What do you think?
Rate this book
تَفَكَّرْ: مدخل أخّاذ إلى الفلسفة
هذا الكتاب مدخل ذكيٌّ، واضح، جذّاب، يتوجّه إلى قارئ لا يكتفي بتلقّي (الفكرة) وإنّما يحرص أيضًا على معرفة الطريقة التي يتمّ بها طرحُها وتناولها. إنّه دعوة رصينة إلى التفكّر وإلى التأمل الذاتيّ في مسائل هي من نوع ما ينبني عليه وجودنا. وهو، في ما يعرض ويحلّل من مذاهب ومقولات ووجهات نظر، لا يُملي شيئًا منها وإنّما يحفّز على التفكّر فيها، تفكّرًا يتجدّد، لا يتوقّف.
343 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
2,033 people are currently reading
15.3k people want to read
About the author
Simon Blackburn
70books257followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the ŷ database.
Simon Blackburn FBA is an English academic philosopher known for his work in metaethics, where he defends quasi-realism, and in the philosophy of language; more recently, he has gained a large general audience from his efforts to popularise philosophy.
He retired as the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge in 2011, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching every fall semester. He is also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a member of the professoriate of New College of the Humanities. He was previously a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and has also taught full-time at the University of North Carolina as an Edna J. Koury Professor. He is a former president of the Aristotelian Society, having served the 2009�2010 term. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008.
Simon Blackburn FBA is an English academic philosopher known for his work in metaethics, where he defends quasi-realism, and in the philosophy of language; more recently, he has gained a large general audience from his efforts to popularise philosophy.
He retired as the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge in 2011, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching every fall semester. He is also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a member of the professoriate of New College of the Humanities. He was previously a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and has also taught full-time at the University of North Carolina as an Edna J. Koury Professor. He is a former president of the Aristotelian Society, having served the 2009�2010 term. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 400 reviews
July 4, 2012
Pitched as an introduction to philosophy, this book is actually very heavy going. Time and again I found myself re-reading sentences several times until I concluded that I couldn't get what the author was trying to say, before moving on to the next sentence, with some amount of hope that the previous sentence wasn't important anyway. It seems to me that modern philosophers have all reached the conclusion that the big questions have already all been answered as well as they are ever going to be. Therefore, the only way to find employment as a modern philosopher is to construct confusing answers for the unanswerable questions in order to hide the fact that, essentially, they have nothing new to say.
I started with the God chapter and it soon became apparent that the author is trying to prevent the reader from 'thinking' for themselves, by subtly peddling his mildly atheistic viewpoint. At least, I think that's what he was doing. It's hard to know for sure when you find yourself unable to read so much of it. To quote page 151: "To jump the gun a little, I am going to present a fair number of reasons against supposing that anything recognizable as religious belief is true. Some readers may feel threatened by this. They can take some comfort from the tradition in theology that the more unlikely a belief is to be true, the more meritorious is the act of faith required to believe it. But at the end of the chapter, the restless spirit of reflection will cause us to look at that view as well." Look at the nice long words he uses. And the long meandering sentences. This isn't even an example of one of his most impenetrable paragraphs. This is the paragraph that first alerted me to the fact that the author is not neutral, but wants us to think he is. Condescendingly, he tells us here that believing in God is reasonable, but wrong. I think :oS
So, that whole chapter is devoted to semi-dismissing some of the weaker arguments FOR the existence of God. Some people will be delighted and encouraged by the conclusions that the author shepherds us towards, but religious people, agnostics, free-thinking philosophers and even open-minded atheists (I know there are some) will be disappointed. Whoever you are, whatever you believe, you have to admit that there are zero bomb-proof arguments for or against the existence of God. From a religious point of view, that can only be a good thing. Evidence of God's existence would remove the need for faith, and with it all those meritorious benefits of faith-based belief. If there were any bomb-proof arguments against God, then we wouldn't keep getting fed with all the weaker arguments.
What would have been nice, and neutral, is a substantial section in which Simon exposes the flaws of the most common atheistic arguments AGAINST the existence of God. However, if you are a non-neutral author addressing this subject, then probably you are only ever going to be interested in arguing your side of the debate. Missed opportunity, epic fail. Did he do that because he is not confident enough in his atheism? If he was confident then he'd have no need to worry about arguing the other side. To paraphrase Epicurus: "Is Simon willing to be neutral, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is biased. Is he both willing and able? Then why argue only one side of a debate? Is he neither willing nor able? Then how can we call him a philosopher?" Shazam, my friends. Sha-zam!
The rest of the chapter is subdivided into bite-size chunks, but the sources he quotes are often even harder to digest than his own words. The first one is 11th century medieval monk St. Anselm. I won't repeat it here, but suffice to say it is written in a way which might have made sense to Anselm and his chums nearly 1000 years ago, but is pretty difficult to read for us today. Okay, one small part of Anselm's quote: "But when this same fool hears me say 'something than which nothing greater can be thought', he surely understands what he hears, and what he understands exists in his understanding; even if he does not understand that it exists (in reality)...". Urgh, is the word. Translation required, Mr Blackburn. Request denied.
Please don't allow this book to put you off the subject of philosophy. I have several philosophy books which are all much more readable than this. After reading most of the God chapter I can tell you that so far I have learned nothing interesting. A basic introduction, in terms of subjects dealt with, it may well be. But a basic introduction needn't be this difficult to read. I suspect that the people who say this is a good book, or not deep enough, are people who want to tell the world how intelligent and well-read they are. I am very intelligent, but I couldn't read this and I don't mind admitting it.
I started with the God chapter and it soon became apparent that the author is trying to prevent the reader from 'thinking' for themselves, by subtly peddling his mildly atheistic viewpoint. At least, I think that's what he was doing. It's hard to know for sure when you find yourself unable to read so much of it. To quote page 151: "To jump the gun a little, I am going to present a fair number of reasons against supposing that anything recognizable as religious belief is true. Some readers may feel threatened by this. They can take some comfort from the tradition in theology that the more unlikely a belief is to be true, the more meritorious is the act of faith required to believe it. But at the end of the chapter, the restless spirit of reflection will cause us to look at that view as well." Look at the nice long words he uses. And the long meandering sentences. This isn't even an example of one of his most impenetrable paragraphs. This is the paragraph that first alerted me to the fact that the author is not neutral, but wants us to think he is. Condescendingly, he tells us here that believing in God is reasonable, but wrong. I think :oS
So, that whole chapter is devoted to semi-dismissing some of the weaker arguments FOR the existence of God. Some people will be delighted and encouraged by the conclusions that the author shepherds us towards, but religious people, agnostics, free-thinking philosophers and even open-minded atheists (I know there are some) will be disappointed. Whoever you are, whatever you believe, you have to admit that there are zero bomb-proof arguments for or against the existence of God. From a religious point of view, that can only be a good thing. Evidence of God's existence would remove the need for faith, and with it all those meritorious benefits of faith-based belief. If there were any bomb-proof arguments against God, then we wouldn't keep getting fed with all the weaker arguments.
What would have been nice, and neutral, is a substantial section in which Simon exposes the flaws of the most common atheistic arguments AGAINST the existence of God. However, if you are a non-neutral author addressing this subject, then probably you are only ever going to be interested in arguing your side of the debate. Missed opportunity, epic fail. Did he do that because he is not confident enough in his atheism? If he was confident then he'd have no need to worry about arguing the other side. To paraphrase Epicurus: "Is Simon willing to be neutral, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is biased. Is he both willing and able? Then why argue only one side of a debate? Is he neither willing nor able? Then how can we call him a philosopher?" Shazam, my friends. Sha-zam!
The rest of the chapter is subdivided into bite-size chunks, but the sources he quotes are often even harder to digest than his own words. The first one is 11th century medieval monk St. Anselm. I won't repeat it here, but suffice to say it is written in a way which might have made sense to Anselm and his chums nearly 1000 years ago, but is pretty difficult to read for us today. Okay, one small part of Anselm's quote: "But when this same fool hears me say 'something than which nothing greater can be thought', he surely understands what he hears, and what he understands exists in his understanding; even if he does not understand that it exists (in reality)...". Urgh, is the word. Translation required, Mr Blackburn. Request denied.
Please don't allow this book to put you off the subject of philosophy. I have several philosophy books which are all much more readable than this. After reading most of the God chapter I can tell you that so far I have learned nothing interesting. A basic introduction, in terms of subjects dealt with, it may well be. But a basic introduction needn't be this difficult to read. I suspect that the people who say this is a good book, or not deep enough, are people who want to tell the world how intelligent and well-read they are. I am very intelligent, but I couldn't read this and I don't mind admitting it.
March 31, 2020
I’ve read this ages ago, but since I’ve recently decided to start reading all the philosophy books that I’ve been putting off for some time now, I thought this might be a great refresher.
This book is a good introduction to the genre and it does a great job at categorising the big themes and questions of philosophy. You get a taste of what’s to come if you decide to delve further into the topics.
It’s short and concise (as concise as any philosophy book can be).
This book is a good introduction to the genre and it does a great job at categorising the big themes and questions of philosophy. You get a taste of what’s to come if you decide to delve further into the topics.
It’s short and concise (as concise as any philosophy book can be).
June 27, 2010
Who am I? What is the world? Does god exist? Do I have a free will? These are questions every single one of us has asked himself in the course of his life: some only to consider them as unimportant and forget about them, others countless times, dwelling on possible answers and becoming more and more fascinated with them. If you are one of the latter - and I certainly am - this is a book for you.
Though slightly arrogant, the sub-title of the book is the best description of its contents: 'A compelling introduction to philosophy'. Blackburn uses his experience and education as a philosopher to give a basic overview of the central arguments in each popular field of philosophy. While evaluating these arguments, he conveys his fascination with philosophy to the reader.
Before continuing with a more detailed description of the book's contents, let me warn those of you who want to read this book passively, consuming its contents like the superficial plot of a bad work of fiction: This will simply not do. There is a reason the book's title is "Think". You really have to!
Blackburn groups the philosophical arguments into different categories of reasoning, allowing the reader to grasp the chains of reasoning in one particular field before understanding the relations between different philosophists and their cultural/religious background.
In the first chapter "Knowledge", he describes Descartes famous 'proof' of the existence of the world, in which Descartes reasons that god exists (both the trademark argument and the ontological argument are given for his existence) and is not evil - so he would not deceive mankind and therefore the world exists. Blackburn points out the possibility of the "Cartesian circle", namely assuming god's existence in order to prove his existence. This chapter introduced me to the concept of coherentism, i.e. the belief that we do not need one single foundation for all our reasoning.
The following chapter deals with the mind: When I see the colour blue, do others see it the same way as I do? Is the relation between events and the feeling I feel totally random? Or might there only be one option for this relation, all other options being made impossible by physical facts such as is the case with our perception of colour?
The chapter on free will discusses the possibility of a predetermined fate like voiced in countless religious texts: Do we have a choice in what we do or is it only the result of cultural conditioning? Can we really blame a murderer for killing someone if he had a depression? In this chapter I first encountered the belief that reducing people to predetermined and conditioned factors objectivies them, taking away their humanity.
What is the self? Do we have a soul (and is it immortal)? These and other questions are discussed in the next chapter. The traditional argument for the immortality of the soul is that only composite things can decay - but the soul is not composite. As all the molecules our body are made out of change every few years (except the brain's I believe), the question must be asked: Am I the same person as I was when I was 5 years old? Locke answers this by saying that I am if and only if I have the same memories as the five-year old had: That allows for the possibility of person A being the same as person B and person B being the same as person C without person A being the same as person C, which seems to be a contradiction. But acutally, it is not, exactly because the soul/mind/consciousness/whatever is composite and not simple - being the same therefore only implies satisfactory resemblance.
The existence of god is the topic of the next chapter, in which all the standard arguments for god are shown and evaluated: ontological, cosmological, first cause and design. The issue of god - being all-caring - not being compatible with a world full of suffering is raised. Hume's most ingenious argument rejecting testimony of miracles is presented: He simply says that it is always more probably that someone made up the story than that the miracle happened. Problem solved. Pascal's argument for believing in god is described, namely that the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
Now comes my favourite chapter: Reasoning. In this chapter, Blackburn introduces the reader to symbolic logic and truth-tables. He shows how Frege overcame the ambiguity of language by introducing mathematic symbols (existential and universal quantifiers). He introduces the reader to the philosophy of language and how there are implications hidden in words like 'but'. He shows that there is no reason to believe the sky will continue to be blue or that any law of nature will exist in the next second. He gives the example of a test for a rare disease to explain the fallacy of ignoring the base rate and explains Baye's theorem.
Do things actually exist? Is something blue or do I only perceive it as blue? The chapter "The World" tries to point out traditional answers to questions like these. Some people say we should reduce matter to forces because forces are the only way we can study the world - our experience of matter is only deduced from forces acting upon it and therefore we don't really have any knowledge about matter. Does anything exist without somebody being conceiving it?
I am sorry to say that I was disappointed by the last chapter ("What to do"). This chapter does not even touch upon the most basic problems of ethics (such as Kant vs. Utilitarianism) and me having learnt basically only ethics in school this was quite heavy. Actually, Blackburn has written a whole other book on ethics later ("Being good"), so maybe it was too much of a topic to deal with in one chapter.
All in all this is a great book, introducing the reader to most of the important concepts of philosophy (minus ethics) and presenting the information and chains of reasoning in a way that makes the reader enjoy dwelling on philosophical problems. Nevertheless, this is not a perfectly easy read (quite natural, because the subject matter is not easy), but it still is worth the effort for everyone interested in philosophy.
Though slightly arrogant, the sub-title of the book is the best description of its contents: 'A compelling introduction to philosophy'. Blackburn uses his experience and education as a philosopher to give a basic overview of the central arguments in each popular field of philosophy. While evaluating these arguments, he conveys his fascination with philosophy to the reader.
Before continuing with a more detailed description of the book's contents, let me warn those of you who want to read this book passively, consuming its contents like the superficial plot of a bad work of fiction: This will simply not do. There is a reason the book's title is "Think". You really have to!
Blackburn groups the philosophical arguments into different categories of reasoning, allowing the reader to grasp the chains of reasoning in one particular field before understanding the relations between different philosophists and their cultural/religious background.
In the first chapter "Knowledge", he describes Descartes famous 'proof' of the existence of the world, in which Descartes reasons that god exists (both the trademark argument and the ontological argument are given for his existence) and is not evil - so he would not deceive mankind and therefore the world exists. Blackburn points out the possibility of the "Cartesian circle", namely assuming god's existence in order to prove his existence. This chapter introduced me to the concept of coherentism, i.e. the belief that we do not need one single foundation for all our reasoning.
The following chapter deals with the mind: When I see the colour blue, do others see it the same way as I do? Is the relation between events and the feeling I feel totally random? Or might there only be one option for this relation, all other options being made impossible by physical facts such as is the case with our perception of colour?
The chapter on free will discusses the possibility of a predetermined fate like voiced in countless religious texts: Do we have a choice in what we do or is it only the result of cultural conditioning? Can we really blame a murderer for killing someone if he had a depression? In this chapter I first encountered the belief that reducing people to predetermined and conditioned factors objectivies them, taking away their humanity.
What is the self? Do we have a soul (and is it immortal)? These and other questions are discussed in the next chapter. The traditional argument for the immortality of the soul is that only composite things can decay - but the soul is not composite. As all the molecules our body are made out of change every few years (except the brain's I believe), the question must be asked: Am I the same person as I was when I was 5 years old? Locke answers this by saying that I am if and only if I have the same memories as the five-year old had: That allows for the possibility of person A being the same as person B and person B being the same as person C without person A being the same as person C, which seems to be a contradiction. But acutally, it is not, exactly because the soul/mind/consciousness/whatever is composite and not simple - being the same therefore only implies satisfactory resemblance.
The existence of god is the topic of the next chapter, in which all the standard arguments for god are shown and evaluated: ontological, cosmological, first cause and design. The issue of god - being all-caring - not being compatible with a world full of suffering is raised. Hume's most ingenious argument rejecting testimony of miracles is presented: He simply says that it is always more probably that someone made up the story than that the miracle happened. Problem solved. Pascal's argument for believing in god is described, namely that the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
Now comes my favourite chapter: Reasoning. In this chapter, Blackburn introduces the reader to symbolic logic and truth-tables. He shows how Frege overcame the ambiguity of language by introducing mathematic symbols (existential and universal quantifiers). He introduces the reader to the philosophy of language and how there are implications hidden in words like 'but'. He shows that there is no reason to believe the sky will continue to be blue or that any law of nature will exist in the next second. He gives the example of a test for a rare disease to explain the fallacy of ignoring the base rate and explains Baye's theorem.
Do things actually exist? Is something blue or do I only perceive it as blue? The chapter "The World" tries to point out traditional answers to questions like these. Some people say we should reduce matter to forces because forces are the only way we can study the world - our experience of matter is only deduced from forces acting upon it and therefore we don't really have any knowledge about matter. Does anything exist without somebody being conceiving it?
I am sorry to say that I was disappointed by the last chapter ("What to do"). This chapter does not even touch upon the most basic problems of ethics (such as Kant vs. Utilitarianism) and me having learnt basically only ethics in school this was quite heavy. Actually, Blackburn has written a whole other book on ethics later ("Being good"), so maybe it was too much of a topic to deal with in one chapter.
All in all this is a great book, introducing the reader to most of the important concepts of philosophy (minus ethics) and presenting the information and chains of reasoning in a way that makes the reader enjoy dwelling on philosophical problems. Nevertheless, this is not a perfectly easy read (quite natural, because the subject matter is not easy), but it still is worth the effort for everyone interested in philosophy.
April 13, 2021
Did i not like this because it's bad or because I'm an idiot? That's the real question.
August 6, 2020
Finally finished Think. It’s a book to read a bit about a theme or question and then ponder what on it. The book covers the big questions in life over 8 chapters: knowledge, Mind, Free Will, The Self, God, Reasoning, The World ld and What to do. Topics covered include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the design argument.
How we perceive consciousness, fate, God, truth, goodness, justice are all discussed. It’s a introduction for anyone who is interested or believes there are big questions out there and wants a framework to approach them. The book does not give you the answers but does explain but does explain what they are and why they are important.
Simon Blackburn begins arguing why it is important to study philosophy and gives some background to key philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein.
Each chapter explains a major issue, and has a self-contained guide discussing the problems that philosophers have studied. There are a wide range of topics that including motivation, scepticism, the self, mind and body as well as ethics and arguments surrounding the existence of God.
How we perceive consciousness, fate, God, truth, goodness, justice are all discussed. It’s a introduction for anyone who is interested or believes there are big questions out there and wants a framework to approach them. The book does not give you the answers but does explain but does explain what they are and why they are important.
Simon Blackburn begins arguing why it is important to study philosophy and gives some background to key philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein.
Each chapter explains a major issue, and has a self-contained guide discussing the problems that philosophers have studied. There are a wide range of topics that including motivation, scepticism, the self, mind and body as well as ethics and arguments surrounding the existence of God.
July 14, 2012
A rather well structured introduction to philosophy, Simon Blackburn's book is a good read for anybody interested in an overview of the biggest issues that contemporary philosophers are working on. An issue that one may find when reading this book is a difficult writing style. Blackburn has an odd style and it takes time to get used to the way he tries to get his point across. If you can get past the difficult prose, it's a solid introductory text.
October 10, 2017
I've always wanted to learn more about philosophy, and gain an understanding of the value of the field.
For a book that states in the opening that it's mission is to show people that philosophy isn't a waste of time, honestly 100 pages in that exactly what I started to think. An excess of time and thought has gone in over the ages to overthinking the origins of things like the soul and free will, and while the first couple pages of each concept were interesting, all the philosophers just start to walk in circles together after a point.
And is there any real reason to try so hard to solve free will? If you decide that life is predetermined/fatalistic, does that mean we let the serial rapist keep going on the street because he's " compelled to do so" or do we take action to protect the innocent women "destined" to be his victims by taking him away?
Some philosophy can be inspiring. But after a point of depth, the loss of productive time from isn't worth the rewards.
For a book that states in the opening that it's mission is to show people that philosophy isn't a waste of time, honestly 100 pages in that exactly what I started to think. An excess of time and thought has gone in over the ages to overthinking the origins of things like the soul and free will, and while the first couple pages of each concept were interesting, all the philosophers just start to walk in circles together after a point.
And is there any real reason to try so hard to solve free will? If you decide that life is predetermined/fatalistic, does that mean we let the serial rapist keep going on the street because he's " compelled to do so" or do we take action to protect the innocent women "destined" to be his victims by taking him away?
Some philosophy can be inspiring. But after a point of depth, the loss of productive time from isn't worth the rewards.
October 18, 2016
كتاب ممتع مع سايمون بلاكبرن
April 13, 2018
تفكّر : مدخل أخّاذ إلى الفلسفة - سايمن بلاكبرن
لاشك أنّ هذا الكتاب يحمل على التفكّر كعنوانه، وجدت نفسي حتى بعيداً عنه أفكر في فقراته، وأرجّح رأي فيلسوف على الآخر حولها.
كتاب فلسفي جيّد عموماً لكن لا أنصح به "كمدخل" تماماً، أعتقد لو لم تكن لي قراءات سابقة حول الفلسفة لما استطعت المضي فيه قدماً، مازلت حتى بعد عشر سنوات من قراءة عالم صوفي لـ جوستين غاردر أجده العمل الأفضل كمدخل ومقدمة لعالم الفلسفة ومازلت أنصح به كذلك.
كنت أتمنى لو قلل الكاتب من العبارات المرجعية كـ " سنتطرق لهذا في فصل لاحق، أو كالنقاط التي ذكرناها في الفصل السابق أو بداية الفصل،
هذا الأسلوب مشتت إلى حد ما، كان له أن يصبح أكثر ألفة لولاها!
2/5
لاشك أنّ هذا الكتاب يحمل على التفكّر كعنوانه، وجدت نفسي حتى بعيداً عنه أفكر في فقراته، وأرجّح رأي فيلسوف على الآخر حولها.
كتاب فلسفي جيّد عموماً لكن لا أنصح به "كمدخل" تماماً، أعتقد لو لم تكن لي قراءات سابقة حول الفلسفة لما استطعت المضي فيه قدماً، مازلت حتى بعد عشر سنوات من قراءة عالم صوفي لـ جوستين غاردر أجده العمل الأفضل كمدخل ومقدمة لعالم الفلسفة ومازلت أنصح به كذلك.
كنت أتمنى لو قلل الكاتب من العبارات المرجعية كـ " سنتطرق لهذا في فصل لاحق، أو كالنقاط التي ذكرناها في الفصل السابق أو بداية الفصل،
هذا الأسلوب مشتت إلى حد ما، كان له أن يصبح أكثر ألفة لولاها!
2/5
December 30, 2016
Although it's titled as an 'introduction' to Philosophy, Simon Blackwell's widely acclaimed Think, is a deceptively mighty beast of a book, and it covers a huge amount of ground without dumbing anything down. So much so, that I wouldn't really recommend it as a general introduction if you're brand new to the subject, due to the amount of depth that it goes into right from the start.
Think is set out in chapters, each one covering a different 'big question' (such as Knowledge, God, Truth, Justice, Free Will etc), with Blackwell providing numerous analogies to ask more questions in order to try and figure out how to solve the big question. Each chapter and big question also includes plenty of examples of how philosophers have tried to answer them in the past, and Blackwell does an excellent job of relating these to present day situations to make them as comprehensible as possible. However, even though his tone is engaging throughout, it's still a very textbook style book to plough through, and it's something that I've been dipping in and out of for the past two months. Stick with it though because it's very interesting to read lots of different viewpoints on the same topic and compare them to what you already believe in or have learnt in the past.
Philosophy still sadly has a bad rep amongst many circles in society as being a 'nothing' subject to study, but in our present scenario of hyper-consumerism and worldwide uncertainty about our future, maybe it's time we all sat down and gave some thought to the big questions of life.
Think is set out in chapters, each one covering a different 'big question' (such as Knowledge, God, Truth, Justice, Free Will etc), with Blackwell providing numerous analogies to ask more questions in order to try and figure out how to solve the big question. Each chapter and big question also includes plenty of examples of how philosophers have tried to answer them in the past, and Blackwell does an excellent job of relating these to present day situations to make them as comprehensible as possible. However, even though his tone is engaging throughout, it's still a very textbook style book to plough through, and it's something that I've been dipping in and out of for the past two months. Stick with it though because it's very interesting to read lots of different viewpoints on the same topic and compare them to what you already believe in or have learnt in the past.
Philosophy still sadly has a bad rep amongst many circles in society as being a 'nothing' subject to study, but in our present scenario of hyper-consumerism and worldwide uncertainty about our future, maybe it's time we all sat down and gave some thought to the big questions of life.
December 24, 2013
While not a bad book I feel this is thoroughly misrepresented as a introductory text. Blackburn presupposes a understanding of several philosophical ideas while offering what is best described as a recap. If I'd read this without my background I'd have probably gave up.
Thankfully I've got a degree in philosophy so this was a gentle recap. This is a book I'd recommend to a first year philosophy student to consolidate their learning. If you've read a handful of classic texts then this might be worth a look. Otherwise chose something else.
Thankfully I've got a degree in philosophy so this was a gentle recap. This is a book I'd recommend to a first year philosophy student to consolidate their learning. If you've read a handful of classic texts then this might be worth a look. Otherwise chose something else.
March 19, 2018
What's the point of a philosophy book presenting complicated subjects if the author can't even explain them well or in a simple way?
Pro:
This is one of the many books about philosophy as a whole without a clear point to it. Besides illustrating how philosophy is hypothetically useful to create a better society overall. Which is an unproven claim he is making. So it does start on a false premise unfortunately. But following that premise he does go into some interesting quotes from old philosophers that make you think. But...
Con:
This is just not a good intro to philosophy. He completely misses the mark. I wanted to know more about common philosophical subjects and this was not the book for that. He presents authors and their individual ideas and how they responded to each other. But he does not present their ideas clearly and in a simple way. His analogies more often than not complicate his points. And his summary of ideas are often even harder to understand than the original texts. He is just not a good writer and that is a must for this kind of book. Or at least know how to explain things in simple ways. You could read each page 2 times in this book and get more out of it. But you could also watch the Youtube Crash Course episodes about philosophy and learn about these ideas in a much faster way. Even though that Youtube series is very shallow it's still better than this book. I'm yet to find a great intro book to philosophical ideas that does not focus on outdated thinking or historical contexts. This was a letdown overall even though some pages were interesting.
Pro:
This is one of the many books about philosophy as a whole without a clear point to it. Besides illustrating how philosophy is hypothetically useful to create a better society overall. Which is an unproven claim he is making. So it does start on a false premise unfortunately. But following that premise he does go into some interesting quotes from old philosophers that make you think. But...
Con:
This is just not a good intro to philosophy. He completely misses the mark. I wanted to know more about common philosophical subjects and this was not the book for that. He presents authors and their individual ideas and how they responded to each other. But he does not present their ideas clearly and in a simple way. His analogies more often than not complicate his points. And his summary of ideas are often even harder to understand than the original texts. He is just not a good writer and that is a must for this kind of book. Or at least know how to explain things in simple ways. You could read each page 2 times in this book and get more out of it. But you could also watch the Youtube Crash Course episodes about philosophy and learn about these ideas in a much faster way. Even though that Youtube series is very shallow it's still better than this book. I'm yet to find a great intro book to philosophical ideas that does not focus on outdated thinking or historical contexts. This was a letdown overall even though some pages were interesting.
Read
June 29, 2020I wanted to refresh my knowledge of basic philosophic categories such an existence, essence etc. and main fields of philosophy such as ontology, epistemology, metaphysics etc. This is the wrong book for that. I put it aside after 50%. It is good if one has to educate themselves for a pub discussion. Predictably but disappointedly, Hume and Locke seem to be omnipresent while Kant appears very rare and Descartes with his ontological argument is made a pumpkin (imho). The rest is pedestrian common sense discussions for people who do not know what philosophy is about.
December 29, 2014
Yeah, it made me think.
My thoughts ran along the lines of:
"I don't understand what you are saying and if you can't be bothered to construct your sentences properly, I really can't be bothered to spend ages staring at each line trying to figure out which idea is being mangled by bad sentence construction this time."
Please, Mr Blackburn - get a comma!
Worst introduction to philosophy ever - avoid.
My thoughts ran along the lines of:
"I don't understand what you are saying and if you can't be bothered to construct your sentences properly, I really can't be bothered to spend ages staring at each line trying to figure out which idea is being mangled by bad sentence construction this time."
Please, Mr Blackburn - get a comma!
Worst introduction to philosophy ever - avoid.
February 18, 2017
كتاب جميل جداً يأخذ في جولة كبيرة جداًً لمعظم الفلسفات للحياة من بدايتها لنهايتها و يضع تعليقاته بين السطور و يلخص في الفصل الأخير رؤيته الخاصة للحياة و كيف هو الحل للعيش بشيئ من السلام في هذا العالم
كتاب جيد جداً
كتاب جيد جداً
December 27, 2017
كنت أعتقد على مالهذا الكتاب من سمعة وما للكاتب أيضاً من سمعة في تبسيط الفلسفة لغير المختصين أنه سيكون مدخل أخاذ كما يقول العنوان ولكن للأسف ليس مدخلاً إنما هو عبارة عن وجهة نظر مايجب أن يكون مدخلاً من رجل متشائم كما قال في آخر الكتاب عن طريقة كتابت الكتاب و طريقة سرد الحج
كما قلت هو وجهة نظر بحته و فيه من التحيز ماهو كثير بدليل أن الفلاسفة الذين ذكرهم في الكتاب لا يتعدون أصابع اليدين
و في معظم الفصول كان هيوم و ديكارت موجودين كمناظرة بينهما
والفلاسفة الآخرين يذكرون ليقفوا في صف هيوم ( لأن الكاتب أزعجنا بهيوم كأن الفلسفة لم تنجب غيره)
و الفلاسفة الآخرين لا يقفون مع ديكارت مثل الذي حدث مع هيوم لا بل يصححون حجج ديكارت ويطورونها
كأنما الفلسفة لم تنجب إلا هذين الإثنين
تحيز في بعض الفصول لبعض الأراء كفصل الله
مثلاً ذكر أضعف الحجج على وجود الله ويضحضها ويقول ها أنا هنا مع أن الفصل كان حوالي ٥٠ صفحة
في بعض الكتب التي فعلاً للمبتدئين ولا يكون فيها تحيز
يكون الفصل 30 صفحة فقط (قريب إلى النصف) ومع ذلك حجج أقوى حتى لو كان ملحداً وأنكرها ورد عليها لا بأس لكن ليس بهذه الطريقة الغبية الذي كتب بها بروفيسور كامبريدج و أكسفورد العريقتين
في النهاية وبإختصار هذا الكتاب نعم تفكر لكن محدود بوجه نظر وليس مدخلاً فالدارس في الفلسفة و المتعمق بشكل متوسط ربما يجد شي جيد يفكر فيه من خلال هذا الكتاب وشكراً...
كما قلت هو وجهة نظر بحته و فيه من التحيز ماهو كثير بدليل أن الفلاسفة الذين ذكرهم في الكتاب لا يتعدون أصابع اليدين
و في معظم الفصول كان هيوم و ديكارت موجودين كمناظرة بينهما
والفلاسفة الآخرين يذكرون ليقفوا في صف هيوم ( لأن الكاتب أزعجنا بهيوم كأن الفلسفة لم تنجب غيره)
و الفلاسفة الآخرين لا يقفون مع ديكارت مثل الذي حدث مع هيوم لا بل يصححون حجج ديكارت ويطورونها
كأنما الفلسفة لم تنجب إلا هذين الإثنين
تحيز في بعض الفصول لبعض الأراء كفصل الله
مثلاً ذكر أضعف الحجج على وجود الله ويضحضها ويقول ها أنا هنا مع أن الفصل كان حوالي ٥٠ صفحة
في بعض الكتب التي فعلاً للمبتدئين ولا يكون فيها تحيز
يكون الفصل 30 صفحة فقط (قريب إلى النصف) ومع ذلك حجج أقوى حتى لو كان ملحداً وأنكرها ورد عليها لا بأس لكن ليس بهذه الطريقة الغبية الذي كتب بها بروفيسور كامبريدج و أكسفورد العريقتين
في النهاية وبإختصار هذا الكتاب نعم تفكر لكن محدود بوجه نظر وليس مدخلاً فالدارس في الفلسفة و المتعمق بشكل متوسط ربما يجد شي جيد يفكر فيه من خلال هذا الكتاب وشكراً...
September 3, 2012
... Loved it!
Simon Blackburn surely did make me think...lots. At times easier than others, and there were many times I had to re-read bit several times. There were also times that lead me to crack open a few other web pages to find out more about certain things/topics that were new to me. So, for these reasons alone, this book was quite an education.
The were times that the book tested my curiosity in the sense of suspended my previously held prejudices, and unreasoned beliefs. These times were surprisingly exhilarating, and I came out the other side, in some state that is different to the previous state. My mind/ideas are still in turmoil, so looking forward to watching the kaleidoscopic swirling colours of ideas as the morph to new swirling patterns. I hope they never settle!
The book was indeed a quick and deep dip into philosophy, and has spurred me on to find out more about the bits that really interest me. Mind and Consciousness.
Simon Blackburn surely did make me think...lots. At times easier than others, and there were many times I had to re-read bit several times. There were also times that lead me to crack open a few other web pages to find out more about certain things/topics that were new to me. So, for these reasons alone, this book was quite an education.
The were times that the book tested my curiosity in the sense of suspended my previously held prejudices, and unreasoned beliefs. These times were surprisingly exhilarating, and I came out the other side, in some state that is different to the previous state. My mind/ideas are still in turmoil, so looking forward to watching the kaleidoscopic swirling colours of ideas as the morph to new swirling patterns. I hope they never settle!
The book was indeed a quick and deep dip into philosophy, and has spurred me on to find out more about the bits that really interest me. Mind and Consciousness.
February 9, 2016
This little book is more challenging than it appears. While it's readable, it's much more cerebral and academic than I expected. Some chapters I skipped or skimmed because the topic was difficult to follow (esp. the chapter on Reasoning, which presents logic as mathematical formulae). Other chapters, like those on Free Will and God, were more accessible, although your comprehension will depend on your interest in the topic.
Although marketed as such, it is not the best introduction to philosophy. Blackburn tries to make philosophy more approachable by examining the "big questions", but he glosses over the historical and intellectual context necessary to understand these questions. You will definitely need to do more reading. Still, despite its limitations, it does achieve its purpose in inspiring readers to think about the mysteries of our existence.
Although marketed as such, it is not the best introduction to philosophy. Blackburn tries to make philosophy more approachable by examining the "big questions", but he glosses over the historical and intellectual context necessary to understand these questions. You will definitely need to do more reading. Still, despite its limitations, it does achieve its purpose in inspiring readers to think about the mysteries of our existence.
August 22, 2021
I've read an intro to philosophy book before but this was way better! Many illustrative examples, presenting the ideas rather than famous philosophers or brands of philosophy directly. And yet at the same time you do learn quite a bit about different philosophers and their roles in the history of philosophy!
The only thing I wasn't happy about is the last chapter "What to do" (aka ethics and stuff): it was quite chaotic and did not feel like it explained concepts in the right order/priority. The author themselves admitted that this is not the typical introduction to ethics.
Overall still my number one recommendation for friends so far to get a first glimpse at philosophy.
The only thing I wasn't happy about is the last chapter "What to do" (aka ethics and stuff): it was quite chaotic and did not feel like it explained concepts in the right order/priority. The author themselves admitted that this is not the typical introduction to ethics.
Overall still my number one recommendation for friends so far to get a first glimpse at philosophy.
August 28, 2013
I actually found Bertrand Russell MUCH easier to read. This one was somehow dumbed down, but still too dense to digest.
August 1, 2023
على عكس العنوان، هذا الكتاب ليس مدخل الى الفلسفة، حيث كل جملة تبدو وكأنها تبدأ من المنتصف وبدون سياق بالنسبة للقارئ الغير ملم بالفلسفة.
لا أنصح به.
لا أنصح به.
May 17, 2020
Good but not compelling enough for its target audience
Rating: 3.5 stars.
Tl;dr This book does a few things very well but sadly, its flaws outnumber its merits marring what would otherwise be a great introduction to philosophy. I still recommend it but with caveats.
First and foremost, I have to state what this book is not. It is not a casual, breezy introduction to philosophy along the lines of Thomas Nagel's . It is also not an abridged history of western philosophy tracing the most significant arguments put forth by the great philosophical thinkers of yore. This is very much a book about doing philosophy; it tries to teach you how to think logically and systematically about some of the big questions that are central to our existence by showing you how some of the great philosophers of the past have done it. Your experience with this book will depend on what you bring to it much more than it will on the contents of the book itself. It expects you to actively engage with the material as you go along much like you would with a textbook. With that out of the way, let me begin with a discussion of this book's flaws and then move onto its strengths which, for me, redeemed this book from a 2 star rating.
The Bad
This book reads like a supplementary textbook for an introductory philosophy class, in that it's not detailed or deep enough to be a primary textbook but also not casual or light enough to be a popular introduction to philosophy. It is a bit too heavy for the layman, for whom this book was intended, but too shallow for those with a decent understanding of the subject.
The quality of the chapters in this book is terribly inconsistent varying between good to not bad to just okay to frustratingly confusing. Within each of the chapters too, the quality is spotty and more often than not, the flow of information is far from smooth, often jumping between a quote by a famous philosopher followed by a response from a different philosopher and so on with very little handholding for an introductory book. This is especially true of the penultimate chapter, The World, which has an extensive discussion on metaphysics along with views of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkely, Kant, and Wittgenstein on the nature of reality. You are swept between Locke's scientific realism, Berkely's subjective idealism, and Kant's transcendental idealism and by the end of the chapter, you find yourself utterly flummoxed.
The author, Simon Blackburn (I'll refer to him as SB for the rest of this review) also has this annoying tendency to mention technical terms in passing without really explaining what they mean; he expects us to infer what they mean by the preceding or following discussion. Granted, he doesn't do it all the time, but it happens often enough to get on your nerves. I wonder if that is his way of goading the reader to refer to his other work, .
The examples or analogies that SB employs to explain involved ideas or difficult concepts are not always helpful and in a couple of instances, they even compounded my confusion. On the whole, a lot of the chapters didn't seem coherent enough for you to be sufficiently confident about your understanding of the different topics. I often found it hard to explain what I had just read to someone else. I think all of these reasons make this book a rather dull reading for those that aren't deeply interested in philosophy.
The Good
For all its faults, the book actually has a few things going for it which made reading it worthwhile for me. Instead of providing a laundry list of philosophical ideas in a chronological order, SB has divided the book into themes: Knowledge, Mind, Free Will, The Self, God, Reasoning, The World, What to Do.
This, according to me, is a much better approach for an introductory book because these are themes we all think about or have thought about to different degrees; it's much easier to draw the reader into the daunting world of philosophy this way. Another thing SB gets right is starting with Descartes instead of Socrates or Plato. He mentions in the introduction that he does this because modern philosophical thought really began with Descartes' Meditations and most of the philosophers before him held views that bore so little resemblance to the way we think today that it would put a lot of beginners off. A further benefit of dividing the book into these themes is that it gives you an idea about the nature of questions that some of these philosophers were grappling with and how they approached them. By providing a panoramic view, the book's form also lays bare some of the fundamental philosophical ideas that connect these different themes.
SB, to his credit, has managed to keep the reader sufficiently engaged by keeping the difficulty of the content just out of reach. This can be frustrating for casual readers but if you're interested in the subject, it pushes you to actively think about what you are reading even though you don't quite get it eight times out of ten.
My favorite part of this book has to be the chapter on God. I found it brilliant and rewarding. It has none of the faults that plague the other chapters. The flow of information seems perfect with one argument leading seamlessly into another with just the right amount of commentary in between. It also has some real gems from Hume's that are sure to delight the skeptics and non-believers amongst you. This brilliant observation by Wittgenstein takes the cake, however: "A nothing works just as well as a something about which nothing could be said." Although SB tries to be objective, he is quite clearly not sold on theology and its claims, so you religious folks have been warned.
All in all, I think this book does a very good job of showing you what doing philosophy entails and the nature of the work required in reading philosophical works. I found this exercise painful but ultimately rewarding.
Conclusion
This is a good introduction to philosophical thinking and can serve as an effective starting point in your philosophical journey but only if you're deeply interested in the subject and you plan on reading some or all of the major philosophical works in the western canon. I don't see casual readers looking for a quick and fun introduction to philosophy liking this book, so I don't recommend it to you if you're one of them.
In closing, I fully empathize with SB's intention in writing this book. Philosophical thinking is a crucial skill that needs to be more widely taught than it currently is, especially to students of science and engineering because it teaches you how to think and not what to think. I personally feel a lot of the social and political upheavals that engulf us today are partly because of our inability to effectively sieve through the information that we are bombarded with, separating grain from chaff; condense what remains into essential patterns; and then to think carefully and systematically about them so we can form reasonable opinions and make sensible decisions; philosophy teaches us these skills, and therefore along with science, it is crucial for our survival as a species.
Rating: 3.5 stars.
Tl;dr This book does a few things very well but sadly, its flaws outnumber its merits marring what would otherwise be a great introduction to philosophy. I still recommend it but with caveats.
First and foremost, I have to state what this book is not. It is not a casual, breezy introduction to philosophy along the lines of Thomas Nagel's . It is also not an abridged history of western philosophy tracing the most significant arguments put forth by the great philosophical thinkers of yore. This is very much a book about doing philosophy; it tries to teach you how to think logically and systematically about some of the big questions that are central to our existence by showing you how some of the great philosophers of the past have done it. Your experience with this book will depend on what you bring to it much more than it will on the contents of the book itself. It expects you to actively engage with the material as you go along much like you would with a textbook. With that out of the way, let me begin with a discussion of this book's flaws and then move onto its strengths which, for me, redeemed this book from a 2 star rating.
The Bad
This book reads like a supplementary textbook for an introductory philosophy class, in that it's not detailed or deep enough to be a primary textbook but also not casual or light enough to be a popular introduction to philosophy. It is a bit too heavy for the layman, for whom this book was intended, but too shallow for those with a decent understanding of the subject.
The quality of the chapters in this book is terribly inconsistent varying between good to not bad to just okay to frustratingly confusing. Within each of the chapters too, the quality is spotty and more often than not, the flow of information is far from smooth, often jumping between a quote by a famous philosopher followed by a response from a different philosopher and so on with very little handholding for an introductory book. This is especially true of the penultimate chapter, The World, which has an extensive discussion on metaphysics along with views of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkely, Kant, and Wittgenstein on the nature of reality. You are swept between Locke's scientific realism, Berkely's subjective idealism, and Kant's transcendental idealism and by the end of the chapter, you find yourself utterly flummoxed.
The author, Simon Blackburn (I'll refer to him as SB for the rest of this review) also has this annoying tendency to mention technical terms in passing without really explaining what they mean; he expects us to infer what they mean by the preceding or following discussion. Granted, he doesn't do it all the time, but it happens often enough to get on your nerves. I wonder if that is his way of goading the reader to refer to his other work, .
The examples or analogies that SB employs to explain involved ideas or difficult concepts are not always helpful and in a couple of instances, they even compounded my confusion. On the whole, a lot of the chapters didn't seem coherent enough for you to be sufficiently confident about your understanding of the different topics. I often found it hard to explain what I had just read to someone else. I think all of these reasons make this book a rather dull reading for those that aren't deeply interested in philosophy.
The Good
For all its faults, the book actually has a few things going for it which made reading it worthwhile for me. Instead of providing a laundry list of philosophical ideas in a chronological order, SB has divided the book into themes: Knowledge, Mind, Free Will, The Self, God, Reasoning, The World, What to Do.
This, according to me, is a much better approach for an introductory book because these are themes we all think about or have thought about to different degrees; it's much easier to draw the reader into the daunting world of philosophy this way. Another thing SB gets right is starting with Descartes instead of Socrates or Plato. He mentions in the introduction that he does this because modern philosophical thought really began with Descartes' Meditations and most of the philosophers before him held views that bore so little resemblance to the way we think today that it would put a lot of beginners off. A further benefit of dividing the book into these themes is that it gives you an idea about the nature of questions that some of these philosophers were grappling with and how they approached them. By providing a panoramic view, the book's form also lays bare some of the fundamental philosophical ideas that connect these different themes.
SB, to his credit, has managed to keep the reader sufficiently engaged by keeping the difficulty of the content just out of reach. This can be frustrating for casual readers but if you're interested in the subject, it pushes you to actively think about what you are reading even though you don't quite get it eight times out of ten.
My favorite part of this book has to be the chapter on God. I found it brilliant and rewarding. It has none of the faults that plague the other chapters. The flow of information seems perfect with one argument leading seamlessly into another with just the right amount of commentary in between. It also has some real gems from Hume's that are sure to delight the skeptics and non-believers amongst you. This brilliant observation by Wittgenstein takes the cake, however: "A nothing works just as well as a something about which nothing could be said." Although SB tries to be objective, he is quite clearly not sold on theology and its claims, so you religious folks have been warned.
All in all, I think this book does a very good job of showing you what doing philosophy entails and the nature of the work required in reading philosophical works. I found this exercise painful but ultimately rewarding.
Conclusion
This is a good introduction to philosophical thinking and can serve as an effective starting point in your philosophical journey but only if you're deeply interested in the subject and you plan on reading some or all of the major philosophical works in the western canon. I don't see casual readers looking for a quick and fun introduction to philosophy liking this book, so I don't recommend it to you if you're one of them.
In closing, I fully empathize with SB's intention in writing this book. Philosophical thinking is a crucial skill that needs to be more widely taught than it currently is, especially to students of science and engineering because it teaches you how to think and not what to think. I personally feel a lot of the social and political upheavals that engulf us today are partly because of our inability to effectively sieve through the information that we are bombarded with, separating grain from chaff; condense what remains into essential patterns; and then to think carefully and systematically about them so we can form reasonable opinions and make sensible decisions; philosophy teaches us these skills, and therefore along with science, it is crucial for our survival as a species.
February 3, 2024
maybe 4.25? idk. this is the first like actual philosophy book I've ever read but was really really good! anyone who manages to condemn double denim using John Locke has my vote fr but the writing and some parts were so so lovely and the ideas the everything ugh and yes!! v much a whistle stop tour but enjoyed massively Maia if you want it you can have it
December 8, 2008
The kind of books you read when you are bored .. it will surly make you ..THINK!and re-think it all over again
January 1, 2023
I have surpassed both plato and socrates
March 1, 2019
اسم کتاب در واقع هست "درآمدی جذاب بر فلسفه"
من مقدمه کتاب رو اتفاقی توی کتابفروشی خوندم و خریدمش.به نظرم مقدمه کتاب فوق العاده س.کاملا میتونه قانعت کنه که کتاب رو بخری.
اما کتاب رو ۱ بار نصفه رها کرده بودم.
کتاب فصل های خوبی داره که هر کدوم به یک دغدغه ی فلسفی میپردازن. مثلا مرگ و خدا و استدلال و ...
من میتونم بگم که ۴۰ درصد کتاب رو بیشتر نفهمیدم.یه جاهایی مباحث گیج کننده و سنگین بود و با اینکه متن اصلی رو پیدا نکردم که مقایسه کنم اما واقعا از ترجمه و مخصوصا ویراست کتاب راضی نبودم و اون هارو مقصر میدونم.استفاده از علائم و نشانه های نگارشی بد بود.جمله بندیا گیج کننده بود خیلی جاها. و الببته خود مباحث کتاب هم سنگین بود و یه جاهایی مثال ها گیج کننده بود�.
اما همونطور که گفتم این ۴۰ درصد هم واقعا عالی بود و کلی سرنخ بهم داد برای فکر و مطالعه و تحقیق
واقعا یه پکیج خلاصه از فلسفه و مباحث مهم فلسفی بود که خوندنش خیلی به آدم کمک میکنه و جهانبین� ادم رو واقعی تر میکنه.
من مقدمه کتاب رو اتفاقی توی کتابفروشی خوندم و خریدمش.به نظرم مقدمه کتاب فوق العاده س.کاملا میتونه قانعت کنه که کتاب رو بخری.
اما کتاب رو ۱ بار نصفه رها کرده بودم.
کتاب فصل های خوبی داره که هر کدوم به یک دغدغه ی فلسفی میپردازن. مثلا مرگ و خدا و استدلال و ...
من میتونم بگم که ۴۰ درصد کتاب رو بیشتر نفهمیدم.یه جاهایی مباحث گیج کننده و سنگین بود و با اینکه متن اصلی رو پیدا نکردم که مقایسه کنم اما واقعا از ترجمه و مخصوصا ویراست کتاب راضی نبودم و اون هارو مقصر میدونم.استفاده از علائم و نشانه های نگارشی بد بود.جمله بندیا گیج کننده بود خیلی جاها. و الببته خود مباحث کتاب هم سنگین بود و یه جاهایی مثال ها گیج کننده بود�.
اما همونطور که گفتم این ۴۰ درصد هم واقعا عالی بود و کلی سرنخ بهم داد برای فکر و مطالعه و تحقیق
واقعا یه پکیج خلاصه از فلسفه و مباحث مهم فلسفی بود که خوندنش خیلی به آدم کمک میکنه و جهانبین� ادم رو واقعی تر میکنه.
March 21, 2024
DNF at 80%
For an introduction, this was really dense. Too dense, maybe?
For an introduction, this was really dense. Too dense, maybe?
August 14, 2023
Doesn't cover continental philosophy and is partial to Hume's thinking over others. However, I found it helpful as a beginner to metaphysics. The chapters exploring formal logic and subjective idealism are especially engaging and accessible.
October 14, 2017
This reread (Oct 2017) convinced me that my daily status updates from my first read merely reveal my inabilities as a reader. Blackburn deserves the following revisionist status update:
I retain my 3-star rating because well-read philosophiles won't find anything new or challenging while neophytes will need a supportive reading environment (instructor/classmates). In short, it might be a bit too "hard" for an introduction but not hard enough for more advanced students.
I'm probably wrong about this because i'm still pretty new to philosophy, but maybe if you're fully versed in Descartes's you'd enjoy seeing how Blackburn assesses the implications of mind-body dualism throughout virtually every chapter.
While pointing my finger at Blackburn, accusing him of unclear writing, i really was pointing 3 fingers at myself, the ill-prepared reader.I experienced less overall difficulty grasping Blackburn's summaries of others' ideas this time. The "Reasoning" chapter still gave me fits so maybe this book isn't for people in search of an intro to basic logic. The "Mind," "Free Will," and "The World" chapters, however, came thru just fine, possibly because i've read enough books and essays to develop a basic understanding of those main ideas.
I retain my 3-star rating because well-read philosophiles won't find anything new or challenging while neophytes will need a supportive reading environment (instructor/classmates). In short, it might be a bit too "hard" for an introduction but not hard enough for more advanced students.
I'm probably wrong about this because i'm still pretty new to philosophy, but maybe if you're fully versed in Descartes's you'd enjoy seeing how Blackburn assesses the implications of mind-body dualism throughout virtually every chapter.
June 25, 2024
If this wasn’t an audio read I would’ve DNF around the halfway mark. My issues lie in the fact that the author finds himself preaching nihilism by debunking 17th century philosophy, specifically the science. Rather than taking people like Kant, Descartes, and Locke for what they are worth, he focuses on the some of the glaring scientific issues when compared to today. DUH Mr. Blackburn, we’ve evolved quite a bit but to discredit everything from the past is a dangerous path. I’m not against some good o’l negativity either, but when it’s hinted at throughout as the sole way to look at life I begin to discredit the work. Philosophy is about breaking down all the different viewpoints, finding a way to use our brain in the most logical fashion. Instead he decided long before that this book was going to pretend to be an overview of all the different strands in philosophy. Unfortunately the final product was a one dimensional preachy mess. Disclaimer: I am no philosophy expert and I understand this book is well regarded. Just my silly opinions!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 400 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.