Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings

by Elliott Sober

Writing in an engaging lecture-style format, Elliott Sober shows students how philosophy is best used to evaluate many different kinds of arguments and to construct sound theories. Well-known historical texts are discussed, not as a means to honor the dead or merely to discuss what various philosophers have thought, but to engage with, criticize, and even improve ideas from the past. In addition—because philosophy cannot function apart from its engagement with the wider society—traditional and contemporary philosophical problems are brought into dialogue with the physical, biological, and social sciences. Text boxes highlight key concepts, and review questions, discussion questions, and a glossary of terms are also included.

Core Questions in Philosophy has served as a premier introductory textbook for more than two decades, with updates to each new edition. New improvements to this seventh edition include a lower price and a new Routledge companion website that



Updated supplementary readings, with the inclusion of more work from female philosophers



New videos and podcasts, organized by their relevance to each chapter in the book.



Visit the companion website www.routledge.com/cw/sober.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Textbooks, Reference

360 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1991

Reviews

[Katastrofik Come · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thousand miles (kilometers) better as launchpads for further philosophical reading and as a introductory textbook compared to that acclaimed 'compelling introduction to philosophy' book. In virtually every way.

The writer emphasized importance of 'doing philosophy' instead of 'learning philosopher's philosophy'. And I really love how he stayed true to his words, by how he took stance and gave endorsement, besides evaluating various ancient and contemporary arguments.

Not a bit of second passed with boredom while reading it, except for 'reading' part where I have to read that boring aristotle work.

[Donysa Tol]

Currently reading the chapter on Philosophy of the Mind, so here are some thoughts. I find myself on the dualists side of the Mind/Body Problem. Going into this, my initial assumptions were:
1) On whether or not the mind and body are entirely distinct from one another, I was in an ambiguous position. But I intuitively leaned towards the mind having an exclusive property that the body does not.
2) The mind can only achieve a higher form (consciousness) via a vessel which is a physical body. It’s quite hard for me to imagine that consciousness can just exist without a body. How would the perception of reality be like without physical senses?

I was initially convinced by Descartes' explanation that you can't doubt the existence of your mind, but you can doubt the existence of your body. I'll give it to Sober for giving a strong refutation using propositional attitudes which argues that Descartes' argument highlights doubt, a mental state/attitude rather than a metaphysical truth of the mind's existence. I agree with Descartes that you cannot doubt the mind. But I also agree with Sober that this premise leads to a false conclusion. Nothing about being doubtless or doubtful gives a strong evidence that the mind and the body are different. I believe that Descartes' dualism still holds, and that a mind-exclusive property actually does exist, but a stronger argument is definitely needed.

My second assumption was not resolved by this reading, but I think it holds grounds for describing the relation between the mind and the body. Descartes mentioned a lack of physical link between the mind and the body, which suggests their distinction. I do not have a fully-formed argument for this, but I do think that the mind requires the body to access consciousness. However, I am not entirely dismissing that consciousness may exist prior to the body or post-death. For now, I am convinced by dualism, but I am doubtful of the Cartesian version.

[Marta Shahbazian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its sweet

[David Strong · Rating 4 out of 5]

My rating: 4.5 stars.

Very good for an introductory textbook. Covers many important viewpoints on a range of important philosophical topics, and is generally fairly unbiased in its discussion. Aided me greatly in getting a understanding of the basics of philosophy, and was very helpful in providing a launching-off point to read the works of other philosophers.

[David Fairbairn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic philosophy textbook from a well-respected and accessible philosopher of science. The lectures are engaging, thought-provoking and in-depth. I really enjoyed working my way through the lecture questions.

[Dinh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Easy to understand for a textbook, especially for philosophy, which can get convoluted.

[c · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent enough.