Sather Classical Lectures

Art of living is a context which is discussed by every one -not by only philosophers- since the mankind have created. Why do we get angry when Nehamas brings a new view about this topic? I interpret Nehamas' argues as a kind of deconstraction about the texts of Plato and Nietzsche -a useful one!- Nehamas is not an oponnent against to philosophic living; his objection is against to "the philosophic living". We must separete these two different things as Nehamas did.

The subtitle SOCRATIC REFLECTIONS FROM PLATO TO FOUCAULT introduces ambiguity that I feel the need to resolve. It should be rendered--most properly--as REFLECTIONS ON SOCRATES FROM PLATO TO FOUCAULT as opposed to SOCRATIC-LIKE REFLECTIONS FROM PLATO TO FOUCAULT. First and foremost, this work is about Socrates, the interpretation and re-creation of Socrates, and [to a limited extent] the uses to which the fictional character Socrates (not saying that Socrates didn't ever exist, but the figure we have inherited is fictional) has been put by Plato, Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault. Those four figures (with the possible exception of Plato, are NOT the main focus of this work, but subsidiary).What this book is NOT is a work and synthesis of the theme of the "Art of Living" from Plato to Foucault (as I had hoped). Nehamas's book is much less grand of a project than that--once again, a focus on Socrates and how he embodies the care of oneself. [Perhaps THE ART OF LIVING should have been made the subtitle of REFLECTIONS ON SOCRATES.] Nonetheless Nehamas's analysis is interesting (and would be more so, I imagine, if I were a classics scholar). His Nietzsche (a figure with whom Nehamas has a lot of experience) chapter is notable. There is a little bit of explication of the "Art of Living" for Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault outside of the realm of Socrates, but not much. Nehamas focuses on a type of ethic, an art of living, a self-creation of one's life as a work of art, that he views as deriving (in some way, however nonlinear or even through confrontation) from the practice of the Socrates of Plato's early dialogues that results in a creation of a self that is not universalistic but that "only [Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Foucault] and perhaps a few others can follow. They do not insist that their life is a model for the world at large" (10). This is interesting, but instead of going deep within each of the later figures that he studies to pull out the details of their projects of self creation, the "Care of the Self", the "Art of Living", etc, Nehamas focuses on their relationship to Socrates in regard to their project. It is only in this regard that I am disappointed. I got a scholarly study when I expected a great synthesis. But, I guess a scholarly study is what this was supposed to be, though the title certainly is ambiguous.Interesting, though--I argue--not essential, especially if you are familiar with Nietzsche and Foucault (the "ethics" part of his work near the end of his life). For someone interested in the classics, maybe it is important, but on that I don't feel qualified to pass judgment. (i.e., there is quite a bit of critical engagement with classics scholars like Vlastos)

If you are reading this, you already know this is a great book. Buy it.

What is philosophy? Most people today assume that its primary task is to offer convincing answers to a set of well-known questions. But many philosophers, from the fifth century onwards, have felt that thinking well is only a secondary task, always in the service of *living* well; and living well may not be something for which there is a single helpful definition. Taking Socrates as their paradoxical model--a model, precisely, of how to do without models--these philosophers thus set about forging a life which is both coherent and unique, often considering their own views as simply raw material for that fashioned life. They do not tell others what to believe or even how to behave, but provide instead an *example* of a compelling mode of existence. This, argues Alexander Nehamas in his brilliant new book, is the tradition Socrates began, and which Montaigne, Nietzsche and Foucault--perhaps Plato too, in some respects--have continued. That it is still alive today is evident in the fact that Nehamas himself practices what he preaches: not content with a presentation of the theory, Nehamas exemplifies it by bringing together, in this one work, the various strands of his intellectual life. A veritable tour de force, and one which may have lasting consequences on the world of philosophy.

The reader from Mountain View CA doesn't know what he or she is talking about. This book certainly is worth the money, and yes it is exegetical (not "exegisis" sic), but that is one reason why this book is extremely worthwhile - a sensitive reading of some major modern thinkers in the light of Socratic philosophy. To know oneself today means to be able to think in humanistic terms. This book is what philosophy ought to be about.