







































isparchitecture.com

BOOK REVIEW

PHILOSOPHY OF ARCHITECTURE,

BY CHRISTIAN ILLIES & NICHOLAS RAY

LONDON: CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURAL PRESS, 
2014.

ISBN: 978-0993053009

PRICE: $20.99

REVIEWED BY STEFAN KOLLER & TOM SPECTOR 

Most readers of  this journal 
have probably experienced skeptical  
responses when trying to explain 
their interest in the philosophy of  
architecture. What could such a field 
consist in? Why does architecture need philosophy? Why does philosophy 
need architecture? What are the field’s main topics? If  only a brief  overview 
of  the field existed (is it a field yet?), then we could hand our interlocutors 
the book secure in the knowledge that, yes architecture philosophy is a field, 
it has definable boundaries, and contains distinct subject matter.

While we would be justified in doubting whether an overview of  the 
subject is achievable, particularly one that confronts outsiders’ skepticism 
head on, Christian Illies and Nicholas Ray have assembled, in their words, a 
“little handbook.” The primary task of  such a project is always to balance the 
need for brevity while still doing justice to the subject matter. It is a balancing 
act Illies and Ray have accomplished with considerable elegance.

Philosophy of  Architecture weighs-in at a right-sized 161 pages (including 
bibliography) for a handbook. It consists of  four chapters plus a lengthy 
introduction that is divided into three overarching sections: an introductory 
section surveys the ways in which architecture theory has appropriated 
“Philosophical Ideas and World Views,” the central section discusses how 
applied ethics and aesthetics have been harnessed to explicate architectural 
topics, and the final section delineates “Philosophical Positions Illustrated in 
Architectural Practice.” While this last section may be of  use to philosophers 
seeking to better understand how to engage architecture to their areas of  



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

84

BO
OK

 R
EV

IE
W

interest, it is fair to say that the bulk of  the book is aimed at delineating 
philosophical positions to an architectural audience. 

The first chapter begins with Plato’s theory of  forms and its influence 
on Renaissance thinking. This focus on absolutes gives way in the 
eighteenth century to a more historically-aware philosophy informed 
by Kant and Hegel which in turn opens the door for the relativism of  
Nietzsche. On the heels of  Nietzsche, Heidegger’s influence on such 
late-modern thinkers as Christian Norberg-Schulz, Karsten Harries, 
and Juhani Pallasmaa is traced up to the start of  the “post-metaphysical 
age” exemplified in the cultivation of  irony found in architectural post-
modernism. The second chapter, on ethics, usefully categorizes and 
discusses six distinct ways in which the study of  ethics and architecture is 
approached: as professional ethics, as a response to a building’s function, 
its impact on the natural environment, its impact on humans’ physical well-
being and on their psychological flourishing, and architecture’s symbolic 
or cultural role. In the third chapter, the classic problems of  aesthetics—
beauty’s subjective nature, problems of  judgment, questions of  artworks’ 
cognitive content—are discussed in relation to the aesthetic appreciation 
of  architecture. Topics of  crucial import for architects concerning the 
implicit conflicts between aesthetics and function and between aesthetics 
and ethics are introduced so that the novice can grasp the essence of  these 
complex issues. The chapter concludes in a well-rounded discussion of  
modernism’s ambivalence towards the goal of  beauty. In the final chapter, 
the philosophical commitments of  architects Louis Kahn, Rem Koolhaas, 
and Alvar Aalto are discussed to introduce the more general idea that 
philosophical positions can have both implicit and explicit components 
relevant to architectural practice.

While the philosophical areas Illies and Ray’s book most heavily focuses 
on—ethics and aesthetics—are certainly two bedrock (and intertwining) 
fields of  interest for architecture, the liability of  balancing brevity and 
comprehensiveness is such that, inevitably, some philosophical fields of  
interest to architects will be left out. We could ask, for example, what of  
phenomenology? Sure it has been in retreat lately, but it has certainly been 
a subject of  some interest. Environmental ethics has been such a richly 
developing area in recent decades that, especially considering the urgency 
of  the situation, it probably merits more than a page and a half. Feminism 
gets no mention at all. Philosophy of  media is similarly absent.

Even within analytic philosophy (the authors’ allegiance likely falls here) 
core areas—like metaphysics and epistemology—with some relevance to 
architectural questions are left for others to address. In this sense, the book 
serves as a perfect complement to Saul Fisher’s recent overview to analytic 
philosophy of  architecture in the Stanford Encyclopedia of  Philosophy: Fisher 
shines in areas where the book is terse, and vice versa. Between the two, 



85

isparchitecture.com

neophytes to analytic philosophy of  architecture 
could hardly wish for easier initiation.

Hence, for an overview of  the more longstanding 
areas of  philosophical interest, as well as some 
introduction to recent events in those areas, 
Philosophy of  Architecture does what a good “little 
handbook” should do: it presents the fields in 
such a way that a reader with a budding interest in 
these matters can delve into them further with the 
confidence that there is, in fact, a field to delve into.

The book avoids idiosyncratic readings of  
historical key figures and unsubstantiated claims 
of  where contemporary philosophy is, and where 
it ought to be heading—factors that occasionally 
tempered the credibility and neutrality of  a 
comparable title, Branko Mitrovic’s Philosophy for 
Architects (Princeton 2011). Given the introductory 
nature of  both books, all three authors feel compelled 
to largely privilege the (historical) exposition of  
philosophical views over these views’ philosophical 
examination. While natural, this choice rings odd 
when both books proclaim that examination 
of  arguments (pro and contra) for given views 
characterizes contemporary philosophical practice at 
its very best. In fairness, initiating an architectural 
audience into philosophical practice—or indeed a 
philosophical one to architectural practice—might 
well be an unrealistic expectation for a 160-page 
“handbook”. Still, as these books have set our 
expectations otherwise, a sense of  lost opportunity 
lingers.

For all its commendable neutrality, a book 
such as Illies and Ray’s cannot completely eschew 
a philosophical stance—and it is here that the 
book would have most benefited from some real 
argumentation. Towards the end of  the book, 
the authors propose a view that philosophical 
puzzles on architecture—especially puzzles arising 
from conflicting theoretic demands leveled at 
architecture—must come to an end: only the 
architectural design can effectively ‘synthesize’ 
and (to varying degrees of  success) integrate or 
harmonize such theoretic tensions. While it may 

[the] Authors 
privilege the 

historical 
exposition of 

philosophical 
views over 

these views’ 
philosophical 

examination.

“

”



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

86

BO
OK

 R
EV

IE
W

seem plausible to posit that architecture is uniquely positioned to render 
moot philosophical puzzles about architecture, the authors’ suggestion is 
actually stronger than this. With design positioned as “the core human 
discipline, being the only activity that properly involves the imaginative 
conception of  ideas, leading to artifacts that are realized as actual 
construction in the world” (145) the authors want to claim the further 
step that architecture can help resolve philosophical problems in general.

One is reminded of  Wittgenstein’s saying that “Explanations come to 
an end somewhere.”1 However, where Wittgenstein envisaged mystical 
silence or therapeutic expulsion of  cravings for explanation, Illies and 
Ray intend for design solutions to fill this gap. This is a tall order for 
architecture to fill—can it deliver? The authors appear confident on this 
point; indeed, they herald their book’s achievements in exactly those colors 
on the back cover.

Such a proposal raises a host of  issues, some of  which are broached 
in their new paper in this issue. One, for this provocative reversal of  the 
age old thesis of  philosophy as ‘first science’ (Aristotle) or ‘handmaiden’ 
to the theoretic and applied sciences (Locke) to attain credibility, readers 
will eventually want to see an illustration of  the thesis, in a concrete 
building project from commission to execution. How exactly does such 
a project, especially at execution stage, synthesize and solve philosophical 
conundrums? What is more, can such a solution receive articulation in 
anything other than built form (say, in an architect’s report about her 
building’s achievements to an absentee client)? If  it cannot, and especially 
cannot receive articulation in verbal form (written or spoken), how can we 
ascertain that a solution has been found? How, in other words, does the 
authors’ cryptic proposal at this point not collapse into Wittgenstein’s early 
view on ‘the aesthetic’ as being something that cannot be (meaningfully, 
determinately) spoken of, but rather demands that philosophy instead 
become the silent one? If  the view does so collapse, how do synthesis and 
silence coincide? What would constitute acceptable evidence that they do 
coincide?2

The book, then, ends on a highly intriguing note ripe for future 
investigation. Its final proposal allocates to architecture a much greater role 
in framing and deciding philosophical questions than any (certainly recent) 
philosophers have been willing to accord it. Architects will likely welcome 
this recognition of  their discipline’s contribution to philosophical dialogue. 
Indeed, it can be reasonably hoped that architects, not philosophers, will 
develop and substantiate the book’s conclusion towards a more satisfactory 
and compelling stage. Philosophy of  Architecture thus illustrates, rather than 
anticipates the end of, the many surprising turns philosophy can take: that 
even in a “little handbook,” fresh questions emerge; questions liable to 
stimulate future discussion for quite some time.



87

isparchitecture.com

ENDNOTES
1. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, translated by Elizabeth 
Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 1953), §1.
2. Such questions were raised, and debated in considerable depth, at the 2015 
ISPA symposium at the Wittgenstein house – though not in response to Illies 
and Ray’s work, but in relation to Wittgenstein’s own purported ‘quietism’ 
with respect to the aesthetics of, but not only of, architecture. Readers 
interested in, or finding themselves at the receiving end of, such questions 
are invited to peruse a selection of  that symposium’s contributions in the 
next issue of  Architecture Philosophy, edited by Carolyn Fahey. 


	_GoBack

