What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophical Propositions
Philosophical Propositions is a fresh, up to date, and reliable introduction to philosophical problems. It takes seriously the need for philosophy to deal with definitive and statable propositions, such as God, certainty, time, personal identity, the mind/body problem, free will and determinism, and the meaning of life.
- GenresPhilosophy
188 pages, Paperback
First published May 6, 1998
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 31, 2008
Westphal provides a decent introduction to philosophy with this text. Nothing earth-shattering. There are also some serious deficiencies, says me.
Westphal attempts to provide the student with an introduction to philosophy, analytic style. He begins with a quote from Wittgenstein (and an ignorant statement by Ludwig, if there ever was one) that sets the tone of how Westphal will do, and teach you how to do, philosophy. Thus Wittgenstein: "The scapegoat, on which one lays one's sins, and who runs away into the desert with them - a false picture, similar to those cause errors in philosophy."
So, many--if not all--of our problems proceed from a false picture of some sort. In order to get solve the problem, one must replace the faulty picture with the correct one. This process is called "philosophical analysis." Analysis takes some problematic term or phrase and turns it into a less problematic one. Then, one hopes, the problem should evaporate.
Westphal provides an example of the false picture view and how analysis solves it with an easy "problem." He takes the proposition:
[P] The average American family has 2.6 children.
And discusses it. Where does the "average" family live? Some average town, on an average street, with an average house and an average picket fence. Perhaps they have an average dog too? And what of their children! What does .6 of a child look like? If these things do not exist, how can the subject and predicate be true if they do not refer to anything? Perhaps they refer to "statistical" families and children. But what is a "statistical child" if not a child? Can we tell the difference between a statistical child and a real one? What is the relation between the two? Clearly those who find [P] problematic have got a wrong picture going on inside their head (mind?).
So, when one analyses the problematic proposition, one turns it into a less problematic one. One does this with the "basic concepts." These vary from problem to problem. In our case, [P], the problematic concepts in need of analysis (the "basic concepts") are "average" and "2.6." We then take the problematic proposition and make an arrow leading into the less problematic analysis. So:
[P] The average American family has 2.6 children.
|
|
V
[P'] The number of American children divided by the number of American families is (=) 2.6.
So, [P'] says the same thing as [P] but without the attendant faulty "pictures" which caused the problems in the first place (this specific example may not have caused any problems for you, but the point should still land for you).
This is how one analyzes philosophical puzzles, and then resolves them. Of course the analysis must work. One is always free to reject the analyzed proposition as not properly representing the proposition to be analyzed. This is the procedure Westphal takes in the majority of the book's chapters.
After the introductory chapter (which is basically explained above), Westphal proceeds to "introduce philosophy." He discusses some basic concepts of logic and philosophy: what is a valid argument? (Ch.2); the problem of evil: why does God allow evil to exist? (Ch.3); the existence of God: can the existence of God be proven? (Ch.4); certainty: what is certainty? and what is certain? (Ch.5); time: how can time exist? (Ch.6); personal identity: what am I? (Ch.7); the mind body problem: how is the mind related to the body? (Ch.8); free will and determinism: are people free? (Ch.9); and the meaning of life: what is the meaning of life? (ch.10).
Most of these chapters present decent introduction to the issues involved in each. His method of analysis is too simplistic, though, and tends to heavily toward ordinary language philosophy. I think it's hard enough to offer a good introduction to logic text and so a mere chapter on the subject is simply a waste of time. If you are a philosophy student (and this book is aimed at them), then you will go through a critical thinking course with a logic textbook. So, I found chapter 2 to be superfluous. I also did not appreciate the absence of chapters on both metaphysics (in general), epistemology and ethics. These would have been much more helpful for the student instead of a chapter on certainty and the meaning of life. (Or, if those chapters needed to be included, the book could have been 13 chapters instead of 10. If he had space constraints, then my three recommendations should have been included instead of 2, 5 and 10. Or, perhaps one of them could have been included if the logic chapter had been excluded, which it should have been.)
As an example of a couple of the chapters: Westphal took a compatibilist position to the free will question. I was somewhat happy about that, but his view was not the best in the compatibilist field. For a better treatment, see the works of John Fischer. Fischer denies many of the compatibilist positions Westphal stands on, and rightly so by my lights. Westphal also presents "neutral monism" as the position which begins to set forth an answer to the mind/body problem. This view is in the minority, but is making a comeback as of late. Basically, neither mind nor body is basic, but rather some third, "neutral" stuff is the correct view. Since this view is so uncommon, and a bit detailed, Westphal just clouds the issue all the more. I think the student will come away more confused, rather than less confused. This flies in the face of the intent of what "analysis" is supposed to do.
Thus, this is simply an okay introduction to philosophy. There are more basic, "big picture" questions that the student needs to start off with, in my opinion. But, this may be indicative of the anti-metaphysical bias of Wittgensteinians. Despite that, the chapters discussed could have been done better. The book was not all bad though. The reader will pick up many good insights, as well as obtain a slight familiarity with some of the positions held in philosophy--even if it's not always the most contemporary, or sophisticated take on a matter (and one can do "sophisticated" without making the work itself too sophisticated). His critiques against (for example) physicalism were not too bad for an introduction. His critiques against libertarianism were okay, but he ignores the agent-causation response to one of his main arguments (he brushes it aside with barely a passing reference, offering a throw-away comment/argument).
Overall, I guess I liked it, so that's why I gave it 3 stars. But there are better introduction out there. Lord willing I'll add them soon.
P.S. The binding was also poorly done, but Routledge is usually good, so this may have been a fluke copy.
Westphal attempts to provide the student with an introduction to philosophy, analytic style. He begins with a quote from Wittgenstein (and an ignorant statement by Ludwig, if there ever was one) that sets the tone of how Westphal will do, and teach you how to do, philosophy. Thus Wittgenstein: "The scapegoat, on which one lays one's sins, and who runs away into the desert with them - a false picture, similar to those cause errors in philosophy."
So, many--if not all--of our problems proceed from a false picture of some sort. In order to get solve the problem, one must replace the faulty picture with the correct one. This process is called "philosophical analysis." Analysis takes some problematic term or phrase and turns it into a less problematic one. Then, one hopes, the problem should evaporate.
Westphal provides an example of the false picture view and how analysis solves it with an easy "problem." He takes the proposition:
[P] The average American family has 2.6 children.
And discusses it. Where does the "average" family live? Some average town, on an average street, with an average house and an average picket fence. Perhaps they have an average dog too? And what of their children! What does .6 of a child look like? If these things do not exist, how can the subject and predicate be true if they do not refer to anything? Perhaps they refer to "statistical" families and children. But what is a "statistical child" if not a child? Can we tell the difference between a statistical child and a real one? What is the relation between the two? Clearly those who find [P] problematic have got a wrong picture going on inside their head (mind?).
So, when one analyses the problematic proposition, one turns it into a less problematic one. One does this with the "basic concepts." These vary from problem to problem. In our case, [P], the problematic concepts in need of analysis (the "basic concepts") are "average" and "2.6." We then take the problematic proposition and make an arrow leading into the less problematic analysis. So:
[P] The average American family has 2.6 children.
|
|
V
[P'] The number of American children divided by the number of American families is (=) 2.6.
So, [P'] says the same thing as [P] but without the attendant faulty "pictures" which caused the problems in the first place (this specific example may not have caused any problems for you, but the point should still land for you).
This is how one analyzes philosophical puzzles, and then resolves them. Of course the analysis must work. One is always free to reject the analyzed proposition as not properly representing the proposition to be analyzed. This is the procedure Westphal takes in the majority of the book's chapters.
After the introductory chapter (which is basically explained above), Westphal proceeds to "introduce philosophy." He discusses some basic concepts of logic and philosophy: what is a valid argument? (Ch.2); the problem of evil: why does God allow evil to exist? (Ch.3); the existence of God: can the existence of God be proven? (Ch.4); certainty: what is certainty? and what is certain? (Ch.5); time: how can time exist? (Ch.6); personal identity: what am I? (Ch.7); the mind body problem: how is the mind related to the body? (Ch.8); free will and determinism: are people free? (Ch.9); and the meaning of life: what is the meaning of life? (ch.10).
Most of these chapters present decent introduction to the issues involved in each. His method of analysis is too simplistic, though, and tends to heavily toward ordinary language philosophy. I think it's hard enough to offer a good introduction to logic text and so a mere chapter on the subject is simply a waste of time. If you are a philosophy student (and this book is aimed at them), then you will go through a critical thinking course with a logic textbook. So, I found chapter 2 to be superfluous. I also did not appreciate the absence of chapters on both metaphysics (in general), epistemology and ethics. These would have been much more helpful for the student instead of a chapter on certainty and the meaning of life. (Or, if those chapters needed to be included, the book could have been 13 chapters instead of 10. If he had space constraints, then my three recommendations should have been included instead of 2, 5 and 10. Or, perhaps one of them could have been included if the logic chapter had been excluded, which it should have been.)
As an example of a couple of the chapters: Westphal took a compatibilist position to the free will question. I was somewhat happy about that, but his view was not the best in the compatibilist field. For a better treatment, see the works of John Fischer. Fischer denies many of the compatibilist positions Westphal stands on, and rightly so by my lights. Westphal also presents "neutral monism" as the position which begins to set forth an answer to the mind/body problem. This view is in the minority, but is making a comeback as of late. Basically, neither mind nor body is basic, but rather some third, "neutral" stuff is the correct view. Since this view is so uncommon, and a bit detailed, Westphal just clouds the issue all the more. I think the student will come away more confused, rather than less confused. This flies in the face of the intent of what "analysis" is supposed to do.
Thus, this is simply an okay introduction to philosophy. There are more basic, "big picture" questions that the student needs to start off with, in my opinion. But, this may be indicative of the anti-metaphysical bias of Wittgensteinians. Despite that, the chapters discussed could have been done better. The book was not all bad though. The reader will pick up many good insights, as well as obtain a slight familiarity with some of the positions held in philosophy--even if it's not always the most contemporary, or sophisticated take on a matter (and one can do "sophisticated" without making the work itself too sophisticated). His critiques against (for example) physicalism were not too bad for an introduction. His critiques against libertarianism were okay, but he ignores the agent-causation response to one of his main arguments (he brushes it aside with barely a passing reference, offering a throw-away comment/argument).
Overall, I guess I liked it, so that's why I gave it 3 stars. But there are better introduction out there. Lord willing I'll add them soon.
P.S. The binding was also poorly done, but Routledge is usually good, so this may have been a fluke copy.
Read
November 27, 2021Idk man
I read this book to learn more about philosophy and it was a lot harder than I thought. Don’t get me wrong, I learned but if your really trying to dip your toes into philosophical readings I’m sure there are easier texts
What do I know though?
I read this book to learn more about philosophy and it was a lot harder than I thought. Don’t get me wrong, I learned but if your really trying to dip your toes into philosophical readings I’m sure there are easier texts
What do I know though?
Read
February 5, 2020It's not an Introduction.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews