Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites #1

by David Edmonds, Nigel Warburton (Contributor)

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 the globe.

Philosophy Bites brings together the twenty-five best interviews from this hugely successful website. Leading philosophers--including Simon Blackburn, Alain de Botton, Will Kymlicka, Alexander Nehamas, and more than twenty others--discuss a wide range of philosophical issues in a surprisingly
lively, informal, and personal way. For instance, Peter Singer, arguably the world's leading animal rights philosopher, states that for people living in the western world, vegetarianism is the only moral choice, but he allows that this would not be the case for an Inuit who lives by killing
fish--causing an animal to suffer must be balanced against the necessity to survive. Julian Savulescu talks about the "yuk factor"--the natural revulsion that keeps us from practicing incest or cannibalism--attacking its use as an argument against gay rights and abortion. Anthony Appiah discusses
cosmopolitanism, the idea that emphasizes that people around the world have much in common, and that we have to be able to live with people despite our differences. And Stephen Law shows why it is unreasonable to believe in an all-powerful, all-good deity.

Time, infinity, evil, friendship, animals, wine, sport, tragedy--all of human life is here. And as these bite-sized interviews reveal, often the most brilliant philosophers are eager and able to convey their thoughts, simply and clearly, on the great ideas of philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays, Anthologies

268 pages, Paperback

Published May 4, 2012

About the author

Journalist of BBC

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 they stick their feet into every interesting philosophical pond available but hardly spends 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, and that is after all the essence of all philosophy. Once we have answers to any question, or have the proper way to ask it, then it crosses over from philosophy to science.

So just for getting one thinking in these wide variety if questions, the book was fascinating and worth the time in reading and probably it is also worthwhile putting down here the major questions and also a few attempted answers.

The first question to be addressed was whether the "yuck" reaction ie whether moral or physical disgust should be a yardstick for policy measures or for any informed judgment. The answer was a unilateral No and I will cover this further in my review here.

Another question to be taken up was on whether Relativity should be the foundation of all morality. This Relativism would be any theory which encapsulates the idea that there are individual differences in morality (for which there may be a cultural explanation) and that there are no absolute truths about any moral judgements that we make. Is it all just a matter of taste? The Relativist would answer that it indeed is, he would say that ‘you’ve got your truth and I’ve got mine’ - end of story. But the trouble is, it’s not the end of the story because we’re each seeking to impose a policy on the other.

To illustrate this take an example where I want people to purge al streets of the menace of street dogs and you want them not to, then just at the level of desire we’ve got a disagreement and you could be expected to act to prevent this dog-culling and I act to promote it. We’ve got policies that are in conflict and we might come to blows, as people do. Suppose you say ‘Dog Culling No!’ and I say ‘Dog Culling Yes!’, and in comes Rosy The Relativist, and she says ‘Hey you two, why don’t you just realize that stray dogs are good for you and bad for him and that’s the end of it?’ The question I want to ask is, ‘How does this help?’ Whatever led you to oppose the culling or wish to tolerate the stray dogs is presumably still there; whatever led me to promote it is still there. The idea that we’re not in conflict just starts to look farcical. And the conflict has not been resolved by Rosy - it hasn’t even been helped.

The question of how to treat animals too is explored. How do we regulate cruelty to them and decide where to draw the moral lines? The answer that Peter Singer puts forth is two fold, any creature that is capable of making plans fo the future should be treated with that respect for its own ambitions and any creature capable of suffering should be given the consideration of alleviating any needless suffering. Singer brings up the example of factory farming where we confine animals in conditions that for their entire lives make them miserable. We have to ask: what do we get out 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. I don’t think there’s much doubt that that’s not something that can be justified if we give equal consideration to the sufferings of the hens and the pigs.

Then the discussion turns to the question of Human Enhancement for excelling in sports and other competitive fields. the thrust of the argument is that if we enhance human performance artificially sports will lose its meaning, we watch it for the human element, to see people overcoming the odds of their bodies to do impossible things. If they are no longer 'impossible' and inconceivable, then why watch them?

The next part was about friendship and I could not make out any real questions in this discussion except a back and forth about how can we justify the morality of giving special treatment to our friends over strangers. Are some friends more equal than others? The answer is that the social morals of treating all the same is about equality but friendship is about individuality.

Is cosmopolitanism really that important and how far should toleration just for the sake of toleration go? Can we allow practices we consider morally depraved just because they are part of the cultural tradition of a community? The only anser seems to be that if these practices are imposed on people who are not in a position to make an informed choice for themselves, children, for instance, you might want to be paternalistic and protect them from it for their own good. Adults making informed choices would be a different case. But ultimately it should be about giving the people in that community the education and the informed choices so that they can rise above the blinding customs and then make a decision for themselves, without having them imposed on them from a Big Brother who knows better.

The question was again picked up in the section about Multiculturalism and how Tolerance should not be the word we should be using. To tolerate something is different from real acceptance of the culture. The problem with 'tolerance' is what it sounds like - suffering someone’s existence rather than dealing with them violently.

The tricky nature of epistemic injustice, namely testimonial injustice is also explored. That’s when one person is telling another person something and the hearer, owing to some prejudice, deflates the level of credibility they give to the speaker. A good example that we might relate to to understand this abstract concept is the end of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, where we find the defendant being charged with rape just because none of the white jurors believe the word of a ‘negro’, then the injustice matters deeply, and indeed in that case the consequences prove fatal.

Who can try and define the nature of Infinity? The mathematicians define it thus: if you can pair off a sub-collection of any given collection with the whole collection, that means you’re talking about an infinite collection of objects.

Scientific realism is to believe that everything that science postulates is really here and is real, even if our sense organs can never perceive it. The conclusion seemed to be that we should be skeptics about some areas of science which has a history of producing wildly wrong theories (such as astronomy?) and realistic about the sciences with a better track record (chemistry?). But with such a short history, do we have enough data to really decide?

This was followed by a very abstract discussion on time and how we treat it so differently from spatial measures. I have nothing worthwhile to comment on this really. Then came the section on the nature of the relationship between the mind and the body as Tim Crane tried to explore it. Most of the discussion was centered on Vedantic philosophy and the Upanishads and is much too detailed and in any case the question is more important!

Tim Williamson then tries to explain how to classify Vagueness and boundary conditions. When do you start and stop being a teenager? When does a heap of sand stop being a 'heap' if you remove one grain at a time? At what hour, or minute, or second, does one become middle-aged? Basically it is an exploration of the famous Sorites paradoxes.

The discussion from here on centers on Art and how to define and classify them. Apparently, the fine arts as we now know them today, was the invention of one man - a French thinker called the Abbé Batteaux. The real question though is when does any object get classified as Art? If it is beautiful? Beautiful to whom? Is institutionalization inevitable in a field like the Arts?

Alain de Botton makes an appearance to talk about aesthetics and architecture. His main argument is that form and functionality are important but aesthetics is as important since that too one of the fundamental function so architecture. To explain the real function of a building, Botton invokes John Ruskin - it should encompass both sheltering and also what John Ruskin calls ‘speaking’, when he says buildings shouldn’t just shelter us, they should speak to us. They should speak to us of all the things that we think are most important and that we need to be reminded of on a daily basis. So the idea is that buildings should be the repositories of certain values, ideas, suggestions, and that they should reflect these back to us, so as to inspire us. I was strongly reminded of the speech made by Arkady Bogdanov during the meteor shower episode in that fantastic book Red Mars, and this was the only reason I felt that I agreed with Ruskin on this one.

From art we move to wine and about how to truly appreciate it. And then takes a radical shift into the possible motivations for watching a tragedy.

The discussion was about resolving the paradox of Aristotle when he says Tragedy gives pleasure through pain. This paradox of tragedy is dissolved in effect by saying Aristotle was wrong. The tragic poet’s task is not really to generate in the audience a peculiar species of pleasure. What he should have said, and arguably what he really means, is that a tragic poet aims at giving us a certain kind of insight.

From here on, the discussions are about God and Atheism and so all the really bored ones can get off the bus now.

Don Cupitt says that he has given up on the ideas of a pre-existent self, world, and God, quite apart from human belief, human commitment, and human descriptions. God doesn’t exist apart from our faith in him is his belief now. John Cottingham exploring the Meaning of Life itself says that God is not necessary and neither is religion. Spirituality and spiritual practices independent of both can still give us the calm and peace that we seek. Stephen Law then delves in the famous Problem of Evil: If we begin with the thought that God is all-powerful, all-good, and indeed all-knowing, the question, then, is why does evil exist? or why does evil exist in quite the quantities that it does? There are two different problems here. The first is called the logical problem of evil. Some people argue that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of any suffering or evil whatsoever. The other problem of evil is this. If you believe in an all-powerful, all-good God, why is there quite so much suffering and evil in the world? Surely an all-powerful, all-good God would have the ability to produce a world with far less suffering, and, if He’s all-good, then He would surely want the world to contain far less suffering. Why, then, is there quite so much suffering? So, on the evidential problem of evil, it’s the quantity of evil that’s really the issue, whereas on the logical problem it’s the existence of any evil or any suffering at all that’s deemed the problem. The quantity of suffering is evidence that there is no God.

Keith Ward proposes that a return to eastern Idealism might solve the problem of this definition of God. But, then comes A.C. Grayling who says no to all conceptions of God in his first statement but never raises a finger against any idea that the Judaeo-Christian personal God in his talks. But he is surely a Radical Atheist, rejecting the idea that there are gods or supernatural agencies of any kind in the world. It is even a rejection of the idea that there might have been supernatural agencies at some earlier point in the universe’s history, which is the deist position. He calls himself a naturalist, but the only hole I could detect in his argument was if he was confronted with the numerous ideas of God that never ascribes anything 'supernatural' to the concept.

The entire book was in an interview format and most of the times the answers are more evasive than conclusive in any way. But since these are supposed to be the leading philosophers in their respective fields, we can at least take heart that they know as little as we do?

[huzeyfe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Birbirinden ilginc ve benim de kafami kurcalayan bircok konunun ele alindigi guzel bir derleme olmus. Acikcasi podcast'leri dinlemek daha guzel olabilirdi. Soylesi tadinda gitmesi kitaba akicilik saglamis. Cevirinin sade ve akici olmasi da bunu pekistirimis. Zira boyle onemli ve kafa karisitirci bircok meselenin ele alindigi bir kitabi uc-dort oturusta bitiremezdim.

Konularin cogu havada kalmis ama bu benim olumlu gordugum bir taraf. Zira felsefe bir sonuca varmaktan ziyade yolda olmaktir. Ozellike "etik" konusu uzerinde ortaya atilan sorular cok hosuma gitti.

Bir diger konu da kitap icinde refere edilen o kadar cok kitap var ki onlari tek tek not almak ve to-read listeme almak en azindan ayri bir liste yapamamak icin cok direndim. Simdilik erteliyorum zira once yogunlasmam gereken bircok sey var, o kitaplar sonraya kalabilir.

[Miguel · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 ideas all together. However, the book itself is a simply a series of transcripts of podcast interviews, but each interview is quite good and very informative.

The book strikes a good balance between explaining some fundamental ideas of the study of philosophy without burdening people already familiar with those ideas with longwinded explanation, but the ideal reader of this text is absolutely someone with a familiarity with some classic philosophical ideas. Overall its an extremely interesting bunch of interviews but clearly of far more interest to students of philosophy than casual readers, although the ideas are presented in a way that the casual reader could gain quite a lot from the text, especially with a little bit of background research.

[Mohammad Mirzaali · Rating 4 out of 5]

گفت‌وگوهایی خواندنی با جذاب‌ترین فیلسوفان زنده‌ی دنیا که موضوعاتی از قبیل «دوستی» و «حقوق حیوانات» تا «معنای زندگی» و «زمان» و «شکاکیت» و... را در برمی‌گیرد

[Cem · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okunmasa da olabilecek bir kitap.Soru cevaplar yarım kalmış gibi.Başka felsefe kitapları okunabilir bunun yerine...

[Michael George · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Alberto Pagotto · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a journey through various aspects of contemporary philosophy. It is fascinating how certain aspects regarding ethics, politics, metaphysics, aesthetics and religion are still objects of discussion today, and how new topics have just entered the academic and public debates.

However, the level of deepness and criticism is not constant through the pages: even though some topics are faced from original points of view (in particular in the sections regarding aesthetics and politics), others are superficial, sometimes at the point to be fruit of mere intuition and personal beliefs rather than acute research.

In general, I would definitely suggest this reading to a public with a poor philosophical background (like me).

[Brandt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I happened upon this book in the philosophy section at the local library. Initially I was looking to read either Plato at the Googleplex or a book about the philosophy of the T.V. series Lost. After reading the cover insert and the preface, I couldn't resist this book. Needless to say, I was not disappointed. This book, a painstakingly written reconstruction of 25 intriguing dialogues from the podcast Philosophy Bites, explores some of the most intriguing thoughts in modern philosophy, from philosophers themselves. Nigel Warburton's ability to focus the topics of discussion, and his keen understanding of philosophy, make this much more than a book; this is a true dialogue. I really can't say enough about Warburton's ability to force those philosophers interviewed, to clearly define and explain their positions; it is really a rare treat to read. Whether you are just interested in the way people think, or you are a practiced philosopher, this book appeals to all. The dialogues are not limited to the usual grandeur of philosophical discussion, and include such diverse topics as infinity, evil, time, friendship, animals, sport, and tragedy. Reading it is akin to eating an everything bagel smothered in the best cream cheese ever created! The only reason for the four star rating as opposed to five, is that the information is enjoyable, but not life changing. If you enjoy this kind of stuff, this book is for you!

[Jon · Rating 1 out of 5]

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 whatever people believe is a code of moral behavior that teaches people to be kind to their neighbor and do good whenever we can.
Many of the chapters of this book challenged that idea by justifying behavior such as incest, homosexuality, abortion and bestiality or trying to argue "Does God not exist because an all-powerful God wouldn't allow the creation of so much evil and suffering or Does God not exist because an all-loving God wouldn't allow us to live with so much evil and suffering." Seriously, are those the only two options? The other topics that didn't deal with moral behavior were quite boring instead of thought provoking.
Overall, every section of this book was either too offensive or too boring to finish.

[Michael Fong · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 take pleasure in darkness? Incest – why does it disgust? Wine – what’s the fuss, and why not orange juice? Living well – can we justify the costs of an aesthetic lifestyle while the poor reckon greatly?

At times, the answers come limp, short-changed. Nonetheless, good questions have been asked. It’s then the business of the conscience to build upon its self with heftier works and thought.

[Mohsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Im not really big on pure phikosophical books, yet this one for me has been a truly excellent experience.

The book excellently gives an over-all look on the state of contemporary philosophy, by providing the ideas in the form of coversations. The way philosophy is meant to be learned and known about if you ask me.

This truly shows that we, as a human race, are lucky to have excellent thinkers, yet cursed to have absolute idiots calling themselves thinkers. The use of linguistic vagueness can be seen in its extremes in this book, which shows, sadly, why philosophy is not taken seriously in our times.

[Max Flentge · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was BAD. I stopped reading at page 142/240.

Philosophy (much like psychology) is littered with wishy-washy pseudo-intellectual metaphysical bullshit, but this book took it to a different level...

Interesting questions are posed by the interviewers, but more often than not the philosophers completely fail to answer them. You'll encounter a lot of mindless rhetoric, circular reasoning, and just plain bad answers. To make things worse, only a few pages are spent answering each question, so you definitely can't expect any depth from any of the answers either. Don't waste your time with this garbage.

[Ryan Mishap · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 of.

Highly recommended.

[Sortal · Rating 2 out of 5]

The bite format sacrifices in depth discussion without any pay off. I expected this to be fun to read, but most of the bites are rather bland: they rehash old ideas, often without supporting those ideas with arguments. If this were my first encounter with philosophy, I'd probably be put off learning more.

[Dalal · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a very good book. Comprehensible. Makes you think all the time of the subjects being discussed in the book. Makes you compare things. Explains the difference between one terminology and the other.It shows how philosophers and normal people think.
It's a must read.

[Michael Moseley · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great little book about Philosophy. Full of interersting little bits that make you think and want to find out more. Like when does a heam of sand stop being a heap of sand when you take away a grain of sand at a time. I would recomend this book to anyone.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Jack Coleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[T.A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-provoking dialogues into the various areas of philosophy. Particularly enlightening were the sections on ethics and politics.

[Ed Smiley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Succinct bite sized pieces of philosophy.
About right sized to those who are philo-sophical (lovers of knowlege) but not philosophers.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoy the podcast and the book is a continuation of that informal and conversational approach.

[Jeem · Rating 4 out of 5]

insightful, triggers reconsiderations..
Gotta have a second reading soon.

[Shishir · Rating 3 out of 5]

A concise book covering many aspects of Philosophy conveniently packaged in bite sized portions
Good source of quick and broad reference

[Anne, Unfinished Woman]

Co-author: Nigel Warburton
Second Edition, 2010, Oxford University Press
UO Bookstore: $15.95 (6.98), New
British

[Dan · Rating 2 out of 5]

A few interesting topics, but this bite size conversation can hardly go deep.

[Freddie · Rating 3 out of 5]

pretty cool and easy way to be introduced to different topics of anglo-american philosophy as it is today.

[Memduh Er · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rezalet bir çeviri, çok güzel bir kitap...

[Hossein Forootan · Rating 4 out of 5]

جذاب، کم‌حجم، متنوع
از جلد دو همین سری بسیار مفیدتر است
جلد بی‌ربط

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

With the surge of scientific advancements, political order and the sort, philosophy really does sometimes seem like just something of the past. So this remarkable book (and initially, podcast) does a decent job of dispelling this sentiment; philosophers are still there, the problems are still there, and there's still thinking (and discourse) to be done.

Covering five areas of ethics, politics, metaphysics and mind, aesthetics and god, I found the discussions to be surprisingly compelling. As someone who is very interested in philosophy but daunted by philosophical texts, I was able to go along with their talks without much difficulty, or without getting bored; for the topics they talk on are all extremely relevant and interesting. The interviewer is good, as he is a philosopher themselves, and his ability to ask all the right questions were highly satisfying.

Of course, still the best part is that I feel like I've walked away really having learnt something, having gained some true insight into these popular topics, gained a perspective to look I things I'd have thought of myself. (Though I found that my opinions and trains-of-thought aligned almost perfectly with Singer's - which I was somewhat delighted by.)

The book serves its purpose, and the conversations translated well into text, so it's five stars for me.