Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Philosophy Bites

by David Edmonds (Goodreads Author), Nigel Warburton

3.57 of 5 stars 3.57 · rating details · 49 ratings · 11 reviews

What does Anthony Grayling think about atheism? Adrian Moore about infinity? For the last three years, some of the world's leading philosophers have held forth on their favorite topics on the immensely popular website philosophybites.com. The site now features more than one hundred short conversations, has had some 7 million downloads to date, and is listened to all over t...more

Hardcover, 244 pages

Published September 25th 2010 by Oxford University Press, USA (first published August 2010)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 153)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jul 08, 2012 Riku Sayuj rated it 2 of 5 stars

This book mostly consists of philosophers raising some interesting questions and then failing miserably to answer them. It really is a hodgepodge of concepts where theysticktheir feet into everyinterestingphilosophicalpond available buthardlyspends the time required to really test the waters or to gauge the depths.So while the book was not very valuable from the perspective of finding good answers, it was still a good exercise in framing a lot of new (to me) questions or reframing some old ones,...more

like 24 likes · see review

Jun 30, 2012 Michael George rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

This book consists of 25 essays, written by different philosophers, in the form of short dialogues. The topics are frequently of some current interest, and are grouped into five categories: Ethics, Politics, Metaphysics and Mind, Aesthetics, and lastly, God, Atheism, and the Meaning of Life. At the beginning of each essay, there is one paragraph of introductory material that gives a little information about the historical background for the essay, and a few introductory remarks about the philoso...more This book consists of 25 essays, written by different philosophers, in the form of short dialogues. The topics are frequently of some current interest, and are grouped into five categories: Ethics, Politics, Metaphysics and Mind, Aesthetics, and lastly, God, Atheism, and the Meaning of Life. At the beginning of each essay, there is one paragraph of introductory material that gives a little information about the historical background for the essay, and a few introductory remarks about the philosopher. In the next paragraph, the topic on which the essay will focus is introduced. A sequence of highly focused and connected questions are then posed for the philosopher, which she or he briefly address in a paragraph or two. The last paragraph attempts to tie things together, and present a broad perspective.

The result seems to be that one gets a flavor for how various philosophers answer questions, and some idea of their concerns, at least in the sense that they have some broad implications for culture. On the whole, the essays are well-written, and clear of technical jargon. They are indeed “bite-sized” chunks that are rather easy to read and digest. Because the essays are so short, and the topics are so varied, one never progresses beyond a few introductory remarks of a general nature. Therefore, the book is a bit like reading a series of prefaces, and it all can be read very quickly. Given that, one can expect nothing of depth, but it is possible to pique one’s interests for further exploration, and for each essay a few references are listed for that purpose. Most of the references are fairly current, some from the 1990s, but many from the first decade of the 21st century. I believe that I would recommend this for the purpose of locating some references for further investigation on a topic, but I did find all essays to be a little informative.

The third essay, in the section on Ethics, is by the philosopher P. Singer, who wrote a seminal book about “the ethics of using animals, both as food and in research”, in 1975. He is Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, as well as having an appointment at the University of Melbourne. The 2nd edition of his famous 1975 book was published in 2009 and is called “Animal Liberation”. Another book, edited by Susan Armstrong and called “The Animal Ethics Reader”, is also referenced and was published in 2008. The first question he is asked is “to get clear about what” he understands “by a ‘person’, because” he distinguishes “a ‘person’ from a ‘human being’.” He replies: “A person is someone who is aware of their own existence over time, aware enough to realize that they’re the same being who lived previously and who can expect to live into the future. So most human beings are persons, but none of us was born a person. Newborn infants are not persons. And some non-human animals are persons, but not all non-human animals are persons. A chimpanzee, for example, is probably aware of its own existence over time. So I think there’s good evidence that chimpanzees are persons.”

An important point is brought up: “Well, look, you can define a person, you can define a human being, so what?” He replies: “I think the idea of a being who can envisage his or her own future is morally significant, because if you compare the wrongness of killing a being who is capable of having some anticipation of the future, some desires for the future, perhaps even some projects to complete in the future, and you kill such a person who wants to go on living, you’re doing something wrong to that person which is something you’re not doing if you kill a being who is not fully a person and who can have no wishes or hopes for the future which could be cut off or thwarted or frustrated.” However, “the major issue about animals and how we treat them is that they’re capable of suffering, I don’t think it’s about the wrongness of killing them.”

After answering questions that pertain to these introductory matters, mostly “setting the stage”, we can ask ourselves about the extent to which Prof. Singer can communicate some of his reasoning, and ideas about ethics. Certainly, to some extent, we are faced with ethical issues that overlap between human beings and animals. One thinks especially of factory farms, and of medical research on animals. What, if anything, special can a philosopher contribute to discussions related to these ethical issues? What point of view does the philosopher offer that can add or confront our basic ethical ideas and help us to evolve or grow with respect to any decisions or goals that we have that draw us to confront these issues? We need to feel the importance of animal ethics, which some of us may not. However, if we do, what does Prof. Singer offer that might lead us to investigate and consult the references?

First, he points out that his critics have adapted certain tactics. “They caricature” his “views by saying that, on” his “view, animals deserve more consideration than humans do. “ He does not “think that is true in general, although it is true that there are some rare situations where a human is so intellectually disabled or incapable of understanding things that” he “would, other things being equal, give preference to the non-human animal. The animal could then have a greater interest in going on living, or in not suffering in a certain way.” Thus, one reason why we might want to read additional material is to avoid misunderstanding Prof. Singer, who seems to have critics that are not interested in dealing with his ideas impartially.

A concept that arose from Prof. Singer’s work is that of “speciesism”. “The point about speciesism is that we give less weight to the interests of beings who are not members of our species simply because they are not members of our species. We are not looking at their individual characteristics, nor at their capacities, or what’s good for them, or bad for them. We just say: ‘Well, they’re not members of the species Homo sapiens, therefore we can use them for our purposes, our end; we don’t have to treat them as if their ends mattered.’ Whereas if we are dealing with a human being, no matter what the mental level of that human being, we say that that human being’s life is sacred, he or she is an end in itself, we must respect the dignity of that human being, and so on.” Thus, another motive to read his work, or similar writings, is to investigate this broader approach to what “personhood” means.

There is another important reason for reading Prof. Singer’s work: To fully appreciate his point of view, which is utilitarian. He is “interested in maximizing happiness in some sense, or maximizing the interests of sentient beings.” This broader perspective “complicates things. Just as, if you’re a white European in the eighteenth century, it complicates things to have to consider the interests of Africans. That interferes with your profitable trade in slaves.” For factory farming, “we have to ask: what do we get out of all of this? Well, we produce food a little more cheaply. But, we are not starving, and we can afford to pay a little more for our food.” He wishes to “give equal consideration to the sufferings of the hens and the pigs.” We would expose ourselves, through his writing, to a perspective on ethics, not just a suggestion to eat free-range meat.

A critical point about a willingness to pursue further study of Prof. Singer’s ideas is that this is a rational utilitarian point of view, looking rationally at implications, “based not on how” he feels “about killing or animal suffering.” He is, like any human can be, touched by the beauty and the suffering of animals. He also wants to explore serious ethical reasons for the treatment of animals, just as we might for human beings. However, he says of himself, “I wouldn’t still be doing moral philosophy if I thought it was just a theoretical game.” “Sometimes I think people doing philosophy reduce it to the level of solving chess problems.” In other words, he has a “very classical conception of philosophy.” He just does not think it, he lives it, as well.

When Prof. Singer wrote first about speciesism, it was a very radical idea, but his reasoning is accepted by many today. Thus, one has the possibility of reading a variety of views, not just his work in this area. With respect to this, and as concerns research using chimpanzees, he ends his essay with the following: “You look back on some of the things that were done not that long ago, twenty or thirty years ago, and people are quite horrified that those experiments were permitted. So we are making progress.”

There is this sort of concerted effort with each of the essays, in their dialogue formats, to provide an indicator of what the topic is, with clarity, and supply some major reasons to indicate that the particular philosopher highlighted in the essay, has made some contribution that can be explored through recent references, some of which are listed in the book. From this perspective, that the book provides us with short, but not trivial insights to encourage further study, if one has an interest in the given topic, I think this book succeeds very well, and for this reason, I can recommend it highly.
(less)

like · see review

Oct 07, 2012 Michael Fong rated it 4 of 5 stars

In concept, this is a success. The philosopher’s eye takes orbit over issues of new world concern, ascending beyond its geriatric cabalism and lightly asserting its relevance today.

If introductory and of popular thrust, the broad sampling makes for a condensed lesson in case, and there is enough inquisitional intrigue to carry the reader through a solid afternoon, though I’d skip the section on Politics, where, too often, fair-weather morality ensconces dull reflection.

The horror film – why tak...more

like · see review

Nov 19, 2011 Jon rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: hated-it

I thought this book would be interesting since the cover said it was tidbits of the best of philosophy. I've always thought philosophy and psychology to be interesting topics since it discusses how we think on a fundamental level. Unfortunately, this book was more of a justification for abhorrent behaviors. As a God-fearing person I believe that there are universal truths that govern morality. People may have different beliefs and even believe and worship different gods, but at the core of what...more

like · see review

Dec 06, 2011 Miguel rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book occupies an odd position for philosophy fans and those interested. Its main and most arguable virtue is the exposure of the reader to many bite-sized ideas on a variety of different subjects in philosophy by contemporary philosophers. While in an Intro to Philosophy class one might spend quite a bit of time learning about Plato, Hume, and Kant, one spends far less time learning about the contemporary philosophers who are applying ancient ideas to contemporary problems, and creating new...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 11, 2011 Jeremy rated it 3 of 5 stars

I found the interviews too short - but I guess it is supposed to be 'bites.' The podcasts have much more substance though and I was expecting something at least comparable in the amount of information given. It is more coffee-table reading than something to particularly challenge you. Many of the interviews are enjoyable to read nonetheless but there is a wide range of quality.

like · see review

Jul 17, 2011 Jack Coleman rated it 4 of 5 stars

Consice informative grouping of current trends in philosophical ideas that will
encourage readers to chose philosophic reading.

like · see review

Jan 19, 2012 Terri Cornwall rated it 3 of 5 stars

It's a nice easy read if you're new to philosophy as I am. It gives a good insight in to it and really gets you to start thinking.

like · see review

Jun 12, 2011 Ryan Mishap rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

Transcribed, but touched-up, from the ten minute podcast interviews, this book is awesome. It starts with dozens of philosophers being asked, "What is philosophy?" and all their responses are printed before we even get to the interviews. These are short and to the point, covering a range of topics: multiculturalism, art, infinity, and much more. The focus is on practical application of philosophy in real life situations rather than the abstract word puzzles a lot of philosophy seems to consist o...more

like · see review

Jun 25, 2011 Kate rated it 4 of 5 stars

Cupcakes of philosophical goodness. Hope there will be more volumes.

like · see review

Apr 10, 2013 Srissatt rated it 5 of 5 stars

lucid and brilliantly written.

like · see review

May 15, 2013 Lourdes Villarico rated it 3 of 5 stars

May 14, 2013 Rosie Adamson rated it 4 of 5 stars

May 13, 2013 Alexia rated it 3 of 5 stars

May 13, 2013 Scott Morrison is currently reading it

May 16, 2013 James Rathmell is currently reading it

May 12, 2013 Rachel added it

May 11, 2013 Sarah L. is currently reading it

May 10, 2013 Long Vo is currently reading it

May 09, 2013 Via Suksantinunt marked it as to-read

May 03, 2013 John Larkin marked it as to-read

Apr 29, 2013 Briar rated it 4 of 5 stars

Apr 21, 2013 Jason Hensel marked it as to-read · review of another edition

May 01, 2013 João rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: filosofia

Apr 16, 2013 Kenny marked it as to-read

Apr 16, 2013 David marked it as to-read

Apr 14, 2013 Javier marked it as to-read

Apr 08, 2013 Mollie Bennell marked it as to-read

Apr 06, 2013 Hagai marked it as to-read

Mar 31, 2013 Josey marked it as to-read

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 next »

Non Fiction

5 users

See top shelves...

About David Edmonds

Journalist of BBC

More about David Edmonds...

Books by David Edmonds

Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers

Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time

Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Philosophy Bites

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: Philosophy Bites
avg rating	preview: Philosophy Bites Goodreads rating: 3.57 (49 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7962485-philosophy-bites?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348516924l/7962485.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7962485-philosophy-bites?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Philosophy Bites by David Edmonds[/url]

Philosophy Bites

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (4)

Genres

About David Edmonds

Books by David Edmonds

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (4)

Genres

About David Edmonds

Books by David Edmonds

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Philosophy Bites

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (4)