A History of Philosophy, Vol. 1: Greece and Rome From the Pre-Socratics to Plotinus

The volume is "the first volume of a complete history of philosophy". (p.v) Although to "mention a "point of view" at all, when treating of the history of philosophy, may occasion a certain lifting of eyebrows" (p. v), the author has "no hesitation in claiming the right to compose a work on the history of philosophy from the standpoint of the Scholastic philosopher"(p. vi) as "no true historian can write without some point of view, some standpoint, if for no other reason than that he must have a principle of selection, guiding his intelligent choice and arrangement of facts." (p. v) Scholastic philosophers study philosophy as the "philosophia perennis". (p. 2) Modern philosophers, especially since René Descartes (A.D. 1596 - A.D. 1650) and Immanuel Kant (A.D. 1724- A.D. 1804), divorce thought from reality and start like Descartes from Consciousness, from the fact that man has innate ideas in his mind. This is not the starting-point of Copleston and others who study philosophy as the perennial philosophy. They start from Being, not from Consciousness, and for them it is reality which imposes its structures on the mind, not like Kant, the mind imposing its structures on reality. This perennial philosophy has been outlined by Plato (428 B.C. - 348 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 B.C. - 322 B.C.) and elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas (c. A.D. 1225 - A.D. 1274). For Copleston, perennial philosophy is Thomism in a wide sense. The Thomist system is however not closed at any given historical epoch and incapable of further development in any direction. (p. 7) Most intellectuals today, on the one hand, view Plato as interested in ideas and Aristotle as interested in things and they maintain, on the other hand, that Plato separated the Form from the objects of which it is the Form, whereas Aristotle argued that to the universal in the mind, there corresponds the specific essence in the object. Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies are therefore diametrically opposed, they say, some even going so far as to label Plato as a neo-Kantian. Copleston demonstrates that Plato is not a neo-Kantian. Copleston concludes that Platonism and Aristotelianism "should not be considered as two diametrically opposed systems, but as two complementary philosophical spirits and bodies of doctrine." (Volume I, p. 275) After having argued that a synthesis between the Platonic Theory of Forms and the Aristotelian view of the universal was needed (Volume I, p. 203), Copleston will demonstrate in Volume II how St. Thomas Aquinas achieved this synthesis and harmonised the synthesis with Christian theology. This is why, as mentioned earlier, for Copleston, perennial philosophy is Thomism in a wide sense. This also explains why for Copleston, the first three volumes of his History - Greece and Rome, Medieval Philosophy, and, Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy - form only one volume, why Volume III ends with "A Brief Review of the First Three Volumes" and why this review cannot but contain references to Volumes II and III. A quick review of the history of Western thought will suffice to bear out the constant presence of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies. In philosophy and in everyday life, the questions "What do you mean?" and "How do you know?" will be constantly present. It was therefore important to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Platonic and Aristotelian bases of the principles we need to answer these questions, Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction saying that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect. This is Copleston's achievement in the present Volume I, which therefore also contains its own "Concluding Review". Copleston will conclude the final volume of his History, Volume XI, by saying that, for him, the problem of God is THE metaphysical problem par excellence. One can criticise this conclusion but one should also recognise that the argument is consistent with one of the conclusions of the present Volume I wherein Copleston argues that Greek philosophy was a preparatory intellectual instrument for Christianity, a "preparatio evangelica." (Volume I, p.502). In his own critique of the present Volume I, Copleston writes on p. 408 of Volume III of the History that he does "not think ... that one is justified in interpreting the pre-Socratics as nothing more than speculative forerunners of science." (Volume III, p. 408) Many readers complain about the quotations in languages other than English. Those readers seem to forget that the book is not "An Introduction to Philosophy" but "A History of Philosophy". They also seem to forget that in the present Internet age, search engines and translation programs are available at no cost. When looking up the translation, you learn a lot. As Copleston puts it: "Mental effort and perseverance are no doubt required in order to penetrate the riches of Greek thought, but any effort that is expended in the attempt to understand and appreciate the philosophy of these two men of genius, Plato and Aristotle, is amply rewarded." (Volume I, p. 486)

This is a great book! It covers most of the early Greek and Roman philosophers in considerably more detail in one volume than other books do. The author provides an informed, honest and unbiased (in my opinion) summary of each philosopher that includes fragments of the philosopher's own works as well as constructive arguments for and against the theories. There is A LOT of detail in this volume! Plato and Aristotle do get much larger sections than other philosophers, but arguably that is right as their contribution to western philosophy was proportionally much more extensive (though not necessarily more significant) than their predecessors. I don't think you could find a better summary of philosophical viewpoints during this time period combined with concise (but detailed) analysis of the respective theories in light of the views of the philosopher's contemporaries as well as more contemporary viewpoints. The author's goal was to create an objective study guide for Catholic seminary students whose philosophical lessons and history were sparse and very surface level. He succeeded at much more than that! This book is wonderful, the writing style is engaging and the philosophies are presented in a relevant and understandable manner. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in improving their knowledge of western philosophy and their own lives. I have a Degree in Philosophy (sp. Ancient Phl. & Epistemology), I read this book every few years and am always amazed at the immensity of what I missed the last few times I read it. A couple other supplementary texts that you can look into are: "A Presocratics Reader" ed. by Patricia Curd and "The Presocratic Philosophers" by Kirk/Raven/Schofield. These have translations of many of the fragments available from the original philosophers that Copeland writes about. Another book is the two volumes by Diogenes Laertius, who considered himself the biographer of the early philosophers and helped preserve much biographical information about them. The last mentioned is less philosophical on the whole. Also check out all the other volumes in Copeland's History of Philosophy series, they are all equally well composed and exceptionally detailed. I wish I had known about them while I was getting my degrees!

Fr. Copleston set out, with this series, to provide Catholic seminarians with a solid understanding of the history of philosophy, and of those philosophies which have been or are important. He succeeds in this spectacularly, but it must be noted that Fr. Copleston's intended audience is an educated one who already has a firm grasp of basic philosophical concepts. This book is not for people completely new to the study of philosophy. It is written densely and throws a lot of information and terminology at you. That said, if you do have a command of the basics and a high reading level, there is no better source for a general history of philosophy (certainly favor this over Bertrand Russel's far inferior A History of Western Philosophy). I am withholding the final star, though, not due to any deficit in Fr. Copleston's work, but because this edition (New York: Doubleday, 1993) is rather poor. First of all the covers of Doubleday's series are silly (though at least consistent). Worse though, the text itself is poorly set and fuzzy, letters tend to melt into each other, and especially in Volume I, which makes such heavy use of Greek, the Greek letters are often difficult to parse, if not altogether indecipherable. However the book is still largely readable, and though unfortunate, the poor quality of the typesetting should not prevent anyone from picking this up who would otherwise be interested. Just be warned, hopefully a new edition will be published sometime in the near future, and this great series will be given the run of print it deserves.

日本語訳が中世哲学を論じた第２巻以外は存在しておらず、英語で書かれた文献であるということで大学の哲学演習で使用されている定番の哲学史の書物です。神学生向けに書かれた著作ということで、古典ギリシア語やラテン語からの引用が多く、古典語の知識がないと、正確に読み取ることは難しい書物かもしれません。しかし、記述は比較的平易であるので、大学受験まで英語で取り組んだ人であれば、本書を読むことは可能です。本書を訳していくことは、英語の書物を読む格好の訓練にもなります。このシリーズにロシア哲学も含まれているのはとてもユニークです。また、実存哲学を論じた巻では、サルトルの記述は豊富である一方で、ハイデッガーの記述はわずかしかありません。著者の好みや観点、位置づけの違いによるものでしょう。このように、オリジナリティ溢れる本書ですが、一人で古代から現代まで哲学史を論じた書物は珍しいと思います。ラッセルやシュヴェーグラ－の西洋哲学史は有名ですが、本書の場合はそれらの書物よりはるかに浩瀚に個々の哲学者が論じられています。著者の専門が古代・中世の哲学なので、とくにこの第１巻は有益です。哲学に関心あるすべての人に本書を薦めます。

An excellent overview of Greek philosophy. Copleston avoids tendentiousness and is consistently fair and balanced. He presents a wonderful blend of academic erudition and readability. As other reviewers have pointed out, however, there are many untranslated Greek and Latin terms and fragments; if one is unfamiliar with the Classical languages, sections of this book will remain frustratingly incomprehensible. For a more in depth treatment, see Guthrie's six-volume history of Greek philosophy (ISBN: 0521294207, et al). In response to Steven R. Murrell's review below, it is inaccurate and misleading to assert that "the vast majority of statements attributed to ancient philosophers are interpreted with a Christian slant." Copleston has been universally praised for just the opposite - that is, for his unbiased and frank approach. As Mr. Murrell pointed out in his review, Copleston's nine-volume history was written with Catholic seminary students in mind. Copleston may, therefore, occasionally juxtapose a given philosophical tenet with Christian thought. However, he never commits the gross anachronisms Mr. Murrell accuses him of. As for the pseudo-quote of the aforementioned reviewer - " . . . although this is what he said, he could only have meant (insert some statement supporting Christian doctrine here) . . . " - Copleston never says anything even remotely similar. Bertrand Russell's account of Greek and Roman philosophy, for instance, is far more tendentious. Although Russell's history certainly has its merits, his likes and dislikes, biases and predilections, are brought to the fore. Copleston's treatment is comparatively removed and encyclopedic.

Excelente livro, acredito ser a melhor obra sobre a história da filosofia. Um detalhe que não sabia antes de comprar é a qualidade do papel, pelo baixo preço (versão normal, não capa dura) o papel tem uma qualidade inferior, porém, não atrapalha a leitura.

Testo un po’ datato, ma sicuramente completo e approfondito. Forse anche un po’ troppo per gli studenti di oggi, ma certamente un valido strumento per studiare la filosofia in inglese seguendo un ordine logico e cronologico degli autori.

Very pleased with this book.