The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: mediocre
Review: Author has agenda as to what should be considered philosophy and included. Examples: The economist John Maynard Keynes rates an entry while ther are no entries for Jacques Derrida, differance, or Khora. Would like a philosophy dictionary that gives me a definition of hyperousiological rather than a listing of every person who lived and published a paper with the word philosophy in it.

Rating:
Summary: The best there is, not the best there could be
Review: By getting the second edition of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy I believe to have achieved the best dictionary of this kind. But when I say "the best" I mean "the best there is" and not "the best there could be", since, apart from the enormous and useful information offered by this work, which is in no way comparable with others of the same kind that I have read or consulted, there are certain lacks that bothered me. In my opinion, there are three critics that can be opposed to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. The first one is the preponderance of the information concerning modern Philosophy and Logic, which is not justified by the importance of the concepts or authors involved. For example, the article concerning the theory of "possible worlds" (which has really been given enough importance only in the last half of the XXth century) is longer than the article concerning Zeno's paradoxes. Also, minor philosophers and logicians of the XXth century are presented in distinct articles, while the presocratics (Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Anaxagoras etc.) are all presented in one article and some of them didn't even get their name mentioned. The second critic is similar to the first one, but it concerns a certain part of non-modern Philosophy: the scholastic (medieval) one. The schools, authors, works and concepts of this age are presented partially or aren't presented at all. Examples: I couldn't find any information about Joachim Jungus or about his "Logica Hamburgensis"; Raymundus Lullus is presented in an article of the same length as the one about a Chinese neo-Confucian philosopher that lived a century before him and didn't make any great revolution or anticipation in oriental Philosophy (as Lullus did in European Logic and Algebra); the discussion of the universals has no article of her own, only one side of the discussion (the realism) being presented and the other one (nominalism) ignored, not to speak of the authors involved in this discussion, most of them not being mentioned. Finally, it bothered me the accentuation of Anglo-Saxon Philosophy and Logic, understandable only if the dictionary would have been written for the use of the people from UK or US (the utility of this dictionary, in my opinion, was meant to be universal). I believe it to be unjustified to present a Scottish philosopher such as Mary Sheperd (whose influence in philosophy is minor) in a dictionary that ignores important thinkers of Antique Philosophy. However, since I don't mean to discourage the possible buyer or reader, I repeat what I've said in the beginning: although it has certain lacks and could have been written in a better way, I believe that the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is the best work of this kind. Not only somebody interested in Philosophy as a hobby, but also somebody who is or intends to get specialized in Philosophy will find in this work useful information, that one might have problems in finding using ordinary dictionaries.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent source of information
Review: I am a professor at the Harvard University, and I find this book to be an excellent source of information for any reader. From highschool to college, this book offers incredible insight on much of the content. I commend the author and publisher of this book for an excellent job. I have used it's content many times in my classes as well as at home. It was a pleasure to read.

Rating:
Summary: Great book, especially for Lincoln Douglas debaters
Review: I am a student attending a high school in Overland Park, Kansas. I have enrolled and taken the class of Lincoln Douglas debate which is primarily based on philosophy. This book has helped me win debates many times and I suggest it to anybody with the slightest interest in philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: A good resourse if somewhat tainted
Review: I have found the CDP to be vastly informative with appropriate depth and scope. However I do see in it's pages the bane of modern philosophy. That is, tainted with Eastern Thought. I have made others aware of this so that they might be on guard against it's evil inculcation.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Reference Resource for Philosophy
Review: I noticed in the bibliography section of many of the current philosophy texts that I have read that this dictionary was listed or recommended. That was the number one reason why I bought this reference work. Having read and used it for the last three years, I can see why it is so recommended. The Board of Editorial Advisors for the book is amazing (i.e. William P. Alston, Fred Dretske, Norman Kretzmann, Alan Gewirth, etc.). Some of the contributors include Marilyn McCord Adams, Fred Dretske, C. Stephen Evans, William Hasker, Kai Nielson, Luis P. Pojman, William L. Rowe, Robert C. Solomon, Peter Van Inwagen, William J. Wainwright, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Keith E. Yandell, and many, many more. This dictionary covers everything imaginable in the area of philosophy (all branches), and even some theology. Furthermore, Philosophers are covered, what they taught is covered, and reaction to what certain philosophers taught is covered as well. It contains 4,000 entries written by some 380 scholars/specialists. Thus, it is as the back cover totes, an "indispensable one-volume dictionary."

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Reference Resource for Philosophy
Review: I noticed in the bibliography section of many of the current philosophy texts that I have read that this dictionary was listed or recommended. That was the number one reason why I bought this reference work. Having read and used it for the last three years, I can see why it is so recommended. The Board of Editorial Advisors for the book is amazing (i.e. William P. Alston, Fred Dretske, Norman Kretzmann, Alan Gewirth, etc.). Some of the contributors include Marilyn McCord Adams, Fred Dretske, C. Stephen Evans, William Hasker, Kai Nielson, Luis P. Pojman, William L. Rowe, Robert C. Solomon, Peter Van Inwagen, William J. Wainwright, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Keith E. Yandell, and many, many more. This dictionary covers everything imaginable in the area of philosophy (all branches), and even some theology. Furthermore, Philosophers are covered, what they taught is covered, and reaction to what certain philosophers taught is covered as well. It contains 4,000 entries written by some 380 scholars/specialists. Thus, it is as the back cover totes, an "indispensable one-volume dictionary."

Rating:
Summary: best bang for your buck
Review: In my opinion, if you have any reference work on philosophy, this should be it. Very inexpensive for the quality, contemporaneity and quantity of information. with a very generous historical and cultural sampling, covers every conceivable topic that could be considered to have some bearing on philosophy. Has some nice appendices illustrating formal philosophical notation and relata.

Rating:
Summary: A few comments
Review: Maybe it's just me, but I think that over the last 30 years there's been a dramatic improvement in the quality of short reference works in philosophy since I first studied it way back then. I had several of the classic one-volume books in the past, including some that are out of print now, such as Dagobert Runes's brief Dictionary of Philosophy (which wasn't exactly a "classic," but anyway, it was an enjoyable brief exposition nevertheless), but I think the ones that are available now are much better.

This book is certainly an example of that trend, considered by some to be the best in the field, and for good reason. The current edition sports a team of 440 contributors, with 400 new entries, including 50 on important contemporary philosophers. It also claims to have more entries on non- Western and non-European philosophy than an other comparable volume, including Arabic, Islamic, Japanese, Jewish, Korean, Latin American, and even African. I can't vouchsafe all of those claims, but certainly the coverage of Arabic and Islamic subjects is much more extensive than was the case in such reference works in the past. Another thing I liked is the coverage of modern logicians such as Quine and also philosophers of science, which was my main area of interest, is especially strong.

The entries range in length from a brief paragraph to an entire column (the pages are printed in two-column format), to several pages for important philosophers or key ideas in the history of philosophy. This book will appeal mostly to serious students and professionals seeking a brief refresher or discussion of whatever topic they're looking for, but the writing is often livelier than one might expect for a philosophy tome. Some, such as the one for Emerson, are as readable and enjoyable as anything I've ever read in the field, competing with Hector Hawkins's wonderful little book, Philosophy for Pleasure, a little gem of an introductory classic from the 50s that is now long out of print. All in all this is a great reference work and sourcebook for anyone interested in the subject of philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent reference book.
Review: Not only does this dictionary offer illuminating biographies of some of the more important individuals in the history of philosophy, but it summarizes their thought in a remarkably concise yet lucid manner.

The book is especially useful for scholars of logic, as it formalizes some of the propositions and arguments in the entries related to the sentential calculus and set theory. A comprehensive appendix of the logical notation used throughout the text is also provided.

The editor has admirably included entries summarizing the contributions of Islamic and Jewish philosophers; the Graeco-Arabic translation movement -- and its connection with Medieval Judaeo-Christian philosophy is covered, albeit in an indirect manner. Chinese and Indian philosophy is also touched upon, but not in the detail and depth that it deserves. Otherwise the familiar luminaries of Western philosophy are given their fair share.

The technical terminology is exhaustively covered, with cross-references offering further elaboration for the curious.

What would make the book even more valuable, however, would be an historical introduction (with maps and illustrations). References and bibliographies at the end of each entry is another desideratum.

Some have reviled the work because of its slighting of Derrida and his "philosophy". But I must confess that I personally find the conspicuous absence of the "Metaphysics of Presence" gratifying.