The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization

As a habitual eclectic reader, I rarely read a book as lengthy as this one; but its subject matter and treatment elicit/sustain the requisite attentiveness. The necessarily higher-level treatment of its panoramic content, moreover, has prompted me to order copies of a number of the book’s cited references - an indication of the range of the book’s vital content. These references are more specialized titles that I otherwise would likely have remained unaware of - an indication of the salience of the book’s disparate content. Most importantly, this book is an artful/insightful exposition of the enduring and ever-evolving historical impact of the respective legacies of Plato and Aristotle. In particular, it recounts the recurring interplay of subsequent appropriations of their ideas as well as their relative prominence during various historical periods. This interplay is grounded in the fundamentally opposed world views of Plato and Aristotle. The book centers on this interplay as evidenced in the various adaptations/extensions by subsequent influential thinkers. And in turn, these derivative ideas are explored in terms of their deployment by political movements, leaders, or governments. Historical oscillation in the relative influence of Plato-versus-Aristotle perspectives is seen to engender a general tension that yields a dynamism in-the-large that drives societal/cultural evolution. Politically, this dynamism inheres in the historically modulating force of collective authority relative to individual liberty, where the former associates with Plato’s legacy, and the latter with Aristotle’s. Discrete human decisions/actions in concert drive this dynamism in various near-term perturbations. These diverse forcing functions are enacted via incidentally available information, whose suitability and timelines is typically lacking to some degree. Clearly then, the selection and quality of such information constrain the caliber of results proactively achievable, especially on a large scale. In particular, such non-ideal factors become exceedingly problematical in trying to deliberately manage an overall economic system, challenging even its mere feasibility. Other sources of undesired outcomes loom in the decision-making process itself. On one hand, a Platonist authority’s striving for consensus or unanimity may yield stagnation - due to a single-minded foreclosure on alternative prospects. On the other hand, an Aristotelian emphasis on reasoning may impose a narrow-mindedness - due to the disregard of qualitative factors like humanistic considerations. In either case, the inherent opposition of the Plato-Aristotle legacy may well be evident in distorted outcomes. And in consequence, there arises the desideratum of a complementary blending of the two perspectives, or effectively, between affectivity and rationality. The pronounced difference in Plato’s and Aristotle’s respective positions, moreover, involves in a range of elemental contrasts that are illuminated throughout this book: PLATO versus ARISTOTLE o Realm: Transcendental vs. Mundane o Modus Operandi: Meditative vs. Empirical o Focus: Theoretical vs. Concrete o Mindset: Idealistic vs. Pragmatic o Granularity: Collective vs. Individualistic o Leverage: Authority vs. Liberty o Anthropology: Malleable vs. Intrinsic Human Nature o Education: Indoctrination vs. Free Exchange of Ideas o Agenda: Interventionist Statism vs. Spontaneous Dynamism. In modern times, the sequence of Platonic appropriations and extensions by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Sorel is typified by stridency, violence, and annihilation, with the projection of only the vaguest of constructive goals (Chapters Twenty Four & Twenty Seven). Their common programmatic thrust was one of: generalized rebellion against economic/societal reality as they viewed it; and its wholesale destruction/displacement in order to somehow attain an idealized vision. Little wonder is then posed by the fact that these distorted ideas rationalized/facilitated the implacably aggressive and inhumane twentieth-century totalitarian regimes in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy. There, ANY means were deemed warranted in pursuing their respective visions of a utopian reality. Alas, the leaders of these regimes initially enjoyed strong popular support among their citizenry. It seemed that people’s various discontentments with extant conditions were somehow felt to be rectifiable by the doctrinaire changes advocated by these regimes. Notably, these changes explicitly targeted free market capitalism, and aspired to alter human nature as well as reality itself. A similar if milder Platonic appropriation was the long-evolving creed of progressivism. It gained considerable momentum in the US during the Woodrow Wilson administration. It featured statist intervention purportedly in part to eliminate injustice and inequality. This largely involved a state-manipulated economy, as for example that undertaken in the US in the late1920s. Then, the newly formed Federal Reserve System blithely thought that it could eliminate the classic business cycle (Chapter Twenty Nine), which they considered inherent solely in capitalist free markets. Instead, their inordinate commitment to a bloated money supply and easy credit over-stimulated the economy, and eventually led into the American Depression. Such progressive initiatives, moreover, persisted unrelentingly into the World War II timeframe, without any significant economic remediation,. Furthermore, that depression spread to Europe under similar impetus/pretexts. Comparable deterioration in Europe’s economies and attendant societal instabilities provided opportunities for the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and Italy. There, respective activist ideologies ultimately evolved into the launching of World War II. Ironically, the government-hampered but still robust capitalist industrial capacity of the United States responded to wartime mobilization with the massive production of military assets that proved indispensable to the entire Allied military success. This singular accomplishment was especially remarkable for a capitalist economic system that had been so maligned and deprecated by the interventionist ideologies of all the Allied governments. This book presents many more illustrations of the evolution of the Plato-Aristotle legacy from their era onward. Moreover, the book’s deft thematic flow fosters an encompassing grasp of the enduring influence of these two dominating thinkers. Its scrutiny over such an extended timespan is necessarily selective, but the book’s content is nevertheless nicely presented and coherently integrated. For the general reader, this is a very readable, stimulating, and highly informative book, one with a timely and plausible message. For the more motivated reader, the book effectively provides a map for pursuing a deeper understanding of particular facets of the unfoldment of the Plato/Aristotle legacies. In all, a quite welcome accomplishment.

Looking for a good history of Western philosophy, and admiring some of Arthur Herman's previous work, I purchased this book with high expectations. It didn't disappointed. The cave is an Plato's allegory (though it is probably a real place). What most of us see are shadows on the wall, that only represent a distortion of reality. A select few make it outside to the light and understand what is really going on. Aristotle disagreed and founded his own school. He believed that all of us had the potential to see the light. While it shouldn't be mistaken for today's democracy, Aristotle advocated a constitution that combined elements of one-man rule, oligarchy, and representative government. Herman ties centuries of philosophical development to the tension between Plato and Aristotle's belief systems. It is clear that Herman sides with Aristotle, though he concedes that Plato's arguments often have merit. Surprising to me, a lot depends on scientific discoveries, which often shift the balance to one side or the other. Critics claiming that Herman over-reaches probably have a good point (like all but a few, I'm no expert on philosophy). Every philosopher isn't directly related to Plato and Aristotle. While Plato preferred rule by the few, Herman should have given more emphasis to his humanitarian concerns. Plato didn't advocate the mass murderers Herman said his philosophy led to. The Cave and the Light is rich in historical detail. I don't know where Herman gets the time to do all of his research. For example, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek predicted the stock market and subsequent depression in February 1929. This gives credence to arguments that the Federal Reserve's easy money policy of the 1920s caused the depression. While this is a very impressive work, Herman makes a few dubious assertions. I doubt if Austrians really supported the Anschluss by a 99 to 1 margin, even though Herman uses a good source. According to William Schirer, Austrian opinion on the Nazis at the time was evenly divided. I doubt if there are many contentious subjects where 99 percent of the voters are in agreement. Herman doesn't write much about Herbert Spencer and his lack of research shows. While Spencer originitated the term "survival of the fittest," he was not a disciple of Darwin. Spencer believed in a different theory of evolution. (Contrary to general impressions, Spencer was a humanitarian who never advocated "Social Darwinism." A survey of academic literature shows that there never was no movement promoting Social Darwinism. The term is a hobgoblin created by progressives, who often pushed eugenics and racist policies themselves. While Herman provides broad and deep coverage of philosophy, along with short biographies of philosophers, I wish he had spent more time on how philosophies reflect their founders personal lives. For example, Rousseau fathered five illegitimate children and dumped them off at a Genevan orphanage. Take Marx (please). He squandered an inheritance; could never manage money; wasn't interested in actual workers; falsified his research; mooched off his friends and family; and had an abusive relationship towards his only employee, a family maid. Marx never acknowledged or supported her illegitimate child that he fathered. He never paid her a cent. People who can't run their own lives shouldn't be telling the rest of us how to run ours. These flaws are relatively minor. I give it 4.5 stars. Since he book is very informatative and a rollicking read, I'll round up to five.

When a writer presents the theme and then thoroughly supports it, they are successful in their endeavour. Arthur Herman did that in this fascinating book. His bibliography (and footnotes) is as voluminous as the book itself and after having read it, my mind is certainly expanded - but also exhausted. I couldn’t put it down for about half the book, then as subjects changed, I waned, but never stopped reading. Don’t get me wrong. It’s well written and engaging, despite covering so much material over a period of three millennia. He did a laudable job of carrying the numerous critical themes set forth by Plato and Aristotle into each age of time, including our own. I was especially interested when he covered the influential philosopher Hegel and how he represented Plato with regard to the totalitarian wave of the twentieth century. The broad range of subjects covered was comprehensive, and I believe done with balance and objectivity. Herman wove together the movements of history in a way that made sense and showed how one movement affects the next. I won’t quibble with any individual pixel statements or conclusions, but praise the writer’s initiative and effort, and marvel at the big picture he produced. Quite frankly, I’ve never read a book like this and I will save it for future reference but doubt I will ever read it again. Life is too short.

Arthur Herman has written a highly entertaining work which is premised on the belief that the 2500 years of European [and by extension American] history has been an epistemological struggle between the pure thought/mysticism of Plato and the practical thought/empiricism of Aristotle. While the hypothesis is stretched very thin at times, on the whole this is a fascinating exploration of intellectual history. As do all historians, Herman brings to his work his own biases, prejudices and premises- it is impossible for any author to do otherwise regardless of how some may seek the the elusive goal of objectivity. It is the reason there could be and have been hundreds of thousands of books written about Napoleon- every writer has an opinion which structures his unifying narrative. Herman may therefore offend some when he opines that gridlock was Madison's intent in designing the government, or when he includes Ayn Rand among the luminaries he discusses; his is definitely a more Classical Liberal view as opposed to say James Macgregor Burns' Progressivism in Fire and Light [which I have reviewed elsewhere] and this definitely contributed to my enjoyment of the book. But regardless of your political or philosophical predilections, I think anyone interested in Ideas will find plenty to learn and think about as Herman presents an all star roster of the greatest and most influential thinkers of all time. As is to be expected, the sheer diversity encompassed ensures that not everything fits nicely into his basic hypothesis. I found the association of Hegel with Platonic ideas somewhat precarious, and when he discussed modern science I think he was somewhat out of his depth. And his substitution of NeoPlatonism for religion, while it did indeed substantially contribute to Christian theology, is somewhat simplistic if not entirely inaccurate, thereby rendering his final conclusion, that a combination of the "head" of Aristotle must be combined with the "soul" of Plato for the dynamic societal balance required for both progress and stability, if not invalid perhaps slightly off the mark. Just something to think about. And that is my point about the entire book. Sure it is simplifying in its presentation of too many ideas and philosophies to count- how could it be otherwise considering the sheer magnitude of the material covered? And yes Herman definitely has a point of view regarding his topic- as already discussed, all historians do. And the underlying premise requires some softening and smoothing of the rough edges of facts- after all everyone likes a jigsaw puzzle that finally looks like the picture. But given all these criticisms, this book will still present you with so many fascinating philosophers and their interesting and provocative ideas that you will have to take the time to think, and that is a pleasure we engage in all too infrequently these days. Agree with Herman or not, it will be very difficult to stay passive in reading this book- and that is why I highly recommend it.

Combining history, politics, and philosophy, Professor Herman has written a superb survey of the influence of Plato's and Aristotle's ideas on Western civilization. His starting point is Raphael's painting, "The School of Athens," which showcases the greatest artists and thinkers in Western history. Throughout the rest of the book, Professor Herman shows that our debt to the ancient world extends to the present day. The author's portraits of Plato and Aristotle are models of clear writing, and even those with no prior exposure to philosophy or Greek and Roman history will understand the fundamental principles of each after reading this book. In describing Raphael's masterpiece, Professor Herman writes: "On one side is Plato the idealist, who became the guiding spirit of Western idealism and religious thought. In Plato's arms Raphael has put his famous dialogue the Timaeus, which inspired a thousand years of theologians, mystics, and students of the occult." "On the other side stands Aristotle, the man of science and common sense, who points earthward in contrast with Plato's gesture toward the heavens. . . . Twenty-five hundred years later, Aristotle's Ethics may still be the single most decisive influence on our modern understanding of politics, morals, and society just as Aristotle remains the father of modern science." Professor Herman sums up the two visions by contrasting the two as follows: "Mysticism versus common sense; religion versus science; empiricism versus idealism." In many ways, this divergence of worldviews can explain a great deal of politics throughout the ages. Professor Herman skillfully shows how the influence of each during the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the modern age accounts for the main political and philosophical trends throughout history. It explains the fundamental contrast between democracy and rule by elites; religious vs. secular predominance; communism vs. free market capitalism; and practical vs. utopian visions. There are important insights and fascinating historical details on virtually every page. Anyone interested in politics, history, or philosophy would do well to read this book. It is a masterpiece.

I am a student of history, having read most of the main classical Greek and Roman translated history sources. However, my study into the area of philosophy has been tertiary. This book provided not only an architectural outline of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical structures but a progressive history of their changes, branches, impacts and major figures on both sides. The book is written with warm and engaging tone whole being crisp and insightful in its points. This is a great book for anyone who wants a thorough history of western philosophy for a layman. It doesn't require college philosophy course training to follow the arguments , ideas or people. It is smartly self-contained and accessible. One of the best books I have read in the last 2 years. The author's primary insight is, itself, a triumph of western thinking- that the world's most proliferated civilization has become so by the dynamism of its two polarities of philosophical inquiry. The tension of that dynamism has become the powerful tool for self-critique and self-correction that is built into the 2500 year-old scaffolding of western thought. This insight alone makes this book not only worthwhile, but essential to virtually everyone interested in their society and participation in it. Additionally, the author is scant ever guilty of injecting personal prejudice into the text or it's summary findings. This makes it not only readable, but laudable. A brilliant work of international significance.

This is so well written (and spoken) that it's hard to give it justice in a paragraph. You may think you know your history of western philosophy and science, and you may, as I did and do, but this telling of them provides a spectacular and cohesive disentanglement of the Platonic and Aristotelian motives and modes of thought underlying western civilization's march through time. The author "strong mans" each ideology and makes it possible to recognize their origins, managing to continue that theme up to the present time. He does draw his conclusions at the end, and once you are presented with them, the entirety of the book up to that point provides excellent backing for them.

It's been quite a while since I've read a book as enlightening as this. Arthur Herman (HOW THE SCOTS INVENTED THE MODERN WORLD) walks us through the history of Western civilization on the twin shoulders of Plato and Aristotle, who might be described as the "ultimate dead white males." The two philosophers' disagreements over the nature of reality and how best to understand the world continue to echo today. While I fully realize that Herman's disputatious dipole can't be used to explain every subsequent current in Western thought, it does provide a useful framework through which to understand how philosophical systems grew, flourished, declined, and/or adapted over time as they attempted to co-opt and/or synthesize the Platonian and Aristotelian worldviews. Though Herman certainly does not short-shrift Plato's successors and carefully lays out the good and the bad consequences of the two Greeks' philosophies, it's not hard to detect a subtle Aristotelian bias. The best evidence of this is the inclusion, amidst a list of the very heaviest of philosophical hitters, of Ayn Rand. One of Herman's previous books (FREEDOM'S FORGE) covered the theme of the "heroic entrepreneur" as it related to American war production during World War II, so I do see how Rand's thinking along those lines might have appealed to him. This would be an excellent "companion" book for a high-school or college course on "good old Western civ" or just a good, browse-able read for anyone seeking to further their liberal education outside the walls of academe. I think that I'll be revisiting it more than once.

TEXTO DE LEITURA AGRADÁVEL,MOSTRANDO, COM SIMPLICIDADE, A ERUDIÇÃO E CRIATIVIDADE DO AUTOR.. FONTE DE COMPREENSÕES SÚBITAS (INSIGHT) E DE DESCOBERTA DE RELAÇÕES ENTRE FATOS SOCIAIS, APARENTEMENTE, SEM NEXO CAUSAL.

Brilliant book on the history of Western thought.

No book is perfect - at least not one that seeks to cover two and a half thousand years of intellectual and cultural history, as this one does. For example F.A. Hayek is mentioned, but Ludwig Von Mises (a more important figure) is not. And nor are the Oxford realists (really a continuation of the Common Sense school) of the early 20th century - Harold Prichard and Sir William David Ross. However, Arthur Herman has managed an astonishing achievement. He has managed to show how both Plato and Aristotle produced living traditions - that have massively influenced our civilisation (and other civilisations) over thousands of years, in virtually every way possible. Intellectually, religiously, culturally, technologically, politically - everything. Even those thinkers who set our to utterly reject both Plato and Aristotle have been influenced by the problems Plato and Aristotle gave them to solve. Nor is it just a case of "Plato bad, Aristotle good" - it is much more complicated and subtle than that, as Arthur Herman makes clear.

Arthur Herman's 'The Cave and the Light' vividly contrasts Plato and Aristotle's philosophies, unraveling their impact on our civilization. A fascinating exploration of ancient ideas shaping our modern world.

Great book and one that's best to have a note pad handy. This is a history book through the eyes of philosophers. Basically taking the arguement of spiritual vs physical and saying plato vs aristotle. The general premise of the book is wrong as they didn't create the two sides and without them it would still exist. However, do not let this take anything away from the book it is amazing. Get ready to learn and learn. As it is fast paced some philosophers only get a brief mention but deserve to be looked into more take notes.