This long (700 pages) book comprises 133 articles that were published in the New York Times as installments in "The Stone," a series of philosophical arguments. The collection does a good job of covering modern philosophy in an accessible manor. However, it is not an easy read, and there are sometimes references to early philosophers with an assumption that the reader is familiar with their arguments and history. I dropped this rating to three stars when the book jumped the shark with three anti-gun screeds that had little to nothing to do with any philosophy, but were just the same old arguments that everyone (on both sides of the issue) has heard a thousand times. There was no philosophical thinking or discussion in these articles, nor any hint of discussion of both sides of the issue. They really put a dent in the quality of writing that had been very good up to that point in the book. (No, I'm not a crusading NRA member, just someone who would like to have seen both sides of the issue discussed.)

(Note: I received this ARC from the publisher through a Goodreads giveaway.) ( )

recopilación de los ensayos publicados en el nyt durante años, de temas varios y desparejos. Bueno ( )

A few worthwhile essays but the vast majority just read like opinionated editorials. There are a few essays arguing about the nature of philosophy itself and let me throw in my opinion as well: philosophy is thinking about the important and eternal issues. A lot of essays do not qualify with their obsession over the political and whatever was relevant that brief moment they were written in. ( )

3.5 would be a more precise rating for this book I won on Goodreads. There are four sections in this book (philosophy, science, religion and morals, society) containing a series of philosophical articles. Of course, some articles were more interesting, and some were easier to understand. I would say that most people could find some food for thought in this book.
I received an advance reading copy, and noticed in “Spinoza’s Vision of Freedom, and Ours” a big factual mistake. Steven Nadler writes, “France _ fresh from outlawing the wearing of veils by Muslim women”… I really hope that this mistake was corrected, because in France, Muslim women are allowed to wear the veil.

( )

This is a fantastic compilation of The Stone Reader column that is published in the New York Times for the last few years.

I read the columns on occasion and the level of discourse is uneven but when the article is good, it is fantastic.

This compilation is a worthy collection of the varied and disarmingly charming topics that the column had elicited over the years.

It is a book that does not call for being read in one sitting, it is however,a tome to be savored, dissected, and analyzed repeatedly in order to entertain one's mind. A most welcomed series for those time that we need to let our minds reach into the nether reaches of our thoughts and replenish our mental energies while getting away from the daily grind.

It is, a most welcomed respite. ( )