Rating: 
Summary: GREAT BOOK!
Review: Are you interested in philosophy? If you don't know much about philosophy - and even if you do - you will enjoy this book because it is clear (has some nice illustrations) and easy to understand. If you already know philosophy, it will refresh your memory. This book is fun to read and I recommend it to anyone who wants to deepen his/her understanding of life. Then, after this book, you should read books of the "Great Philosophers" collection. Those books are a thousand times more profound than "Philosophy for beginners" but they are "the next step" for people who are just starting.
Rating: 
Summary: A Love of Polemic, not Wisdom!
Review: Blending little known writers with political polemicists & ecclesiastical dissidents, then referring to them as 'philosophers'; the book: PHILOSOPHY FOR BEGINNERS (1993) by Richard Osborne, et al; is a collection of obvious biases, obfuscations, and prejudicial views in an easy-to-read comic book format; which will obscure philosophy from mere opinion to the beginner.Examples of the author's selected preferences runs throughout his work - one example is a short biography of communist agitator Rosa Luxembourg appearing on page 162, in absence of any commentary about Ayn Rand (but then neither are philosophers). Or the term 'libertarian' having been identified as meaning "right-winged", but the communist euphemism of 'progressive' is not to be found. Also the economist Karl Marx was referred to as a 'philosopher', but no comment is found on the genius J.P. Morgan! It isn't just that a defunct theory such as Marxism is being preferred over economic rationality such as capitalism; or a dissident like Platonist Duns Scotus Eriugena being preferred over accepted Aristotelian St. Thomas Aquinas; it is just this author had obviously emphasized any mechanistic, deterministic, or behavioristic view over any ideological, existential, or teleological system, without adequate explanation for the beginner to comprehend the difference - the result then is sheer indoctrination. To the author's credit, he stated on page 149 that the "Characteristic of the school (i.e. Analytic Philosophy) is the desire to clarify, through analysis, and a hostility toward metaphysics." It is this preference for Analytic Philosophy and a "hostility" towards metaphysics in any form, without defining the differences, which perverts PHILOSOPHY FOR BEGINNERS (and pervades this entire 'Beginners' series)! The book PHILOSOPHY FOR BEGINNERS has amusing cartoons, a general overview of the history of philosophy, a nice selection of marginalized thinkers, loose usage of the term 'Philosopher', and a selective emphasis of radicals, as the author demonstrated his love of polemic over wisdom!
Rating:
Summary: revenge of the nerds
Review: Docrogers review is deranged. Philosophy for beginners
is lucid, clear, fair and accurate. It is easy to read, funny
and nothing like the bizarrely distorted view given in ths
'necessary but not sufficent' whinge. Why do people bother
to write totally dishonest reviews that are motivated by spite
and delusions of granduer? For example he claims that
there are typo's in the book, this is completely untrue and
scurrilous, what planet is this person from?
Rating:
Summary: A Rare Strike Out for Beginners Series
Review: I have several Writers and Readers Beginners Documentary Comic Books and I love them. However, Philosophy for Beginners is a big disappointment. Not only do I think it is superficial and biased, it lacks the humor and imaginative presentation of the other books in this series.
Rating: 
Summary: Good but not great
Review: One of the biggest problems in undertaking an endeavor as broad as "Philosophy for Beginners" is the enormity of the task. Unlike the projects of describing the thought of individual philosophers or even entire movements, Osborne was tasked with the responsibility for providing an overview of the entire history of the oldest profession in the world. I found his wit to be enjoyable, although very biased, as is his treatment of those schools of thought with which he disagrees. I personally find myself in agreement with his philosophical commitments, but have to admit that as an introduction to philosophy, he must be derided for his lack of objectivity in that regard. Also, much of his coverage of modern philosophy is almost inscrutible, which may indict modern philosophy as much as his coverage of it, but it certainly makes me think that this is more of a "Philosophy for Students in Philosophy" than part of a series for beginners who want a cursory overview of the salient questions of the field. However, I do not fault him completely for his indiscretions. This book should have been titled "HISTORY of Philosophy for Beginners (from a particular perspective)". I wish they would have resisted the temptation to cover individual thinkers (and thus, the history), and instead relied upon sticking with the main areas and points of contention, be it metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, politics, etc. Certainly, these areas cannot be divorced from one another, but it would have provided better cohesion for the book as a whole.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining informative presentation of a difficult subject
Review: One of those small books I've dog-eared since my purchase of it many years ago, Richard Osbourne's text and Ralph Edney's illustrations come together in a book that is one of the best and lightest summaries of some of the most complex ideas ever broached. This book has made me smile many times, and I even went to bat for it when one of my philosophy professors smirked at my possession of it (where else will you see a duck present Hegelian Dialectic, John Dewey playing a banjo, Wittgenstein as a chess piece, or a wedding between Marx and Freud?). While by no means a complete study, this book nevertheless egged me on when I began to take this subject seriously and when I wanted a full presentation of it minus some of the arduousness I know must come sooner or later. While there are many jokes throughout, the seriousness of the discipline is never lost, and the wealth of biographical capsulizations of the practitioners presented are remarkably accurate. While not as keen or as full a view as Donald Palmer's similar book-length intro to the subject, Philosophy For Beginners is still a worthwhile ride for those wanting to know what its all about as well as seasoned students who yearn for a rare whimsical treatment of their subject. (A point which I illustrate by keeping my copy in the car for curious passengers during traffic jams!)
Rating:
Summary: Lucid, clear and complicated
Review: Reviews are rarely about books but about other people's perceptions of them, particularly in this case. The last review, which reads like an advertisment for Donald palmer's imitations of Philosophy for beginners, is clearly about some imaginary form that exists seperate from the book itself. Philosophy is contextualised, introduced and summarised in the most lucid way imaginable in Philosophy for beginners and no amount of 'analytic' posturing obscures that fact. One thing that is stressed in philosophy is not to believe other people's views of things, try it for yourself. No good philosopher would use vague generalizations to try and justify an argument. Read the book and ignore the reviews.
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious and elegant
Review: There are two schools of thought concerning the 'For Beginners' series of texts. The subject matter that they attempt to address is tastelessly watered-down to the point of absurdity, placing serious topics such as philosophy and political thought into a superficial pop culture context. The subjects are so scandoulsly generalized that the reader comes away from the text more confused than before the reading. On the other hand, there is the view that this series presents precise introductions to otherwise dense material, paving the way for further study. My opinion tends towards the latter, because these texts are in fact precise, honing down the ideas in a language that can be understood by intelligent people with a desire to understand the subject under discussion. In ~Philosophy~ a vast amount of material is touched on from the pre-Socratics to Derrida's post structuralism. A ambitious project, but Richard Osbourne along with Ralph Edney as illustrator has managed to pull it off with accuracy, humour and elegance. This publication is not presenting itself as anything else other than what it is - an overview of western philosophy from the early Greeks to present time. Having some background in philosophy, personally the sections on the Dark Ages, Holy Roman Empire, and the rise of Scholasticism in the first millennia was informative, reminding me of the huge influence St Thomas Aquinas had at the time - his famous 'Summa contra Gentiles', which set out to prove to non Christians, through natural reason, the importance of Chrisianity and the existence of God. Interestingly, the author's at the end of the Aquinas section comment that the explanation concerning the philosopher's thought was a bit "sketchy, but it's only a Beginner's Guide." This was a subtle cue from the author's that this text is in fact only an introduction and not to expect much more. This book is an appropriate beginning to a vast and complex subject. If this text sparks some interest, the bibliography at the back is divided into Introductory, Advanced and General references, including a few excellent books to read if one plans to pursue the subject further. Osborne et al, have done a terrific job of tackling such a notoriously difficult subject and making it interesting and accessible.
Rating:
Summary: How do you know who is a philosopher?
Review: This book by Osborne is an interesting brief introduction to the course of Western philosophy over the past 2500 years. It does not directly involve non-Western philosophies; a simple look at the introduction will show the standard progression of names and ideas from the pre-Socratic Greeks through the philosophers of the classical age, to Christendom, then Enlightenment, post-Enlightentment through to modern thinkers whose names often adorned the faculty lists of Western institutions as much as their names dominate the philosophy coursework today. However, on occasion as historical reality might require, there is a discussion of other cultures. For example, Osborne mentions both the Tang dynasty of China and the rising Muslim empire as both being more advanced than Christendom during the period around 1000. Of course, much of what is considered 'philosophy' outside of the Western framework is often more of a spirituality or mystical task than one that is properly philosophical. On the other hand, Osborne tries to define philosophy in the first few pages, with the help of Plato, Gramsci, Marx, and Russell, and comes to a sort of non-conclusion. Osborne's sense of humour, well established in this book, starts here, by his play with the idea that whereas Plato though philosophers should rule the world to set everything to rights, other philosophers speak of the meaninglessness of everything, which would leave one with no content or ideas, which would make ruling rather difficult. One of the drawbacks of this text is that it does not have the time or space to go in much depth on any of the topics represented. This is more or less a who's who of philosophy, giving some basic outlines of their thinking and showing in broad strokes the general trends of philosophy over time. I cannot really speak to how I would understand philosophy using this as an early text, as I came to it after some considerable philosophical education, but my impression is that it might leave a rather thin understanding in many areas. Fortunately, Osborne provides a bibliography, both of basic survey texts and of more advanced primary texts and studies. I'd like to see more done with this. Osborne does often refer to the primary texts in the narrative stories of the philosophers so that readers will become acquainted with them. Hopefully this will prove a motivation for further reading. There is a subtle (occasionally not-so-subtle) anti-Christian and anti-religious bias in the book. When discussing the fate of Hypatia, a deplorable event no matter who carried it out, he ascribes the blame not to the particular people involved, but with an off-the-cuff remark slams the whole of Christianity. Similarly, he offers Bertrand Russell's quote about philosophy being a no-man's land between theology and science, embattled from each side; odd how many theologians feel theology is embattled between science and philosophy -- I did note as well that there are no pointedly anti-scientific jabs the way there are against religion. This is a rather minor criticism, however, and probably one that most people wouldn't notice too greatly. It is true that the church and freedom of inquiry has not always been synonymous (to say the least) but there are better ways of approaching the issue. The presentation is an attempt, largely successful, to render into an interesting format a topic that frightens or bores many people today. Why is philosophy irrelevant to most? Again, this is a good question, asked at the beginning, and difficult to answer. This probably needs to answered by each reader for herself or himself; hopefully the reader will make it all the way through the book. It also asks the question, how can you tell if someone is a philosopher. Of course, you can always accept the answer of Gramsci -- we all are, to a certain degree. I've read several books in the 'For Beginners' series. They are often used in graduate and undergraduate classes to help people ease their way into difficult subjects. This, as a history of philosophy, is a fairly good text.
Rating:
Summary: How do you know who is a philosopher?
Review: This book by Osborne is an interesting brief introduction to the course of Western philosophy over the past 2500 years. It does not directly involve non-Western philosophies; a simple look at the introduction will show the standard progression of names and ideas from the pre-Socratic Greeks through the philosophers of the classical age, to Christendom, then Enlightenment, post-Enlightentment through to modern thinkers whose names often adorned the faculty lists of Western institutions as much as their names dominate the philosophy coursework today. However, on occasion as historical reality might require, there is a discussion of other cultures. For example, Osborne mentions both the Tang dynasty of China and the rising Muslim empire as both being more advanced than Christendom during the period around 1000. Of course, much of what is considered 'philosophy' outside of the Western framework is often more of a spirituality or mystical task than one that is properly philosophical. On the other hand, Osborne tries to define philosophy in the first few pages, with the help of Plato, Gramsci, Marx, and Russell, and comes to a sort of non-conclusion. Osborne's sense of humour, well established in this book, starts here, by his play with the idea that whereas Plato though philosophers should rule the world to set everything to rights, other philosophers speak of the meaninglessness of everything, which would leave one with no content or ideas, which would make ruling rather difficult. One of the drawbacks of this text is that it does not have the time or space to go in much depth on any of the topics represented. This is more or less a who's who of philosophy, giving some basic outlines of their thinking and showing in broad strokes the general trends of philosophy over time. I cannot really speak to how I would understand philosophy using this as an early text, as I came to it after some considerable philosophical education, but my impression is that it might leave a rather thin understanding in many areas. Fortunately, Osborne provides a bibliography, both of basic survey texts and of more advanced primary texts and studies. I'd like to see more done with this. Osborne does often refer to the primary texts in the narrative stories of the philosophers so that readers will become acquainted with them. Hopefully this will prove a motivation for further reading. There is a subtle (occasionally not-so-subtle) anti-Christian and anti-religious bias in the book. When discussing the fate of Hypatia, a deplorable event no matter who carried it out, he ascribes the blame not to the particular people involved, but with an off-the-cuff remark slams the whole of Christianity. Similarly, he offers Bertrand Russell's quote about philosophy being a no-man's land between theology and science, embattled from each side; odd how many theologians feel theology is embattled between science and philosophy -- I did note as well that there are no pointedly anti-scientific jabs the way there are against religion. This is a rather minor criticism, however, and probably one that most people wouldn't notice too greatly. It is true that the church and freedom of inquiry has not always been synonymous (to say the least) but there are better ways of approaching the issue. The presentation is an attempt, largely successful, to render into an interesting format a topic that frightens or bores many people today. Why is philosophy irrelevant to most? Again, this is a good question, asked at the beginning, and difficult to answer. This probably needs to answered by each reader for herself or himself; hopefully the reader will make it all the way through the book. It also asks the question, how can you tell if someone is a philosopher. Of course, you can always accept the answer of Gramsci -- we all are, to a certain degree. I've read several books in the 'For Beginners' series. They are often used in graduate and undergraduate classes to help people ease their way into difficult subjects. This, as a history of philosophy, is a fairly good text.
|
