I really liked the Treaty of atheology, because outside of some excesses, there was learning many things ... In the against-the history of philosophy, as we learn ... but a trickle. The writing is very repetitive effect (the same information is written to several times, almost identical), fairly heavy, with a recurring process of presentation of philosophers as "not like this, but like this, not like this, but like this, "or in a list of 10, sometimes 20 consecutive adjectives. Information is very diluted (I think we could easily divide the number of pages of books by 2) and there are few truly exciting portraits (1 of 4 or 5 on average). On this Volume 2, philosophers speak of unknown or ignored while Montaigne occupies almost half of the book does not make much sense! Especially if it's to announce that Montaigne was a Christian, what none of his readers do not know! (It is hoped that the "revelation" of the deist Voltaire and not atheist will not occupy 100 pages in a forthcoming book!). It remains to support the anti-Christian obsession with the author crystallizes on some characters, like St. Paul, invariably accused of being a hysterical and neurotic patient to forget the criticism finer otherwise he could have make on others, like St. Augustine (because if there is a figure whose work is at odds with its reputation, it's him!), he merely cites the turning of a page so very vague, which seems to say that his knowledge of the author are not first hand ...? Similarly, when talking about Pascal is for the caricature partiality by retaining its most objectionable writings (ie only a portion of thoughts, and nothing on the provincials, of course). For Jesus, this bad faith skyrocketed since first develops the thesis of its non-existence, more than many historians venture to defend (and which is also not the problem), not before remember that parts of the Gospels alleged against him (Jesus driving the merchants from the temple) or interpreting phrases in the order to give a negative image of the character. His sentence is summed up in one word: Jesus is a character "lantern" and without substance! (Not bad for someone who, however, was not even exist). Overall, a number that gives the impression of being written in a hurry, food way, then it might have deserved more detailed analysis and focus on philosophers whose analysis really proves rewarding (and there!).
