In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS 561 product of "irresponsible scholarship." Sampson's critique is said to be a distorted account of Chomsky as well as rationalist and empiricist principles. Sampson supports the work of Jensen, supports Jensen's theory of heritability of intelligence, and claims to do so not qua empiricist, but on rationalist grounds. 2 Bracken's criticisms may seem severe, but he is correct in contending that Sampson has either misunderstood or falsified rationalism. He concludes that Sampson's text should never have been published. Bracken finds the practice of distortion typical of liberalism. The focal point of his study is well expressed in "Descartes-Orwell-Chomsky: Three Philosophers of the Demonic." Bracken contends that lies and distortions have become the accepted norms for distinguished scholars and journalists; Difficulties that undercut the possibility of knowledge are "demonic." The demonic is the total immersion in ideology. The ideological commitment is said to rest in part upon the fact/value distinction, the refusal to admit that values are inseparably intertwined with factual data. He concludes that the 'neutrality' of analysis, scientific or philosophical , has long been a dogma of liberalism and serves the power elite. Bracken does an excellent job in showing that the issues at stake are political and ethical. His views and interpretations are certain to be controversial. KATHLEEN M. SQUADRITO Indiana University-Purdue University Wolfgang R6d. D/e Philosophie der Neuzeit ~. Von Newton bis Rousseau. Geschichte der Phiiosophie. Edited by Wolfgang R6d, vol. 8. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, a984. Pp 498. Paper, N.P. This survey delivers just about all one could desire from a history of philosophy in the period indicated. The coverage is very good. The formidable complexity of the material is compressed in accurate and lucid descriptions. The author's voice is factual throughout. And the prose, though stripped of all adornment, delights with its crispness and steadiness. The title understates the book's coverage, since it concludes with a summary on Condorcet and a very brief review of revolutionary ideologues. The concluding review seems to be an after-thought. It is in any case the least satisfactory part of the book, for R6d's authorial orientation does not deal effectively with thinkers as actors in political events. While the coverage is very good, I was disappointed to find that certain thinkers long excluded from the canon were not brought in. One omission is Buffon. There is a drastic historical distortion in the circumstance that Rousseau's notions on human evolution continue to receive respectful attention from students of the Second Discourse , although all his ideas are borrowed. Yet the man who did the original scientific research on human evolution is ignored by all but a few French historians. Another omission is Frederick the Great, whose long reign and complex involvement 2 Sampson, 147. 562 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 24:4 OCTOBER 1986 with the philosophes as writer and patron established him as the mode! of enlightened despotism. Historians still have not recognized that Fredrick initiated a significant tradition continued by Joseph !! and Catherine of Russia among his contemporaries and subsequently by others, especially in Latin America. Fifty years after Frederick's death this legacy was appropriated by the Comteans particularly in Russia and Latin America. Few are likely to remark these omissions. But there will be complaints about the highly abbreviated treatment given to the emergence of philosophy of history~ Only Vico's New Scienceand Condorcet's Out//ne receive attention, and the exposition of those two thinkers gives no indication of the author's awareness that philosophy of history came massively on the scene between 17z5 and t 775. Its makers were Montesquieu, the men of the Encyc/q~d/a, and the Scottish phitosop/~ers, hut R6d says nothing about this development, although his exposition of Adam Smith is otherwise exceptionally good. ROd's authorial method fastens attention on the expressed thought of individuals in abstraction from their practical intention. To incorporate this dimension would certainly complicate the tale, but its exclusion is not satisfacctory either. This shows in points small and large. For example, ROd wonders against whom Locke's polemic about innate ideas was directed. The answer is Henry...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 561-562
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.