Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.49 AVERAGE
3.49 AVERAGE
arthuriana's review against another edition
4.0
berkeley offers a very interesting — one could almost say charming — dialogue between two characters who somehow seem to rise above their station as the author's mere talking points and actually deliver to the reader witty repartees and delightful character development.
as for the philosophy, what can i say? berkeley makes fair points for his position, and philonous excellently handles hylas' retorts and refutations with ease for the most part (though, quite tellingly, he appears weak in certain points, most notably in trying to argue that murder can't be justifiably traced to God's great grace) and hylas is simply hitched along a philosophical ride that leads to illumination at long last.
students of philosophy should read this at least once. the edition i read (broadview press, 2012) also offers quite the helpful introduction and some handy appendices that would help for people who want to gain a deeper understanding.
as for the philosophy, what can i say? berkeley makes fair points for his position, and philonous excellently handles hylas' retorts and refutations with ease for the most part (though, quite tellingly, he appears weak in certain points, most notably in trying to argue that murder can't be justifiably traced to God's great grace) and hylas is simply hitched along a philosophical ride that leads to illumination at long last.
students of philosophy should read this at least once. the edition i read (broadview press, 2012) also offers quite the helpful introduction and some handy appendices that would help for people who want to gain a deeper understanding.
boxfish's review against another edition
2.0
While reading this book for a philosophy course, I wrote this limerick to describe my feelings:
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who put one hand in hot water and the other hand in cold water and then both hands into the same water and discovered that the conflicting sensations of heat and cold indicated that there was no way to objectively determine the temperature of the water in the bucket,
And little did he know,
'Twould cause a young girl centuries later to go,
"Oh my god, I'm getting really bored of talking about immaterialism."
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who put one hand in hot water and the other hand in cold water and then both hands into the same water and discovered that the conflicting sensations of heat and cold indicated that there was no way to objectively determine the temperature of the water in the bucket,
And little did he know,
'Twould cause a young girl centuries later to go,
"Oh my god, I'm getting really bored of talking about immaterialism."
cody_'s review against another edition
3.5
7/10
The attack on materialism is entertaining and convincing. Some immaterialist arguments work, but the argument for God (especially the Christian one) is plausible but unsound at best and weak at worst.
The attack on materialism is entertaining and convincing. Some immaterialist arguments work, but the argument for God (especially the Christian one) is plausible but unsound at best and weak at worst.
torts's review against another edition
2.0
BERKELEY IS LAME.
I greatly prefer Descartes's meditations on first philosophy. Which isn't to say that I agreed with all of those meditations, but rather that I found the method being used to convince readers of the sincerity/validity of the arguments was more agreeable. There's something very confrontational about the way that Berkeley seems to confront the reader (via Hylas) with his views (via Philonous). Descartes is much friendlier (not so much in his objections/replies section, but still) in the way that he presents his armchair-type meditations. It's way more apparent that Berkeley has something to prove. Which isn't to say that Descartes didn't, but rather that the way that he communicated his arguments made the reader more inclined to follow/endorse his arguments. Berkeley is more like: "Hey, you're like Hylas in that you're kind of stupid and set in your ways and I'm going to confront you as Philonous and refute everything that you think you believe in by making you contradict yourself and then drawing conclusions from these paradoxes which don't really follow. Because I like being contrived. And pretentious."
I greatly prefer Descartes's meditations on first philosophy. Which isn't to say that I agreed with all of those meditations, but rather that I found the method being used to convince readers of the sincerity/validity of the arguments was more agreeable. There's something very confrontational about the way that Berkeley seems to confront the reader (via Hylas) with his views (via Philonous). Descartes is much friendlier (not so much in his objections/replies section, but still) in the way that he presents his armchair-type meditations. It's way more apparent that Berkeley has something to prove. Which isn't to say that Descartes didn't, but rather that the way that he communicated his arguments made the reader more inclined to follow/endorse his arguments. Berkeley is more like: "Hey, you're like Hylas in that you're kind of stupid and set in your ways and I'm going to confront you as Philonous and refute everything that you think you believe in by making you contradict yourself and then drawing conclusions from these paradoxes which don't really follow. Because I like being contrived. And pretentious."
kisdead's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced