What do you think?
Rate this book
The FOUR DIMENSIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, METAPHYSICAL, MORAL OBJECTIVE, CATEGORICAL
This book is about philosophy's relationship to and difference from other disciplines, such as history, maths, physics, and even poetry. The author demonstrates how philosophy - like history, but unlike physics - is reflexive. That is, one may write a history of history as well as a history of physics, but not a physics of physics.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
273 pages, Board Book
First published January 1, 1993
12 people are currently reading
251 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
571 books1,027 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 28, 2012
This book should be read by anybody who is considering higher education (Master's or PhD), and especially by those who are interested in philosophy. Adler explains the main domains of philosophical research in the first part of the book. In the final chapter he gives a brief history of philosophy, concentrating on the procedural aspects of philosophical research throughout the main era's of history. This last chapter is a must read for anybody who wants to engage in any type of discussion about Philosophy, whether they want to discard it or engage in it.
February 4, 2017
I'm not sure why I keep reading introductions to philosophy but I'm enjoying them.
June 7, 2024
LARGELY AN UPDATING OF ADLER’S 1965 BOOK, “THE CONDITIONS OF PHILOSOPHY”
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research.
He wrote in the Prologue of this 1993 book, “This is a philosophical book about philosophy and about its relation to and difference from other disciplines, such as history, mathematics, and empirical science, and also works of the intellectual imagination, such as stories, novels, and plays… Why philosophy is everybody’s business, as no other use of one’s mind is, will become clearer… as this book … develops… To say that every thinking individual is, in reflective moments, a philosopher, and that everyone philosophizes and is enriched by doing so is not to say that everyone should aspire to become a professor of philosophy.” (Pg. vii, ix)
He continues, “questions spell out the query that people raise when the subject of philosophy is broached: What is it about? What is it up to? This book attempts to answer these questions in a way that makes sense … The answers here proposed have been maturing in my mind since I began the study of philosophy at Columbia more than seventy years ago…” (Pg. xii)
He states, “Theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking have gone beyond their authority in denying the reality of the immaterial… what has no interest for their empiriometric mode of inquiry should not lead to the denial of the reality that is studied by history, the social sciences, and philosophy… [Hawking] goes further than Einstein in asserting, with impudent arrogance, that what is not measurable by physicists does not exist in reality. Both commonsense realism and the critical realm of philosophy hold that existence can be attributed to the human mind… To each of us, without investigation, the reality of his or her own mind is evident… These real existences are suprasensible… But that is no ground for denying their reality. In short, reality extends … to the realm of that which is intelligible, the real existence of which can be known by inference, even if it is not an object of sense-perception.” (Pg. 25)
He observes, “The question whether a spiritual Supreme Being exists is clearly a purely philosophical question… But let us suppose that one of the premises in the argument attempting to prove God’s existence is a proposition asserting that the cosmos is radically contingent. It is capable of not being… The crucial proposition in the proof of God’s existence as the exnihilating cause of a radically contingent cosmos is the statement that what is capable of being otherwise is capable of not being at all… I think [the natural sciences] confirm the radical contingency of the cosmos, but others may think the opposite… then it follows that a proof of God’s existence that has been developed in philosophical theology has been, to that extent, discredited; and philosophical theology must get to work revising its proof.” (Pg. 34)
He acknowledges, “it is important to remember that the philosophical knowledge with which we are dealing … is knowledge in the sphere of doubt, never knowledge beyond the shadow of doubt. To regard knowledge as in the sphere of doubt does not amount to a skeptical denial of knowledge. Since such knowledge is always corrigible and amendable, we should never claim for a philosophical doctrine … that it is true. To call it true smacks of a finality and incorrigibility that it does not possess. It would, therefore, be better to make the more modest claim that, at any given time, it is truer than competing alternatives…” (Pg. 42)
He suggests, “When philosophy gets out of touch with common sense… its doctrines tend to become esoteric, if not outlandish. When this happens, philosophical discourse becomes filled with technical jargon… Philosophical discourse, when it is in touch with common sense and harmonious with it, has no need whatsoever for any special jargon… However, while the avoidance of all technical jargon in philosophical discourse is a desideratum, a recourse to the vocabulary of everyday speech must be accompanied by great precision in the use of its words…” (Pg. 48)
He asserts, “I think we are compelled to regard the contributions of philosophy as having greater value for us than the contributions of science. I say this even though we must all gratefully acknowledge the benefits that science and its technological applications confer upon us… Without the prescriptive knowledge given us by ethical and political philosophy, we have no guidance in the use of that [scientific] power, directing it to the ends of a good life and a good society. The more power science and technology confer upon us, the more dangerous and malevolent that power may become unless its use is checked and guided by moral obligations stemming from our philosophical knowledge of how we ought to conduct our lives and our society.” (Pg. 71)
He contends, “The dogmatic claims of positivism are widely prevalent … not only among scientists… [but also] in the unthinking multitudes who are overly impressed by the achievements of science and technology. It is the central thesis of this book that such positivism is a mistake. There are transempirical aspects of reality that cannot be scientifically investigated and measured… In addition, there is knowledge of reality through common experience and common sense that falls outside the sphere of the special experience that scientific investigation relies upon for the knowledge it acquires.” (Pg. 76-77)
He admits, “This brings us… to the mention of the great metaphysical arguments: for the reality of God; for the reality of free will; for the immateriality of the human intellect; and for the immortality of the intellectual soul… In each case, the question about existence in reality is being asked about an object which has intentional existence as an object of thought… Being able to raise such metaphysical questions leaves open the question whether they can be answered affirmatively. If materialism could ever be proved by well-grounded negative answers to the metaphysical questions … that would turn materialism from dogmatic and unfounded opinion into metaphysical knowledge.” (Pg. 123)
He says, “If fact, it may be said that political philosophy is the only dimension of philosophy in which great progress has been made and is still to be made in the future.” (Pg. 133) Later, he adds, “two serious obstacles still remain: nationalism and, even worse, tribalism… The two political imperatives that must win the allegiance of everyone are the abolition of nationalism and the abolition of tribalism… the final step of progress in political philosophy is to incorporate it in the thesis that world peace through federal government is an indispensable part of the ideal that ought to be sought.” (Pg. 141)
He notes, “The analysis of IDEAS is a dimension of philosophy, not the business of science, history, mathematics, or poetry. Those engaged in other intellectual disciplines have to become philosophical when they engage with philosophers in the study of great IDEAS, which is the proper business of philosophers when they work in its third dimension.” (Pg. 154)
He concludes, “IF the negative features of philosophy’s past are eliminated from its future, as they CAN be---and IF the positive features that I have enumerated are preserved, consolidated, and enhanced, as they also CAN BE---then it follows that philosophy CAN HAVE a brighter future than its past. The full realization of that possibility just indicated may require a future far beyond the present century… The gradual achievement of maturity in the philosophical enterprise may require a much longer span than the three hundred years… during which science appears to have outgrown its infancy and to have matured.” (Pg. 260)
Largely a “summing up” work for Adler (who literally quotes his own earlier works frequently), this book would be a fine introduction to his philosophical work.
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research.
He wrote in the Prologue of this 1993 book, “This is a philosophical book about philosophy and about its relation to and difference from other disciplines, such as history, mathematics, and empirical science, and also works of the intellectual imagination, such as stories, novels, and plays… Why philosophy is everybody’s business, as no other use of one’s mind is, will become clearer… as this book … develops… To say that every thinking individual is, in reflective moments, a philosopher, and that everyone philosophizes and is enriched by doing so is not to say that everyone should aspire to become a professor of philosophy.” (Pg. vii, ix)
He continues, “questions spell out the query that people raise when the subject of philosophy is broached: What is it about? What is it up to? This book attempts to answer these questions in a way that makes sense … The answers here proposed have been maturing in my mind since I began the study of philosophy at Columbia more than seventy years ago…” (Pg. xii)
He states, “Theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking have gone beyond their authority in denying the reality of the immaterial… what has no interest for their empiriometric mode of inquiry should not lead to the denial of the reality that is studied by history, the social sciences, and philosophy… [Hawking] goes further than Einstein in asserting, with impudent arrogance, that what is not measurable by physicists does not exist in reality. Both commonsense realism and the critical realm of philosophy hold that existence can be attributed to the human mind… To each of us, without investigation, the reality of his or her own mind is evident… These real existences are suprasensible… But that is no ground for denying their reality. In short, reality extends … to the realm of that which is intelligible, the real existence of which can be known by inference, even if it is not an object of sense-perception.” (Pg. 25)
He observes, “The question whether a spiritual Supreme Being exists is clearly a purely philosophical question… But let us suppose that one of the premises in the argument attempting to prove God’s existence is a proposition asserting that the cosmos is radically contingent. It is capable of not being… The crucial proposition in the proof of God’s existence as the exnihilating cause of a radically contingent cosmos is the statement that what is capable of being otherwise is capable of not being at all… I think [the natural sciences] confirm the radical contingency of the cosmos, but others may think the opposite… then it follows that a proof of God’s existence that has been developed in philosophical theology has been, to that extent, discredited; and philosophical theology must get to work revising its proof.” (Pg. 34)
He acknowledges, “it is important to remember that the philosophical knowledge with which we are dealing … is knowledge in the sphere of doubt, never knowledge beyond the shadow of doubt. To regard knowledge as in the sphere of doubt does not amount to a skeptical denial of knowledge. Since such knowledge is always corrigible and amendable, we should never claim for a philosophical doctrine … that it is true. To call it true smacks of a finality and incorrigibility that it does not possess. It would, therefore, be better to make the more modest claim that, at any given time, it is truer than competing alternatives…” (Pg. 42)
He suggests, “When philosophy gets out of touch with common sense… its doctrines tend to become esoteric, if not outlandish. When this happens, philosophical discourse becomes filled with technical jargon… Philosophical discourse, when it is in touch with common sense and harmonious with it, has no need whatsoever for any special jargon… However, while the avoidance of all technical jargon in philosophical discourse is a desideratum, a recourse to the vocabulary of everyday speech must be accompanied by great precision in the use of its words…” (Pg. 48)
He asserts, “I think we are compelled to regard the contributions of philosophy as having greater value for us than the contributions of science. I say this even though we must all gratefully acknowledge the benefits that science and its technological applications confer upon us… Without the prescriptive knowledge given us by ethical and political philosophy, we have no guidance in the use of that [scientific] power, directing it to the ends of a good life and a good society. The more power science and technology confer upon us, the more dangerous and malevolent that power may become unless its use is checked and guided by moral obligations stemming from our philosophical knowledge of how we ought to conduct our lives and our society.” (Pg. 71)
He contends, “The dogmatic claims of positivism are widely prevalent … not only among scientists… [but also] in the unthinking multitudes who are overly impressed by the achievements of science and technology. It is the central thesis of this book that such positivism is a mistake. There are transempirical aspects of reality that cannot be scientifically investigated and measured… In addition, there is knowledge of reality through common experience and common sense that falls outside the sphere of the special experience that scientific investigation relies upon for the knowledge it acquires.” (Pg. 76-77)
He admits, “This brings us… to the mention of the great metaphysical arguments: for the reality of God; for the reality of free will; for the immateriality of the human intellect; and for the immortality of the intellectual soul… In each case, the question about existence in reality is being asked about an object which has intentional existence as an object of thought… Being able to raise such metaphysical questions leaves open the question whether they can be answered affirmatively. If materialism could ever be proved by well-grounded negative answers to the metaphysical questions … that would turn materialism from dogmatic and unfounded opinion into metaphysical knowledge.” (Pg. 123)
He says, “If fact, it may be said that political philosophy is the only dimension of philosophy in which great progress has been made and is still to be made in the future.” (Pg. 133) Later, he adds, “two serious obstacles still remain: nationalism and, even worse, tribalism… The two political imperatives that must win the allegiance of everyone are the abolition of nationalism and the abolition of tribalism… the final step of progress in political philosophy is to incorporate it in the thesis that world peace through federal government is an indispensable part of the ideal that ought to be sought.” (Pg. 141)
He notes, “The analysis of IDEAS is a dimension of philosophy, not the business of science, history, mathematics, or poetry. Those engaged in other intellectual disciplines have to become philosophical when they engage with philosophers in the study of great IDEAS, which is the proper business of philosophers when they work in its third dimension.” (Pg. 154)
He concludes, “IF the negative features of philosophy’s past are eliminated from its future, as they CAN be---and IF the positive features that I have enumerated are preserved, consolidated, and enhanced, as they also CAN BE---then it follows that philosophy CAN HAVE a brighter future than its past. The full realization of that possibility just indicated may require a future far beyond the present century… The gradual achievement of maturity in the philosophical enterprise may require a much longer span than the three hundred years… during which science appears to have outgrown its infancy and to have matured.” (Pg. 260)
Largely a “summing up” work for Adler (who literally quotes his own earlier works frequently), this book would be a fine introduction to his philosophical work.
February 3, 2023
Philosophy gets little to no respect in the contemporary world. It's considered too abstract and not relevant, the sort of thing that gets discussed in a college dorm room or during the later half of a cocktail party. Mortimer Adler, the chief editor of Encyclopedia Brittanica's Great Books of the Western World series, gives a defense of philosophy through a clarification of its place in human knowing.
Philosophy, with its root meaning (the love of wisdom--philo sophia), began in Greek and Roman antiquity as the primary way to know the world. The first great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, laid the foundation for almost all subsequent philosophical investigation. In their time, philosophy and science were practically synonymous, creating an awkward on-going relationship that has plagued philosophy for thousands of years. The competition between science and philosophy has reduced philosophy's public relevance since the seventeenth century, when science blossomed into its own distinct discipline. Adler distinguishes the two disciplines by their source material. Science uses specialized observations to increase knowledge of specific aspects of the physical world. Philosophy uses common experience and common sense to reflect on the world in general.
Philosophy looks at both first-order question (about the world itself) and second-order questions (about how we know the world). The first-order questions are divided into the descriptive (thus metaphysical knowledge of the being of things) and the proscriptive (thus moral knowledge of how to behave). The second-order questions also have two dimensions, based on the two meanings of the word "idea." "Ideas" in the sense we get from Plato are the intelligible objects of the mind, thus objective knowledge. "Ideas" are also the various types or categories of knowledge, thus categorical knowledge (so there's a philosophy of history or of psychology or other intellectual disciplines).
This book is very thorough and disciplined. Adler does a good job making distinctions between various concepts. He has a good grasp of the history of thought and the roles that philosophy, theology, science, and mathematics have played at various times. The text might be difficult for people who haven't read much philosophy before, i.e. he's a bit technical.
The book ends with a summation of the strengths and weaknesses of philosophical thinking in various ages (the classical, the medieval, and the contemporary). His analysis of the problems of philosophy and his proscriptions for a better philosophical future are interesting and inspiring.
Recommended for a good understanding of philosophy in general and its tumultuous relationship with science in particular.
Philosophy, with its root meaning (the love of wisdom--philo sophia), began in Greek and Roman antiquity as the primary way to know the world. The first great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, laid the foundation for almost all subsequent philosophical investigation. In their time, philosophy and science were practically synonymous, creating an awkward on-going relationship that has plagued philosophy for thousands of years. The competition between science and philosophy has reduced philosophy's public relevance since the seventeenth century, when science blossomed into its own distinct discipline. Adler distinguishes the two disciplines by their source material. Science uses specialized observations to increase knowledge of specific aspects of the physical world. Philosophy uses common experience and common sense to reflect on the world in general.
Philosophy looks at both first-order question (about the world itself) and second-order questions (about how we know the world). The first-order questions are divided into the descriptive (thus metaphysical knowledge of the being of things) and the proscriptive (thus moral knowledge of how to behave). The second-order questions also have two dimensions, based on the two meanings of the word "idea." "Ideas" in the sense we get from Plato are the intelligible objects of the mind, thus objective knowledge. "Ideas" are also the various types or categories of knowledge, thus categorical knowledge (so there's a philosophy of history or of psychology or other intellectual disciplines).
This book is very thorough and disciplined. Adler does a good job making distinctions between various concepts. He has a good grasp of the history of thought and the roles that philosophy, theology, science, and mathematics have played at various times. The text might be difficult for people who haven't read much philosophy before, i.e. he's a bit technical.
The book ends with a summation of the strengths and weaknesses of philosophical thinking in various ages (the classical, the medieval, and the contemporary). His analysis of the problems of philosophy and his proscriptions for a better philosophical future are interesting and inspiring.
Recommended for a good understanding of philosophy in general and its tumultuous relationship with science in particular.
July 25, 2007
There have traditionally been two approaches to works that introduce this amorphorous "philosophy" thing to lay readers. The first is the "topical kind," providing explanations of the various questions and methods of philosophy and the second is the "historical kind" that introduces the main western philosophers and their ideas. Mr. Adler's book, while leaning to the former, is a clever admixture of the two systems. He provides a clear, though at times, as he admits, limited, critique of post-Rennaissance philosophy (indeed, he expounds on this critique elsewhere). However, what is the most valuable element of this work is the discourse on the nature of the philosophical pursuits which Mr. Adler provides. Indeed, in this book are planted the seeds of a "Structure of Philosophical Revolutions." To the ever-so-unanswerable question of what the point of philosophy itself is, Mr. Adler presents a passionate defense of his discipline in light of its criticisms from the rest of the world. Albeit Mr. Adler's view on the importance of Aristotle and the blatant errors of modern philosophers are anything but a settled matter amongst any students of philosophy, for anybody curious to get a fresh, no-nonsense and, best of all, readable insight into the nature of philosophical inquiry itself it is a work I highly recommend. To all other less-lofty readers I recommend it highly as well, though with four stars, as the reviewer disagrees with some of Mr. Adler's conclusions on the importance and correctness of Aristotle.
March 31, 2020
Read this in the 90's.
I am reading/reviewing it now, 20191202. A lot of material I missed the first time around because I had no interest in comparing the different philosophers.
Reading Roger Penrose's silly references to Plato's world of IDEALS, or Morocca's outlandish praise of Kant as the founder of modern philosophy, inspires me to read more about someone other than Ayn Rand or Aristotle.
The first time(s) I read this book, I had a definite agenda to find support for my own Objectivist understanding. I overlooked the many other view points discussed and refuted here. If I want to be able to discuss these common, mistaken ideas then Adler's arguments are worth knowing.
I am reading/reviewing it now, 20191202. A lot of material I missed the first time around because I had no interest in comparing the different philosophers.
Reading Roger Penrose's silly references to Plato's world of IDEALS, or Morocca's outlandish praise of Kant as the founder of modern philosophy, inspires me to read more about someone other than Ayn Rand or Aristotle.
The first time(s) I read this book, I had a definite agenda to find support for my own Objectivist understanding. I overlooked the many other view points discussed and refuted here. If I want to be able to discuss these common, mistaken ideas then Adler's arguments are worth knowing.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews