Unfortunately, that depends on our systems, and they're keeping it to themselves. It could take a few minutes, but there's a chance it will be longer. We recommend that you check back with us in a few hours, when your title should be available for download in My Library. We appreciate your patience, and we apologize for the inconvenience.
Please contact customer service if the problem persists.
We're Sorry, We Were Unable to Process Your Credit Card
Please edit your payment details or add a new card.
Generally there are two approaches to study any subject, either chronologically or thematically. Now, I have to add a third method: use a chronological order with a narrative tying all the pieces together.
The author first sets up the listener by putting his spin on who Plato and Aristotle were and explains each by contrasting them with each other, a very good way to understand who each are and what they believed. I think a real philosopher would pick apart the authors characterization, but I'm not a real philosopher and I love a good narrative.
At the heart of the difference between the two is contained in the analogy of the Cave. Plato would say that reality is never truly knowable and is hidden behind the shadows while Aristotle would say we can know by studying the individual and see beyond the shadows.
The author gives you many simple analogies in order to understand. For example, the Colonel in "The Bridge on the River Kwai" looks at the destruction of the bridge in the final reel and says "madness, madness" that would be as Plato would see it as the whole not the sum of its parts, Aristotle's perspective would be as the viewer of the film and who knows all the individuals involved and why the bridge must be destroyed.
The author steps the listener through the skeptics, cynics, and stoics, the Romans and some very early Christian thought to the neo-platonist and all the time he relates all development of thought through the Plato/Aristotle lens.
If your like me, you would love to read all the 2 million words that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, but you know you wouldn't really understand them and you are best served by having someone summarize them for you. This book explains why he's so important and how he ties them so strongly to the thinking of Aristotle and undoes the Platonic thinking of St. Augustine who defined the dark ages.
He gives a good account of the Renaissance and the Reformation and some of its major thinkers. He does quickly skip over the Enlightenment and goes straight to Rosseau. He does that because he wants to lead into the French Revolution to Hegel to Marx, all Platonic thinkers. I really do understand Hegel for the first time because of the way he explains him through the lens of the Cave.
He doesn't ignore the progress and significance of science in his outline of thought through the lens of the Cave. One thing I really appreciated he gave Newton and Darwin a prominent place in his story. How could anyone write about philosophy without mentioning Darwin? Not only that, he gave my hero, Ludwig Boltzman, the creator of the word "quanta" the real discoverer of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and the advocate of atoms before it became fashionable a whole section and explained why he is so important in the history of western thought. The author made me realize a point. Sometimes, as in Boltzman's case, the theory comes before the 'knowledge based on experience' (Aristotle's main way of seeing the universe). Perhaps, the bad mouthing of String Theory is premature and maybe the beauty of the mathematics will lead to something just as Boltzman's atoms came to be accepted after he killed himself?
This is really a great book and is the best way to understand the theory of development of thought. I just thought it was weird (or was it silly?) to end the story by giving Hayek the last word on economics and Ayn Rand (of all people) the last word on philosophy (is she even a Philosopher?). Don't let that mar the book since he tells such a fun story in such a compelling way.
This book is really a shout out for why philosophy is still relevant for today. If your like me, and want to know your place in the universe and why it matters this book will take you major steps there. You know your listening to a really good book when you can relate over half of the 100 or so science, history and philosophy books you've listened to over the last 3 years directly to this book. That's why I can recommend this book so strongly (with just a minor quibble in the previous paragraph of this review).
This is a fairly shallow and superficial overview of Western Philosophy The author's premise is that there is huge divide between Plato and Aristotle, and that all of western history is shaped by that divide.The author, Herman, goes so far as to say on a few occasions, that historians have it all wrong. Various major historical events weren't determined by economics or religion or culture, but entirely by the tension between Plato and Aristotle. This premise is exaggerated and simplified to the point of being ridiculous. In support of his premise, Herman tries to jam every subsequent thinker in western history into his Plato/Aristotle dichotomy, no matter how poorly they fit. I should point out, as well, that there is considerable controversy over whether there really is or was such a great divide between Plato and Aristotle in the first place. Certainly, any such divide is nowhere near as stark as Herman portrays it. As with so much in this book, the author simply ignores all evidence that doesn't support his premise, and exaggerates the rest to make it fit.
But the most bizarre part of this book is the end, where Herman reveals himself to be a worshiper at the shrine of Ayn Rand. Herman ends his book by a lengthy discussion of Rand, portraying her as the great culmination of all Western Philosophy. In doing so, he proclaims men like John D. Rockefeller as the true heroes of western civilization, dismisses John Maynard Keynes in one sentence as just some "communist," states without any evidence that the belief the US government played a role in winning World War II is "a myth" (according to Herman, the war was won entirely by heroic industrialists), and blithely ignores those parts of Rand's views which make most people very uncomfortable. Up to that point, I thought the flaws in the book were a result of the author's lack of in-depth knowledge of many of the philosophers he discusses. But in the last quarter of the book it becomes clear that his omissions and exaggerations are part of a deliberately selective approach to facts. This book is shallow, dishonest and, in the end, just plain silly. Paul Hecht did a very nice job reading it, however.