[Eng] Martin Oliver: “The History of Philosophy”

[Eng] Martin Oliver: The History of Philosophy, translated by Wang Hongyin, Hope Publishing House, October 2003

This is neither a rigorous, in-depth academic book, nor a particularly illuminating or useful introductory guide; it is nothing more than an excessively flashy, so-called “illustrated” popular read. The only reason I thought of reading it was that I happened to pick it up and, since I had bought it before, figured I might as well read it rather than leave it unread; so I leafed through it once.

Of course, although I would not recommend this book, it would also be wrong to say that it is merely all style and no substance. In fact, this book does have some distinctive features. In an absurdly condensed format—one philosopher or one philosophical school, etc., per two-page section, with about half of each section taken up by pictures—it covers the “high points” of the entire history of philosophy from ancient Greece to “postmodernism,” from the West to the East. For someone who knows nothing about philosophy, the bare minimum this book can offer is this: it at least gives the reader the most rudimentary impression of these important figures and terms in the history of philosophy. Its overcompressed narration and overly ornate design will, of course, be dismissed by scholars; yet for today’s young people who know only how to go online and watch television, who are too lazy even to read newspapers, and who at most “read” a few fashion magazines and “youth” novels, perhaps only this degree of “history of philosophy” can have any slight appeal. From this perspective, given that the book is basically unlikely to give people some extremely wrong or dangerous impression, its significance is still positive.

The author clearly leans toward political philosophy, and gives somewhat more space to philosophers closely connected with politics and society. For example, he sets up a rather substantial chapter on “Philosophy and Revolution,” and treats Proudhon, Lenin, Trotsky, and Gramsci in separate sections; likewise, the chapters “Philosophy and the Modern World” and “Challenging the World Order” clearly reveal a bias toward political philosophy. Nevertheless, on the whole, the author’s account of the development of philosophy is still relatively balanced, and the “picture of the history of philosophy” he offers beginners, though brief, is also fairly comprehensive. Some of the author’s perspectives are quite commendable, or at least quite interesting; for example: “People often think that philosophy was born in conflict with religion, but this hypothesis actually comes from a modern understanding of philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophy was in a state of continual astonishment rather than motivated by any worldly consideration” (p. 14). “The philosophical significance of Karl Marx is enormous. The world changed in his name. And his fame was so great that his works are cited more often than read” (p. 104).

Though I read this book merely for amusement, I did not come away entirely empty-handed.

On the one hand, it made me realize that, like popular science books, philosophy popularizations written in a plain and abbreviated style are quite difficult to write, but also worth writing. The main purpose of such books is to give the public a healthy impression of philosophy; once the public comes to understand philosophy in a friendlier way, the lives of philosophy workers can also become a little easier. On the other hand, I also became familiar once again with that string of names—our course in the history of Western philosophy really left out far too much, especially “modern Western philosophy.” It barely touched on the many areas that occupied and were discussed by the Western philosophical world in the twentieth century, especially the second half of the twentieth century and up to the present. If we are content merely to finish these two semesters of the history of Western philosophy, thinking that after that it will be enough to take a few “special topics” courses, then that is obviously nowhere near sufficient, because our picture of the history of Western philosophy is still incomplete. In particular, if we do not acquire the necessary understanding of modern Western philosophy, then our Chinese philosophical circles will always lag behind foreign discussions; and once we neglect knowledge of contemporary Western philosophy, imagining that only those “classic originals” of Kant and Hegel are worth reading, we will inevitably end up doing much pointless work—for instance, arguing for half a day only to discover in the end that the problems we have been discussing were already discussed long ago in the West. This tendency to place too much emphasis on the “classics” while despising the contemporary is actually widespread, especially in the Peking University Department of Philosophy, which is said to specialize in studying “history.”

Of course, to study philosophy one must first read the history of philosophy, and reading the history of philosophy unquestionably means reading from antiquity to the present, and unquestionably means paying attention to the classic originals. Yet once we have formed in our minds a preliminary picture of the history of philosophy, when it comes time to actually “do” philosophy, my personal view is that we should unquestionably begin from the “present age,” from the problems of the present age, from the dilemmas of the present age, from the debates of the present age, and then look back, drawing nourishment from the history of philosophy, and then return from history to reality. More specifically, we certainly need to gnaw through the classics ourselves and work through the original texts, but at the same time we must pay even more attention to what problems we are facing in the present age, and what issues are being discussed in the philosophy world of the present age. Among contemporary philosophers and philosophical researchers, there are certainly few singular masters, and even less of the kind of star figures like Kant or Hegel; but to ignore the significance of their work would be equally foolish! More specifically still, for example, many teachers will instruct philosophy students who have only just entered, or perhaps have not even entered yet, to try to read the original texts directly and not rely on contemporary secondary literature. But many teachers forget to add another point students need to keep in mind: compared with a solid and diligent attitude toward study, cultivating a keen sense of problems is also an equally important quality. To discover a “problem” in secondary literature, to identify a “problem,” then to go to the original texts to “verify” it, and then to put forward one’s own view, or merely to borrow a point from some secondary source as the view one accepts, and use both secondary literature and original texts to support it. In all these processes, the ability to discover problems, organize problems, verify problems, and use and sort through various resources is not any worse a method than going straight to the original text and trying to gnaw something out of it from the outset. And going straight for the original texts, on the one hand, runs the risk of wasting the achievements of the present and ignoring real-world topics; on the other hand, it also easily causes many people to lose interest in philosophy too early. Therefore my own chosen way of reading is this: first read philosophy histories and similar works that can sketch out the “picture,” while also choosing some introductory, indirect secondary works. Once I discover in these secondary works “problems” worth attention, “topics” worth discussion, or things that are simply interesting, then I will “follow the map to find the horse,” and go back into the history of philosophy to look for the classics and look for the original texts. Of course, I do not oppose any other way of entering philosophy; if you are happy, any way of coming in is fine.

January 31, 2006

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.