A Trying to meet all your book preview and review needs.
to e-mail us: |
The Consolations of Philosophy general information | review summaries | our review | links | about the author
- Return to top of the page -
Our Assessment:
B- : often amusing presentation of philosophy -- but ultimately too simple (and offering few consolations) See our review for fuller assessment.
Review Consensus: - Return to top of the page - The complete review's Review:
Alain de Botton's book suggests that consolation for many things can be found in philosophy.
Using six philosophers (and their philosophies) as examples he offers consolations for: unpopularity, not having enough money, frustration, inadequacy, a broken heart, and difficulties.
The book is presented as a cross between a self-help book and an introductory philosophy textbook, divided into short chapters and with many illustrations (of typical de Bottonian "cleverness" -- i.e. including pictures of such things as a carton of chocolate milk, Superman, a sleeping baby, a remote control, as well as many art works).
We should not look to Socrates for advice on escaping a death sentence; we should look to him as an extreme example of how to maintain confidence in an intelligent position which has met with illogical opposition.There is something to this. Socrates is someone we can all look up to. But surely his equanimity is also troubling. And he did wind up dead, which, it would seem to us, is extremely troubling. Of all the objectives one might have in life hanging on to life would seem to be the highest -- by a considerable margin (with only the preservation of other lives coming anywhere close). There is something noble in dying for what one believes in, but nobility is an artificial construct and vastly overrated. De Botton writes of Socrates' "intelligent position" -- something apparently worth dying for. One is hard-pressed to argue that the position was not intelligent: Socrates is fairly sacrosanct in this regard -- though, as de Botton himself acknowledges, his positions did not seem particularly intelligent to a significant proportion of the Athenian populace. Still, while most of us have a ridiculous confidence in our positions most of us do not have what could possibly be considered truly "intelligent positions". (Just read some of the reviews at the complete review: brimming with confidence they really don't withstand that much scrutiny. And just read some of the reviews we link to -- or your newspapers' editorial page, or listen to any politician's speech -- for even more confident and less intelligent positions !) De Botton lauds Socrates for "maintaining confidence in an intelligent position" in the face of illogical opposition. Well, over the long term that seems to have worked out for Socrates (sort of: he's still dead, last we heard -- though, of course, in the long term we're all dead). Generally, we imagine a bit less confidence and a bit more active disputation with illogical opposition (rather than passive acceptance of a death sentence) is called for. Socrates wound up dead, Athenian democracy went down in flames -- who knows if the democracy might not have been stronger if a more vigorous debate had been fostered by the philosophers. Sure, Socrates was immortalized by Plato and others -- but is that really what was best for him and his fellow Athenians and even for us in the modern world ? Marx -- a man not mentioned in de Botton's book -- had something to say about philosophers changing the world (he was for it). But de Botton likes his philosophers not to worry about changing the world. In fact, most of the ones in this book don't seem to want to have much to do with it. Epicurus, who is meant to console us for not having enough money, moved out of town, setting up a latter-day commune for himself. Seneca -- consoling us for frustration -- was actually quite active in politics as an aide to Nero but then did his best to escape that (winding up sentenced to death for his troubles as well). Bookish Montaigne, loveless Schopenhauer, and Alpine tourist Nietzsche are also shown as being outside society. It's the stereotype of philosophers, but a commentator can emphasize it or not -- and de Botton emphasizes it. Are there consolations here for readers ? Well, there is some consolation to be found in entertainment, and de Botton does provide a few hours' worth of not-too demanding entertainment. De Botton harps on biography -- the lived lives (and lived philosophies) -- which allows him to use fun anecdotes from these lives. De Botton also familiarly weaves in his own experiences and personal anecdotes -- including one in which he ... could not rise to the occasion while travelling with a lady-friend. (The Viagra-vendors have little to fear from de Botton's cheaper philosophical solution to this particular problem.) It makes for an amusing read, and many of his examples are neatly chosen and well-explained. De Botton does Montaigne particularly well (quoting him extensively), harping on the widely-read polyglot genius's implied belief that there is "no legitimate reason why books in the humanities should be difficult or boring; wisdom does not require a specialized vocabulary or syntax". This is, of course, de Botton's creed -- his writing is nothing if not straightforward and clear and readily comprehensible. In this book, however, it veers from the anecdotal and the light to the lite. There are fine thoughts here, but there is more complexity to these subjects than de Botton allows for. Consolation is not found as easily as de Botton suggests, and he does a disservice to his readers in suggesting that it is. Perhaps there is a basis for consolation in the philosophies he presents here, but it is not as simple as he implies. De Botton writes that just as we turn to doctors when we are physically unwell "we should turn to philosophers for the same reason when our soul is unwell." While we don't have much faith in the medical profession we do grant that they can generally alleviate most physical ills (through medication or surgical procedures); philosophical treatment is nowhere near as efficacious -- but de Botton wants us to believe that it can be. And unfortunately he does not convince. "Only that which makes us feel better may be worth understanding", de Botton also writes -- at least hedging his bets with the "may". In fact, surely, it is also essential to understand that which makes us feel worse (if only so that we may learn to avoid it). Similarly, there is much to be said for the acquisition of knowledge, most of which is bound to be useless, because it can open new horizons that may allow us to enjoy hitherto unknown pleasures of far greater orders of magnitude. De Botton's preference for wisdom over knowledge should be treated with particular care; veneration of what passes for wisdom often has turned out to be a lazy excuse for accepting ignorance. (We admit to a strong bias for knowledge over "wisdom"; certainly de Botton's loose and idealized definition of the latter term make it a preferable concept, but too often it is only a vacuous label, a term applied to something that is undeserving of it.) The Consolations of Philosophy is an enjoyable little book, but it is not entirely harmless. It must be read critically if it is to have any value, and in its presentation it does its best to avoid being examined critically. De Botton's idea of bringing philosophy to the masses and presenting it in an unthreatening manner (and showing how it might be useful in anyone's life), is admirable; the way he has gone about it is less so. If you read it, do so with care. There is an additional concern that we have with this book, which, curiously, was not raised in any of the reviews we read. Alain is the son of Gilbert de Botton, who unfortunately passed away in August, 2000 (after the publication of this book). Gilbert de Botton was one of the founders of Global Asset Management, and its chairman. According to The New York Times, he sold GAM to UBS in 1999 for 600 million US dollars (while remaining as chairman). We have no idea of how Gilbert de Botton's estate was distributed, but it seems safe to assume that Alain is ... more comfortable than pretty much anyone of us can ever imagine being (and that he had a rather privileged childhood). Certainly, money does not offer consolation for many of life's travails, especially the loss of one's father (or the inability to satisfy one's girlfriend), but Alain de Botton also has consolations which others can only dream of. De Botton does address the question of lack of money in his chapter on Epicurus, offering "consolations for not having enough money". He does not, however, mention that this issue was never really an issue for him. We do not know about other readers, but we don't really want to hear rich boys explaining why money really isn't such a big deal. Sorry, but it just does not ring true. At the very least, de Botton should have explained where he is coming from. One of Dad's projects, according to The New York Times, was "recreating the private library of the French philosopher Montaigne, tracking down and acquiring the books that were dispersed after his death in 1592" (Paul Lewis in The New York Times, August 30, 2000). Which also puts Alain's interest of Montaigne in a different light, and seems like something he might have wanted to mention. It might even have been more interesting and useful than the information he did share with his readers. - Return to top of the page - The Consolations of Philosophy:
- Return to top of the page - English author Alain de Botton was born in Switzerland in 1969 and educated at Cambridge. - Return to top of the page -
© 2000-2010 the complete review
|