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

118 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Hegel is replying to Hume. To be sure, Hegel does reply to Hume, but he does so only by using in a unique way a concept of the self developed and bequeathed to him by the aforementioned German idealist tradition. Certainly, Kant's unity of apperception, his theory of the moral ego, Fichte's transcendental ego and Schelling's identity theory are the bases upon which Hegel works. Taylor challenges us to supplement his work and do some of the work for ourselves if we want to follow him. Taylor rightly perceives that the absence of decision is the fundamental characteristic of the aesthetic stage (p. 128). This is then taken to mean that aesthetic existence is immediate, i.e., without reflection. This is well and good, but it does not quite do justice to the aesthetic stage, for the final figure of the stage is Johnnes, the reflectiveseducer. Taylor of course emphasizes the variety within the aesthetic stage, but he never properly develops the problem of reflection in the aesthetic stage. (One further comment seems appropriate about the aesthetic stage though it is in no way a criticism of Taylor. Given his theme, there is no way he was obligated to discuss this problem historically. In the aesthetic stage, Kierkegaard ably sets forth a phenomenology of desire in the analysis of three of Mozart's operas, Figaro, The Magic Flute and Don Juan. Surely some reader of this Journal can write the history of desire, for it is a theme in ethics, theology, and philosophical anthropology from Augustine's cupiditas to Kierkegaard.) These comments are offered to suggest further dimensions of the pertinence of Taylor's theme. This excellent book is a solid contribution to a first-rate Kierkegaard scholarship in America. ROBERT L. PERKINS University of South Alabama Nietzsche's View of Socrates. By Werner Dannhauser. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 1974. Pp. 283. $15.00) This book establishes Dannhauser in the forefront of American interpreters of Friedrich Nietzsche. His analysis of the relation--the quarrel--between Nietzsche and Socrates (pp. 13, 272, 273) surpasses that of the previous American standard set by Walter Kaufmann in Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, AntiChrist ("Nietzsche's Admiration of Socrates"). Dannhauser is thorough, balanced and lucid throughout his treatment of these two elusive figures in the history of philosophical thought. The author believes that the quarrel between Nietzsche and Socrates illuminates the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns and also, to a more limited degree, that between philosophers and poets (pp. 20-21, 133-134). Using Socrates and Nietzsche as representatives of opposing philosophical perspectives is problematic, as Dannhauser shows, because there are "modern" aspects of Socratic/Platonic thought (p. 273), while much of the "wisdom of the ancients" is recaptured by Nietzsche (p. 269). With the recognition of this difficulty clearly before him, Dannhauser succeeds in laying out the fundamental areas of agreement and disagreement between these two thinkers, preserving his original formulation of the quarrel between the ancients and moderns while adding significantly to our understanding of the nature of that quarrel. As presented in the study, Nietzsche characterizes Socrates as follows: Socrates corrupts mankind by teaching that the world is rational and that reason should rule in the soul and in the city. Socrates' dialectical way shows the traditional gods and laws of all nations to be inconsistent and therefore defective. By elevating reason, Socrates succeeds in subordinating the nobler irrational instincts to the baser instinct of reason (pp. 212-213). While characterizing Socrates in this manner, Nietzsche often seems to condemn Socrates. However Socrates is not responsible for being the "one turning point and vortex of so-called world history" (p. 66). Socrates was fated to will the "Socratic revolution" in response to his historical situation which BOOK REVIEWS 119 was one of instinctual anarchy. Socrates was the savior who provided an alternative to that anarchy through his teaching of the redemptive power of reason (p. 126). In modern times, according to Nietzsche, the Socratic solution ceases to be "life preserving" because it threatens to issue in nihilismwith the recognition that reason is only a weak passion which has no ground in nature...