What Philosophers Think

by Jeremy Stangroom (Editor), Julian Baggini

>

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Science

256 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2003

About the author

Jeremy Stangroom is a British writer, editor, and website designer. He is an editor and co-founder, with Julian Baggini, of The Philosophers’ Magazine, and has written and edited several philosophy books. He is also co-founder, with Ophelia Benson of the website 'Butterflies and Wheels'.

Reviews

[Mark Gazica · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's books like this that make philosophy so intangible for the layman. The format is absolutely atrocious. The content in this book would have best been served in a documentary. The book is comprised of "interviews" with contemporary philosophers and snippets from the philosophers' pieces of work coupled with the interjections and thoughts of the interviewer to create some semblance of a real conversation. The result is a jarring snapshot of contemporary philosophy that presumes the reader's intellectual understanding of the matter discussed while seeming to be written for a general audience. The author also writes with an incredibly presumptuous tone that turns you away from the subject matter. There were some insightful pieces in the book that almost make it worth a read for those who are interested in philosophy, but I would not recommend anyone else read this book, let alone ever read it again myself.

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really hated the interviewer in this book. I also did not like the lecture/interview format presented. Only a few interesting notes in the work and would have been better to get from a different source

[Ed · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don't be fooled by the title, this is literally just a collection of magazine interviews with modern day philosophers, with accompanying brief summaries of their careers. It's not very interesting. Much of it isn't even about philosophical subject matter itself, but rather the changing politics and fashions in the world of academia. The topics that are covered are very diverse and unrelated, as you would expect if you read 20 randomly selected magazine pieces.

[kelly · Rating 1 out of 5]

A few interesting insights from the interviewees, but I cannot STAND the elitist attitude of the prick who interviewed them.

[Antony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent summary. (Chapters on John Searle and Paul Monk are my favs)