Brand Blanshard, twentieth-century philosophy's greatest exponent of rationalism, here turns his pen to an examination of reasonableness in action, as exemplified in the lives of Marcus Aurelius, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, and (Blanshard's own favorite exemplar of the "rational temper") Henry Sidgwick. Though himself a rationalist, Blanshard was not under the illusion that only avowed rationalists could be reasonable, as his selection of examples clearly shows. In each essay, he presents a lucid and sympathetic account of his subject's life and thought in a seamless combination that deserves to be called "philosophical biography."

While this volume is of course highly informative about each of its four subjects, it also of interest as regards Blanshard's own thought. He was ninety-two years old when he wrote this delightful and highly readable work, and his examinations of these four men distill a lifetime of his own reflections on the role of reason in the ordering of human affairs. A final chapter -- "The enemy: Prejudice" -- summarizes his mature views on the nature and importance of the rational temper.

The entry under Blanshard's name in the _Oxford Companion to Philosophy_ closes on an uncharacteristically personal note: "Blanshard's personal demeanour," writes the entry's author Prof. Peter H. Hare, "was one of extraordinary graciousness." That graciousness, evident throughout his work, is especially so here, where Blanshard deals less directly with philosophical questions and more directly with reasonableness as instantiated in actual human lives; his generosity and sympathy (much neglected rational virtues!) are almost palpable. If the rest of us could absorb something of his rational temper and spirit, our lives and the life of the world would undoubtedly be transformed for the better. And there is no better place to begin than this volume by a great man whose religion was the service of reason.

Wow! Who'd have thought that an author could approach such a topic as "reasonableness" and render it so well-defined, so palatable and so attractive. By using four historical examples, with focus not primarily upon their philosophies, but more upon their lives, Blanshard is masterful. As a noted philosophical and social commentator in his own right, the author does an excellent job of inserting his own interpretation on the four subject persons, and upon their historical & intellectual significance. Last, and maybe most important, is Mr. Blanshard's ability to communicate clearly. As far-fetched as it may sound, this book is truly a page-turner! I'd recommend this to anyone who feels the need for a book that makes you go, "Hmmmm." At the very least, it will leave any reader with an increased appetite for more reasonableness in his/her own life.

Doctor Blanshard has been criticized for not being a very original thinker. Whatever one thinks about original thought, one must admire a philosopher who expends the effort necessary to be understood and never hides in obscurity. Blanshard wrote a book 'On philosophical Style' and a better example of excellence in writing style cannot be found than this book edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp. As a student of philosophy I always found it difficult to locate material that could present philosophy alive and allow one to study it as though taking part in the ideas. As each philosopher presents Blanshard with his/her criticism, one finds oneself actively participating in the cut and thrust of ideas as Blanshard responds at the end of each essay. Only the dialogues of Plato rival this work in providing the reader with the impression that he/she is present as great minds exchange ideas. The professional and amateur will long treasure this fine example of philosophical debate. END

Brand Blanshard, easily the twentieth century's sturdiest defender of reason, rationality and the "rational temper," exemplified that temper in every line of his graceful prose. His solid defenses of e.g. the nature of mind as seeking and striving after ends, the end of thought as systematic understanding, the coherence theory of truth, the objective existence of necessary logical and causal connections, the universe as a strongly coherent logical and causal whole in which every fact entails and is entailed by every other, the meaning of "goodness" as the objective fulfillment of human ends accompanied by the taking of satisfaction in that fulfillment -- his defenses of these views and others won the admiration of friends and critics alike, both for the thoroughness of his approach and for the generosity with which he treated opposing positions. In this volume he exchanges essays with many of those friends and critics, providing yet again not only a defense of his views but an admirable example of how to conduct oneself in philosophical controversy. In a departure from the practice followed in the other volumes in this series, Blanshard replies to each critical essay individually rather than in one long reply at the volume's end. The effect is that the book reads like an extended philosophical conversation, in which Blanshard deals personally and closely with each thinker in turn. His replies also indicate where his thought had grown and developed since the publication of _The Nature of Thought_ in the 1930s, thereby continuing his thought along the lines laid down in _Reason and Analysis_, _Reason and Goodness_, and Reason and Belief_. The essays and replies are arranged topically, covering the full range of Blanshard's rationalist philosophy. And an introductory autobiographical essay provides a delightfully personal introduction to the man himself. No student of Blanshard can afford to miss this thorough and thoroughly engaging volume.

Blanshard's analysis of Karl Barth's liberal Protestant theology is devastating.

In this uniformly clear and incisive volume (the third in Brand Blanshard's landmark trilogy in defense of reason), the twentieth century's greatest philosophical rationalist carefully examines the claims of religion in the light of reason (including its claims that something other than reason may provide an ultimate standard of truth). Entering sympathetically but critically into the thought of great religious thinkers in the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions, Blanshard concludes that whatever legitimate content religion may have, the claims of reason as ultimate arbiter of truth cannot be compromised.

This conclusion does _not_, Blanshard insists, remove the whole of religion. He conceives religion as the response of the "whole man" to whatever he regards as ultimately true and important, and he finds much in Christian tradition that is worthy of a rationalist's praise. And in the volume's final, positive section, "The Faith of a Rationalist," Blanshard sets out in detail what he thinks we may and may not accept from received religious tradition.

The concept of "God" is one that he finds we must at least attenuate; he finds that while he can profess belief in an "Absolute" (roughly, all of reality regarded as a logically and causally coherent whole), this Absolute does not share enough features with the "God" of traditional theism that Blanshard feels able to retain that word as a description of his own quasitheistic belief. Nevertheless he also does not argue for scrapping the concept completely, and his disagreements with more traditional theists are always presented with the utmost generosity.

Despite its fairly explicit focus on Christianity, this brilliant work also presents a model for budding nontheists in other traditions who seek to take a similarly sympathetic-yet-critical approach to, say, Judaism or Islam. For Blanshard, the primacy of reason does not involve wholesale rejection of religion as inherently "irrational." Indeed, he concludes that reason, properly conceived, has been the unadmitted architect of religion all along, and that taking it seriously is precisely the way to transform our world for the better.

Blanshard, in short, takes the service of reason as his own religion. His thorough account should be read by anyone who takes either reason or religion with the seriousness such topics deserve.

In this brilliant two-volume work, rationalist Brand Blanshard traces the development and immanent purpose of human thought from the beginnings of perception to its ultimate, transcendent end: the grasp of all reality as a tremendous whole, a vast system interconnected throughout by intelligible relations of necessity.

Not, of course, that he thinks we have _arrived_ at such an understanding, or indeed even that we ever will arrive at it. His concern here is to present this degree of understanding as an _ideal_, as the final goal at which thought implicitly aims to the extent that it deserves to be called thought at all. And his account of this implicit ideal throws its light on the development of human cognition from its very beginnings, just as knowledge of an oak throws light upon the nature of an acorn.

Blanshard was the most empirical of rationalists, having been driven to his rationalist position by a close examination of the realities of human thought; this work is the fruit of that examination. And because he stays close both to philosophy and to human psychology, his work can be profitably read by those in either camp.

And it should be read. Great philosophical treatises are all too seldom written, and this is one of the twentieth century's greatest. Nothing since has matched it in either scope or rigor.

Brand Blanshard's prose style was itself a seamless implementation of the content of his philosophy: intelligible, clear, precise, and invariably suffused by what he called the "rational temper." In this book (really an extended essay) he offers helpful advice to would-be writers of philosophical prose -- advice that he had more than earned the right to give. This single volume, if its advice were heeded, would have spared us the dark cogitations of many an obfuscatory philosopher and left the field of philosophy in the hands of those who had something to say. Those who are impressed by the bold pronouncements of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein will find little solace here, but anyone who expects philosophers actually to love wisdom will be delighted to encounter a kindred spirit. Read it not only to profit from its advice on prose style but also to absorb something of the spirit of twentieth century philosophy's greatest exemplar of reasonableness.

In this uniformly clear and incisive volume (the third in Brand Blanshard's landmark trilogy in defense of reason), the twentieth century's greatest philosophical rationalist carefully examines the claims of religion in the light of reason (including its claims that something other than reason may provide an ultimate standard of truth). Entering sympathetically but critically into the thought of great religious thinkers in the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions, Blanshard concludes that whatever legitimate content religion may have, the claims of reason as ultimate arbiter of truth cannot be compromised.

This conclusion does _not_, Blanshard insists, remove the whole of religion. He conceives religion as the response of the "whole man" to whatever he regards as ultimately true and important, and he finds much in Christian tradition that is worthy of a rationalist's praise. And in the volume's final, positive section, "The Faith of a Rationalist," Blanshard sets out in detail what he thinks we may and may not accept from received religious tradition.

The concept of "God" is one that he finds we must at least attenuate; he finds that while he can profess belief in an "Absolute" (roughly, all of reality regarded as a logically and causally coherent whole), this Absolute does not share enough features with the "God" of traditional theism that Blanshard feels able to retain that word as a description of his own quasitheistic belief. Nevertheless he also does not argue for scrapping the concept completely, and his disagreements with more traditional theists are always presented with the utmost generosity.

Despite its fairly explicit focus on Christianity, this brilliant work also presents a model for budding nontheists in other traditions who seek to take a similarly sympathetic-yet-critical approach to, say, Judaism or Islam. For Blanshard, the primacy of reason does not involve wholesale rejection of religion as inherently "irrational." Indeed, he concludes that reason, properly conceived, has been the unadmitted architect of religion all along, and that taking it seriously is precisely the way to transform our world for the better.

Blanshard, in short, takes the service of reason as his own religion. His thorough account should be read by anyone who takes either reason or religion with the seriousness such topics deserve.

In this volume, Eugene Freeman has helpfully collected and edited twenty-three talks by rationalist philosopher Brand Blanshard, twentieth century philosophy's finest exemplar of what he himself called the "rational temper."

The talks are grouped loosely around the theme, "What is the purpose of education?" They are divided into three sections: "Ends," a series of eight talks in which the question is pretty directly addressed; "Corollaries," eight talks in which several related issues are canvassed; and "Homilies," a group of seven "humanistic sermons" in which Blanshard offers reflective advice on matters from "books" to "courage" to "admiration."

I won't try to summarize the specific content of this broad collection, but the overall thrust is the same as that of Blanshard's philosophy in general. Basically, Blanshard identifies education with philosophy, not as a narrow technical specialty but as the broad attempt to "see things steadily and whole." He develops this theme with his usual style, grace, vigor, and urbanity, and very effectively excoriates the antirationalism of most of the twentieth century.

Readers new to Blanshard and without much background in philosophy might want to start with this volume, which is uniformly accessible and non-technical and deals with themes that will be of general interest. Many passages present nontechnical discussions of themes Blanshard treats at greater length in his longer works (particularly _Reason and Goodness_). Most of these discussions cover territory that will be familiar to Blanshard's longtime readers, but even they (well, "we") will find some new delights here. (I am thinking particularly of "Sanity in Thought and Art," which is cited several times in _The Philosophy of Brand Blanshard_ but is not in print anywhere else.)

As Blanshard notes in this volume, our admirations tell us something about ourselves and prompt us to become more fully what we are and should be. One object of my own admirations is Blanshard himself, and I recommend his works highly for the inspiration I have drawn therefrom.

This is one of the most painstakingly argued philosophies I have ever encountered. Blanshard is obsessive-compulsive in his maniacal destruction of the philosophies of Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russel. Brand Blanshard is a man on the warpath; he will not be satisfied until every aspect of the aforementioned philosophies has been ground into dust. And indeed they are ground into dust. I do not see how anyone could be taken in by the concepts of Russel and Wittgenstein after reading this book.

All of this is not to say that Blanshard is a parasitic writer. There is more to this book than simply the destruction of other peoples' life's work. However, after reading _Reason and Analysis_, I realize that I have not seen this many instances of abuse of a corpse since the infamous "tri-state crematory scandal" in north Georgia. Blanshard simply will not leave these poor guys alone! Wittgenstein has rolled over in his grave so many times that he's gonna need to have his tires rotated. Anyway, this does not really detract from the book as a whole. It is actually a very valuble resource in terms of getting up to date with recent philosophical movements. Blanshard does an excellent job at summarizing previous movements, to the extent that you could get by without reading any of the authors he mentions. Blanshard's detailed synopses of these philosophies is almost as good as reading the original works themselves. A book like this can save you the trouble of having to read many early to mid-twentieth century philosophers.

To summarize, the factual content of this book is nearly inarguable. Blanshard's arguments are very convincing and very meticulous. Overall, this work is utterly fascinating, well written, lucid, and clear. But I will leave the reader with this one last piece of advice: ONLY READ THE FIRST 200 PAGES. That's all you need to get the gist of Blanshard's philosophy. Once you get past the first 200 pages, Blanshard seems to do nothing other than give endless additional examples to uphold an argument that was already convincing enough. The argument had been completely outlined by page 200, and meticulously argued to the point of catharsis. Those who read further must be devastated adherents of Wittgenstein who can only watch with shock and horror as their life's studies go up in smoke. I will not deduct a star for the run-on ending of this book simply because the first 200 pages are so spectacular and so potent that nothing could possibly detract from these initial arguments. This book is easily worth the price of admission ten times over simply for these first 200 pages - I'm only trying to save you time by warning you about the redundncy of the latter part of this book. So by all means go ahead and buy _Reason and Analysis_ - with my condolences to the adherents of Wittgenstein and Russell.

I claimed in my last review that Blanshard rejects the "Analytic-Synthetic" dichotomy. This is not totally true - he simply clarifies what Kant did intuitively (and puts it on a solid logical foundation), tosses away the terms "Analytic" and "Synthetic", and then uses his clarified form of the ideas to refute the assertions of logical positivism that no truths can be deduced without verification in sense.

Reading of this book continually reveal more and more insight to me. I give it my heartiest recommendations.

Brand Blanshard's work in defence of Reason is incredible. This book was published in 1962, and, given its length (especially at a time when there were no word processors), must have been in the works for some time before then.

Blanshard mostly takes on the philosophical schools of logical positivism and linguistic analysis in this volume, and is an opponent of any school of thought that denies or subverts the role of reason and logic in the acquisition of knowledge.

So what makes this book so good? It is a perfect example of scholarship (similar to George Reisman's "Capitalism"), given its topic. What do I mean by perfect?

1. The author gives a historical overview of the material to be presented. This allows a person to place ideas and positions in
thier historical context, and to understand the nature of the
debate that has preceded the material to be discussed.

2. The author explains the position of the viewpoint that he is in disagreement with. He cites references and quotes individuals.

3. The author demolishes the arguments of the opponents to the greatest extent he probably can, and in a systematic way. This ensures that all variants of the doctrine he is against are taken care of, and that any attempt to resurrect the doctrine in the future can be addressed with the arguments that he has already proposed. He totally refutes logical atomism and other aspects of logical positivism, and shows that linguistic analysis, as well as logical positivism, is self refuting.

4. The author then realizes that it is not enough to destroy - one must also replace the edifice that one has destroyed with a better one, or garbage might find its way onto the site where the old edifice once stood. The author outlines the his view of reason and aspects of it in the final chapters of the book.

A note for Objectivists: Brand Blanshard also rejected the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy in this volume and was legendary enough to merit a place in the Library of Living Philosophers series.

It is very puzzling (and a statement about what is going on in the world today) that Blanshard's works are mostly out of print, while people who could not explain thier positions with the clarity and consistency that he did are worshipped as philosophical legends. He dissects and makes thorough mincemeat of Wittgenstein's writings, showing that they are anything BUT logical(ly consistent). However, I can't find Blanshard's books in any local bookstores, but I can find loads of Wittgenstein's writings.

You don't have to agree with everything in this book to gain from it. Nothing is swept under the rug, and it is quite possible to honestly disagree with some points of view. However, any flaws in the book are unlikely to be attributed to wilful dishonesty on the part of the author by the reader, but will definitely vary, depending on the view point of the reader on certain philosophical issues. However, anybody committed to rationality will find a lot that is good in this book.

It is a good volume and there is lot to be gained by anyone who wants to investigate the lines along which thinking is done.