical theologians.
Evaluation
Should you buy this text? I think so. It has a number of drawbacks and he only rarely engages in more than a surface-level analysis, but it is better than most one-volume treatments. Frame includes annotated bibliographies, pictures, diagrams, and links to audio lectures.
https://patristicevangelism.wordpress...
What new material can a survey of Philosophy cover? I was wrong. Frame’s text has numerous ‘lagniappe’ that you won’t find in other texts (links to audio, references to modern Reformed thinkers, etc). In other words, it’s fun. But more importantly, it’s conducive to piety. Frame defines theology as the application, by persons, of God’s word to all of life (Frame 4). Sure, there is a Kuyperian thrust and that can be abused, but on the whole I appreciate it.
He reduces metaphysical discussions to: Is reality One, Many, or Both? (Hint: It’s both). *God is absolute tri-personality (16-17). He relates to his creation in terms of Lordship. Lordship is explained as authority (normative), control, and presence.
I think this is a good move, but there is a subtle anti-substance metaphysic involved. Substance metaphysics would usually say that reality is “cut at the joints,” meaning a universe of parts, whole, etc. That’s fine as far as it goes and few would disagree. Traditionally, though, that concept would get applied to God.
Frame (perhaps subconsciously) does not allow that. We aren’t now speaking of God’s transcendence in a way that he is spatially “above” or separated from the universe (though certainly not identical with it). The language is no longer spatial, but covenantal.
Perspectives on Human Knowledge
*Our knowledge is related to God in 3 ways (19):
1. Control (our situation governed by his providence)
2. Authority (what God reveals in his Word and Creation)
3. Presence (Covenant)
Frame’s account is light on early philosophy and focuses more on early modern and recent philosophy.
His thesis: The two renaissance themes–humanism and antiquarianism–couldn’t be integrated. Do we gain knowledge by reflecting on the past or do we gain knowledge by using our autonomous reason divorced from tradition (167)?
The Reformation
Presented alternatives in metaphysics and epistemology. Luther: in his metaphysics he turned away from the NeoPlatonic “One” and back to the absolute and personal God of revelation (169).
Calvin marks a new move: he begins his Institutes with the knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is never apart from reverence and love towards him. This also determines man’s self-knowledge: “how can we imagine knowing anything without knowing ourselves, that is, knowing our knowing” (Frame 173 n16)? Calvin’s epistemology breaks with Renaissance and medieval models. Correlated with Calvin’s absolute personal theism.
After the Enlightenment, Frame makes the rather strange suggestion that the two worst heresies the church faced are Deism and Liberalism (220). I…um…don’t know about that. But it does explain much of the book. He defines liberal as anyone who doesn’t submit to the authority of Scripture (216ff). This definition of liberalism is very important for Frame’s text and it allows him to misinterpret a number of key thinkers.
Frame has a magnificent chapter on Kant and Hegel. Without explaining Kant’s philosophy, it allows Frame to make another important observation: the conservative drift in liberal theology. Liberals began to use more conservative language while retaining liberal constructs.
His chapter on Barth is just bad. I’ve blogged on it elsewhere. His take on Pannenberg is slightly better, though ruined by Frame’s definition of liberal theology. Pannenberg is not a liberal just because he doesn’t hold to inerrancy.
But when Frame sticks to material in which he is an acknowledged authority, such as linguistic analysis, he shines. The chapters on Russell and Wittgenstein were outstanding. He ends his text with a survey of recent Evangelical theologians.
Evaluation
Should you buy this text? I think so. It has a number of drawbacks and he only rarely engages in more than a surface-level analysis, but it is better than most one-volume treatments. Frame includes annotated bibliographies, pictures, diagrams, and links to audio lectures.
March 16, 2020
I found this book to be tremendously helpful. It provided me with context to understand various philosophers and theologians that have impacted "The West".
In addition, John Frame evaluates the various perspectives from a Christian viewpoint, showing how various aspects are useful, whereas other aspects of the philosophies aren't.
If you are looking for an introduction to philosophy or theology, I think it would be hard to do much better than this highly readable book.
In addition, John Frame evaluates the various perspectives from a Christian viewpoint, showing how various aspects are useful, whereas other aspects of the philosophies aren't.
If you are looking for an introduction to philosophy or theology, I think it would be hard to do much better than this highly readable book.
December 7, 2025
This is my first Frame book and, like everyone else, absolutely love his writing style. It is easy to read, engaging, and clear. Now the subject matter is absolutely not clear once we get to the enlightenment but the author isn’t to blame. Would recommend to the mature reader interested in learning about philosophical thinkers through the ages.
June 9, 2024
A good overview of the intellectual history of philosophy and theology, based on a wide range of primary texts. While I disagree with John Frame's presuppositionalism, he is one of the more balanced, less all-or-nothing followers of Cornelius Van Til. As a result, it is easier to respectfully disagree with him than with others of the same school.
December 10, 2015
Summary: This is a survey and critique of the major philosophers and theologians of the West beginning with the Greek philosophers and early church fathers up to the present day, written from a reformed perspective.
Yes, this really is what you think it is, a one volume survey of Western philosophy and theology! It is a massive volume, coming in at over 800 pages, and yet to distill the material Frame covers even to this length is a not insignificant undertaking.
Here's what you will find in this book if you decide to dig in. Frame begins with a discussion of philosophy and the Bible and reveals his own approach at the outset. Frame was deeply influenced by his association with Cornelius Van Til, his teacher at Westminster Theological Seminary, and writes as a presuppositionalist. In brief, he begins with the belief in a God who reveals God's self, as basic to all else and a commitment to the authority of that revelation as found in the Bible. He contrasts this with philosophy, which he understands as a human endeavor of autonomous reason. This is not without worth but in his view exists in a rational-irrational tension that can only be resolved by divine revelation and he traces this idea throughout his survey. In the following twelve chapters he surveys the major philosophers and theologians beginning with Greek philosophy, early Christian thought, medieval philosophy, early modern thought, theology in the Enlightenment, Kant and his successors, nineteenth century theology, Nietzsche, pragmatism, phenomenology and existentialism, twentieth century liberal theology and language philosophy, and recent Christian philosophy.
His format is to outline the thought of the theologian or philosopher in question, situating them in the context of ideas of their time. Then, more briefly he gives a critique. Fundamentally, he will evaluate on the basis of the degree to which the philosopher or theologian in question roots his ideas in revelation versus autonomous reason. Yet I did not find this repetitive but nuanced to the specific thought of the person in question. In most chapters, he will cover the thought of several major thinkers, and then more briefly touch on others. Each chapter concludes with a glossary of terms, a bibliography for further study that includes print, online, and audio materials (the latter consisting of lectures by Frame available at iTunes).
In addition to this survey, the volume includes twenty appendices, consisting of a number scholarly articles and reviews Frame has written on subjects related to the book. I found a number of these quite illuminating and good resources for apologetic (Christian defense of the faith) discussions including essays on the ontological argument, self-refuting statements, and on God and biblical language. Of personal interest to me was his essay on certainty and his discussion of the work of Esther Lightcap Meek, an epistemologist teaching at Geneva College. She asserts that while we cannot hope for certainty, we can attain to a proper confidence in knowing. Frame would argue that if one presupposes revelation, then there are some things pertaining to God's nature, our condition and salvation that we may know with certainty. This challenged my own thinking (I have tended toward Meek's ideas) and actually is something I want to pursue further. One also glimpses some of the scholarly "battles" he has engaged in such as his dialogue with Gordon Clark.
This touches on what I thought was the value of Frame's work. In addition to surveying the sweep of Western philosophical and theological thought, his discussions served to whet the appetite for pursuing some of these in further depth. I would not have know, for example, of Meek's books (Longing to Know, Loving to Know are two of these). Along the way, I also found myself longing to read Anselm, to re-read Pascal, to dig into the common sense philosophy of Thomas Reid. Frame even made me curious to explore some Van Til, who I've never read. Frame has a teacher's ability to unravel complex ideas in a highly readable form.
I fully suspect that a number who do not share Frame's perspective will take issue with his judgments on philosophers and theologians. He is less charitable, for example, to Barth, than many contemporary writers, although not uncharitable in his judgments of any. One has to understand the deep passion for truth as he understands it that under girds Frame's writing. And certainly, any specialist would probably take issue with his treatment of this or that figure. Yet that is always the challenge of undertaking a work like this.
For those sympathetic with a reformed, presuppositionalist perspective, this will provide a thoroughly engaging course on Western thought that will deeply inform one's own intellectual life. For pastors, this is useful for understanding various currents of thought through history. For those working in university ministries or engaged in discussions at the philosophical level, this is an especially useful reference.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Yes, this really is what you think it is, a one volume survey of Western philosophy and theology! It is a massive volume, coming in at over 800 pages, and yet to distill the material Frame covers even to this length is a not insignificant undertaking.
Here's what you will find in this book if you decide to dig in. Frame begins with a discussion of philosophy and the Bible and reveals his own approach at the outset. Frame was deeply influenced by his association with Cornelius Van Til, his teacher at Westminster Theological Seminary, and writes as a presuppositionalist. In brief, he begins with the belief in a God who reveals God's self, as basic to all else and a commitment to the authority of that revelation as found in the Bible. He contrasts this with philosophy, which he understands as a human endeavor of autonomous reason. This is not without worth but in his view exists in a rational-irrational tension that can only be resolved by divine revelation and he traces this idea throughout his survey. In the following twelve chapters he surveys the major philosophers and theologians beginning with Greek philosophy, early Christian thought, medieval philosophy, early modern thought, theology in the Enlightenment, Kant and his successors, nineteenth century theology, Nietzsche, pragmatism, phenomenology and existentialism, twentieth century liberal theology and language philosophy, and recent Christian philosophy.
His format is to outline the thought of the theologian or philosopher in question, situating them in the context of ideas of their time. Then, more briefly he gives a critique. Fundamentally, he will evaluate on the basis of the degree to which the philosopher or theologian in question roots his ideas in revelation versus autonomous reason. Yet I did not find this repetitive but nuanced to the specific thought of the person in question. In most chapters, he will cover the thought of several major thinkers, and then more briefly touch on others. Each chapter concludes with a glossary of terms, a bibliography for further study that includes print, online, and audio materials (the latter consisting of lectures by Frame available at iTunes).
In addition to this survey, the volume includes twenty appendices, consisting of a number scholarly articles and reviews Frame has written on subjects related to the book. I found a number of these quite illuminating and good resources for apologetic (Christian defense of the faith) discussions including essays on the ontological argument, self-refuting statements, and on God and biblical language. Of personal interest to me was his essay on certainty and his discussion of the work of Esther Lightcap Meek, an epistemologist teaching at Geneva College. She asserts that while we cannot hope for certainty, we can attain to a proper confidence in knowing. Frame would argue that if one presupposes revelation, then there are some things pertaining to God's nature, our condition and salvation that we may know with certainty. This challenged my own thinking (I have tended toward Meek's ideas) and actually is something I want to pursue further. One also glimpses some of the scholarly "battles" he has engaged in such as his dialogue with Gordon Clark.
This touches on what I thought was the value of Frame's work. In addition to surveying the sweep of Western philosophical and theological thought, his discussions served to whet the appetite for pursuing some of these in further depth. I would not have know, for example, of Meek's books (Longing to Know, Loving to Know are two of these). Along the way, I also found myself longing to read Anselm, to re-read Pascal, to dig into the common sense philosophy of Thomas Reid. Frame even made me curious to explore some Van Til, who I've never read. Frame has a teacher's ability to unravel complex ideas in a highly readable form.
I fully suspect that a number who do not share Frame's perspective will take issue with his judgments on philosophers and theologians. He is less charitable, for example, to Barth, than many contemporary writers, although not uncharitable in his judgments of any. One has to understand the deep passion for truth as he understands it that under girds Frame's writing. And certainly, any specialist would probably take issue with his treatment of this or that figure. Yet that is always the challenge of undertaking a work like this.
For those sympathetic with a reformed, presuppositionalist perspective, this will provide a thoroughly engaging course on Western thought that will deeply inform one's own intellectual life. For pastors, this is useful for understanding various currents of thought through history. For those working in university ministries or engaged in discussions at the philosophical level, this is an especially useful reference.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
April 7, 2019
Why doesn't he follow Martin Luther?
Thomas Neill sums up Luther’s attitude towards philosophy.
“There have been many persons - many, like Luther, with doctor’s degrees-who were happily nonrational. But there are few, indeed, who have made as vicious an attack on reason as [Luther]. All philosophers were anathema to him. He calls Aristotle an “urchin who must be put in the pis-sty or donkey’s stable”; the Sorbonne is “that mother of all errors”; the theologians of Louvain are ‘coarse donkeys, cursed sows, bellies of blasphemers, epicurean swine, heretics and idolators, putrid puddles, the cursed broth of hell.’ Not only philosophers, but philosophy itself is viciously attacked by Luther. In 1536 he wrote:’I shall have to chop off the head of philosophy’. Again: ‘One should learn philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it.’ Luther carries his assault to reason itself by attacking man’s very mind. ‘Reason,’ he wrote, ‘is contrary to faith... In believers it should be killed and buried.’ It ‘is the devil’s handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.’
Let us suppose that he does not follow Luther in this, despite following him in his attack against the authority of the Church. Again, I do not think this is a good book. As someone else has already said it: [Fr. Paul Robinson]
“Occam drove a wedge between natural and supernatural, between reason and faith; Luther cuts them off completely. For Occam, it is impossible to make faith and reason agree, but that’s no reason to throw out one or the other. No, we will keep both, and be uncertain about both. Luther will not have any of this. For him, there is only one truth, that of faith. For him, like Occam, faith and reason cannot get along. Instead of trying to give them their territories, so as to allow them both to exist, he tosses reason overboard. The Occamist spirit contributed to Luther’s own system of thought. For Luther had a certain rational system at the heart of his worldview, even while proclaiming irrationality to the world with his entertaining and zoological vituperation. Occamism lent quite a contribution to the formation of this worldview. Firstly, Luther imbibed the Occamist questioning and critical attitude, by which one subjects everything to one’s judgement. Even in his Commentary on Romans, written before his break with the Catholic Church. Thus, Luther did not see dogmas in terms of degrees of certitude, where one Church decision is infallible, another holds great weight, while another is mere opinion. For him, everything was in the realm of opinion; there were no fixed truths.“
A Catholic submits his beliefs to the judgment of the Church’s infallible teaching authority- the Magisterium. A Catholic will submit to the Magisterium even when, if left to his own judgement, he would choose otherwise. Very difficult personal circumstances, the pressures of society, and popular opinion may tempt a Catholic to follow a course of action condemned by the Magisterium - contraception, abortion, divorce- but a true Catholic will submit to the authority of the Church no matter how difficult this may be. A rationalist will not submit to any authority exterior to his own reason. A rationalist makes his own reason the arbiter of what he will or will not believe, for how he will or will not behave. Protestantism is the direct link between the renaissance humanism and nineteenth century rationalism. The sixteenth century Protestants, in final analysis are rationalists. They would deny this in that they would submit to the authority of the Bible. But if pressed they would admit that it is their own interpretation of the Bible using their reason. Luther did exactly this, he substituted the interpretation of the Church for his own, but was furious if other Protestants had the temerity to differ from his own theories. He saw nothing incongruous in expecting others to treat his opinion as infallible when he repudiated the infallible authority of the Church. The history of Protestantism has been one of fragmentation from it’s very inception.
Thomas Neill sums up Luther’s attitude towards philosophy.
“There have been many persons - many, like Luther, with doctor’s degrees-who were happily nonrational. But there are few, indeed, who have made as vicious an attack on reason as [Luther]. All philosophers were anathema to him. He calls Aristotle an “urchin who must be put in the pis-sty or donkey’s stable”; the Sorbonne is “that mother of all errors”; the theologians of Louvain are ‘coarse donkeys, cursed sows, bellies of blasphemers, epicurean swine, heretics and idolators, putrid puddles, the cursed broth of hell.’ Not only philosophers, but philosophy itself is viciously attacked by Luther. In 1536 he wrote:’I shall have to chop off the head of philosophy’. Again: ‘One should learn philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it.’ Luther carries his assault to reason itself by attacking man’s very mind. ‘Reason,’ he wrote, ‘is contrary to faith... In believers it should be killed and buried.’ It ‘is the devil’s handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.’
Let us suppose that he does not follow Luther in this, despite following him in his attack against the authority of the Church. Again, I do not think this is a good book. As someone else has already said it: [Fr. Paul Robinson]
“Occam drove a wedge between natural and supernatural, between reason and faith; Luther cuts them off completely. For Occam, it is impossible to make faith and reason agree, but that’s no reason to throw out one or the other. No, we will keep both, and be uncertain about both. Luther will not have any of this. For him, there is only one truth, that of faith. For him, like Occam, faith and reason cannot get along. Instead of trying to give them their territories, so as to allow them both to exist, he tosses reason overboard. The Occamist spirit contributed to Luther’s own system of thought. For Luther had a certain rational system at the heart of his worldview, even while proclaiming irrationality to the world with his entertaining and zoological vituperation. Occamism lent quite a contribution to the formation of this worldview. Firstly, Luther imbibed the Occamist questioning and critical attitude, by which one subjects everything to one’s judgement. Even in his Commentary on Romans, written before his break with the Catholic Church. Thus, Luther did not see dogmas in terms of degrees of certitude, where one Church decision is infallible, another holds great weight, while another is mere opinion. For him, everything was in the realm of opinion; there were no fixed truths.“
A Catholic submits his beliefs to the judgment of the Church’s infallible teaching authority- the Magisterium. A Catholic will submit to the Magisterium even when, if left to his own judgement, he would choose otherwise. Very difficult personal circumstances, the pressures of society, and popular opinion may tempt a Catholic to follow a course of action condemned by the Magisterium - contraception, abortion, divorce- but a true Catholic will submit to the authority of the Church no matter how difficult this may be. A rationalist will not submit to any authority exterior to his own reason. A rationalist makes his own reason the arbiter of what he will or will not believe, for how he will or will not behave. Protestantism is the direct link between the renaissance humanism and nineteenth century rationalism. The sixteenth century Protestants, in final analysis are rationalists. They would deny this in that they would submit to the authority of the Bible. But if pressed they would admit that it is their own interpretation of the Bible using their reason. Luther did exactly this, he substituted the interpretation of the Church for his own, but was furious if other Protestants had the temerity to differ from his own theories. He saw nothing incongruous in expecting others to treat his opinion as infallible when he repudiated the infallible authority of the Church. The history of Protestantism has been one of fragmentation from it’s very inception.
February 7, 2020
Because John Frame is such a clear writer, this book is not as intimidating as it may seem. Frame begins with the Greeks and traces the development of philosophy over the centuries, with emphasis on the great Christian theologians (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin) leading all the way up to the current roster of Christian philosophers (Plantinga and others) who have earned the respect of both Christian and non-Christian thinkers. (543).
Frame makes no apologies for bringing a distinctly Christian perspective to the history of philosophy, stating early on that his whole idea is to “expose the fact that the history of philosophy and theology is nothing less than spiritual warfare in the life of the mind.” (xxvi). The basic questions wrestled with by the philosophers are “religious in character.” (7). Because non-Christian philosophies decline to view reality through God‘s revelation, they all tend to over emphasize transcendence, resulting in an inability to know anything (skepticism, irrationalism), or they over emphasize immanence, resulting in an overreliance on human autonomy to make sense of the world (rationalism). (31-33).
For example, liberal theology eventually leads either to the despairing conviction that nothing about God can be known, or to the hopeless conviction that truth is found only in our feelings or personal experience. “The ‘voice of God’ turns out to be man’s own voice . . . Man listens to himself. He confuses God’s voice with man’s.” (375).
Apart from biblical revelation to make sense of the world, we will inevitably land in a place of frustration, as David Hume did when he said, “I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another.” (204, 245). As Frame says later, some philosophies simply show us the “horror of life without Jesus.” “We are not made to think or live without presuppositions, but to think with the presupposition that God’s revelation is true, that we are his image, and that his redemption alone saves us from the nihilistic kingdom of Satan.” (357).
Frame applies a Van Tillian presuppositional approach throughout the whole book. This is a view that believes all human study should begin with God and seek to see everything in the light of his revelation. Apart from assuming the existence of God, we can’t understand anything. Arguing about God’s existence is like arguing about air – there might be disagreement as to whether it exists, but both arguers must breathe it in to even engage in the discussion.(44) This is actually nothing new, but simply what Anselm said in the 12th century — “I believe that I might understand.” (129).
I have to admit that I was not always tracking with the complexity of some of the arguments in this book, and sometimes the brief critiques of various unbelieving philosophies left me wanting a more extended analysis of their deficiencies. But this book shows very persuasively that the primary spiritual battle going on in the world is the battle of ideas, a struggle to know what is true. Certainly this explains why Satan‘s first line of attack in the garden of Eden was epistemological: “Did God really say?”
Frame makes no apologies for bringing a distinctly Christian perspective to the history of philosophy, stating early on that his whole idea is to “expose the fact that the history of philosophy and theology is nothing less than spiritual warfare in the life of the mind.” (xxvi). The basic questions wrestled with by the philosophers are “religious in character.” (7). Because non-Christian philosophies decline to view reality through God‘s revelation, they all tend to over emphasize transcendence, resulting in an inability to know anything (skepticism, irrationalism), or they over emphasize immanence, resulting in an overreliance on human autonomy to make sense of the world (rationalism). (31-33).
For example, liberal theology eventually leads either to the despairing conviction that nothing about God can be known, or to the hopeless conviction that truth is found only in our feelings or personal experience. “The ‘voice of God’ turns out to be man’s own voice . . . Man listens to himself. He confuses God’s voice with man’s.” (375).
Apart from biblical revelation to make sense of the world, we will inevitably land in a place of frustration, as David Hume did when he said, “I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another.” (204, 245). As Frame says later, some philosophies simply show us the “horror of life without Jesus.” “We are not made to think or live without presuppositions, but to think with the presupposition that God’s revelation is true, that we are his image, and that his redemption alone saves us from the nihilistic kingdom of Satan.” (357).
Frame applies a Van Tillian presuppositional approach throughout the whole book. This is a view that believes all human study should begin with God and seek to see everything in the light of his revelation. Apart from assuming the existence of God, we can’t understand anything. Arguing about God’s existence is like arguing about air – there might be disagreement as to whether it exists, but both arguers must breathe it in to even engage in the discussion.(44) This is actually nothing new, but simply what Anselm said in the 12th century — “I believe that I might understand.” (129).
I have to admit that I was not always tracking with the complexity of some of the arguments in this book, and sometimes the brief critiques of various unbelieving philosophies left me wanting a more extended analysis of their deficiencies. But this book shows very persuasively that the primary spiritual battle going on in the world is the battle of ideas, a struggle to know what is true. Certainly this explains why Satan‘s first line of attack in the garden of Eden was epistemological: “Did God really say?”
March 28, 2022
1. Why should I read this?
Anyone who desires a Concise glance at Western writers.
This work covers, succinct glimpse of Western ideas.
From Greeks to Modern Alistair McIntyre.
I do appreciate, writers from the Dutch tradition.
However - I do not buy into everything they write.
2. Backstory of this work
I came to this work - having read most classics in Western world.
So, I am familiar with most writers.
From my observation, people in Reformed tradition are bookish.
In my understanding, bookishness might come off as, puffed up pride.
Pride can stem into a person's heart in subtle form.
“insolence,”
“presumptuousness,”
“arrogance,”
“conceit,”
“high-mindedness,”
“haughtiness,”,
“egotism
So, I suggest always to remember, to build people up.
“knowledge” puffs up, but love builds.
I'd chose Love
3. What else?
Competing Authors in this space, I can recall,
3. a -Frederick Charles Copleston, SJ - History of Western philosophy
3. b - Bertrand Russell - History of western philosophy
At the end of the day, I'd think for my own self.
A Simple; Easy Read.
Recommended for anyone getting a survey of Western writers.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
Anyone who desires a Concise glance at Western writers.
This work covers, succinct glimpse of Western ideas.
From Greeks to Modern Alistair McIntyre.
I do appreciate, writers from the Dutch tradition.
However - I do not buy into everything they write.
2. Backstory of this work
I came to this work - having read most classics in Western world.
So, I am familiar with most writers.
From my observation, people in Reformed tradition are bookish.
In my understanding, bookishness might come off as, puffed up pride.
Pride can stem into a person's heart in subtle form.
“insolence,”
“presumptuousness,”
“arrogance,”
“conceit,”
“high-mindedness,”
“haughtiness,”,
“egotism
So, I suggest always to remember, to build people up.
“knowledge” puffs up, but love builds.
I'd chose Love
3. What else?
Competing Authors in this space, I can recall,
3. a -Frederick Charles Copleston, SJ - History of Western philosophy
3. b - Bertrand Russell - History of western philosophy
At the end of the day, I'd think for my own self.
A Simple; Easy Read.
Recommended for anyone getting a survey of Western writers.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
November 25, 2017
An incredible overview of the historical development of philosophy and Christian thought from a thoroughly Christian perspective.
Frame’s insights and copious footnotes helped me think more biblically about different philosophies and helped me connect the dots from the early philosophers to today’s postmodern thought.
It’s a textbook, to be sure, but an edifying, fascinating, and accessible one.
Frame’s insights and copious footnotes helped me think more biblically about different philosophies and helped me connect the dots from the early philosophers to today’s postmodern thought.
It’s a textbook, to be sure, but an edifying, fascinating, and accessible one.
Currently reading
April 3, 2017I sure wish I could get some traction on this one.
June 14, 2022
This book was an intellectual home wrecker. My heart throughout the book felt like the cover, gloomy! Frame forced me to face some big questions that I haven't perhaps (unfortunately) ever asked myself about life... what is reality composed of? Does life have any meaning? What is the good life? Can we know anything? How do we know? Are our minds trustworthy? He forced me to ask these questions by surveying other philosophers who've asked these same questions and have landed in COMPLETELY different places than I (biblical theism). It seemed as if other much better thinkers were coming to different conclusions.
The height of the challenge was during some lectures on epistemology (theory of knowledge) in my Philosophy class at seminary. If Christianity is not true, life is meaningless. Rational thought it impossible (unless it presupposes God!). At the conclusion of the book I began to realize something profound... philosophy was always meant to be done under the authority of Scripture. When it isn't, it collapses in irrationalism or radical skepticism. Although it took me the semester and 500+ pages to realize this... thank God Scripture is true, and therefore philosophy makes an excellent servant to our theological studies.
The height of the challenge was during some lectures on epistemology (theory of knowledge) in my Philosophy class at seminary. If Christianity is not true, life is meaningless. Rational thought it impossible (unless it presupposes God!). At the conclusion of the book I began to realize something profound... philosophy was always meant to be done under the authority of Scripture. When it isn't, it collapses in irrationalism or radical skepticism. Although it took me the semester and 500+ pages to realize this... thank God Scripture is true, and therefore philosophy makes an excellent servant to our theological studies.
March 14, 2023
Really enjoyed this survey. I almost need to go through it again really slowly with a pen and paper.
December 16, 2023
This is a thorough overview of Western philosophy evaluated from the perspective of biblical faithfulness. A great blessing to the church of Christ.
July 4, 2024
What a treasure.
One of my big gripes with great minds of the Christian faith is that they frequently fail to invest sufficient effort in steel-manning their intellectual opponents. Of all of the thinkers addressed in this book whose writings I've read deeply in (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Van Til) he "gets them." Rushdoony is probably the worst offender in this regard, as he read and wrote most widely and poorly about philosophical and theological issues. That doesn't mean that I greatly differ from Rushdoony's conclusions... I just think he does sloppy work with a dismissive attitude towards individuals that were subtler thinkers than himself. The authors listed above are maybe 1-50th of the thinkers addressed, but his care in dealing with their ideas was sufficient to lead me to trust his critiques on the rest; at least as a temporary starting point for further analysis and exploration.
Randomly selecting from an embarrassment of insights:
+He presents a very convincing thesis that Athanasius/Augustine and Luther/Calvin form two epochal turns in the history of the church in which the first, pugnacious advocate for the truth once received was followed by a more careful, systematic thinker who consolidated the gains made by their violent forebear.
+He makes way for a Hegelian dialectic view of truth that I have always favored that the assaults on the church and biblical truth are always prods from God to strengthen our tired hands and discipline our flabby sides. Essentially, they are our teachers through error. Response to this error leads to the greatest crystalization of truths already revealed but poorly understood.
+In an interesting move that I don't recall him ever addressing, he almost completely leaves out biographical elements of the thinkers' lives. I personally feel like many of the lives of unrepentant sin lived by some of the thinkers contained herein are worth considering when evaluating their fitness as thought-leaders... however, it definitely kept him from lazily striking "below the belt" and failing to address their arguments.
+He has the radical and refreshing opinion that the statements of philosophers can actually be evaluated as true or false and does his darndest to show from Scripture (or at least Scripturally informed epistemology) the truth or falsehood of each person's arguments. At a number of points he is willing to admit that either a) he was too dense to understand a philosopher/theologian's argument or that b) the philosopher/theologian's argument was just a bunch of gobbledy-gook wrapped up in smart sounding rhetoric.
I listened to the audiobook (23 hours). At times it suffered from lack of his charts and footnotes, but not much. I was so impressed with the content and presentation that I shelled out 45 bucks for my wife to have as a "cheat-sheet" going forward in her duties as homeschool mom with our two boys. I felt a little dumb for paying for it twice, but the beauty and functionality of the hardback instantly made me forget that. It has very helpful metadata in the margins that help you keep your bearings as to where you are in the "Great Conversation." It also includes numerous appendixes that allow for deep-dives on some of the concepts and thinkers presented (that are not included in the audiobook).
This book is not Scripture. Frame's word on none of these thinkers is final or authoritative... but face it, he's smarter than you or me, and seems to fully subject his intelligence and academic efforts to the truth of Scripture and the role of the church. Praise God for John M. Frame.
One of my big gripes with great minds of the Christian faith is that they frequently fail to invest sufficient effort in steel-manning their intellectual opponents. Of all of the thinkers addressed in this book whose writings I've read deeply in (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Van Til) he "gets them." Rushdoony is probably the worst offender in this regard, as he read and wrote most widely and poorly about philosophical and theological issues. That doesn't mean that I greatly differ from Rushdoony's conclusions... I just think he does sloppy work with a dismissive attitude towards individuals that were subtler thinkers than himself. The authors listed above are maybe 1-50th of the thinkers addressed, but his care in dealing with their ideas was sufficient to lead me to trust his critiques on the rest; at least as a temporary starting point for further analysis and exploration.
Randomly selecting from an embarrassment of insights:
+He presents a very convincing thesis that Athanasius/Augustine and Luther/Calvin form two epochal turns in the history of the church in which the first, pugnacious advocate for the truth once received was followed by a more careful, systematic thinker who consolidated the gains made by their violent forebear.
+He makes way for a Hegelian dialectic view of truth that I have always favored that the assaults on the church and biblical truth are always prods from God to strengthen our tired hands and discipline our flabby sides. Essentially, they are our teachers through error. Response to this error leads to the greatest crystalization of truths already revealed but poorly understood.
+In an interesting move that I don't recall him ever addressing, he almost completely leaves out biographical elements of the thinkers' lives. I personally feel like many of the lives of unrepentant sin lived by some of the thinkers contained herein are worth considering when evaluating their fitness as thought-leaders... however, it definitely kept him from lazily striking "below the belt" and failing to address their arguments.
+He has the radical and refreshing opinion that the statements of philosophers can actually be evaluated as true or false and does his darndest to show from Scripture (or at least Scripturally informed epistemology) the truth or falsehood of each person's arguments. At a number of points he is willing to admit that either a) he was too dense to understand a philosopher/theologian's argument or that b) the philosopher/theologian's argument was just a bunch of gobbledy-gook wrapped up in smart sounding rhetoric.
I listened to the audiobook (23 hours). At times it suffered from lack of his charts and footnotes, but not much. I was so impressed with the content and presentation that I shelled out 45 bucks for my wife to have as a "cheat-sheet" going forward in her duties as homeschool mom with our two boys. I felt a little dumb for paying for it twice, but the beauty and functionality of the hardback instantly made me forget that. It has very helpful metadata in the margins that help you keep your bearings as to where you are in the "Great Conversation." It also includes numerous appendixes that allow for deep-dives on some of the concepts and thinkers presented (that are not included in the audiobook).
This book is not Scripture. Frame's word on none of these thinkers is final or authoritative... but face it, he's smarter than you or me, and seems to fully subject his intelligence and academic efforts to the truth of Scripture and the role of the church. Praise God for John M. Frame.
September 29, 2024
The content and chapter organization is hands-down the easiest approach to covering philosophy that I’ve come across. But the real winner for me in this volume? All the beyond-the-text additions. Not only do you have online links for lectures, each chapter has a bonus/review section at the end, including a list of key terms (several hundred, with a full glossary in the back), study questions (and we’re not taking 3-5 obvious questions), bibliography (both print and online), famous quotes, and my personal favorite…Read For Yourself. Yep, after getting your toes wet in this overview volume, Frame then lays out, chapter by chapter, movement by movement, author by author, the best way to proceed in reading the source materials he references FOR YOURSELF. As someone whose library is half spontaneous purchases from footnotes and end notes, these sections were transcribed almost item for item directly onto my wishlist/to read list (at least, those I hadn’t immediately purchased). And for those who love a good appendix (I can’t be the only one on earth, hopefully)…there are TWENTY in this volume.
September 18, 2023
Simply fantastic. This book is unique in several ways. In the first place, it is rare to have such a seamless blend of "general" philosophers with theologians, but the overlap between the two fields demands it.
Second, in contrast to mere primers, Frame gives each featured philosopher or system the needed space to give the reader a real (though by no means comprehensive) understanding. Like Gordon Clark, he attempts to bring the reader up to the level of the content rather than bring the content down to the level of the reader.
Third, Frame does not claim to present the history of philosophy from a "neutral" standpoint (which is impossible), but rather frames (!) the entire narrative through the lens of his worldview, noting the trends of autonomous reasoning leading inevitably to various forms of irrationalism and contradiction. The reader is thus not simply given a description of philosophical systems, but also a thoughtful analysis from a consistent viewpoint.
Second, in contrast to mere primers, Frame gives each featured philosopher or system the needed space to give the reader a real (though by no means comprehensive) understanding. Like Gordon Clark, he attempts to bring the reader up to the level of the content rather than bring the content down to the level of the reader.
Third, Frame does not claim to present the history of philosophy from a "neutral" standpoint (which is impossible), but rather frames (!) the entire narrative through the lens of his worldview, noting the trends of autonomous reasoning leading inevitably to various forms of irrationalism and contradiction. The reader is thus not simply given a description of philosophical systems, but also a thoughtful analysis from a consistent viewpoint.
June 27, 2022
This is just an excellent book...if I could give more than 5 stars I would. One of the best books I have read on philosophy and theology. I am sure the title is a homage (or maybe a play on) Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy...but Frame's is better.
Understand that this is a BIG book; it is long. There are certain books that you read and think, "if my subconscious mind will just remember everything I read here and will be able to recall it when I need it, this will be so useful." Unfortunately, that's not how my mind works and everything I hope to remember I will surely forget...but I have it now as a reference (you should too).
Thank you Mr Frame for such a scholarly work that is also very accessible.
Understand that this is a BIG book; it is long. There are certain books that you read and think, "if my subconscious mind will just remember everything I read here and will be able to recall it when I need it, this will be so useful." Unfortunately, that's not how my mind works and everything I hope to remember I will surely forget...but I have it now as a reference (you should too).
Thank you Mr Frame for such a scholarly work that is also very accessible.
May 7, 2024
Just finished teaching through this whole text, Frame emerges again as a trustworthy thinker in the field of philosophical and theological history. He commends Poythress at the end as a co-laborer to learn from and I thank God for giving gifts like those two men to the church. I look forward to having this work as a reference for the history of thought in future. Happy to recommend!
January 11, 2023
I am absolutely loving this book! It has the best summaries and evaluations of the major philosophers, starting with the pre-Socratics, that I have read yet, and I’ve read half a dozen. It is a lot more approachable than I was expecting.
October 18, 2025
What you would expect from both a history of philosophy/theology and the insights from John Frame. I own the hard copy too, so listening on audiobook was was great for a first read through and having the book for reference and deeper explorations.
February 16, 2017
A sweeping analysis of the history of Western philosophy and theology, combined with Frame's trenchant analysis of the positions. Very helpful.
June 28, 2017
Great introduction to western philosophy and theology. This was very helpful for understanding this subject from a Biblical worldview. The rational/irrational dialectic (albeit developed by Van Til) is extremely helpful to give any Christian confidence in dialogues with non-Christians.
September 25, 2024
This is essentially an argument for the prepositional method of apologetics. Frame attempts to prove this thesis by examining the western tradition of philosophy and theology and expose weaknesses and faults philosophers and theologians, while also commending what is good. If I hear the words "autonomous reasoning" one more time...
September 8, 2015
The Word of God is emphatic about our role as we enter the marketplace of ideas. The apostle Paul sounds the warning in Colossians 2:8 - “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Scripture instructs believers, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ …” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5, ESV).
John Frame maintains and promotes such a mind-set in his latest offering, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (HWPT). The discipline of philosophy which is defined as “the disciplined attempt to articulate and defend a worldview” is broken down into three subdivisions including metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory. Readers familiar with Frame’s work will immediately recognize the author’s commitment to perspectivalism, a powerful grid for thinking which includes three perspectives: normative, situational, and existential.
HWPT is dedicated to Dr. Cornelius Van Til, whose influence is evident throughout the book. Readers who entrenched in Van Til’s methodology will quickly recognize themes such as the Creator-creature distinction, and the charge that non-Christian thought lapses into the intellectual systems of thought, even inconsistent Christian ones, inevitably lapse into the intellectual bankruptcies of rationalism and irrationalism.
On a large scale, HWPT leads readers on a fascinating journey that educates, contextualizes, and warns.
Education
Frame has a reputation for educating not only his Seminary students but a rather broad reading audience. HWPT is no exception. The author gives readers an up-close look at the history of western thought. Unlike the typical tour of philosophy and theology, Dr. Frame provides readers with the proper lenses with which to view such ideas. The book is built on the immutable, authoritative, infallible, inerrant Word of God. Readers are alerted in advance that the author carries certain presuppositions, above all - an allegiance to sacred Scripture. The author clearly reveals the presuppositions which guide his writing and inform his worldview:
“As a Christian, I am committed to a worldview that comes from the Bible: God the Creator, the world as his creation, man made in his image, sin and its consequences as our predicament, Christ’s atonement as our salvation, his return as the consummation of all things.”
Such an admission is rare in the world of philosophy. Frame’s candor should be respected and greatly appreciated by believer and non-believer alike.
Context
HWPT stands alone by contextualizing the various philosophic movements and the thinkers who represent those movements. The author helps readers understand how various philosophers influence future generations and worldviews. Such an approach is greatly needed, especially among undergraduate students who often see philosophy in bits and pieces instead of a unified whole.
Warning
The most helpful aspect of HWPT is the warning extended by Dr. Frame, a warning that takes Colossians 2:8 and 2 Corinthians 10:5 to heart. The author demonstrates how various philosophers have influenced generations and have contributed to the erosion of the Christian mind. These thinkers, most of whom continue to rule from the grave are exposed and for their futile thinking, which generally follows Van Til’s charge of being rationalistic and irrational at the same time.
I commend HWPT to pastors, Bible College students, Seminary students and Christ-followers who have a passion to see the picture in the world of philosophy and theology. HWPT is a serious book for serious Bible students. It is a book that I will return to again and again. May God use John Frame’s latest work to glorify the great God of the universe and encourage a new generation of Christian theologians, philosophers, pastors, and leaders.
Soli Deo Gloria!
www.baldreformer.wordpress.com
February 22, 2017
Frame’s History of Philosophy is an ambitious attempt at articulating a distinctively Christian Philosophy addressing metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. As such it provides an alternative to secular humanist approaches to philosophy such as Bertrand Russell’s classic A History of Western Philosophy or Luc Ferry’s more recent and accessible A Brief History of Thought. If you are looking for an “objective” history of philosophy this book will be maddening, but if you recognize that every philosopher approaches the big questions of life with certain presuppositions or first principles you will not be disappointed. Whether you are seeking to understand philosophy self-consciously as a Christian student or scholar, or whether you are a not Christian seeking to explore a distinctively Christian approach to philosophy Frame’s work will be very enlightening.
For Frame Scripture provides the guiding presuppositions for the study of philosophy. He says, “I believe that the Bible should govern our philosophical thinking, as indeed it must govern every other area of human life (1 Cor. 10:31). Some, to be sure, doubt that the Bible has anything to say about philosophy. The best way of replying to these doubts is to show what in fact the Bible does say on this subject. That will be the main theme and emphasis of this book.” For Frame philosophy and theology are profoundly interdependent. Frame defines philosophy as “the disciplined attempt to articulate and defend a worldview.” He Continues, “As a Christian, I am committed to a worldview that comes from the Bible: God the Creator, the world as his creation, man made in his image, sin and its consequences as our predicament, Christ’s atonement as our salvation, his return as the consummation of all things. I will be presupposing that worldview in this volume, but also arguing for it in dialogue with the philosophers whom we will consider.”
While the philosophy (Frame’s tri-perspectivalism) is well worth the price of the book, it is the engagement with the philosophers of Western Civilization that is the distinctive contribution. Following the Apostle Paul’s logic in Romans 1:18-25 Frame sees metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics not as neutral, but as a spiritual battlefield. He says, “My whole idea is to expose the fact that the history of philosophy and theology is nothing less than spiritual warfare in the life of the mind.” So what unfolds in the course of History Philosophy is a careful attempt to compare & contrast the first principles, presupposition, and values of the different schools of Western thought with that of Christianity. Following his mentor, Cornelius Van Til, Frame also develops an apologetic from the history of philosophy capitalizing on the uniqueness of the Christian worldview: the Creator creature distinction, God as absolute tripersonality, divine lordship as his relation to the world, etc. This sustained engagement with the history of Western Philosophy is a monumental task which Frame somehow manages to pull off in a little over 700 pages.
If you are seeking to be a more self-consciously Christian student or philosopher, seeking to better understand the relationship between philosophy and theology, seeking to better understand the relationship between philosophy and apologtics, or simply interested in exploring a Christian approach to philosophy this is a must read.
*I was delighted to preview this book as an advance copy for P&R Publishing.
For Frame Scripture provides the guiding presuppositions for the study of philosophy. He says, “I believe that the Bible should govern our philosophical thinking, as indeed it must govern every other area of human life (1 Cor. 10:31). Some, to be sure, doubt that the Bible has anything to say about philosophy. The best way of replying to these doubts is to show what in fact the Bible does say on this subject. That will be the main theme and emphasis of this book.” For Frame philosophy and theology are profoundly interdependent. Frame defines philosophy as “the disciplined attempt to articulate and defend a worldview.” He Continues, “As a Christian, I am committed to a worldview that comes from the Bible: God the Creator, the world as his creation, man made in his image, sin and its consequences as our predicament, Christ’s atonement as our salvation, his return as the consummation of all things. I will be presupposing that worldview in this volume, but also arguing for it in dialogue with the philosophers whom we will consider.”
While the philosophy (Frame’s tri-perspectivalism) is well worth the price of the book, it is the engagement with the philosophers of Western Civilization that is the distinctive contribution. Following the Apostle Paul’s logic in Romans 1:18-25 Frame sees metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics not as neutral, but as a spiritual battlefield. He says, “My whole idea is to expose the fact that the history of philosophy and theology is nothing less than spiritual warfare in the life of the mind.” So what unfolds in the course of History Philosophy is a careful attempt to compare & contrast the first principles, presupposition, and values of the different schools of Western thought with that of Christianity. Following his mentor, Cornelius Van Til, Frame also develops an apologetic from the history of philosophy capitalizing on the uniqueness of the Christian worldview: the Creator creature distinction, God as absolute tripersonality, divine lordship as his relation to the world, etc. This sustained engagement with the history of Western Philosophy is a monumental task which Frame somehow manages to pull off in a little over 700 pages.
If you are seeking to be a more self-consciously Christian student or philosopher, seeking to better understand the relationship between philosophy and theology, seeking to better understand the relationship between philosophy and apologtics, or simply interested in exploring a Christian approach to philosophy this is a must read.
*I was delighted to preview this book as an advance copy for P&R Publishing.
August 30, 2021
The endorsement of this fine volume speaks for itself. An ECPA book award winner, endorsed and raved by theologians hailing from the broadly reformed/evangelical camp (Piper, Mohler, Carson, Packer, Vanhoozer) to folks that are within the confessionally reformed/Presby camp, which is Frame's own tradition. Personally, this massive tome stands out as a fine (if not the best) Christian introductory textbook to western philosophy.
As one of the foremost developers of Van Til's theology and apologetics, Frame is unabashedly forthright with his adoption of biblical presuppositions and theological lens in analyzing the flow of western philosophy and critiquing it, through adopting Van Til's rationalism-irrationalism lens, along with his own model of triperspectivism developed together with Vern Poythress, which is a refinement of Van Til's "analogical trinitarian language." Frame is able to be sympathetic to the problems that western philosophy/philosophical theology presents, and do acknowledge the positive contributions of philosophical reasoning and materials that they bring to the table, as the Van Tilian lens allowed him to demonstrate that all secular philosophies are tension along the spectrum of "rationalism-irrationalism," that secular philosophers "know some of the truths of God but suppresses it with unrighteousness," at the same time showing that biblical revelation can and do provide the solutions to the longstanding dilemmas of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics which western philosophy/philosophical theology is enamoured with.
The best feature of this massive volume is, as mentioned above, how it functions as a textbook. Frame writes succinctly and engagingly, even winsomely as he seeks to engage philosophy to "take every thought captive to obey Christ," as each chapter provides a whole range of bibliography, further reading, primary sources, study questions, glossary, corresponding recorded lectures (RTS published all of Frame's lecture on apologetics and philosophy free online), and even pointers to the entire body of his other works when there are intersections between theological and philosophical loci so that one knows where to look for more detailed developments and arguments. He even throws in another twenty appendixes in the book, which adds close to two hundred pages of material that are previously published book reviews and journal articles, that specifically engages the works of other philosophers (Christian and secular) with further depth (and hence are more challenging to read). It reads like you are learning from Frame directly in a classroom setting, and his humorous, witty, and sometimes snarking sharp comments in the footnotes and littered sparingly across this massive volume just makes one wonder how much fun it would be studying under Dr Frame.
As one of the foremost developers of Van Til's theology and apologetics, Frame is unabashedly forthright with his adoption of biblical presuppositions and theological lens in analyzing the flow of western philosophy and critiquing it, through adopting Van Til's rationalism-irrationalism lens, along with his own model of triperspectivism developed together with Vern Poythress, which is a refinement of Van Til's "analogical trinitarian language." Frame is able to be sympathetic to the problems that western philosophy/philosophical theology presents, and do acknowledge the positive contributions of philosophical reasoning and materials that they bring to the table, as the Van Tilian lens allowed him to demonstrate that all secular philosophies are tension along the spectrum of "rationalism-irrationalism," that secular philosophers "know some of the truths of God but suppresses it with unrighteousness," at the same time showing that biblical revelation can and do provide the solutions to the longstanding dilemmas of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics which western philosophy/philosophical theology is enamoured with.
The best feature of this massive volume is, as mentioned above, how it functions as a textbook. Frame writes succinctly and engagingly, even winsomely as he seeks to engage philosophy to "take every thought captive to obey Christ," as each chapter provides a whole range of bibliography, further reading, primary sources, study questions, glossary, corresponding recorded lectures (RTS published all of Frame's lecture on apologetics and philosophy free online), and even pointers to the entire body of his other works when there are intersections between theological and philosophical loci so that one knows where to look for more detailed developments and arguments. He even throws in another twenty appendixes in the book, which adds close to two hundred pages of material that are previously published book reviews and journal articles, that specifically engages the works of other philosophers (Christian and secular) with further depth (and hence are more challenging to read). It reads like you are learning from Frame directly in a classroom setting, and his humorous, witty, and sometimes snarking sharp comments in the footnotes and littered sparingly across this massive volume just makes one wonder how much fun it would be studying under Dr Frame.
November 18, 2023
The problem with this book is that it is badly biased in favor of the author's own theology. This comes out most in the coverage of ancient and medieval Christian thinkers, where Frame regularly summarily judges important authors' work "unbiblical" and moves on. He even expresses some level of shock that "so many people could have thought this was Biblical teaching for so long."
This is strange, considering the texts in question are loaded with references to Scripture. The worst offense to me was writing off the entire mystical tradition within Christianity as "unbiblical." Frame can find, in his words, "no evidence" for a mystical union with God being part of the Bible, thus the tradition is unbiblical. It bespeaks either a sort of censorship or lack of knowledge of his subject matter that the ways in which these authors used Scripture to justify themselves is completely absent from this account.
Now, I have no problem with someone expressing doubts about the worth of a tradition. Misrepresenting it is another thing though. The tradition of Pseudo Dionysus, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Bernard, Eckhart, Eriugena, Merton, etc. absolutely does justify itself with Scripture. John 17 shows Christ praying that we might be "one in him" as he is "one with the Father." John 14 talks of the Spirit of God abiding within us and teaching us things. I Corinthians 2 tells us that we will know the things that are given to us from God by this (indwelling) Spirit. I John tells us that we have no need for human teaching because of the Spirit abiding within us. Ephesians 3 talks about us being filled onto the fullness of God, etc.
Point being, somehow God will be joined to us (what is meant by "mystical union" most generally). Further, we hear the Apostles talking of "Christ living in us," and "us living in Christ." And it is the Spirit that will "teach us things" (John 14, I John, etc.)
Can these be taken differently from how mystics interpreted them? Absolutely. But it certainly doesn't seem that the idea of mystical (experiential) union with the divine is "nowhere to be found in the Bible."
In this work, I was hoping to find a good survey of Western philosophy that would have an eye towards where issues in philosophy intersect with theology. I've read plenty of surveys, and they all face the same challenges. Their breadth makes it hard to deal with their subject matter in depth.
The main problem I find with this text is that it could easily lead to people who don't know the underlying subject matter dismissing whole huge areas of philosophy and theology out of hand. As in so many places, "Biblical," comes to mean "what I think the Bible says."
So, for now I'd still recommend Kenney's "A New History of Western Philosophy," as a survey, despite the lack of tie ins to theological issues.
This is strange, considering the texts in question are loaded with references to Scripture. The worst offense to me was writing off the entire mystical tradition within Christianity as "unbiblical." Frame can find, in his words, "no evidence" for a mystical union with God being part of the Bible, thus the tradition is unbiblical. It bespeaks either a sort of censorship or lack of knowledge of his subject matter that the ways in which these authors used Scripture to justify themselves is completely absent from this account.
Now, I have no problem with someone expressing doubts about the worth of a tradition. Misrepresenting it is another thing though. The tradition of Pseudo Dionysus, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Bernard, Eckhart, Eriugena, Merton, etc. absolutely does justify itself with Scripture. John 17 shows Christ praying that we might be "one in him" as he is "one with the Father." John 14 talks of the Spirit of God abiding within us and teaching us things. I Corinthians 2 tells us that we will know the things that are given to us from God by this (indwelling) Spirit. I John tells us that we have no need for human teaching because of the Spirit abiding within us. Ephesians 3 talks about us being filled onto the fullness of God, etc.
Point being, somehow God will be joined to us (what is meant by "mystical union" most generally). Further, we hear the Apostles talking of "Christ living in us," and "us living in Christ." And it is the Spirit that will "teach us things" (John 14, I John, etc.)
Can these be taken differently from how mystics interpreted them? Absolutely. But it certainly doesn't seem that the idea of mystical (experiential) union with the divine is "nowhere to be found in the Bible."
In this work, I was hoping to find a good survey of Western philosophy that would have an eye towards where issues in philosophy intersect with theology. I've read plenty of surveys, and they all face the same challenges. Their breadth makes it hard to deal with their subject matter in depth.
The main problem I find with this text is that it could easily lead to people who don't know the underlying subject matter dismissing whole huge areas of philosophy and theology out of hand. As in so many places, "Biblical," comes to mean "what I think the Bible says."
So, for now I'd still recommend Kenney's "A New History of Western Philosophy," as a survey, despite the lack of tie ins to theological issues.
November 17, 2015
Woo-hoo! I finished (minus an appendix or 12). Frame ' s work on the history of Western thought is immense, but I finished! That is exciting to me, and it should be to you for multiple reasons:
1. I am not well read in philosophy,
2. I am not formally trained in theology, and
3. I was able to read, understand, and enjoy this great book!
There are plenty of reviews and endorsements by people much better equipped to offer an opinion than I am. I can, however, give a layman's plan of action of how to get the most out of (and not get lost within) this massive work.
First, I suggest to make use of Frame ' s RTS lectures. They pair beautifully with the book and listening to the lecture(s) before or after the chapter is incredibly beneficial.
Second, a good prereading makes this work more approachable. Look over the table of contents and go through the glossary to familiarize yourself with any new terms. I would also read the timeline of important events before to have a bit of a map as you jump in.
One thing a preread will do is make this massive work seem much more appoachable. Frame gives an extensive bibliography, index, glossary, and 1700(rough estimate) pages of appendices where Frame interacts with recent thought. If you are anything like me, a 550 page book seems much less daunting than a 900 page book.
This book is heavily slanted to the last 300 years or so. Strength or weakness? I am not sure. I would have preferred a bit more on the earlier philosophers, but I enjoyed what he did cover so it's hard to complain.
I preordered the Logos version, so I look forward to going through this at least one more time (if not more!). For someone like me, it will take either a very slow, intentional trip through this book (with visits to other suggested readings) or multiple trips through to get a firm grasp of all the content. For those familiar with major schools of philosophy, this should be a relatively easy and enjoyable look at how Western thought has developed over the past 2500 years.
1. I am not well read in philosophy,
2. I am not formally trained in theology, and
3. I was able to read, understand, and enjoy this great book!
There are plenty of reviews and endorsements by people much better equipped to offer an opinion than I am. I can, however, give a layman's plan of action of how to get the most out of (and not get lost within) this massive work.
First, I suggest to make use of Frame ' s RTS lectures. They pair beautifully with the book and listening to the lecture(s) before or after the chapter is incredibly beneficial.
Second, a good prereading makes this work more approachable. Look over the table of contents and go through the glossary to familiarize yourself with any new terms. I would also read the timeline of important events before to have a bit of a map as you jump in.
One thing a preread will do is make this massive work seem much more appoachable. Frame gives an extensive bibliography, index, glossary, and 1700(rough estimate) pages of appendices where Frame interacts with recent thought. If you are anything like me, a 550 page book seems much less daunting than a 900 page book.
This book is heavily slanted to the last 300 years or so. Strength or weakness? I am not sure. I would have preferred a bit more on the earlier philosophers, but I enjoyed what he did cover so it's hard to complain.
I preordered the Logos version, so I look forward to going through this at least one more time (if not more!). For someone like me, it will take either a very slow, intentional trip through this book (with visits to other suggested readings) or multiple trips through to get a firm grasp of all the content. For those familiar with major schools of philosophy, this should be a relatively easy and enjoyable look at how Western thought has developed over the past 2500 years.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews