The Durant ego lacks precisely that. It was born in a lake, and it has
no thirst for the sea. Like certain aquatic creatures, it takes what
floats into its mouth, but makes no explorations. What Durant has given
us is simply not the story of philosophy. It is merely a series of
interesting comments upon the curriculum of a certain type of college
which does not even belong to the University of World Thought. This
provincialism is unfortunate, for it is certain to deceive provincial
readers with the idea that they have listened to the whole story.
It is difficult, after the reading of a book which is an avowed
recapitulation of many foreign opinions, to say what an author’s own
opinions may be. It is evident that Durant is no Catholic; not quite
so evident whether or no he is a believing Protestant. He seems to
have little sympathy with Protestantism as a whole, and less yet with
Fundamentalism. It may be safe to say that his personal bias takes the
direction of a vague Humanism.
To quote, without taking the greatest precaution not to pass off some
mere explanatory paraphrase as the author’s own, would be so unfair
that I hesitate to quote at all in proof of anything. There are,
however, certain passages which are clearly Durant, and not Plato,
Aristotle or Nietzsche boiled down--though even here we must be on
guard lest what we see is Durant under the momentary influence of his
subject, not Durant in his daily habit. It is the wind which does not
blow, the things which he does not say, that speak most eloquently and
surely of the man.
Chapters, and most of them long chapters, are given to Plato,
Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant, Schopenhauer,
Herbert Spencer, Nietzsche; a chapter to three contemporary
Europeans--Henri Bergson, Benedetto Croce and Bertrand Russell; and a
final chapter to the three American moderns, George Santayana, William
James and John Dewey. There are adequate pages devoted to Rousseau,
Locke, Hegel, and many a lesser light. Some, you will note, are
pre-Christian; some are atheistic; some deistic, monistic, or agnostic.
It is a chorus which is irreligious with a vast predominance, with
here and there a tolerant voice for modernistic Protestantism. Bishop
Berkeley, represented by a few paragraphs, stands practically alone as
the exponent of a particular faith.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account