The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change

It seems to me that every respectable philosopher, many historians, some sociologists, and a variety of others should own a copy of this book. I do not begin to have the expertise to deal with most of this volume BUT for several years I have been reading a lot of High and Later Middle Ages-related historical works, many dealing with the Church one way or another. (And I have a bachelor's in history and a Ph.D. in higher education.) Needless to say, I have encountered a variety of philosophers in my readings, including a very few Greeks (esp. Aristotle and Plato, but also Lucretius' Epicurus). And from the Middle Ages onward there are religious philosophers aplenty. I much appreciated Collins' diagrams of the relationships of and between these people: as teacher-student, as school-of-thought-linked, and as antagonists. Those diagrams alone can help considerably. In my case, especially to confirm tentative conclusions that I had drawn from my other readings, and to fill in some blanks. At times, the text added to my thinking and, from what I've come to understand before that, is generally but not necessarily invariably accurate. (This may be in part because he cannot go into detail given the massive scope of the work.) Collins' thesis, as I take it, is that without contention creative philosophy seldom progresses. It tends to get stale. Makes sense, but I have no almost no knowledge of philosophy in China or India, and not much of Islam or Judaism to bring to bear on my perspective here. Similarly, I do not know how important such a thesis is, though my concerns (next) have some bearing on it. My cautionary words are these: Collins' work has a narrow focus across a huge expanse of time, and a remarkable variety of cultures. Despite the broad inclusion of what can be regarded as philosophy (e.g., he rightly includes medieval speculative thought problems that contributed to astronomy), too implicit in his narrow focus is that philosophers are the single key by which intellectual culture advances--and that, at least in some senses, intellectual culture is all that seems to matter. To clarify, this omits the other forces that drive history and tends to slight developments that do not directly contribute to the creative development of philosophy. One specific example was especially noteworthy to me. Given his narrow focus, Renaissance-era humanists are faulted because they brought little to the philosophical debates of their era. And they can legitimately be called reactionary in some respects in seeking higher forms of culture in the past (and some for encouraging the pursuit of magic-related texts from the past). But humanists re-introduced ideals in good government that dated to Rome's time (see the leadership in Florence around 1400). And, with Leon Battista Alberti in the early 1400s leading the way, humanists were among those most instrumental in bridging the immense gap between artisans/craftsmen and intellectuals, by educating themselves in the technologies and educating the artisans in the intellectual realms. Alberti, drawing on the discovery of Brunelleschi, the dome builder for Florence's cathedral, mathematized how to do three-dimensional perspective and conveyed it to the world in both Italian and Latin. This one exchange across social classes gave rise to the wonders of Renaissance and all subsequent realistic art, and helped considerably in architecture and civil engineering. A hundred years later in 1543, it enabled Vesalius' amazing book on anatomy and its many associated advances. See Patricia O. Long's "Artisan/Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400-1600" for subsequent progress based in part on humanist-artisan interactions, including those arising in "trading zones" (e.g., cities, arsenals, mines) between artisans and intellectuals (and financiers). The humanists' emphasis on the beauty of a more original Latin and the need to learn from the Greeks also helped give birth to the art-science of linguistics (which early on challenged an important Church forgery, the Donation of Constantine, as well as some of the renditions in the then-standard Vulgate version of the Bible). Humanists also rediscovered some long-lost works, including Lucretius' presentation of Epicurus' philosophy. You don't have to be a Marxist to see from the history how the advances made by artisans and craftspeople in technology, and not the mostly religiously-oriented philosophy housed in universities whose masters and doctors also eschewed any form of hands-on work, drove a lot of the advance of proto-science during the High and Late Middle Ages (~1000-1500+ CE). In sum, caution: do not treat this work like a general history, a work that covers all aspects of history. It covers the history of philosophy, broadly speaking (which does help people with more general interests), but omits (and sometimes mishandles) that which is not germane to its topic.

Randall Collins has provided a comprehensive overview of the major philosophical ideas that interested non philosophers can use as an introduction without fear of missing anything important. As a physician grappling daily with the issues of knowledge assessment, the extensive overview was well worth the few weeks it took to read the book. Many descriptions are nevertheless brutally summarized so that I often used on line encyclopedias to provide necessary background. Bertrand Russell's " A History of Western Philosophy" is more accessible, but is now out of date, and not nearly as comprehensive. By dividing philosophers into schools by century and location, providing easily understandable charts of the interconnections of various schools, and brief summaries of their positions, one builds a very humanized, inclusive picture. The description of science as rapid discovery based primarily on technological innovation certainly resonated strongly and came as a new insight in spite of spending the last 40 years in such an endeavor. The same arguments about knowledge growth are repeatedly emphasized, but at least there is a slight difference in perspective. Summarizing the big problems of ontology and epistemology by how and when they appeared in Western, Islamic, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures gives an excellent overview. The final chapter on sociological realism based on the previous discussion provided a sound foundation for building the arguments, and placing the ideas in perspective. I came away with a better idea of where to go next and that even though the search for enlightenment is unending, a few successes, no matter how minor, can be very satisfying.

For all interested in global history of philosophy, this is the book to get.First, each section on a particular philosophical tradition (e.g. ancient Greece, Indian, Medieval Islamic, Chinese, Modern) is an interesting high-level history of tradition in its own rights. This alone makes the price tag worthwhile.More importantly, Collins included very interesting insights about individual period that is not covered by other general histories:1) How some schools of thoughts become popular not because they are correct but because they are extreme2) Parallelisms that occur in different periods of the same tradition (e.g. Post-Shankara positions in India has its parallel during the hey-day of Buddhist philosophy)3) Parallelisms that occur across traditions (e.g. compelling coverage of how medieval Christian & Islamic philospophy shares a similar structure)With these characteristics, I think this book clearly satisfies the need us interested in global history of philosophy, for which Collins is clearly very passionate about.On the sociology theoretical piece, I think the theory is fine: it articulates a lot of aspects of which most students of philosophy has a vague sense. The theory is almost 'common sense'-- just that it doesn't seem to have been clearly articulated that way in academic circles. As such, the theory piece is less interesting, but it is not intruding and it provides a sound umbrella thesis for Collins' insights on individual traditions.Lastly, one point about the 'data' that Collins use-- the 'maps' that link the different philosophers in networks. I think it is interesting to read (because it includes a lot of interesting names-- familiar or otherwise), but they don't really provide the 'data' on which the sociological theory can be based. I think Collins himself recognized this-- and thus his appendix about the important 'isolates' like Ibn Sina.

OK

This is one of my favorite books. It is amazing. Professor Randall Collins manages to provide a magnificent overview of the "philosophies" of the world. His global reach extends to Sinitic ("Chinese") and Indic ("Indian") civilizations as well as Greek philosophy and also the rise of modern rapid discovery science. However, this is a very academic book and not suitable for classroom use since it is far too detailed for the average undergraduate student (but maybe not for the "Young Sheldon" out there who wants to know about Daoist ideas and Descartes, etc.! Ha ha). I feel that anyone who makes a genuine effort to keep dipping into this magnum opus will benefit in many ways. Collins uses the term "philosophies" in the broad sense to also include theological ideas and modern natural and social sciences. HIs comparative focus in invaluable. I am posting the Zen picture of another book I like very much because Collins taught me that what we call Zen has deep roots in Indic and then Sinitic civilizations and was in part a result of political economic circumstances in pre-modern empires. If you have the background this book is well written, but it is also challenging in that many words that are not used in everyday conversations are used. Also, the overall thesis about the law of small numbers has been challenged, but you can make up your own mind about that. Thousands of thinkers over many, many years are mentioned and there are excellent charts of the networks of thinkers. Reading this book carefully is easily the equivalent of an excellent college or university course.

Gros pavé d'un sociologue renommé, l'interet de ce livre est qu'il nous offre les grandes idées et théories du monde, avec des explications sur leurs sources,emergences et transmissions. Ouvrage plein d'audace, mais il nous offre un panorama, avec son interpretation, bien chargé pour qui veut connaitre les grands courants du monde. Les interpretations et theories du sociologue sont quelque fois intuitives, d'autres fois moins.Livre un peu sale mais ça ira.

This book is way too long and the writing is way too much. I bought this for a university course.

Amazing that one person wrote such a comprehensive book. Worth reading for any philosopher and any intellectual historian or sociologist.Despite being quite dense, it actually quite an enjoyable read.