Chuyện Tình Triết Gia

by Andrew Shaffer, Đỗ Tư Nghĩa (Translator)

“Cuộc hôn nhân của họ chấm dứt khi Camus phát hiện vợ ông có quan hệ tình dục với một bác sĩ để đổi lấy morphine. Cuộc ly hôn này rất có thể đã ảnh hưởng đến những quan điểm đen tối của ông về tình yêu lãng mạn như dòng chữ sau đây, từ tiểu thuyết Kẻ xa lạ của ông gợi ý: ‘Sự lôi cuốn, hôn nhân, và sự chung thủy, trở thành những từ đồng nghĩa của sự trói buộc.’ Ba tháng sau khi cuộc ly hôn đã hoàn tất, Camus cưới nhà toán học Francine Faure. Chị gái của nàng nghĩ rằng đôi tai của Camus nhô ra như khỉ; Faure đang yêu và không chút bối rối. ‘Khỉ là con vật gần gũi nhất với con người,’ nàng đáp.”

- trích Albert Camus, Chuyện tình triết gia

“Cô gái đầu tiên mà Sartre si mê tại trường, cự tuyệt ông, gọi ông là ‘lão già lác mắt.’ Đó là bước đầu rủi ro với phái đẹp. Ở tuổi thành niên, dường như Sartre cũng không hứa hẹn thành công hơn chút nào: ông chỉ cao khoảng 1m55 - mặc y phục quá cỡ, và không có khái niệm nào về vệ sinh cá nhân. Ông thừa nhận rằng, khi còn là một chàng trai trẻ, ‘Tôi rất u sầu bởi vì tôi xấu trai, và điều đó làm tôi đau khổ.’ Ông chỉ cần một cái để dụ dỗ phụ nữ: ngôn từ.”

- trích Jean-Paul Sartre, Chuyện tình triết gia.

Các triết gia mà bạn yêu thích sẽ không còn như trước nữa. Họ có những hành động buồn cười, những định kiến khó hiểu và những cuộc tình không giống ai nhưng họ lại gần gũi hơn bao giờ hết. Một loạt các câu chuyện tình dưới giọng văn bông đùa, giễu nhại đôi khi còn khiến bạn cảm thấy một niềm vui sướng tội lỗi: dù sao thì đời sống tình cảm của mình cũng không thể nào bi đát hơn những vị này được.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Biography, History, Humor, Romance, Biography Memoir

228 pages, Paperback

First published January 4, 2011

About the author

Andrew Shaffer is the New York Times bestselling author of more than a dozen books. He lives with his wife, novelist Tiffany Reisz, in Louisville, Kentucky, where he teaches at Lexington's non-profit Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning and Louisville Literary Arts.

Reviews

[Jasmine · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I was going to write this review last night when I was drunk so that anything I said could be blamed on alcohol but I fell asleep, so instead I’m going to write it now while I drink pepsi and everything I say we will have to assume that I meant to say.

So as an opener I’d like to use two anecdotes. The other night I was involved in a group chat with a very close friend and one of our mutual friends who is dating another close friend. Because everyone involved in the conversation was under the age of 26 we starting talking about the two men hooking up, proposing a partner swap where if they hook up I get tiffany, and well of course that devolved to orgies, cause what conversation doesn’t. The response to this was overwhelmingly negative from the side of my friend and I on the basis that: “Getting over yourself enough to concentrate on one person is hard enough.” There is a general problem with intellectuals when it comes to sex. Many of them spend too much time thinking to ever have become very good at it. And let’s be honest if you have to work hard to rationalize yourself into being able to have sex, well then you are probably not the type that goes out of your way to get it on, or there is something very strange about the way you are going about it. Basically what I’m saying is that for all the things Sade was, he was not in the traditional sense a philosopher, and no one in this book has the same troubles sade had. In fact, you wouldn’t believe how many philosophers you can say things like “The first and last time” about.

The other anecdote is about a television show. Okay a couple years ago there was this show called mental. I really liked it but no one else really watched it and it got canceled. In the show one of the main characters points out that psychologists have the highest divorce rate of any profession. Factually speaking this is most likely not true, apparently according to a recent study dancers and choreographers have that honor. But that isn’t the point. The point is that if you date a psychologist you are likely fucked, because they can tell when anything is wrong and they won’t drop it till it’s fixed. Basically as a rule we are a pain in the ass, less so me because I dislike processing but the rules are still the same. Too much analysis and too little delusion makes for bad relationships. You know who else analyses too much? Philosophers.

Some examples from the text of the kinds of things I’m talking about:
After sleeping with Helene for the first time, Althusser was so mentally disturbed that he fell into a deep depression, requiring shock treatment and hospitalization.
examples of faithful monogamy among birds do not furnish any proofs for men, for we are not descended from birds- engels
One must make the choice between loving women and knowing them; there is no middle course- nicolas chamfort
He did not believe that a truly wise man could ever be in love. love, Diogenes said, is the province of men with nothing to do.
Love can only take place towards an equal, the mirror, the echo of our own being.’ Since humanity was created in god’s image, he reasoned, god is the only equal deserving of true love; earthly romance is but a shallow approximation of divine love-hegel
Kant believed that masturbation is a sin worse than ‘even murdering oneself.’ Suicide, he argued, requires courage
Marriage is for most women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution- Russell

I did learn something from this book. Philosophers are almost all insanely sexist. I don’t have the quotes on that but just trust me.

I would like to recommend that in the future someone write a book about what philosophers said about their contemporaries:
Arthur Schopenhauer called [hegel] ‘a lasting monument to german stupidity’
Kant was ‘drier than dust, both in body and mind,’ according to contemporary johann friedrich reichardt
Wagner suggested that nietzsche’s health problems were caused by excessive masturbation

I also disagree that Sartre was a failure, his sex life was completely consistent which his philosophical positions and Beauvoir turned down a marriage proposal because she didn’t want to leave him.

Let us close with locke’s grave:
[image error]
his virtues, if indeed he had any, were too slight to be lauded by him or to be an example to you. Let his vices die with him

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll admit there's a sort of horrid schadenfreude aspect to reading this book. Some of the stories are hilarious, some very tragic. And there's a voice in my head saying to some of the philosophers in here that wants to say: "if you're so smart, how come you can't be less of a love-crazy dork?"
However, Mr. Shaffer manages to turn into more than a book of philosopher gossip and there's some wonderful insight into human nature and the gap between what a person espouses and what he/she practices. An enlightening read, even if you were never a philosophy major.
The only person I felt little sympathy for was that nazi whore, Heidegger, who later found out that his wife had fathered their son with a friend of his and felt rather betrayed. He, of course, betrayed his own Jewish mentor and all human decency by falling in line with the nazis. Betrayal begets betrayal.
In rather crude terms, one could say, "Karma is a bitch and so was your wife. Suck it up, Heidegger."
Okay, I'm getting off topic.
I wonder if there will ever be a sequel: Great Philosophers Who Succeeded At Love."
I have a feeling it will be a very thin book.

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

According to Shaffer’s titbits of philosophy gossip, the general level of relationship success found by the philosophical types is so bad that on one hand it should warn lay people against ever dating philosophers, and on the other hand, persuade philosophy graduates to pursue their great loves with an attitude of humility.

Abelard, Althusser, Aristotle, Augustine, Beauvoir, Camus, Descartes, Engels, Hegel, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Rand, Rousseau, Sartre, Socrates, Thoreau, or Tolstoy – to name just a few – may have been noteworthy thinkers, but as lovers, they were frankly a disaster. Also, they were basically all hypocrites. Virtually none of them practiced what they preached, which isn’t to say that their preaching was faultless.

The book has a couple of pages dedicated to each philosopher, and after the part about their disastrous encounter with love, there’s a quote which points to their arrogance or hypocrisy, or the irony of the situation. If you read this book, you’ll learn some fun, terrifying and gag-inducing facts:

-Abelard had his penis cut off by his father-in-law as revenge for getting his daughter pregnant. She was tutored by Abelard, who was twice her age.

-Althusser strangled his wife to death, but he swore it was an accident; he was only trying to massage the front of her neck.

-Camus divorced his first wife after he learned that she had sex with her doctor in exchange for morphine. He was averse to drug use.

-Descartes had sex only one time in his life, and as bad luck would have it, he got the woman pregnant.

-Engels pretended to be the father of Marx’s illegitimate son, to save Marx's marriage. He revealed the truth on his deathbed.

- Rousseau, who publicly championed conventional moral codes, was in fact a flasher and had a spanking fetish.

-Beauvoir and Sartre legally adopted their lovers to insure the sanctity of their literary legacies.

This book isn’t meant to be taken serious. It’s all for a bit fun and horror at the expense of influential philosophers.

[Emilia P · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh. Ok, the concept is great, the book layout is great (picture with pithy quote, summary, another pithy quote) , the serendipity of finding it on the impulse buy shelf at Borders was great (suspicious?).

But uh, if you're going to be about philosophy and love, define the terms philosophy love, dude, and ESPECIALLY failure. Seriously. Duh. Is having an affair failure? Is having an open marriage failure? Is loving the same woman tormentedly all your life failure? Is madness by syphilis failure? Well, probably, that one. But lots of these failures sounded kinda fun.

Nothing in this book as pithy as it's title, but still, a bit of fun.

[Hajar Masrour · Rating 4 out of 5]

خفيف وتنهيه في جلسة او جلستين، تقراه وعلى وجهك ابتسامة لطف وتسامح.

[Karrarabd · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب عرض مقتضب جدا لأراء بعض الفلاسفة عن الحب مع سرد بسيط لسيرتهم الجنسية وزيجاتهم

[Fahad Saliem · Rating 4 out of 5]

يبقى تعريف الحب أو الزواج أمرا متقاربا بين جميع الناس تقريبا، إلا أن الحب و الارتباط الأسري يختلف في مفهومه عند الفلاسفة والعلماء والمفكرين، ويسرد لنا أندرو شافر بكتابه (فلاسفة عظماء فشلوا في الحب) نظرة أهم العلماء والمفكرين عن الحب، فمعنى الحب وما يتبعه من انسجام روحي مع أغلب الفلاسفة لم يكن مجرد مشاعر ملتهبة بل كان في منظورهم فكرة مثل كل الأفكار المجردة من المشاعر في تحليلهم الفلسفي للحب، وهو ما انعكس على تفاصيل حياتهم الزوجية أو علاقاتهم الغرامية في مجمل ما تضمنته القصص الواردة بهذا الكتاب لمفكرين أسهموا في تغيير مجرى التاريخ الإنساني، بل إن البعض تطرف في آرائه ضد النساء مثلما حدث مع أرسطو حينما أعتقد أن النساء فاسدات بالفطرة بسبب ملاحظاته المغلوطة حول أن النساء باردات الدم وأن أسنانهن ناقصة بل ويعشن أقل من الرجال وهو ما عزز نظرته الدونية عن المرأة، ليرد ساخرا الفيلسوف الإنجليزي برتراند راسل على أرسطو قائلا [...على الرغم من أنه تزوج مرتين، إلا أنه لم يخطر له أن يؤكد نظريته عن طريق فحص فمي زوجته...] في حين أن من يعرف فلسفة الفيلسوف الفرنسي الجزائري المولد البير كامو التي ترتكز على أن هذه الحياة التي نعيشها عبثية و بلا معنى ولا قيمة في ذاتها بحكم أننا راحلون منها في نهاية المطاف، لكن هذه السوداوية في فلسفة البير كامو لم تصمد حينما وقع في الحب وهو ما دعاه إلى القول [...الحب شبيه بمرض لا يرحم مثقفا ولا أبله...] في المقابل قد ينذر الإنسان نفسه على جرم ارتكبه بحياته وهو ما حصل مع الفيلسوف الفرنسي ديكارت حينما أنجب طفلة غير شرعية من الخادمة هيلين جين وهو ما دعاه إلى معاهدة نفسه أن يعيش باقي عمره أعزبا ليعود عن قراره لاحقا بعد غرامه بالأميرة اليزابيث ابنة الملك فريدريك ملك بوهيميا، والغريب أن ديكارت كان مغرما بالنساء اللآتي يعانين من الحول حيث كتب عن ذلك [...حين كنت طفلا اُغرمت بفتاة في عمري نفسه وكانت حولاء قليلا وما أن أنظر إلى عينيها غير المركزتين حتى يرتد تأثيرهما على عقلي مباشرة تجاه غريزة الحب إلى درجة أنني ولمدة طويلة أميل إلى حب النساء المصابات بالحول ما إن أراهن مباشرة على عكس الأخريات...] أما الروائي الروسي دوستوفيسكي فحينما اُغرم بديميتريفينا ايسافيا التي كانت تعمل سرا في المكتبة العسكرية السيبيرية لم يكن اللقاء بها ممكنا لكونها متزوجة، لكنها بالوقت نفسه كانت ترى فيه الرجل الفقير الذي لا مستقبل له وكانت تشفق عليه بشدة حتى أنها تزوجته بعد وفاة زوجها رأفة به، وعندما سُرح دوستوفيسكي من الجيش بسبب مرضه بالصرع عاد مع زوجته إلى بلدته بيترسبيرغ التي كانت كارثة بالنسبة لها حيث كان الجو رطبا بالمدينة مما أسهم في زيادة مرضها بالدرن الرئوي المصابة به سابقا، ومع احتضار زوجته وبلوغه سن الأربعين دخل دوستوفيسكي بعلاقة غرامية أخرى مع الكاتبة سوسلوفيا البالغة من العمر اثنين وعشرين عاما حيث كانت عشيقته لعامين قبل أن ينفصلا، وقد كتب دوستوفيسكي بروايته المقامر عن مشاعره الكارهة تجاه سوسلوفيا بقوله [...كانت هناك لحظات في الواقع إثر كل مرة ننتهي من حديثنا أتمنى أن أضحي بنصف عمري في سبيل أن أخنقها، أقسم أنه لو كان لدي فرصة أن أغرس سكيناً حادة ببطء في صدرها، لكنت فعلتها بكل سرور...] أما الفيلسوف الألماني ايمانويل كانط فلم يرتبط في حياته بامرأة بسبب جفافه ال��اطفي وأفكاره عن الزواج، كان كانط يؤمن أن الحب قبل الزواج أو أي علاقة جنسية لا تنتهي بالإنجاب هي بالضرورة علاقة غير أخلاقية، بالإضافة إلى أن الرغبات الجنسية في ذاتها هي خطيئة فمن خلالها يتحول الإنسان إلى أداة مملوكة وهو بالنتيجة سيرمي بالحب جانباً مثلما ترمى الليمونة بعد عصرها واستخراج كل ما فيها حسب وصفه، أما أفلاطون الذي عاش أعزبا حتى وفاته في الحادية والثمانين كان يرى أن الحب مرض عقلي خطير، و اليوتوببا أو المدينة الفاضلة التي وردت بكتابه الشهير (الجمهورية) أسست لأفكار مجنونة بمعاييرنا اليوم، فأفلاطون كان يعتقد بوجوب أن يكون الزواج تحت رعاية الدولة وأن يكون قائما على فكرة تحسين النسل، فإذا حظي أزواج ذوي مستوى متدني بأطفال وجب على الدولة أخذهم إلى مكان غامض غير معروف وفق اللازم، أما إذا حظي أزواج ذوي مستوى عالي بأطفال فأنهم يؤخذون أيضا ولكن تقع هنا مسؤولية تربيتهم على المجتمع، بحيث لا يعرف الطفل والديه ولا يعرف الوالدان طفلهما. ويجب على جميع الأطفال أن ينادوا جميع الرجال بأبي و على جميع النساء بأمي. ويتنادون فيما بينهم بأخي وأختي، و لتجنب المشاكل المتعلقة بالملكية الشخصية فإن على جميع النساء أن لا ينتسبن إلى زوج واحد بل إن جميع النساء بلا استثناء هن زوجات لجميع الرجال كما ورد بكتابه (الجمهورية) اذا لا عجب أن تصدر الكثير من الأفكار الغريبة عن الحب ومفهوم الزواج والارتباط والاستقرار العاطفي لدى فلاسفة ومفكرين و علماء كانوا يرون أن الفكرة دائما لابد أن تكون مقرونة بالمنطق والمصلحة المادية الملموسة على أقل تقدير في حياة الإنسان اليومية، مصلحة لم تخرج من إطارها العقلي في تصورهم بل كانت المعايير المنطقية للارتباط الروحي هي المرتكز في كل علاقة خاضها من وردت مغامراتهم الغرامية بهذا الكتاب لمفكرين فشلوا فشلا ذريعا في فهم هذا الشعور الجارف الذي يهاجم الإنسان بلحظات مجنونة.

فهد الجهوري

[Heidi Amar · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب دمه خفيف ومليان معلومات
والتقييم كان ممكن يكون أعلى لو الدار اهتمت بالترجمة والتحرير أكتر

[Rand]

Aping the style of Bertrand Russell's History of Westerrn Philosophy, Shaffer skewers various pillars of philosophy who chose to use their own petard to hoist the canopy of their bed. It's a fun romp across the white patriarchy that comprises "Western Thought". Noted cold fish David Hume sums it up best by noting the general male culpability: If we [human persons with the penis and testicle attachment] did not abuse our authority [over women], they would never think it worthwhile to dispute it.

Shaffer's results are at best mixed. Whatever fault that may be to his own personal efforts are forgivable on the basis of his sexy author portrait, which regrettably is restricted to his torso. Still, the alluring wave of his hair and the come hither look of his pout are satisfying.

For obvious reasons of libel, the inclusion of "contemporary" philosophers does not include the living. This may reinforce the supposition that philosophy is an endeavor solely for the dead.

The section on Ayn Rand is most amusing, and emblematic of Shaffer's ability to both celebrate and ridicule these great thinkers. Unfortunately, the philosoph ( Nathaniel Branden) with whom Rand cheated on her husband is absent from this collection although although both de Beauvoir and Sartre have their own entries.

Althusser & Abelard are grisly; Dewey & Thoreau clumsily sexy. Tolstoy a kook & Rousseau a kink.

Unfortunately, Shaffer commits the fallacy of interpretation with regard to his reading of Plato, conflating the words of the master's characters with the man himself. This reader holds forth that Plato experimented with literary form for a very good reason.

Overall, a glib little book that goes well on your one nightstand.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

As Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." Interestingly enough, he is not among the 37 philosophers whose, often amusing and sometimes shocking, love lives are featured in this quick read of a book. The layout is more like a Who's Who than a thesis, with each philosopher getting a 2-4 page "entry" which includes a brief (shallow) mention of their life and work and how they "failed" at love. There is a lot of the multiple marriages, mistresses, and illegitimate children we are used to in today's society, but there are also some outrageous pairings, taboo relationships, and odd neuroses among other tales which make this book very interesting and entertaining. It is clear the author approached the subject with a sense of humor and was really not looking to judge (also illustrated by the fact that when he signed my copy he also stamped an anatomical heart and a large red "FAIL" across the title page). For those of you who want to brush up on your philosophy, this is not the book for you. It is however, the book for anyone who wants reassurance that even the greatest of minds are as confounded by love as the rest of us are.

[Marwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

مجانين يلهثون وراء النساء و لا يعطون لهن أي تقدير ولا إحترام
كتاب يخليك تكره الرجال كلهم بكل بساطة 🫠

[Nina · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's humor people.

This is not a serious book but a fun and giggly series of lighthearted anecdotes. These are some of the most influential thinkers in the western world, yet they are reduced in this book to the most human proclivities. Sartre and De Beauvior seemed to have a lifelong running bet as to who was the biggest womanizer, Rousseau fancied himself a wee spank from time to time, Camus was a bit of the ladies man, and Ayn Rand was a jealous cougar-shrew, whose husband never left her despite her extra-marital activities. A lot of people demanded that this book be better written, however I think the title betrays the intent of the light humor and schadenfreude contained within. It wasn't meant to be a serious book, although it seems well researched enough. It's a fun little book for philosophy buffs.

[C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

+ Descartes knocked up a maid the first and only time he ever boned.
+ Engel's reveals on his deathbed that he took the fall for Marx's illegitimate son.
+ Camus' first wife had sex with a doctor in exchange for morphine.
+ Althusser accidentally strangles his wife in his sleep.

4 because how did Foucault not make it in here.

[Ta Tuyet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tôi kỳ vọng hơi nhiều về cuốn sách này. Nhưng đúng là không thể mong đợi quá nhiều được, một cuốn sách nhỏ mà kể về chuyện tình của n triết gia thì dĩ nhiên chỉ có thể kể lướt qua về họ, không thể đi sâu vào chi tiết. Những mối tình của các triết gia trong cuốn sách này chắc hẳn là những mối tình dramatic nhất, đôi khi cũng khá là bệnh hoạn...

[Tulip · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trong số rất ít thứ làm mình yêu thích, việc hóng chuyện người khác vẫn luôn làm mình thích thú. Cuốn này đúng kiểu ngồi lê đôi mách về cuộc đời người khác - đọc khá là vui.

Cuốn nyaf điểm tên rất nhiều triết gia nổi tiếng, từ xưa tới nay. Rất nhiều người mà mình có chút ngưỡng mộ khi tìm hiểu triết học *của họ), thì hành vi của họ lại không ngửi nổi. Dày đặc trong sách là thói tiêu chuẩn kép của những triết gia này, một số lại có thói sống khá là vô đạo đức. Đọc xong cuốn sách, mình thấy họ đều là những người phảm tục cả, chẳng có gì đáng ngưỡng mộ hoặc gì cả :))

Bản tiếng Việt cũng khá ổn, đặc biệt là những chú thích của người dịch (hay bên NXB?). Rất nhiều đoạn chú thích hài hước, hoặc xéo xắt, hoặc chua cay :))

[Ravi Prakash · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was Ok. Some philosophers, I knew, some, I didn't. Still, it was Ok. Don't believe on a writer, and to a philosopher, Never.

[Yomna Saber · Rating 1 out of 5]

موضوع الكتاب لطيف واختيار الفلاسفة والمفكرين أيضاً كان موفقاً لكن التناول سطحي جدا ومختصر جدا وهو نموذج لكاتب يمس الموضوع دون أن يخوض فيه أن يعرضه بطريقة شافية ووافية ... كتاب محبط ولا أرشحه للقراءة

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why is love rich beyond all other possible human experiences and a sweet burden to those seized in
its grasp?

[Sherah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Before giving my opinion, I have to point out that this book was neither about "great philosophers" (Nicolas Chamfort? Henry Ward Beecher? I dunno..), nor was it about "failing" in love.

Or is that an opinion?

Anyway, the book is divided into extremely short chapters devoted to each philosopher. Each of the chapters reads like a Cosmopolitan magazine article; heavy-handed with the colloquialism and barely-there depth of fact. It disappointed me...I guess I expected a "smarter" read, given the subject matter?

There are some mildly amusing stories about the love lives of some popular philosophers, but most of the stories were all, "omg did you know that he banged a maid and then like, didn't even care about his bastard kid later omg what a failure lol." Uhhh I don't care? I guess I wanted to learn from the failures, not laugh at them?

The story about Louis Althusser strangling his wife was pretty crazy, and, I suppose, quite full of fail. It was my favorite. All three pages of it.

I think I wanted more of an in-depth philosophy-of-love book from the perspectives of depressed, love-butthurt philosophers. The book's description said that there were autobiographical accounts such as letters and diaries included in the material. There were, but they were seriously only a paragraph or two each. Oh well.

(Next time I'll read other reviews first. I bought this on a whim based only on the title. Shame on me for being so easily duped by marketing eh?)

[Jake Adelstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a former philosophy major who has failed at love many times, and thanks to this amazing book, i'm very philosophical about it now. (LOL). A very well researched book that shows how much truth is stranger and often more touching than fiction.
I wanted to reach across time and bitch-slap Søren Kierkegaard and marry his jilted fiancé, the incredibly hot Regine. What was the gloomy nut thinking? Somewhere in philosopher purgatory Søren is being forced to listed Adele's Rolling In the Deep, over and over.
Heidegger, nazi lap dog, also comes across as a cowardly ass. That his Jewish lover later forgave him is amazing. She should have kicked his ass.
It would be great if there had been one Great Philosopher Who Succeeded At Love included in the book, just for the sake of bestowing hope for the rest of us, but the book is true to its theme.

As a journalist, I keep saying, "it's the message that's important, not the messenger or the means of delivering the message" but as an amateur philosopher, I sort of have an unfair expectation that the philosopher will live up to his or her philosophy.

The book is wonderful in explaining the basic ideas of each Philosopher Love Fool and where they seem to drop the ball. There's a bit of schadenfreude involved in reading this tome, but I think Spinoza would forgive me.

[Sandra Strange · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading this book, my question is, which philosophers DIDN'T fail at love? The book contains short, readable accounts of the rotten love lives of philosophers stretching from Aristotle to Heidegger. My other question--why would philosophy so lend itself to so many men and women who were either really dense about relationships, really reclusive, or really rotten human beings? Does failure in love turn thinkers inward to deep contemplation, or does deep contemplation and thought turn thinkers into repudiating lasting, positive relationships? The short accounts make for really fun reading, and the quotes from each philosopher at the end of his account are often ironic or arrogant, and always pithy and thought provoking.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dịch giả đã cổ gắng rất nhiều, mình đánh giá cao vì những câu chuyện được chọn lọc để diễn tả chân thực các câu chuyện tình thời trung cổ.
Nhưng mà chả thích nổi chuyện nào hay một vị triết gia nào trong quyển này cả, chỉ là nó lạ và thú vị.
Nội dung của sach làm mình nhớ 1 câu hát của PPA : "người mà hở chút nói đạo lí thì thường sống như loài bươm bướm" :)))

[Delilah Marvelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wit, history and snark all in a single afternoon of reading is what makes this book a MUST READ. Historical tidbits that will make you chuckle, choke and pause is what I'm talking about. Bravo Andrew Shaffer. This book is brilliant!

[Ray Godfrey · Rating 1 out of 5]

As my bathroom reader over these past few days I would have been more enlightened and amused with reading the toilet paper than this piece of #$*&. I curse B&N for showing this in their philosophy section. I slap myself for succumbing to a very impulsive purchase.

[Erica]

Seriously fun. And I actually learned about philosophy.

[Daniel Podor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This Andrew Shaffer guy possesses hilarity. Funny guy. Good book.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting!

[Cam Cam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Being a philosopher doesnt make your love life any easier. These guys still get broken anyway.

And no, i didnt find the book funny at all.

[Nhu Khue · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title should be "Great Loves That Failed at Philosophers"

[thuys]

Cũng chẳng khác gì mấy mẩu tin nửa cột báo giấy.