Scan barcode
venkyloquist's review against another edition
2.0
If ever there was a misleading title to a book, this has to be it! Detestable dalliances, pompous promiscuity and astounding adultery litter this collection substituting the Shakespearean jilted love or a scorned heart. Inexplicably weird habits of a bunch of highly rated philosophers (for eg. Diogenes the Cynic's reprehensible propensity to urinate, defecate and even masturbate in public), masquerade as love in this peculiar collection.
But nonetheless, this book makes for an interesting read. These philosophers whose at times, arcane and obtuse philosophy is deemed indispensable and whose works occupy a hallowed reverence in the portals of wisdom, prove themselves to be human (or at times sub-human after all). Try digesting this if you can:
Simone de beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre had a singularly unconventional fifty one year relationship during the course of which Beauvoir in her letters to her lover recounted her same-sex liaisons in illuminating detail while receiving from Sartre equally controversial musings dealing with divesting a woman of her chastity, with surgical precision. If this does not confound you, Sartre went on to adopt his Algerian Mistress, Arlette Elkaim as his 'daughter' (yes, daughter). Not to be outwitted, Beauvoir, in turn adopted one of her lovers, Sylvie le Bon, as her daughter (what's with these kinks?) and bequeathed her estate to her!
Taboo and repulsion dot every page of this unique collection. Take the case of Peter Abelard. Falling in love with his own student Heloise, he stoically faced the wrath of his prospective father in law before ultimately winning the latter's approval. In the interregnum, Heloise's maid develops and 'interest' towards Abelard but is rejected to her uncontrollable fury. The story ends tragically when Abelard sends Heloise away to a convent, a move which results in the philosopher being castrated by his now angry father in law!!!
Andrew Shaffer entertains albeit in a revolting fashion and warns u to keep our carnal urges under prudent confinement. After all, there is no point crying over spilt milk, or in this case a castrated member!
'Great philosophers who failed at love' - Philosophy stood erect!
But nonetheless, this book makes for an interesting read. These philosophers whose at times, arcane and obtuse philosophy is deemed indispensable and whose works occupy a hallowed reverence in the portals of wisdom, prove themselves to be human (or at times sub-human after all). Try digesting this if you can:
Simone de beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre had a singularly unconventional fifty one year relationship during the course of which Beauvoir in her letters to her lover recounted her same-sex liaisons in illuminating detail while receiving from Sartre equally controversial musings dealing with divesting a woman of her chastity, with surgical precision. If this does not confound you, Sartre went on to adopt his Algerian Mistress, Arlette Elkaim as his 'daughter' (yes, daughter). Not to be outwitted, Beauvoir, in turn adopted one of her lovers, Sylvie le Bon, as her daughter (what's with these kinks?) and bequeathed her estate to her!
Taboo and repulsion dot every page of this unique collection. Take the case of Peter Abelard. Falling in love with his own student Heloise, he stoically faced the wrath of his prospective father in law before ultimately winning the latter's approval. In the interregnum, Heloise's maid develops and 'interest' towards Abelard but is rejected to her uncontrollable fury. The story ends tragically when Abelard sends Heloise away to a convent, a move which results in the philosopher being castrated by his now angry father in law!!!
Andrew Shaffer entertains albeit in a revolting fashion and warns u to keep our carnal urges under prudent confinement. After all, there is no point crying over spilt milk, or in this case a castrated member!
'Great philosophers who failed at love' - Philosophy stood erect!
jasminenoack's review against another edition
3.0
So I was going to write this review last night when I was drunk so that anything I said could be blamed on alcohol but I fell asleep, so instead I’m going to write it now while I drink pepsi and everything I say we will have to assume that I meant to say.
So as an opener I’d like to use two anecdotes. The other night I was involved in a group chat with a very close friend and one of our mutual friends who is dating another close friend. Because everyone involved in the conversation was under the age of 26 we starting talking about the two men hooking up, proposing a partner swap where if they hook up I get tiffany, and well of course that devolved to orgies, cause what conversation doesn’t. The response to this was overwhelmingly negative from the side of my friend and I on the basis that: “Getting over yourself enough to concentrate on one person is hard enough.” There is a general problem with intellectuals when it comes to sex. Many of them spend too much time thinking to ever have become very good at it. And let’s be honest if you have to work hard to rationalize yourself into being able to have sex, well then you are probably not the type that goes out of your way to get it on, or there is something very strange about the way you are going about it. Basically what I’m saying is that for all the things Sade was, he was not in the traditional sense a philosopher, and no one in this book has the same troubles sade had. In fact, you wouldn’t believe how many philosophers you can say things like “The first and last time” about.
The other anecdote is about a television show. Okay a couple years ago there was this show called mental. I really liked it but no one else really watched it and it got canceled. In the show one of the main characters points out that psychologists have the highest divorce rate of any profession. Factually speaking this is most likely not true, apparently according to a recent study dancers and choreographers have that honor. But that isn’t the point. The point is that if you date a psychologist you are likely fucked, because they can tell when anything is wrong and they won’t drop it till it’s fixed. Basically as a rule we are a pain in the ass, less so me because I dislike processing but the rules are still the same. Too much analysis and too little delusion makes for bad relationships. You know who else analyses too much? Philosophers.
Some examples from the text of the kinds of things I’m talking about:
After sleeping with Helene for the first time, Althusser was so mentally disturbed that he fell into a deep depression, requiring shock treatment and hospitalization.
examples of faithful monogamy among birds do not furnish any proofs for men, for we are not descended from birds- engels
One must make the choice between loving women and knowing them; there is no middle course- nicolas chamfort
He did not believe that a truly wise man could ever be in love. love, Diogenes said, is the province of men with nothing to do.
Love can only take place towards an equal, the mirror, the echo of our own being.’ Since humanity was created in god’s image, he reasoned, god is the only equal deserving of true love; earthly romance is but a shallow approximation of divine love-hegel
Kant believed that masturbation is a sin worse than ‘even murdering oneself.’ Suicide, he argued, requires courage
Marriage is for most women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution- Russell
I did learn something from this book. Philosophers are almost all insanely sexist. I don’t have the quotes on that but just trust me.
I would like to recommend that in the future someone write a book about what philosophers said about their contemporaries:
Arthur Schopenhauer called [hegel] ‘a lasting monument to german stupidity’
Kant was ‘drier than dust, both in body and mind,’ according to contemporary johann friedrich reichardt
Wagner suggested that nietzsche’s health problems were caused by excessive masturbation
I also disagree that Sartre was a failure, his sex life was completely consistent which his philosophical positions and Beauvoir turned down a marriage proposal because she didn’t want to leave him.
Let us close with locke’s grave:
his virtues, if indeed he had any, were too slight to be lauded by him or to be an example to you. Let his vices die with him
So as an opener I’d like to use two anecdotes. The other night I was involved in a group chat with a very close friend and one of our mutual friends who is dating another close friend. Because everyone involved in the conversation was under the age of 26 we starting talking about the two men hooking up, proposing a partner swap where if they hook up I get tiffany, and well of course that devolved to orgies, cause what conversation doesn’t. The response to this was overwhelmingly negative from the side of my friend and I on the basis that: “Getting over yourself enough to concentrate on one person is hard enough.” There is a general problem with intellectuals when it comes to sex. Many of them spend too much time thinking to ever have become very good at it. And let’s be honest if you have to work hard to rationalize yourself into being able to have sex, well then you are probably not the type that goes out of your way to get it on, or there is something very strange about the way you are going about it. Basically what I’m saying is that for all the things Sade was, he was not in the traditional sense a philosopher, and no one in this book has the same troubles sade had. In fact, you wouldn’t believe how many philosophers you can say things like “The first and last time” about.
The other anecdote is about a television show. Okay a couple years ago there was this show called mental. I really liked it but no one else really watched it and it got canceled. In the show one of the main characters points out that psychologists have the highest divorce rate of any profession. Factually speaking this is most likely not true, apparently according to a recent study dancers and choreographers have that honor. But that isn’t the point. The point is that if you date a psychologist you are likely fucked, because they can tell when anything is wrong and they won’t drop it till it’s fixed. Basically as a rule we are a pain in the ass, less so me because I dislike processing but the rules are still the same. Too much analysis and too little delusion makes for bad relationships. You know who else analyses too much? Philosophers.
Some examples from the text of the kinds of things I’m talking about:
After sleeping with Helene for the first time, Althusser was so mentally disturbed that he fell into a deep depression, requiring shock treatment and hospitalization.
examples of faithful monogamy among birds do not furnish any proofs for men, for we are not descended from birds- engels
One must make the choice between loving women and knowing them; there is no middle course- nicolas chamfort
He did not believe that a truly wise man could ever be in love. love, Diogenes said, is the province of men with nothing to do.
Love can only take place towards an equal, the mirror, the echo of our own being.’ Since humanity was created in god’s image, he reasoned, god is the only equal deserving of true love; earthly romance is but a shallow approximation of divine love-hegel
Kant believed that masturbation is a sin worse than ‘even murdering oneself.’ Suicide, he argued, requires courage
Marriage is for most women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution- Russell
I did learn something from this book. Philosophers are almost all insanely sexist. I don’t have the quotes on that but just trust me.
I would like to recommend that in the future someone write a book about what philosophers said about their contemporaries:
Arthur Schopenhauer called [hegel] ‘a lasting monument to german stupidity’
Kant was ‘drier than dust, both in body and mind,’ according to contemporary johann friedrich reichardt
Wagner suggested that nietzsche’s health problems were caused by excessive masturbation
I also disagree that Sartre was a failure, his sex life was completely consistent which his philosophical positions and Beauvoir turned down a marriage proposal because she didn’t want to leave him.
Let us close with locke’s grave:
his virtues, if indeed he had any, were too slight to be lauded by him or to be an example to you. Let his vices die with him
sarex's review against another edition
2.0
Not a book I would normally pick up to read, but it was on our shelf (husband had gotten it as an airport grab) and it fit a challenge.
Some stories were comical, but most were strange and dry. One quote that I did find interesting,
“It’s always nice to know that no matter how badly you’ve screwed up your love life, someone else has done far, far worse.”~Neal Pollock
Some stories were comical, but most were strange and dry. One quote that I did find interesting,
“It’s always nice to know that no matter how badly you’ve screwed up your love life, someone else has done far, far worse.”~Neal Pollock
sshabein's review against another edition
3.0
If one ever needed further confirmation that smart people don't necessarily make outstanding mates, Great Philosophers Who Failed at Love is a great starting point. Andrew Shaffer has assembled the lacking love stories of 37 philosophers, mostly male, whose words may have stood the test of time, but their ability to personally connect did not. There's not really a lot to analyze here — If you dabble in psychology or philosophy, or if you want to send a funny gift to a student of these subjects, this is a decent book. It's a quick read and the anti-chinstroke to other books on the subject of the historically notable in love.
(My full review can be found on Glorified Love Letters.)
(My full review can be found on Glorified Love Letters.)
screwydecimal's review against another edition
5.0
Illuminating, educational, hilarious. Reading Shaffer's tongue-in-cheek-but-meticulously-researched analysis of the romantic train wrecks of various historically-lauded (but perhaps morally and socially inept) philosophers feels like a sort of voyeuristic psychotherapy. I found myself laughing out loud at some parts and cringing at other parts. If you are married, you will either appreciate your spouse even more after reading or question whether or not monogamy is a good idea in the first place. If you are single, this book will either make you grateful to have your freedom or depressed about your own failings at love. Whatever the case, you'll definitely be entertained. (Mr. Shaffer, if you ever decide to write "Adequate Librarians Who Failed at Love," I'd be happy to contribute.)
quynh23's review against another edition
3.0
Hóng hớt chuyện tình cảm của người nổi tiếng bằng sách có cảm giác "sang" hơn hóng bằng mạng xã hội. May nhờ dịch giả có tâm mà mình học được vài từ mới, không thì mình cảm giác tội lỗi chết mất.
apoppyinthewind's review
2.0
A fun little book that gives a quick glimpse into the torrid love affairs and heartaches of some of the most famous minds in history. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it was interesting to see that some of the noted intellectuals could be so absolutely hopeless when comes to love and romance. Reading this book has definitely increased my interest in learning more about some of these people so I'll be keeping my eye for biographies during my next library trip.
More...