Scan barcode
purstiltski's review against another edition
2.0
Basically, the author ignores all of his previous arguments in the last four chapters and concludes that all atheists are nihilists and you must believe in a Christian God (he mentions Christian religions, but no others) to lead a fulfilling life. RAGE.
The author is obviously theistic. He provides good evidence for the view of theism (in asking whether there is a god, life after death, etc.) by itself. However, he will always provide evidence against the atheistic or naturalistic theories or views, which by itself I do not find to be compelling in most cases. He also does not ever offer an explanation that can potentially disprove theism to the degree that he attempts to disprove the theory of atheism.
In such a regard, I give this book three stars because it has taught me some basic things to understand about philosophy, and some basic arguments (that I feel I can better argue myself than he can in some cases) on "either side" of philosophical approach.
However, because of the bias, I feel like I've been cheated. I understand that it is difficult for some theists to accept one not being or wanting to be theistic, but I feel, for the sake of philosophical argument, atheistic argument should have been given the same weight as the theistic arguments. So I give it one star for SO BIASED.
I'm not lying when I say that this book enraged me. I think it would greatly be improved if an atheistic philosopher were to co-author to provide possible evidence and examples for atheistic arguments. I feel like this book ultimately sought to tell me what to believe, not to help me make an informed decision on philosophy and life's questions. It did provide me with tools — simply not well-crafted tools. I would like to be offered enough to make my own decisions.
Now I need to turn this book back into the school library before I burn it.
The author is obviously theistic. He provides good evidence for the view of theism (in asking whether there is a god, life after death, etc.) by itself. However, he will always provide evidence against the atheistic or naturalistic theories or views, which by itself I do not find to be compelling in most cases. He also does not ever offer an explanation that can potentially disprove theism to the degree that he attempts to disprove the theory of atheism.
In such a regard, I give this book three stars because it has taught me some basic things to understand about philosophy, and some basic arguments (that I feel I can better argue myself than he can in some cases) on "either side" of philosophical approach.
However, because of the bias, I feel like I've been cheated. I understand that it is difficult for some theists to accept one not being or wanting to be theistic, but I feel, for the sake of philosophical argument, atheistic argument should have been given the same weight as the theistic arguments. So I give it one star for SO BIASED.
I'm not lying when I say that this book enraged me. I think it would greatly be improved if an atheistic philosopher were to co-author to provide possible evidence and examples for atheistic arguments. I feel like this book ultimately sought to tell me what to believe, not to help me make an informed decision on philosophy and life's questions. It did provide me with tools — simply not well-crafted tools. I would like to be offered enough to make my own decisions.
Now I need to turn this book back into the school library before I burn it.
rbaylis91's review against another edition
3.0
Philosophy for Dummies is a great high level, rapid fire exploration of Philosophy. I decided to read this having not read anything related to Philosophy before and was happy I did.
Although I did not agree with all of the logical arguments within, there are some really interesting arguments the author puts forth.
I loved the sheer amount of topics covered, and felt I learned an absolute ton, at the surface level.
On the flip side, one thing that bugged me about the book was that it felt like all the later chapters ended with a cliff hanger that would be answered in the next chapter, but it just became questions all the way down.
Is that the point? Far too deep a question for a Dummy like me.
Although I did not agree with all of the logical arguments within, there are some really interesting arguments the author puts forth.
I loved the sheer amount of topics covered, and felt I learned an absolute ton, at the surface level.
On the flip side, one thing that bugged me about the book was that it felt like all the later chapters ended with a cliff hanger that would be answered in the next chapter, but it just became questions all the way down.
Is that the point? Far too deep a question for a Dummy like me.
redatt's review
1.0
This is not so much an introduction to the basics of philosophy as it is an attempt at religious indoctrination.
Show us the basics of philosophy, its uses and abuses (of which this book is a prime example); show us how to construct and break down a philosophical argument for ourselves. But don't try to persuade us to convert to your religious view point under the guise of teaching us about philosophy!
Show us the basics of philosophy, its uses and abuses (of which this book is a prime example); show us how to construct and break down a philosophical argument for ourselves. But don't try to persuade us to convert to your religious view point under the guise of teaching us about philosophy!
More...