What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophy For Dummies
Fanden Sie Philosophie eigentlich schon immer interessant, aber haben sich nie so recht herangetraut? Dann ist dies das Buch f�1/4r Sie!
»Philosophie f�1/4r Dummies« ist eine Einf�1/4hrung in die Gedanken gro�Ÿer Denker und die verschiedenen Disziplinen, aber vor allem auch eine Ermunterung, sich selbst Gedanken zu machen - �1/4ber den Sinn des Lebens, ethische Vorstellungen, oder die Frage, was wir �1/4berhaupt wissen k�nnen ...
»Philosophie f�1/4r Dummies« ist eine Einf�1/4hrung in die Gedanken gro�Ÿer Denker und die verschiedenen Disziplinen, aber vor allem auch eine Ermunterung, sich selbst Gedanken zu machen - �1/4ber den Sinn des Lebens, ethische Vorstellungen, oder die Frage, was wir �1/4berhaupt wissen k�nnen ...
384 pages, Paperback
Published September 21, 1999
238 people are currently reading
1792 people want to read
About the author
Tom Morris
90 books65 followersThere is more than one author by this name. This profile contains various Tom's.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
May 17, 2012
Basically, the author ignores all of his previous arguments in the last four chapters and concludes that all atheists are nihilists and you must believe in a Christian God (he mentions Christian religions, but no others) to lead a fulfilling life. RAGE.
The author is obviously theistic. He provides good evidence for the view of theism (in asking whether there is a god, life after death, etc.) by itself. However, he will always provide evidence against the atheistic or naturalistic theories or views, which by itself I do not find to be compelling in most cases. He also does not ever offer an explanation that can potentially disprove theism to the degree that he attempts to disprove the theory of atheism.
In such a regard, I give this book three stars because it has taught me some basic things to understand about philosophy, and some basic arguments (that I feel I can better argue myself than he can in some cases) on "either side" of philosophical approach.
However, because of the bias, I feel like I've been cheated. I understand that it is difficult for some theists to accept one not being or wanting to be theistic, but I feel, for the sake of philosophical argument, atheistic argument should have been given the same weight as the theistic arguments. So I give it one star for SO BIASED.
I'm not lying when I say that this book enraged me. I think it would greatly be improved if an atheistic philosopher were to co-author to provide possible evidence and examples for atheistic arguments. I feel like this book ultimately sought to tell me what to believe, not to help me make an informed decision on philosophy and life's questions. It did provide me with tools — simply not well-crafted tools. I would like to be offered enough to make my own decisions.
Now I need to turn this book back into the school library before I burn it.
The author is obviously theistic. He provides good evidence for the view of theism (in asking whether there is a god, life after death, etc.) by itself. However, he will always provide evidence against the atheistic or naturalistic theories or views, which by itself I do not find to be compelling in most cases. He also does not ever offer an explanation that can potentially disprove theism to the degree that he attempts to disprove the theory of atheism.
In such a regard, I give this book three stars because it has taught me some basic things to understand about philosophy, and some basic arguments (that I feel I can better argue myself than he can in some cases) on "either side" of philosophical approach.
However, because of the bias, I feel like I've been cheated. I understand that it is difficult for some theists to accept one not being or wanting to be theistic, but I feel, for the sake of philosophical argument, atheistic argument should have been given the same weight as the theistic arguments. So I give it one star for SO BIASED.
I'm not lying when I say that this book enraged me. I think it would greatly be improved if an atheistic philosopher were to co-author to provide possible evidence and examples for atheistic arguments. I feel like this book ultimately sought to tell me what to believe, not to help me make an informed decision on philosophy and life's questions. It did provide me with tools — simply not well-crafted tools. I would like to be offered enough to make my own decisions.
Now I need to turn this book back into the school library before I burn it.
January 27, 2011
So incredibly frustrated with the book. I suppose one of the problems is that I've done philosophy at school - at a much higher level than this book - and this approach didn't work for me: I would have prefered more original texts, more about the philosophers, more depth. And it's okay that the book doesn't offer this.
The reason I stopped reading this - and why I almost threw the book in a corner - is that Mr. Morris is incredibly biased. He gives counterarguments for all the ideas he doesn't like and basically declares them pointless. These arguments are missing for the theories he does approve of - even though one could also make objections for them!
And the point is: I suppose that most of the people who read this don't even know this, because knowledge of philosophy isn't required. There is no room for personal opinions at all.
The reason I stopped reading this - and why I almost threw the book in a corner - is that Mr. Morris is incredibly biased. He gives counterarguments for all the ideas he doesn't like and basically declares them pointless. These arguments are missing for the theories he does approve of - even though one could also make objections for them!
And the point is: I suppose that most of the people who read this don't even know this, because knowledge of philosophy isn't required. There is no room for personal opinions at all.
June 1, 2013
While I don't usually have high expectations with "For Dummies" books, I at least expect them to be written by someone who is knowledgeable in the subject at hand and reasonably unbiased.
This is absolutely not the case with this book. It is extremely biased to the point that any philosophical ideas the author does not favour are falsely defined (altering basic dictionary definitions of the concepts). There was clearly no peer-review input from other philosophers. I have a hard time understanding how this book was ever approved for publishing.
This is absolutely not the case with this book. It is extremely biased to the point that any philosophical ideas the author does not favour are falsely defined (altering basic dictionary definitions of the concepts). There was clearly no peer-review input from other philosophers. I have a hard time understanding how this book was ever approved for publishing.
February 26, 2018
This is not so much an introduction to the basics of philosophy as it is an attempt at religious indoctrination.
Show us the basics of philosophy, its uses and abuses (of which this book is a prime example); show us how to construct and break down a philosophical argument for ourselves. But don't try to persuade us to convert to your religious view point under the guise of teaching us about philosophy!
Show us the basics of philosophy, its uses and abuses (of which this book is a prime example); show us how to construct and break down a philosophical argument for ourselves. But don't try to persuade us to convert to your religious view point under the guise of teaching us about philosophy!
April 11, 2024
Morris, Tom. Philosophy for Dummies.
Its title notwithstanding, or perhaps because of its title and format, this is the best introductory text to philosophy that I have read. It is not entirely a basic philosophy text, nor is it a philosophy of religion text. It is a mixture of both. It covers basic issues like knowledge and metaphysics, while exploring challenges to theistic belief.
Tom Morris, former philosophy professor at Notre Dame and author of classics such as Our Idea of God and Logic of God Incarnate, brings philosophy down to the bottom shelf, so to speak. As with all of Morris’s new books, he could not be boring if he tried. This book divides the topic along the standard lines of Philosophy of Religion, the early chapters covering issues such as epistemology. After dealing with knowledge and ethics, Morris explores the existence of God, the problem of the afterlife, free will, and the soul. Some of it, particularly the section on Pascal, can be found in other works. Accordingly, his treatment on the existence and nature of God, while excellent, can be found in Our Idea of God, which you should read.
While the book is from a Christian theistic perspective, Morris alerts the reader, and readers of all persuasions, to the various options and challenges on each topic.
Belief, Truth, and Knowledge
In terms of epistemology, Morris follows the standard model of knowledge as justified, true belief. Unlike some treatments of knowledge, Morris explains, perhaps in ways Plato could not always do, the connection between knowledge and behavior, as seen in the following equation: Belief + Desires = Actions. Knowledge is an “attainment” (46). “Believing is an activity; knowing is the intended result.”
Challenge of Skepticism
Knowledge, particularly as defined above, is simple–perhaps too simple. As Esther Lightcap Meek noted in Longing to Know, if Western philosophy was birthed in Platonism, its cradle was skepticism. Why do you believe what you believe? As Morris notes, “All of your beliefs about the past depend upon testimony, memory, or both, or else by sense-experience, augmented by testimony and memory” (63). But that is a problem: How do you know testimony and memory are reliable? We normally try to answer this question by appealing to our own memory to justify our memory, but this is circular reasoning.
In other words, you cannot logically prove that you did not come into existence five minutes ago with pre-formed memories. How can one respond to that? Morris gives us a tool: the principle of belief conservation.
“For any proposition, P: If
Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P…would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs, and
You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and
You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P” (80).
Therefore,
“Sense experience, memory, testimony, and our basic-belief forming mechanisms are sometimes reliable” (83).
We can turn the tables on the skeptic: “Sure, I cannot prove I am older than five minutes, but you have given me no reason to think your position is correct. You cannot simply say, ‘Here is an outlandish claim, now prove me wrong.’”
We can also use “William James’ ‘Pre-formative faith.’” James argues that we have a rational warrant to sometimes go beyond the evidence “if the chance to so believe is a genuine option” (86). This is how detectives work. It is also how crossword puzzles work.
What is the Good?
Most people believe that there is an objective right and wrong–at least they do when they are treated unfairly, as C. S. Lewis eloquently stated. One challenge to this view is Non-cognitivism: there is no objective good. Value statements like “x is bad” only reflect my personal preference, basically saying “x boo!” It is open to several devastating defeaters. It gets rid of all moral disagreement. If someone is pro-choice and the other is pro-life, the non-cognitivist says they are not actually disagreeing about a fact, but this is silly. Moreover, as Morris asks, “Why do people cheer or jeer a proposition?” It is because a position is right or wrong.
Teleological Target Practice
According to Aristotle, “Something is good when it successfully hits the target for which it was intended” (quoted in Morris, 102). Morris does not bring it out, but this is similar to the claim made by Hebraic philosophers like Yoram Hazony and Dru Johnson that an object is “true” when it fulfills its purpose. For example, a true path is one that gets me to my destination.
Happiness and the Good Life
Four Dimensions of Human Experience
Similar to his If Aristotle Ran General Motors, Morris sees four dimensions of the human experience: Truth, Goodness, Beauty + the Spiritual. The first three, if not self-evident, are at least familiar. By contrast, the spiritual dimension aims to capture our deep need for the following: Unique, Union, Usefulness, and Understanding.
Ethical Rules and Moral Character
Hume was wrong to say all ethics is feeling, but he did capture an important point, one that Morris notes: “It is precisely people devoid of natural sentiment, that affection of fellow-feeling so natural to most, who commit heinous crimes and immoral acts” (130).
Character: the settled set of dispositions and habits (131ff).
Wisdom: An embodied form of deep understanding, or insight, into how things really are, and how then you ought to live.
Virtue: the strength or ongoing habit to act in accordance with wisdom.
7 Cs of Success
Conception, Confidence, Concentration, Consistency, Commitment, Character, and Capacious Enjoyment.
This material is found in his Art of Achievement. We will focus on conception. Conception has a telos or goal. A “telos” is a target we can shoot at. This is a clear conception of what we want. In order to have clear goals, we need to set them with our self-knowledge in mind. As Morris notes, “Goal setting is an exercise in self-knowledge.”
Pascal and a Life Worth Meaning
Taken from material in Making Sense of It All, Morris gives us not an argument for the existence of God but an argument for the existence of meaning in life. To make a crude oversimplification, it is an argument, not only for living, but even for business. A good wager will account for “expected value” (112ff).
(EV): (Probability x Payoff) - Cost = Expected Value.
Morris gives the following example. Gold (a horse) has a ⅔ probability of winning with a payoff of $300. Placing a bet costs sixty dollars. Silver, by contrast, “pays nine hundred dollars, and to bet on this horse costs only $20” (112-113). Even with only a ⅓ probability of winning, Silver is clearly the best bet.
The key strategy is not how much money I get at the end, but how I can quantify “the overall value of each bet.”
The goal here is not to get the person to believe in God. Pascal, rather, is seeking to structure our actions, which can sometimes condition our beliefs.
Conclusion
I read this in a few sittings. Philosophy aside, Morris has numerous engaging and amusing anecdotes. This actually would be a good book for a Freshman philosophy class. Barring that, it is a good resource for a thoughtful high school student.
Its title notwithstanding, or perhaps because of its title and format, this is the best introductory text to philosophy that I have read. It is not entirely a basic philosophy text, nor is it a philosophy of religion text. It is a mixture of both. It covers basic issues like knowledge and metaphysics, while exploring challenges to theistic belief.
Tom Morris, former philosophy professor at Notre Dame and author of classics such as Our Idea of God and Logic of God Incarnate, brings philosophy down to the bottom shelf, so to speak. As with all of Morris’s new books, he could not be boring if he tried. This book divides the topic along the standard lines of Philosophy of Religion, the early chapters covering issues such as epistemology. After dealing with knowledge and ethics, Morris explores the existence of God, the problem of the afterlife, free will, and the soul. Some of it, particularly the section on Pascal, can be found in other works. Accordingly, his treatment on the existence and nature of God, while excellent, can be found in Our Idea of God, which you should read.
While the book is from a Christian theistic perspective, Morris alerts the reader, and readers of all persuasions, to the various options and challenges on each topic.
Belief, Truth, and Knowledge
In terms of epistemology, Morris follows the standard model of knowledge as justified, true belief. Unlike some treatments of knowledge, Morris explains, perhaps in ways Plato could not always do, the connection between knowledge and behavior, as seen in the following equation: Belief + Desires = Actions. Knowledge is an “attainment” (46). “Believing is an activity; knowing is the intended result.”
Challenge of Skepticism
Knowledge, particularly as defined above, is simple–perhaps too simple. As Esther Lightcap Meek noted in Longing to Know, if Western philosophy was birthed in Platonism, its cradle was skepticism. Why do you believe what you believe? As Morris notes, “All of your beliefs about the past depend upon testimony, memory, or both, or else by sense-experience, augmented by testimony and memory” (63). But that is a problem: How do you know testimony and memory are reliable? We normally try to answer this question by appealing to our own memory to justify our memory, but this is circular reasoning.
In other words, you cannot logically prove that you did not come into existence five minutes ago with pre-formed memories. How can one respond to that? Morris gives us a tool: the principle of belief conservation.
“For any proposition, P: If
Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P…would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs, and
You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and
You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P” (80).
Therefore,
“Sense experience, memory, testimony, and our basic-belief forming mechanisms are sometimes reliable” (83).
We can turn the tables on the skeptic: “Sure, I cannot prove I am older than five minutes, but you have given me no reason to think your position is correct. You cannot simply say, ‘Here is an outlandish claim, now prove me wrong.’”
We can also use “William James’ ‘Pre-formative faith.’” James argues that we have a rational warrant to sometimes go beyond the evidence “if the chance to so believe is a genuine option” (86). This is how detectives work. It is also how crossword puzzles work.
What is the Good?
Most people believe that there is an objective right and wrong–at least they do when they are treated unfairly, as C. S. Lewis eloquently stated. One challenge to this view is Non-cognitivism: there is no objective good. Value statements like “x is bad” only reflect my personal preference, basically saying “x boo!” It is open to several devastating defeaters. It gets rid of all moral disagreement. If someone is pro-choice and the other is pro-life, the non-cognitivist says they are not actually disagreeing about a fact, but this is silly. Moreover, as Morris asks, “Why do people cheer or jeer a proposition?” It is because a position is right or wrong.
Teleological Target Practice
According to Aristotle, “Something is good when it successfully hits the target for which it was intended” (quoted in Morris, 102). Morris does not bring it out, but this is similar to the claim made by Hebraic philosophers like Yoram Hazony and Dru Johnson that an object is “true” when it fulfills its purpose. For example, a true path is one that gets me to my destination.
Happiness and the Good Life
Four Dimensions of Human Experience
Similar to his If Aristotle Ran General Motors, Morris sees four dimensions of the human experience: Truth, Goodness, Beauty + the Spiritual. The first three, if not self-evident, are at least familiar. By contrast, the spiritual dimension aims to capture our deep need for the following: Unique, Union, Usefulness, and Understanding.
Ethical Rules and Moral Character
Hume was wrong to say all ethics is feeling, but he did capture an important point, one that Morris notes: “It is precisely people devoid of natural sentiment, that affection of fellow-feeling so natural to most, who commit heinous crimes and immoral acts” (130).
Character: the settled set of dispositions and habits (131ff).
Wisdom: An embodied form of deep understanding, or insight, into how things really are, and how then you ought to live.
Virtue: the strength or ongoing habit to act in accordance with wisdom.
7 Cs of Success
Conception, Confidence, Concentration, Consistency, Commitment, Character, and Capacious Enjoyment.
This material is found in his Art of Achievement. We will focus on conception. Conception has a telos or goal. A “telos” is a target we can shoot at. This is a clear conception of what we want. In order to have clear goals, we need to set them with our self-knowledge in mind. As Morris notes, “Goal setting is an exercise in self-knowledge.”
Pascal and a Life Worth Meaning
Taken from material in Making Sense of It All, Morris gives us not an argument for the existence of God but an argument for the existence of meaning in life. To make a crude oversimplification, it is an argument, not only for living, but even for business. A good wager will account for “expected value” (112ff).
(EV): (Probability x Payoff) - Cost = Expected Value.
Morris gives the following example. Gold (a horse) has a ⅔ probability of winning with a payoff of $300. Placing a bet costs sixty dollars. Silver, by contrast, “pays nine hundred dollars, and to bet on this horse costs only $20” (112-113). Even with only a ⅓ probability of winning, Silver is clearly the best bet.
The key strategy is not how much money I get at the end, but how I can quantify “the overall value of each bet.”
The goal here is not to get the person to believe in God. Pascal, rather, is seeking to structure our actions, which can sometimes condition our beliefs.
Conclusion
I read this in a few sittings. Philosophy aside, Morris has numerous engaging and amusing anecdotes. This actually would be a good book for a Freshman philosophy class. Barring that, it is a good resource for a thoughtful high school student.
February 3, 2015
My perspective- A weak argument for theism in disguise as a "general knowledge philosophy" book.
...Scarcely a mention of Friedrich Nietzsche, but a chapter dedicated to an expansion of Pascal's Wager. Hm.
Oh there's more--- lots more.
The "straw-manning" of atheist perspectives was... (ugh) ...just eye-rolling.
I'm not exactly what you'd call an educated and learned philosopher, (to say the least!) –but the holes and gaps were, by far, too numerous to ignore.
I've renamed this book in my mind --
'My Shallow Wade Along the Shores of Philosophy Toward a Personal, "Beach Ball" God'
...Scarcely a mention of Friedrich Nietzsche, but a chapter dedicated to an expansion of Pascal's Wager. Hm.
Oh there's more--- lots more.
The "straw-manning" of atheist perspectives was... (ugh) ...just eye-rolling.
I'm not exactly what you'd call an educated and learned philosopher, (to say the least!) –but the holes and gaps were, by far, too numerous to ignore.
I've renamed this book in my mind --
'My Shallow Wade Along the Shores of Philosophy Toward a Personal, "Beach Ball" God'
October 24, 2009
I was pretty disappointed in this book. I was hoping for a good survey of philosophy and philosophers. I was hoping to get a basis of philosophic thought that I could apply in thinking about things myself. Instead, the author used the opportunity to tell you what was right and what was wrong, and not give you a real basis for working through that yourself. He had a bias, and he wanted to be sure to debunk the theories he thought were wrong.
January 22, 2015
The book was mis-titled, it should have been called "Philosophy of Religion for Dummies". The presentation was only slightly more nuanced than the average fundamentalist's treatment of evolution. He starts out with a few biased remarks and a completely biased choppy presentation. He ends up preaching instead of teaching fundamentals. This book is not recommended for anyone but the choir.
April 3, 2013
This book should be retitled, "Apologetics for Dummies." because that's the bulk of what the author talks about throughout. There isn't so much philosophy as there is subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) proselatizing.
August 16, 2012
[I wrote this review for amazon.com in late 2001 after reading Philosophy for Dummies® for the first time]
Take the Title Literally
I was a bit disappointed in Tom Morris’s Philosophy for Dummies®. I expected it to be an intelligent offering of some difficult but rewarding thoughts of the best minds of the last 3,000 years, presented in layman’s terms. Well, I was partly right. The layman’s terms are there. Or maybe layboy or laybaby would be a more accurate word. Dr. Morris went overboard in his attempt to present a difficult subject to the average Joe, and he wound up patronizing and talking down to us (albeit unintentionally). The book is 346 pages long and could easily have been edited to quite a bit less than half that length if Dr. Morris had not belabored every single detail. Invariably, he introduces an idea with a brief description of its main points, then expands on each point in a separate two-page section, giving endless examples, anecdotes, and quotes to support it. In most cases, the brief description is sufficient.
The author’s attempt to make his presentation more interesting with the use of humor is admirable. Unfortunately, Tony Kornheiser he ain’t. His jokes are corny, and he never fails to follow each outrageous comment or claim with, “Just kidding.” I felt like I was reading a penpal letter written by a juvenile. He used that particular two-word sentence an astounding 1,742 times, an average of five times per page! (Just kidding. I didn’t really count, but it sure seemed like that many.)
Most of the ideas presented in Philosophy for Dummies® are basic enough that the majority of readers who have done any thinking whatsoever on their own will have already “discovered” these simple concepts themselves. If it was Dr. Morris’s intention to make us feel as smart as the greatest thinkers of all time — Socrates, Plato (whose name, the author so helpfully informs us, is pronounced “Play-toe”), Aristotle, Kierkegaard — he was nearly successful. I suspect, however, that Dr. Morris had an entirely different audience in mind when he penned this book: not the average Joe, but the average sitcom-watching mushbrain. Unfortunately, one of those gentle souls isn’t likely to pick up a book unless it has full-color panels and the text appears in little balloons above the characters’ heads. Don’t let the title mislead you. It means exactly what it says.
Take the Title Literally
I was a bit disappointed in Tom Morris’s Philosophy for Dummies®. I expected it to be an intelligent offering of some difficult but rewarding thoughts of the best minds of the last 3,000 years, presented in layman’s terms. Well, I was partly right. The layman’s terms are there. Or maybe layboy or laybaby would be a more accurate word. Dr. Morris went overboard in his attempt to present a difficult subject to the average Joe, and he wound up patronizing and talking down to us (albeit unintentionally). The book is 346 pages long and could easily have been edited to quite a bit less than half that length if Dr. Morris had not belabored every single detail. Invariably, he introduces an idea with a brief description of its main points, then expands on each point in a separate two-page section, giving endless examples, anecdotes, and quotes to support it. In most cases, the brief description is sufficient.
The author’s attempt to make his presentation more interesting with the use of humor is admirable. Unfortunately, Tony Kornheiser he ain’t. His jokes are corny, and he never fails to follow each outrageous comment or claim with, “Just kidding.” I felt like I was reading a penpal letter written by a juvenile. He used that particular two-word sentence an astounding 1,742 times, an average of five times per page! (Just kidding. I didn’t really count, but it sure seemed like that many.)
Most of the ideas presented in Philosophy for Dummies® are basic enough that the majority of readers who have done any thinking whatsoever on their own will have already “discovered” these simple concepts themselves. If it was Dr. Morris’s intention to make us feel as smart as the greatest thinkers of all time — Socrates, Plato (whose name, the author so helpfully informs us, is pronounced “Play-toe”), Aristotle, Kierkegaard — he was nearly successful. I suspect, however, that Dr. Morris had an entirely different audience in mind when he penned this book: not the average Joe, but the average sitcom-watching mushbrain. Unfortunately, one of those gentle souls isn’t likely to pick up a book unless it has full-color panels and the text appears in little balloons above the characters’ heads. Don’t let the title mislead you. It means exactly what it says.
February 4, 2024
Gute Einführung, aber etwas langatmig. Die Geschichte der Philosophie findet keine Erwähnung, dazu gibt es in der Serie allerdings ein eigenes Buch. Das hier ist eine eher systematische Einführung. Manchmal leider etwas zu wertend. Aber dafür bringt er verschiedene Positionen miteinander ins Gespräch.
December 12, 2015
This is a proselytizing book for Christianity behind the cover of an introduction to philosophy; suffice it to say that the discipline the writer tries to introduce (i.e. philosophy) started with a man (Socrates) who was sentenced to death for questioning religion. Philosophy started as the practice of questioning traditional answers to fundamental questions by undermining them through logic and reason. Most of the famous Atheists and more importantly Anti-theist thinkers of history have been philosophers (Kazimierz Łyszczyński, Denis Diderot, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, John Dewey, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell to name a few and not to mention those who were fiercely critical of the institution of religion but didn't call themselves atheist, obviously for reasons that Socrates and Łyszczyński knew very well). Philosophy as a discipline is at stark and fundamental opposition to religion since it does not recognize any authority or tradition. Philosophers have the highest percentage of Atheists among them of any other academic discipline.
April 20, 2020
Having already taken a few online Philosophy courses I thought this book would be good to consolidate the learning and maybe fill in the gaps where I missed something. At first it did just that. It covered all the big areas of philosophy although I would have preferred more about the main philosophers, who argued what, and a little of their history. Apart from some quotes this was missing. There was one exception and that was a whole chapter on Pascal which leads me to the main problem with this book. It is heavily bias towards theism and while as a philosophy that is fine but in a ...For Dummies book I would have thought a broader argument should be available.
January 12, 2022
The author in this book is severely biased. He seems to hate skeptics, nihilists and atheists and goes so far as to call people who don't believe in God irrational. I didn't start reading this book for Tom Morris' personal opinions on atheists or the existence of God, but that's what I got. It sounds almost like he's preaching instead of teaching at times. Further, he automatically dismisses any philosophy that he doesn't personally agree with and he lauds complete nonsense that he does agree with.
He asserts, among many other things, that it's an inherent fact that there is a God. That the universe HAS to be created by an agent bc it's too complicated to occur naturally, so there HAS to be a God. He says that nature is too perfect and evolution is BS, so there HAS to be a God.
He suggests that Atheists are incapable of experiencing wonder at the sight of nature or the pondering of their own existences and then he launches into a 7 page essay explaining why he believes in God and why anyone who doesn't is irrational or intellectually immature or is simply deluded. He also claims to know why most atheists don't believe in God (bc there is crime and misery in the world) and then attacks his own strawman argument in order to prove that atheistic beliefs are wrong.
It seems to me that in writing this book, at several points, it was more important to the author to try to tell the reader what they should think and why they should think that instead of simply passing on the information and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions. A strange approach, esp in an academic book, and esp when that book is about philosophy and the writer is preaching about God.
Academically, this book is not a complete waste of time, but it spends the majority of the time talking about things that are not academic in nature. Jokes, personal anecdotes, persuasive arguments, blatantly biased conclusions and of course, all the religious BS you can handle.
I physically cringed when I got to the God Chapter bc of how flawed his thought processes were on this subject. I don't know why he felt it necessary to include the majority of his personal opinions and anecdotes on that particular subject. Example:
"I myself believe that the evidence for God lies primarily in inner personal experiences.
— William James
I have frequently felt what presents itself as the presence of an unseen, loving intelligence guiding me. I have sometimes felt the absence of this. And then I screw up royally. But it always comes back. I have occasionally felt it vividly."
He then goes on to describe his most intense religious experience in which he believes he could hear the voice of God. He also confessed that he believes that there must be a God or Afterlife bc it just wouldn't make sense if there wasn't. Here's another quote that shockingly, came from the same book.
"Just like water from a polluted well is dangerous to drink, a belief from an unreliable source is dangerous to have. Desire in general is an unreliable source for beliefs. Therefore, any belief that can be traced to a desire is dubious and is to be avoided.
We believe what we want to believe, what we like to believe, what suits our prejudices and fuels our passions.
— Sydney J. Harris"
Irony.
This writer is a religious philosopher, I mean he studies philosophy from a religious aspect. That's why the last 200+ pages of this book are about religion, specifically, the author's personal beliefs on it. The author went in academia, which is rife with atheists and then specialized in religious studies so that he could surround himself with like minds in order to soothe his ever growing doubts about himself. He is actively trying to perpetuate his own ignorance. This person is telling us all to leave Plato's cave when he hasn't yet left himself, fully absorbed by the world's oldest illusion. Religion. Rule 1 of philosophy-- Know Thyself. It doesn't say run away from thyself. If one doesn't have the cajones to seriously question everything they believe, even the most important things they've ever believed to be true, then they are not meant to be a philosopher. This person should have became some kind of Christian Monk or Archivist. I think he's more interested in Christian history and conversion of soulless atheist nonbelievers than any actual philosophy.
Other than that, he was using too many dependent clauses in order to include every exception, caveat, clarification and amendment to every rule he describes in the same sentence as the rule being stated,esp in the beginning of the book. Thus, it was very confusing trying to understand his writing at times. This book is supposed to be more accessible than this, but I believe, at times, the writer is choosing to write in a way that 'looks intelligent' while shirking his responsibility of making this volume clear, concise and accessible to ALL people, not the just the ones that understand English well enough to decipher his train-wreck sentence structure.
"Jaw-breaking words often cover up very sloppy thinking." --Thomas Sowell
He asserts, among many other things, that it's an inherent fact that there is a God. That the universe HAS to be created by an agent bc it's too complicated to occur naturally, so there HAS to be a God. He says that nature is too perfect and evolution is BS, so there HAS to be a God.
He suggests that Atheists are incapable of experiencing wonder at the sight of nature or the pondering of their own existences and then he launches into a 7 page essay explaining why he believes in God and why anyone who doesn't is irrational or intellectually immature or is simply deluded. He also claims to know why most atheists don't believe in God (bc there is crime and misery in the world) and then attacks his own strawman argument in order to prove that atheistic beliefs are wrong.
It seems to me that in writing this book, at several points, it was more important to the author to try to tell the reader what they should think and why they should think that instead of simply passing on the information and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions. A strange approach, esp in an academic book, and esp when that book is about philosophy and the writer is preaching about God.
Academically, this book is not a complete waste of time, but it spends the majority of the time talking about things that are not academic in nature. Jokes, personal anecdotes, persuasive arguments, blatantly biased conclusions and of course, all the religious BS you can handle.
I physically cringed when I got to the God Chapter bc of how flawed his thought processes were on this subject. I don't know why he felt it necessary to include the majority of his personal opinions and anecdotes on that particular subject. Example:
"I myself believe that the evidence for God lies primarily in inner personal experiences.
— William James
I have frequently felt what presents itself as the presence of an unseen, loving intelligence guiding me. I have sometimes felt the absence of this. And then I screw up royally. But it always comes back. I have occasionally felt it vividly."
He then goes on to describe his most intense religious experience in which he believes he could hear the voice of God. He also confessed that he believes that there must be a God or Afterlife bc it just wouldn't make sense if there wasn't. Here's another quote that shockingly, came from the same book.
"Just like water from a polluted well is dangerous to drink, a belief from an unreliable source is dangerous to have. Desire in general is an unreliable source for beliefs. Therefore, any belief that can be traced to a desire is dubious and is to be avoided.
We believe what we want to believe, what we like to believe, what suits our prejudices and fuels our passions.
— Sydney J. Harris"
Irony.
This writer is a religious philosopher, I mean he studies philosophy from a religious aspect. That's why the last 200+ pages of this book are about religion, specifically, the author's personal beliefs on it. The author went in academia, which is rife with atheists and then specialized in religious studies so that he could surround himself with like minds in order to soothe his ever growing doubts about himself. He is actively trying to perpetuate his own ignorance. This person is telling us all to leave Plato's cave when he hasn't yet left himself, fully absorbed by the world's oldest illusion. Religion. Rule 1 of philosophy-- Know Thyself. It doesn't say run away from thyself. If one doesn't have the cajones to seriously question everything they believe, even the most important things they've ever believed to be true, then they are not meant to be a philosopher. This person should have became some kind of Christian Monk or Archivist. I think he's more interested in Christian history and conversion of soulless atheist nonbelievers than any actual philosophy.
Other than that, he was using too many dependent clauses in order to include every exception, caveat, clarification and amendment to every rule he describes in the same sentence as the rule being stated,esp in the beginning of the book. Thus, it was very confusing trying to understand his writing at times. This book is supposed to be more accessible than this, but I believe, at times, the writer is choosing to write in a way that 'looks intelligent' while shirking his responsibility of making this volume clear, concise and accessible to ALL people, not the just the ones that understand English well enough to decipher his train-wreck sentence structure.
"Jaw-breaking words often cover up very sloppy thinking." --Thomas Sowell
July 12, 2013
This book teaches everyone (really - it's accessible even to the semi-illiterate) how to argue for their beliefs in a cohearent and reasonable manner - I wish all internet commenters would read it!
It really is the simpliest possible explanation of philosophy, and it's less dry and much less wordy than most philosophy texts.
I'd recommend this to anyone who's never read philosophy before but has an interest - and I'd recommend reading it before the more often recommended The Consolations of Philosophy which is not quite as accessible.
It really is the simpliest possible explanation of philosophy, and it's less dry and much less wordy than most philosophy texts.
I'd recommend this to anyone who's never read philosophy before but has an interest - and I'd recommend reading it before the more often recommended The Consolations of Philosophy which is not quite as accessible.
June 2, 2013
Tom Morris- who holds a Ph.D in both philosophy and religious studies- gives an overview of the main concerns of philosophy- knowledge, skepticism, happiness, morality/ethics, free- will/ determinism, body/soul, death, god, and the meaning/ purpose of life. Using clear and comprehensible language- and with frequent humor- this book introduces the wide, challenging, confrontational and life changing activity that is philosophy.
November 15, 2017
Well, I don't expect a lot from the "For Dummies" series, but this book is unbelievably biased. To the point where it makes me wonder if the author's motives were to teach anyone anything or just preach.
January 27, 2019
Philosophy is all great and stuff, but really, just keep your Christian POV and go with that. What a strange message from a philosophy overview.
September 4, 2025
I can now understand Rick and Morty
February 19, 2024
Filosofie voor beginners heeft een prikkelende inhoudsopgave. Tom Morris geeft een mooi overzicht van het vakgebied. In het deel over ‘hoe we kunnen kennen’ komt hij zoals vaak in filosofische verhandelingen op het scepticisme. Een scepticus vraagt ons waarom we een overtuiging hebben en waarom we eraan vastgouden. De conclusie is dat er geen bewijsstuk is voor onze overtuigingen. We weten niet of onze waarnemingen of ons geheugen kloppen. Hoe weten we dat ons leven realiteit of een droom is, dat is niet te bewijzen. Echter zonder geloof dat woorden een betekenis hebben kan de scepticus zijn vraag niet eens formuleren. Geloof is onvermijdelijk in het menselijk leven en het is rationeel. De sceptici leren ons dat de rationaliteit van onze overtuigingen niet op bewijzen berust. We kunnen onze fundamentele overtuigingen ook zonder bewijzen handhaven.
Noot: :ik voel me zelf het meeste thuis bij de redenering van GE Moore die zich meer op het gezonde verstand baseert en de volgende redenering heeft tegen het scepticisme:
1. Als het scepticisme waar is hebben we geen kennis van de externe wereld
2. Maar we hebben wel kennis van de externe wereld (je lichaam, je handen)
3. Daarom is scepticisme onjuist.
Uiteindelijk werkt Morris richting de theologie, hij is ook theoloog en filosoof en hij claimt vind ik wel veel zeker te weten, echt bescheiden is hij niet. Wordt vervolgd
Noot: :ik voel me zelf het meeste thuis bij de redenering van GE Moore die zich meer op het gezonde verstand baseert en de volgende redenering heeft tegen het scepticisme:
1. Als het scepticisme waar is hebben we geen kennis van de externe wereld
2. Maar we hebben wel kennis van de externe wereld (je lichaam, je handen)
3. Daarom is scepticisme onjuist.
Uiteindelijk werkt Morris richting de theologie, hij is ook theoloog en filosoof en hij claimt vind ik wel veel zeker te weten, echt bescheiden is hij niet. Wordt vervolgd
December 3, 2018
Philosophy for Dummies is a great high level, rapid fire exploration of Philosophy. I decided to read this having not read anything related to Philosophy before and was happy I did.
Although I did not agree with all of the logical arguments within, there are some really interesting arguments the author puts forth.
I loved the sheer amount of topics covered, and felt I learned an absolute ton, at the surface level.
On the flip side, one thing that bugged me about the book was that it felt like all the later chapters ended with a cliff hanger that would be answered in the next chapter, but it just became questions all the way down.
Is that the point? Far too deep a question for a Dummy like me.
Although I did not agree with all of the logical arguments within, there are some really interesting arguments the author puts forth.
I loved the sheer amount of topics covered, and felt I learned an absolute ton, at the surface level.
On the flip side, one thing that bugged me about the book was that it felt like all the later chapters ended with a cliff hanger that would be answered in the next chapter, but it just became questions all the way down.
Is that the point? Far too deep a question for a Dummy like me.
December 12, 2022
I am a 60-year-old white male looking for a book to introduce me to philosophy. This is my first philosophy book. I thank the author for writing this book, but I would not recommend this book. It did not excite me to learn more about philosophy until maybe the last two chapters.
Pros:
- has quite a lot of information
- has some humor
- the chapters are of a good length - I could get through one in a given reading session
Cons:
- the information is obviously written by an academic - it is dry and wordy, and a lot of the categorizations seem arbitrary just passed down from some earlier texts. I found it difficult to get through the book.
- some chapters are awful such as "ch8 Happiness, Excellence and the Good Life". The coverage of utilitarianism in this chapter is half a page. Phrases like "and that just seems wrong" is not an argument. I found myself regularly disagreeing with the author's points.
Chapter 20 Theistic Visions is dedicated to theism and arguments for god, with the promise in the first paragraph "Chapter 21 allows the atheist his main response". Well guess what, Chapter 21 is called "chapter 21: The problem of evil", where immediately the author suggests that the main atheist argument is that if there was a god, why would he allow so much evil? I humbly suggest that the main reason people are atheists is due to the lack of evidence for god and because of evidence suggesting something else. The rest of that chapter does not discuss atheism, rather it discusses evil through a god lense. Defending god. There can be evil without the concept of god, but apparently not in this book. Nothing supporting atheism - which avoids all of the acrobatic arguments that theists need to support their case. Nothing about the much simpler case for an atheist viewpoint, driven by evidence and science. Nothing about the scientific method. Atheism is left unconsidered. There can be morals without god. Nietzsche is barely mentioned in this book - isn't he associated with the phrase "the death of god"?
I also found it odd that no eastern philosophies were discussed. Also, no Buddhism, which has some very interesting philosophical viewpoints that are relevant in today's world, such as letting go of attachments.
I think this book could be improved by allowing someone else to write a chapter about atheism and someone else to write about eastern philosophies.
Pros:
- has quite a lot of information
- has some humor
- the chapters are of a good length - I could get through one in a given reading session
Cons:
- the information is obviously written by an academic - it is dry and wordy, and a lot of the categorizations seem arbitrary just passed down from some earlier texts. I found it difficult to get through the book.
- some chapters are awful such as "ch8 Happiness, Excellence and the Good Life". The coverage of utilitarianism in this chapter is half a page. Phrases like "and that just seems wrong" is not an argument. I found myself regularly disagreeing with the author's points.
Chapter 20 Theistic Visions is dedicated to theism and arguments for god, with the promise in the first paragraph "Chapter 21 allows the atheist his main response". Well guess what, Chapter 21 is called "chapter 21: The problem of evil", where immediately the author suggests that the main atheist argument is that if there was a god, why would he allow so much evil? I humbly suggest that the main reason people are atheists is due to the lack of evidence for god and because of evidence suggesting something else. The rest of that chapter does not discuss atheism, rather it discusses evil through a god lense. Defending god. There can be evil without the concept of god, but apparently not in this book. Nothing supporting atheism - which avoids all of the acrobatic arguments that theists need to support their case. Nothing about the much simpler case for an atheist viewpoint, driven by evidence and science. Nothing about the scientific method. Atheism is left unconsidered. There can be morals without god. Nietzsche is barely mentioned in this book - isn't he associated with the phrase "the death of god"?
I also found it odd that no eastern philosophies were discussed. Also, no Buddhism, which has some very interesting philosophical viewpoints that are relevant in today's world, such as letting go of attachments.
I think this book could be improved by allowing someone else to write a chapter about atheism and someone else to write about eastern philosophies.
January 25, 2016
A good, casual introduction to the subject. Tom Morris doesn't simply present what some philosophers have said on various topics, he also tells the reader what his own position is and provides some modest defense of his position. This will upset some readers, because Tom Morris is a Christian and while the author doesn't present any argument or defense of Christianity (because the topic of Christianity never arises) he does present arguments for theism and defends it against criticisms. And naturally he defends other positions that atheists are usually critical of (e.g., dualism, life having ultimate purpose, etc.). For village atheists, this will be too much to countenance and they will no doubt throw the book across the room in disgust that the author should not only let his views on the matter be known but actually defend them! But the rest of us won't be bothered by what is not uncommon practice. It's easy to point to atheist books on general philosophy that present a distinctively atheist viewpoint (e.g., W. T. Jones or Luc Ferry).
Morris adopting a position and defending it in this book is not problematic, because I do not think that it causes him to treat other positions unfairly and he does not seek to resolve every criticism of his view. He will, for instance, state what his view is and then mention a possible criticism and then invite the reader to decide for himself or herself what they think is best. If you just can't stomach that then you really shouldn't be reading philosophy to begin with. Try some other discipline.
Morris adopting a position and defending it in this book is not problematic, because I do not think that it causes him to treat other positions unfairly and he does not seek to resolve every criticism of his view. He will, for instance, state what his view is and then mention a possible criticism and then invite the reader to decide for himself or herself what they think is best. If you just can't stomach that then you really shouldn't be reading philosophy to begin with. Try some other discipline.
August 19, 2024
Philosophie für Dummies?
Wohl eher Philosophie VON Dummies!
Was Tom Morris da produziert hat macht einen wütend. Seine Argumente sind so absurd, dass ich das Buch als Reaktion mehrmals auf mein Bett geschlagen habe. Hier ein Beispiel:
Frage: Gibt es ein Leben nach dem Tod?
1. Wenn Menschen nach dem Tod weiterleben, dann würden sie uns das mitteilen wollen.
2. Bisher gab es keine Mitteilungen.
3. Also leben Menschen nach dem Tod nicht weiter.
Das entkräftet er dann indem er sagt "Vielleicht ist es ja den Geistern nicht möglich mit uns zu reden".
UND ER BESCHREIBT DAS AUSFÜHRLICH AUF ZWEI SEITEN!
Für solche Aussagen bekommt man einen Doktortitels von Yale?? Da wäre ich jetzt ganz vielleicht sogar selber drauf gekommen.
Hab extra 5€ bezahlt und meine Internetflat aufgeladen, weil mich dieses Buch so wütend gemacht hat und ich das loswerden musste.
PS: Er lässt auch überall seine eigene Position (Dualismus) durchhängen und hatet die ganze Zeit Materialisten. Das hat mich auch aufgeregt.
Wohl eher Philosophie VON Dummies!
Was Tom Morris da produziert hat macht einen wütend. Seine Argumente sind so absurd, dass ich das Buch als Reaktion mehrmals auf mein Bett geschlagen habe. Hier ein Beispiel:
Frage: Gibt es ein Leben nach dem Tod?
1. Wenn Menschen nach dem Tod weiterleben, dann würden sie uns das mitteilen wollen.
2. Bisher gab es keine Mitteilungen.
3. Also leben Menschen nach dem Tod nicht weiter.
Das entkräftet er dann indem er sagt "Vielleicht ist es ja den Geistern nicht möglich mit uns zu reden".
UND ER BESCHREIBT DAS AUSFÜHRLICH AUF ZWEI SEITEN!
Für solche Aussagen bekommt man einen Doktortitels von Yale?? Da wäre ich jetzt ganz vielleicht sogar selber drauf gekommen.
Hab extra 5€ bezahlt und meine Internetflat aufgeladen, weil mich dieses Buch so wütend gemacht hat und ich das loswerden musste.
PS: Er lässt auch überall seine eigene Position (Dualismus) durchhängen und hatet die ganze Zeit Materialisten. Das hat mich auch aufgeregt.
January 7, 2020
Fun read, encompasses a lot of interesting questions
I won’t weigh in on where I stand on any of them, but will just say that my ‘me’ dissolved a few years ago and life lacks stress now. Philosophy is fun to read and discuss and the coverage is good and well presented in this book.
I won’t weigh in on where I stand on any of them, but will just say that my ‘me’ dissolved a few years ago and life lacks stress now. Philosophy is fun to read and discuss and the coverage is good and well presented in this book.
December 16, 2019
Author is heavily biased, but if read with intent one can learn a bit about old philosophers and various basic philosophical ideas. The book can be both entertaining and education, but it's also heavily tainted by the authors biases.
January 19, 2022
It was not a bad start for the ones interested in learning more about philosophy, however, I would say we need a little more details. Still, start here, you're gonna find your way. Would't read again though.
August 9, 2024
Keine sachliche, objektive Beschreibung der verschiedenen Ideen, es geht nur um die Meinung des Autors (Es gibt einen Gott und wir haben einen übernatürlichen Geist). Alles, was nicht seiner Meinung entspricht, wird einfach als faktisch falsch beschrieben.
October 23, 2020
I love the questions he is try to bring up
- what is knowledge - how do we know anything ?
- are we free ?
- is there free will ?
- who we are ? what is a person ?
- what is good life ? what is happiness ? what is success ?
- does god exist ?
- is there anything beyond death - or live it's just one time oportunity ?
- what is the meaning of life ?
those are fundamntal questions that barely anyone try to answer in current shallow society - no wonder we are not moving ahead
Unfortunetly I feel like I would have hard time being a friend of an author and his style.
I expected from him to be rather unbiased messenger who presents ideas and different opinons, but he did that quite poorly
He colors the world with his view world and belifes.
I see lack of deep thinking, shallow thinking all over across the book
jumping to illogical quick conqlusions, contradcting to what have been presented a moment before,
often making not understandable assumpotions for me.
And I guess assumptions are what philosophy try to avoid.
so yeah those questions are just introduction
but true philosophers need to find answear for themself,
regardless to what have been said in that book.
I give 4 stars just for the fundamental questions - which cannot be underrated.
- what is knowledge - how do we know anything ?
- are we free ?
- is there free will ?
- who we are ? what is a person ?
- what is good life ? what is happiness ? what is success ?
- does god exist ?
- is there anything beyond death - or live it's just one time oportunity ?
- what is the meaning of life ?
those are fundamntal questions that barely anyone try to answer in current shallow society - no wonder we are not moving ahead
Unfortunetly I feel like I would have hard time being a friend of an author and his style.
I expected from him to be rather unbiased messenger who presents ideas and different opinons, but he did that quite poorly
He colors the world with his view world and belifes.
I see lack of deep thinking, shallow thinking all over across the book
jumping to illogical quick conqlusions, contradcting to what have been presented a moment before,
often making not understandable assumpotions for me.
And I guess assumptions are what philosophy try to avoid.
so yeah those questions are just introduction
but true philosophers need to find answear for themself,
regardless to what have been said in that book.
I give 4 stars just for the fundamental questions - which cannot be underrated.
June 26, 2023
Dit boek was een zware tegenvaller. Het begon veelbelovend, maar ontbeert uiteindelijk kritisch rationeel denken waar het wel de suggestie wekt. Ongelooflijk hoe de schrijver premissen onder de loep neemt die niet in overeenstemming zijn met zijn geloof, maar dit nalaat bij premissen die hem uitkomen.
Dit boek is wellicht aardig voor gelovigen die semi-kritisch zich gesteund willen voelen. Voor wie gedacht had dat dit boek een open opsomming van filosofische stromingen met uitleg zou zijn en uitgedaagd zou worden om zelf na te denken over deze stromingen, komt wat bedrogen uit. Ja, er is oog voor diverse opvattingen en stromingen, maar uiteindelijk is het meer een lofzang van de auteur naar zijn eigen interpretaties. Als lezer kan je niks opwerpen aan tegenargumenten, je kunt niet in debat en uiteindelijk rest enkel een gevoel van frustratie en onbehagen. Ik raad het boek af aan een ieder die niet erop uit is alles klakkeloos te willen aannemen om een geloof in een God te kunnen rechtvaardigen.
Dit boek is wellicht aardig voor gelovigen die semi-kritisch zich gesteund willen voelen. Voor wie gedacht had dat dit boek een open opsomming van filosofische stromingen met uitleg zou zijn en uitgedaagd zou worden om zelf na te denken over deze stromingen, komt wat bedrogen uit. Ja, er is oog voor diverse opvattingen en stromingen, maar uiteindelijk is het meer een lofzang van de auteur naar zijn eigen interpretaties. Als lezer kan je niks opwerpen aan tegenargumenten, je kunt niet in debat en uiteindelijk rest enkel een gevoel van frustratie en onbehagen. Ik raad het boek af aan een ieder die niet erop uit is alles klakkeloos te willen aannemen om een geloof in een God te kunnen rechtvaardigen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews