Thales to Dewey: A history of philosophy (The works of Gordon Haddon Clark) Hardcover – January 1, 2000

It was so refreshing to read a Christian philosophy book, where the author is not sold out to empiricism, which contradicts the Scripture's teaching in the same area of philosophy, which is God's direct sovereignty over all things (metaphysics,ontology). Clark, with little restraint shows the logical fallacies of empiricism.Clark's understanding of History is superb and thorough. His years as the head of philosophy at Butler University shines here.He shows that philosophy is about asking and answering the ultimate questions in life, in a unified, rational and systematic system.Clark then demonstrates that a philosophy's/worldview/religion(etc) weakness is its epistemology or that is, its first principle for knowledge. He displays at this point, how it is not Christianity that is a blind follower, but non-Christian philosophies that are the blind follower in that they have unquestioning acceptance about their epistemological that when examined, deny the law of contradiction. In fact, he shows that practically all non-Christian philosophies and systems of thinking are shown to be irrational, empty and naive in their blind acceptance of first principles that deny the law of contradiction. On the other hand, the Christian is not lost in such an abyss of skepticism.

Thorough evangelical exploration of the exchange of thought from ancient philosophy and it's bisection with Christian theological and philosophical developments spaning 4000 years.

it is great to see this book is still in use. unfortunately, it's value and pleasure is lost upon the teachers who inflict it upon their students.dr Clark was my teacher many years ago, when he taught at Butler University. he never forced his neo-Calvinism on any of his students, and this book is definitely not an introduction to any of his personal philosophy or his beliefs. I say this because I was for fifteen years a member of his church. I have since gone in another direction, one that would have appalled (but not offended) him.it is hard for most people to imagine the questions Thales, Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, or James proposed to answer. physics, astronomy, biology, and psychology are where we think the really useful thinking is being done. Gordon Clark had the knack of making philosophers as relevant as scientists.Clark was by nature an epistemologist. he realized science has all but replaced metaphysics. for instance the atomic view of the world as proposed by Democritus happens to coincide with our views of atoms and molecules, but it has nothing to do with science, e.g. the periodic table of the elements.by contrast Kant's notion of the mind is still relevant. Hume is just as interesting today as he was to 18th century thinkers. idealism in its many forms distracts us from a deeper understanding of psychology because we use it all time.for the most part Clark can be trusted. he is fair to Kant, fair to Plato, fair to Descartes. he shows why the answers these folks provided is unsatisfactory, but he also shows that the historical order of these thinkers, represents progress. he does not debunk their efforts. he exposes their shortcomings. his methods are the same as any other philosopher or philosophical scholar, regardless how they happen to spend their Sunday mornings.unfortunately, Clark does no justice at all to Twentieth century philosophy. his treatment of John Dewey is unfair, and he ignores Russell altogether. no mention of Husserl, or Sartre, or even Wittgenstein, which is odd. because his intellectual method is very Wittgensteinian in many ways. in retrospect I guess this is because he sincerely believed his own Christian philosophy completed addressed the rigorous atheism of what would after all have been his contemporaries.also he knew nothing of post-structuralism, which amounts to a rigorous attack of his own thinking. anyone who cares to can use their methods, or Wittgensteins later approach to language to utterly demolish clark as effectively as he in turn demolishes Kant or Plato.the value of Thales to Dewey is not diminished by the prejudices of its author. it was meant to be an introduction to philosophy for freshman college students. Clark shows them by example how to think about thinking, so to speak, how to see the strengths and weakness of certain lines of reasoning. only, later, after they read, for instance, Russell or Moore, can these same freshman do to Clark what Clark does to Kant or Hegel or acquinas, or Aristotle.