What do you think?
Rate this book
你以為你以為的就是你以為的嗎？：12道檢測思考清晰度的哲學闖關遊戲
▍你真以為自己慈悲為懷、童叟無欺而且頭腦清楚？▍
玩過書中哲學闖關遊戲再說吧——
搞不好，根本就是一團混亂、充滿矛盾！
「朱立安．巴吉尼擁有一顆清明的心智，
使得他在哲學普及書籍的領域中格外傑出。」
——英國權威媒體《衛報》（The Guardian）
◆英國知名哲普作家、暢銷書《自願被吃的豬》作者朱立安．巴吉尼精心設計
◆12道檢測思考清晰度的哲學闖關遊戲——你以為的那些事情「真的」就是你以為的嗎？
◎你有思路混亂所引發的腦神經短路嗎？
◎你有沉迷幻想所引發的妄想官能症嗎？
◎你有瞻前顧後所引發的龜毛症候群嗎？
先來做個簡單的哲學健康檢查。保證無痛！還會有微微的快感呢。
【檢查開始】
1 如果能夠走路、騎腳踏車或搭乘火車，就不該開車。你同意嗎？
2 為了個人吸食而持有毒品的行為應予除罪化。你同意嗎？
3 米開朗基羅是歷史上數一數二的偉大藝術家。你同意嗎？
4 客觀的道德標準並不存在，道德判斷只是代表個別文化的價值觀。你同意嗎？
5 剝奪別人的生命是絕對錯誤的行為。你同意嗎？
6 人類不該為了自己的需求，對環境造成不必要的損害。你同意嗎？
7 只要不傷害別人，每個人都有權自由追求自己的目標。你同意嗎ᦃ
玩過書中哲學闖關遊戲再說吧——
搞不好，根本就是一團混亂、充滿矛盾！
「朱立安．巴吉尼擁有一顆清明的心智，
使得他在哲學普及書籍的領域中格外傑出。」
——英國權威媒體《衛報》（The Guardian）
◆英國知名哲普作家、暢銷書《自願被吃的豬》作者朱立安．巴吉尼精心設計
◆12道檢測思考清晰度的哲學闖關遊戲——你以為的那些事情「真的」就是你以為的嗎？
◎你有思路混亂所引發的腦神經短路嗎？
◎你有沉迷幻想所引發的妄想官能症嗎？
◎你有瞻前顧後所引發的龜毛症候群嗎？
先來做個簡單的哲學健康檢查。保證無痛！還會有微微的快感呢。
【檢查開始】
1 如果能夠走路、騎腳踏車或搭乘火車，就不該開車。你同意嗎？
2 為了個人吸食而持有毒品的行為應予除罪化。你同意嗎？
3 米開朗基羅是歷史上數一數二的偉大藝術家。你同意嗎？
4 客觀的道德標準並不存在，道德判斷只是代表個別文化的價值觀。你同意嗎？
5 剝奪別人的生命是絕對錯誤的行為。你同意嗎？
6 人類不該為了自己的需求，對環境造成不必要的損害。你同意嗎？
7 只要不傷害別人，每個人都有權自由追求自己的目標。你同意嗎ᦃ
132 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Julian Baggini
78 books616 followersJulian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
April 27, 2020
Do I Think What I Think I Think?
No!
No!
August 2, 2018
English.
In the first exercise, "there must be" pops up way to often. Must there be? Must the world or a mind be that simple?
Did the authors consult anyone who designs marketing surveys when constructing the questions? Or did they just refine their questions using the feedback from people who already subscribe to the same ideas that they do?
For instance, Tension 10. Is the unnatural wrong?
If you agree that sanitation and medicine are good and that homosexuality is not bad, you must have a "tension."
Apparently, medicine is unnatural. But is it? Unless your underlying belief is that humans are unnatural, then anything humans do is just as natural as anything a fungus does.
Apparently, if you don't hold a moral stance on homosexuality at all, you don't care if it is right or wrong, and therefore you disagree with the statement that it is "wrong because it is unnatural" -- I'm not sure what they get from this.
If you don't find either homosexuality or sanitation and medicine wrong, you are conflicted somehow.
Here's another: Tension 13. It's quite possible that a person believes that a person sees atheists as having a "faith" not because of observed beliefs or lack of beliefs, but rather because their behavior is sometimes so similar to that of some religious people. If you agreed that atheists have a "faith" based on observed behavior of atheists, you are judged to have another "tension." The question does not allow you that option.
If someone assumes that because something hasn't yet been proved in a manner that is satisfactory to him that it will never be proved, then he apparently believes the underlying assumption of Statement 8. How would I know? Charles H. Duell knew. Only he didn't know.
If you ask for agreement/disagreement with ambiguous statements, you get answers that lack specifically identifiable meaning. The answers are all over the place because the questions are not precise. To do that then turn around and say there "must be" an alignment or an incongruence is presumptuous.
I doubt I'll finish the book. I hope that the reason I find it irritating is that our common language isn't really common, that I in my country interpret the questions differently than the authors intended because we don't use the language the same way.
In the first exercise, "there must be" pops up way to often. Must there be? Must the world or a mind be that simple?
Did the authors consult anyone who designs marketing surveys when constructing the questions? Or did they just refine their questions using the feedback from people who already subscribe to the same ideas that they do?
For instance, Tension 10. Is the unnatural wrong?
If you agree that sanitation and medicine are good and that homosexuality is not bad, you must have a "tension."
Apparently, medicine is unnatural. But is it? Unless your underlying belief is that humans are unnatural, then anything humans do is just as natural as anything a fungus does.
Apparently, if you don't hold a moral stance on homosexuality at all, you don't care if it is right or wrong, and therefore you disagree with the statement that it is "wrong because it is unnatural" -- I'm not sure what they get from this.
If you don't find either homosexuality or sanitation and medicine wrong, you are conflicted somehow.
Here's another: Tension 13. It's quite possible that a person believes that a person sees atheists as having a "faith" not because of observed beliefs or lack of beliefs, but rather because their behavior is sometimes so similar to that of some religious people. If you agreed that atheists have a "faith" based on observed behavior of atheists, you are judged to have another "tension." The question does not allow you that option.
If someone assumes that because something hasn't yet been proved in a manner that is satisfactory to him that it will never be proved, then he apparently believes the underlying assumption of Statement 8. How would I know? Charles H. Duell knew. Only he didn't know.
If you ask for agreement/disagreement with ambiguous statements, you get answers that lack specifically identifiable meaning. The answers are all over the place because the questions are not precise. To do that then turn around and say there "must be" an alignment or an incongruence is presumptuous.
I doubt I'll finish the book. I hope that the reason I find it irritating is that our common language isn't really common, that I in my country interpret the questions differently than the authors intended because we don't use the language the same way.
October 31, 2021
Raises some good points that you often think you know your view on something but really you don’t. A bit repetitive and ideally needs to be hardback - not kindle
January 2, 2021
This was right up my alley. Fun, meta, personlly challenging, widely applicable. Had a few moments when I regretted my decision to forego a philosophy degree and subsequent JD. I do so love brain play. There are many tests included which I think will be of use for my critical thinking/government class.
November 30, 2008
Nobody Ever Went Wrong Thinking About Their Own Thought Processes
"Do You Think What You Think You Think? was a nice little book with fun "thought exercises." This book was briefly discussed on a forum that I frequent, and as I've always been a fun of philosophy and thought exercises, I picked it up immediately (or as fast as the seller shipped it). Unfortunately, I don't think everyone will appreciate this book. With our dualistic and polarized thinking society, it can never hurt to learn a little bit more about why each of us think more critically about our thought processes; however, it seems anytime someone questions a belief or belief system, it is seemed as condescending or insulting. The authors make a good point in one of the potentially "controversial" chapters when they said "[This exercise) is a deep challenge only to those whose beliefs have shallow foundations." If you pick up this book with an open mind and wanting to know more about your belief system and thought process, then this book is for you. If you are only getting this book to reinforce what you already think, then you will most certainly not enjoy this book.
Before I get too far along, I must say that this book should not be read as the "be all, end all" guide to thought analysis. It is simply some basic exercises that must be taken within the context of the goals of the book.
Each chapter is divided into a different section: Logic, Taboos, Morality, Ethics, God, among others. While going through each section you answer questions that are later assessed to find contradictions or alignments in your thoughts and beliefs. A minor note that the authors are often correct that the scoring may "appear" difficult for a couple sections; but isn't. They are correct; however, the authors did not do as good a job explaining the scoring and I was sometimes left to read between the lines to figure it out for myself, and after I did, it wasn't difficult; but their description was rather lack-luster.
This book was quick to read and fun to engage in. I personally enjoyed every minute of my time reading and interacting with this book. Like I said, I think it is unfortunate that not everyone will appreciate this book; but anyone who considers this as a book to read must go in to the book at face value. Many of the questions and sections can easily be misconstrued as making "right or wrong" judgments or can easily be read as "what you believe is wrong." But again, I think it only goes back to how superficial the person reading the book is. I was never uncomfortable reading this book, even when it pointed out the most obvious contradictions in my basic thoughts and values.
The only other thing I will comment on is the price of the book. The back of edition I received had a price tag of $13. I would never pay that much for this book. I bought it from one of Amazon's used sellers for three or four dollars.
J.Stoner
"Do You Think What You Think You Think? was a nice little book with fun "thought exercises." This book was briefly discussed on a forum that I frequent, and as I've always been a fun of philosophy and thought exercises, I picked it up immediately (or as fast as the seller shipped it). Unfortunately, I don't think everyone will appreciate this book. With our dualistic and polarized thinking society, it can never hurt to learn a little bit more about why each of us think more critically about our thought processes; however, it seems anytime someone questions a belief or belief system, it is seemed as condescending or insulting. The authors make a good point in one of the potentially "controversial" chapters when they said "[This exercise) is a deep challenge only to those whose beliefs have shallow foundations." If you pick up this book with an open mind and wanting to know more about your belief system and thought process, then this book is for you. If you are only getting this book to reinforce what you already think, then you will most certainly not enjoy this book.
Before I get too far along, I must say that this book should not be read as the "be all, end all" guide to thought analysis. It is simply some basic exercises that must be taken within the context of the goals of the book.
Each chapter is divided into a different section: Logic, Taboos, Morality, Ethics, God, among others. While going through each section you answer questions that are later assessed to find contradictions or alignments in your thoughts and beliefs. A minor note that the authors are often correct that the scoring may "appear" difficult for a couple sections; but isn't. They are correct; however, the authors did not do as good a job explaining the scoring and I was sometimes left to read between the lines to figure it out for myself, and after I did, it wasn't difficult; but their description was rather lack-luster.
This book was quick to read and fun to engage in. I personally enjoyed every minute of my time reading and interacting with this book. Like I said, I think it is unfortunate that not everyone will appreciate this book; but anyone who considers this as a book to read must go in to the book at face value. Many of the questions and sections can easily be misconstrued as making "right or wrong" judgments or can easily be read as "what you believe is wrong." But again, I think it only goes back to how superficial the person reading the book is. I was never uncomfortable reading this book, even when it pointed out the most obvious contradictions in my basic thoughts and values.
The only other thing I will comment on is the price of the book. The back of edition I received had a price tag of $13. I would never pay that much for this book. I bought it from one of Amazon's used sellers for three or four dollars.
J.Stoner
December 15, 2018
Not sure I learned much I didn’t already know, but the quizzes were still entertaining/interesting
March 18, 2021
Light read with quizzes to test your philosophical congruity. Makes some interesting points but as with all ideas the devil is in the detail.
April 17, 2022
I will read it again
February 20, 2023
Very clever tests covering almost everything.
January 5, 2021
This is a brilliant book! A philosophy book for both those who have studied and are interested in philosophy, but perhaps even more so, for those who haven't given the issue much conscious thought at all! People think they know what they think, but without real conscious inquiry, many hold incompatible ideas and views because they have not spent time and energy on developing clear and congruent ideas about the world and what they truly believe.
This book presents a variety of quizzes that will help the reader to gain insight into where they may hold contradictory ideas as well as help uncover blind spots in their thinking. After quizzes that help spotlight inconsistencies in one's thinking processes, there are quizzes that will shed light on what your ethical foundations really are.
Really, if you are at all interested in gaining greater self-knowledge, then this is a must read -- and more importantly -- must use book. And be prepared to be humbled.
This book presents a variety of quizzes that will help the reader to gain insight into where they may hold contradictory ideas as well as help uncover blind spots in their thinking. After quizzes that help spotlight inconsistencies in one's thinking processes, there are quizzes that will shed light on what your ethical foundations really are.
Really, if you are at all interested in gaining greater self-knowledge, then this is a must read -- and more importantly -- must use book. And be prepared to be humbled.
October 3, 2020
It is a fun book to read that really distorts your usual beliefs. This book really covers a lot of grounds from God, freedom, logic, morals, even art. It teaches you to think consistently whatever your beliefs are. Learning philosophy can be fun with quizzes or minigame inside every chapter and somehow the jokes are quite funny (spoiler: the author messed around with you at the end of the book haha). I recommend you to read this book!
May 21, 2021
Can the great ideas of philosophy be reduced to mathematical algorithms based on quiz show questionnaires which call for individual opinions? And is philosophy just a combination of opinions? The authors of this book think so. I took the quizzes and I didn't feel any further along than when I started. I was not impressed.
December 10, 2020
I read this with a book group and it guided us through some really interesting discussions. Some chapters are more interesting and "discussable" than others, but overall I liked the book and the ideas it prompted you to think about. As expected, most people do not think what they think they think.
August 18, 2026
一句话总结：
这本书写的都只是老生常谈的、最基础的哲学问题，逻辑也不算严密（大部分地方用词相当粗糙）；但因为我自己知识体系薄弱，所以看着会觉得很新奇。故四星。
以下均为本人碎碎念
第一章The Philosophical Health Check的 “There are no objective moral standards; moral judgments are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures”，让我一下想起了 Russ Shafer‑Landau 写的Whatever happened to Good and Evil（在其中他以 moral objectivist 的视角用纯逻辑反驳了 nihilism，subjectivism 和 relativism）——如果没学过相关知识，大众很可能先同意 “there are no objective moral standards”，然后再认可“大屠杀是坏的”这样的结论，thus creating a loophole in their argument …抱着“好奇自己的思想是否有 tension”的心态买了这本书。
这本书总共分为十二个章节，每个章节都以一个有名的 philosophy experiment 开篇。刚才第一章的开头便是 the philosophical health check。第二章是 the Wason test（通过翻牌判断规则是否被违反），第三章是三段式推理。
从第四章开始，人们被要求在脑中想出一个上帝的形象；并在第五章Battleground God中意识到他们脑中的形象实际上是 logically inconsistent 的。这是对我个人而言最新奇的两章（虽然我之后意识到Battleground God其实是个非常有名的 thought experiment，但在此之前我根本没听过，Dr. Birks的political philosophy 也没谈到任何宗教相关因素）。在Battleground God中我第一次遭受了 direct hit ——我先认同了 “It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions”，结果之后又认为 “the serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe was not justified in believing that he was carrying out God’s will in undertaking these actions”。不过，现在我重新思考这个问题，我的回答可能会是“如果他能保证自己的逻辑大体没有漏洞，那么 yes, he is justified in believing（of course that doesn’t mean I actually think he is justified in carrying out his actions, or that I think he doesn’t have logical loopholes）”
第六章Taboo让我一下想起了 Peter Singer 的 “whether zoophilia is morally permissible”。它询问读者 can an action be morally wrong if it’s entirely private and no one, not even the person engaged in the act, is harmed by it at all？如果这是可行的，为什么在虚拟的实验中，我们对“吃宠物”“兽交”“incest”还是那么反感呢？
第七章Morality play旨在检验人们的道德标准究竟更 parsimonious 还是灵活，并把影响道德判断的因子分为四类：
Geographical Distance（GD），Family Relatedness（FR），Acts and Omissions（AO）［例如，does it make a difference where in one case a physician allows someone to die by not curing them, and in another they’re actively assisting suicide?］和 Scale（SC）。
第八章则询问读者什么才算好的艺术，并询问艺术六象限
① the work displays great technical ability
② the work is enjoyable
③ the work conveys the feelings of the artist
④ the work conveys an important moral lesson or helps us to live better lives
⑤ the formal features of the work are harmonious / beautiful
⑥ the work reveals an insight into reality
在读者心中重要性的排序。（虽然按我的审美，陀氏无疑是个伟大的作家；但在荒岛求生时我更可能把匡灵秀的书带走...）
第九章用是否 officially（表里如一）ethical（符合西方主流价值观，例如减排，抵制超市或童工）把人分为四象限——not surprised at all to see myself in the “unofficially unethical” tier, but at least my “ethical” beliefs didn’t score high — less incongruence, I guess.
第十章staying alive让我立刻想到了 Derek Parfit 的理与人。它谈论了 continuity 对人之为人的影响，并通过三个不同测试考查读者到底最在意 bodily continuity，psychological continuity 还是 soul continuity —虽然我认为自己最在意心理连续性，但在 Round 3: the reclamation choice 里我选了 soul。
第十一章谈论人们的自由意志。大部分人倾向于认为人有自由意志，且在主体是自己的时候 give themselves more credit for actions that turn out well（self‑serving attributional bias!）。不过这章很短，所以对于“我们是否对自己的成就应得”并未进行深入研究，也就没提到 John Rawls 的 desert 理论。
第十二章是综合哲学知识考查，例如问你 “woman is not yet capable of friendship：women are still cats and birds” 是谁说的（尼采到底发表了多少厌女言论 …）不过我的哲学功底相当薄弱，所以很多问题我都回答不上来。
这本书写的都只是老生常谈的、最基础的哲学问题，逻辑也不算严密（大部分地方用词相当粗糙）；但因为我自己知识体系薄弱，所以看着会觉得很新奇。故四星。
以下均为本人碎碎念
第一章The Philosophical Health Check的 “There are no objective moral standards; moral judgments are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures”，让我一下想起了 Russ Shafer‑Landau 写的Whatever happened to Good and Evil（在其中他以 moral objectivist 的视角用纯逻辑反驳了 nihilism，subjectivism 和 relativism）——如果没学过相关知识，大众很可能先同意 “there are no objective moral standards”，然后再认可“大屠杀是坏的”这样的结论，thus creating a loophole in their argument …抱着“好奇自己的思想是否有 tension”的心态买了这本书。
这本书总共分为十二个章节，每个章节都以一个有名的 philosophy experiment 开篇。刚才第一章的开头便是 the philosophical health check。第二章是 the Wason test（通过翻牌判断规则是否被违反），第三章是三段式推理。
从第四章开始，人们被要求在脑中想出一个上帝的形象；并在第五章Battleground God中意识到他们脑中的形象实际上是 logically inconsistent 的。这是对我个人而言最新奇的两章（虽然我之后意识到Battleground God其实是个非常有名的 thought experiment，但在此之前我根本没听过，Dr. Birks的political philosophy 也没谈到任何宗教相关因素）。在Battleground God中我第一次遭受了 direct hit ——我先认同了 “It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions”，结果之后又认为 “the serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe was not justified in believing that he was carrying out God’s will in undertaking these actions”。不过，现在我重新思考这个问题，我的回答可能会是“如果他能保证自己的逻辑大体没有漏洞，那么 yes, he is justified in believing（of course that doesn’t mean I actually think he is justified in carrying out his actions, or that I think he doesn’t have logical loopholes）”
第六章Taboo让我一下想起了 Peter Singer 的 “whether zoophilia is morally permissible”。它询问读者 can an action be morally wrong if it’s entirely private and no one, not even the person engaged in the act, is harmed by it at all？如果这是可行的，为什么在虚拟的实验中，我们对“吃宠物”“兽交”“incest”还是那么反感呢？
第七章Morality play旨在检验人们的道德标准究竟更 parsimonious 还是灵活，并把影响道德判断的因子分为四类：
Geographical Distance（GD），Family Relatedness（FR），Acts and Omissions（AO）［例如，does it make a difference where in one case a physician allows someone to die by not curing them, and in another they’re actively assisting suicide?］和 Scale（SC）。
第八章则询问读者什么才算好的艺术，并询问艺术六象限
① the work displays great technical ability
② the work is enjoyable
③ the work conveys the feelings of the artist
④ the work conveys an important moral lesson or helps us to live better lives
⑤ the formal features of the work are harmonious / beautiful
⑥ the work reveals an insight into reality
在读者心中重要性的排序。（虽然按我的审美，陀氏无疑是个伟大的作家；但在荒岛求生时我更可能把匡灵秀的书带走...）
第九章用是否 officially（表里如一）ethical（符合西方主流价值观，例如减排，抵制超市或童工）把人分为四象限——not surprised at all to see myself in the “unofficially unethical” tier, but at least my “ethical” beliefs didn’t score high — less incongruence, I guess.
第十章staying alive让我立刻想到了 Derek Parfit 的理与人。它谈论了 continuity 对人之为人的影响，并通过三个不同测试考查读者到底最在意 bodily continuity，psychological continuity 还是 soul continuity —虽然我认为自己最在意心理连续性，但在 Round 3: the reclamation choice 里我选了 soul。
第十一章谈论人们的自由意志。大部分人倾向于认为人有自由意志，且在主体是自己的时候 give themselves more credit for actions that turn out well（self‑serving attributional bias!）。不过这章很短，所以对于“我们是否对自己的成就应得”并未进行深入研究，也就没提到 John Rawls 的 desert 理论。
第十二章是综合哲学知识考查，例如问你 “woman is not yet capable of friendship：women are still cats and birds” 是谁说的（尼采到底发表了多少厌女言论 …）不过我的哲学功底相当薄弱，所以很多问题我都回答不上来。
September 29, 2021
The quiz questions in the beginning seemed a bit vague, but I assumed that was to get the reader thinking before answering. Later when assessing my score it seemed they capitalized on the vagueness and left no room for interpretation and was almost like the author makes a biased judgment of your tensions. My understanding of philosophy would be to actually think through your answers and the summaries of your tensions made by the author don’t appear to be very thought through, and rather seem to make straw man arguments. Being titled “Do you think what you think you think?” Doesn’t seem to be a very fitting title. A more fitting title could be “Do you think the way I think you should think”
Tension 3 seems to suggest that because there are innocent children suffering then there is no all-powerful and loving God because why would He allow that when He has the power to prevent it, or stop it from happening. As if being an innocent child exempts you from natural disasters, or pain, or suffering.. if everything were perfect there would be no need for faith or hope.
Tension 10 has some vague wording with question 19 saying “proper sanitation and medicines are GENERALLY good for society” and certainly you could agree they are generally good, but not always.. I mean using hand sanitizer is generally a good idea but you shouldn’t use it excessively because you’d kill off the friendly bacteria on your hands that help to keep your skin healthy, and sure unnatural medicines are generally good, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t natural alternatives that work as well. All this in tension with agreeing that homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural. You can think homosexuality is wrong naturally while also agreeing you should be allowed to love who you want. When asked this question of thinking it’s wrong because it’s unnatural, I took it at face value thinking about how nature works in general. Nature requires male and female parts to procreate whether it be a human, plant, or animal. You can think people can choose to love who they want and still understand that it’s not how nature intended it.
I have other critiques of the quiz questions and score summaries but I wasn’t expecting to write a novel about them. Perhaps my criticisms can be invalidated. It’s supposed to be about philosophy after all.
Tension 3 seems to suggest that because there are innocent children suffering then there is no all-powerful and loving God because why would He allow that when He has the power to prevent it, or stop it from happening. As if being an innocent child exempts you from natural disasters, or pain, or suffering.. if everything were perfect there would be no need for faith or hope.
Tension 10 has some vague wording with question 19 saying “proper sanitation and medicines are GENERALLY good for society” and certainly you could agree they are generally good, but not always.. I mean using hand sanitizer is generally a good idea but you shouldn’t use it excessively because you’d kill off the friendly bacteria on your hands that help to keep your skin healthy, and sure unnatural medicines are generally good, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t natural alternatives that work as well. All this in tension with agreeing that homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural. You can think homosexuality is wrong naturally while also agreeing you should be allowed to love who you want. When asked this question of thinking it’s wrong because it’s unnatural, I took it at face value thinking about how nature works in general. Nature requires male and female parts to procreate whether it be a human, plant, or animal. You can think people can choose to love who they want and still understand that it’s not how nature intended it.
I have other critiques of the quiz questions and score summaries but I wasn’t expecting to write a novel about them. Perhaps my criticisms can be invalidated. It’s supposed to be about philosophy after all.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 12, 2019
This was an excellent read: informative, witty [couldn't you guess by the title?], and also increases understanding/awareness in the universal and personal senses. Clear, crisp, writing style kept me turning pages and anticipating next activity. Not at all like the more serious or "drier" (as others might say) works of some classical thinkers.
Not going to say I condone or agree with everything one hundred percent, but the reasoning and arguments kept me, a thinker, engaged in the work. I think some of the more emotive readers or the ultra-analytical might get a bit upset with the (yet sometimes witty) analyses, reasoning, and conclusions. I believe it is meant to spark discussions and interaction rather than being an "authoritative" text.
It is a neat little book to find out just how logical you and your reasoning processes are!
Not going to say I condone or agree with everything one hundred percent, but the reasoning and arguments kept me, a thinker, engaged in the work. I think some of the more emotive readers or the ultra-analytical might get a bit upset with the (yet sometimes witty) analyses, reasoning, and conclusions. I believe it is meant to spark discussions and interaction rather than being an "authoritative" text.
It is a neat little book to find out just how logical you and your reasoning processes are!
September 4, 2024
DNF
In a nutshell, it seemed like the “product/market fit” of this book was a little strained.
For example, the opening quiz asks you to select “agree” or “disagree” to very broad statements about complex topics and then purports to “catch” your supposed inconsistencies—but I would think most readers of this book would have more nuanced opinions. The syllogism quiz was likely way too easy for the types of people who would seek out this book, even if it might be enlightening in a workshop format where people who wouldn’t seek out the book are asked to take it.
I still 10/10 recommend Baggini as an author of entertaining books that make deep philosophical concepts accessible, but this is not my top Baggini recommendation.
In a nutshell, it seemed like the “product/market fit” of this book was a little strained.
For example, the opening quiz asks you to select “agree” or “disagree” to very broad statements about complex topics and then purports to “catch” your supposed inconsistencies—but I would think most readers of this book would have more nuanced opinions. The syllogism quiz was likely way too easy for the types of people who would seek out this book, even if it might be enlightening in a workshop format where people who wouldn’t seek out the book are asked to take it.
I still 10/10 recommend Baggini as an author of entertaining books that make deep philosophical concepts accessible, but this is not my top Baggini recommendation.
October 16, 2022
Pretty fun and interactive book that introduces philosophical concepts. There are numerous exercises and activities within the book that requires a pencil, so it can be a little tough to work on those if you do not have a pencil on hand.
Although heavy in terms of engagement, it does not have a lot of content compared to a traditional philosophy book. So it's not recommended for individuals who have dabbled in quite a bit of philosophy but I'd recommend it for anyone who wants to delve into the field of philosophy and sharpen their critical thinking.
Although heavy in terms of engagement, it does not have a lot of content compared to a traditional philosophy book. So it's not recommended for individuals who have dabbled in quite a bit of philosophy but I'd recommend it for anyone who wants to delve into the field of philosophy and sharpen their critical thinking.
August 19, 2018
Spicy, salty and sweet! Pineapple pizza barely comes close to it.🍍
Get ready for your thought process, belief system, moral frames, assumptions and opinions to be boiled, broiled and baked through dozens of brainteasers.
The book would have been better for me if more precise terminology - especially in the analysis section - was used and the provided book's website was working. :(
Yet, the summary at the end of each chapter was adored.
Strongly recommended for anyone looking for coherence.
Get ready for your thought process, belief system, moral frames, assumptions and opinions to be boiled, broiled and baked through dozens of brainteasers.
The book would have been better for me if more precise terminology - especially in the analysis section - was used and the provided book's website was working. :(
Yet, the summary at the end of each chapter was adored.
Strongly recommended for anyone looking for coherence.
May 29, 2021
I enjoyed this bit of a self-check for your brain, and the way that the test were done was nicely eye-opening without being anything that I think people could take offense at.
I guess I was looking for more nuanced discussion of the philosophies behind everything after the quizzes, which is why it got docked a star.
I guess I was looking for more nuanced discussion of the philosophies behind everything after the quizzes, which is why it got docked a star.
January 2, 2023
Imaginei que seria uma leitura diferente, que seriam testes mais profundos, mais filosóficos mesmo. Mas é no mínimo interessante para uma reflexão dos pensamentos e atitudes que temos às vezes sem pensar.
August 11, 2025
Rating: C-
This would probably be a good introductory book but for someone a bit more familiar with the subject matter I don't think there's much here. I found a lot of the questions frustratingly vague and the vast majority I had heard some version of before.
This would probably be a good introductory book but for someone a bit more familiar with the subject matter I don't think there's much here. I found a lot of the questions frustratingly vague and the vast majority I had heard some version of before.
October 21, 2017
A bunch of litmus tests to see help you see where you stand within your own mind & view of the world. A lot of fun!
August 31, 2018
Maybe the first philosophy (nominal philosophy? thing by a philosopher?) I read. Can't quite remember if it was amazing, but I ended up doing philosophy so it can't have been bad.
October 26, 2019
A perfect companion book for the author's previous works.
April 18, 2020
Good ideas, very good quizes that lead you to rethink about the things you think, but didn't like some chapters that talks about God and religious matters.
May 10, 2020
Es una lectura que vale la pena, te hace pensar muchisimo
January 31, 2021
This book has concluded that I am either a subtle thinker or a mass of contradictions. Now I am contradicting this hint of contradiction in a very subtle manner, phew!
August 15, 2021
Not sure what I just read
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews