Socialism And Anarchism (1914)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081765052&view=2up&seq=1
A Guide To Plato (1922)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Blue_Book
https://books.google.gr/books/about/A_Guide_to_Plato.html?id=NUyknQEACAAJ
The Story Of Aristotle's Philosophy (1923) ✓
https://archive.org/details/storyofaristotle39dura/page/n1/mode/2up
The Philosophy Of Immanuel Kant (1924)
https://archive.org/details/philosophyofimma641dura/page/n1/mode/2up
The Story Of Schopenhauer's Philosophy (1924)
https://archive.org/details/storyofschopenha700dura/page/n3/mode/2up
Voltaire And The French Enlightenment (1924) ✓
https://archive.org/details/voltairefrenchen512dura/page/n1/mode/2up
Anatole France: The Man And His Work (1925)
https://archive.org/details/anatolefranceman839dura/page/n1/mode/2up
Contemporary American Philosophers: Santayana, James, And Dewey (1925)
https://archive.org/details/contemporaryamer813dura/page/n1/mode/2up
Contemporary European Philosophers: Bergson, Croce, And Bertrand Russell (1925)
https://archive.org/details/contemporaryeuro802dura/page/n1/mode/2up
The Philosophy Of Herbert Spencer (1925)
https://archive.org/details/philosophyofherb772dura/page/n1/mode/2up
Philosophy And The Social Problem (1928 · 2nd Edition)
By “philosophy” we shall understand a study of experience as a whole, or of a portion of experience in relation to the whole.
By the “social problem” we shall understand, simply and very broadly, the problem of reducing human misery by modifying social institutions. It is a problem that, ever reshaping itself, eludes sharper definition; for misery is related to desire, and desire is personal and in perpetual flux: each of us sees the problem unsteadily in terms of his own changing aspirations. It is an uncomfortably complicated problem, of course; and we must bear in mind that the limit of our intention here is to consider philosophy as an approach to the problem, and the problem itself as an approach to philosophy. We are proposing no solutions.
Let us, as a wholesome measure of orientation, touch some of the mountain-peaks in philosophical history, with an eye for the social interest that lurks in every metaphysical maze. “Aristotle”, says Professor Woodbridge, “set treatise-writers the fashion of beginning each treatise by reviewing previous opinions on their subject, and proving them all wrong”.[1] The purpose of the next five chapters will be rather the opposite: we shall see if some supposedly dead philosophies do not admit of considerable resuscitation. Instead of trying to show that Socrates, Plato, Bacon, Spinoza, and Nietzsche were quite mistaken in their views on the social problem, we shall try to see what there is in these views that can help us to understand our own situation to-day. We shall not make a collection of systems of social philosophy; we shall not lose ourselves in the past in a scholarly effort to relate each philosophy to its social and political environment; we shall try to relate these philosophies rather to our own environment, to look at our own problems successively through the eyes of these philosophers. Other interpretations of these men we shall not so much contradict as seek to supplement.
Each of our historical chapters, then, will be not so much a review as a preface and a progression. The aim will be neither history nor criticism, but a kind of construction by proxy. It is a method that has its defects: it will, for example, sacrifice thoroughness of scholarship to present applicability, and will necessitate some repetitious gathering of the threads when we come later to our more personal purpose. But as part requital for this, we shall save ourselves from considering the past except as it is really present, except as it is alive and nourishingly significant to-day. And from each study we shall perhaps make some advance towards our final endeavor,—the mutual elucidation of the social problem and philosophy." (Introduction)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015003292607&view=2up&seq=16