Pooh and the Philosophers

by John Tyerman Williams

In this witty and entertaining excursion through previously uncharted areas of the world of Pooh, John Tyerman Williams sets out to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the whole of Western philosophy--from the cosmologists of ancient Greece to existentialism in this century--may be found in Winnie-the-Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner. Reminding us of Nietzsche's doctrine of Great Recurrence, Williams throws fresh light on Pooh's circular pursuit of the Woozle -- not to mention the Empirical test of a pot of honey, right to the bottom.

This book will confirm, once and for all, what many will have long suspected: that Pooh is a Bear of Enormous Brain.
--back cover

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Humor, Spirituality, Science, Reference, Self Help

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Taken by itself, this is a moderately funny satire of literary criticism and how absurd certain literary interpretations can become. The concept is funny, but the joke does eventually get old, so it would be a 3 star review if taken by itself.

After reading through the Goodreads reviews, though, and seeing that almost everyone on here took this book 100% seriously, I'm upping this to 5-stars. I'm dying laughing over here at all the people who picked up this book, missed the inscription that said this book started as a casual joke, and thought the author was being serious at any point in this book. And then proceeded to write reviews hundreds of words long about how much they disagreed this book.

For real? These people read a book that said that Sartre derived his concept of Nothingness from "Chapter Three of The House at Pooh's Corner" and thought the author was being at all serious about this? And then were actually persuaded (at least in the case of one reviewer) that maybe Nietzsche did get his ideas from Winnie the Pooh?

Absolutely legendary.

Rating: 3 Stars for the satire taken by itself; 5 Stars for its ability to hoodwink so many readers.

[Julie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pooh and the Philosophers: In-Which-It-Is-Shown-That-A-Fool-Is-Born-Every-Minute.

Sigh.

I admit I was curious.

I admit to liking Benjamin Hoff's Tao of Pooh very much. As an antidote to sadness, or downheartedness, or just a vague bluesy feeling, it is exactly what works for me. There is no doubt in my mind that Winnie The Pooh is a Zen Master. My tongue is only a teeny bit in my cheek, for I can certainly embrace all the Zen qualities of Pooh when I tuck the book under my arm, stroll down the garden path to the pond, and spend a few pleasant hours, intermittently reading, and listening to the bees buzzing.

Then along comes a brick like this.

I never suspected for a moment that the author might be serious. Then I read,

So when Pooh Bear experienced the burning pain of a bee sting, this symbolized the pain of discarding a cherished hypothesis. We note the unhesitating courage with which he performed the painful duty.

We also see how great his anguish was when we go on to read, "his arms were so stiff from holding on to the string of the balloon all that time that they stayed up straight in the air for more than a week." What a brilliant picture of the way in which habit and emotion may cling to a belief that evidence and reason have rejected!

I myself was in danger of my arms staying straight up for a week: I was desperately clinging to emotions that evidence and reason were rejecting, for I actually continued to read after this, despite my soul screaming out for mercy.

Later, I encountered that blasted balloon again:

The familiar phrase "the World of Pooh" itself signals a strong connection with Heidegger. ... Pooh's use of a balloon as a tool to get honey is obviously the key to Heidegger's emphasis on the use of tools and equipment to deal with the world outside. Even Heidegger's favorite phrase "ready to hand" to indicate equipment clearly derives from Pooh's phrase "about you" when he asks, "I wonder if you've got such a thing as a balloon about you?"

Oh, clearly that is what Pooh meant. Obviously. So many absolutes. Coelholy. (My newly-minted word for being at one with the universe.)

This is a sad little book in which Poor Pooh Has Been Made To Go Head-to-Head With All The Philosophers, From Aristotle to The Existentialists, And Emerges Exhausted And Traumatized.

Pooh will be in therapy for the rest of his life. Or until I rescue him again and take him down to the pond, on a summer's day, to hear the bees buzzing -- but not feel those pesky (western) philosophers stinging.



"My arms ache."

[Katzenkindliest · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ich verstehe zu wenig von Philisophie, um diesbezüglich die Qualität dieses Buches zu bewerten. Für mich war das alles ziemlicher Blödsinn und an den Haaren herbeigezogen; aber immerhin unterhaltsamer Blödsinn, deshalb gibt es 3 Sterne.

[Ronald Barba · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have never written a review this long.

I could not put this book down...if only because I couldn't wait to finish it and not have to deal with Williams anymore. I cahhnt. I don't even know where to start. Dafuq is wrong with you people? This was terrible.

There is a difference between a reader of philosophy and a student of philosophy. A reader of philosophy is precisely that: a reader; he/she reads books and essays of philosophy out of his/her own volition and out of genuine interest. A student of philosophy not only reads a philosophical work, but studies it, questions it, and critiques every argument (good or bad) within the work.

I am a student of philosophy, and this book is actually garbage. Literary analysis through a philosophic lens is not equivalent to "a preamble to all of Western philosophy". This is NOT a philosophy book--far from it. This is literary analysis utilizing philosophical principles as explanation. Or, even if it is viewed as a philosophical work, Williams focuses on a handful of passages to make his points. It can also be argued (and argued strongly) that his application of philosophy, in the particular, can just as easily been argued in terms of philosophy, in general, and thereby defeating his assertion that this world of Pooh encompasses all of Western philosophy.

This book is geared towards the reader of philosophy. Williams stresses a definitive tone throughout the book, always leaving little doubt to the accuracy of his conclusions regarding the ties between Pooh and Western philosophy (there is "no possible doubt" and it is "definitely the case", among others). This same confidence is transferred to his reader, as well, always referring to the "well-informed reader" or the "observant reader"; Williams takes on a well-I-mean-obviously-you-know-that-this-principle-means-this-you-dumbass, Doctorate in Philosophy approach. I suggest that this is for the reader of philosophy because mere readers of philosophy love having their egos wanked: "Um, DUH, I knew that, and everyone else who didn't shouldn't even be reading this book" kind of shit (I mean, if you aren't part of the "observant reader" group, then why would you even continue to read this?), despite having only read, say, one book from Kierkegaard. A reader of philosophy would have or will give this book four or five stars because he/she is full of themselves, and think that points in this book are thought-provoking. Of course the Pooh tales are inherently philosophical, so are many other works of literature: philosophy is inherent in all things.

I'll give some credit to Williams in that he 1) introduces basic principles & teachings from Western schools and 2) does so within the framework of children's fiction, which makes it generally easier for people to follow. If you're a fan of Pooh, then this book will definitely be a fun, interesting read. And I have nothing against Pooh philosophy scholars; I just think this book is a terrible example of such thought.

[Maya Joelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hilarious, but it was hard to get through so I didn't finish before it was due back to the library.

I may return someday if I need a fun philosophical read.

read Jan/Feb 2021

[Brandon Harwood · Rating 1 out of 5]

Creative diarrhea.

[Ezra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is certainly divisive, if the reviews of the most vocal could be summed up in a word. I respect the opinions of those who gave low reviews in defence of a bear who seems besieged by the philosophers in this book, when he would rather not be bothered. However, I wish to mention a point concerning this tense conference that we’ve helicoptered into the forest: it is an impotent and comical exercise in hubris to think that Winnie-the-Pooh could be disturbed by metaphysics or existentialism or any of these things. He has much more important things to concern himself with, namely honey and his friends. For those who think this book ridiculous, I’m sure that you can find plenty of serious books out there—but Winnie-the-Pooh is not serious either. Rather than break down each connection to each philosopher and cry foul when nothing really comes of it, I recommend asking the question, “Why is Pooh such a master of philosophy/life? Why would a philosopher care about Pooh and the balloon or the Useful Pot?” And the answer Pooh gives us indirectly is that he knows/doesn’t know all these things as he lives his life. Just like a student of language will ask questions of a native speaker which have never occurred to them before (subjunctive mood comes to mind), these philosophers ask questions only because they would not understand how Pooh goes through his life without them, as if he knows the answer and that is why he is content. In reality, Pooh does not know the answers to all of the philosophers’ questions, but the response he gives would blow them away anyway. Pooh is a native philosopher who puts to shame the humans who have only taken a few years of study of it, but have never (or rarely) gone into the forest itself. My advice is to read this book, chuckle in derision at the poor folks who struggle with Pooh’s ideas (meaning at the same time to transcend your own difficulty with them), and then go to the forest, eat some honey, and hold hands with a friend.

[māris šteinbergs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredible satire on literary criticism and modern philosophy.
how Winnie the Pooh is the greatest philosopher of our time
and this book makes a very compelling case for him too

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

All in all this book was an average book - it is a brief introduction to the classical world of Winnie-the-Pooh (not that Disney recreation) and western philosophy. What it does not do is go into any great detail on either area. It's tone is also extremely sarcastic and at time hostile towards the philosophers (the section on Sartre should be viewed as a direct attack, not an unbiased analysis). The book does one thing, however, which redeems it for all of its many short comings - it shows the reader that the stories of Winnie-the-Pooh are inherently philosophical. While this may seem obvious to some readers, many people cannot see the philosophic overtones in popular culture. It is not there fault, it is simply a skill which takes training (As Dr. Robert Pirro once stated prior to his Film and Politics class, "My mission is to ruin your movie watching experience").

Reading this book can help people open their eyes to philosophies presence in the great works of fiction which define our culture. It is something that proves philosophy to be useful and important. The book also points the reader to a number of philosophers and books written by them and their school which can lead them to learning more. It can be a gateway for the love of wisdom, with a love of "The Great Bear" and the guide to that first discovery. And that is what makes this book worth reading.

[Farah · Rating 2 out of 5]

satu lagi buku yang gue baca tentang filsafat.
Jujur aja, waktu pertama kali gue baca buku ini, gue berpikir, "udah sakit jiwa nih yang nulis.."

I mean, kenapa Winnie the Pooh ini bisa disambung-sambungin ama filsuf dan filsafat sih?

Tapi kemudian, timbul suatu kesadaran di dalam diri gue, yang membuat gue tersadar dari rutinitas kehidupan gue sehari-hari (sama seperti Sophie saat dia menerima pertanyaan, "Siapakah kamu?" huahauhuahuahuahuahuahua).

Intinya sih, yang bikin gue sadar adalah filsafat itu adalah hasil dari pemikiran-pemikiran manusia. Bukan salah penulisnya kalo dia menemukan banyak kesamaan di dalam cerita Winnie the Pooh dengan pola-pola pengajaran filsafat barat. Ya toh? Dia kan hanya menggunakan otaknya untuk memikirkan sesuatu yang lebih berat daripada orang kebanyakan.

Gue cuma baca buku ini dua kali. Yang pertama, karena ngga ngerti, jadi ditengah-tengah proses pembuatan sinopsi mesti gue baca ulang (sialan!).
Belom ada niatan untuk membacanya lagi. Nanti deh, kalo gue udah beli buku di dalam seri yang sama, tapi ngomongin Tiger ama Piglet. Setelah dapet dua buku itu, mungkin gue mau baca lagi buku Pooh ini.

[Don Murphy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Have a philosophy major and serving coffee not making ends meet? Do what the majority of other philosophy majors have done and write a book about Pooh! Why not. There's enough room to fit just about any topic and connect Pooh to it. What's next - Pooh and the Nazis? How about Pooh and the NHL coaches? Or, Pooh and the Archetypal Strippers. How is Eeyore like the over-the-hill prostitute? Now, write a book about it!

[Vartika · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was mighty excited for this book, but I must admit I was rather let down — bored, even. This was exactly like reading one of those elaborate, densely creative essays on literary criticism in college, but with Winnie the Pooh in it. Still, I now have a fair idea of what the deal with Western philosophy is: it's Pooh; he said it all. Oh, and Sartre was just plain stupid.

[Tra-Kay · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fantastic thing about this book is that not only does it humorously discuss the Pooh stories and the philosophers in a deeply knowledgeable and self-mocking, abstract yet lucid manner; but also actually critiques the philosophies and gives opinions about them. This is no mere "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar" "let's introduce concepts with fun stuff" book. THIS, my fellow readers, is a Scholar Fucking Around.

I actually learned a fair bit and was inspired as well, because the lessons were incidental to Williams' silly and suspiciously well-substantiated thesis. This kind of learning is much more natural and therefore effective; so unlike cramming information from a textbook that lists in a dry tone the philosophers' basic beliefs. Life ought to involve MUCH MORE PLAYING! He uses the most wonderfully thorough one-sided logic (pg. 144 was probably the most nonsensical, which means I liked it best). It was a toss-up whether to categorize this under "philosophyreligion" or "comedy", a sort of confusion I wish I felt more often.

"Tigger's search for a food that he really likes and Pooh Bear's eating the honey before giving the Useful--but now empty--Pot to Eeyore are a vivid critique of the main problem of Kantian ethics. The best-known version of Kant's basic moral principal, the Categorical Imperative, runs as follows: "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law." At once we face the problem: How can we fulfill Kant's criterion while choosing a suitable food or gift for a particular person? Anyone who made it a maxim to give everyone honey would have dissatisfied the recipient (Eeyore) in the given example. But if we make a separate choice for each recipient, we are not willing each choice to become a universal law.

It may be answered that this is a quite unreal problem and that the obvious solution is to act on the maxim that we should give the sort of gifts the recipients will enjoy. Or--as that formula would allow us to give a case of whisky to an alcoholic or a gun to a psychopath--we could say we should give gifts which were appropriate to the recipient. But that merely means we ought to give what we ought to give. True but not very helpful. In other words, Winnie-the-Pooh has exposed what Alasdair MacIntyre called "the logical emptiness of the test of the categorical imperative" (A Short History of Ethics, p. 198).

Obviously Kant needed Winnie-the-Pooh to clarify his own obscure prose. And we have just seen the Great Bear expose the unreality of Kant's ethical foundation."

[Kayla Gutierrez · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first, I wasn’t sure whether to take this author’s stance seriously; that Winnie the Pooh, the honey-loving bear in the Hundred Acre Woods, is actually representative of Aristotle who tries to enlighten the friends around him that the earth is round, and that his search for honey is symbolic of his search for the truth. A far-fetched idea written in a subty assuming manner, the book is entertaining, especially when the author depicts Eeyore as a follower of Neitszche and ties the major philosophers (Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, etc.) to the Winnie the Pooh characters and their actions. It is interesting to note that Winnie the Pooh was published in 1926, but that some modern philosophers came out with the same ideas decades later. The author’s description of Ursinian scholars (those who study Winnie the Pooh, the all-knowing bear) adds to its light and clever tone.

The author makes it a point to observe and dissect Pooh’s experimental behavior, which occurs in almost every story and is a sign of a true philosopher. His constant need to test theories often leads him into trouble. Even though Christopher Robin tends to dismiss Pooh’s theories, his behavior implies that he is intellectually stunted and will never mentally move forward. I could not help but laugh at the author’s obvious disdain for Christopher Robin, whom I myself don’t particularly like.

Overall, a short and thought-provoking read for Winnie the Pooh fans.

[Telma Posa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tosi hauska satiiri kirjallisuuskritiikille ja länsimaiselle filosofialle. Vitsikäs kirja, jonka ainut ongelma on ensimmäisen luvun jälkeen ilmenevä yksitoikkoisuus. Vitsi kului loppuun kun luki tarpeeksi pitkälle.
Tosi hyvä kirja myös jos on haluaa opetella länsimaisen filosofian käsitteistöä!

[Lucian Surdeanu · Rating 5 out of 5]

You may get stuck at some parts of the book, but not to worry, take it slow and document yourself on what you can't comprehend. A good read that I would recommend if you want something new, not only for the philosophy enthusiasts, but also for any reader of any sorts.

[Jeremy]

Cf. Hoff's The Tao of Pooh.

[Amelia and John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosophical old bear

[Liam Clarke · Rating 1 out of 5]

load of tripe á mon avis

[Hans Rens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice to find this site for a "review"
I read Pooh (first my grandma read me the Dutch translation when I was a kid - long before Disney turned it into a cocacola red carricature - then I read that myself again, then later learning English I got the original Pooh.

When I found Pooh and the Philosophers, I picked it up after glancing through only a few pages, and I never regret reading it.
Yes, the style is worthy of Pooh itself: lots of tongue-in-cheek passages, and never ever it will be clear for the reader whether this is "an introduction to philosophy" or a mockery of it.
It's a great tribute to The Bear, though and to Milne.

Sometimes the book seems to go in circles ( but that's the literary equivalent of the search for the heffalump, isn't it ? )
Then I applied Socrates' seave :
1 is this "true" ?
2 If not (entirely) true: Does it make me happy ?
3 If not entirely true AND it doesn't bring happiness: do I NEED to know - for safety, protection ... ?

To the TRUTH :
As it is presented as non-fiction: it probably is half true. It's both a text on philosophy and a story about philosophy. The two sources are linked.
They interfere and as always interference of waves with (almost) equal wavelengths, a beautiful but complex pattern appears.
I like to admire the beautiful and complex pattern, then follow The Bear in exploring it.
Admiration is soo much more fulfilling than mere "mentally understanding", though that has beauty in it as well.

So it is probably partly "un-true", but there's enough truth in the book to go on.

2 Even if there is a partial un-truth : this book CAN make me happy.
It references the good stuff of being, of remembering childhood, of remembering what boring adults call 'innocence": if you do not KNOW the easy ways of grown-up life, you need to TRY to do things, the difficult way (Eyore's house, the search for the Pole). Linking that attitude to scientific / philosophical "experimantal methods" is hilarious, and such a wonderful view on how to encourage the ways of science in daily life.
Pooh as an example !

3 Now do I NEED to know ?
For Socrates, when question 1 was answered yes, 2 and 3 weren't necessary.
Here we see 1 is answered with "more than half full", and 2 with "definately full, so bottoms-up"

So 3: yes, you need to know there is a full glass to enjoy the bottoms-up.

Enjoy the book

I expected to find some reviews that would say it was too long. Or that this is "not a good book on real philosophy"
But I find the other ones as well, echoing my idea that the "tongue in cheek" stance matches both pooh/Milne AND the general science that philosophy is.

I am not a formally trained philosopher, didn't go beyond the big principles of the Philosophiae Naturalis. Newtons text is old and not an easy read, but hey it helped bringing people to the moon.
We do need "philosophy" in our dayly life, and if we can do so lauching

[Koen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eigenlijk 2,5 ster. Het zit tussen "It was okay" & "I liked it" in. Stukken uit Winnie-de-Poeh worden in dit boek gepresenteerd als uiting van en kritiek op allerhande filosofische theorieën. In het begin, waar de Griekse filosofen worden besproken, vond ik dit nogal vergezocht, maar verderop bij de rationalisten en empiristen heb ik me wel geamuseerd. Het toetsen van Poeh aan het existentialisme vond ik dan weer minder steekhoudend.

Helaas maakt de schrijver voortdurend, ongetwijfeld grappig bedoelde, opmerkingen als "Aan de oplettende lezer hoef ik nu natuurlijk niet meer uit te leggen dat..." gevolgd door een reeks aan soms vergezochte toepassingen die nauwelijks te volgen zijn. Andersom wordt er, ongetwijfeld weer grappig bedoeld, de vloer aangeveegd met de andere kant: "Ik neem aan dat mijn publiek inmiddels wel gewend is geraakt aan de verblindheid van lezers die hen voorgingen (zowel Poeh-kenners als filosofen) voor de filosofische diepgang in de Wereld van Poeh. Toch zullen zij geschokt zijn te vernemen dat tot dusver niemand zich heeft uitgesproken over de implicaties van bovenstaande beschrijving, die toch zo opvallend zijn dat men er wel over moet struikelen...". Dit is één, hoogstens een paar, keer grappig, maar gaat al gauw vervelen.

Ik kan het boek aanbevelen als je filosofie interessant vindt, je de bekendste filosofische theorieën al kent en je de verhalen van Winnie-de-Poeh leuk vindt. Toch vind ik het minder dan de Tao van Poeh van Benjamin Hoff, waar één filosofische stroming wordt uitgelegd aan de hand van de avonturen van Winnie-de-Poeh. Poeh en de filosofen is veel korter door de bocht en door eerder besproken zaken gewoon minder leuk.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charming. I enjoyed it, and How Seriously it took Itself for an Elaborate Joke. I'm surely more familiar with Pooh than with Philosophy (especially of the German School), and some of the Philosophical Nuance was lost on me. I would Imagine it to be Highly Selective. But he certainly engaged in a Careful Reading of Pooh.

Having read several books on eschatology this year, I must admit that the detailed and nuanced reading of the Pooh Corpus in this book work reminded me of the reading of Scripture engaged in by many so-called prophecy experts. I suppose the greatest difference is not so much the hermeneutical method employed, but that this author knows he is making a joke. Looking at it more soberly than the book is intended to be read, it could serve as a reminder that a perspective is not correct just because it is presented with detail and nuance, nor even because the presenter comes off as earnest (as this author unfailingly does).

Nevertheless, if the interested Ursinologist wants a compelling demonstration of the Great Bear's Enormous Brain, he need look no further.

For those who find this book boring or off-putting, I do not fault you. To return to my analogy with Biblical Studies, Peter Kreeft wrote "The Bible is the most interesting book ever written, but some of the books about it are among the dullest" (You Can Understand the Bible, xvii). Even the books of the greatest ursinologists have a tendency to reduce their subjects to specimens, to corpses. By all means, take Milne himself in hand, and go live a while in the Hundred Acre Wood, for there, "in that enchanted place on top of the Forest, a little boy and his Bear will always be playing."

[Nowhere Else · Rating 4 out of 5]

Are you interested in philosophy but are tired of the pedantic, pretentious, holier-than-thou, “um, actually” crowd that consists of all the philosophers you’ve ever met?
This book might be for you.
Pooh and the Philosophers provides a cursory overview of important western philosophers, all while incorporating the beloved children’s book characters into a teasing satire of the philosophic community. (See other reviews of this book to witness the recipients of this jesting in their natural habitat.) You could either read this volume for the obvious parody that it is or play along and become an avid Ursinian enjoyer— both methods are very enjoyable. (I would recommend against taking it too seriously and getting offended— that can’t be good for your heart.)
Readers should have at least basic knowledge of philosophy (I read it armed with Sophie’s World and a prayer), to at least be familiar with the concepts explored in Hundred Acre Woods. I must admit to being somewhat lost in some passages, but the witty writing style kept me holding on.
Nice read if you can come across it, and I probably should read the original Winnie the Pooh books now.

[Abby Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit, I thought this would be more of a clever, funny book. But, it was actually a pretty serious exposition on Pooh and different philosophies. The only reason large portions of this didn't go over my head was due to my husband's love of philosophy, thus much of the names and concepts were passingly familiar. The overall concept of all past philosophies building up to Pooh, and all post-Pooh philosophies being footnotes on Pooh is quite endearing. I'm not vsure that this is what the author of Pooh had in mind, but it was a fun little book.

My only point of frustration was the writer apologized at one point for how Britush Pooh is and that he's not more diverse. That's so ridiculous. Pooh wouldn't be have as wonderful if he wasn't so fully British. I wish people would stop apologizing for what culture and time they were born into, and for being British or Western. I love British culture and don't think it needs to be apologized for.

Other than that, the book was a fun, slightly challenging read.

[Olivia H · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was… ok. I see a lot of reviews rating it very harshly for its slightly far-fetched philosophical analysis of the Winnie-the-Pooh books but I thought a lot of the analysis was quite clearly intentionally far-fetched, as shown by the sarcasm used throughout.

I was slightly disappointed that the philosophical theories weren’t explained in much depth as I thought the book was going to be an introduction to philosophy (I’m not sure if the author states that it is, but that was the impression I got from other people who recommended it online) and it often assumed knowledge about obscure philosophers. I wouldn’t really recommend this as a book from which to learn about philosophy… it’s more of a book for fans of Winnie-the-Pooh or a witty refresher for philosophy students.

It wasn’t abysmal though and a very quick read so my two stars is more me admitting that I should have done more research before reading it.

[Kerry · Rating 1 out of 5]

I rarely give such low reviews, but this book didn't have anything of substance to say! It reads like a later years undergraduate student bullshitting at the end of a semester.. "See this random, completely out of context line in 'House at Pooh Corner?' This clearly shows Milne predicting Jean-Paul Sartre's main message in 'Age of Reason.'" And that's it. No subsequent analysis or explanation. Okay man.

I think this book's lack of seriousness bothers me so much because Ben Hoff's "Tao of Pooh" is actually a quality read and contains quality analysis with sincere thought evidenced throughout. The fact that Williams cites Hoff as inspiration baffles me. A less generous review might say Williams was simply inspired to sell similar books nominally based on his area of 'professional expertise.' Bother.

[Teresa]

While the title of this book is somewhat supposed to be a joke the book itself was not as fun as I hoped it to be. This book intends to be an introduction to Western philosophy through Winnie the Pooh, but I felt that a lot was lost in the explanations to fully understand why Pooh understood those great philosophical concepts so well. For me, the first part about the Greeks and the last part about the existentialists were the strongest albeit they still lacked something to drive home the points about the connection to The Great Bear. But I must say that as a fan of Winnie the Pooh, it was great to revisit him in another context, and I liked how he was made to be much more than just a Bear of Very Little Brain. This is a book of great entertainment value even if you know something about philosophy already.

[Shiloh · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a life long Winnie the Pooh fan, is it okay to say that this book actually offended me? I expected a fun, entertaining read and instead got mathematical and scientific explanations on what A.A Milne is realllly trying to tell us in the Winnie The Pooh story. The writers ideas as to why certain characters are as written, or why a something as trivial as a pot of honey are so far fetched I really couldn’t wrap my mind around it. If that weren’t bad enough, the writer managed to find ways of insulting the reader.
“I fear there are some readers who did not work out this simple sum and so did not see it’s esoteric meaning...” He then proceeds to break his equation down for us simple folk. This book has no redeeming qualities.

[Penguin · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the funniest books I've ever read. I was originally going to give this 3 stars, but after seeing all the 1-star reviews of people frustrated with the book I had to give it 4. The book dedication at the start says "To Elizabeth Mapstone whose encouragement and constructive criticism turned a casual joke into this book". I'm really not sure how anyone could've read this as anything but exactly that, a series of jokes, which if you want to get further into the weeds could be read as a parody of academia and literary critique as a whole. If you want to read a serious book connecting Pooh Bear to philosophy just stick to The Tao of Pooh, it's pretty clear that each book is looking to accomplish something completely different from the other.

[Chloe Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5-3 stars - essentially this is interesting, yet it seems that Williams has been trying too hard to emphasise that Pooh is the ultimate philosopher, that sometimes the arguments would be too forced. Moreover, in order to emphasise that Pooh is the philosopher, Williams has to pack the entire history of Western philosophy within 200 pages, and that would hence create confusion in certain areas as he would rush through his points instead of properly explaining (such as the association of honey with truth - explained by still leaving readers confused potentially).

Moreover, Williams's insistence that Pooh cannot be wrong, and it's either the fault of the reader or of the philosopher(s) bugs me slightly.