The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: review corrected-better than the Oxford dic.
Review: Previous review corrected: after using the Oxford dictionary for some time, and then returning to the Cambridge one, I found out that this is absolutely better, more extensive and comprehensive. Oxford dic. has a more amiable format with bibligraphies etc. but the coverage of this one is far broader.
Well, okay, this may be the best available of its kind.. but still poor in many respects. Tainted by a ridiculous multi-culturalist concern which doesnt befit a serious philosophical attitude.. philosophical concepts are mostly absent outside the current analytic terms, and continental philosophy seems to be represented in terms of a poor treatment of certain important figures rather than serious explication of relevant concepts.. If youre a student of analytic philosophy you'll find important concepts like truth tables or coherentism covered in detail.. that is the only satisfactory aspect of this dictionary.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy does contain entries of adequate length for such a publication. However, there are lamentable absences (ie: no entry for Derrida). Also, this dictionary does exhibit a strong bias in favour of eastern thought. These factors detract greatly from the quality of this work.

Rating:
Summary: Good,better,and best, but needs work.
Review: The second edition of THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY corrects many of the deficiencies of the first edition, but many remain. Especially troublesome are lapses of historical awareness. For example, the entry ABDUCTION (which is available on this website) does not mention that the term was introduced into philosophy by the noted American logician C.S. Peirce (1839-1914}. Peirce used it in senses related to, but other than, that assigned to it by the entry. Another example occurs at the TYPE-TOKEN entry, which describes another contribution by Peirce. Here, thankfully, Peirce is given credit , but for something that he did not do and in fact for something that was done centuries earlier, perhaps before Socrates, namely distinguishing between a category and one of its members. Another troubling type of deficiency is a surprising lack of comprehensiveness. For example, the entry MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS, after adequately describing this basic field of pure mathematics and mentioning its application to geometry known as "analytic geometry", fails to mention its other main mathematical application, its application to number theory known as "analytic number theory". Perhaps there will be a third edition in which these and other glaring shortcomings can be addressed. It must be said, however, in all fairness, that this is by far the best work of its kind known to this reviewer. It has been criticized for its "dense writing", which is like criticizing a watchdog for its ferocious-sounding bark.

Rating:
Summary: Good,better,and best, but needs work.
Review: The second edition of THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY corrects many of the deficiencies of the first edition, but many remain. Especially troublesome are lapses of historical awareness. For example, the entry ABDUCTION (which is available on this website) does not mention that the term was introduced into philosophy by the noted American logician C.S. Peirce (1839-1914}. Peirce used it in senses related to, but other than, that assigned to it by the entry. Another example occurs at the TYPE-TOKEN entry, which describes another contribution by Peirce. Here, thankfully, Peirce is given credit , but for something that he did not do and in fact for something that was done centuries earlier, perhaps before Socrates, namely distinguishing between a category and one of its members. Another troubling type of deficiency is a surprising lack of comprehensiveness. For example, the entry MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS, after adequately describing this basic field of pure mathematics and mentioning its application to geometry known as "analytic geometry", fails to mention its other main mathematical application, its application to number theory known as "analytic number theory". Perhaps there will be a third edition in which these and other glaring shortcomings can be addressed. It must be said, however, in all fairness, that this is by far the best work of its kind known to this reviewer. It has been criticized for its "dense writing", which is like criticizing a watchdog for its ferocious-sounding bark.

Rating:
Summary: Indispensible
Review: This book is an invaluable resource for anyone embarking on intensive study in philosophy or other social disciplines. The dictionary's ability to concisely define and historically contextualize such a large amount of material in relatively friendly language makes it a useful tool for anyone.

Rating:
Summary: Indispensable reference for philosophy graduate students
Review: This dictionary is handy for quickly learning the basics about a philosopher or idea. The entries are concise, and I find the definitions of analytic terms especially helpful for precise understanding. When I started graduate school, I used it enough that I decided to buy a second copy so that I could keep one at home and one at the office.

Rating:
Summary: Very satisfying. But sure enough, an hour later...
Review: This fine reference performs its function admirably, cataloguing the most important milestones in the history of philosophy and explaining abstruse ideas in clear language. What it really lacks, though, is some good ethnic jokes.

Rating:
Summary: Very satisfying. But sure enough, an hour later...
Review: This fine reference performs its function admirably, cataloguing the most important milestones in the history of philosophy and explaining abstruse ideas in clear language. What it really lacks, though, is some good ethnic jokes.

Rating:
Summary: Tough going
Review: This is not a reference work for beginners. The "definitions" are densely written, by scholars too used to reading some dense writing themselves. It's quite possible this is a useful resource for those with at least moderate exposure to the field--as evidenced by the other reader reviews. But I would warn those looking for quick overviews and accessible summaries of difficult concepts to eschew this one. I'm an amateur, and I didn't find this helpful.

Rating:
Summary: Tough going
Review: This is not a reference work for beginners. The "definitions" are densely written, by scholars too used to reading some dense writing themselves. It's quite possible this is a useful resource for those with at least moderate exposure to the field--as evidenced by the other reader reviews. But I would warn those looking for quick overviews and accessible summaries of difficult concepts to eschew this one. I'm an amateur, and I didn't find this helpful.