An Introduction to Western Philosophy

An Introduction to Western Philosophy

8.00
12345678910
Ratings: 8.00/10 from 56 users.

Beginning with the death of Socrates in 399 BC, and following the story through the centuries to recent figures such as Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein, Bryan Magee's conversations with fifteen contemporary writers and philosophers provide an accessible and exciting account of Western philosophy and its greatest thinkers.

The contributors include A.J. Ayer, Bernard Williams, Martha Nussbaum, Peter Singer, and John Searle, so that the documentary is not only an introduction to the philosophers of the past, but gives an invaluable insight into the view and personalities of some of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century.

The series are little bit dated but I think they're real treasure and food for thought.

More great documentaries

123   Comments / Reviews

Leave a Reply to robertallen1 Cancel reply

  1. Fancy but interesting on so many levels a lot of what if's this is really good on the basis of always asking (why this) or (why that ) very informative soul searching and u know what they say about (unexamined life) but I must say this,( remember the times and the peoples of those times they lived in), and nothing is written in Stone times and ideas are always changing and what was true yesterday may not be true today *** but a fantastic brain exercise that's way psychology and psychotherapy and and the rest of it are questionable, at the very least with so many people and so many kinds of personalities environmental factors and we are all so different (one size dose not fit all).. BUT IS IT HELPFUL NO DOUBT EXTREMELY HELPFUL PSYCHOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY THEOLOGY.. WE HUMAN BEINGS GIVE THINGS MEANING (NOTHING IS AN EMPIRICAL TRUTH) THERE ARE SO MANY TRUTH'S OUT THERE , MANY TRUTH'S, MANY PEOPLE MANY WAYS (5+5=10) (8+2=10) (7+3=10) 9+1=10 ALL RIGHT, (AND ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTS).. IF I'M NOT MAKING ANY SENSE PLEASE CORRECT ME I'M NOT REALLY AII THAT SMART I HOPE THIS MAKES SOME KIND OF SENSE THANK YOU ****PLEASE BE KIND

    Reply
  2. My gosh, such an interesting series on different levels. Outdated? Those facial gestures, that body language...it's almost like looking at a hyper realistic episode of the fast show. Brilliant. And i learned a lot from it, don't get it wrong...:)

    Reply
  3. Just getting into philosophy, watched Allan De Bottons 'guide to philosophy...' Good for an absolute beginner but I found it rather basic and generic without sounding too pompous what you'd expect to achieve in everyday life. Anyone know any mentionalbe docs or philosophers worth researching? thanks!

    Reply
  4. @robertallen1

    Please Robert, you’ve gotta get on the case! The post but one (of mine) before this one Man! And please be as specific as you can, postage will be involved. It seems so strange to me that I’m fascinated by your few remarks about this play. I’m desperate to know, why philosophy? Yet I’m sure I already know the answer. Strange indeed. Maybe I’ll get a pleasant surprise or nasty shock. I also enjoy satire occasionally; have you read any Tom Sharpe?

    The Patient One

    Reply
  5. @Achems

    Many thanks for your efforts. That’s fine.

    Reply
  6. @AntiTheist666:

    I have tried to put your Spinoza post through about 4 times, would not go through probably because of your audio link.
    I took that link off. And put it through again.

    Reply
  7. @Moderators

    Hi to all. I used to post here as Atheist13 but can no longer access that account or my old email address. I think my computer is suffering from some kind demonic possession! I hope my latest reincarnation is ok. Regards.

    The Crucified One

    Reply
  8. Eternal icecream for the intellect and 'soul'. "Love of Wisdom" will never be irrelevent, Janus.

    Reply
  9. Comparing Chomsky's concept of the mind that is ready to learn to an idea of magically having knowledge before birth! Blah - this is why philosophy gets more irrelevant as science progresses.

    Reply
  10. More attention to detail will make one a better philospher as well as seeing the detailed detail as well.

    Reply
  11. You do realize that almost all modern philosophers are not religious, but are deemed religious?

    Reply
  12. So out of everyone reading this Miles Burnyeat interpretation I bet everyone hearing his reading on the history of western philosophy, are coming to their own conclusions and rejecting or injecting their own minds with his teachings of other people.

    Reply
  13. Not a documentary. A fantastic interview series that's not been equaled since with leading figures expertly summarizing complex ideas for a general audience.

    Some of the posts here are truly pathetic. You have the racist anti-European with tired and debunked lie that the Greeks got everything from Egypt -as usual No evidence, nothing of substance offered, just the usual racist propaganda meme spit out onto our monitors that now seems to pop-up whenever the Western philosophical tradition's figures are discussed online.

    And you have the, "I need pictures and music". Sad little Generation of gamers mind-ruined mutants. No, what you need is ritalin and to not share what a dumbf*ck you are because nobody cares.

    Reply
  14. I want to watch it but I couldn't find it anywhere. Can anyone help me please?

    Reply
  15. Good intros in each episode, but the interviews can be slow [though its an old 'style' of TV]. They are in-depth interviews, which can be hard to understand what's been said.

    Reply
  16. @Atheist 13

    Apparently my last post to you got stuck in the queue. Luckily I was able to retrieve it.

    Just how do you make a living, however small, being an atheist? Is it perhaps more lucrative than being an agnostic or a logical positivist? I’m certain it’s not as lucrative as faith healing, astrology and fortune telling. These practitioners seem to get so much for doing so little.
    Because it has not reached any appreciable level of sophistication, nor can it be expected to, the general public rests content with the dull, tedious and desultory and even puts a premium on them in the form of higher income coupled with low to moderate intelligence. This explains (but does not justify) the hefty salaries “earned” by trash men, plumbers, lawyers, talk show hosts, newscasters and “general” celebrities. In all, you have nothing to be sorry about for having earned more than your keep.
    Again, I’m curious. How will your anti-establishment site differ from those anti-establishment (even atheist) sites already out there? And speaking of anti-establishment, I also thought of “Hell for Idiots.” That way I could take a more ecumenical approach. I also came up with “A Beginners Guide to Damnation.” If I can’t get people to read it, perhaps I can sell the movie rights to some reality TV show as a starring vehicle for Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.
    To answer your question re Grabbe, I quote from the antihero, “What kinds of crazy conditions are these?”
    Politics in any country is disgraceful. Talleyrand whom I admire if only for entertainment had the right idea—appearance, appearance, appearance, which, as we know, was as original with him as it was with Machiavelli. “The Prince” = Real Life.
    For fear of blathering on, I will put off any discussion of the monetary system and principles of taxation. I am still waiting to hear your anecdote, for a good (or even not so good) anecdote can drive a point home more forcefully than a philosophic dissertation.

    Reply
  17. @Atheist13

    Have not heard from you for a while. How's the atheism coming?

    Have you started, "Misquoting Jesus?"

    Reply
  18. @Atheist13

    In a large sense, literature is anything that is written down. However, as you can guess, I use the term in a narrower, more exclusive sense.

    It’s been quite a while since I read “The Republic”, but from what I recall, it was no more than a blueprint for an idealized state, interesting from a philosophic and social point of view. All the discussions I have heard focus on the Republic itself, not on how the work is put together, not on the manner of expression and in those regards, I found nothing. Now, Michiavelli writing in a more temporal vein 1,800 years later is a different story.

    In short, in literature treatment supersedes everything—something Sartre, Disraeli and Upton Sinclair never understood and Balzac, Henry James and sometimes Zola did. Of course, I realize that in the general sense in which I began, I might simply be venturing into the realm of good literature as opposed to bad or mediocre literature, but somehow Stendahl packs more of a punch than Plato, H. G. Wells more of a wallop than Socrates and both are far more intellectually stimulating and entertaining. Perhaps this comparison is unfair, for the school of Greek philosophers of which Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were members seemed to ponder and chase after a lily-white ideal (however false), while Stendahl and H.G. Wells wallowed in the sordid real—but for both, treatment was everything.

    By the way, both commentators mentioned how popular Socrates and Plato were in their lifetimes. Are there any contemporary sources to support this? Was it a popularity among peers or were the hoi polloi included?

    At any rate, have a nice getaway.

    Reply
  19. @Atheist13

    O.K. So besides philosophy, what are your intellectual interests?

    Reply
  20. Oh dear, my first ever comment (below) on this website looks a bit pathetic and thin now, let’s see if I can do a bit better.

    This is a treasure trove of philosophical information. Maybe the gems contained in it aren’t as bright and shiny as they could be but they’re highly valuable nonetheless. Yes it’s got lots of awkward body language and seems a bit dated and crusty, but if you can concentrate on the subject matter being discussed there’s much to enjoy.

    All the interviewees are from the upper echelons of academia, in most cases they’re experts in the field of the philosopher being discussed. Add to this that they’re interviewed by the highly underrated Brian Magee and you’ve got philosophy gold.

    There are just too many individuals concerned and the subject matter too broad and deep to offer a complete review, but I will say this. If you are new to philosophy I wouldn’t try to watch it all at once, just take one or a few philosophers at a time, you can always come back for more. Philosophy lovers however can fill their pockets with pearls of wisdom and jewels of information.

    Bryan Magee (himself an expert on Schopenhauer) was close friends with Karl Popper and wrote many philosophical works. His autobiography “Clouds of Glory” won an award in 2004.

    “Let no one delay the study of philosophy while young
    nor weary of it when old”

    Epicurus. Greek Philosopher, BC 341-270

    Reply
  21. I agree with Atheist13. More philosophy please! It's kind of important.

    Reply
  22. Thanks Vlatko, great site. More philosophy please!

    I reccomend this doc for anyone who has an interest in the big questions of life, examined or otherwise.

    Reply
  23. Okay, here's how we can determine wether you're into science or philosphy: Aristotle or Plato. Your choice is the distinctive line of divison between the love of philosophy and nazi experiments on mother nature. I'm a Platonian follower, and I love his Utupia. I just agree with Plato on 99.99% of his philosophy.

    Reply
  24. I've just begun this series and greatly appreciate the candid and conversational tone of it. Reading a few of the other comments, I must insist that philosophers have no need to take "talking head" classes -- at least they didn't back during these days, and I, for one, appreciate it. These are philosophers doing what philosophers do -- talking, thinking, dialoging, asking questions, following logic.

    Science was once simply an arm of philosophy, thus it was originally called the philosophy of science. I love both!

    Reply
  25. thank you. This in depth informative and provocative series of conversations opened up new factors I'd not yet realized.

    Reply