The great philosophers Socrates. Democritus. Plato. Aristotle. Descartes.
Pascal. Spinoza. Luke. Berkeley. Walter. a day. Kant. the wave Schopenhauer.
Marx. Nietzsche. Russell. Wittgenstein. Popper. Turing
By Hanoch Ben-Yimi
Salvatore Rossa, "The Philosopher", 17th century
Translated from English: Amir Zuckerman, Dori Manor, Reuven Miren, Ora
Gringrad, Ofer Kober, Oded Schechter, Adi Marcuse-Hess. Editor of the edition
Hebrew: Yehuda Meltzer. Yedioth Ahronoth publishing house, Hamad books, books
Attic, NIS 38 per book
I had a hard time finding a successful way to open the review of the twenty booklets
Before us: a short paragraph that will be precise and will touch on a common central issue
to all and arouse enough interest in readers to continue reading. Although there is
Many things to write about the series, but the attempt to exhaust some kind of concentrate
The opening turned out to be beyond my abilities. That's why I chose Socrates - the early one
In the philosophers that the series deals with - to start with an apology, in which I am
declares that I do not pretend to know what I do not know. And out of hope that
The readers will do me a greater favor than the judges of the aforementioned did him, I will continue
Straight to the body of the review.
The original English series includes 24 books, from which they were translated into Hebrew
twenty. The untranslated books are on Eyre, Collingwood, Heidegger
and derida. It is likely that the names of the first two are unfamiliar to most Hebrew readers,
And therefore, according to the editor of the Hebrew edition, the two books were not translated
on them. Indeed, it is doubtful that they would have deserved to be included in the original series, if not
were compatriots of its editors. Heidegger, on the other hand, is an influential philosopher
And it is known, but the editor started translating a book about the philosopher with a Nazi background,
And his decision was strengthened by the fact that the book, which translates the obscure style of
Heidegger into an equally obscure English, was almost unintelligible in translation
The Hebrew translation. Regarding Derrida, the book about him deals with a debate between him
and Levi-Strauss, who is not central to Derrida's thought, and was unknown
And even uninteresting to the Hebrew reader. Therefore, in addition to the suspicion of the quirkiness of
The thinker, it was decided in the system not to translate it.
Also in relation to what is left of the Hebrew series, the title of the series is the news
is not justified. By any standard, not all philosophers were included in it
The big ones, and some of the absent are more important than some of the present. Why is Pascal included?
And not Augustine? Or Russell, but not Poppy? And where is Plotinus,
Aquinas, Hobbes, Rousseau and Mill? And it is even possible that Leibniz would have retracted it
From his assertion that our world is the best of the possible ones, he realized that it also
His place is absent from the series before us. The discretion of the series editors
English is not at all clear in this respect.
Not all who appear in the series are great philosophers, and some are not even at all
are not philosophers. It is possible, though, that there will be some, mainly Marxists,
Sharim raise an eyebrow due to Popper's inclusion in the series, and others, especially Popperians,
They will be surprised at the inclusion of Marx; But these are arguments within the family.
On the other hand, the inclusion of Walter and Turing is certainly not justified. and there is no
I say these things to belittle their greatness or their influence on human thinking
And on human life: Darwin and Einstein influenced more than most
included in the series on human thinking, but this does not make them
to the philosophers.
Even John Gray, the author of the book on Walter, writes that "his essays
Walter Locke's philosophies lack originality" (14). And indeed, the book
It is mainly a discussion of the ideas of the Enlightenment movement, in the 18th century and in general,
And a central place is given to Walter. The instructions given by the editors of the series
The authors had many quotes from the thinker the book deals with, and most of them
The authors did make sure to do this and thus added interest to the books
and reliability. But Gray almost never quotes Walter in the book, and thus they are lost
For the readers the sarcasm and the sharpness of the man - and in them is the main part of his power and fame
(The lack of citations also damages the credibility of Gray's claims, and based on
My previous acquaintance with the subjects of the book gives me the impression that some of its statements are not
acceptability).
Regarding Turing, the editors of the series discovered an interesting consistency. Since the book
does not deal with a philosopher but with a mathematician, they entrusted his writing as well
By a mathematician, Andrew Hodges. Accordingly, the book is indeed accurate
Mathematically and philosophically poor. The philosophical debates
The main ones of the author are with Roger Penrose, whose place we will not know either
in the series of the middle philosophers, and when the author turns to argue with a philosopher
Literally, John Searle, he interrupts his words (71).
The book, although it does well to present the mathematical achievements of
Turing, does not fit this series.
Besides the inclusion of non-philosophers and the omission of important philosophers
In the series about the "great philosophers" in the Ha-Ha-Ha-Khida, there is another misleading side
in the series. That, like the fact that each book is named after a thinker, evokes
Readers expect that each book will present, as an introduction, the ideas
the main ones and the central features in the thinker's thought. And not her.
The books of the series are small, and each book has up to 80 pages of text. in such a format
It is very difficult, and in some cases even impossible, to present comprehensively
And I did not cover the totality of the ideas of a great philosopher. Indeed only a little
Some of the authors chose this way. Anthony Quinton wrote an excellent introduction to his thinking
by David Yom, probably the best that exists in Hebrew, and Anthony Gottlieb wrote
An excellent book dealing with Socrates' thought in general (the line is spoiled only
puzzling sarcasm in relation to Plato's idealism). But, as mentioned, it wasn't
The way of most authors.
Ray Monk, in his book on Russell, chose to focus on his philosophy of mathematics
- A justified choice considering that in this field Russell made the main contribution.
John Cottingham, in his book on Descartes, focuses on the philosophy of mind of
Descartes. It's a legitimate choice, of course, given his great influence
And Descartes' persistence on our thinking on this subject. But here it was worth clarifying
For readers who will not find references to key topics in the directory
Others, such as, for example, Descartes' proofs of the existence of God. The only clue
Therefore, outside the body of the text, it is in the subtitle inside the book, "Philosophy
of the soul". This sub-heading, which in itself is not clear enough, does not appear
on the cover of the book or on the opening page. There appear precisely the picture of
Descartes and under the heading "Descartes", and these create an expectation of an overview
and comprehensive The back of the book does not make the direction of the book much clearer.
It is likely that most readers will understand what the book is about only later
Let them start reading it.
The same is true in other books. Michael Ayers' book deals with Torah
Locke's ideas; Ralph Walker's - successful - book is about
In the moral philosophy of Kant, and his book - also the best - of Peter
Hacker deals mainly with Wittgenstein's philosophy of psychology. same as
In a book about Descartes, these are legitimate choices, but it should have been clarified
For readers more prominently these are the choices made.
The situation is extremely problematic in Frederic Raphael's book, which deals with philosophy
Popper's social. Popper is mainly interested in the philosophy of science
His. His social and historical thought is of less value, and as he says
The author himself, much of the interest she aroused stemmed from Popper's reputation
as a philosopher of science. Dedicating a book in the series to this part of Popper's thought is
therefore mistaken. Indeed, those familiar with Popper will rely on this book
He will not understand why Popper is included in the series of great philosophers, what else
Raphael tries to argue in many parts of the book that Popper's thinking is not bad
as it seems.
And finally, Kenneth McLeish's book on Aristotle deals with his "Poetics".
The "Poetics" is of course an important composition, but the choice of it as representing the
Aristotle's philosophy is puzzling.
The fact that the subjects of the books are not clearly presented is problematic all the more
examination. Readers looking for a book on Kant's moral philosophy, for example,
or about Aristotle's "Poetics", they will not know that there are books in the series dealing with
in so doing. And so, the one for whom the book is suitable will not reach it, and the one who will read the book
He will not find in it what he was looking for.
The level of the books in the series, of which I read 16, is not uniform. Of course, from everyone
You can learn something from the books, especially since each book is written by a person
who dealt a lot with the aforementioned thinker. The best of them present with clarity and depth
that the scope of the book allows for the subject it deals with. The book on Kant, for example,
It is the best introduction that exists in Hebrew to Kant's moral philosophy
In his book "Premise for the Metaphysics of Measurements" (although he may
too apologetic), and the book on Wittgenstein is an excellent introduction
to his philosophy of psychology. Bernard Williams' book also presents
Clearly Plato's ideas, especially in the middle dialogues, if
Because the character of Plato's dialogues is lost in it, and it seems to the reader of the book
Plato systematically teaches his doctrines in his writings.
Ronald Hyman's book on Nietzsche, however, is sometimes read as
essay in physiological psychology; We learn, for example, how they contributed
Nietzsche's vision and digestion problems for his style and ideas (20),
And elsewhere we learn how his views were the result of frustration that some
Some of the women dared not to fall in love with him even though he fell in love with them (47-34).
There is no attempt to critically evaluate Nietzsche's views,
Even when he writes admiringly about the "blonde beast" and similar things
(56)
As an antithesis to the book on Nietzsche, the books on Socrates and Marx can be placed
(The latter by Terry Ingleton). Both show their love and appreciation
The authors of the philosophers, although they do not spare the philosophers the
Their criticism tribe.
Paul Cartledge's book on Democritus is sometimes guilty of speculation
Blooming in the air. For example, the author's conclusion from the words of Democritus - "Better
For me to discover one reason from being the king of Persia" - because Democritus obviously
visited Peres (18), he is ridiculous, and although he admits that the attribution of the fragments
Those dealing with morality for Democritus is "a clear matter of faith" (21),
He expands without reservation on his ethics (55 ff.).
In the textbook on Berkeley, David Berman chose to deal with the philosophical method
His. This choice is problematic for two reasons: first, it is doubtful whether Berkeley has
A uniform and unique empirical method as Berman claims. Second, the series
Intended for readers without prior acquaintance with the philosophers, and despite this
The book refers to Berkeley's idealism as something known to everyone, and the author is not
Presents or explains the philosopher's views.
The translations I read (by six of the seven translators) were all
Fluent, they seemed faithful to the original and I hardly found any errors in them. The fact that
That most of the translators have a philosophical background in the subjects they translated certainly helped. there is
I only have one general comment regarding the translation. The English term "mind" does not have
As we know, there is a Hebrew equivalent, and its translation varies according to the context and the conjunctions in them
It appears: soul, spirit, mind and more. The one translation that is not acceptable,
Especially in a philosophical context - and which appeared here often - is
"brain". First, "mind" in English is "brain" and not "mind." Second,
The translation of "mind" presupposes a claim of psycho-physical identity between the mind
or mind to matter. Thus, such a translation commits philosophers to a position that is not
accepted by many of them.
The system added notes to the booklets, which indeed clarify quite a few topics. With
However, it is not clear to me according to what criteria the comments were added: why,
For example, in the book about Walter, it is clarified in a note who Auguste Comte was, but not who
Was Condorcet (33)? After all, the latter is not familiar to readers anymore
from the first, and its importance to be discussed in the book is even greater than that of Comte. Yes, there are
In the textbooks, there are plenty of references to other books in the series, and these are also made
To the extent that the book referred to does not deal with the matter relevant to the text, and also
When there are other books in Hebrew that are more suitable for the topic. Advertising
This self seems excessive to me.
All books have an English bibliography in the original, as well as a Hebrew bibliography,
which includes all the translations in print, old translations of the philosopher's writings,
and an exhaustive (for the most part) and thorough list of reference books on that philosopher
and the topics discussed in the book. The book also includes a list of websites
Those dealing with the philosopher and bringing his letters, and a list of websites
Generals dealing with philosophy. This bibliography is an excellent resource
For further familiarization with the topics of the book and with philosophy in general.
Dr. Hanoch Ben-Yimi is a philosophy lecturer at Tel Aviv University
