Simon BlackburnRezensionen

this guy wrote a whole book

A very nice and very brief summary of various philosophical understandings of morality and ethics.

A funny thing though: I was offended and puzzled when I started the book, on page 2, by a comment from the author about a "professional survivor of the nazi concentration camps" that he met on a TV talk show. I don't know quite WTF he meant by that. He might have conceivably only wanted to point out that the man was some sort of professional, as well as being a camp survivor. But why would anyone care? I assume it was really intended as a slur - an accusation that the man had actually made a profession out of being a survivor. If so, I think it was a shockingly rude thing to say. Maybe there's some third explanation that I'm missing? At any rate, I was really on my guard after reading that, but nothing else in the book seemed to me to be rude or bigoted or disrespectful, so I don't know what to make of it...

Some very useful insights, but felt the author could be a little too harsh at times, interpreting Plato too much at face value and from a strictly materialistic point of view, in the manner of Bertrand Russell. There were some mistakes in my view too, such as Blackburn's assertion that Plato proposed a caste system. This would imply that there was no movement within the tripartite system from one class to another, whereas Plato specifically says that bronze or silver-souled parents could give birth to a gold-souled child. Likewise, gold-souled parents could give birth to silver or bronze-souled children. In any case, Blackburn falls too readily for the idea that Plato is putting forward a blueprint for a utopian society, rather than provoking the reader into thinking for himself / herself.

Some very useful insights, but felt the author could be a little too harsh at times, interpreting Plato too much at face value and from a strictly materialistic point of view, in the manner of Bertrand Russell. There were some mistakes in my view too, such as Blackburn's assertion that Plato proposed a caste system. This would imply that there was no movement within the tripartite system from one class to another, whereas Plato specifically says that bronze or silver-souled parents could give birth to a gold-souled child. Likewise, gold-souled parents could give birth to silver or bronze-souled children. In any case, Blackburn falls too readily for the idea that Plato is putting forward a blueprint for a utopian society, rather than provoking the reader into thinking for himself / herself.

Writing is clear and concise in the earlier chapters of the book. When Blackburn is clear and writing well, he is charming and can really drive home the point. Towards the end of the book, Blackburn gets harder to read and more confusing. Read Think only if you have no other options for easier philosophy books.

En lisant ce petit livre il m’est venu à l’esprit que la rédaction d’un essai philosophique résiderait peut-être dans le choix judicieux de philosophes et de leurs citations et de le terminer par un « je vous l’avais bien dit« .

Mais peut-être ce livre était un peu ardu pour moi ou trop distant d’un des buts (présupposé ?) de son sujet, le plaisir

The subtitle to Think is a Compelling Introduction—a but of a misnomer. This is far from an introduction. The reader needs a thorough grounding in philosophy to comprehend this work. I thought I had such a grounding but apparently my not. I did find it surprising the philosophers are so argumentative and that so many of them were annoyed with Descartes.½

Blackburn is a very readable philosopher - not a common thing. This book is very enjoyable and Blackburn does a great job of picking out the main points of interest in Plato's masterpiece and discussing them in an intelligent and easy style. However, it seems fair to say, he isn't particularly sympathetic to Plato, and this occasionally leads him into uncharitable readings, I think (e.g. the accusation that Plato denied the possibility of social mobility in his ideal society). Also, the book is less historically informative than other books in this series (e.g. Janet Browne's excellent book on Darwin's Origin of Species). However, it is still highly recommended.

Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.

I may be a poor judge of the value of this book as an "introduction," since I've had lots of previous exposure. With that caveat, I found this small tome both enjoyable and instructive. A good companion volume for those looking for more introductory material, consider The Cartoon Introduction to Philosophy.

It's hard for me to rate this because I have not actually read Plato's Republic but checked this out thinking it was a translation of Plato's Republic. From what I can tell though, Blackthorn does a good job of pointing out the flaws in reasoning as well as some of the important ideas we can take away from Republic. He definitely does a great job of tracing Platonism's influence throughout the millenia. Now I am more determined than ever that I need to read Republic.

This book is not specific enough about trends in ethics to be of good use in an Intro to Philosophy class, but it provides a sophisticated and non-condescending account of the subject fit for intelligent people looking for the lay of the land.

I wish I had read this as a teen, when I first got interested in philosophy. A really nice whirlwind tour that leaves me with the sense that I have a good basic overview of the realm of philosophy, despite the countless philosophers, opinions, terms and -isms out there. Upon his suggestion in the introduction, I read Hume, Descartes and Berkeley alongside, and found the simultaneous reading to balance well. He would select out key passages from these (and other works), rephrase if need be, and based on them weave together a review of a few of the better-known stances on the core concepts. I foound his style comfortable and easy, though it could have been a bit shorter, and unfortunately the whole last chapter felt quite weak and out of place really. A good effort to popularise philosophy.

A nice little dictionary with many interesting articles in very tiny print. This replaces my well-used and much-loved copy of Priest's revision of Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy. Blackburn is a bit more up to date, a bit more inclusive, more opinionated, and maybe a little easier to follow.

I was an absolutely awful philosophy student for a couple of years in college, so I've always wanted to see if I could get back on that horse and understand some of those big, abstract thoughts that excited, scared, and mystified me in equal measure as an undergraduate. Simon Blackburn's "Think" was a pretty decent place to pick up the thread again. It's certainly written for the curious layperson, and Blackburn writes in a personable and straightforward tone on all the Big Questions. Not that I'm clear on everything: even after going over the relevant section various times, the mind/body problem is still frustrates me, but I suppose I might be in good company there. The author, to his credit, admits the problems he's addressing are likely intractable -- though it should probably be noted that he did this in the book's closing pages, not in its introduction. Some qualms: though he's usually careful to label them as such, he inserts his own opinions in the text more than many philosophy professors would, and his take on God -- he considers a theistic God to be something of a non-starter -- might alienate a few Christian readers. Others might complain that the excerpts from the philosophical texts that he includes here could probably have been more extensive. It's not a substitute for four years spent in philosophy lectures or ten years spent in a monastery, but this book's a useful item for readers in search of some new mental framing devices with which to, yah know, think about things.½

While I have read and discussed many of the dialogues of Plato, some of them multiple times, I continue to explore differing presentations and critiques of his ideas. Simon Blackburn's short study of Plato's Republic is an excellent place to review one of Plato's most famous dialogues and learn from him. He presents The Republic in a topical manner with sixteen chapters that range from a discussion of custom and convention to a brief essay on "The Farewell Myth". The latter, the Myth of Er from Book X, was a text used prominently in a memorial service for one of my teachers at the University of Chicago more than two decades ago. Its power is demonstrated in the vivid memory of not only my own reading but the memory of that memorial.
With emphasis on both the best known passages like "The Ring of Gyges" and the "Myth of the Cave", but also less well-known sections of the ten books that comprise The Republic, Simon Blackburn makes a thorough overview in this small, 161 page, book. With the addition of valuable suggestions for further reading this is both a good starting point for those unfamiliar with Plato or an excellent review for old hands in the reading and study of this founding father of Philosophy.½

Truth: A Guide by Simon Blackburn

Why I picked this book up: I was in one of the Powell’s Books in Portland while in Oregon for a conference. First of all I LOVED Powell’s. It was SO fun being in a huge bookstore then I found this book and went back to the Hotel and got wrapped up in it.

General Thoughts: This book was great. It reminded me of a philosophy class as it walked through the thought process and its development, giving both sides its due and talking about where the arguments failed and succeeded.

Why I finished this book: I finished this book because it was really fun to me. He does a very good job because he makes it so easy to grasp. He really is on his game and I’d love to read another of his books.

Rating: I’d give it a 4.5 out of 5 star rating.½

He sometimes makes assertions without really examining both pros and cons e.g. the existence (or not) of the soul.

Too often he defends a position rather than examining the evidence.

I think I like Lust much more than Pride, although the former seems to be loaded with these glib philosophical turds and whatnot (which I like, by the way). Still, I like Blackburn, especially when he's not singin' too much David Hume and that appears to be the case here.

Phyllis Tickle. I wonder if she has a doctorate. Then she would be Dr. Tickle. Professor Tickle. Not gonna buy this set put out by Oxford University Press--separately only. Look at all the colors! I have three sins on my shelf right now. Just three. *Grin*

This introduction to ethics is more a platform for Blackburn to explain why all attempts to create a ethical system fail. He spends considerable time considering "threats to ethics" before looking at some ethical ideas and foundations for ethics. However he fails to provide an adequate foundation for ethics and one is left with the unfortunate conclusion that "goodness" is unattainable. Especially in reading the appendix which is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Almost every article is currently being broken by members of the UN without repercussion. If that is the basis for ethics I would rather look elsewhere.½

The Big Questions. People in the world have an interest in everyday questions but then you have people that have questions that science hasn't figured out. Questions that science hasn't figured out have a very broad spectrum and it always interesting to hear other people's ideas or opinions about these questions. Questions like How can I deceive myself?, Is death to be feared?, What fills ups space?. These are all quite broad and philosophy is something everyone seems to know. Questions like the ones above are answered by the Research Professor of Philosophy in North Carolina, Simon Blackburn, he is also one of the most distinguished philosophers of our time. This book gets a 5/5 from me!

1 170 BLAC

My wife’s aunt gave me this one for Christmas…. (ahem) Christmas 2008. Thought it was about time I got round to it. I was definitely intersested to read it as I’ve always wanted to know more about philosophy. If you do, Simon Blackburn, Prof of Philosophy at Cambridge University is your man. Thing is, having read the book, I’m not sure I do still want to know more…

The book starts out aiming to appeal to the pleb in the street. That’s me, I thought. But a chapter or two in and I was lost among lengthy quotes from Hume and Descartes and generally feeling a bit fed up with it all. I tried really really hard to follow the arguments. Like when you open up a new manual or a language textbook and say, I’m going to really make sure I understand each bit before moving on to the next bit. Ah, good intentions…

I got so bogged down in it eventually that I started thinking well what’s the point. Who cares. I’ve got more important things to think about like what I cook for dinner or whether to accept the mother in law’s invitation to go round tomorrow night. And, frankly, there’s very little in this book that can really help me make those decisions unless I devote myself to learning the systems of thought he explains.

Blackburn tries really really hard. The book is well produced and well organised. It’s the kind of book you see on the shelf and just want to pick up and read. But I found it pretty hard going. It was only when he got the chapter about God that I perked up a bit. Trouble is, Blackburn, like so very many others really has no notion of what being a Christian is really about in essence. It’s our fault really, us Christians are a bit too much fluff and no substance sometimes, all ritual and no reality too often.

For example, he questions the reality of miracles on the basis that they do not demonstrate that God is in charge of the world. If they did, he argues, why are they not more useful? Why water into wine and not the destruction of HIV? Why raising Lazarus instead of killing Hitler? Valid questions, but the premise is wrong (see! I did learn something). The premise is that water into wine is worth less than destroying HIV. Unless you understand the significance of the miracle at Cana, then it’s understandable you’ll think it a waste of time.

I think, actually, that Prof Blackburn has a bit of a chip on his shoulder re Christians. Letting his gown slip a bit he says “[God] sends to hell those who don’t believe in him, and of course encourages his believers down here to give them a hard time, as well.” Of course? Eh? So, the poor prof seems to have suffered from some overzealous brethren. Shame he can’t be a bit more philosophical about that!

And that’s what disturbed me most about the book really, despite how well it was written and the fundamental importance, apparently, of the subject matter, where does it leave people like my beautiful wife. She’s a feeling-based person, all intuition and gut feelings, very deep and moved easily by all sorts of things. She has no time for thought, just as I, often, have no time for feelings. The problem for this book is that her way of living is equally valid.

And speaking of validity, right at the end, there’s a quite startling contradiction. On p296 he mentions how societies create different solutions to the problem of living and says that they are simply different: “we do not have to rank them.” Yet on facing page he then says, “we do not have to see them as equally good.” But surely, if we do not see them as equal, if we have decided they are not equal, we’ve already ranked them, no?

So, this is a good book, but not for me. It may be for you.½

Having read Plato's republic, this book helped me understand it even more.

An engaging and entertaining book on the basics of philosophy. The author approaches philosophy by posing basic problems in epistemology, the existence of God, and ethics. He discusses the historical approaches to these problems, discussing Hume and Descartes with excellent clarity. As Joe pointed out later, however, he does call Copernicus a Dutchman