Classical Thought by Terence Irwin

Classical Thought by Terence Irwin, published in 1989, is Volume 1 of A History of Western Philosophy published by Oxford. This book covers everything from the Pre-Socratics to the early Christian synthesis with Greek philosophy epitomized by Augustine’s Apologies. I read this volume primarily because I’ve found that I’m not really “getting” the Platonic dialogues without having more context for what I’m reading. My next Platonic dialogue is The Republic, which I expect will be the most important and difficult, so I wanted to gear up with a few secondary sources to make sure I get the most out of that and so that I better understand Plato in his historical context.

Classical thought comes in at about 200 pages long and covers a lot of territory, but I found it to be a reasonably good summary of the period in question. I definitely didn’t understand and retain all of the arguments and discussion points laid out, but the idea was to get my feet wet, and it worked for that. Irwin breaks down in summary form the main philosophical arguments and systems of each of the subjects of the book, contrasts them with those that came before, and points out potential strengths and weaknesses of their arguments.

The first topic is the general moral and philosophical outlook of the Homeric epics, which I agree with Irwin is a topic worth covering in this book since the epics are discussed by other philosophers and lay a foundation for Greek culture that supplies needed context. Next are the Presocratic Naturalists, such as Hippocrates, who began the systematic study of medicine. My understanding is that naturalists are generally looking for systematic, non-supernatural explanations for cause and effect, sickness, physics, and the general state of the world. Natural processes conform to general laws and are not simply the result of the whims of the Gods. My understanding is most of these philosophers also believe in some sort of objective reality.

Leon-Alexander Delhomme's "Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul"

The second part of the book is called “Doubts About Naturalism,” where figures as diverse as Democritus (first theory of the atom), Thucydides, and Protagoras (“Man is the measure of all things”—the idea of absolute relativism). I’m not sure these people really go together. Yes, Thucydides does try to explain history by appealing to natural rules governing human behavior, but I don’t know that he really set out a theory of morality as Irwin claims.

The book also covers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureans, Stoicism, Plotinus, and the early synthesis of Greek philosophy with Christianity epitomized by Augustine. Of these, I was most impressed by and best grasped the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, and to some extent the Stoics. The Epicureans and Plotinus were hard to follow.

Here are a few interesting arguments and points that I happened to note in the book:

Naturalists cannot easily appeal to observation as proving their claims about nature, because observation of nature can just as easily disprove there claims for an objective system because there are so many irregular events in nature. To see irregular events (say a freak storm) as helping to prove the naturalist assumption of systematic cause and effect rather than harming it, you would have to have already accepted their argument that general laws govern both ordinary and exceptional events. Without our modern observation methods, mathematics, or ideas about the scientific method, it’s much easier to point to supernatural causes or simply randomness to explain random events.

Naturalist arguments against common sense explanations can lead to skepticism and the idea that all is relative and that there are no object standards for evaluating moral philosophy and no way to comprehend and systematically explain objective reality.

Epicurus argues that we fear death because we fear an afterlife in hell—but we should feel better because there is no life after death! This is a bizarre argument to a modern reader.

Epicurus Sitting by Nobody60

One thing I didn’t love is that Irwin’s book is a bit odd in its organization. Most authors handling the presocratics tend to lump them together and describe the general views of each one. He instead organizes topically, but I have a feeling he may be putting square pegs into round holes. Does Herodotus really belong with the naturalist Presocratic philosophers? Does the long section on Thucydides belong anywhere in this book at all? In his introduction he also points out that he gave Plato and Aristotle less space than most books and tried to give lesser known philosophers a bit more. That’s a mistake. Plato and Aristotle are by far the most important figures in the period of time he’s covering, and if they end up filling half the book then that would be fine.

I haven’t read Frederick Copleston’s History of Philosophy volume dealing with Greece and Rome yet, but I have it and it looks to be more to my taste in terms of organization. It doesn’t spend time on Thucydides, it spends lots of time on Plato and Aristotle, and simply treats the presocratics in order. I probably will end up preferring that book to this one. Also, how the heck did Irwin manage to not even mention Pythagoras? The history of philosophy without any gaps is obviously different as a podcast but is similarly better organized.

Overall, it was a good book, particular for its short length, and I got out of if what I wanted, but I think you could probably do better.

Image Credits:

• Democritus statue is at the Museum of Fine Arts in Lyon; the artist is Leon-Alexandre Delhomme and the photographer is Jean-Louis Lascoux. Wikicommons page; and license.

• Epicurus statue is from wikicommons by Nobody60. This CC license. Awesome work Nobody60!

• Cover picture pulled from Amazon.