Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #055

by Edward Craig

How ought we to live? What really exists? How do we know? This book introduces important themes in ethics, knowledge, and the self, via readings from Plato, Hume, Descartes, Hegel, Darwin, and Buddhist writers. It emphasizes throughout the point of doing philosophy, explains how different areas of philosophy are related, and explores the contexts in which philosophy was and is done.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook, Reference, Ebooks, Theory

132 pages, Paperback

First published February 21, 2002

About the author

Edward John Craig was educated at Charterhouse. He read philosophy at Trinity College, Cambridge (1960–1963), and was Reader in Philosophy at Cambridge from 1992 to 1998. He became Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy in 1998, a chair he held until his retirement in 2006. He is a Fellow of Churchill College. He edited the journal Ratio from 1988 to 1992. He is also a former cricketer at first-class level: a right-handed batsman for Cambridge University and Lancashire.

There is more than one author with this name in the Goodreads database.

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 2 out of 5]

دوستانِ گرانقدر، باید بگویم که این کتاب یکپارچه و هماهنگ نبود، نویسنده پی در پی از شاخه ای به شاخۀ دیگر می پرید... انگار مجبورش کرده بودند که در صد صفحه در موردِ فلاسفۀ نامی و همچنین اندیشه و فلسفۀ آنها بنویسد
‎در هر حال، این کتاب از نوشتن در مورد «افلاطون» و «سقراط» و به ویژه بحثِ میانِ سقراط و «کریتو»، آغاز شده و سپس به سراغِ فلسفۀ «دیوید هیوم» فیلسوفِ خردمند رفته است و سپس به این موضوع که دیوید هیوم به معجزه اعتقاد نداشته و این باور دینی را که انسانها وجودشان با دمیده شدنِ روح از جانبِ موجودی به نام خدا، الهی و آسمانی میباشد را ابلهانه و موهوم به شمار آورده، پرداخته است .... به باور زنده یاد دیوید هیوم، انسانها خدایانِ کوچک نیستند، بلکه حیواناتِ برتر میباشند
‎سپس نویسنده به سراغِ فلسفۀ هندی و عقایدِ متافیزیکِ بودایی و همچنین نوعِ تفکرِ «میلیندا» و «ناگاسنا» رفته و اشاره ای به آن داشته است
‎در مورد خویشتن و همچنین سندِ عقلانیت نوشته و آن را از دیدگاهِ فلسفه موردِ بررسی قرار داده است
‎از «نیچه» و «هگل» نیز سخن میگوید
‎شادی در زندگی را از دیدگاه فلاسفه مورد بررسی قرار داده است
‎به فلسفۀ «میل» و دفاعِ او از حقوقِ زنان پرداخته است... «میل» باور داشت: تا زمانی که زن و مرد حقوقِ برابر نداشته باشند، در زندگی به شادی دست پیدا نمیکنیم
‎در موردِ فلسفۀ «جرمی بنتام» گفته و دفاعِ وی از حقوقِ حیوانات را بیان کرده است و اندکی در موردِ گیاه خواری نوشته است... بنتام بر این باور بود: زمانی شادی معنا دارد که همه با یکدیگر برابر باشیم
‎ نظریاتِ «هابز» در موردِ دولت را بیان کرده و به بررسیِ کوتاهی در موردِ فلسفۀ «مارکس» پرداخته است
‎نویسنده، تلاش نموده تا این پراکندگی را به نوعی به یکدیگر ارتباط دهد .. اینکار همه چیز را خراب کرده است
********************
‎عزیزانم، «ادوارد کرگ» مینویسد: فلاسفه به همان میزان که از مغزِ خویش در نوشتن استفاده کرده اند، از قلبشان نیز استفاده نموده اند. البته آنها قطعاً در کنارِ شایستگی هایِ فراوانی که داشته و نتایج فوق العاده ای که کسب نموده اند، اشتباهاتی نیز داشته اند.... فلسفه به اندازۀ زندگی گسترده است و در ادبیاتِ گسترده ای که در کتاب هایِ فلسفی ثبت شده، همانطور که الگوهایِ رفتاری و منطقیِ زیادی یافت میشود، میتوان نکاتِ ضد و نقیض زیادی پیدا کرد... شاید در لابلایِ این کتبِ فلسفی به این آرزو هم برسیم که اِی کاش انسانها اصلاً چیزی به نامِ ذهن نداشتند
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
‎«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[فؤاد · Rating 3 out of 5]

١.
ترجمه كتاب رو توى سايت ايران كاتوليك (سايت كاتوليك هاى ايران) پيدا كردم و دانلودش كردم. قبلاً يكى از دوستان ريكامندش كرده بود و گفتم نگاهش كنم. يه چيز رو به طور قطع مى تونم بگم: ترجمه اى كه روى اينترنت موجوده رو به هيچ عنوان نخونيد. ترجمه نازل و اينترنتيه، چيزى در حد زيرنويس هايى كه كاربرهاى اينترنتى ترجمه مى كنن. اصل انگليسى ش رو نخوندم ولى با تجربه م از باقى كتاب هاى اين مجموعه مى تونم با اطمينان بگم كه روان و قابل فهم نوشته شده و كسى با انگليسى متوسط (مثل من) بدون دردسر مى تونه بفهمه.

٢.
مؤلف كار جالبى كرده: به جاى اين كه به طور كلى و انتزاعى و "فضايى" راجع به فلسفه حرف بزنه، اومده چند نقطه از نقاط برجسته فلسفه رو آورده و به صورت زنده نشون داده كه فلسفه چيه و راجع به چه مسائلى بحث مى كنه.

فصل اول كتاب قطعه اى از رساله كريتوى افلاطونه، كه آخرين ساعات سقراط رو بازگو كرده. دوستان سقراط بهش اصرار مى كنن كه از زندان و مجازات مرگ فرار كنه، اما سقراط مى گه اصول اخلاقى ش براش مهم تر از جانش هستن، و حاضر نيست براى حفظ جان از اصولش دست بكشه. مؤلف در ضمن نقل اين قطعه، راجع به مسئله "اخلاق" (چه بايد كرد؟) صحبت مى كنه.

فصل دوم قطعه اى از رساله هيومه، كه در مورد معجزه بحث مى كنه، و مى پرسه ما چطور از طريق گزارش تعداد معدودى (كه سال ها بعد از وقوع معجزه به دنيا اومدن) اطمينان پيدا كنيم كه معجزه اى صورت گرفته؟ مؤلف ضمن اين قطعه بحث رو به سؤال مهم تر هيوم مى كشونه: چطور مى تونيم به صحت يك قضيه علم پيدا كنيم؟ و از مسئله "معرفت شناسى" (چه چيز را مى توانم بدانم؟) صحبت مى كنه.

فصل سوم قطعه اى از رساله اى بوداييه، كه در اون راهبى بودايى با پادشاهى بحث مى كنه. پادشاه اسم راهب رو ازش مى پرسه، راهب مى گه اسم من "ناگاسنا" ست ولى كسى به نام ناگاسنا اين جا حضور نداره. منظور راهب چيه؟ راهب مى خواد وجود چيزى به نام "من" يا "خود" رو نفى كنه. انسان چيزى جداى از بدن و قواى ذهنى ش نيست، و "من" يك توهمه كه فقط موجب رنج بيشتر مى شه، چون انسان دائم به دنبال ارضاى بيشتر اين "من"ـه. مؤلف ضمن نقل اين قطعه، راجع به مسئله "هستى شناسى" (چه چيز وجود دارد؟) صحبت مى كنه.

فصل بعدى مؤلف "ايسم" هاى مختلف در فلسفه رو معرفى مى كنه، و دست آخر باز قطعات برجسته اى از فلسفه (اين بار از دكارت، هگل، داروين، و نيچه) رو مياره و اين افراد رو معرفى مى كنه.

٣.
كتاب خوبيه، هر چند خيلى ساده است. مى شه به كسى كه تازه مى خواد فلسفه رو شروع كنه (و البته، انگليسى متوسطى داره) معرفى ش كرد. هر چند مطمئن نيستم آيا براى كسى كه آشنايى قبلى نداشته باشه هم همين قدر ساده است؟
به هر حال به عنوان مطالعه اى يك روزه، كتاب بدى نبود، مخصوصاً فصل راهب بودايى كه كاملاً برام تازه بود.

[sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am going to become SO insufferable

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 3 out of 5]

The perfect note for a VSI is struck in this passage, something for all seekers to keep in mind:

I hope that you are now beginning to notice something rather encouraging. The literature of philosophy may be intimidatingly vast, but the number of genuinely distinct philosophical themes is not. It is somewhat too large for the compass of this very short book, admittedly, but it is not enormous. We have already seen links across 2,000 years between Epicurus and Mill, Plato and Hobbes, Hume and the author of Milinda.

The problem lies not in becoming familiar with the recurrent themes, but in being sensitive to the variations as different thinkers play them again in their own way for their own purposes. And what this means is that one’s understanding of philosophy is cumulative, and accumulates rather quickly. Which must be good news.

[Amirography · Rating 4 out of 5]

A rather fine read. Though I've read a lot of philosophical literature, this rather short work, taught me a lot and gave me a few ideas about future essays.

[สฤณี อาชวานันทกุล · Rating 3 out of 5]

อ่านเพลินๆ สนุกดี ชอบที่ผู้เขียนเน้นอธิบาย "วิธีคิด" ของนักปรัชญา มากกว่าจะไล่เรียงปรัชญาไปทีละสำนัก ประเด็นที่ชอบคือการอธิบายความคิดของนักปรัชญาในบริบทยุคสมัยของพวกเขา และการแสดงความเชื่อมโยงระหว่างแขนงต่างๆ ของปรัชญา ผ่านการยกตัวอย่างความคิดของนักปรัชญาคนสำคัญๆ ในอดีต เช่น เอพิคิวรัส โสเครติส ฮูม คัมภีร์อุปนิษัท เดส์การ์ต นิทเชอ เฮเกล มิลล์ ฯลฯ บทสุดท้ายปิดฉากได้ดีด้วยการตั้งคำถาม "มีอะไรในปรัชญา และเพื่อใคร" ยกตัวอย่างประเด็นถกเถียงโลกแตกอมตะ อาทิ รัฐ แรงงาน ผู้หญิง ฯลฯ

เป็นหนังสือเล่มเล็ก (< 200 หน้า) ที่ใช้แนะนำ "วิธีคิด" ของนักปรัชญาได้โอเคเลย อาจารย์สายพิณแปลได้ราบรื่นและเลือกใช้คำได้อย่างเหมาะเจาะ น่าเสียดายที่พูดถึงนักปรัชญาหญิงแค่คนเดียว ในยุคที่วงการตื่นตัวกับบทบาทของนักปรัชญาหญิง (รวมทั้งในอดีตที่ถูกลืม) อย่างมาก

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

*builds time machine*
*travels to 1880's Germany*
*throws Nietzsche's typewriter out the window*
*returns home*

Now that that's sorted...

A difficult subject to condense into 125 pages!–but it was done well here. The book is structured so as to touch on a few basic questions, some notable people, and several well-worn 'isms'. I found it fascinating and very accessible. A good place to start.

[Maryam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was in my bookshelf for a long time, but I thought with a couple of degrees in Philosophy why should I bother to read an introduction!
Such a naive arrogant l was to deprive myself from this little gem written by the editor of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Craig. No matter whether you are an expert in the field or completely an outsider, this short introduction has something for everyone.

[Skrivena stranica · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book but didn't love it. I expected a short introduction to philosophy, a short guide on history of philosophy. This was more of a first taste. Craig's writing was fine, understandable. Still, I wasn't amazed and in many ways I don't see that this book works as a whole that good. Good read, regardless.

[M.L. Rio · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favorite in the VSI series so far. Writing about philosophy for the layperson isn't an easy thing to do, but Craig does it beautifully. His prose is pithy, unpretentious, and easy to read. He doesn't have space to do much more than get the reader's toes wet, but he manages to lay some solid groundwork for further study. What's most engaging, though, is his willingness to acknowledge that philosophy is absurd as often as it is profound. You don't expect to laugh reading philosophy, but sometimes with this book it's hard not to. (Consider: "Anyone promoting the interests of animals--non-human animals--faces an initial problem: animals can't read.") Wholeheartedly recommended for anyone who wants a short crash-course in philosophy or just a quick refresher.

[Nick Edkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easily the best of the Very Short Introductions that I've read. The narrator of the audiobook has a warm, professorial tone that matches the text perfectly. It deftly fulfils its stated missions of providing a roadmap to further reading and piquing interest in doing so, something that I couldn't say about, for example the VSI to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm now as keen to try Descartes and de Beauvoir in the original as I am to avoid Hegel.

[Karl Hallbjörnsson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this short volume today for school, found it a little too layman for my liking, but it had a tidbit of information new to me and the writing felt alive and genial. Still - there was mention of a SINGLE WOMAN. Only one! I felt that was extremely sloppy.

[Oscar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good introductory text to Philosophy. Some of the most important and most influential aspects of the thoughts of Plato, Hume, Nietzsche, Descartes, Mill and Hegel are discussed in a brief, clear and very entertaining way. Some Eastern Philosophy is discussed and connected to other issues in Western thought as well. It even discusses Darwin and the impact his On The Origin of Species has had and takes a shot at C.S. Lewis. What more can you ask from a very short introduction to Philosophy?

[Katia N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very short and very reasonable intro into general philosophy. It is practically free of the special terminology and well written. There is even an inclusion of a Buddhist text. Still it is quite euro-centric and very brief (as it prescribed by the format). It would be a good starting point for anyone who does not have any prior knowledge. It was helpful for me to recap what is called "philosophy" is English-speaking world.

[Jani · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely made my brain hurt but I’m not mad at it. Some of the stuff did completely go over my head but a good introductory read nonetheless.

[Jackson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This introduction to Philosophy contains just enough information—written in broad strokes, to help a newcomer to this field of writing and thought such as myself really know where to go next, without completely overwhelming me with the jargon and metaphysics that so often lie beneath the surface. I'll get to it, and I'm excited for it too, but I need to know how to wear the air tank before I dive too deep.

This small book covers a wide range of topics, spanning almost all of written human history, and gives recommendations on where one can go to find more information on any topic that jumps out to them, which is exactly what I myself needed.

I got some names, concepts and book recommendations. I took copious notes throughout (hence why it took me a while to read) and I already feel I've learned a lot. It was simple, and it goes without saying that Philosophy students and practitioners could probably skip this one, but it's exactly what I needed.

[Esther Dawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been wanting to become more educated about philosophical ideas, movements, and figures for some time, so this was the perfect introduction. Not a simplification mind you, an introduction which at times left my brow scrunched up and my mind in desperate need of conversation to unpack what I'd just read. But what an invigorating experience!

Edward Craig (a Professor at Cambridge) flew about the centuries with cohesion and clarity. As he says so eloquently in his introduction - philosophy is for everyone and it should be enjoyable to read. As someone who's been stuck in pickly philosophical ponderings often, but without the language to navigate the path, I'm feeling excited about how much this book has opened my mind.

I'm not unhappy about this being my first read of 2025 - start as you mean to continue!

[Anum Sattar · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is somewhat disjointed and haphazard for a novice, regardless it maintains to whet the curiosity of an inquisitive mind. It succinctly covers all the bases of major themes that are customarily discussed in a tête-à-tête.
A good groundwork for extending inquiry into the vast uncharted terrain of philosophy.

[a random hopeless romantic · Rating 3 out of 5]

an okay introduction to philosophy if you have no idea about any philosophical theories. i would personally prefer it if it didn't focus so much on specific works.

[Jamie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the only VSI book which I have as of yet read. However, overall I found it disappointing. With a moderate background in Philosophy, I expected that I would probably know a lot of the things in this book, considering it was just an introduction to philosophy (and a very short one at that!)

Overall, it was rather disappointing: I was expecting a definition of philosophy, and idea as to why philosophy is important, what sort of questions it asks, perhaps some names of great philosophers and what they've achieved; followed by the main areas of philosophy, and going about the same routine: defining this area of philosophy, explaining it, what questions it asks, some of the key thinkers in this area, some key problems in this area and perhaps some of the more accessible key arguments from this area. This would have done the job and I think would have accessibly introduced the reader to philosophy.

Instead the book is structured rather weirdly:

Chapter 1: Intro to philosophy as I had expected (kind of) - This was the right kind of thing but honestly it didn't say anything! I gained nothing (really) from reading this. For someone who has never done any philosophy at all, this would be reasonable, but not great. It was verbose, dodged the question: a poor intro.
Chapter 2: Book Feature: Crito
Chapter 3: Book Feature: Of Miracles
Chapter 4: Book feature: Indian Philosophy
I simply cannot understand why anyone would really think that haven given a vague and verbose introduction to philosophy, they would jump straight into some primary literature. For a start, summarising a text and presenting some ideas/problems with this text could be done by reading the text-which is not the intent of the reader. The reader of this book is looking for an introduction and so wants to be lowered into philosophy by this book SO THAT they can go read texts such as these three. Granted, guiding people through these texts will help them, but:
1) These are super short guides, and not very good, skipping large chunks and trying to explain these large texts in very short spaces.
2) People should be introduced to wider areas of philosophy before looking at different regions of these areas and then they should read these sorts of texts.
3) The reader has consciously avoided reading these texts so that they can first be introduced to philosophy... so that they can read these texts-so this book is not helping this goal.
Chapter 5: Some themes - I actually quite liked this chapter. It was a little bit disorganised, but it actually introduced key ideas/themes/questions/areas of philosophy in a more accessible way. If you wish to read this book, I would recommend this chapter.
Chapter 6: Of isms - Again this chapter was actually rather good. It was a little bit disorganised, but it actually introduced key ideas of philosophy in a more accessible way-and, importantly, showing a little bit of philosophical method! If you wish to read this book, I would recommend this chapter too.
Chapter 7: A selection of author's favourite texts - This is just a very very short introduction to 4 of the author's favourite philosophical texts. Again, I thought this was disappointing. An introduction ought to be impartial: it should have nothing to do with the author's opinion. Secondly, an introduction should be an overview. Not only has this author spent 3 whole chapters talking about 3 specific books, but now he spends another chapter on just 4 books - when he should be doing an overview of philosophy as a whole! These introductions are also not amazing - whilst they do summarise the texts, they are very very brief (considering thousands of pages of text have been written on them all since), and are (obviously) as difficult to understand as the texts. Choosing Hegel was obviously a bad choice: the book is not for anyone wishing to be introduced to philosophy! Thus, no matter how lay-man-like the summary could have been, this short intro to Hegel's work was almost impossible to grasp. Definitely would recommend any reader skips this section entirely.
Chapter 8: Why do Philosophy? - Finally! This should have been right at the start - it piques the reader's interest, highlights general areas of philosophy and explains why to do philosophy. Although not perfectly executed, a chapter well worth a read if you are reading this book.

TOO LONG DIDN'T READ? Go read "Think" by Simon Blackburn or "What's it All About" by Nagel - much better introductions.

[Jason Broander · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful overview of major peaks in the landscape of philosophy. But!—where is Martin Heidegger? Not to be found (not even in the index). The author does mention the French deconstructionists who are derivative of Heidegger, but does not mention the man himself. And thus, this book is quite useful to understanding philosophy through Nietzsche, but almost useless to understanding it through today.

One can speculate as to why there is such a glaring crater in the work, it was certainly not an accident to exclude Heidegger. One suspects it is because to mention Heidegger would also mean that the dismissal of Aristotle in the work too wouldn’t stand, for Heidegger himself said his own thought began only after decades of grappling with Aristotle himself. And then we would have to bring in those who reacted to Heidegger like Leo Strauss, but they would lead us to have to also address the crisis of modernity. And then, one would see how superficial and hollow this work is, doing nothing philosophic and only providing the history of philosophy. What tasted sweet at the outset leaves one only hungry for real sustenance. And, as I said, all intentional by the author.

How unphilosophic, to avoid the hard questions of our modern existence, leaving the neophyte thinking they know something about philosophy when instead they have been deceived by omission. How indeed does the author sleep comfortably with this professional malpractice on his conscience?

[Maxim · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent attempt to introduce the topic, provide a motivation for doing philosophy and the key questions it covers and a short introduction into some key texts from Plato, Hume, Buddhist philosophy, Mill, Descartes, Hegel, Nietzsche and a few others. The explanations are easy to follow and Craig does a good job to make his readers curious about reading the primary works himself - which is probably the most important take away from this short book.

[Netcy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great introduction to philosophy. I loved it. I'm not usually interested in philosophy, but this book changed my way of seeing things, and gave me the interest to learn more on this very broad field. Definitely recommend it.

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful, but a tad smug. Still, not a bad introduction to key themes.

[Alison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophy is actually a bit boring.

[Jennifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was not an introduction, but rather a confusing ramble of examples of philosophy with no consistency or direction.

[Gemima · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very general book that isn’t very gripping but gets a point across if you think about it hard enough. Not sure if I would recommend it for someone who doesn’t know much about philosophy.

[Jason Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

An introduction to such an expansive subject matter is no mean feat. The author, Edward Craig, attempts to do so by breaking it down into smaller chunks for the reader to digest. In the first half of the book, Craig introduces and presents key writings by Plato, Socrates, Hume, Descartes et al. and does so by contextualising each around some of the big questions humanity has asked for millennia - “What should I do?”, “How do we know?” and “What am I?”. In the final half, Craig then discusses, albeit at times briefly, other areas of philosophy related to themes like animals, feminism, including a number of other ‘-isms’ like utilitarianism, empiricism, rationalism and so on.

While the presentation is mostly executed well, at times the writing can be somewhat difficult to follow along with, in large part due to odd sentence structure, and I frequently found myself having to re-read paragraphs here and there.

The author makes it clear early on that the book, at least half of it, is best read in parallel with the writings it references throughout, going as far as referencing pages from Plato’s ‘Crito’, or Hume’s ‘Of Miracles’, for example while discussing their themes. While I can see the benefit of this form of introduction, I felt myself feeling as if I would prefer a complete standalone introduction. Additionally, while Craig’s discussions on other areas of philosophy are valued, they can at times be a little too brief, only really skimming over them, and I did wish that more discussion could have been had with some of these.

If you’re interested in diving into philosophy, while I can recommend this as a good introduction, it will be more effective if you would be willing to make use of this as a companion to the writings it references throughout, which seems to be the intended method of its use. Overall, I would possibly recommend an alternative that does not rely on having to simultaneously read classic philosophy at the same time, unless you’re willing to throw yourself right in.

[Nathan Higginbotham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Edward Craig constructs a path which when followed features brief glimpses of philosphy, created to seamlessly instill curiosity, concern and zeal for all that is philosphical. He does this by not only introducing famous philospher's works and their ideas, such as Plato's Crito but by gathering bodies of thought from all over the place through less obvious but highly significant contributions like Darwin's On the Origin of Species, culminating in a discussion of specific ideas' evolution over time. Constantly linking between thoughts, ideas and their respective historical contexts, Craig instils the image of an evergrowing body of knowledge that seems just as important and impactful as it has ever been. This introduction is a success, especially through the measure of intriguing the reader enough for them to delve further within the field. However it does feel somewhat lacking, which I'm sure is a common theme amongst short introductions, as that is all they are designed to be.

[Mariam Keshealshvili · Rating 3 out of 5]

არ დავმალავ, რომ წიგნისგან ცოტა უფრო მეტს მოველოდი ვიდრე იყო. (შესავალი პოლიტიკაში ბევრად უფრო საინტერესო ენით იყო დაწერილი). ან ალბათ ეს წიგნი მართლაც იმ ადამიანებისთვისაა განკუთვნილი ვისაც აქამდე ჯერ არ ჰქონია ფილოსოფიასთან შეხება და ახლა იდგავს პირველ ნაბიჯებს, თუმცა ავტორის თხრობის მანერა საკმაოდ უინტერესოა - ამიტომაც მალევე დავკარგე ინტერესი და ამდენი ხანი მოვანდომე კითხვას თუმცა კონკრეტული თავები წიგნში, ძალიან საინტერესო და ინფორმატიული იყო.

საბოლოო ჯამში ვისაც უკვე გაქვთ გარკვეული ცოდნა ფილოსოფიაში გირჩევთ წიგნის ბიბლიოგრაფიას გადახედოთ და იქიდან აარჩიოთ საკითხავი მასალა, რომელიც უფრო გაგიღრმავებთ ცოდნას ამ კუთხით.