متافیزیک

Very Short Introductions #326

by Stephen Mumford, محمد یوسفی (Translator)

این کتاب بی‌درنگ با طرح پرسش‌های متافیزیکی، سراغ مباحث اساسی این حوزه از معرفت بشری می‌رود: اشیا چه هشتند؟ آیا رنگ‌ها و شکل‌ها برای خود وجودی مستقل دارند؟ آیا کل همان مجموع اجزایش است؟ چگونه است که چیزی علت چیزی دیگر می‌شود و نه صرفا همجوار آن؟ ممکن چیست؟ آیا زمان چیزی جاری است؟

استیون مامفورد استاد متافیزیک در دانشگاه دورهام انگلستان می‌کوشد با طرح پرسش‌هایی ساده زمینه را برای تامل در باب برخی مباحث در سنت متافیزیک تحلیلی فراهم سازد، مباحثی چون جوهر، خاصیت، تغییر، علت، امکان، زمان، هویت شخصی، عدم و آگاهی.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Metaphysics, Science, Academic, Reference, School

173 pages, Paperback

First published August 30, 2012

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort to think clearly.”

—William James.

I have read several excellent books from the Very Short Introduction series, but this book transcends the genre: it is perhaps tied with Russell’s Problems of Philosophy for the best introduction to philosophy I’ve ever read. The book is a marvelous display of philosophical thought. What’s more, the fine quality of thought is matched by the fine quality of writing. (Mumford does have the bad habit of putting words like “therefore” and “however” at the ends of his sentences, however. I can’t say he’s a perfect stylist, therefore.)

Perhaps I’m so impressed by Mumford’s treatment of the subject because it is so easy for me to imagine a book like this turning out godawful. Somebody less talented might have opted for some scatterbrained presentation of philosophy’s main thinkers. Mumford doesn’t make that mistake. Instead, he jumps straight into the material, starting in medias res. The student is not simply learning about what Plato thought, what Aristotle thought, but encounters the questions themselves; proceeding this way, Mumford covers an enormous swath of material, jumping from question to question, trying out different theories, noting their strengths and weaknesses.

It is easy to dismiss metaphysics; many people have done so, and many will continue to do so. Even I am tempted to dismiss it sometimes—metaphysical questions often seem to be the paragon of pointlessly abstract mental onanism. But, try as we might, we just can’t avoid them. I have myself been running into many questions of this sort: What is personal identity, and how does it persist through time? What are potentialities, and do they really exist? What does it mean for one thing to cause another thing? What is redness in general? Do mathematical objects exist, such as numbers and figures? What about negatively defined objects, such as holes and vacancies?

These questions, and others like them, can seem to be like intellectual black holes: once you pass the event horizon, there’s no coming back. At first, your brain tenses up, as you mentally wave the question away as nonsense. But then, despite yourself, you start thinking. The question resists an easy answer; you try another approach, but still you’re perplexed. I have entertained the possibility that metaphysical questions only represent certain shortcomings of the human brain, certain blind-spots in our cerebral architecture. For example, it seems we mentally categorize negatively-defined objects, such as holes, as real things; we say “the hole is over there” just like we say “the dog is over there,” even though a hole doesn’t seem to have any real existence—it is just a vacancy in the ground. So perhaps there isn’t anything about negative objects that are perplexing, but we simply reify these nothings as somethings in our minds in order to easily discuss them. Can all metaphysical questions be resolved this way?

See? Now Mumford has me doing metaphysics! Let me backtrack a little.

Perhaps the weakest part of the book is the end, where Mumford tries to give an apology for metaphysics. As a metaphysician (he would prefer the term “metaphysicist”), Mumford has a vested interest in the public not thinking his life’s work is nonsense; so it is unsurprising, given metaphysics’s history of abuse, that he seems a bit defensive. But after toying around with some comparisons with physics—which I found fairly unconvincing—he makes the case that metaphysics should be pursued for its own sake. Whenever this argument is made, eyebrows should go up; for it is little more than saying “I like this, so it’s good.”

Despite my interest in the subject, I sometimes find myself questioning its value. For example, if philosophers could definitively figure out the nature of causation, could it possibly lead to any concrete benefits? I doubt it. Modern physics, like metaphysics, is quite abstract; yet, since physics begins and ends with observable phenomena, it can, and has, led to real benefits—both in our ability to predict nature, and in our ability to construct useful technology. Since the questions of metaphysics are so abstract that no experience could ever decide them, why bother? Here, William James’s doctrine of pragmatism is very tempting: if your theory could not, even in principle, be verified through experience, why bother positing it in the first place? It seems that metaphysical questions are almost designed so that they can never be definitively answered; generations of very clever philosophers have come and gone, but the questions remain.

Well, I’ll take a hint from Mumford and leave this question of metaphysics’s ultimate value open. I do wish, however, to point out that some metaphysical questions are quite concrete. Here are two examples, from two disparate fields, of questions of a metaphysical nature: What is a language? and What is a species? The first question—what is a language?—is quite obviously vital to linguistics; but demarcating boundaries is, in practice, difficult. Every language has dialects, and every language changes slowly through time. Where does one language end and another begin? Also consider: no English speaker knows every word in a dictionary, so how can we say things like “the English language has X amount of words,” since what even is the English language in general? How can you abstract the language itself from the totality of its speakers?

The case of a species is very similar. Species are formed gradually, over ages of time, undergoing modification slowly. I’ve even heard it questioned whether the idea of “species” is valid on a geological time-scale at all, since lineages are constantly evolving, making it impossible to neatly divide them into discrete parcels. But what is a species, anyway? We speak of “the human genome,” but clearly there is no such thing as a genome that represents every human; we each have our own set of genes, sharing many similarities, and having a few differences. So is there such thing as “the human genome,” or is that a kind of phantom object? Related, what are we speaking of when we discuss “dogs," like when we say "dogs are cute"? Dogs in general? But what would a dog-in-general look like? It could neither be small nor large, blond nor brown, snub-nosed nor long-nosed, short-haired nor long-haired—in fact, it could hardly have any qualities at all, since no single dog could adequately represent all living dogs. But if no adequate set of qualities allows us to define an abstract dog-in-general, how, then, do we recognize dogs at all? Clearly, we must have some mental criterion for making the distinction.

Both questions, then, could be summarized like this: does a species or a language—if they even can be said to be discrete things at all—have any sort of existence over and above their individual members?

It should be said that I’ve heard two neat solutions to the above problems: A language is a community of speakers that are mutually intelligible. And a species is a group of animals that can successfully interbreed. But these definitions hinge on the vagueness inherent in “mutually intelligible” and “successfully interbreed.” If I can understand 60% of what someone is saying to me, and they can understand the same percentage of my speech, is our speech mutually intelligible? And if two groups can successfully interbreed 75% of the time, are they really one species, or two? And does it also depend on how often they interbreed?

I’m sorry that took so long; I was only trying to show you that some concrete questions, such as the two above, are metaphysical questions par excellence. It is a (perhaps unfortunate) fact of life that some questions, vital to empirical enterprises, can only be tackled through thought, not observation; no observation will tell us what exactly is a language or a species. So may this be my addendum to Mumford’s defense of metaphysics—that is, if I can even hope to improve on a book this good.

[Mohammad Hanifeh · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب مجموعه‌ای از نکات (بعضاً جالب) بود که حقیقتاً نمی‌دونم با دونستنشون چی‌کار کنم الآن! :)))

البته خودِ نویسنده هم بنده خدا صفحهٔ آخر گفت:

متافیزیک به ما فهمی، هرچند بلااستفاده، اما عمیق از ماهیتِ واقعیت می‌دهد.

خلاصه که فهممون از ماهیتِ واقعیت بیشتر شده. منتها نمی‌دونیم به چه دردمون می‌خوره. :)))

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Metaphysics is one of the main branches of Philosophy. Unfortunately, unlike logic, epistemology, or ethics, over the years it has gotten a very distorted perception in the popular culture. If you walk into any large bookstore (or browse an online catalogue), and go into the section labeled “Metaphysics,” you are most likely to come across titles dealing with some aspect of the New Age spirituality, religion, or mysticism. However, the proper domain of Metaphysics is the exploration of “first things:” ideas and concepts that go beyond most of our other ideas about the nature of reality. These ideas include the concepts of objects, time, causality, personhood, etc.

This very short introduction tries to provide the reader with the taste of attempts to answer the questions about the above concepts. The chapters include: “What is a table?”, “What is a cause?” “How does time pass?”, “What is a person?”, and, of course, “What is Metaphysics?” To most of us these questions seem trivial, frivolous even. They seem to require answers to things that are beyond being obvious. Yet, even a simple examination of these questions reveals a lot about our understanding of the world that we take for granted, and to give a proper answer to them is anything but trivial. You can view these considerations as either a sophisticated intellectual exercise, or as something that indeed gets us to understand the World on a very fundamental level. Or, as it is with me, a little bit of both.

Like all of the Philosophy books in this Very Short Introduction series, this one is immensely well written and interesting. They open up a vista to a very fascinating intellectual world. They may not turn you into an armchair philosopher, but they will give you a direction if you choose to pursue such a vocation.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

Asking questions such as 'The cheese contains a hole, for instance. Is the hole part of the cheese?' and posing other more mind bending suggestions, this is a great introduction into such a confuddling topic. The backwards structure to presenting the idea of Metaphysics seemed ludicrous but made perfect sense in the end.

I'm not sure if it was just me but low key this book was hilarious in its wit and seeming absurdity. A great short book for people looking to get into the subject or who are like me and have an odd curiosity for it.

[SeirenAthena · Rating 2 out of 5]

I quite like metaphysics, though I haven’t explored it as much as I’d like to admit. However, I wasn’t much of a fan of this work. It may just be me, but the author has an acute inability to recognize human absurdity and mind or anything beyond, which seems antithetical to metaphysics and broad philosophy. When detailing the rational (as the author claims metaphysics seeks to attain) one must also touch on the irrationality of the human and the psyche—and additionally aim to see everything from a locality that is both tainted while simultaneously resolved to be untainted by the human experience. Is not metaphysics seen as transcendental? Surely the acknowledgment of the mind is necessary, and the frayed string of claimed coherence that is somewhat lazily strung to hold this piece together does not do so and therefore feels almost superficial. The human mind is very present in our perspective and scrutiny of the nature of reality regardless of whether we like it or not, the mind is irrational, and the author has not done an impressive job at elevating metaphysical elucidation so the absence of the human mind is not a burden. Surely the author should at least confess to the truth that the human distorts many elements of metaphysics… but when discussing time, how frustrated I was seeing how the essence of personal and special (as in species) experience in the temporal that acts on biology was hardly mentioned and apparently not relevant whatsoever. If it’s not relevant to metaphysics, an introductory work can at least tell me why! (Though I can assume, it all feels rather foolish)

The defense of metaphysics was rather weak, too. I still think it’s a discipline of value and this introduction had moments of insight, but it often bugged me. I’m unsure. Perhaps I need some more time to think of it and appreciation will strike me.

[Ha Pham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Basically all of your shower thoughts in one book.

[Safdar · Rating 4 out of 5]

the author asks you to begin by doing metaphysics rather than telling you about what it is. and then chapter by chapter he helps you do it. you as a reader are involved in doing it. he explains what metaphysics is in the last chapter. its utility, the defense against arguments which term metaphysics useless. i think that usefulness is the measure of anything's instrumentality. the superiority of science in the realm of hard existence will remain uncontested due to its instrumentality. further i think metaphysics is really poetry's and literature's dull and boring sibling. but we know that it is this group of siblings that we live for. science is the foster-child. Yes I know, but as the author said 'an incredulous stare is not an argument.

[Yumeko (blushes) · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's immersive, accessible, quite short (I read this in roughly two hours. Note that my reading speed is laughable), covers a sufficient number of topics, and generally clarified a concept or two.
Fun.

[Clif · Rating 3 out of 5]

You've probably heard the question asked - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

A dog has properties, characteristics that make us call it a dog when we see it. Which of those characteristics could be modified and by how much before we no longer call it a dog?

If space is an area that contains nothing, are we justified in calling space a something?

Welcome to metaphysics! Think of it as a field where unanswerable questions are posed, deeply considered and then, regrettably, remain unanswered.

If physics deals with the real stuff we find in the world, I think of metaphysics as attempting to make sense of the thoughts in our heads as we express them to each other. Physics has steadily advanced, while metaphysics is still working on the same material it always has without anyone being able to say progress has been made...and, hey! (a metaphysicist asks) what is progress, anyway?

Bertrand Russell thought that much of philosophy had lost its way by mistaking problems of semantics with problems of reality. I think he was on to something.

Mumford does a nice job of holding up many very puzzling topics for review, analyzing them to see if we can determine exactly what we mean when we make a statement. I don't deny him full credit for doing as well as anyone could given the subject matter.

I'd recommend this book as a diversion. It deals with some serious questions about the reality we think we know so well but, if hounded by a metaphysicist, would be unable to explain. I would not, as Mumford says some do, say that metaphysics is only foolishness, but I would recommend to those who love learning, as I do, to better spend your time on other topics.

[Mardin Uzeri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Metaphysics is commonly regarded as one of the main branches of philosophy (alongside logic, ethics, and epistemology). For anyone who seeks to systematically approach the study of philosophy, I can not recommend this book more highly.

It is concise, informative, profound, exceedingly witty, and an overall joy to read.

The clarity that Stephen Mumford was able to impart on a complicated subject that is often written about in a boring, muddled manner impressed me to no end. The even-handed way he deals with conflicting views is great.

This book is phenomenal hands down.

[Blair Hodges · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun overview of the kind of questions address by metaphysicists. What is a thing? What is change? What is a cause? What is time? What's a person? What's possible? Is nothing something? Is metaphysics just a giant waste of time? You could do worse with yours than read this little book, anyway.

[Lizelle Van · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought I liked Metaphysics until I read this.

[Patrick Hall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Its introductory nature doesn’t excuse its bad metaphysics! Perhaps good as an introduction to contemporary analytic metaphysics, but not much else.

[Bernie Gourley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Metaphysics is a subject that gets complicated quickly. Like physics, it covers a wide swath of territory –many of the most fundamental questions of the universe -- but (unlike physics) it doesn’t hold much promise of zeroing in on definitive answers. There’s just reasoning that is closer or farther from reflecting reality. Mumford makes a sound decision to avoid the usual approach of starting with a mile-high overview of the subject, probably rightly concluding that it would become an indecipherable mess quickly.

Instead, over ten chapters, Mumford starts with the simplest questions asked in metaphysics [relatively speaking] and proceeds to incrementally move toward the more complicated ones. In Chapter 1, he asks, “What is a table?” There’s nothing particularly crucial about a table. It’s just an item that is tangible, without a lot moving parts / complexity, and – thus -- is the kind of thing that few people would discount as being real. However, even here at the shallow end of the pool, questions pile up about what even such a simple item really is, and under what circumstances it can be said to continue to be that thing. [e.g. One gets into Theseus’s ship kind of questions – i.e. if one replaces all the individual parts of a table to what degree does it remain the same object.]

Chapter 2 shifts from what the first chapter called “particulars” to what are herein called properties. [e.g. The redness of a fire engine. The roundness of a racetrack.] Are properties real? Could you take them away from a particular? If you could, what – if anything – would it be that remained. Chapter 3’s question is, “Are wholes just the sum of their parts?” In the case of the aforementioned table, this question might seem a lot easier to answer than if the object in question is oneself. We all intuitively feel that we are more than the sum of our bones, and skin, brain, etc. But are we? Even if a child’s toy blocks are nothing more than the summed blocks, might not a human being or a dog be vastly more.

I will propose that chapters four through six are closely related (though no such division is made by the book’s table of contents.) All of the questions addressed by these chapters hinge on our experience of time, and none of them would be questions if we didn’t experience one thing after another. Chapter four explores the nature of change. Chapter five is about cause and effect. The subject of cause raises all sorts of interesting questions because we often see examples of caused effects, but we also seem to read cause and effect into situations in which they don’t really exist. (e.g. The often-sited error of mistaking correlation for causation.) Chapter six takes on the subject of time directly. There are many different theories of time. With respect to metaphysic’s most basic question of “what is real?” one quickly comes up against different hypotheses. Some think only the present is real. Some believe the past and present are real, but the future couldn’t possibly be. Still others think the whole experience of time is an illusion.

Chapter seven gets into the metaphysical question that is both most intimately interesting and among the most challenging, and that is, “What is a person?” This is interesting in that we all tend to feel we know what a person is, at least one feels that one knows what one is, but views abound – from the Buddhist notion that the self is an illusion to various religious approaches proposing we are fundamentally a soul or spirit, to materialist interpretations that suggest – in all likelihood – we are the sum of our parts and their activities.

Chapters eight and nine retreat once more from tangibles to ask what is the nature of a possibility (ch. 8) and whether nothing can actually be thought of as a thing [and what the ramifications are of doing so] (ch. 9.) Both of these cases are interesting because they have no simple answer and in different cases different answers suggest themselves as truer. When a possibility is of high probability it may seem sound to treat it as if it were a [potential] reality, but following that reasoning toward the lowest probability happenings quickly results in absurdities.

The final chapter gets around to the overarching question of what metaphysics is, but it also deals with the question of whether metaphysics is relevant. Some say metaphysics amounts to little more than mental masturbation. Others feel that science has replaced metaphysics in all the important ways and more.

The book has a “further reading” section at the end. There are a few graphics throughout the text, but the book is primarily textual.

I found this book to be quite useful. I think the author took a smart approach with its organization and does a good job of avoiding getting lost in the weeds (which is a perennial risk in these types of works.) Mumford uses pop culture references and the like when they make approachable examples, and -- in general -- does a good job of keeping an eye on readability. If you’re looking for an introduction to metaphysics, this volume is worth checking out.

[ع · Rating 5 out of 5]

مدخلی است در توضیح سوالات رایج در متافیزیک و ذکر نظریات غالب در پاسخ به آنها. شامل پرسش از ماهیت، ویژگی های اشیاء، کلیات، تغییر، علیت، زمان، ضرورت، فردیت، نیستی و نهایتا خود متافیزیک
مجموعه در آمدی کوتاه بر ... آکسفورد هرچه خواندم یک از یک بهتر بودند. این کتاب هم مثل دیگر کتابهای مجموعه درجه یک بود. در هر زمینه ای که مایل به مطالعه هستید اگر کتابی از این مجموعه در آن باره نوشته شده بود، در خواندنش تردید نکنید. چه ترجمه و چه ترجیحا زبان اصلی

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this disappointing. The author writes in a bumptious and presumptuous tone which quickly becomes irritating. It's not that he does not bring across the processes of contemporary metaphysics, rather that he completely fails to make a case for their vitality. Why should one perform these mental gymnastics? Other than as mental exercises, we are never given any indication of where the asking of these questions might lead. What might ensue once one has concocted a theory of whether absence is present, or what a person is. It's not so much that the author makes metaphysics of no practical consequence, but that he makes of it a road to nowhere essential whatsoever. None of his examples have any profundity about them.

I am sure this was not the case with classical metaphysicists, who were genuinely digging into the nature of reality. The contemporary variety is just the dog-end of a previously fine tradition, practised by irrelevant men who appear to have no spiritual or ethical grounding. Where the author proposes a defence, he actually drives a nail into a coffin. A shame, because metaphysics is a great concept, which used to mean something.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The year was 2001... I was an impressionable youth with no guidance or idea of what I wanted to be when I "grew up". Lo! A philosophy 101 course appeared! I learned to hate Kant, Hegel and Marx. And now, many years later, and much balder, I take another 101 course in the form of this book.

In all possible worlds...

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wou wat meer basiskennis opdoen in filosofie dus dit boekje leek me een goeie keuze.

Metafysica is ontzettend interessant. Ik had nooit verwacht dat ik het zo fascinerend zou vinden. Dit boek behandelt vragen over de fundamentele realiteit van de wereld. Het wekt allerlei diepgaande vragen op, zoals: Wat is een tafel? Wat is verandering? Wat is een persoon? Is niks iets? En wat is causaliteit? Het gaat dus over de meest basale, basic vragen, vragen die we vaak als vanzelfsprekend beschouwen, zonder er ooit echt over na te denken.

Het verschil tussen metafysica en wetenschap (fysica) is dat metafysica puur gebaseerd is op nadenken. Het maakt geen gebruik van observaties en richt zich niet op de materiële wereld. In plaats daarvan neemt het juist afstand van de empirische wetenschap en blijft het volledig in de sfeer van abstracte ideeën. Het is extreem theoretisch en, zoals de auteur zelf ook al zei, misschien zelfs compleet waardeloos in praktische zin. Omdat metafysica geen directe toepassingen heeft in de echte wereld, heb je er niet per se iets aan, behalve dat het je manier van denken aanscherpt.

Toch is het enorm boeiend. Een goed voorbeeld is een hoofdstuk waarin de auteur de vraag stelt of ‘niks’ ook echt iets is. Hij gebruikt hierbij het voorbeeld van gaten in kaas: zijn die gaten een onderdeel van de kaas, of zijn ze simpelweg ‘niets’? Is het lege deel van de kaas nog steeds kaas, of is het puur afwezigheid? Zulke vragen laten je echt nadenken over concepten waar je normaal gesproken niet bij stilstaat. (Hij legt het zelf veel duidelijker uit)

Al met al vond ik dit boek super interessant, maar ook behoorlijk ingewikkeld.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this: just enough described (and in sufficiently non-technical language) to get the cogs turning. The first 6 chapters especially so in this sense. Once again left wanting more and will deifnelty check out some of the recommended further reading.

[Ji]

Deserve an extremely quick read for clarifying some thinking around what is metaphysics, which key concepts exist around it, and which linchpin readings to follow.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely accessible and self-aware writing. Very well done.

[Abani · Rating 4 out of 5]

neatly packed! great introduction.

[Matilda Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent, thought-provoking introduction to one of the most complex branches of philosophy. The author grapples with metaphysical questions about the nature of existence and reality and key theories such as materialism and idealism. While the topics covered can be intensely difficult to get one's head around, the author simplifies his subject matter without being patronising, so anyone can grasp the theories outlined in this book. :)

[Cameron Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does what it says on the tin. A decent introduction to the issues of metaphysics. He explains the difference of opinion between the different subsections and does so without any bias towards a particular side.

[Christopher Fuchs · Rating 1 out of 5]

Having read a bit about metaphysics, I purchased this book to explore a little deeper. Unfortunately I found it dry and, more importantly, inconsequential. The author failed to convince me that metaphysics has any application to the modern world. The author acknowledges that metaphysics is often considered "useless" or "childish" but does not adequately rebut those challenges. The decision to save the chapter "What is Metaphysics?" until the very end was a contributing mistake, which the author does as a sort of build-up that is ultimately unsatisfying. Despite pushing through the book, I wouldn't have read past that chapter had it properly been the first. Some people may give up on the book before reaching the context provided at the end (I nearly did several times). In short, the author does not adequately link metaphysics to real world questions or problems, nor is there much treatment of its history--which could be interesting. Metaphysics seems obsessed only with itself, and the author seems to imply that we should welcome that. In a final section titled “The Value of Metaphysics” (which is barely a page long), he writes: “…we don’t do metaphysics so that we can stay healthy and wealthy: we stay healthy and wealthy so that we can do metaphysics.” As a result, I was left with my own question of why I should care about metaphysics at all.

[Joachim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I discovered the Very-Short-Introduction series fittingly while being in Oxford. The first few volumes I read were either very solid (European Union, Human Rights) or outright brilliant (Okasha's volume on Philosophy of Science). After having stumbled over a sub-par volume (Privacy), Mumford reinstalls my faith in this series. His introduction to metaphysics is almost on the same level as Okasha's introduction to the philosophy of science, and were it not for a technical short coming I would give Mumford's introduction a four out of five. On the bright side is Mumford's jargon free style and the casual journey he invites the reader on to increasingly thorny topics. I also a appreciated the literature list he provides (sorted by entry level) and I already ordered one of the books. The only grief I have about the book that it does not link the topics discussed to the terms by which they are discussed in the metaphysics literature (modality, holism, realism, etc.). This does not need to be addressed in the main text (the free flow of which I enjoyed), rather it could be addressed in a short appendix. Otherwise a very enjoyable book and a perfect introduction to this topic.

[Jon Jacobs · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't say enough about how good this book is. I think it should be read by all.

It gives anyone who is interested easy access to a profoundly important topic. Mumford's 'Metaphysics' is also a most amusing read.

I compare Mumford's book to Bertrand Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" in that both of them offer easy, and amusing, access to some of the most profound ideas man has ever thought up.

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mumford is a leading philosopher in metaphysics, and provides a very interesting overview of this topic, and does so at a level that a dummy like me can understand. I had read interviews of him on the 3AM blog, and was impressed with his knowledge and with his openness, as well as his ability to articulate concepts that others have difficulty articulating.

[Caleb Jenkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this book was very good. I have read several things on Metaphysics and have even written a paper on it, but did not reach the level of understanding that I have now after reading this book. It also has inspired me to read more!

[dogman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best short introduction I've read so far. simply 10/10