- This topic has 6 voices and 5 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
I can’t recall where I heard about Arthur Herman’s The Cave and the Light, but I just finished it and will make some comments on it here. I am doing this as a non-philosopher and a non-historian, but I do know a few things. The theme of the book is the role of Plato and (and vs.) Aristotle in world history, moving from ancient Greece to the present. The book, though fascinating, is mixed so I will divide my very brief comments into two parts.
Positives
The best aspect of this book is that Herman is very pro-Aristotle. He gives Aristotle credit for the best parts of world history, including the Enlightenment, modern science, America’s founding principles, freedom, and capitalism. He is pro-Locke. On the other side of the positive coin, he holds Plato (plus Hegel and others) responsible for the worst parts, including religion and totalitarianism (Nazism, Communism, and more). He also has nice things to say about Ayn Rand (pro Aristotle, pro reason, pro capitalism)–about 2 pages worth. He likes Hayek, though does not mention von Mises.
Negatives
No mention of Kant. Clueless about concepts and about altruism. Likes the pragmatists. Caves a bit at the end, claiming we need some Plato to save us from materialistic “consumerism,” but this I think is due to the author’s own mind-body dichotomy. I am sure there are many philosophical errors and maybe historical ones. His many attempts to concretize philosophical ideas by tying them to examples from modern, daily life are silly.
Nevertheless, I definitely recommend this book. I don’t think one can find a more historically sweeping pro-Aristotle book anywhere. I hope philosophy and history scholars will make their own comments.
-
I’m a few chapters into this book, and I’m enjoying it so far. I see what you mean when you say the author’s “many attempts to concretize philosophical ideas by tying them to examples from modern, daily life are silly”. Some of his examples struck me the same way. I guess he’s trying to appeal to the man on the street. Maybe he’s trying too hard. But I like the fact that the book is easy to read, closer to a good narrative history book than a treatise.
I just wish there were more details known about the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. Think of it: two of the greatest minds in history, living at the same time on the same place. The brilliant teacher who asks all the right questions and the rebellious student who finds many of the right answers, with the fate of the world riding on the outcome. It’s great story material.
-
This book was first recommended by Tony White on October 22nd, 2013, when I bought it.
However, only upon your post I commenced to read it with great interest. On page 52 it says:
“Plato´s philosophy looks constantly backward, to what we were, or what we have lost, or to an original of which we are the pale imitation or copy. In that past original, Plato will say, we find the key that unlocks our future. Later that most Platonist of epochs, the Renaissance, would look back to classical antiquity for its model of perfection, just as the Romantics -Platonists almost to a man and woman – would look back to the Middle Ages.” What does the author mean by “that most Platonist of epochs, the Renaissance”?
In my understanding the Renaissance or “rebirth” was caused by the philosophy of Aristotle, introduced into Europe by Thomas Aquinas.
-
Aristotle’s philosophy was introduced through Spain by Latin translations of Arab translations of ancient Arab translations of ancient Greek found by accident by the Islamic conquerors of Syria. Aquinas and many others at the University of Paris and other institutions were responsible for the official dissemination. That’s my understanding of the history.
-
Mr. Jepsen: Ayn Rand also speaks positively of the Renaissance in her marginalia on C.S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man, which can be read in Ayn Rand’s Marginalia edited by Robert Mayhew.
-
The history of the re-introduction of Greek philosophy to Europe is complicated. Aquinas did re-introduce Aristotle, but he avoided getting burned at the stake with compromises that strengthened the political power of the Church in the short run, such as turning Maimonides’ Natural Law argument upside-down. Ironically, Aquinas’ compromises were attributed to Aristotle, and for centuries the Renaissance was thought of as an anti-Aristotelian reaction, against Aquinas’ allegedly Aristotelian justifications of Christian Theocracy under the mantle of “Natural Law.” I don’t know if anyone before Ayn Rand identified Aristotle (via Aquinas) as the intellectual progenitor of the Renaissance.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.