What do you think?
Rate this book
Doing Philosophy: From Common Curiosity to Logical Reasoning
What are philosophers trying to achieve? How can they succeed? Does philosophy make progress? Is it in competition with science, or doing something completely different, or neither?
In Doing Philosophy ,Timothy Williamson tackles some of the key questions surrounding philosophy in new and provocative ways, showing how philosophy begins in common sense curiosity, and develops through our capacity to dispute rationally with each other. Discussing philosophy's ability to clarify our thoughts, he explains why such clarification depends on the development of philosophical theories, and how those theories can be tested by imaginative thought experiments, and compared against each other by standards similar to those used in the natural and social sciences. He also shows how logical rigor can be understood as a way of enhancing the explanatory power of philosophical theories.
Drawing on the history of philosophy to provide a track record of philosophical thinking's successes and failures, Williams overturns widely held dogmas about the distinctive nature of philosophy in comparison to the sciences, demystifies its methods, and considers the future of the discipline. From thought experiments, to deduction, to theories, this little book will cause you to totally rethink what philosophy is.
In Doing Philosophy ,Timothy Williamson tackles some of the key questions surrounding philosophy in new and provocative ways, showing how philosophy begins in common sense curiosity, and develops through our capacity to dispute rationally with each other. Discussing philosophy's ability to clarify our thoughts, he explains why such clarification depends on the development of philosophical theories, and how those theories can be tested by imaginative thought experiments, and compared against each other by standards similar to those used in the natural and social sciences. He also shows how logical rigor can be understood as a way of enhancing the explanatory power of philosophical theories.
Drawing on the history of philosophy to provide a track record of philosophical thinking's successes and failures, Williams overturns widely held dogmas about the distinctive nature of philosophy in comparison to the sciences, demystifies its methods, and considers the future of the discipline. From thought experiments, to deduction, to theories, this little book will cause you to totally rethink what philosophy is.
166 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
34 people are currently reading
365 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
May 1, 2020
Philosophy is a science, albeit a distinct one. It’s a science in that it's a methodical and logical field of inquiry comparable with the natural sciences. Where the natural sciences study the natural world, philosophy studies the language and concepts we use to communicate about the world and the laws of logic that govern all forms of argumentation. Thus, philosophy is not in competition with the sciences. In fact, all scientific inquiry benefits from and ultimately depends upon philosophy.
(blinkist summary)
(blinkist summary)
June 21, 2021
Overall, this is a well-written overview of philsophical methodology and philosophers' toolbox. Though it doesn't cover all views on the field, it gives a sense of what happens in a philosophical study. Williamson defends the view according to which philosophy is a kind of autonomous "science" interconnected with other branches of science. Philosophy as a science answers to some certain kind of questions and has a specific methodology to do that.
I'm not sure that there is a consensus among philosophers on what should be considered as philosophical method. If I am right, that makes an objection to Williamson's view, because at least in a scientific paradigm, there are standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field. In my opinion, the one-sided analysis of the topic is a disadvantage of such an introductory book.
I'm not sure that there is a consensus among philosophers on what should be considered as philosophical method. If I am right, that makes an objection to Williamson's view, because at least in a scientific paradigm, there are standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field. In my opinion, the one-sided analysis of the topic is a disadvantage of such an introductory book.
April 4, 2020
This was a really nice (and basic) overview of the goals of philosophy and philosophical methodology. There wasn't heaps in here that I was unfamiliar with, but despite that I think it helped to systematise my understanding of philosophy.
August 1, 2019
“As a systematic, methodological form of inquiry, philosophy is a science, but not a natural science”.
The main thesis of this book is that philosophy is a kind of broadly-understood science. It argues for this claim as follows:
Overall, this is a great (although admittedly one-sided) analysis of philosophical methodology. I highly recommend it to philosophy students.
The main thesis of this book is that philosophy is a kind of broadly-understood science. It argues for this claim as follows:
- Chap 1) Common Sense. Both science and philosophy begin by aiming to explain the way things seem to be. Of course, the way things seem to be may turn out to be wrong. Nevertheless, it remains the natural starting point of inquiry. Theories are developed to explain why murder seems to be wrong, or why the sun seems to revolve around the earth.
- Chap 3) Disputing. Each theory tends to have both advocates and critics which dispute with each other to assess the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the particular theory. Both appeal to evidence to strengthen their theory, which tends to be intuitions in philosophy and observations in science. Both also appeal to counterevidence to weaken their opponent's theory, which tends to be intuitions or observations that contradict the theory. For example, utilitarians will point to utilitarianism's intuitive results (it is good to save someone's life because it maximises utility/happiness), while non-utilitarians will point to intuitions which contradict utilitarianism (it is wrong to kill an innocent person to save many others).
- Chap 5 & 6) Experiments & Comparing Theories. Counterevidence is discovered using experiments. Science generally uses natural experiments while philosophy generally uses thought experiments. Theories are then compared using the inference to the best explanation, which weighs the theoretical virtues of simplicity, coherence, and more, to decide between rival theories.
Overall, this is a great (although admittedly one-sided) analysis of philosophical methodology. I highly recommend it to philosophy students.
May 7, 2019
A decent little introduction to contemporary (primarily analytic) philosophy. Williamson focuses on the methodology of philosophy and sometimes contrasts and sometimes compares it to the other sciences. Williamson doesn't really touch on the subfield of ethics at all as he is mostly concerned with logic, epistemology and metaphysics. The author succeeds in emphasising the oft contested relevance of philosophy and is rather humble in his writing. For anyone not all too familiar with philosophy and it's methods, this is a nice place to start.
Read
December 10, 2019As I evaluate it, this is a book on ideas philosophically understood from within the analytic tradition which seriously tries to avoid the ultimate problem of skepticism. In the Introduction, Williamson notes Descartes’ “radical strategy of doubting what he could, including the whole world outside his mind, in order to rebuild science on the firm foundation of the few remaining certainties” (p. 1). Prior to its professional status in academia, philosophy is already in our lives both in trivial and important ways, the author maintains. In other words, philosophy is there as common sense. With this observation, I have no quarrel. But having read Leslie Dewart’s (1022-2009) Hume’s Challenge and the Renewal of Modern Philosophy, published posthumously, I do not concur with many of Williamson’s conclusions, since I am a philosopher who favours the phenomenological perspective. He seems to admit such a possibility when he writes: “Many philosophers will hate my picture of how to do philosophy. I leave the reader to judge” (p. 5).
I am not convinced that contemporary philosophy’s stagnated state (as Dewart described it) is solved by philosophers embracing the “appropriate scientific methods for answering their questions, which are questions of the traditional ambitious kind” (p. 5). However, that is not to say that the book is not worth the time taken to read it. In Chapter 9 Williamson advances some ways by which philosophy “learns from elsewhere” (p.111). He concludes the book by expressing the hope that philosophical methods can be improved, (possibly with the assistance of a future reader of his essay) just as scientific methods have been improved over time. I share a similar hope for the development of philosophy but, in light of Dewart’s insights, my hope is expressed through a phenomenological perspective.
I am not convinced that contemporary philosophy’s stagnated state (as Dewart described it) is solved by philosophers embracing the “appropriate scientific methods for answering their questions, which are questions of the traditional ambitious kind” (p. 5). However, that is not to say that the book is not worth the time taken to read it. In Chapter 9 Williamson advances some ways by which philosophy “learns from elsewhere” (p.111). He concludes the book by expressing the hope that philosophical methods can be improved, (possibly with the assistance of a future reader of his essay) just as scientific methods have been improved over time. I share a similar hope for the development of philosophy but, in light of Dewart’s insights, my hope is expressed through a phenomenological perspective.
August 5, 2020
A handy overview of how Williamson thinks about doing philosophy. His other works are technical and dry. This one, on the contrary, isn't technical and I get the impression that he tries not to be try, hence it's very accessible.
He calls elsewhere his view 'anti-exceptional', that is, there aren't special or unique (or peculiar for that matter) methods for philosophizing, rather the methods are continuous with other disciplines. They are tools for the pursuit of truth, which is a goal shared by many inquiries. For example, abduction (sometimes called inference to the best explanation, though they aren't exactly the same. It seems Williamson lumps them together) is practiced in mathematics for justifying axioms.
I am not sure how popular the anti-exceptionalism is. At least I know that Daniel Dennett endorses it. I guess many naturalistically inclined philosophers, by which I mean philosophers who conceives philosophy as continuous with science, will agree a lot with what williamson has says. So I suspect many so-called analytic philosophers resonate much with him.
For me, what's new to me is the chapter about model building. It shows to laypeople how doing philosophy with formal-mathematical tools is feasible, and how philosophy can be more in line with science in terms of methodology. Otherwise it's a refresher of something I know in a more systematic, and written by one of the most famous contemporary philosopher, manner.
Recommend this to people who want to glimpse how to do philosophy in our time advocated by a renowned philosopher.
He calls elsewhere his view 'anti-exceptional', that is, there aren't special or unique (or peculiar for that matter) methods for philosophizing, rather the methods are continuous with other disciplines. They are tools for the pursuit of truth, which is a goal shared by many inquiries. For example, abduction (sometimes called inference to the best explanation, though they aren't exactly the same. It seems Williamson lumps them together) is practiced in mathematics for justifying axioms.
I am not sure how popular the anti-exceptionalism is. At least I know that Daniel Dennett endorses it. I guess many naturalistically inclined philosophers, by which I mean philosophers who conceives philosophy as continuous with science, will agree a lot with what williamson has says. So I suspect many so-called analytic philosophers resonate much with him.
For me, what's new to me is the chapter about model building. It shows to laypeople how doing philosophy with formal-mathematical tools is feasible, and how philosophy can be more in line with science in terms of methodology. Otherwise it's a refresher of something I know in a more systematic, and written by one of the most famous contemporary philosopher, manner.
Recommend this to people who want to glimpse how to do philosophy in our time advocated by a renowned philosopher.
May 25, 2025
Dr. Williamson names multiple disciplines that he is convinced philosophy needs. These include economics, social anthropology, computer science, psychology, and other fields. What is not mentioned? Theology. You know, the Queen of all sciences to which philosophy used to be a handmaiden. It is not, therefore, a surprise that the readers find the following "modest" words in the book:
"Classical logic is a good theory of the most abstract and general features of the real world. It has no transcendental justification, no proof that ultimately no challenge to it makes sense. It needs no such justification." p.95
In fact, logic does need such a justification. The author cannot provide one and is too arrogant to consider that it is found in the Triune God who made Dr. Williamson in His image to reflect His wisdom, knowledge and thought.
This is not a bad book but it is a book where a child plays with the toys and capital given to him by his Father, a form of cosmic plagiarism.
"Classical logic is a good theory of the most abstract and general features of the real world. It has no transcendental justification, no proof that ultimately no challenge to it makes sense. It needs no such justification." p.95
In fact, logic does need such a justification. The author cannot provide one and is too arrogant to consider that it is found in the Triune God who made Dr. Williamson in His image to reflect His wisdom, knowledge and thought.
This is not a bad book but it is a book where a child plays with the toys and capital given to him by his Father, a form of cosmic plagiarism.
November 28, 2019
“Philosophy is a science, albeit a distinct one. It’s a science in that it's a methodical and logical field of inquiry comparable with the natural sciences. Where the natural sciences study the natural world, philosophy studies the language and concepts we use to communicate about the world and the laws of logic that govern all forms of argumentation. Thus, philosophy is not in competition with the sciences. In fact, all scientific inquiry benefits from and ultimately depends upon philosophy.
Actionable advice:
Sharpen your analytical thinking skills by putting one of your convictions to the test.
First, think of something that you really, firmly believe. Write it down. It could be something as simple as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” Now, try to come up with two or three reasons why that belief may be false. Then, respond to each of the points with a good counter-argument.”
Actionable advice:
Sharpen your analytical thinking skills by putting one of your convictions to the test.
First, think of something that you really, firmly believe. Write it down. It could be something as simple as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” Now, try to come up with two or three reasons why that belief may be false. Then, respond to each of the points with a good counter-argument.”
June 13, 2021
Philosophy is a science, albeit a distinct one. It’s a science in that it's a methodical and logical field of inquiry comparable with the natural sciences. Where the natural sciences study the natural world, philosophy studies the language and concepts we use to communicate about the world and the laws of logic that govern all forms of argumentation. Thus, philosophy is not in competition with the sciences. In fact, all scientific inquiry benefits from and ultimately depends upon philosophy.
Sharpen your analytical thinking skills by putting one of your convictions to the test. First, think of something that you really, firmly believe. Write it down. It could be something as simple as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” Now, try to come up with two or three reasons why that belief may be false. Then, respond to each of the points with a good counter-argument.
Sharpen your analytical thinking skills by putting one of your convictions to the test. First, think of something that you really, firmly believe. Write it down. It could be something as simple as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” Now, try to come up with two or three reasons why that belief may be false. Then, respond to each of the points with a good counter-argument.
April 11, 2025
Williamson gives a list of philosophy's tasks (debating, clarifying, collecting arguments) and highlights some of them as particularly helpful to pull current day philosophers out of analysis paralysis. Philosophy is famous for its tendency to ruminate and revise the fundamental thesis (to the extent where no substantial results comes out the other end). Sometimes this is done merely as a habit of occupation, but at other times it can be developed into a professional taste. When this is the case, building this entire philosophical enterprise on an eliminative, quietist project can bring us off course from the main task: truth-seeking.
This book is a very timely work filled with answers for anyone who questions the relevance of contemporary professional philosophy. A refreshing read and a nice lift of spirit. It feels helpful for both professional and non-professional philosophers to regain a perspective in which philosophy, at the very core of its function, plays a constructive role in modern day life. At least I find his argument very cogent and gives a sense of purposefulness with the technical "worldview" of philosophy it provides.
*Took one star off because the writing sometimes feels hasty (e.g., with unpacked and siloed opinions, given in form of consecutive assertions), leaving me feel unsure about what to make of the role the comment plays in his argument as a whole. Notwithstanding, The flow of the entire book feels just fine on a macroscopic scale.
This book is a very timely work filled with answers for anyone who questions the relevance of contemporary professional philosophy. A refreshing read and a nice lift of spirit. It feels helpful for both professional and non-professional philosophers to regain a perspective in which philosophy, at the very core of its function, plays a constructive role in modern day life. At least I find his argument very cogent and gives a sense of purposefulness with the technical "worldview" of philosophy it provides.
*Took one star off because the writing sometimes feels hasty (e.g., with unpacked and siloed opinions, given in form of consecutive assertions), leaving me feel unsure about what to make of the role the comment plays in his argument as a whole. Notwithstanding, The flow of the entire book feels just fine on a macroscopic scale.
Read
June 4, 2020As for philosophy, it is about issues that give general information about life, the universe, principle, and hostility. Therefore, it may be called cosmic knowledge, and this is not specific to a special group of information, such as science, which is a private sect, and therefore speaks in philosophy about existence and non-existence. And the essence, essences, symptoms, etc., and that was why the philosopher in the previous time seeks to absorb science, then seeks to extract unified philosophy from all of those.
January 26, 2025
When beginning to read I thought, well, another philosophy 101 - but it is not exactly that - it is more focused on the method rather than history. I found the ideas discussed pretty simple, but the writing a bit too complicated, but all in all it was kind of fulfilling what it was out to do even if not in a satisfactory manner. The writing style made me not want to read more that he has written, but since some of the other books look interesting from the outside I may read some of them at a later time after all.
June 8, 2022
Timothy Williamson is the Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford University. His book aims to explain how to do philosophy well by cantering through various schools, including the history and science of philosophy, to set out how they approach problems. I found some parts (e.g. the history sections) easier to follow than others (notably the logic section) but if you’re thinking of studying philosophy it’s definitely worth a look.
December 12, 2025
I think this book is this short version from Chris Daly's An Introduction to Philosophical Methods. As common analytics philosophers, Williamson had written the book clearly, economically, and organizedly. Next I'll probably read his The Philosophy of Philosophy. I am writing a thesis about some topics of metaphilosophy now. Anyway, I have written a review on the book: https://farisahmadtoyyib.wordpress.co...
July 29, 2023
Amazing, if you are into philosophy for clear, understandable, exact, honest ideas. Also, it gives the true view of ideation, one rooted in the tradition of the greek dialectic. Furthermore, it takes into account both the two facts that the truth exists and that the best way to reach it is through cooperation and acceptable forms of skepticism.
November 20, 2019
كتاب لطيف لكسر الصور النمطية عن الفلاسفة والتوضيح اقتراب المنهجيات الفلسفية للمنهج العلمي.. عن تشكيك الفلاسفة بكل نتاجات الفلاسفة وانتاجهم الفكري.. عن التجارب الفكرية وعن أثر الفلسفة في تطوير حياتنا وقدمنا العلمي.
August 3, 2020
A great book for the advanced philosopher wanting to get back to the roots of reasoning from time to time. The absolute beginner might be discouraged after a few pages, the book can get quite technical and this can be an unpleasant surprise since it's not advertised as such.
February 22, 2019
It was wounderful, author clearly stated the art and the position of whitch philosophy rule stands on.
Although ,oversimplified and in some points unnecessary extension of words,well organized.
Although ,oversimplified and in some points unnecessary extension of words,well organized.
November 28, 2019
I read the Blinkist abridgement
April 27, 2021
This book clarifies the difference between philosophy and science.
May 28, 2021
It was a great summary of philosophy and its epistemology. I had logic in my first year of philosophy and didn't enjoy it that much, that why some parts of the book gave me logic PTSD.
December 24, 2022
I really loved this brief, clear introduction to philosophy.
March 14, 2023
Easier to read
June 30, 2024
Very good introduction to philosophy. Would recommend to anyone interested in what it is really about and what one should expect from studying it.
May 26, 2019
Very analytical, a bit too generic but a fine introduction into philosophy and a nice plea in a modern world.
April 18, 2019
Does what it says on the tin, it's a clear guide to the methods we use to do philosophy. I read it as a refresher while I try to sort out a framework for introducing my young children to critical thinking and logical reasoning. If they were older, I would have simply passed them this book. There is none of the usual name dropping, assumed knowledge, or obscure referencing that often scares people off of their curiosity toward philosophy. Easy to follow and very instructive.
Read this before you start your freshman Phil class, and you'll be in good shape.
Read this before you start your freshman Phil class, and you'll be in good shape.
Read
October 29, 2018101 W7324 2018
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews