What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Philosophy #1
Volume 1, Part 1, A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome
A wonderful overview and commentary of Greek and Roman philosophy, with close attention to Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.
268 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1946
358 people are currently reading
4772 people want to read
About the author
Frederick Charles Copleston
309 books290 followersFrederick (Freddie) Charles Copleston was raised an Anglican and educated at Marlborough College from 1920 to 1925. Shortly after his eighteenth birthday he converted to Catholicism, and his father subsequently almost disowned him. After the initial shock, however, his father saw fit to help Copleston through his education and he attended St. John’s in Oxford in 1925, only managing a disappointing third in classical moderations. He redeemed himself somewhat with a good second at Greats in 1929.
In 1930 Copleston became a Jesuit, and, after two years at the Jesuit novitiate in Roehampton, he moved to Heythrop. He was ordained a Jesuit priest at Heythrop College in 1937 and soon after went to Germany (1938) to complete his training. Fortunately he made it back to Britain before the outbreak of war in 1939. The war made it impossible for him to study for his doctorate, as once intended, at the Gregorian University in Rome, and instead Copleston was invited to return to Heythrop to teach the history of philosophy to the few remaining Jesuits there.
While in Heythrop Copleston had time and interest to begin the work he is most famous for, his "A History of Philosophy" - a textbook that originally set out to deliver a clear account of ancient, medieval and modern philosophy in three volumes, which was instead completed in nine volumes (1975). To this day Copleston’s history remains a monumental achievement and stays true to the authors it discusses, being very much a work in exposition.
Copleston adopted a number of honorary roles throughout the remainder of his career. He was appointed Visiting Professor at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, spending half of each year lecturing there from 1952 to 1968. He was made Fellow of the British Academy (FBA) in 1970, given a personal professorship from his own university (Heythrop, now re-established in the University of London) in 1972 and made an Honorary Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, in 1975. He was Visiting Professor at the University of Santa Clara between 1974 and 1982, and he delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen between 1979 and 1981. His lectures were published under the title Religion and the One, and were largely a metaphysical tract attempting to express themes perennial in his thinking and more personal than in his history. Gerard J. Hughes notes Copleston as remarking "large doses of metaphysics like that certainly don’t boost one’s sales".
He received honorary doctorates from a number of institutions, notably, Santa Clara University, California, University of Uppsala and the University of St. Andrews (D.Litt) in later years. He was selected for membership in the Royal Institute of Philosophy and in the Aristotelian Society, and in 1993 he was made CBE.
Copleston’s personality saw him engage in the many responsibilities bestowed upon him with generous commitment and good humour.
In 1930 Copleston became a Jesuit, and, after two years at the Jesuit novitiate in Roehampton, he moved to Heythrop. He was ordained a Jesuit priest at Heythrop College in 1937 and soon after went to Germany (1938) to complete his training. Fortunately he made it back to Britain before the outbreak of war in 1939. The war made it impossible for him to study for his doctorate, as once intended, at the Gregorian University in Rome, and instead Copleston was invited to return to Heythrop to teach the history of philosophy to the few remaining Jesuits there.
While in Heythrop Copleston had time and interest to begin the work he is most famous for, his "A History of Philosophy" - a textbook that originally set out to deliver a clear account of ancient, medieval and modern philosophy in three volumes, which was instead completed in nine volumes (1975). To this day Copleston’s history remains a monumental achievement and stays true to the authors it discusses, being very much a work in exposition.
Copleston adopted a number of honorary roles throughout the remainder of his career. He was appointed Visiting Professor at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, spending half of each year lecturing there from 1952 to 1968. He was made Fellow of the British Academy (FBA) in 1970, given a personal professorship from his own university (Heythrop, now re-established in the University of London) in 1972 and made an Honorary Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, in 1975. He was Visiting Professor at the University of Santa Clara between 1974 and 1982, and he delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen between 1979 and 1981. His lectures were published under the title Religion and the One, and were largely a metaphysical tract attempting to express themes perennial in his thinking and more personal than in his history. Gerard J. Hughes notes Copleston as remarking "large doses of metaphysics like that certainly don’t boost one’s sales".
He received honorary doctorates from a number of institutions, notably, Santa Clara University, California, University of Uppsala and the University of St. Andrews (D.Litt) in later years. He was selected for membership in the Royal Institute of Philosophy and in the Aristotelian Society, and in 1993 he was made CBE.
Copleston’s personality saw him engage in the many responsibilities bestowed upon him with generous commitment and good humour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
September 6, 2022
اکیدا توصیه میشود برای کسانی که به فلسفه علاقه دارند و درصدد یادگیری فلسفه هستند.
جوهر یا ذات، ماده، اشیا، حقیقت، واقعیت، روح، ارزش، حکمت، شک، عقل، بالعرض و بالذات، واجبالوجود، نظم، برهان، حرکت، زمان، انسان، اخلاق...
بسیار مهم هستند.
اگر فلسفهی یونان و روم را یاد گرفتید که یاد گرفتید و میتوونید برید سراغ فلاسفه بعدی اما اگر یاد نگرفتید که چندباره بخوونید، تلاش کنید و اگـــر نشد پس رهـا کنید...
جوهر یا ذات، ماده، اشیا، حقیقت، واقعیت، روح، ارزش، حکمت، شک، عقل، بالعرض و بالذات، واجبالوجود، نظم، برهان، حرکت، زمان، انسان، اخلاق...
بسیار مهم هستند.
اگر فلسفهی یونان و روم را یاد گرفتید که یاد گرفتید و میتوونید برید سراغ فلاسفه بعدی اما اگر یاد نگرفتید که چندباره بخوونید، تلاش کنید و اگـــر نشد پس رهـا کنید...
May 19, 2021
اول از ترجمهی انگشت-به-دهان-کن کتاب بگم. تقریبا یک سوم کتاب رو با متن اصلی مقابله کردم و ترجمهی ذهنیم به جرات حتی در یک مورد هم از ترجمهی ارایه شده تو کتاب فراتر نرفت. در کل این دویست صفحه فقط یک جملهی بسیار کوتاه فراموش شده بود و بقیه متن به خوبی در ترجمه بازسازی شده بود
.
حالا برسیم به متن کتاب. خب. بالاخره تصمیم گرفتم مطالعه پراکندهی فلسفه رو کنار بگذارم و اول شروع کنم به خوندن نظاممند تاریخ فلسفه. برای این مسیر فعلا دو کتاب رو انتخاب کردم. یکی همین دورهی کاپلستون و دیگری دورهی آنتونی کنی. متن کنی هم آسونخونتره و هم موجز. میشه این دو مسیر رو جدا از هم یا همراه با هم پیش برد اما توصیهی من پیش بردن همزمان این دو دوره هست
.
درباره کاپلستون باید با یک چیزی کنار اومد و اون اینکه کشیشه و نگاه مسیحیش در همین جلد یک هم(جلد مربوط به فلسفهی پیشامسیحی دوره یونان و روم) گاهی روی قضاوت نهاییش اثر گذاشته. جز این دقت و عمق نظر کاپلستون در درک مفاهیم هر دورهی تاریخی فلسفه بسیار جذابه و میتونه مقدمهی مفصلی باشه برای آشنایی با فلسفهی دورهی یونان
.
.
حالا برسیم به متن کتاب. خب. بالاخره تصمیم گرفتم مطالعه پراکندهی فلسفه رو کنار بگذارم و اول شروع کنم به خوندن نظاممند تاریخ فلسفه. برای این مسیر فعلا دو کتاب رو انتخاب کردم. یکی همین دورهی کاپلستون و دیگری دورهی آنتونی کنی. متن کنی هم آسونخونتره و هم موجز. میشه این دو مسیر رو جدا از هم یا همراه با هم پیش برد اما توصیهی من پیش بردن همزمان این دو دوره هست
.
درباره کاپلستون باید با یک چیزی کنار اومد و اون اینکه کشیشه و نگاه مسیحیش در همین جلد یک هم(جلد مربوط به فلسفهی پیشامسیحی دوره یونان و روم) گاهی روی قضاوت نهاییش اثر گذاشته. جز این دقت و عمق نظر کاپلستون در درک مفاهیم هر دورهی تاریخی فلسفه بسیار جذابه و میتونه مقدمهی مفصلی باشه برای آشنایی با فلسفهی دورهی یونان
.
February 4, 2015
Returning to reading philosophy as a "project", I decided to begin with Copleston's history. This was recommended background/reference material for my college History of Philosophy classes back in 1971-72, but at the time I only finished six or seven of the nine volumes. (The tenth and eleventh volumes seen in one reprint edition are a collection of articles and a separate book not intended as part of the History.)
Father Copleston was a Jesuit priest, who began this as a history for students in Catholic seminaries who were simultaneously studying Thomist philosophy. It quickly became a standard history outside that target audience because there was nothing approaching a comprehensive history of philosophy in English at the time which was at all recent or based on contemporary scholarship. This first book in particular bears the marks of its original purpose, with constant comparisons of the systems described to the "truth" as understood by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. The next two volumes of course are on mediaeval, mainly Catholic philosophy, which is Copleston's forte and which is never treated sufficiently in more secular histories, while by the time he got to modern philosophy he was consciously writing for a largely non-Catholic audience.
Although his comments sometimes seem rather intrusive to a non-Catholic reader, they are always clearly separated from his descriptions, and there is something to be said for having a known, admitted bias that one can take into account and correct for as opposed to a supposedly objective text where the bias (and there will always be a bias in a field as controversy-laden as philosophy) has to be guessed at from the treatment itself. Moreover, when he arrives at the modern systems, his own views are so totally foreign to the systems discussed that he is probably more "objective" than any secular writer could be, who would necessarily sympathize with one of the tendencies under discussion.
There is however, one important problem due to his viewpoint, which is in the selection of what he discusses and what he leaves out. He is clearly weakest on the Presocratics, and in fact he begins with an apologia for including them at all; his "justifcation" is that they are needed to understand where Plato and Aristotle are coming from. So he discusses them largely from that perspective, and also accepts Aristotle's view that they are talking about what Aristotle is talking about, a metaphysical substratum, where in fact (in my opinion) they are doing something totally different, namely cosmogeny -- talking about not what the world is but where it came from. His discussion of Plato and Aristotle occupies most of the book, and is very thorough, and probably as accurate as could be hoped for in a book this size. These are difficult thinkers, and refreshingly he does not "dumb down" his treatment -- his target audience of seminarians he assumes has some reading knowledge of Greek and Latin, and some prior knowlege of philosophy from a Catholic viewpoint. He gives more space than most recent histories of Greek thought to the post-Aristotelian systems, since he naturally considers neo-Platonism as the culminating synthesis on the point of being taken into Christian theology.
Within the systems, it is sometimes frustrating to a non-religious person that he will mention that a philosopher wrote on logical or epistemological issues, then pass over that to describe in detail what he is interested in -- what they thought about God and the soul, and how it is similar or different from the "true" account of the Church. While taken as a whole, Copleston's history is probably still one of the best (at least in comprehensiveness and refusal to oversimplify), this particular volume is not the best part of his history or the best work on the history of Greek philosophy -- I would have to nominate W.K.C. Guthrie's multi-volume History of Greek Philosophy for that -- and there are many better books on specific tendencies or philosophers.
Father Copleston was a Jesuit priest, who began this as a history for students in Catholic seminaries who were simultaneously studying Thomist philosophy. It quickly became a standard history outside that target audience because there was nothing approaching a comprehensive history of philosophy in English at the time which was at all recent or based on contemporary scholarship. This first book in particular bears the marks of its original purpose, with constant comparisons of the systems described to the "truth" as understood by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. The next two volumes of course are on mediaeval, mainly Catholic philosophy, which is Copleston's forte and which is never treated sufficiently in more secular histories, while by the time he got to modern philosophy he was consciously writing for a largely non-Catholic audience.
Although his comments sometimes seem rather intrusive to a non-Catholic reader, they are always clearly separated from his descriptions, and there is something to be said for having a known, admitted bias that one can take into account and correct for as opposed to a supposedly objective text where the bias (and there will always be a bias in a field as controversy-laden as philosophy) has to be guessed at from the treatment itself. Moreover, when he arrives at the modern systems, his own views are so totally foreign to the systems discussed that he is probably more "objective" than any secular writer could be, who would necessarily sympathize with one of the tendencies under discussion.
There is however, one important problem due to his viewpoint, which is in the selection of what he discusses and what he leaves out. He is clearly weakest on the Presocratics, and in fact he begins with an apologia for including them at all; his "justifcation" is that they are needed to understand where Plato and Aristotle are coming from. So he discusses them largely from that perspective, and also accepts Aristotle's view that they are talking about what Aristotle is talking about, a metaphysical substratum, where in fact (in my opinion) they are doing something totally different, namely cosmogeny -- talking about not what the world is but where it came from. His discussion of Plato and Aristotle occupies most of the book, and is very thorough, and probably as accurate as could be hoped for in a book this size. These are difficult thinkers, and refreshingly he does not "dumb down" his treatment -- his target audience of seminarians he assumes has some reading knowledge of Greek and Latin, and some prior knowlege of philosophy from a Catholic viewpoint. He gives more space than most recent histories of Greek thought to the post-Aristotelian systems, since he naturally considers neo-Platonism as the culminating synthesis on the point of being taken into Christian theology.
Within the systems, it is sometimes frustrating to a non-religious person that he will mention that a philosopher wrote on logical or epistemological issues, then pass over that to describe in detail what he is interested in -- what they thought about God and the soul, and how it is similar or different from the "true" account of the Church. While taken as a whole, Copleston's history is probably still one of the best (at least in comprehensiveness and refusal to oversimplify), this particular volume is not the best part of his history or the best work on the history of Greek philosophy -- I would have to nominate W.K.C. Guthrie's multi-volume History of Greek Philosophy for that -- and there are many better books on specific tendencies or philosophers.
September 21, 2016
Well written, extensive and informative, objective and respectful, systematic and complete. The best history of philosophy anyone could ask for, across all both general and specific overviews I'm aware of.
Thanks to the anon who shat on Russel and recommend this as an alternative.
Thanks to the anon who shat on Russel and recommend this as an alternative.
May 10, 2016
By the spring of eighty I'd been out of school for almost two years. Work in psychiatric childcare (adolescent boys) which had filled that time was personally, but not professionally, rewarding. The living situation had, however, vastly improved since moving in with the brothers Miley the spring previous. Socially, they had helped me reintegrate with old high school friends, many of whom I hadn't seen for the nine years I'd been away in college and seminary.
Intellectually, however, I was dissatisfied. Michael Miley styled himself a writer and acted accordingly. Beyond letters, and there were lots of those, I was out of the habit. Indeed, only the spur of school, of being assured readers and intelligent criticism, had ever inspired me to write seriously since childhood. Although the threshold to writing was high, I'd learned to enjoy crossing it and missed the inspiration and opportunities school afforded. Working ten hour shifts was simply not compatible.
Thus far my academic training had led me from general liberal arts to history, to ancient history and textual criticism on the one hand while leading me to the same result through the study of continental depth psychology on the other. The same fascination with understanding very different mentalities united my interests in both the ancients and those alienists who, like Freud and Jung, saw and sought connections between the bizarre ideations of their patients and the thought-forms expressed in the ancient texts.
Clearly, the next step was to study philosophy and to do so much more systematically than previously. Thus, Copleston's first volume and, eventually, matriculation in Loyola University Chicago.
Intellectually, however, I was dissatisfied. Michael Miley styled himself a writer and acted accordingly. Beyond letters, and there were lots of those, I was out of the habit. Indeed, only the spur of school, of being assured readers and intelligent criticism, had ever inspired me to write seriously since childhood. Although the threshold to writing was high, I'd learned to enjoy crossing it and missed the inspiration and opportunities school afforded. Working ten hour shifts was simply not compatible.
Thus far my academic training had led me from general liberal arts to history, to ancient history and textual criticism on the one hand while leading me to the same result through the study of continental depth psychology on the other. The same fascination with understanding very different mentalities united my interests in both the ancients and those alienists who, like Freud and Jung, saw and sought connections between the bizarre ideations of their patients and the thought-forms expressed in the ancient texts.
Clearly, the next step was to study philosophy and to do so much more systematically than previously. Thus, Copleston's first volume and, eventually, matriculation in Loyola University Chicago.
September 28, 2019
اسم این کتاب تقریبا در هر برنامه مطالعاتی فلسفه وجود داره و با توجه به دقت و انصاف کاپلستون، منبع خوبی برای بررسی تطبیقی افکار فلاسفه مهم یونان باستانه. نکته ای که وجود داره اینه که مفاهیم فلسفی ارائه شده توسط سقراط و افلاطون و ارسطو بسیار سنگینه و شما نمی تونی مطمئن باشی که کاپلستون همه رو درست فهمیده باشه (مخصوصا افلاطون) و این یک واقعیته که کتاب از فیلتر ذهن کاپلستون رد شده و در نتیجه با توجه به سنگینی مطلب حتما نیازه که به کتابهای جداگانه ارسطو و افلاطون شناسان متخصص مراجعه کنید. حوزه تخصصی کاپلستون فلسفه قرون وسطاست.
متن کتاب و ترجمه روان و گوياست ولي همینطور که گفتم از نظر محتوا خیلی ثقیله و خوندنش تمرکز زیادی میخواد.
متن کتاب و ترجمه روان و گوياست ولي همینطور که گفتم از نظر محتوا خیلی ثقیله و خوندنش تمرکز زیادی میخواد.
July 27, 2024
متن کتاب یه جاهایی انقدر انسجام نداره که مطالب تو ذهن بشینه و شدیداً سختخوانه. پر از اسم و تاریخ و اطلاعات پراکنده است که با در نظر گرفتن اینکه مقصود پوشش دادن هر فیلسوفی بوده که در اون برههی زمانی میزیسته قابل درکه.
خواننده از یه کتاب فقط اطلاعات نمیخواد. خواننده انتظار داره یه کتاب منسجم، روان، آسان فهم باشه و مهمتر اینکه از خوانشش لذت ببره که من این موارد رو از این کتاب دریافت نکردم.
.
.
.
سیر فلسفه یونان و روم:
- طالس، آناکسیمندر، آناکسیمنس
- فیثاغوریان
- هراکلیتس
- پارمنیدس، ملیسوس
- زنون
- امپدکلس آکراگاسی
- آناکساگوراس
- اتمیان
- سوفسطائیان
- سقراط
- دموکریتس
- افلاطون
- ارسطو
- رواقیون (قدیم، متوسط، متأخر)
- اپیکوریان
- سنکا، اپیکتتوس، مارکوس اورلیوس
- کلبیان، التقاطیان، شکاکان
- افلاطونی متوسط (اودرس اسکندرانی، پلوتارک خِرُنایی، آلبینوس، آبولیوس، آتیکوس، سلسوس، ماکسیموس صوری)
- افلوطین
- نو افلاطونی (سوری، پِرگامون، آتنی، اسکندرانی، غرب لاتینی)
خواننده از یه کتاب فقط اطلاعات نمیخواد. خواننده انتظار داره یه کتاب منسجم، روان، آسان فهم باشه و مهمتر اینکه از خوانشش لذت ببره که من این موارد رو از این کتاب دریافت نکردم.
.
.
.
سیر فلسفه یونان و روم:
- طالس، آناکسیمندر، آناکسیمنس
- فیثاغوریان
- هراکلیتس
- پارمنیدس، ملیسوس
- زنون
- امپدکلس آکراگاسی
- آناکساگوراس
- اتمیان
- سوفسطائیان
- سقراط
- دموکریتس
- افلاطون
- ارسطو
- رواقیون (قدیم، متوسط، متأخر)
- اپیکوریان
- سنکا، اپیکتتوس، مارکوس اورلیوس
- کلبیان، التقاطیان، شکاکان
- افلاطونی متوسط (اودرس اسکندرانی، پلوتارک خِرُنایی، آلبینوس، آبولیوس، آتیکوس، سلسوس، ماکسیموس صوری)
- افلوطین
- نو افلاطونی (سوری، پِرگامون، آتنی، اسکندرانی، غرب لاتینی)
December 30, 2018
اولين مطالعه ي جدي من در زمينه ي فلسفه بود ، خوبي اين مجموعه كتاب اينه كه همونطور كه نويسنده ش كاپلستون در مقدمه ميگه مخاطب اين كتاب دانشجويان و پژوهندگاني هستند كه نخستين آشنايي رو با تاريخ فلسفه و فلسفه پيدا ميكنند و پيش زمينه ي ذهني خاص يا تخصصي در اين موضوع ندارند براي همين زبان كتاب و شيوه ي شرح موضوعات روان ، ساده و قابل فهم بود و ديگه اينكه نويسنده تا اونجا كه تونسته بيطرفانه روايت كرده گرچه به عنوان يك كشيش كاتوليك يه جاهايي نظريات خودش رو هم وارد بحث ميكنه ولي نه چندان زياد
از ترجمه راضي نبودم هرچقدر كه مولف سعي كرده بود كتاب رو ساده و براي فهم عموم بنويسه مترجم از اصطلاحات تخصصي فلسفه استفاده كرده بود و من ناچار از پاورقي ها و كلمات معادل انگليسي كه در متن اصلي اومده بود براي درك معناي اصلي كمك ميگرفتم، شايد خوندن كتاب به زبان اصلي خيلي ساده ترش هم بكنه
اين جلد بررسي فيلسوفان يوناني و رومي و نظرياتشون بود و اين سير تاريخي شرح نظريات خيلي به درك نظريه ها و روند رشد و تكاملشون در طول زمان كمك ميكرد و همينطور شناخت فيلسوفان، مباحث اصلي كه مطرح ميشه نظريه هاي وجود، وحدت و كثرت ، علم النفس ، مشيت الهي ،عدالت و فضيلته
زندگي و نظريات سقراط و افلاطون و ارسطو هم به خوبي بسط داده ميشه در همه ي ابعاد، از نظرياتشون درباره ي اصالت و وجود و فضيلت گرفته تا زيبايي و سياست و علم اخلاق
از كتاب خيلي راضيم و حتما به عنوان اولين مطالعه ي جدي در زمينه ي فلسفه توصيه ش ميكنم به دوستاني مثل خودم كه تازه ميخوان وارد اين حوزه ي مطالعاتي بشن
از ترجمه راضي نبودم هرچقدر كه مولف سعي كرده بود كتاب رو ساده و براي فهم عموم بنويسه مترجم از اصطلاحات تخصصي فلسفه استفاده كرده بود و من ناچار از پاورقي ها و كلمات معادل انگليسي كه در متن اصلي اومده بود براي درك معناي اصلي كمك ميگرفتم، شايد خوندن كتاب به زبان اصلي خيلي ساده ترش هم بكنه
اين جلد بررسي فيلسوفان يوناني و رومي و نظرياتشون بود و اين سير تاريخي شرح نظريات خيلي به درك نظريه ها و روند رشد و تكاملشون در طول زمان كمك ميكرد و همينطور شناخت فيلسوفان، مباحث اصلي كه مطرح ميشه نظريه هاي وجود، وحدت و كثرت ، علم النفس ، مشيت الهي ،عدالت و فضيلته
زندگي و نظريات سقراط و افلاطون و ارسطو هم به خوبي بسط داده ميشه در همه ي ابعاد، از نظرياتشون درباره ي اصالت و وجود و فضيلت گرفته تا زيبايي و سياست و علم اخلاق
از كتاب خيلي راضيم و حتما به عنوان اولين مطالعه ي جدي در زمينه ي فلسفه توصيه ش ميكنم به دوستاني مثل خودم كه تازه ميخوان وارد اين حوزه ي مطالعاتي بشن
July 4, 2015
پنج ستاره
این کتاب برای آشنایی مقدماتی با آرای فلاسفه ی باستان بسیار مناسب است و منظری کلی و روشنگرانه درباره ی آنها پیش چشم خواننده ترسیم می کند، گاهی نویسنده روی جزئئیاتی حساس می شود و ممکن است خواننده را گیج و خسته کند چرا که فهمیدنش ملزوم دانستن یکسری اصطلاحات فلسفی است
این کتاب برای آشنایی مقدماتی با آرای فلاسفه ی باستان بسیار مناسب است و منظری کلی و روشنگرانه درباره ی آنها پیش چشم خواننده ترسیم می کند، گاهی نویسنده روی جزئئیاتی حساس می شود و ممکن است خواننده را گیج و خسته کند چرا که فهمیدنش ملزوم دانستن یکسری اصطلاحات فلسفی است
July 2, 2022
دو نقدِ عمده به تاریخِ کاپلستون وارد میکنند. یکی مؤلف مذهبی (کشیش) است و گرایش شخصی او در نگارشِ این اثر تأثیر گذاشته. دیگری توقع میرود هر بخشی از تاریخ فلسفه را کسی بنویسید که متخصصِ آن فلسفهی خاص است، مشابهِ تاریخ راتلج. علیرغم هر دو نقد، تاریخِ فلسفهی کاپلستون به شکلِ مقبولی خودبسنده، دانشافزار و خواندنی است.
April 7, 2008
This series is probably the best general overview of the history of philosophy currently available. The prose can be somewhat dry and technical, but this is to be expected. Volume One is best read with greek/english and latin/english dictionaries close at hand.
March 8, 2011
Some very good sections, such as the quick summaries of Ionian and early Greek philosophers. However, the assumption readers can understand all languages (French, German, Latin, Greek, etc.) and references made makes the book much more difficult to understand than it ought be.
July 12, 2014
This book is too biased. I didn't even finish reading the first chapter. In the introduction he even bashes biased historians. Poo poo, I was very excited to pick this up as well.
March 11, 2024
بالاخره بعد از دو ماه (آمار دقیق ندارم) تموم شد.
ارزشش رو داشت. گرچه کاپلستون به دلیل مسیحی بودن خیلی هم بیطرفانه عمل نکرده. ترجمه هم خوب بود. منظور رو میرسوند. یکی از مشکلاتش پرانتزهایی بود که برای آوردن معادل یونانی کلمات وسط متن بود و تمرکز روی متن رو سخت میکرد.
فعلاً قصدی برای خوندن جلد دوم ندارم.
توی عید میخوام برم سراغ جلد اول تاریخ فلسفه امیل بریه، ترجمهی آقای سعادت، نشر هرمس.
ارزشش رو داشت. گرچه کاپلستون به دلیل مسیحی بودن خیلی هم بیطرفانه عمل نکرده. ترجمه هم خوب بود. منظور رو میرسوند. یکی از مشکلاتش پرانتزهایی بود که برای آوردن معادل یونانی کلمات وسط متن بود و تمرکز روی متن رو سخت میکرد.
فعلاً قصدی برای خوندن جلد دوم ندارم.
توی عید میخوام برم سراغ جلد اول تاریخ فلسفه امیل بریه، ترجمهی آقای سعادت، نشر هرمس.
January 20, 2024
An incredible work--Copleston is undeniably dense in his thoroughness, and at times this is disorienting for the reader. Yet this is a magisterial treatment of the philosophical contributions of Greece and Rome, and Copleston is an enjoyable (and insightful) guide and narrator of this incredible history. If there is one criticism, it would be helpful at times to contrast and compare the ideas and systems of the various philosophical movements (i.e. platonism, skepticism, stoicism, epicureanism, cynicism, eclecticism, neo-pythagoreanism, neo-platonism, etc.) in more structured ways at more regular intervals. Copleston frequently provides such analysis, but on a concept-by-concept basis such that the overall differences in the various systems is somewhat obscured (losing the forest for the trees). However, this issue was largely resolved by the concluding review chapter.
Excellent, dense, enjoyable, and difficult.
Excellent, dense, enjoyable, and difficult.
August 19, 2012
This could have been a phenomenal book. By not translating into English the many long -- and critically important to the understanding of this subject -- quotes, Copleston limits his audience to those who know not only English but also ancient Greek and Latin, among other languages.
October 16, 2016
بالاخره تموم شد
كمرم زير بار مفاهيمش شكست
كتابي كه بايد توي چند ترم توسط يك استاد مسلط
بعد از كلي بحث و جدل خونده بشه رو
تنهايي خوندن نميدونم اسمش چيه و نتيجش مثبته
براي خراش دادن به قصد نفوذِ معقوله اي به نام فلسفه خوبه
كمرم زير بار مفاهيمش شكست
كتابي كه بايد توي چند ترم توسط يك استاد مسلط
بعد از كلي بحث و جدل خونده بشه رو
تنهايي خوندن نميدونم اسمش چيه و نتيجش مثبته
براي خراش دادن به قصد نفوذِ معقوله اي به نام فلسفه خوبه
July 9, 2018
Few expository works have achieved as unanimous authority as A History of Philosophy series. Having just finished the first entry, now I can see why.
As it is clear from the title, this is an overview of history of philosophy, stretched over 10 volumes. Copleston undertook this massive project to supply "Catholic ecclesiastical seminaries with a work that should be somewhat more detailed and of wider scope than the text-books commonly in use and which at the same time should endeavor to exhibit the logical development and inter-connection of philosophical systems." It is indeed considerably more detailed than any other work of similar scope, and has wider scope than any other work of similar depth.
Any negative comment I can make on this work would be mere nitpick, and any praise by me would be admiration rather than critical approval. All I can say that would possibly be worth to hear is this. From where I am standing, namely an amateur philosophy student, nothing looks improvable in this volume.
It was a long and tedious read and I can safely say that philosophy remains out of my reading plans for a few months to come. I also do not know whether I can stand a 600-pages-long history of almost entirely Christian philosophy, which happens to be content of the second volume. In any case, every single volume of the series, including the second, is in my to-read list for now.
As it is clear from the title, this is an overview of history of philosophy, stretched over 10 volumes. Copleston undertook this massive project to supply "Catholic ecclesiastical seminaries with a work that should be somewhat more detailed and of wider scope than the text-books commonly in use and which at the same time should endeavor to exhibit the logical development and inter-connection of philosophical systems." It is indeed considerably more detailed than any other work of similar scope, and has wider scope than any other work of similar depth.
Any negative comment I can make on this work would be mere nitpick, and any praise by me would be admiration rather than critical approval. All I can say that would possibly be worth to hear is this. From where I am standing, namely an amateur philosophy student, nothing looks improvable in this volume.
It was a long and tedious read and I can safely say that philosophy remains out of my reading plans for a few months to come. I also do not know whether I can stand a 600-pages-long history of almost entirely Christian philosophy, which happens to be content of the second volume. In any case, every single volume of the series, including the second, is in my to-read list for now.
August 1, 2022
He uses general views on the most of the issues under focus to get to the specifics. He turns the disadvantage of his beliefs affecting his writings as a way to make the text more fluent but I have to admit, it's a bit dry and sometimes his beliefs are overtly stressed statements he makes. Overall, it’s a good reading of history of Philosophy.
Read
March 10, 2013Unfortunately, I cannot read Greek. Copleston refers to key concepts using only the Greek terms using the native alphabet. I could not follow the discussion or even differentiate the terms. I was enjoying the book but could no longer comprehend it.
June 16, 2020
Maybe I'm just Bobo the Fool but all the untranslated Greek made it pretty hard for me to understand some of the main concepts that Copleston was trying to delineate.
September 12, 2022
Impeccable. I am again shocked by the comprehensiveness of Fr. Copleston's historical knowledge in philosophy as well as his employment of several classic languages in his writings. As he says, to be ignorant of the history of a field is to be uneducated thereof, no matter how well one knows the contemporary developments of that discipline. And he certainly lived up to his preaching, as he masterfully unpacks the ancient Greek wisdom with all of its nuances and struggles, with the intellectual giants as well as their much less significant peers. Looking forward to the next volume.
February 3, 2024
This is a worthwhile book (and really series) for anyone with any interest in philosophy and its history. Copleston does an excellent job at explaining the development of philosophy throughout history while giving additional background information that helps to “fill in the gaps” concerning the philosopher’s life.
Definitely worth reading.
Definitely worth reading.
July 24, 2025
I read Copleston’s Volume 1 in 2009, at a time when I was also making my way through Bertrand Russell’s more famous—and cheekier—History of Western Philosophy. Side by side, the two made for a fascinating philosophical pas de deux: Russell, the irreverent iconoclast, and Copleston, the Jesuit scholar armed with scholastic rigor and a habit of not skipping footnotes.
Where Russell often editorializes with sharp wit (and sharp bias), Copleston delivers the intellectual goods with humility and precision. His treatment of the Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Neoplatonists is dense but lucid, methodical without being mechanical. If Russell is a philosopher moonlighting as a historian, Copleston is the opposite—a historian of ideas who lets each thinker speak in their own terms before offering interpretation.
What makes this volume particularly valuable is its careful tracing of metaphysical questions—Being, substance, form, soul—that run like golden threads through Greek and Roman thought. Plotinus, for instance, isn’t just presented as the mystic Neoplatonist, but as someone articulating a deeply structured worldview that would echo in medieval theology and beyond.
While Russell’s work reads like an Oxford high-table debate, Copleston’s is more like a cathedral lecture—measured, respectful, yet deeply illuminating.
Reading both in tandem was a lesson in how style can shape substance. But if you’re looking for clarity, context, and consistency, Copleston remains unmatched. Philosophy students: start here, and you won’t regret it.
Where Russell often editorializes with sharp wit (and sharp bias), Copleston delivers the intellectual goods with humility and precision. His treatment of the Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Neoplatonists is dense but lucid, methodical without being mechanical. If Russell is a philosopher moonlighting as a historian, Copleston is the opposite—a historian of ideas who lets each thinker speak in their own terms before offering interpretation.
What makes this volume particularly valuable is its careful tracing of metaphysical questions—Being, substance, form, soul—that run like golden threads through Greek and Roman thought. Plotinus, for instance, isn’t just presented as the mystic Neoplatonist, but as someone articulating a deeply structured worldview that would echo in medieval theology and beyond.
While Russell’s work reads like an Oxford high-table debate, Copleston’s is more like a cathedral lecture—measured, respectful, yet deeply illuminating.
Reading both in tandem was a lesson in how style can shape substance. But if you’re looking for clarity, context, and consistency, Copleston remains unmatched. Philosophy students: start here, and you won’t regret it.
May 11, 2016
I wanted to give myself a little leg up before starting an MA in Philosophy in another language. I've never studied philosophy before (unless you count reading http://existentialcomics.com/) and since I'm a Jesuit and this was in our house library I thought I'd give it a shot on my own.
Tough book to get through for many reasons, the fact that there's untranslated Greek, Latin, French, and German thrown about liberally throughout the book was one of the bigger ones. I'm a Catholic seminarian, his target audience, so this shows a real generational difference in what we'd call "common knowledge." His prose can also be pretty arduous at times. He uses paragraph long sentences like they're going out of style. I just thought to myself as I reread tough passages "Periods can be your friends brother. Please give us dumb-dumbs a chance to digest what your saying."
I read it over 5 months in 10-20 page intervals. Overall, he's a really smart guy. If you have a background in philosophy and/or classical languages, this is the book for you. Barring that, it's not the most accessible book.
Tough book to get through for many reasons, the fact that there's untranslated Greek, Latin, French, and German thrown about liberally throughout the book was one of the bigger ones. I'm a Catholic seminarian, his target audience, so this shows a real generational difference in what we'd call "common knowledge." His prose can also be pretty arduous at times. He uses paragraph long sentences like they're going out of style. I just thought to myself as I reread tough passages "Periods can be your friends brother. Please give us dumb-dumbs a chance to digest what your saying."
I read it over 5 months in 10-20 page intervals. Overall, he's a really smart guy. If you have a background in philosophy and/or classical languages, this is the book for you. Barring that, it's not the most accessible book.
August 4, 2013
I was looking for an introduction to philosophy and found this set being
tossed at the local library.I actually had two sets to choose from and I
chose Copleston's.
I was wondering what the SJ. was for after the name and found out he
was the main man to teach philosophy to Catholic priests.
As I am a very determined atheist I was really wary of what I might learn.
After endless pages of Christian cant and obtuse verbiage I actually
did learn something,I picked the wrong set.
I do commend his scholarship and I will keep the set. I am now slogging
my way through volume V, Hobbes to Hume, starting to see more philosophy and less theology.
January 19, 2021
I have wondered why I have rated this so highly, because I recall certain issues with it, but now that I have read Jowett's introduction to and translation of Plato's Parmenides, I change my four stars to one. That Copleston could peddle the Platonic Forms non sense tells me that he either never read the Parmenides (inexcusable), didn't understand it (implausible), or chose catholic expediency over fact. And it did strike me that his book looked like it was written with the intention of being suitable for indoctrination of priests. To think that it was recommended by a professor of philosophy! Now I am sure I will never read the remaining volumes.
October 17, 2012
I didn't read the whole thing, mainly because I was looking for information on Democritus. I read the section on the Pre-Socratics and then on Democritus... My only complaint is that this was written for Jesuit students and so is meant to explain philosophy in the context of how it fits Catholic teachings. He's up front about that, at least, and he's fairly even-handed about it. But it got old once in awhile...
February 6, 2019
160314: this volume stands for all nine of Copleston's A History of Philosophy
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews