Sophie's world : a novel about the history of philosophy - 1991
Sophie's World (Norwegian: Sofies verden) is a 1991 novel by Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder. It follows the events of Sophie Amundsen, a teenage girl living in Norway, and Alberto Knox, a middle-aged philosopher who introduces her to philosophical thinking and the history of philosophy.
A page-turning novel that is also an exploration of the great philosophical concepts of Western thought, Sophie’s World has fired the imagination of readers all over the world, with more than twenty million copies in print.
One day fourteen-year-old Sophie Amundsen comes home from school to find in her mailbox two notes, with one question on each: “Who are you?” and “Where does the world come from?” From that irresistible beginning, Sophie becomes obsessed with questions that take her far beyond what she knows of her Norwegian village. Through those letters, she enrolls in a kind of correspondence course, covering Socrates to Sartre, with a mysterious philosopher, while receiving letters addressed to another girl. Who is Hilde? And why does her mail keep turning up? To unravel this riddle, Sophie must use the philosophy she is learning—but the truth turns out to be far more complicated than she could have imagined.
A page-turning novel that is also an exploration of the great philosophical concepts of Western thought, Sophie’s World has fired the imagination of readers all over the world, with more than twenty million copies in print.
One day fourteen-year-old Sophie Amundsen comes home from school to find in her mailbox two notes, with one question on each: “Who are you?” and “Where does the world come from?” From that irresistible beginning, Sophie becomes obsessed with questions that take her far beyond what she knows of her Norwegian village. Through those letters, she enrolls in a kind of correspondence course, covering Socrates to Sartre, with a mysterious philosopher, while receiving letters addressed to another girl. Who is Hilde? And why does her mail keep turning up? To unravel this riddle, Sophie must use the philosophy she is learning—but the truth turns out to be far more complicated than she could have imagined.
Sophie's World was originally written in Norwegian and became a best seller in Norway. It won the Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis in 1994. The English version of the novel was published in 1995, and the book was reported to be the best-selling book in the world in that year.
Lots to comment on here and it is still a work in progress but the scope and tightness of the narrative when considering that scope is really impressive. Not just the history of philosophy but lots of world history thrown in. While talking about the history of the Western or European world is not exactly uncharted territory, Gaarder does it in the correct historical analytical way of citing accepting sources but interjecting original or objective thought. As much as possible at least. It is a very impressive undertaking!
ReplyDeleteThat said, I am almost having a harder time to absorb the material because it is produced in a fictional narrative. Seeing the history of the Western world through the eyes of a teenager, outside my own experience of course, is a fascinating way to absorb it but I admit that it is so much and presented in such a harmless way that it almost resonates less. If that makes sense. I still can't stop reading it so criticism with grain of salt.
Rereading our work so far and stuck on your comment in LOF in which you argued
ReplyDeletethat individual ethics are determined by the lens of their society, not the reverse in which I implied individual code drives society. It is a round about and I can’t come up with the chicken or the egg. I’m trying to relate to today’s situation in the White House. The lack of character and the widespread corruption seem to give people permission to act out their ugliness..the id without filter. Maybe Sophie’s philosopher will shed light.
So many points we touched which could generate more discussion and application.
Part 1 of ? --
ReplyDeleteMy intimidation factor was high for this book since philosophy was not a subject I know much about. At least the history and evolution of it. Part of that is intentional as it was a discipline that, from my limited knowledge, I felt contributed little to the overall advance of thought and science. Fun since it is the discipline of thought. One would think, then, that this book is the perfect foil for that opinion.
Gaarder asserts that our mental well-being and health is dependent on the questions developed through the history of philosophy. He demonstrates the great thinkers of history have agreed on this alone though certainly not agreeing which are the right questions to ask to maintain our human mental identity. Once our physical well-being is accounted for, according to the book, we must turn to the questions of the mind and being. I suppose this has always been my concern with philosophy. What is the measure of physical well-being? Is it any coincidence that those considered great philosophers had the means and time to ponder these questions while the vast majority of humanity, then and now, who were to be the students of these teachers were so far removed from physical comfort that questions on the nature of our being were certainly not important?
It is beyond the scope of this book and not really related but it does give some background why I found this read feel insular at times. While it does cover a massive amount of time and distance in discussing the philosophers and their surroundings as well as the concepts of space, creation, existence, etc., I felt walled in by the idea by the type of thought philosophy endorses. It is not a faith/reason issue as we saw several of the individuals mentioned in the book attempted to reconcile the two. Despite the expanse of the knowledge discussed and imparted in the book and the revision and alteration of popular philosophical thought, it was quite linear. One would expect such a thing when following the path of Western human civilizations.
I do also wonder, this being a history of philosophy, why it was firmly rooted in the European interpretation of it? Some non-Western thinkers are mentioned but not in the same level of detail or introspection. A world-view on the human thought on existence might be out of the range of a single work of fiction of course so I can’t use it as a proper aspect of the book I didn’t care for but largely ignoring the vast majority of the world’s civilizations and thought does seem to limit the conversation somewhat.
I’m only 1/3 way through the book, but the vastness it covers leads me to comment in part. It raises so many questions which thinkers have addressed since time has been recorded—600BC in this accounting—and probably earlier though I would expect earlier population would be solely focused on survival—searching for food, shelter, safety, and procreation to extend the species, much as we observe in animals and even threatened societies today, those you point out haven’t been granted a cocoon of physical well-being.
DeleteWhile he does focus on Indo-European thought progression, Gaarder contrasts and compares ties to Hinduism and Buddhism as he walks us through cultural mergers of Semites and Greco-Roman empires. Indeed it seems tolerance among tribes was much more widely practiced than in our still tribal world today. He also points to the Middle Age Church of Rome as being the seed of the view still challenged today that women are “lesser.” Politics and religion are intertwined, no matter legislation to the contrary. Philosophy/ related ideas stem from related languages, written or oral. Words matter.
DeleteHow many different names for the idea of God or Creator span time and distance, even if the concept is the root of all belief even in 3000 year old myths! From a common Semitic birth, Christianity diverged from Islam and Judaism when the New Testament was created from Greek-Latin direction. And look where we are now, suspicious and insular in our singular thinking. The progression is linear, though ideas throughout history backtrack, overlap, and reappear. Perhaps the answers to our most complex questions are simple, as you said, and merely clothed in the language/beliefs of their time. We decorate them, hanging bobbles of new inventions and discoveries, while losing the truth kernels that underpin human’s ability to share and maintain our planet.
Part 2 of ??--
ReplyDeleteGaarder equates philosophy with living both through the awakening of Sophie through instruction, the growth and maturation of both her and Hilde as they turn 15 age wise but minds are opened to the vast history of humankind’s thoughts on being, on the realization that Sophie and Alberto are constructs but those with sentient thought and how we, the readers, deal with similar feelings of control and direction in our own lives. I thought the layers and ways in which he used Sophie’s life outside of the course to reflect the teaching of the various famous philosophers as well as the growth of philosophical thought as masterful. As this was a primer written for tween and middle grade students, it makes me wonder how much further along the Norwegians are in their education and encouragement of thought than we are in SOL land. That so much complex theory and postulations can be broken down and made understandable seems contradictory, in a good way, to the complex and amorphous nature in which philosophy is often shrouded. The most complex things are made up of simple parts.
It is assumed, and I believe that Sophie asks about this herself, that humans are the only ones capable of philosophical thought. I find I can’t get away from my thought that our admiration for our ability to think and think we are the only ones to think because we think we are the only ones that do so in the manner in which we do to be a lot like the Oscars. Let’s pat ourselves on the back for something that matters only to us. The ability to think about the why’s and how’s is important, especially when it relates to larger picture such as the environment and our place in it. I can see the benefit that philosophy can contribute to other sciences, disciplines, moral actions, etc. Even after all its history, I still don’t find it to be the crowning achievement of life. As such, the center stage and amount of change attributed to it was a bit tiring. Placed in the limited historical context in which each figure existed helped define it more clearly as an aspect of a time period and reflective of greater changes in society but in a limited fashion as such was not the focus of the book.
Seriously, this book was written for young readers?! How far have we strayed to rote learning in this country and why? To accommodate easy grading of multi choice tests or sacrifice instruction time to after school activities? At home do families even entertain differing ideas much less discuss them? In universities students who feel uncomfortable when new ideas are introduced can hide in special trigger rooms where they can cling to preconceived notions or play games on their phones. So we limit ourselves to Internet rants with those who share our views, gleaned from headlines or cable TV.
DeleteI agree that philosophical thought isn’t the be-all of existence, but I think it is a prime part of achieving the human potential to avoid destruction of our race and our planet. It is satisfying, in a way, that we still have basic unanswered questions in our touted self image gained through technological advances. Astro scientists have discovered smaller and smaller particles even as scopes and satellites reach farther into the vast reaches of space, yet we still can’t define what initiated it all—the “other”— 14 billion years ago. It’s important to have wisdom and insight to assess our place in the universe. Those come from the tie of curiosity to lead to further enlightenment. Such questioning has been the wandering path of philosophical thought. It is at least a leg on the stool of human development and continued existence. Does our ability to think make us superior to all other living things, all of which are capable in ways we are not? I suppose ability to ponder is only an asset if used for good, as it also has the potential for evil, for placing oneself above the needs of the many who make up our coexistent world. Thinking and questioning complicate, even as they enrich.
Part 3 of ??
ReplyDeleteThe biggest sticking point of the book which makes sense as it is the biggest sticking point of non-secular human thought (though it might bleed in) is the issue of free will. Belief in a guiding force seems to negate the right to free will. We do think and make decisions and live our lives but without belief that it is based on our own choices there is no freedom in that. Uncertainty does not preclude free will. Random events or the actions of others do not indicate guiding forces. Belief in the soul doesn’t automatically mean subscribing to a creation theory I would think. The concept of soul and how it is linked to the ability to question existence and therefore recognize the presence of a higher power doesn’t resonate with me and I don’t know of any of the philosophers in the book that reconciled that absence. All had a central basis of creation or source of reason. Life itself is what it is. One creatures ability to do something is an evolutionary adaptation so all life has as much claim as humans to the concept of soul which to me is just a life spark. The ability to question what that means might actually be more of a hindrance than anything.
This book is a slow slog for me, not because it isn’t interesting but because it is! I can’t just speed read through as he presents so many digestible ideas. I turn each philosophical/theological/scientific/artistic view over like a jewel in my hand as I accept or reject it into my own belief system. The book’s format both gives a breather in the instruction and allows for Sophie’s simple rephrasing of her teacher’s didactic prose
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to imagine Sophie as being best selling book in the world one year! Did people actually read and learn from it? Not something to occupy a commute! It expands the mind over centuries of views re the questions of our existence which are still puzzles. When we read daily news of our conflicts and shallow perception of the miracle of Earth and our place in the universe, the idea that we aren’t reality seems plausible. How clever and risky to combine historical philosophy with a fantasy mystery, through the eyes of a 15 year old at that!
ReplyDeleteThe dips into prominent thought through the Ages build into the need to organize a spread sheet. The constant is the questions pursued. As Alberto points out, the answers evolve through changing time and culture, influenced by politics, science, and needs. The scope of time from the beginning and into the future is beyond our comprehension. It feels like a zoom lens expanding and contracting to fill us with wonder. I guess like Sophie, it is our individual task to comes to terms with our identity and thus, our beliefs, on a scale we can grasp.
I think the soul is eternal, a spark of our Creator/God which is within every living thing. And when the body dies, the soul returns to its origin. Not to a heaven where billions of shadow people/ animals exist in a timeless nonjudgmental lump. I think animals also have a soul spark, but not the ability to question their existence. I think what we do, how we live, in our bodily time is important because Earth is too perfect not to be Eden. Kant made sense to me in saying when we follow our reason to make moral choices, we exercise our free will because when we conform to moral law, it is we who make the law, a circular argument. It reminds me of our discussion of previous reads, conscience vs societal rules. In fact, the thread of questions raised by the poster choices so far are the same as those raised by thinkers through all of time. My point is we can only exercise our personal conclusions based on our tools of reason and senses, as is our gift and our responsibility. Sophie’s World could be overwhelming in volume but it was an able impetus.
Part 4 of 4 it seems -
ReplyDeleteOne of the cleverest parts of the book is using Sophie, and even more so Hilde, to teach us how to best approach and absorb the non-fiction elements of the book. Gaarder intends us as philosophy students to absorb the material in the way that the characters do and gives us a road map to comprehension through their experiences. The questions that arise in Sophie’s and Hilde’s minds are the questions that Gaarder wants us to ask as well as the questions that the philosophers in the book asked themselves. Very clever.
There is certainly so weighted bias to the presentation of the various schools of thought as some key figures are granted a paragraph and others a chapter so it is easy to see which school the author subscribes to but it is understandable. Nietzche is brushed over but Sartre gets explored in detail for an overview. The book would be even more overwhelming if every thinkers was addressed the same way so I can understand the need to edit for flow.
As I have mentioned throughout my comments, this subject is not in my wheelhouse but it does what it aims to do in making me ask what it is I believe and how I view the world and our place in it. As I have said in a previous post, I feel that there is a soul but that is the spark of life so extends to animals as well as plants. I don’t attribute it to anything other than existence. Human ability to ask questions or acknowledge our being is not a sign of anything other than evolutionary brain development. When humans are making up the questions and answers as to what development and higher thinking are, they become less than defining as there is a built in bias and a pre-determined answer. I like the idea of all matter returning to a central source to be recycled again as something else which is something I always liked in Buddhist though. In the end, thought such as this, again as mentioned before, is the luxury of the well-to-do and a curse as much a boon. A great book and a great overview of a complex subject. The structure and layers of the book might be the most impressive thing about it. I wonder how it flowed in the original Norwegian.
A fun follow-up:
"Sophie’s World in danger: Living as though everything centres on our time is just as naive as thinking the Earth is flat."
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/sophie-s-world-in-danger-living-as-though-everything-centres-on-our-time-is-just-as-naive-as-a6685241.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete