books

Collections
Reference
Philosophy

Books like Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers

Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers

2003Philip Stokes

4.8/5

This is a really enjoyable book to read, and a great mini-encyclopedia for the intellectuals included. Stokes doesn't stick to philosophy alone, but includes folks who, while not philosophers proper, helped the Western world know or understand reality better. (Einstein, Newton, some theologians, etc.) Stokes gives a 2-page summary of each philosopher, including what they are most known for, their major works, and their contribution to the history of thought. He organizes by focus rather than strict timeline, which I found helpful in situating each person contextually. As with any list, Stokes makes some controversial choices of who to include (and who not to include). It's worth emphasizing that I understand Stokes is not claiming that the folks he chose are the only 100 essential thinkers; only that these are some of the essential thinkers in history of thought. This gives him some leeway, so I don't want to be too critical, but here are some things I would have liked clarified or included considering the overall approach of the book.1. The title. This would better be titled "Western Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers." It's a solid list of many influential Western thinkers, but very notably neglects the whole history of rich, complex, searching Eastern thought. 2. Diversity. Quite a dearth of diversity in the types of thinkers included. Very few women, and some significant philosophical movements neglected.3. Obvious topical favoritism. His bias for linguistics was so, so, so obvious, in two ways. One, Stokes lists several "essential" thinkers that I had never even heard of. Now, I am no encyclopedia of philosophic thought, but I have at least heard of most folks. Some folks he included were not at all what I would term "essential." Two, whereas he does a great job of clearly and concisely explaining the complex theories of other philosophers, his explanations of the philosophers in the linguistic section were dang near unreadable. Such a fascinating example of getting to a point where we know a lot more than the average person and understand the ideas more deeply than most, but haven't yet gotten back to that point where we can explain the complexities clearly and simply. Knowledge and explanatory power have a weird bell-curve trajectory in that way. All my quibbles aside, it really is a great book for what it contains, and I will be referencing it frequently when I come across a philosopher I haven't read closely, or when I need to find a philosopher who did groundbreaking work in linguistics. (Oddly enough, this already came up in my life this week, so perhaps Stokes has his thumb on the pulse of what counts as "essential" more than I do.)One last note. This is a book best read in bits, not all at once or in large chunks. To read in large chunks risks losing some of the great information and letting folks kind of "run together" in your mind; especially those you haven't heard of. But it is perfect for small moments, like at the doctor's office, at night before falling asleep, or (as my friend so delightfully pointed out) the bathroom. Ahem.

Filter by:

Cross-category suggestions

Filter by:

Filter by:

Filter by:

Filter by:

Filter by:

Filter by:

Filter by: