Matthew Stewart (1) (1963–)

I'm nearing the end of this book and have strongly mixed feelings.

As a summary of philosophy and a 'history of philosophy' re: origins of modern democratic thought, it is great. 4 or even 5 stars. As a history of the irreligious origins of America... less so.

The problem I keep coming up against is two fold. Stewart will go on at great length discussing the details of some philosophical point, who held that point, and -then, for the length- trace the origins and evolution of that idea from Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Shaftesbury, Pope, and then Young and/or Allen... and then (1) buried in discussing popular support and passion because of (or aligned with) these philosophical points are snippets, backgrounds, nods to the fact that these ideas, shorn of some of their religious implications, were popular while religious belief was simultaneously popular and, often, vehement, and (2) that the revolutionary elites themselves were divided similarly.

I myself am an atheist, and a firm supporter of the 'heretical' tradition... but as an act of history, I'm not sure that Stewart sells the idea that the US government was founded on heretical... beliefs. This is a somewhat subtle point, having more to do with psychology, perhaps, than philosophy. But it is also a historical point. We're told that some point was championed by a set of 'heretical' thinkers, but that the language then had to be toned down for popular passage, and that some of the thinkers themselves bailed out over the 'atheistic' ideas/language. So... the hereticial/atheistic/Deistic ideas were there, no doubt, but there was popular and elite resistance to them "as such."

I think this book is a welcome addition, and something of an antidote to the 'Christian nation' narrative. But it aims at showing that we're instead a 'heretical nation,' and much as I wish that, it fails (and somewhat badly, I think.) Or, if we are a 'heretical nation,' we were founded on an amalgam of heresy, conservatism, and common belief. Which in my mind means we're neither a 'heretical' nation nor a 'Christian' nation.

As a history of philosophy, on the other hand, it is a book I will likely reread for its detail and analysis, even if it is very dense in parts.… (mer)

I love this book. Even though I am now a business advisor, I have had scant respect for most consultants.
This book by Matthew Stewart follows a dual narrative. The first is a personal one, in which we become privy to the foibles of most management firms.

Then, he introduces us to the great thinkers of the last century - from Taylor to Tom Peters. Interestingly, these men created management principles, claiming they were scientific, but not.

The transition to the 'management guru' theme of our times is revealing.

The book should give you reasons to think: in my management institute, we upheld Taylor, even though he lost credibility elsewhere.

While each consultant or guru peddles their models or fads, it is pertinent to note that, collectively, they have made some important contributions. You have no right to run a business if you rely on just one fad at a time.

However, management practitioners are as fond of following fads as 'gurus' are of peddling them.

This book will open your eyes. It is a delightful book to read.… (mer)

I own more than half of the books mentioned in this one, and I've always been of two minds about them. On one hand, they are the corpus of 'modern management'. On the other, they really don't seem to say anything important that couldn't be summed up in a tight article. Matthew Stewart has done a great job of reinforcing and teasing out my tentative beliefs.

It's written in that style where it alternates chapters between a personal story and more general discussion of topics and history. I'm not a huge fan of this structure, but understand what it's attractive to editors.… (mer)

EL HEREJE Y EL CORTESANO

"Una original reinterpretación
de la vida y la obra de Spinoza y Leibniz
dos de los fundadores
del pensamiento filosófico moderno"
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY

EL 18 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 1676 Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz se presentaba en casa de Baruch de Spinoza, en
La Haya. De su encuentro se derivarían importantes
consecuencias para la historia de la filosofía.

Por aquel entonces, Spinoza tenia motivos suficientes
para tener por su vida: poco antes, uno de sus amigos
habia sido ejecutado, y otro había muerto en la cárcel.

Los esfuerzos para publicar su obra definitiva, la Etica,
habían concluido entre amenazas de interposición de un
proceso criminal. Un teologo se había referido a él co-
mo "el hombre más impío y peligroso del siglo", y un
poderoso obispo lo denunció comno "este hombre loco y
malvado, que merece ser encadenado y azotado".

Leibniz había calificado la obra de Spinoza de "horri-
ble" y "espantosa". "intolerablemente insolente".

A un amigo le confió: "Me parece lamentable que un hombre
evidentemente tan culto haya caído tan bajo".

Y sin embargo, tras un largo viaje, alli estaba el gran
Leibniz, frente a la puerta de la casa de Spinoza, dispuesto
a pasar unas horas, probablemente unos días, de
animada charla con él.

Spinoza y Leibniz, juntos. Los dos filósofos más grandes
del siglo XVII, fundadores ambos del pensamiento
moderno. Podemos imaginarlos: Spinoza sentado, impasible
,profundamente indiferente, tal vez silenciosamente
desdeñoso; Leibniz dando vueltas por la habitación,
tratando de escapar a las ideas radicales de su
anfitrión, intentando demostrarle que existe una voluntad
divina que está detrás de todas las cosas...… (mer)