An alternative history of philosophy has endured as a shadowy parallel to standard histories, although it shares many of the same themes. It has its own founding texts in the late ancient Hermetica, from whence flowed three broad streams of thought: alchemy, astrology, and magic. These thinkers' attitude toward philosophy is not one of detached speculation but of active engagement, even intervention. It appeared again in the European Middle Ages, in the Renaissance with Rabelais, Paracelsus, Agrippa, Ficino, and Bruno; and in the early modern period with John Dee, Robert Fludd, Jacob Böhme, Thomas Browne, Kenelm Digby, van Helmont, and Isaac Newton. In the 18th-19th centuries, this book considers Lichtenberg's Fragments, Berkeley's Siris, Swedenborg, Hegel, von Baader, and great Romantics such as Novalis, Goethe, S. T. Coleridge, and E. A. Poe, as well as Nietzsche; and in the 20th century it turns to the great modernist literature of Fernando Pessoa, Robert Musil, Ernst Bloch, and P. K. Dick.

It is naturally important for any of us to have a correct view of the universe we are in. Having realized that the Newtonian world-view is untenable, this book joins others that are searching for an alternative world-view. It is unique in using quantum physics to promote this search.One aim of the book is to present a lucid exposition of quantum mechanics in terms accessible to the general reader. Another aim is to show that realism (the belief that the outside world exists “from its own side” regardless of acts of consciousness) and locality (the belief that nothing moves faster than light) are invalid, and should be replaced by a new paradigm according to which the universe is alive. A third aim is to show that the thinking of quantum physicists evokes the philosophies of Plato and Plotinus.The revised edition will include a conversation between two fictional characters to elucidate the discussion of the meaning of wave functions.

Nearly twenty-five hundred years ago the Greek thinker Heraclitus supposedly uttered the cryptic words "Phusis kruptesthai philei." How the aphorism, usually translated as "Nature loves to hide," has haunted Western culture ever since is the subject of this engaging study by Pierre Hadot. Taking the allegorical figure of the veiled goddess Isis as a guide, and drawing on the work of both the ancients and later thinkers such as Goethe, Rilke, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger, Hadot traces successive interpretations of Heraclitus' words. Over time, Hadot finds, "Nature loves to hide" has meant that all that lives tends to die; that Nature wraps herself in myths; and (for Heidegger) that Being unveils as it veils itself. Meanwhile the pronouncement has been used to explain everything from the opacity of the natural world to our modern angst. From these kaleidoscopic exegeses and usages emerge two contradictory approaches to nature: the Promethean, or experimental-questing, approach, which embraces technology as a means of tearing the veil from Nature and revealing her secrets; and the Orphic, or contemplative-poetic, approach, according to which such a denuding of Nature is a grave trespass. In place of these two attitudes Hadot proposes one suggested by the Romantic vision of Rousseau, Goethe, and Schelling, who saw in the veiled Isis an allegorical expression of the sublime. "Nature is art and art is nature," Hadot writes, inviting us to embrace Isis and all she represents: art makes us intensely aware of how completely we ourselves are not merely surrounded by nature but also part of nature.

"As a man thinks, so is he." Personally, and socially, so is he. Yet if this is true, then "as a man thinks" has led us into the thick of global crisis. What exactly is it, about our thinking, that fails us? What has gone so wrong? There are firm reasons why we may hope for new direction. Firstly, we have a new view of the connectedness of all things. Never before has this encompassed so much. It makes a crucial difference to philosophy. Secondly, when we recast philosophy's high-level concepts in more concrete terms, it becomes possible to discuss them without confusion. This is the method of this book. There is much of interest for the theologian, too. Legendary film director Ingmar Bergman once wrote, "What will happen to us who want to believe, but can not?" His "can not" had to do with what Professor Karen Barad calls the "hegemony of physics". Everything, Briefly details why it is impossible, in fact, to believe in a closed universe of cause and effect.

This book is a history of human views and ideas and their related motives and consequences, from pre-history and early civilization through Judaic, Greek, and Christian heritages, and all the way up to humanistic and modern perspectives. It draws from many sources in the humanities, including anthropology, history of religion, theology, philosophy, history, and cultural studies. It is addressed to an audience of readers who have an interest in the history of ideas, including students or thinkers of any kind who are interested in the existential issues that have occupied hearts and minds since the beginning of humanity. For the purpose of storytelling, the present is placed in a future timeframe, when the current historical period of modernity will have reached its probable conclusion. Seen from this contrafactual perspective, a historical narrative can weave together what would otherwise have been random changes and give meaning to the unfolding of history. It is a story that leads to a possible future in which, with the benefit of hindsight, people can understand the errors of the past and chart a course towards the peaceful flourishing of humanity.

The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic. In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.

In this new collection of essays, Andrew Feenberg argues that conflicts over the design and organization of the technical systems that structure our society shape deep choices for the future. A pioneer in the philosophy of technology, Feenberg demonstrates the continuing vitality of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. He calls into question the anti-technological stance commonly associated with its theoretical legacy and argues that technology contains potentialities that could be developed as the basis for an alternative form of modern society. Feenberg's critical reflections on the ideas of Jürgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-François Lyotard, and Kitaro Nishida shed new light on the philosophical study of technology and modernity. He contests the prevalent conception of technology as an unstoppable force responsive only to its own internal dynamic and politicizes the discussion of its social and cultural construction. This argument is substantiated in a series of compelling and well-grounded case studies. Through his exploration of science fiction and film, AIDS research, the French experience with the "information superhighway," and the Japanese reception of Western values, he demonstrates how technology, when subjected to public pressure and debate, can incorporate ethical and aesthetic values.

In Hiding from History, Meili Steele challenges an assumption at the heart of current debates in political, literary, historical, and cultural theory: that it is impossible to reason through history. Steele believes that two influential schools of contemporary thought "hide from history": liberal philosophies of public reason as espoused by such figures as Jürgen Habermas, Martha Nussbaum, and John Rawls and structuralism/poststructuralism as practiced by Judith Butler, Hayden White, and Michel Foucault. For Steele, public reasoning cannot be easily divorced from either the historical imagination in general or the specific legacies that shape, and often haunt, political communities.Steele introduces the concept of public imagination—concepts, images, stories, symbols, and practices of a culture—to show how the imaginative social space that citizens inhabit can be a place for political discourse and debate. Steele engages with a wide range of thinkers and their works, as well as historical events: debates over the display of the Confederate flag in public places; Ralph Ellison's exchange with Hannah Arendt over school desegregation in Little Rock; the controversy surrounding Daniel Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners; and arguments about the concept of a "clash of civilizations" as expressed by Samuel Huntington, Ashis Nandy, Edward Said, and Amartya Sen. Championing history and literature's capacity to articulate the politics of public imagination, Hiding from History boldly outlines new territory for literary and political theory.

One can rightly say of Peter Sloterdijk that each of his essays and lectures is also an unwritten book. That is why the texts presented here, which sketch a philosophical physiognomy of Martin Heidegger, should also be characterized as a collected renunciation of exhaustiveness. In order to situate Heidegger's thought in the history of ideas and problems, Peter Sloterdijk approaches Heidegger's work with questions such as: If Western philosophy emerged from the spirit of the polis, what are we to make of the philosophical suitability of a man who never made a secret of his stubborn attachment to rural life? Is there a provincial truth of which the cosmopolitan city knows nothing? Is there a truth in country roads and cabins that would be able to undermine the universities with their standardized languages and globally influential discourses? From where does this odd professor speak, when from his professorial chair in Freiburg he claims to inquire into what lies beyond the history of Western metaphysics? Sloterdijk also considers several other crucial twentieth-century thinkers who provide some needed contrast for the philosophical physiognomy of Martin Heidegger. A consideration of Niklas Luhmann as a kind of contemporary version of the Devil's Advocate, a provocative critical interpretation of Theodor Adorno's philosophy that focuses on its theological underpinnings and which also includes reflections on the philosophical significance of hyperbole, and a short sketch of the pessimistic thought of Emil Cioran all round out and deepen Sloterdijk's attempts to think with, against, and beyond Heidegger. Finally, in essays such as "Domestication of Being" and the "Rules for the Human Park," which incited an international controversy around the time of its publication and has been translated afresh for this volume, Sloterdijk develops some of his most intriguing and important ideas on anthropogenesis, humanism, technology, and genetic engineering.

This first volume in the series traces the development of philosophy over two-and-a-half centuries, from Thales at the beginning of the sixth century BC to the death of Plato in 347 BC.