Will Durant

[bookslover]

Does anyone have an opinion - good, bad, or indifferent - about Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers (1926)? I just got a copy at Borders today (for $7.99, in hardback, no less) and am just wondering how good a job he does.

 

[Classical Presbyterian]

It's probably a good introduction from a moderate humanist point of view. Durant went on record as being no fan of the Reformation. But he was a good writer who was easy to read and understand.

 

[Romans 9:16]

I read the whole thing last January. It’s an excellent book. The Copleston set is more thorough, but it is huge because of that. Durant’s book covers more ground in less time. He offers some interesting criticism of a number of views as well. Perhaps the only defect is that it doesn’t cover everybody. If there is a particular movement or person you are interested in, he may not address it. I suppose that is not really a defect because the book doesn’t seem to have been written to answer a need for an exhaustive survey. I would also recommend Gordon Clark’s ‘Thales to Dewey.’ It’s one of the best.

 

[TimV]

As a teenager I read through all 11 volumes of his Story of Civilization. He said that Calvin had the most evil view of God of anyone in history, and I just accepted that as the truth, being a kid and all.

 

[R Harris]

Durant was essentially an agnostic, and while obviously not being a professor of faith, he was not as antagonistic toward Christianity as today's atheists are (e.g. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens).

Durant gave an interesting interview back in 1975 to the Chicago Tribune, in which he predicted the collapse of western civilization. Why? He said we had abandoned our Christian morals, which he believed to have been a foundation of the West. Unless that was reversed, he said, we would decline at a rapid rate. An interesting observation by an agnostic, and it turns out he was right.

I have not read your book in question, but I have read Caesar and Christ in his The Story of Civilization series. I thought he was an excellent writer as an historian, despite his presuppositional biases.

 

[greenbaggins]

I am reading through the Story of Civilization now. He is a good writer. Evolutionary worldview, but recognizes the value of morals, as has been said. He relies a bit too much on secondary sources for my comfort. In fact, Bradley and Muller call him a tertiary source.

 

[bookslover]

Regarding The Story of Civilization and Durant generally, professional historians sneer that he was a mere popularizer. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you're an accurate popularizer. As for those professional historians: (a) they're probably jealous because he sold more books than they do; and (b) they believe that history should belong to (and be strictly controlled by) the academy only. For them, history does not belong to the masses.

In art, the professional critics sneered at Norman Rockwell, too...

 

[Philip]

Durant is generally a good source and balanced, except when it comes to Reformed theology--probably due to his early training by the Jesuits.

He's a good resource overall, though. His books deserve a place on your shelf next to Schaff and Churchill.

Professional historians don't like Durant because a) he doesn't try to cover economic history (a favorite of Marxists) b) he's essentially a narrative historian. It's much the same as academia's criticism of Churchill's histories--they don't agree with the classical liberal presuppositions or the narrative methodology so they conveniently ignore it.