What do you think?
Rate this book
گفتوگوی چهار نفره: حق با منه، تو اشتباه میکنی
تیموتی ویلیامسن فیلسوف بریتانیایی و استاد فلسفه و منطق در دانشگاه آکسفورد است. حوزههای تخصصی او معرفتشناسی، منطق فلسفی، فلسفۀ زبان و متافیزیک است.
ویلیامسن در کتاب گفتوگوی چهارنفره میان باب، سارا، زک و رکسانا گفتوگویی خیالی طراحی کرده است و هر کدام از این شخصیتها را نمایندۀ گروهی از انسانها قرار داده است: باب نماد انسانهای خرافاتی است، سارا فرزند وفادار روشنگری است، زک نمایندۀ نسبیگرایان است و رکسانا، که شاید نزدیکترین فرد به شخصیت فکری خود ویلیامسن باشد، مدافع تمامعیار عقلانیت منطقی است. این چهار نفر در قطاری با یکدیگر همصحبت میشوند و دربارۀ طیف گستردهای از موضوعات بهظاهر ساده اما فلسفی، مانند اختلافنظر، درستی و نادرستی، شناخت، باور، منطق، خطاپذیری، نسبیگرایی، مطلقگرایی، اخلاق، ارزشها و… بحث میکنند.
ویلیامسن در کتاب گفتوگوی چهارنفره میان باب، سارا، زک و رکسانا گفتوگویی خیالی طراحی کرده است و هر کدام از این شخصیتها را نمایندۀ گروهی از انسانها قرار داده است: باب نماد انسانهای خرافاتی است، سارا فرزند وفادار روشنگری است، زک نمایندۀ نسبیگرایان است و رکسانا، که شاید نزدیکترین فرد به شخصیت فکری خود ویلیامسن باشد، مدافع تمامعیار عقلانیت منطقی است. این چهار نفر در قطاری با یکدیگر همصحبت میشوند و دربارۀ طیف گستردهای از موضوعات بهظاهر ساده اما فلسفی، مانند اختلافنظر، درستی و نادرستی، شناخت، باور، منطق، خطاپذیری، نسبیگرایی، مطلقگرایی، اخلاق، ارزشها و… بحث میکنند.
237 pages
First published November 28, 2014
47 people are currently reading
785 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 - 30 of 63 reviews
May 4, 2020
کتاب دربردارندهی گفتوگوی فرضی چهار نفر است که یکیشان خرافاتی ست، یکی پوزیتیویست و علمباور، یکی نسبیگرا و یکی هم نوعی رآلیست منطقی و انتقادی. مهمترین محور گفتوگوها «معرفتشناسی» و به خصوص این مسأله است که شرط صدق و توجیه صدق باورها چیست؛ یعنی از چه طریقی میتوانیم بدانیم که فلان باور ما درست است و این درستی اصلا چیست. با وجود سادگی و خوشخوانی کتاب، گاهی، با یا بی اشاره به نام و عنوان، پای اندیشمندان و منازعات مهمی به گفتوگو باز میشود. در نهایت برای کسی که با معرفتشناسی و فلسفهی علم آشنایی نسبی دارد، چندان پربار نخواهد بود. هدیهی بسیار خوبی هم به نوجوانهای کتابخوان است
June 23, 2018
«گفت و گوی چهارنفره: حق با منه، تو اشتباه می کنی» عنوان کتابیه از تیموتی ویلیامسن. ویلیامسن استاد فلسفه و منطق دانشگاه آکسفورده و تو این کتاب سعی کرده با بهره گیری از شیوه ای که تاریخچه استفاده ازش به افلاطون برمی گرده، یعنی گفتگو، رمانی درباره مسائل اساسی فلسفه و منطق بنویسه. تو کتاب با چهار تا شخصیت روبرو هستیم که بیشتر از اینکه هر کدوم یک پرسوناژ باشن، یه جور تیپ و نماینده یه دیدگاه هستن؛ سارا یک علم گرای افراطی با عقایدی که ریشه در عصر روشنگری و سیطره علم داره، باب که آدم خرافاتی ایه، رکسانا که نماد عقلانیت منطقیه و به تعبیری، بیش از همه نماینده طرز فکر خود ویلیامسنه. و نفر آخر هم زک نام داره که آدم نسبی گراییه و به نوعی نماینده تفکر پست مدرن.
نویسنده تو این کتاب سعی کرده مسائل مهمی من باب اخلاقیات، درستی و نادرستی، گستره کاربست روش های علمی و مواردی از این دست رو مطرح کنه و همینطور به چالش بکشه ولی به عقیده من هدف متمرکز کتاب، نقد نسبی گرایی بوده که ازش سرافراز بیرون اومده. شخصیت های کتاب به همون دلیلی که بالاتر مطرح کردم، تا حد زیادی کلیشه ای از آب در اومدن و مخاطب باهاشون هیچگونه همذات پنداری ای نداره (مثلن رکسانا، جلوه عقلانیت منطقی، بسیار پرخاشخوئه و دیگران رو مدام تحقیر می کنه. جلوه خشک و بی روحی از کسی که منطق دان و استدلال کننده ست). البته رمان، رمان آموزشیه و نویسنده یحتمل نخواسته چندان تلاشی صرف طرح و پیرنگ و شخصیت ها بکنه. کتاب خوشخوانه و ترجمه نسبتن خوبی داره که اونو گزینه مناسبی برای مطالعه مخاطبین عام فلسفه و منطق قرار میده. من نظرم اینه که حتمن تو یه نشست هم خونده بشه چون کل کتاب یه گفتگوی چارنفره طولانیه که باوجود فصل بندی ولی باز هم بهتره فصولش بدون درنگ خونده بشن تا بشه مباحث رو دقیق تر دنبال کرد.
سوای این مواردی که گفتم البته یکی دو نکته دیگه هم به ذهنم رسید که ندیدم در ریویوهای دیگه چندان اشاره ای بهشون بشه. نویسنده کمی از حیث سیاسی-اجتماعی تکلیفش با خودش معلوم نیست. به سبب جنس براهین و مباحثات کتاب، ناگزیره سمت مثال هایی از وضعیت سیاسی اجتماعی بره اما در عمل چندان راهگشا عمل نمی کنه. نویسنده از زبان چهار شخصیت کتاب، تمام مرام ها و مسلک های فردی و جمعی رو متهم می کنه. سارا کسیه که از لیبرالیسم انتقاد تندی می کنه (اما همین فرد بعدن از حمله نظامی دول خارجی دفاع می کنه)، باب علیه کمونیسم مثالی می زنه و می خواد اون رو تعمیم بده، زک که پیشتر از لیبرالیسم دفاع کرده، علیه استدلال باب موضع گیری می کنه (متوجه متناقض بودن کاراکترها هستید؟) و رکسانا که گل سرسبد کتابه به زیرکی تو مواقعی که بحث به امور سیاسی و اجتماعی می کشه، حرفی نمی زنه یا حدقل چیز چشمگیری نمیگه. انگار خود نویسنده هم می خواد همین رو برسونه که یه منطق دان فقط می تونه واسه صورتبندی بحث رو ارائه بده اما قادر به موضع گیری درقبال امور جامعوی نیست.
نویسنده تو این کتاب سعی کرده مسائل مهمی من باب اخلاقیات، درستی و نادرستی، گستره کاربست روش های علمی و مواردی از این دست رو مطرح کنه و همینطور به چالش بکشه ولی به عقیده من هدف متمرکز کتاب، نقد نسبی گرایی بوده که ازش سرافراز بیرون اومده. شخصیت های کتاب به همون دلیلی که بالاتر مطرح کردم، تا حد زیادی کلیشه ای از آب در اومدن و مخاطب باهاشون هیچگونه همذات پنداری ای نداره (مثلن رکسانا، جلوه عقلانیت منطقی، بسیار پرخاشخوئه و دیگران رو مدام تحقیر می کنه. جلوه خشک و بی روحی از کسی که منطق دان و استدلال کننده ست). البته رمان، رمان آموزشیه و نویسنده یحتمل نخواسته چندان تلاشی صرف طرح و پیرنگ و شخصیت ها بکنه. کتاب خوشخوانه و ترجمه نسبتن خوبی داره که اونو گزینه مناسبی برای مطالعه مخاطبین عام فلسفه و منطق قرار میده. من نظرم اینه که حتمن تو یه نشست هم خونده بشه چون کل کتاب یه گفتگوی چارنفره طولانیه که باوجود فصل بندی ولی باز هم بهتره فصولش بدون درنگ خونده بشن تا بشه مباحث رو دقیق تر دنبال کرد.
سوای این مواردی که گفتم البته یکی دو نکته دیگه هم به ذهنم رسید که ندیدم در ریویوهای دیگه چندان اشاره ای بهشون بشه. نویسنده کمی از حیث سیاسی-اجتماعی تکلیفش با خودش معلوم نیست. به سبب جنس براهین و مباحثات کتاب، ناگزیره سمت مثال هایی از وضعیت سیاسی اجتماعی بره اما در عمل چندان راهگشا عمل نمی کنه. نویسنده از زبان چهار شخصیت کتاب، تمام مرام ها و مسلک های فردی و جمعی رو متهم می کنه. سارا کسیه که از لیبرالیسم انتقاد تندی می کنه (اما همین فرد بعدن از حمله نظامی دول خارجی دفاع می کنه)، باب علیه کمونیسم مثالی می زنه و می خواد اون رو تعمیم بده، زک که پیشتر از لیبرالیسم دفاع کرده، علیه استدلال باب موضع گیری می کنه (متوجه متناقض بودن کاراکترها هستید؟) و رکسانا که گل سرسبد کتابه به زیرکی تو مواقعی که بحث به امور سیاسی و اجتماعی می کشه، حرفی نمی زنه یا حدقل چیز چشمگیری نمیگه. انگار خود نویسنده هم می خواد همین رو برسونه که یه منطق دان فقط می تونه واسه صورتبندی بحث رو ارائه بده اما قادر به موضع گیری درقبال امور جامعوی نیست.
May 11, 2021
I read this book for a philosophy class in my second semester and I enjoyed it a lot. This book seems to be rated somewhat poorly, but everyone is objectively wrong. While we could argue about the truth of my statement, I have come to the conclusion that a duel to the death would be more practical. If you wish to prove me wrong, you will have to best me in hand-to-hand combat.
March 2, 2021
من فکر میکردم توی این کتاب با نقد چهار تفکری که مطرح میکنه روبرو خواهیم بود ولی عمدهی صحبتها به نقد نسبیگرایی گذشت. توی مناظرهها و صحبتهای بین افراد یه جاهایی کلا حس میکردم یه جهش ناهنجاری وجود داره که باعث میشد دنبال کردن بحث برام یه جاهایی سخت شه و مجبور شم برگردم عقب ببینم چی شد اینطوری شد. کلا بحثهای نسبتا آشنایی رو مطرح میکنه ولی به افکار من خیلی مطلب جدیدی اضافه نکرد.
October 18, 2015
I came across this book in my quest to find an introductory text to philosophy. It has a different and relatively less pedantic approach to understand and dispense philosophy.
A conversation amongst four people on a train precipitates into a quest to understand the character of knowledge and ethics. Among other things, they try to test the concept of Justified True Belief in Epistemology. The idea though is not clear, as the author consciously avoids introducing philosophical terms, which makes holding and segregating ideas difficult for the reader. The conversation doesn’t seem to go forward as it could. It feels like the characters are stuck up in arguments as we might be in reality. As expected, this is an disappointing and uninteresting as in real life.
Since the reader is going to spend all his time with these four, it would have been appropriate to make these characters likeable, or relatable at least. Instead we get four caricatures who are found irritating to various degrees, almost every time they open their mouth. This becomes an impediment to a smooth segue through the various ideas they pronounce and preach. The conversation becomes unbearable after the first half; I had to push myself to complete the book.
In all, tetralogue could have been an ideal introduction into philosophy had it been executed better and had not had a half-hearted effort in constructing the mediums, rendering them superficial.
A conversation amongst four people on a train precipitates into a quest to understand the character of knowledge and ethics. Among other things, they try to test the concept of Justified True Belief in Epistemology. The idea though is not clear, as the author consciously avoids introducing philosophical terms, which makes holding and segregating ideas difficult for the reader. The conversation doesn’t seem to go forward as it could. It feels like the characters are stuck up in arguments as we might be in reality. As expected, this is an disappointing and uninteresting as in real life.
Since the reader is going to spend all his time with these four, it would have been appropriate to make these characters likeable, or relatable at least. Instead we get four caricatures who are found irritating to various degrees, almost every time they open their mouth. This becomes an impediment to a smooth segue through the various ideas they pronounce and preach. The conversation becomes unbearable after the first half; I had to push myself to complete the book.
In all, tetralogue could have been an ideal introduction into philosophy had it been executed better and had not had a half-hearted effort in constructing the mediums, rendering them superficial.
June 5, 2024
This is a really interesting book, exploring epistemological questions, and pitting characters who are mouthpieces of major philosophical views against one another. Bob has a superstitious, pre-scientific outlook. As readers, we intuitively reject his ideas, but we struggle to explain exactly why he is wrong. Sarah represents the scientific worldview. She understands how to establish facts, but she is unclear about how to establish value. Zac represents relativism. He wants to be tolerant and he thinks the words "right" and "wrong" are perjorative and abusive. Roxanne represents traditional Aristotelian logic, claiming that truth is correspondence between ideas and facts. She criticizes Zac for thinking that the same idea can be both true and false, depending on one's perspective.
September 17, 2020
به عنوان شروع، برای آشنایی کلی با انواع دیدگاهها کتاب خوبیه، اما یکمقدار سریع از مسائل گذر شده و بحثها پراکنده و کمی بینظم هستند.
May 31, 2019
It may be good for someone very new to philosophy: a freshman student, a self learner, etc. It gives 4 major philosophical outlooks on life, but it is done in a sort of caricature like manner. It does read quick, so you're not going to have to slough through and it is probably worth a couple reads to make sure you understand everything.
If you've been through a couple introductory philosophy classes though it isn't going to give you too much to work with that you probably haven't already encountered. Though as others have said, it may be more fun to read this book as a play of sorts, it reads like a screenplay.
If you've been through a couple introductory philosophy classes though it isn't going to give you too much to work with that you probably haven't already encountered. Though as others have said, it may be more fun to read this book as a play of sorts, it reads like a screenplay.
May 4, 2021
A really solid and short book. It’s entirely dialogue, with four people in a continuously-shifting argument about the nature of truth and reason. The reader is probably meant to find his/her own perspective in the points made by one of the speakers.
It’s certainly thought-provoking and very well-written, but the book steers toward a conclusion that the points of view are irreconcilable, when I think one of the speakers was mostly correct and just made her points somewhat poorly at key times in the argument.
It’s certainly thought-provoking and very well-written, but the book steers toward a conclusion that the points of view are irreconcilable, when I think one of the speakers was mostly correct and just made her points somewhat poorly at key times in the argument.
February 8, 2019
Marking this a play even though it's meant to be read, not performed. It's basically a modern day Socratic dialogue, and can be used as a mildly entertaining introduction to relativism and epistemology. And if you discuss it with friends while reading, you can have fun fighting over team Sarah and team Roxana. (If a friend is team Zac, make better friends.)
February 11, 2018
فصل اول کتاب به نظرم خیلی ساده و بدتر از تعاریفی بود که از کتاب شنیده بودم، ولی هرفصل که پیش رفت پختگی متن و جذابیتش بیشتر شد و انتهای کتاب با خودم گفتم کاش هیچوقت قطار به مقصد نمیرسید.
October 24, 2022
اولش که چند صفحه از این کتاب خوندم این قد مدل بحث کردن یه سریشون رفت رو اعصابم که درجا کتاب رو بستم و میخواستم بیخیالش بشم. بعد به این نتیجه رسیدم مشکل بحث نکردن ما همینه. اگه وقتی حرفایی مقابل تفکرات خودمون میشنویم به جای این که عصبانی بشیم بتونیم عمیقتر نگاه کنیم و سوال بپرسیم قطعا بهتر میشه به یه سری نتایج رسید و همه از هم یاد میگیریم و رشد میکنیم. تو این کتاب هم داستان دقیقا همین بود ۴ نفر که همه با هم مخالف بودن در مورد مسائل مختلف با هم بحث میکنن( اسپویل: تهش هم به جایی نمیرسن) ولی این ادامه داشتن بحث خیلی قشنگه که هرکسی مجبور مبشه در مورد تفکرات خودش بیشتر فکر کنه حداقل برای این که بتونه به بقیه توضیحش بده و تو ابن مسیر آدم میبینه کجاها رو داره اشتباه میکنه و تصحیحش میکنه.
اعتراف میکنم که تا روووز آخر هروقت ازش خوندم فحش دادم ولی به نظرم لازم بود. خوندم همزمان این کتاب با "راهنمای تفکر نقادانه" اتفاق خوبی بود که باعث مبشد چیزهایی که از اون کتاب یاد میگیرم رو هم اینحا اعمال کنم. به بقیه هم همزمان خوندنشون رو پیشنهاد میکنم.
اعتراف میکنم که تا روووز آخر هروقت ازش خوندم فحش دادم ولی به نظرم لازم بود. خوندم همزمان این کتاب با "راهنمای تفکر نقادانه" اتفاق خوبی بود که باعث مبشد چیزهایی که از اون کتاب یاد میگیرم رو هم اینحا اعمال کنم. به بقیه هم همزمان خوندنشون رو پیشنهاد میکنم.
September 26, 2020
کتاب کوچکی که از ۴ تا گفتگو تشکیل شده بین ۴ تا ادم که هر کدوم نماینده یک طرز فکرن ! یکی خرافاتی /یکی علم گرا/یکی نسبی گرا /و اخری متفکر انتقادی
این بحثارو تو روزمره خودمون خیلی میشنویم ادم خرافاتی و نسبی گرا تو اطرافیانمون خیلی هستن و اصلا خودمون در برهه هایی یا در حال حاضر ممکنه اینطوری باشیم همچنین چالش های فکری که یک علم گرا میتونه در استدلال هاش باهاش مواجه بشه رو کاملا تو کتاب میبینیم
بعد خوندن کتاب تفکر نقاد این کتاب مثل تمرین میمونه و خوبه برای به چالش کشیده شدن !
مثلا تو گفتگوی اول میتونیم کلی مغالطه تشخیص بدیم و عیب نسبی گرا بودن رو لمس کنیم
تو مکالمه دوم و سوم درک میکنیم «درستی و نادرستی» «یقین» «خطاپذیری» چی هستن و تکلیفمونو باهاش مشخص میکنه و باور کنین اتفاقا خیلی کاربردیه
و مکالمه چهارم بحث بر سر یک مسئله اخلاقی و نسبی گرا بودن درباره اخلاقه و جالبیش اینه که با اینکه ما منتظریم رکسانا (نماینده منطق و تفکر انتقادی) ی جاهایی در این مبحث اخلاقی بخصوص حرف اخرو بزنه در انتها چیزی نمیگه و فقط در مقام تحلیل کننده قضایای موجود باقی میمونه و شاید خود این یک پیام باشه ....
«کلمه های درستی و نادرستی در واقعصرفا کلماتی هستند برای نشان دادن این ترجیح که ما میخوابم از چیزی همانطور ک هست حرف بزنیم
درستی یعنی از چیزی همونجور حرف بزنی که در واقع هست و نادرستی میشه از چیزی اون طوری حرف بزنی که در واقع نیست »
«ایا درسته که در سیارات دیگه حیات وجود داره(نمیدانم در جواب پرسش از درستی ) ایا یقین داریم که در سیارات دیگر حیات وجود داره (نه در جواب پرسش از یقین) یا سکه را که بندازی بالا میتونه درست باشه که خط بیاد اما یقینی نیست و میتونه درست باشه که شیر بیاد اما یقینی نیست در واقع اینکه یقین نداریم باعث نمیشه نادرست باشه »
«خطاپذیری صرفا یک یاداوری کلی درباره خطاپذیر بودن انسانه اکه هرچیزی که میگیم رو بگیم ممکنه غلط باشه اون وقت خطاپذیری بی معنا میشه در واقع ما میتونیم از توانایی هامون برای رسیدن به شناخت استفاده کنیم و نباید شرمنده باشیم ولی این را هم فراموش نمیکنیم مه ما فقط انسانیم »
این بحثارو تو روزمره خودمون خیلی میشنویم ادم خرافاتی و نسبی گرا تو اطرافیانمون خیلی هستن و اصلا خودمون در برهه هایی یا در حال حاضر ممکنه اینطوری باشیم همچنین چالش های فکری که یک علم گرا میتونه در استدلال هاش باهاش مواجه بشه رو کاملا تو کتاب میبینیم
بعد خوندن کتاب تفکر نقاد این کتاب مثل تمرین میمونه و خوبه برای به چالش کشیده شدن !
مثلا تو گفتگوی اول میتونیم کلی مغالطه تشخیص بدیم و عیب نسبی گرا بودن رو لمس کنیم
تو مکالمه دوم و سوم درک میکنیم «درستی و نادرستی» «یقین» «خطاپذیری» چی هستن و تکلیفمونو باهاش مشخص میکنه و باور کنین اتفاقا خیلی کاربردیه
و مکالمه چهارم بحث بر سر یک مسئله اخلاقی و نسبی گرا بودن درباره اخلاقه و جالبیش اینه که با اینکه ما منتظریم رکسانا (نماینده منطق و تفکر انتقادی) ی جاهایی در این مبحث اخلاقی بخصوص حرف اخرو بزنه در انتها چیزی نمیگه و فقط در مقام تحلیل کننده قضایای موجود باقی میمونه و شاید خود این یک پیام باشه ....
«کلمه های درستی و نادرستی در واقعصرفا کلماتی هستند برای نشان دادن این ترجیح که ما میخوابم از چیزی همانطور ک هست حرف بزنیم
درستی یعنی از چیزی همونجور حرف بزنی که در واقع هست و نادرستی میشه از چیزی اون طوری حرف بزنی که در واقع نیست »
«ایا درسته که در سیارات دیگه حیات وجود داره(نمیدانم در جواب پرسش از درستی ) ایا یقین داریم که در سیارات دیگر حیات وجود داره (نه در جواب پرسش از یقین) یا سکه را که بندازی بالا میتونه درست باشه که خط بیاد اما یقینی نیست و میتونه درست باشه که شیر بیاد اما یقینی نیست در واقع اینکه یقین نداریم باعث نمیشه نادرست باشه »
«خطاپذیری صرفا یک یاداوری کلی درباره خطاپذیر بودن انسانه اکه هرچیزی که میگیم رو بگیم ممکنه غلط باشه اون وقت خطاپذیری بی معنا میشه در واقع ما میتونیم از توانایی هامون برای رسیدن به شناخت استفاده کنیم و نباید شرمنده باشیم ولی این را هم فراموش نمیکنیم مه ما فقط انسانیم »
July 28, 2016
This was quite demanding for a short read, but I suppose decent philosophy should be that way: the debates provide an accurate insight (or perhaps warning) for beginners into some of the main arguments of logic and general philosophy.
The concept of the ‘tetralogue’ itself didn’t work as I had expected – one participant (Roxana, the logician) provided the correct answers and alterations to the arguments much of the time, while another (Bob, who doesn’t deserve a label) was essentially there for comic relief and to provide jumping-off points, less so for the argument itself.
The debates in Parts I and II changed my mind about relativism, as Zac’s character represents it at least, through the logic of truth that Roxana presents in Part II. I also found myself getting quite invested in the characters in the debate – I especially felt that they were too hard on Sarah (the scientist) and tended to gang up on her (especially in Part III), even though her school of thought (called ‘fallibilism’) often seemed the most justifiable to me! Of course, however, this aspect of the book will be one that individual readers will connect with depending on their own preconceptions and disposition as they relate to the characters. The discussions can be long-winded and a little convoluted at times (perhaps with the aim of being exhaustive to any objections), but nevertheless the book as a whole provides an entertaining and thought-provoking cognitive exercise.
The concept of the ‘tetralogue’ itself didn’t work as I had expected – one participant (Roxana, the logician) provided the correct answers and alterations to the arguments much of the time, while another (Bob, who doesn’t deserve a label) was essentially there for comic relief and to provide jumping-off points, less so for the argument itself.
The debates in Parts I and II changed my mind about relativism, as Zac’s character represents it at least, through the logic of truth that Roxana presents in Part II. I also found myself getting quite invested in the characters in the debate – I especially felt that they were too hard on Sarah (the scientist) and tended to gang up on her (especially in Part III), even though her school of thought (called ‘fallibilism’) often seemed the most justifiable to me! Of course, however, this aspect of the book will be one that individual readers will connect with depending on their own preconceptions and disposition as they relate to the characters. The discussions can be long-winded and a little convoluted at times (perhaps with the aim of being exhaustive to any objections), but nevertheless the book as a whole provides an entertaining and thought-provoking cognitive exercise.
July 19, 2015
This might be a really good book for an introductory class on philosophy, since the trend in classrooms is a kind of pseudo-relativism intended to respect differences but which seems to undermine the ability to make, defend, and critique claims. Williamson does shuffle through several commonly assumed positions and shows how difficult each is to justify, both to other views and on their own terms. One piece of the dialogue that aggravated me on occasion was the conflation of psychological confidence with epistemic warrant, which led to quick dismissals of seemingly promising lines of thought. In particular, Williamson seems completely unsympathetic to fallibilism and probability-weighted warrant, but I'm not sure he really captures either view as well as the others portrayed in the book (e.g., the Foucauldian critic of discourse as power). I did like his discussion of faultless disagreement at the end of the book; it was much more lucid than the class I took on the issue last year, which seemed to repeatedly shuffle between particular and general claims without discerning how this affected truth values. Anyway, despite my disagreement with some of the positions which seemed to "win" in the conversation and the stylized caricatures who served as participants in the conversation, I did appreciate the sustained examination of disagreement.
June 5, 2025
3/5
– read for class, i am leaning closer to 2.5/
5 but let me be generous I guess lol so I'll bump it to a 3/5. This was a pain to get through - not because it's a bad book, in fact on the contrary, it's a fantastic intro to philosophy (or at least a subset thereof) and does exactly what it promises to do; but nothing more. It is writtten as a dialouge between 3-4 centrale characters and the characters are incredibly insufferable - INTENTIONALLY SO, don't get me wrong, the author uses them as a prop to highlight central themes in Philosophy, and the characters do a brilliant job of illustrating those points but oh my god ZAC BOB SARAH SHUT THE FUCK UP OR I SWEAR TO MY FUCKING GOD I WILL YOU OUT TO THE FUCKING BACKYARD AND HIRE A FUCKING FIRING SQUAD TO EXECUTE YOU oh my god the characters are INSUFFERABLE actually you know what fuck this shit I am docking another star down i don't care how good of a book it is there is a LINE to how insufferable the characters can be and this crossed it.
– read for class, i am leaning closer to 2.5/
5 but let me be generous I guess lol so I'll bump it to a 3/5. This was a pain to get through - not because it's a bad book, in fact on the contrary, it's a fantastic intro to philosophy (or at least a subset thereof) and does exactly what it promises to do; but nothing more. It is writtten as a dialouge between 3-4 centrale characters and the characters are incredibly insufferable - INTENTIONALLY SO, don't get me wrong, the author uses them as a prop to highlight central themes in Philosophy, and the characters do a brilliant job of illustrating those points but oh my god ZAC BOB SARAH SHUT THE FUCK UP OR I SWEAR TO MY FUCKING GOD I WILL YOU OUT TO THE FUCKING BACKYARD AND HIRE A FUCKING FIRING SQUAD TO EXECUTE YOU oh my god the characters are INSUFFERABLE actually you know what fuck this shit I am docking another star down i don't care how good of a book it is there is a LINE to how insufferable the characters can be and this crossed it.
July 15, 2017
I'm not really sure who this book is aimed at.
It seems too muddled and on-the-nose to be a good philosophical text, and as an introduction to epistemological and ethical issues for a general audience I think it's probably too pedantic and whimsical to be taken seriously and inspire the average layman to explore more philosophy.
I might be being too harsh - especially as my interests in philosophy tend to lie elsewhere than in this book's subject matter - but it strikes me that there are many better works that do what Williamson is trying to without resorting to a contrived dialogue (or tetralogue, I should say). People looking for an introduction to philosophical concepts would do better to start with one of Simon Blackburn's books (Think is rather good), or to explore some of the excellent plays and novels written by continental philosophers in the past century (Sartre and Camus' works, for example).
It seems too muddled and on-the-nose to be a good philosophical text, and as an introduction to epistemological and ethical issues for a general audience I think it's probably too pedantic and whimsical to be taken seriously and inspire the average layman to explore more philosophy.
I might be being too harsh - especially as my interests in philosophy tend to lie elsewhere than in this book's subject matter - but it strikes me that there are many better works that do what Williamson is trying to without resorting to a contrived dialogue (or tetralogue, I should say). People looking for an introduction to philosophical concepts would do better to start with one of Simon Blackburn's books (Think is rather good), or to explore some of the excellent plays and novels written by continental philosophers in the past century (Sartre and Camus' works, for example).
March 9, 2015
One of the best things to happen during my recent visit to Oxford was to buy a beautiful book from the University Press.
Tetralogue: I'm right, You're wrong.
Author: Timothy Williamson (Professor of Logic, University of Oxford)
They say, "Don't judge a book by it's cover". In this case, I am happy I ignored the adage. ;)
Through this well-written and open-ended tetralogue (i.e. conversation among four people), the author takes us through a philosophical journey of investigation of the merits and limits of rational debate through the views of his characters.
Some of the keywords: argumentation, logic, knowledge, belief, tolerance, point of view, science, morality, absolutism, relativism, fallibility, right, wrong, truth, falsity.
A good read :)
Tetralogue: I'm right, You're wrong.
Author: Timothy Williamson (Professor of Logic, University of Oxford)
They say, "Don't judge a book by it's cover". In this case, I am happy I ignored the adage. ;)
Through this well-written and open-ended tetralogue (i.e. conversation among four people), the author takes us through a philosophical journey of investigation of the merits and limits of rational debate through the views of his characters.
Some of the keywords: argumentation, logic, knowledge, belief, tolerance, point of view, science, morality, absolutism, relativism, fallibility, right, wrong, truth, falsity.
A good read :)
December 27, 2018
This was another helpful primer on philosophy. It was a bit tedious at times, reading through a book comprising almost exclusively dialogue and accomplishing such a feat without at least sometimes sounding a bit contrived is a virtual impossibility. Regardless, it is a quick read and it helps flesh out some of the basics of philosophy in an extremely approachable way - a supposed conversation on a train between four strangers of very different approaches to philosophy.
If you are interested in philosophy and relatively new to the topic, this is worth a read.
If you are interested in philosophy and relatively new to the topic, this is worth a read.
August 2, 2020
از خوندن کتاب لذت بردم و فرمت دیالوگ برای انتقال این مفاهیم بسیار ارزنده بود، اما در ترجمه، روش مترجمین برای شکستنِ زبان ناکارآمد و غیرمنسجم بود که خوندن کتاب رو سخت میکرد. امیدوارم اصول محاورهنویسی در زبان فارسی پیشرفتهای بیشتری بکنه تا چنین معضلاتی پیش نیاد.
September 27, 2022
Couldn't have found a better read to end the year. Such a roller-coaster, this book!
Read
April 23, 2025I’ve read this book for an English class after it was recommended to me by one of my philosophy professors.
It’s not a bad book; it just isn’t my usual kind of book.
I’m often more interested in fictions as a silly read like some people watch TV, when I read philosophy works, I read them for classes as a “smart” read (even if there’s no such thing - I’m no elitist) so it really was a breath of fresh air having a piece of work explaining some philosophy’s “basics” in a dialogue kind of way. I felt like it echoed the tradition of philosophical dialogues from the Greek antiquity.
I see how it could help some people get used to philosophy in a more playful or fun way than an encyclopedia which I definitely encourage. But as a philosophy student it feels a bit overdue.
I would have loved it as a debut read for my first year even if sometimes, when Roxana speaks, you have to hold on to your very mind not to get lost lol.
I think it would make a great theater/short-film adaptation, even for high-school students, if it hasn’t been done yet.
Overall, not a bad book, just a not-easy-to-please-reader.
I think I just wasn’t the target audience for this.
It’s not a bad book; it just isn’t my usual kind of book.
I’m often more interested in fictions as a silly read like some people watch TV, when I read philosophy works, I read them for classes as a “smart” read (even if there’s no such thing - I’m no elitist) so it really was a breath of fresh air having a piece of work explaining some philosophy’s “basics” in a dialogue kind of way. I felt like it echoed the tradition of philosophical dialogues from the Greek antiquity.
I see how it could help some people get used to philosophy in a more playful or fun way than an encyclopedia which I definitely encourage. But as a philosophy student it feels a bit overdue.
I would have loved it as a debut read for my first year even if sometimes, when Roxana speaks, you have to hold on to your very mind not to get lost lol.
I think it would make a great theater/short-film adaptation, even for high-school students, if it hasn’t been done yet.
Overall, not a bad book, just a not-easy-to-please-reader.
I think I just wasn’t the target audience for this.
October 29, 2020
First off, the book is borderline falsely advertising. One of the four never really contributes to the tetralogue in any meaningful way. He's mostly there to be annoying and obstinate, which is a role that some arguers fill, but for this book it didn't work. He only ever said anything when everyone else had been talking for pages at a time, and he would chime in with something pointless and usually annoying.
As far as the content itself, it does raise some pretty good questions, but there is never any resolution given, or even something resembling one. Some of them clearly have a more informed and sound POV than the others, but the others would call them out for linguistic faults or unreasonable points.
For someone who is completely new to philosophy, logic, and arguing, this is probably a good book. I think I learned at least a little bit from it, and I might read it again someday. Plus, its really short so you can finish it in a couple hours. If you are familiar with all this stuff already, give this one a skip.
As far as the content itself, it does raise some pretty good questions, but there is never any resolution given, or even something resembling one. Some of them clearly have a more informed and sound POV than the others, but the others would call them out for linguistic faults or unreasonable points.
For someone who is completely new to philosophy, logic, and arguing, this is probably a good book. I think I learned at least a little bit from it, and I might read it again someday. Plus, its really short so you can finish it in a couple hours. If you are familiar with all this stuff already, give this one a skip.
February 1, 2023
This book had the potential to be really great. It's a tiny fictional dialogue between four characters, one new-age/anti-science, one pro-science (who is the protagonist and she tries to make progress on these philosophical questions), one relativist (post-modernist in the second half) and one logician with an unlikeable personality. In one train ride they discuss disagreement, truth, knowledge, certainty, perspective, science, humility, arrogance, open-mindedness, close-mindedness, reality, tolerance, respect, wisdom, objectivity, prejudice, rationality, human imperfection, relativism, fallibilism, absolutism, power, liberation and moral truth. Despite some bumps along the way, it was doing well until the morality part at the very end where in my opinion the discussion became clunky and unnatural. The first 3 chapters are great, the last one can be skipped.
October 7, 2025
I believe in SarahxRoxana doomed yuri
——
This book is a really interesting way of demonstrating the different perspectives on epistemology through a conversation, and does an excellent job of showcasing all the main stances strengths and weaknesses. I was a little eh about it initially because I felt the author was giving too much credit to the Aristotelian school of thought without giving the others a proper chance but that was just because I hadn’t read the latter half lol.
In the end I definitely can say that I enjoyed reading this book👍
——
This book is a really interesting way of demonstrating the different perspectives on epistemology through a conversation, and does an excellent job of showcasing all the main stances strengths and weaknesses. I was a little eh about it initially because I felt the author was giving too much credit to the Aristotelian school of thought without giving the others a proper chance but that was just because I hadn’t read the latter half lol.
In the end I definitely can say that I enjoyed reading this book👍
September 18, 2018
Very easy to read and entertaining intro to a couple philosophical ideas, particularly reletavism and epistemology.
Unsure if the depth or clarity of any concepts discussed therin suffice as effective at capturing a laypersons intrigue to delve further into philosophy, but maybe it serves a unique purpose for some.
The characters were very distinct but Bob was almost unbearable. Surely a proponent of superstition doesn't sound that irrational in reality?
Unsure if the depth or clarity of any concepts discussed therin suffice as effective at capturing a laypersons intrigue to delve further into philosophy, but maybe it serves a unique purpose for some.
The characters were very distinct but Bob was almost unbearable. Surely a proponent of superstition doesn't sound that irrational in reality?
December 12, 2020
A slight disclaimer; i had to read this for a philosophy class and not for my own enjoyment. That being said, i struggled to wrap my head around this text as it was only dialogue, with no descriptions at all. Attempting to identify the philosophical arguments was difficult as every time i thought i understood the characters’ thinking, they had moved on to another topic altogether. Overall, difficult and mentally exhausting to read.
April 25, 2025
Four people meet on a train and somewhat improbably discuss truth, morality, logic and relativism.
Whether this is a good read depends on the reader’s viewpoint. It is not for me to say it is good or bad. For a student taking the train to university where they will be taking a course in philosophy it is probably a very good book. For a person taking the train home from work after a long day with a fried brain, it is probably not so good.
Whether this is a good read depends on the reader’s viewpoint. It is not for me to say it is good or bad. For a student taking the train to university where they will be taking a course in philosophy it is probably a very good book. For a person taking the train home from work after a long day with a fried brain, it is probably not so good.
April 15, 2021
خوب نوشته شده بود ولی خییییلی سریع از هر موضوعی رد میشد خواننده کمتر اجازه تفکر داشت من هم خوندنش برام سخت بود هم از بحث شخصیتها لذت بردم
یه جا تو کتاب از تضاد بین دو واژه "جالب" و "خسته کننده" استفاده میکنه. میخوام بگم اتفاقا گاهی این دو کلمه متضاد نیستند و ابعادی از یه چیز چند بعدی هستن کتاب برای من جالب و خسته کننده بود😁
یه جا تو کتاب از تضاد بین دو واژه "جالب" و "خسته کننده" استفاده میکنه. میخوام بگم اتفاقا گاهی این دو کلمه متضاد نیستند و ابعادی از یه چیز چند بعدی هستن کتاب برای من جالب و خسته کننده بود😁
July 1, 2021
This book is a conversation between four people with different philosophical backgrounds. They engage in enthralling discussions as they go through many themes such as relativism, fallibilism, moral dilemmas, etc. It's not a complete philosophy refresher, but not a bad book either. The format is interesting and there is so much humor involved which makes it even more riveting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews