Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy

by Michael Bruce (editor), Steven Barbone (Editor)

Does the existence of evil call into doubt the existence of God? Show me the argument. Philosophy starts with questions, but attempts at answers are just as important, and these answers require reasoned argument. Cutting through dense philosophical prose, 100 famous and influential arguments are presented in their essence, with premises, conclusions and logical form plainly identified. Key quotations provide a sense of style and approach. Just the Arguments is an invaluable one-stop argument shop. A concise, formally structured summation of 100 of the most important arguments in Western philosophy The first book of its kind to present the most important and influential philosophical arguments in a clear premise/conclusion format, the language that philosophers use and students are expected to know Offers succinct expositions of key philosophical arguments without bogging them down in commentary Translates difficult texts to core arguments Designed to provides a quick and compact reference to everything from Aquinas' "Five Ways" to prove the existence of God, to the metaphysical possibilities of a zombie world

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Logic, Reference, Audiobook, Metaphysics, History

432 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

Reviews

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not personally what I was hoping for. Its not that I can't appriciate concise compilations, but I think this took some of the "essence" of major philosophical works and threw it to the wind. Lets reduce every possible philosophical argument to mathematical equations and see what the answers are? Sorry there are no answers to life, half of life is in the asking of the question and the other half in the exploration of the unknown. Question asked answer given?> Not really how I feel about philosophy. My husband loved this book though, he said it really broke things down for him and he felt like he got rid of a lot of the fluff. My review reflects the fact that I love fluff. For people that don't this may be for you.

[Arezoo Gharib · Rating 4 out of 5]

در این کتاب استدلال‌های مطرح در زمینه فلسفه ارائه‌ و نقد شده و یکی از نکات مثبت کتاب اینه که میشه هر بخش رو به صورت مجزا خوند و نیاز به شروع خوانش از ابتدا تا به پایان کتاب نیست، و در مقدمه کتاب اشاره شده که استدلال هایی که از شروع کتاب تا به پایانش اومده، براساس اهمیتشون نیست و خیلی از استدلال ها هم هست که قراره در جلدهای بعدی اضافه بشه، بشخصه بخشهای مربوط در مورد فیلسوفانی که قبلا مطالعه داشتم رو میتونستم مجزا بخونم، و نقد شدن استدلال که میتونست استدلال فیلسوف دیگری باشه،و پرداختن به جنبه های مختلف استدلال فلاسفه از نکات خوب کتاب بود.

[Ray Haleblian · Rating 4 out of 5]

The following is in reference to the audiobook version of the text.

To say this is "Read" is a bit of a stretch; it would be more fair to say it is "Read as a Preparation to Possibly Read Again". At its root, the material is challenging; choosing audio format as the form of presentation, the reader has given themselves additional challenge. Find your rewind button and practice using it.

All arguments are ultimately (re)described formally, which i found harder to follow verbally than the accompanying prose discussion. Respecting the rigor of this, I still couldn't help wishing the proof and the prose were separate chapters so one could visit the latter or the former independently.

So many problems involve language and meta-language. You may come out of the book impressed by how much you thought you knew, both individually and as a species, that you really don't. I got a little depressed.

[Moh. Nasiri]

مطالعه خلاصه ای از کتاب
https://nashrenow.com/%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9...

[rep]

okuması çok zor bir kitap ansiklopedi gibi bir kenarda durabilir faydalı ama baya zor sadece felsefe değil bir çok alanda bilgi sahibi olsan anca anlarsın

[Dayi Behrad · Rating 4 out of 5]

واقعیتش نتونستم همه‌ی بخش‌های کتاب رو بخونم، حس می‌کنم آمادگی بعضی از بحث‌هاش رو ندارم و بعدا حتما به این کتاب برمی‌گردم.
در کل خوندنش رو توصیه می‌کنم.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not quite as good a book as the authors think it is.  That is not say it is a bad book, by any means, just that it is not as good as the authors believe.  Still, if you have an interest in philosophy and want to look at the various arguments that exist within Western philosophy both in history and in the contemporary world of philosophy (such as it matters), this book will at least allow someone with a high degree of patience and interest in analytic philosophy to read about what philosophers argue about.  To their credit, the authors strive to be even-handed when it comes to presenting arguments and counterarguments here, as readers will likely be able to find at least some sort of arguments they are willing to support or endorse.  The sad state of contemporary philosophy is in evidence here as one can read ridiculous arguments about kidneys and violinists to support abortion as being key arguments in contemporary philosophy.  It is one thing to like and appreciate philosophy, but contemporary philosophers really need to increase their game and their humility if they desire to be taken seriously.

This book is about 400 pages long and is contains the discussion of 100 arguments in philosophy ranged over a variety of fields within the Western tradition.  The first thirteen essays deal with the philosophy of religion, including cosmological arguments from St. Thomas Aquinas, the Kalam argument, and Pascal's wager, along with inferior arguments like Hume's argument against miracles and the Eurhyphro dilemma (1).  After this comes twenty one arguments relating to metaphysics, including arguments about the reality or lack of reality of change and time and questions of possible worlds and personal identity and the ship of Theseus and arguments about monism, free will, and fatalism (2).  After this there are sixteen arguments relating to epistemology, including cogito arguments, arguments for skepticism and experience, problems of induction and analogical reasoning (3).  There are then twenty-four arguments about ethics, including questionms of error theory, utilitarianism, the irreducible nature of goods and sources of morality (4).  There are fourteen arguments about the philosophy of mind (5) that engage such questions as to physicalism, dualism, and even the zombie argument.  Finally, the book ends with twelve essays on science and language that include classics like Popper's demarcation argument, arguments about learning and language and arguments for the principle of charity as well as for Platonism (6), as well as appendices about learning the lingo of logic, rules of inference and replacement, notes on contributors, and an index.

This book may be an interesting one when viewed in correspondence with an obvious companion volume on Eastern Philosophy.   Viewing the contrast between Western and Eastern philosophy and seeing how questions of ultimate truth can be addressed when one looks at very different religious and philosophical traditions is at least something that is potentially interesting.  There are some good arguments to found here and at least some of the arguments are genuinely important ones, and so this book is one that can be recommended with caution so long as the reader is willing and able to address some of the broad subject matter included here, which predictably contains some ancient arguments but suffers from a high degree of chronological snobbery in its focus mostly on newer philosophical questions that the author is likely to be less familiar with unless one has a high degree of interest in reading contemporary books on philosophy.  And given how much other material there is to read that is likely to be more enjoyable, few students outside of philosophy departments are likely to find most of this to be of interest.  I happen to be among those few, but I suppose not many others will be.

[Istvan Zoltan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a practical book for people studying or working on philosophy. It can be used very well for teaching. The book offers important arguments from Western Philosophy, most of them 20th century anglo-saxon works. Each argument has a 1-2 page explanation and evaluation - what's its significance, weakness, etc. - and then the argument set out premise-by-premise, first-order logic style but without formalisation. Very handy if you have higher level high school classes, or focused uni classes and want to give your students assignments (find the missing step, identify the weak points, take a stance for or against, etc.).
I would not recommend it to anyone new to philosophy, and for students it will only be useful with the assistance - guidance of a teacher who provides the needed context.

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are a few things that are great about this book:

1. It covers more than just one area of philosophy. It covers just about everything except aesthetics, I believe. Including morality, political philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and metaphysics.

2. It is literally as it says; just the arguments. It literally gives maybe one or two pages worth of information about the argument, like who argued for it, how they came to it, and then it's straight into putting the argument into a logical syllogism.

You can't get too much easier than that. It will at least help you learn the argument and then you can read the argument straight from the original author if you so choose.

[Reinhard Gobrecht · Rating 4 out of 5]

The books shows in a very compact way a lot of philosophical arguments. The advantage is: you must not read endless books in philosophy, you can find in this book 100 arguments which are made visible in one book. Arguments from Augustin, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Davidson an many others.
In some way there is not in any case a sharpness distinction between principles (Axioms) and arguments. Nevertheless the book gives a lot of information with exactly references to the primary literature.

[Yara Hatem · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like how simple and very basic the idea of this book is. I like how they took a simple idea and just went with it.

This book somehow rejuvenated my faith in the fact that logical Reasoning is independent of political and religious commitments.

Put simply, an argument is valid or it is not. Yet Whether or not it is convincing is another issue.

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The cover makes you think this is yet another piece of pop trash (at least it doesn't have Socrates wearing sunglasses) but it's the real deal. Hume on miracles:

P1. That A is the case provides evidence E for B’s being the case if and only if the number of times in which we have observed A, and then have observed B, is greater than the number of times in which we have observed that A was not followed by B.

P2. The strength of E is proportional to the ratio among the number of times in which we have observed A, and then have observed B, and the number of times in which we have observed that A was not followed by B.

P3. The existence of testimony of type K (henceforth K-testimony) to the effect that B was not the case provides evidence ET for the proposition that B was not the case only if the number of times in which we have received K-testimony for a proposition, and then have observed that the proposition was true, is greater than the number of times in which we have received K-testimony for a proposition and then have observed that the proposition was not true (instantiation, P1).

P4. The strength of ET is proportional to the ratio among the number of times in which we have received K-testimony for a proposition and then have observed that the proposition was true and the number of times in which we have received K-testimony for a proposition and then have observed that the proposition was not true (instantiation, P2).

P5. Whenever one’s global evidence is constituted by E1 and E2, and E1 is evidence in favor of a given p, and E2 is evidence for non-p, it is rational to believe that p only if E1 is stronger than E2, it is rational to disbelieve that p only if E2 is stronger than E1, and it is rational to withhold belief as to whether p only if the strength of E1 is the same as the strength of E2.

P6. There is K-testimony to the occurrence of a miracle M.

P7. There is a law of nature L – say that every A is followed by B – and the K-testimony is to the effect that A was not followed by B (DEF–m).

P8. It is rational to accept that M occurred (assumption for reductio).

P9. That A was the case provides evidence E* for the proposition that B was the case, which is weaker than the evidence ET, provided by the K-testimony, for the proposition that B was not the case.

P10. If it is rational to accept that M occurred, then that A was the case provides evidence E* for the proposition that B was the case, which is weaker than the evidence ET, provided by the K-testimony, for the proposition that B was not the case (instantiation, P8, P9).

P11. L has been established by a “firm and unalterable experience” of many instances of A’s that were followed by many instances of B’s without exception (DEF-1).

P12. That A was the case provides the strongest possible evidence E* for the proposition that B was the case (instantiation, P2, P11).

P13. ET is stronger than the strongest possible evidence E* (conjunction P9, P12).

C1. It is not the case that ET is stronger than E*.

C2. It is not rational to accept that M occurred (modus tollens, P10, C1).

This kind of argument - called "formal" in the humanities, called "informal" in mathematics - is how philosophy was actually taught at my Anglo university. It's the first book which shows you the actual mental moves (though Honderich and co had some of the same aims): abstract it, structure it, infer it. (Whether you can actually catch these moves without also arguing in seminars is another matter.)

Note that, as is normal in analytic tradition, the authors go quite far beyond the text and patch the missing premises and overall do charity / rational reconstruction. This is because we don't care about the vessel here, we care about the wine.

Replaces "Squashed Philosophers" as my go-to introduction to philosophy, but only for students with a first course in logic already.

[Joseph Hirsch · Rating 3 out of 5]

A "Philosophy for Dummies" book is a bit of a paradox, since even the most clearly explicated and seemingly simple theory creates counterarguments that lead to debates stretching over the course of centuries and sometimes even millennia. How do you condense that sort of information in such a way that the student (or the rusty post-graduate or perhaps just the homeless autodidact on the city bus) can have a sort of Kantian Cliff Notes at hand, whenever the need should arise?

You don't, I guess would be my answer, or at least you don't do it in such a way that this reader and layman found all that helpful or well-organized, at least not here. I think a series of books divided by discipline (one for Ontology, one for Epistemology, etc.) would have helped, as would a single author for each of those volumes, in the interest of maintaining stylistic and intellectual consistency. Focusing more time on clearly delineating the points of the initial theory and a little less time on the counterarguments might have also been helpful.

The symbols and abbreviations, the presentation of the aforementioned counterarguments, created a virtual thicket of Lacanian cipher that reminded me of the worst kind of "physics envy" stuff I used to encounter as an undergrad, when the chalkboard was cluttered from slate to slate with what looked like the work left by a previous (math) professor trying to work out some finer point of Euler's Polyhedra Formulation. This is understandable when and where there's some interdisciplinary overlap between philosophy and math (a few such arguments are presented in the text), but in most other cases it was distracting to the point of discouraging me from reading further.

This is a minority report, though, as a quick scan of some other reviews should bear out. You may find it fruitful personally, and practical for a classroom environment or a mini-refresher course.

[Dkettmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook version)

tl;dr - Reference books (even seemingly great, accessible ones like this) make terrible audiobooks.

I very much struggle to see why compendiums of facts (i.e. ref books) are even created in audiobook format. This is the second time I've committed to listening to one, and then it turns out to be boring. A recitation of similar-but-unconnected things.

I struggled and almost pulled the plug a few times. Giving it a 4 because it isn't fair to judge the work itself on a bad presentation of it, and the book really does seem good. The presentations of each of the 100 arguments is excellent! I loved those parts, they kept me engaged enough to listen through the (very good!) narrator drone on through the logical proofs (p1, p2 deduces to c1 via ) etc etc etc for minutes. Very hard to not zone out, and often I would, only to snap back when the next entry started and the presentation was interesting again.

A physical book would be great with the easy ability to skim the proof parts and skip entries that didn't interest. That is the book that I rated. Without that it was a slog.

-D

[Tyler Tidwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a unique philosophy book that boils each argument down to its simplest premise / conclusion form, which looks something like:

P1: This is a survey book.
P2: Survey books give a broad overview of a certain topic.
C1: This book gives a broad overview of a certain topic (philosophy).

Interestingly, as the book's commentary shows, the efficacy and logical validity of each argument is often a matter of interpretation, definition disputes, and other subjective preferences for which "reason" alone cannot arbitrate. Furthermore, several arguments whose logical validity is air tight are still subject to attack by counterarguments that are also logically valid.

What should we infer from these observations? Perhaps the presumptions of modern Analytic philosophy are a bit overblown, and Continental philosophy - despite all its eccentricities - gives a more accurate picture of how the world actually works.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

To be fair, I don't think I read this book as it is meant to be read. You shouldn't read this from cover to cover, it becomes an overdose of simplified, sterilized and decontextualized arguments that ultimately makes all (mostly analytic) philosophy sound very dumb.
This should probably be used as a reference, in case you're reading some other text that mentions one of these arguments to quickly check a bare bones version of it to situate yourself about its premises and logical structure. For that reason it might be an amazing book, but I am writing about my experience and it saturated me of philosophy.
Still, it was nice to review arguments I knew and get acquainted with others that I wasn't familiar with.

[R Nair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent concise discussion of 100 important arguments in Epistemology, Religion, Metaphysics, Philosophy of mind, ethics etc. From Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas to Feminism, abortion and euthanasia, this book offers a compact lecture note style discussion of each topic covered. Each chapter is generally not more than 3 pages long and quickly discusses the argument and some major counter arguments before presenting the formal premesis and conclusions of philosophical logic which is a great help in understanding some of the more complex ideas. An excellent book to keep coming back to whilst working through denser texts on Philosophy.

[Todd Decker · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great reference. In many of the canonical texts of Western philosophy the philosophers themselves did not present their ideas in the form of concise arguments with clear premises, logical implications, and conclusions. This book reconstructs the arguments and presents them in concise form. Each chapter gives a brief background, some quotes from the original text, and ends with a formal statement or reconstruction of the argument. It’s exceptionally useful because it makes the flow of the arguments transparent and easy to see on what they depend for their force. Really, really good!

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 5 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.

[Saber shiri · Rating 2 out of 5]

دنیا به سمت فلسفه ی کاربردی در حرکت است ، اما نویسنده این کتاب همچنان در فلسفه ی پایه گیر کرده است و سعی می کند به صورت تارهای درهم تنیده دیدگاه ها و استدلال هایی را که با سلیقه ی خود برگزیده است را به صورت مبهم (فلسفه ی دانشگاهی ) به خواننده منتقل کند . برای ارزش گزاری هم در مقدمه از استدلال هایش تعریف و تمجید میکند و کتابش را خلاصه ای از کتاب های فلسفه می داند !!
کل کتاب عنوان بندی صد استدلال است که با مقدمه یا توضیح مختصری معرفی شده اند .

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, quick overview (if there is such a thing) of the major arguments — some of which I did not know about — in a (mostly) understandable discussion. Very interesting book which I will likely reread in the future.

[Juro · Rating 3 out of 5]

It seems to me that many of these arguments can be answered by combining simple concepts from machine learning and evolution. Two things that ancient greeks didn't know about.

[Sean Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent reference for those looking to refresh their understanding of important arguments or to prepare themselves for more advanced study.

[Eduardo Garcia-Gaspar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Diversos autores resumen una selección de los argumentos/temas filosóficos más importantes de todos los tiempos, desde religión, hasta epistemología, pasando por metafísica, ética, filosofía de la mente y ciencia y lenguaje.
Cada capítulo resume uno de los argumentos, desde las cinco pruebas de Aquino hasta el argumento de las ciencias y pseudociencias de K Popper; una amplísima variedad de temas.
En cada capítulo, su autor inicia con una bibliografía del argumento que trata para posteriormente hacer un resumen que ubica y explica al argumento, y terminando con su estructuración en forma de silogismo.
Para mi escasa preparación en el tema, la obra tiene muchas partes incomprensibles, muy por encima de mi capacidad, sin embargo, la brevedad y calidad de los resúmenes permite una lectura más ligera de lo que sería leyendo los originales. Sobre todo, permite al curioso como yo tener una idea aproximada del tipo de asuntos que ocupan la mente de los filósofos (los que tarde o temprano afectan la vida de todos, incluyendo a los que no saben ni que existieron esos filósofos).
Creo que el libro merece 4 estrellas por el mérito de resumir esas grandes ideas y hacerlo de manera que, en algunos casos, pude comprender el asunto. Definitivamente el libro es para quien tiene conocimientos suficientes o quiere tenerlos.