What do you think?
Rate this book
Connections to the World: The Basic Concepts of Philosophy
Arthur C. Danto's lucid introduction to the central topics of Western philosophical thought remains an unparalleled guide to problems in metaphysics and epistemology that have engaged philosophers for several millennia. Examining the work of Plato, Berkeley, Descartes, Hume, and Wittgenstein, Danto explores debates about empiricism, the mind/body problem, the nature of matter, and the status of language, consciousness, and scientific explanation. In a new preface to this edition he considers the current relationship between philosophy and the humanities.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
312 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1989
5 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
About the author
Arthur C. Danto
166 books171 followersArthur C. Danto was Johnsonian Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Columbia University and art critic for The Nation. He was the author of numerous books, including Unnatural Wonders: Essays from the Gap Between Art and Life, After the End of Art, and Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective.
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
July 31, 2015
In Chapter 3 Danto states that philosophy has “arisen only twice in the history of civilization,” in Greece and India, because both made a distinction “between appearance and reality.” These philosophic traditions see the “commonplace” as illusory and Reality as “logically changeless.” They have set the agenda of “what it meant for something to be real” and if subsequent philosophy departs from this central quest “it is hard to see how it can be philosophy.”
Plato, in Danto’s view, does philosophy because his Reality is lodged in unchanging Forms. This, though, defines the non-Platonic philosophers (materialists, empiricists, naturalists, analytical) out of existence, as philosophers. In particular, Danto takes on the early Wittgenstein who argued that “Science is the measure of what is sayable,” i.e., as “the measure of what can be said.” But why, Danto asks, “should we accept that criterion?” That prompts the obvious: Why should we accept Danto’s criterion of what constitutes valid philosophical thinking?
In his last chapter, “The Realm of the Spirit,” Danto states that with humans there are “no casual laws.” There is only an understanding of our uniqueness. We are, I believe he means, not caused beings. We are casual agents who formulate beliefs and choices that guide behavior. To drive this point home, Danto distinguishes between “human sciences” -- the realm of the spirit, of human freedom – in contrast to natural sciences and its determinism.
As we are the products of a common evolutionary history, it could be that changeless forms do exist, in our body. Of course, Danto is right to say that we are free to choose. But the question for evolutionary biology and natural science is not that we don’t have free choice, but why we are disposed to make the choices we do. It could be that our evolutionary imperatives – say, our need to be social, our need for nurture, our need for rank and value, our need for security and protection, our fears about the loss of freedom and control – are underlying, universal (species) forms that explain much of what we do, why we do it and, even, what we ought to do.
There is a lot of rumination in this book that I struggled with. I didn’t understand what he was saying about “inside” and “outside,” though that looked to be a key point he was making.
Plato, in Danto’s view, does philosophy because his Reality is lodged in unchanging Forms. This, though, defines the non-Platonic philosophers (materialists, empiricists, naturalists, analytical) out of existence, as philosophers. In particular, Danto takes on the early Wittgenstein who argued that “Science is the measure of what is sayable,” i.e., as “the measure of what can be said.” But why, Danto asks, “should we accept that criterion?” That prompts the obvious: Why should we accept Danto’s criterion of what constitutes valid philosophical thinking?
In his last chapter, “The Realm of the Spirit,” Danto states that with humans there are “no casual laws.” There is only an understanding of our uniqueness. We are, I believe he means, not caused beings. We are casual agents who formulate beliefs and choices that guide behavior. To drive this point home, Danto distinguishes between “human sciences” -- the realm of the spirit, of human freedom – in contrast to natural sciences and its determinism.
As we are the products of a common evolutionary history, it could be that changeless forms do exist, in our body. Of course, Danto is right to say that we are free to choose. But the question for evolutionary biology and natural science is not that we don’t have free choice, but why we are disposed to make the choices we do. It could be that our evolutionary imperatives – say, our need to be social, our need for nurture, our need for rank and value, our need for security and protection, our fears about the loss of freedom and control – are underlying, universal (species) forms that explain much of what we do, why we do it and, even, what we ought to do.
There is a lot of rumination in this book that I struggled with. I didn’t understand what he was saying about “inside” and “outside,” though that looked to be a key point he was making.
August 14, 2008
clear and stylish outline of the main positions in orthodox analytic philosophy. I'm considering using it for intro, as foil for what I take to be stronger arguments/perspectives
March 28, 2014
This would make a very good *second* book on analytic philosophy. (For an introduction, I'd go with Simon Blackburn's Think.)
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews