The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods

by Peter S. Fosl, Julian Baggini

The third edition of this popular compendium provides the necessary intellectual equipment to engage with and participate in effective philosophical argument, reading, and reflection. The book features significantly revised, updated, and expanded entries, along with a broad, pluralistic approach--appealing to readers in both continental philosophy and the history of philosophy, as well as analytic philosophy. The author explains difficult concepts in an easily accessible manner, and addresses the use and application of these concepts. The Philosopher's Toolkit has proven useful to philosophy students at both beginning and advanced levels.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Reference, Logic, Self Help, Education, Academic

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

Reviews

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been looking about for a good reference-work on the conceptual tools used in philosophy, and even a bit curious about the tools used by those often dismissed as philosophical cranks.

This book is well-organized and well-describes, in the limits imposed by its size, the methods and ideas that thinkers throughout history have used.

This is not a book for telling you what is true, you must look elsewhere for that, but one that gives you a basic outline of ways to properly frame and ask your questions, perhaps to find out on your own.

Here and there are lots of examples and illustrations of the thinking tools used to help you understand the sometimes strange, and even seemingly absurd ideas discussed in the field.

I was a little intimidated by the organization and cross-referencing in this book, but that actually proven very helpful in understanding related sets of ideas that may be in separate categories, for it allows a better understanding of concepts as they form a more complete whole.

I recommend this book for anyone interested in taking up philosophy as a hobby, and as a starter for those taking it up as a vocation.

[Richard Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the recently published third edition of this book - although how different it is from previous editions I do not know.

I suppose this is best thought of as a reference book, with short sections on a wide variety of philosophical tools, techniques and theories. I read it end-to-end as one of my background reads (I normally have several books on the go) and enjoyed it. As someone with a reasonable philosophy background much was simple reminders, but I enjoyed most the introduction to areas of philosophy I’ve not studied and will no go on to read more about. This was helped by a short section of recommended references for every topic.

But having said I enjoyed it I’m not sure who this book is for. I suspect it will not be of interest to a complete beginner in philosophy as you can’t really understand philosophy in such short pieces with no over-arching discussion, and much is too shallow for someone with any significant philosophical training.

If you are like me and are happy to read reference books like this to refresh ideas I should not have forgotten and be pointed to new areas of exploration useful. For anyone else, I'm not sure!

[Pspealman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a solid introduction to the tools of the debate. Not a philosophical text, not a dictionary, it lives up to it's name as a serviceable toolkit for the back and forth of various philosophical stances.

Each chapter is a brief of the subject at hand, historical approaches, the assumptions of those approaches, and lastly how every single philosophical stance is ultimately undermined by either a succinct argument, logical inconsistency, or pithy quip.

If you've ever wanted to be a smug know it all who crushes your less-than-rigorous enemies, yearns to see their cherished beliefs driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women (or some superlative noun of your own devising) . .. .then this book is for you.

[Mohamed · Rating 4 out of 5]

واضح ومختصر لكنه موجز في بعض النقاط بطريقه لا تكفي لشرح الفكرة.
أفضل الفصول واكثرها تشويقا هي
الفصل الرابع الخاص بتمييز المفاهيم وهو يوضح عده مفاهيم فلسفيه عن طريق التقابل .
الفصل السادس وهو يتكلم عن ادوات مدارس النقد الشهيرة اعجبني شرحه لنقد السلطة عن ميشيل فوكو.
الفصل السابع يناقش مواضيع عده ذات اهمية فلسفية كبيرة
واخيرا الاستفاده الاكبر كانت من الاحالات على كتب للقراءة في نهاية كل جزء.
الكتاب مناسب جدا لي كهاوي للفلسفة بفضل لغته البسيطه.

[Sandu MIHAI · Rating 5 out of 5]

Începând să citesc mai serios despre filosofie și propunându-mi chiar abordarea scrierilor clasicilor domeniului, una din întrebări era aceea legată de instrumentelor unui filosof. Asta până ce am dat de acest volum, care, iată face oarece lumină într-un domeniu în care, cel puțin la început, cam orbecăi…

Dar, nu, să nu ai impresia că trusa cu sculele filosofului îi este dedicată exclusiv acestuia. Dacă ai „puțintică răbdare, stimabile”, vei vedea că volumul conține o chintesență clară a unor lucruri pe care le întâlnești ici și colo, fără a putea să le faci un inventar. Cartea de față reușește acest lucru, ne oferă în paragrafe scurte esența modalităților în care se pot aborda problemele vieții, chiar și în viața de zi cu zi, nu doar cele abordate „filosofic”.

Vei descoperi o carte bine organizată și bine scrisă, date fiind limitele impuse de dimensiunea ei; vei găsi metodele și ideile aparținând diverșilor gânditori, de-a lungul istoriei filosofiei, dar și modul lor de folosire. Ea oferă o schiță de bază a modalităților de a încadra problemele și de a pune întrebările adecvate, în procesul individual de a afla răspunsuri. Referințele încrucișate și legăturile astfel făcute între diversele subcapitole permit o mai bună înțelegere a conceptelor.
Din nou, de precizat că volumul poate fi considerat o carte de referință, cu secțiuni scurte despre o mare varietate de instrumente, tehnici și teorii filosofice. Prin carte de referință, desigur că se înțelege una la care, cel puțin din când în când, revii pentru a-ți reaminti ceva de care te lovești de-a lungul vieții. Și încă o precizare: desigur, nu poți spune că înțelegi cu adevărat filozofia prin intermediul unor paragrafe atât de scurte, dar acestea pot stârni curiozități pentru căutarea de lecturi suplimentare asociate. Setul de instrumente al filosofului este chiar un compendiu al celor mai importante instrumente și concepte pe care le folosesc filosofii. Textul este foarte util și accesibil în clarificarea termenilor și conceptelor filosofice de bază în șapte capitole.

Mai mult, într-o eră a dezinformării, așa cum se prezintă epoca noastră, toată lumea ar trebui să citească o astfel de carte pentru a obține mai multe perspective, în vederea analizei corecte a informațiilor primite.
Întregul recenzumat aici...

[Tiago F · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you pick any philosophy introduction book, you're likely going to offer a history of philosophy. They often start chronologically. So you may start with Socrates, and then Plato and Socrates. Then you will likely cover Augustine, Hume, Kant, and so forth. It finishes with a contemporary philosopher and that's it.

This gives you a brief outlook on the history of philosophy, which is certainly interesting to learn and very much needed. However, there is something odd about it because it doesn't actually teach you how to do philosophy. It's a history lesson more than anything else.

For instance, if you learn about Hume but you disagree with some of his arguments, you automatically come up with a rebuttal in your head. That's doing philosophy and doesn't necessarily require historical knowledge (although it's very useful).

This is what this book is about. How philosophy is actually done. I got it precisely because while a historical account is indispensable, it's not sufficient. And I found myself getting too comfortable in expanding my knowledge without feeling like I was improving my competency at analysis and critique.

This book isn't a miracle and it won't make you a good philosopher by reading it. That requires many years of practice and quite honestly just raw intelligence. Nevertheless, it does help, at least at providing you with a foundation you can build on.

The first part is a standard introduction to logic. How arguments work, deduction, induction, validity, axioms, and so forth. This was a bit disappointing since it is somewhat basic. However afterwards it started to get a bit more complicated and I found it more useful. Do you know what the fallacy of denying the antecedent means?

The fallacy of denying the antecedent works like this:
1. If p, then q.
2. Not p.
3. Therefore, not q.

As an example:
1. If you are in your bedroom, then you have slippers
2. You're not in your bedroom
3. Therefore you don't have slippers

This is a rather basic example of logic, but I chose it to exemplify that some more formal aspects of philosophy can be overwhelming due to their jargon but once you learn it they are not that intimidating. Most examples, especially as the book progresses, are more complex. But overall they are still accessible.

Don't be mistaken to think the book is only about logic, however. I was surprised by how much the book covered, not only in sheer quantity but also in several kinds of "philosophical tools". One of my favourite sections deals with conceptual distinctions that philosophers have used. For example a priori vs a posteriori, nothingness vs being, realist vs non-realist, analytic vs synthetic, etc. The last section was also very enjoyable, which looked at methods of critique, such as the class critique of Marx, the critique of power from Foucault, or the metaphysics critique of Heidegger.

To be fair, it had more history into it than I initially expected. However, in hindsight that was unavoidable, and certainly not a negative aspect of it. The binary opposition of history vs practice I mentioned still applies, although it's certainly not a black and white distinction. And this truly has a strong bias towards practice. And it's very much needed for most people.

It was a great read and I'm glad I choose it. It gave me exactly what I wanted. If you're serious about studying philosophy, then this book is a must-read. Or at least a similar one, which I don't think I know any with this casual spirit and not being a textbook. However it might be a bit tedious if you're completely new to the subject. Having a read a few more standard philosophy books first is recommended.

[Islomjon · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Philosopher's Toolkit" proved once again that philosophy and understanding its principles is complex for an ordinary person with non-philosophical background. Book demonstrates its ineffable value if one uses it properly because it discusses relevant topics, or 'tools', to understand, verify, proof philosophical theories or arguments. There are some new terms that are crucial for savvy person to understand and use in its speaches or writings. Furthermore, it is very convenient in the future if you want to revise some topics.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bagini, Julian and Fosl, Peter S. The Philosopher’s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

If the word “philosophy” alarms you, as it might some pietists, substitute “critical thinking” and this book will give you a crash course in key concepts used in the literature. The book is divided into seven sections, with each section denoted 3.1, 3.2, etc. Section 1 deals with the basic tools of argumentation (validity, soundness, etc). Section 2 explores more advanced topics, such as abduction and dialectic. Section 3 covers most of the basic fallacies. Section 4 is the most important in the book. Chapter 5 explores historical tools (e.g., Leibniz’s Law, Ockham’s Razor, etc.). Chapter 6 explores what will later be called “critical theory.”

In section 4 he deals with a number of powerful concepts. For example, analytic philosophers have noted the difference between de re and de dictionary beliefs. De dicto refers to the statement about x, de re to the thing (4.6). In terms of necessity, it runs:

De dicto: Necessarily, (Fa)
De re: A is necessarily F.

In terms of historical analysis, for example, Baginini gives a lucid presentation of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology–no mean feat. To note: consciousness is a fact of existence. However, we always experience ourselves as part of something in this world. How then can we find the essence of a thing? Husserl uses epoche to bracket out what may or may not exist. This allows him to focus on intentionality. In other words, consciousness is always consciousness of something.

Although most readers of this review will be hostile to critical theory, perhaps rightly so, that makes this chapter extremely important. Not all of the radical critiques are important. Even the pertinent ones are rarely logically cogent. As a result for this review, we will focus on a few. Per Marx, society is divided into opposing classes, with one class opposing the other

In terms of philosophy, deconstruction does not mean what it means to today’s “ex-vangelicals.” For Derrida, the problem with philosophy is a problem of metaphysical presence. It is not exactly the same as the thing in-itself, but close enough. Reality, by contrast, is always mediated through signs. We can never have ultimate meaning (6.2).

Conclusion

By all accounts this is a most useful tool for both beginning and advanced philosophy students. Each section contains a small recommended reading list.

[Antti Sorri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Erilaisia elämänhallintaoppaita harrastaville heti alkuun suorasukainen varoitus: Ajattelun pikkujättiläisen kannesta kanteen lukeminen ei tee täydelliseksi ajattelijaksi. Se ei edellä mainittujen oppaiden luonteen mukaisesti lupaa parantaa muistia, tehdä menestyväksi osakesijoittajaksi tai auttaa laihduttamaan syömällä enemmän. Parhaimmassa / pahimmassa tapauksessa se saattaa johtaa kriittiseen suhtautumiseen kaikenlaisia kvasifilosofisia viisauksia ja äkkiseltään objektiiviselta kuulostavia elämänohjeita kohtaan ja tehdä entistä systemaattisemman ja kriittisemmän ajattelijan.

Ajattelun pikkujättiläinen esittelee systemaattiseen filosofiseen ajatteluun liittyvät keskeiset käsitteet ja metodit lyhyenä ja selkeänä peruskurssina. Brittiläisen filosofin Julian Bagginin ja hänen amerikkalaisen kollegansa Peter S. Foslin maailmalla myyntimenestykseksi noussut teos kokoaa yhteen kriittisen ajattelun avainkäsitteet ja metodit. Teoksen selkeä rakenne käy ilmi jo ensimmäisiä sivuja lukiessa. Jokainen logiikan peruskurssille osallistunut, kaltaiseni heikoilla matemaattisilla taidoilla varustettu filosofian opiskelija, on välittömästi sinut argumentaation perusvälineihin tutustuessaan. Esitysjärjestys on selkeä, suorastaan looginen. Kirja jakautuu seitsemään lukuun. Liikkeelle lähdetään argumentaation aakkosista, argumenteista, premisseistä ja johtopäätöksistä, ja edetään kehittyneempien välineiden, kuten dialektiikan, analogioiden ja loogisten rakennelmien kautta erilaisten arviointi- ja käsitteellisen erottelun välineisiin. Omat lukunsa ovat saaneet myös tunnettujen filosofien ja historiallisten filosofisten koulukuntien menetelmät sekä radikaalin kritiikin välineet, kuten esimerkiksi feministinen kritiikki ja foucaultilainen valtakritiikki. Kahdesta viimeksi mainitusta luvusta on kiitettävää apua erityisesti filosofian tietoteorian alkeiden hahmottamisessa. Teos päättyy viimeisessä luvussa mielenkiintoisesti filosofian pelikentän, eli tiedon rajojen pohtimiseen. Teoksen johdannossa käsitteelliseksi työkalupakiksi luonnehditusta kirjasta saatavat mahdolliset hyödyt ja jatkokehittelyt on jokaisen kuitenkin tehtävä itse, kuten filosofian luonteeseen kuuluu.

Teos on käytännössä niin vaivaton, kuin se tällaisessa kompleksiseksi luonnehdittavassa kokonaisesityksessä voi olla. Pikkujättiläisille on tyypillistä suurten tietomäärien puristaminen tiiviiksi kokonaisuuksiksi. Niinpä Bagginia ja Foslia voi onnitella suuren tietomäärän esittämisestä selkeästi, nasevasti ja ns. punaisen langan säilyttäen. Jokaisen käsiteltävän aiheen kohdalta löytyvät myös viittaukset keskeisiin, aihetta käsitteleviin filosofisiin teoksiin. Kokeneempi filosofian harrastaja laittaa merkille brittiläisen empirismin, erityisesti David Humen skeptisen filosofian ja toisaalta viime vuosisadan analyyttisen filosofian ja Ludvig Wittgensteinin merkityksen, joihin teoksessa toistamiseen törmää. Tämä on itsestään selvää, kun pitää mielessä edellä mainittujen herrojen merkityksen tietokritiikin kehittymisen historiassa, mutta se tuo esiin myös Peter S. Foslin harrastaman tutkimuksellisen mielenkiinnon, hän kun on kunnostautunut juuri David Humen tapauksessa.

Konkarisuomentaja Tapani Kilpeläistä voi puolestaan kiitellä onnistuneesta käännöstyöstä. Todennäköisesti hän on joutunut kirjan tiiviin esitystavan vuoksi miettimään useimmissakin kohdissa pariinkin kertaan, miten jokin käsite tai esimerkki kannattaisi parhaiten suomentaa. Lopputulos on kompleksisuuden huomioon ottaen kiitettävää. Kilpeläinen on kaivanut esiin myös suomalaista lähdekirjallisuutta ja mainitsee niitä käsiteltävissä asiayhteyksissä. Se tuo teokselle herkullista lisäarvoa.

Vaikka lopputulos on kiitettävä, joitakin pieniä asioita jää kaipaamaan. Kun kyseessä on pikkujättiläisen kaltainen, myös suurelle yleisölle tarkoitettu tietokirja, olisin kaivannut jonkinlaista filosofista sanastoa selventämään joitakin keskeisiä, käytettyjä käsitteitä. Niitä ei ollut kiitettävän esitystavan vuoksi monta, mutta filosofiaan tottumattomalle lukijalle ne olisivat varmasti avanneet teosta nopeammin. Kirjan lopussa ollut hakemisto oli kyllä varsin selkeä ja kompensoi osittain puutetta. Terminologia olisi tullut paremmin esiin, jos teoksessa olisi hyödynnetty toisista pikkujättiläisistä tuttua graafista esitystapaa esimerkiksi tekstilaatikoin tai erotettavin värein. Internetin aikakaudella hyvän tietokirjan menestyksen salaisuus on paitsi hyvin tuotettu sisältö, myös tietojen mahdollisimman vaivaton etsiminen ja esittely.

Brittiläis-amerikkalaiselta kaksikolta on n&n –kirjojen kautta ilmestynyt suomeksi myös rinnakkaisteos, Etiikan pikkujättiläinen. Se on Ajattelun pikkujättiläisen ohella ehdottomasti lukemisen arvoinen ja noudattelee rakenteeltaan pitkälti samanlaista esitystapaa, esitellen keskeisimmät etiikkaan liittyvät perusteet, etiikan lajit, keskeiset käsitteet sekä arviointiin, arvosteluun, kritiikkiin ja etiikan rajoihin liittyvät seikat. Kirjat muodostavat hyvän kokonaisuuden ja ne voi ostaa edulliseen yhteishintaan n&n-kirjojen verkkokaupasta, mikäli tällainen pienimuotoinen mainos tässä sallitaan.

Kirjaa voi suositella kaikille systemaattisesta ajattelusta kiinnostuneille. Aloitteleva filosofian harrastaja tai opiskelija lukee kirjan mielellään kannesta kanteen. Pidemmälle ehtinyt konkari voi käyttää sitä hyvänä hakuteoksena ja muistin virkistäjänä. Filosofian harrastajan, opiskelijan tai opettajan kirjahyllyyn teos kuuluu kuin itsestään.

[Amelia and John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really clear and concise guide for the tools of philosophy!

As an undergrad, I'll definitely be coming back to this text to stay grounded in the basics.

[Arianne X · Rating 2 out of 5]

Does Not Compute

Criticism of p. 37 in The Philosopher’s Toolkit in the section titled ‘Certainty and validity’ the following argument is presented:

1. All humans are mortal
2. Socrates was a human
Therefore, Socrates was mortal

This is an unsound argument. This point is not acknowledged by the authors. The authors only tell us that this argument is deductively valid in that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. A sound argument must have both: true premises and valid logic.

This is technically a valid argument in that the truth of the premises is included in the truth of the conclusion as mentioned by the authors. However, the argument is sound if and only if the premises are also true.

The argument is unsound because the first premise is not true, it cannot be proven to be true, and it cannot be defended. The first premise is really an empirical generalization and should not be used as a premise in a deductive argument as shown by the use of ‘All’ which is a universal quantifier. This type of problem was pointed out by Bertrand Russell in his 1912 book, The Problems of Philosophy.

When the premises are known a priori, deduction is the correct mode of argument. When the premises are based on empirical knowledge, induction is the correct mode of argument. An a priori proposition does not need to be tested with observations to conclude that it is always true. Empirical knowledge is that which is gained through observation and testing. The statement “all humans are mortal” is really an empirical generalization made about all humans. Such a generalization can only be based on observations. However, we have not observed all humans. We do not know what the longevity of a human might be in the future. It does not logically follow that just because every human has died that every human born in the future will die. We cannot defend “all humans are mortal” as a priori knowledge nor can we defend it based on empirical grounds due to our limited number of observations.

We have observed many humans and all of them have turned out to be mortal. We thus have good reason to believe that every single human being who was born has died, we know of no examples to the contrary. If Socrates was human, then we can infer that he was probably mortal. This is actually a stronger argument because we do not have to defend the proposition that “all humans are mortal”. However, we can defend the conclusion that Socrates was probably mortal based on the inference that we can make based on our actual observations. In fact, the probability that Socrates was mortal is actually higher than the probability that “all humans are mortal”. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, any empirical generalization is less certain than the actual individual observations because each of the individual observations can be verified, the generalization cannot be verified. Put another way, we can say that the probability that Socrates was mortal is actually higher than the probability that “all humans are mortal” because it is obvious that if “all humans are mortal”, so was Socrates but if Socrates was mortal it does not follow that “all humans are mortal.”

Here is the argument restated as an inference:

1. All observed humans have been found to be mortal
2. Socrates was a human
Therefore, Socrates was probably mortal

Interestingly, the authors do address the problem of universal claims on P. 48 with the statements “no human is immortal” and “…it always remains logically possible that one of the surviving humans is immortal…” to adduce the argumentative problems created with the use of universal claims but never relate this back as a corrective to the presentation on p. 37.

Criticism of p. 61 in The Philosopher’s Toolkit in the section titled ‘A Complication’:

The author’s engage in misplaced ontological reductionism. It does no good to reduce the objects of common experience to the molecular, atomic or subatomic level because these levels of existence, though real, are not the levels at which we interact with in the everyday world of common experience. They are outside of the relevant range of our common experience. It does no good to say that a table is not really the table as we see it because it is really nothing more than a logical construction based on a collection of atoms or the vibratory patterns of molecules in lattice structure. Our interaction with the table is at our casual level, our level of experience and existence. Our causal level is the same level of existence as where our sense perceptions are operative. We interact with tables as solitary units ascertainable by our sense perceptions. We do not sense at the molecular or atomic level of existence. This sort of ontological reductionism is a mistake and leads us away from dealing with the world at the causal level that is within the relevant range of our common experience. Such reductionism is appropriate to the laboratory, not to our common experience. Such ontological reductionism is an incorrect conflation of different levels of existence that leads to confusion about the nature of existence. A table is not just a logical construction in the way that we can say society is a logical construction made from the existence of individual human beings in a community. This logical construction is sensible in that it is derived from that which already exists at the casual level, human beings, which are within the relevant range of our common experience. It is a mistake to represent the table as a mere logical construction from which it is ultimately made, atoms etc., because atoms do not exist at our causal level or within the range of our common experience. Where does such a logical construction start and stop? Are we to say that the table is a mere local construction of the vibratory patterns of molecules in lattice structure and that these molecules are in turn the logical construction of atoms and that the atoms are in turn a mere logical construction of subatomic particles? If any of these exist, then all of these exist and can be experienced as real at their appropriate level of existence, at their appropriate causal level.

Nor can we think about atoms and quarks as logical constructions of the things that compose our ordinary, common-life world as the authors’ further state. This is the same mistake, in reverse, of representing the table as a mere logical construction of molecules, atoms or subatomic particles as described above, viz., the incorrect conflation of different levels of existence that leads to confusion about the nature of existence and experience. Tables are not the logical construction of, atoms and atoms are not the logical construction of tables. Each exists, but at a different causal level of existence. Each exists, but only within a relevant range of common experience. Atoms, as the mode of existence, is the relevant level of existence for the laboratory and tables, as solitary objects, is the relevant level of existence for the living room.

Again, interestingly the authors do hint at this problem on P. 129 with the statements “The liquidity of water is not apparent in its microstructure, but that does not mean that the description of water as H2O is inadequate or mistaken…” and further “…because to ascribe a chemical structure to water is not to deny water’s liquidity – liquidity not being a property of atoms.” These statements are precisely correct but never related back as a corrective to the presentation on p. 61. These statements implicitly recognize that a material thing can have existence that is relevant at different levels of existence-perception and that any given level of existence-perception is not the mere logical construction of a different level of existence-perception. Each is real, but only at its appropriate and relevant range of common experience.

On page 173 it is stated “– the law of excluded middle – which holds that a statement must be either true or false, but not some third alternative (see 3.3).” From reading section 3.3, the statements on page 173 seems to be a statement of bivalence, or a conflation of bivalence and the excluded middle.

From 3.3:

Excluded middle rule: For any P, P or not-P must be true

Bivalence rule: Every statement is true or false.

On p. 173, would not be better to state that the fundamental principle of rationality is that of bivalence, not the excluded middle? As stated in section 3.3, “Note that the principles of excluded middle and bivalence are not equivalent, since the former involves the concept of (‘not’), whereas the latter does not.”
Section 4.4:

Can we further distinguish ontological objectivity and subjectively from epistemological objectivity and subjectively? As pointed out in the text, many people will state that politics or mortality or ethics is entirely subjective and there can be no objective answers and that only science is objective. It seems to me that the concept of ‘intersubjectivity’ may perhaps rest on the confusion between ontological objectivity and subjectively with epistemological objectivity and subjectively. There very well may be an equivocation in that the terms objective and subjective are used to mean ontology at one point and then epistemology at another point in such statements.

Ontology is about existence. Epistemology is about knowledge, or what we know about what exists. There are ontologically objective phenomena that are observer independent such as the material reality of the world, e.g., the existence of particles, atoms, mountains, lakes etc. Ontologically subjective phenomena are also things that do exist but are observer dependent such as, pain, happiness, love. Morality, ethics, politics are ontologically subjective. They exist but they are observer dependent. For example, pain is real but it is ontologically subjective, it is a subjective experience. Does this mean that we can know say nothing or do nothing objectively about pain? Pain is still epistemologically objective. This is the basis on anesthesiology. Therefore, it does not follow that ontologically subjective subjects are also epistemologically subjective. Epistemology is about knowledge and we can thus come to know objective facts about ontologically subjective subjects such as politics, ethics and pain.

We can have epistemologically objective knowledge, facts and analysis, about things that are ontologically subjective such as politics, morality and ethics. The social sciences and humanities cannot be dismissed as purely subjective because they are ontologically subjective. Human choice is a subjective reality (ontology) about which we can derive objective knowledge (epistemology).

Section 5.6, Leibniz Law:

The law is correctly stated as: “X is identical with Y, if and only if every property of X is a property of Y and every property of Y is a property of X”. This is found on page 205. It is further stated on page 205, “In any case, for most practical purposes the principles seem obviously true, and do similar work.”

I do not believe that it we should be so quick to state that Leibniz Law is obviously true. I am not sure what is meant by “…for most practical purposes…”

Here is the problem:

Leibniz Law: “X is identical with Y, if and only if every property of X is a property of Y and every property of Y is a property of X.”

From Leibniz Law it follows that X can be substituted for Y and Y can be substituted for X.

Leibniz law is essentially one of substitutability of co-referential statements. However, there are examples of where the basic principle of substitutability fails. Sometimes expressions referring to the same object are not substitutable as it follows from Leibniz law. If the truth of a statement is dependent on how an object id referred to, the principle of substitutability will fail. W.V.O. Quine referred to the failure of substitutability as referential opacity.

Here is an example of how the principle of substitutability fails from John Searle:

Statement 1: The number of planets is eight

Statements 2: Eight is greater than seven

By substitution of the subject from Statement 1, “The numbers of plants” for the subject of statement 2, “Eight” it necessarily follows that the number of planets is greater than seven.

Actually, this does not follow. There is nothing necessary about the number of planets being eight. It just so happens to be the case that the number of plants is eight, but it is not necessarily so. Until recently the number of plants was nine and we would have falsely concluded, via this same principle, that there must necessarily be nine planets.

Statement 1: The number of planets is nine

Statements 2: Nine is greater than eight

By substitution of the subject from Statement 1, “The numbers of plants” for the subject of statement 2, “nine” it necessarily follows that the number of planets is greater than eight.

My own example,

Bruce Wayne is identical with Batman. Every property of Bruce Wayne is a property of Batman and every property of Batman is a property of Bruce Wayne.

Just because Batman is Bruce Wayne it does not follow that Commissioner Gordon, Chief O’Hara, The Joker, The Riddler, The Penguin and the rest of the hoard believe that Batman is Bruce Wayne. Batman cannot be substituted for Bruce Wayne and Bruce Wayne cannot be substituted for Batman for this hoard of characters as it is the case for Alfred. In this case, the expression referring to the thing is not substitutable. Batman cannot be substituted for Bruce Wayne. No one knows that the properties of Batman and Bruce Wayne are identical. Since they do not know that Bruce Wayne is Batman, substitutability does not hold thus Leibniz Law cannot be said to hold or be applicable in this case. Bruce Wayne and Batman remain two different individuals with different properties for the Commissioner Gordon, et. al. The separate identities of Bruce Wayne and Batman depend on the failure of the principle of substitutability and if we can say that the principle of substitutability is the main requirement for identity within Leibniz Law, can say that Leibniz Law does not hold?

[Kosar mohammadnejad · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب مثل اسمش که در چاپ ترجمه فارسیش «جعبه ابزار فیلسوف» هست درباره ابزارهاییست برای استدلال کردن که در فصول مختلف به ترتیب پیچیده تر و فلسفی تر میشود . مثلا فصل اول همان ابزارهای تفکر انتقادی رو میگه و بعد میاد در فصل دوم ابزارهای پیشرفته تر رو میگه مثلا ابزار دیالکتیک یا ابزار تقلیل گرایی و ...
در کل اما کتاب راحتی نبود.بعضی جاها واقعا هم جمله بندی و ترجمه بد و هم مفهوم مبهم که طبیعتا فلسفه ایجاب میکنه اذیتم کرد اما در کل بعضی جاهاش جالب بود و به خوندنش میرزید مثلا:
«نسبی توصیف کردن چیزی به این معنا نیست که هیچ شاخصی برای داوری کردن آن در کار نباشد یا اصطلاحا هرکی هرکی باشد بلکه به این معناست که شاخص جهان شمولی وجود ندارد و نباید تصور کرد دست شستن از یک شاخص مطلق به این معناست که اصلا نباید هیچ شاخصی را بپذیریم برعکس نسبی گرایی به این معناست که شاخص های متعددی وجود دارد که هیچ یک به نحو جهان شمول برتر از دیگر شاخص ها نیست و هریک از آنها میتوانند برای مکانهای خاص یا افرادی خاص حتی شاید به نحوی انعطاف ناپذیر اطلاق پذیر باشند»
«زندگی سفر است/مهربانی خواستگاه ظلم و ستم است / خردمندترین مردمان هم کاه مزخرفات را دوست دارند... غالبا تصور میشود چنین گزین کونه هایی فلسفی اند و فلسفه را در پیش پا افتاده ترین شکل بیان میکنند.گزین گویه ها شبیه توییتر فلسفه اند از طرفی دیگر فلسفه واقعی-فلسفه خوب و مستحکم-چیزی جز طرافت و پیچیدگی نیست . آیا برای بیان اندیشه های فلسفی غامض با تمام ظرافتها پیچیدگیها و دقتها رساله های دشوار و طولانی لازم است ؟ همانگونه که یکی از معلمهای ما در گزین گویه ای نغز اظهار کرده:«هر فلسفه ای که در پوست گردو بگنجد جایش همان پوست گردو است» »

[Nicky · Rating 2 out of 5]

True to its title, this book is basically an index of philosophical techniques. The author doesn't go into much depth talking about the techniques, although he does give recommended readings for them. And this, I think, is the book's best use.

Beware: The author's treatment of some topics is brief and lacking nuance. Of course, this is understandable given the nature of the text. But at other times, it is dubious. (For instance, his first example of a question-begging argument is an otherwise valid syllogism. Although some contend that this form begs the question, others accept it as valid. For the beginner seeking information, a less contentious example would be more useful.)

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent summary and explanation of common philosophical arguments. I got this book a while ago and have been reading it in short stints, kinda like reading an encyclopedia. I lost interest in this for a while, read a bunch of other works since, then decided to finish it all in one night because I had the additional context to be interested again. I'll probably use this as a touch stone in the future.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Baggini is one of the truly great philosophical authors. He writes in a way that makes philosophy approachable for people who, like me, are not trained in philospohy.

The book explains the basic tools and concepts of philosophy in nice digestible bites. Each day I would read a section and consider what I had learned.

I strongly recommend not only this book, but anything written by Baggini.

[Ian Pollock · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear explanation of a huge number of philosophical concepts, with excellent examples, written engagingly. This book is exactly what it says on the tin, and it's absolutely fantastic as a crash course in the philosophical style of thinking.

[Jose Cruz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Started to like philosophy

It's not a deep book about philosophy but makes you a better thinker. I have read it twice, and I am always learning new things. Besides, I started to look at the world with a different view.

[Heba Labib · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Philosopher’s Toolkit is an adequate trial in collecting – as the title suggests- all the tools a beginner in philosophy or even a master might find useful to refer to. Julian Baggini, the author, in 2003, has concisely but succinctly tackled many philosophical definitions and problems in a thought-provoking way. The book is divided into seven sections, one for each set of tools; from the very rock bottom of how to build a decent, sound argument to how to detect logical fallacies and infer their strengths and weaknesses, how to assess certain ideas or arguments, and what some of the over-arching principles of philosophy- such as realism, epistemology, identity, and scepticism- are.

One good thing about how the book flows is the recommended readings after almost every technique mentioned; one knows he/she is reading a worthy one when the author relates key ideas to each other, for example, after explaining briefly what the issue of alternative explanations might hold, he gave reference to the subsection of “abduction” which is also called “argument to the best explanation.” to keep in mind the four factors we choose upon: simplicity, coherence, testability, and comprehensiveness in scope. As brief as the book seems, it still allows for the much easier diving into the depth of the problem. Another thing to notice while reading the book is how the author’s way of writing is a vivid example of a professional usage of the tools. For instance, one part that really spoke to me is the Error Theory; Baggini claims “If we find our beliefs apparently overturned all too quickly and easily, we may actually start to become suspicious of our capacity to form any reliable position. For while evidence for the new view is being amassed, a wholly different question arises:”; Now, going through the following paragraphs, one can see the application of this tool on most of the examples he introduced; he aims to show the reader how the pillars of a good philosophical work are built. In addition, through the aid of this book, one got to understand some much more sophisticated terms and their power, ambiguity vs. vagueness, incoherence vs. confusion, and subjectivity vs. objectivity, only it is relatively brief one would need extra resources to fully grasp the whole concept.

On reading “Kant once wrote that one should always treat persons as ends, never as means.” (Baggini, 2003, p.95), I, as a reader, reflected upon how reality perfectly breaks this rule in almost every simple instance. It’s ideal but never in practice, at least for this reader’s humble eyes; and here he goes, the author, by reading my mind and presenting exactly the same thing via the trolley problem and how consequentialists view it in contrast with deontologists. The non-biased standpoint Baggini adopted made him an unimpeachable author and made it easier for the reader to focus on acquiring the tools they aim to. Baggini showed awareness to the effective manipulation techniques yet he just chose to put them all down on the table and hide none. One can notice this truth by realizing he is an atheist yet none of his claims about religious issues embraced the ad hominum fallacy nor showed any mortification to any party. It is clear that he predominantly depended on logos and avoided its fallacies and that did not, in principal, fail him. Baggini’s evocative examples are one of the things that made me more excited about this book; while showing how one can fall into building a tower of conceptual incoherence, he mentioned “Knowing how Iron behaves when left in conditions optimal to its continued, unchanged existence only gives a partial view of its nature.”, this has spoken to me in a really poetic way; you can never understand your own self if you never experience different environments, you can never understand the human nature as to what extent it is malleable and open to change and to what extent it keeps its originality without going through multiple experiments and situations. Baggini showed in a flawless manner what philosophers go through to understand, analyse, and determine what type of questions is applicable and meaningful and what type is just a mere waste of time.

This is a book that would definitely work as a propellant for one’s critical and creative thinking; a fertile land to begin one’s own quest for what is true, what is right, and what is sane. It makes philosophy looks more approachable and friendly. If I were to recommend this book, I would totally do it despite the book’s brevity and compactness; this is because of the useful referencing and recommendations at the end of each and every subsection. The author displayed thorough knowledge of the essentials and therefore, one might think, he would not fail us in any of his other books.

[Behrooz Parhami · Rating 4 out of 5]

Baggini is Editor & Co-Founder of The Philosopher’s Magazine and author of multiple books. Fosl is co-editor of Dictionary of Literary Biography and Professor of Philosophy at Transylvania University, Lexington, Kentucky. This valuable book boasts a sequential and an encyclopedia-like alphabetical table of contents.

Although one can read a book of this kind from cover to cover in one go, the more likely use is to note the structure and to sample a chapter or two, before filing it away for future reference.
Here are the titles of the 7 chapters and the concepts discussed in each, which forms a useful summary of the book.

1. Basic Tools for Argument (arguments, premises, & conclusions; deduction; induction; validity & soundness; invalidity; consistency; fallacies; refutation; axioms; definitions; certainty & probability; tautologies, self-contradictions, & the law of non-contradiction)

2. More Advanced Tools (abduction; hypothetico-deductive method; dialectic; analogies; anomalies & exceptions that prove the rule; intuition pumps; logical constructions; reduction; thought experiments; useful fictions)

3. Tools for Assessment (alternative explanations; ambiguity; bivalence & the excluded middle; category mistakes; ceteris paribus; circularity; conceptual incoherence; counterexamples; criteria; error theory; false dichotomy; false cause; genetic fallacy; horned dilemmas; is/ought gap; masked man fallacy; partners in guilt; principle of charity; question-begging; reductios; redundancy; regresses; saving the phenomena; self-defeating arguments; sufficient reason; testability)

4. Tools for Conceptual Distinctions (a-priori/a-posteriori; absolute/relative; analytic/synthetic; categorical/modal; conditional/biconditional; de re/de dicto, defensible/indefensible; entailment/implication; essence/accident; internalism/externalism; knowledge by acquaintance/description; necessary/contingent; necessary/sufficient; objective/subjective; realist/non-realist; sense/reference; syntax/semantics; thick/thin concepts; types/tokens)

5. Tools of Historical Schools and Philosophers (aphorism, fragment, remark; categories and specific differences; elenchus & aporia; Hume’s fork; indirect discourse; Leibniz’s law of identity; Ockham’s razor; phenomenological methods; signs & signifiers; transcendental argument)

6. Tools for Radical Critique (class critique; deconstruction & the critique of presence; empiricist critique of metaphysics; feminist critique; Foucaultian critique of power; Heideggerian critique of metaphysics; Lacanian critique; critiques of naturalism; Nietzschean critique of Christian-Platonic culture; pragmatist critique; Sartrean critique of ‘bad faith’)

7. Tools at the Limit (basic beliefs; Godel & incompleteness; philosophy and/as art; mystical experience & revelation; paradoxes; possibility & impossibility; primitives; self-evident truths; scepticism; underdetermination)

The book ends with a list of Internet resources for philosophers.

[Vahid Nia · Rating 5 out of 5]

The philosopher's Toolkit is exactly what it says it is. It is a compendium of the most essential tools and concepts that philosophers use. The text is highly useful and accessible in clarifying basic philosophical terms and concepts in seven chapters. You can use this book as a ready reference apart from just reading cover to cover.

The first two chapters of the book deal with the devices used in arguments: deduction and induction, fallacies and tautologies, ....

Chapter Three is about how we would evaluate the arguments with features like ambiguity, circularity, genetic fallacy, redundancy...

Chapter Four shows us how to distinguish between complementary pairs of philosophical concepts – analytic and synthetic, cause and reason, sense and reference, objective and subjective arguments...

Chapter Five examines some of the most famous arguments that were used by famous philosophers – like Hegel's dialectics, Hume’s Fork, Ogham’s Razor...

The remaining two chapters are also written in a historical context dealing with radical critique and other schools of philosophy and the views of some great philosophers of the past – Leibniz, Nietzsche, Sartre, and other more modern French philosophers Foucault, Lacan, and others.

All in all, this book is a great toolkit for serious students of philosophy who want to have a reference to essential terms and tools in philosophy.

[Phoenix · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rational Foundations

The graphic use of trade tools on the cover to form the word "Toolkit" is ingenious, and the content does not disappoint. Baggini and Fosl provide a witty and readable guide to the basic premises of a wide range of western philosophical schools. The book begins with a summary of the methods and modalities of philosophical argument and pleases the reader with wonderfully succinct illustrations of common and sometimes exotic terms used. At the same time they introduce many key ideas, writers and controversies that have arisen in the field. In a nod to hypertextuality, each of the topics ends with useful references to related topics elsewhere in the book.

All of us get involved in various kinds of argumentation . As such it is useful to step back and consider the kind of argument it is, the premises being invoked and the basis on which it is being judged, and an assessment whether the reasoning is valid, testable or a fallacy, let alone true, the distinctions being admirably addressed by the authors. Whether one's interest is in theories of society, politics, morality, knowledge, systems of belief, the schools of western philosophy or simply the mechanics of better argumentation, this is a very enjoyable read!

[Jacob Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd say that the book would be extremely helpful for beginners while being introduced to the subject. I liked the book not only because it demonstrates the tools and creativity of a philosopher's world, but because it also shows the humility of philosophy by showing how it's often not an end all be all. I think that when I started learning about philosophy, it was hard to imagine what even the subject was about. I learned the basic philosophical method, and couldn't really pretend I knew anything else about what philosophy can do / has done. Similar to how a person may take their first science class and think that science could only be based around that single scientific
method that you learn about. Contrary to what an intro course could/should do, this book gives you a more nuanced perspective into philosophy, so I'm immensely grateful for
that.

[Alex Arcos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty decent overview of philosophical methods and tools. Very informative, concise and comprehensive... perhaps too concise and comprehensive. First, I don't think it can serve as an introductory walkthrough to the topic, since quite complicated concepts and not necessarily well-known authors are discussed in a superficial and hastened manner. Secondly, the author has a an all-encompassing ambition that generates unnecessary repetitions and ends up making the main title of the book sound a bit absurd; some of the terms discussed, such as doxa/para-doxa or aphorisms, can hardly be considered tools. Lastly, the inclusion of certain authors whose contributions to philosophy are questionable is very underwhelming. Chapter 6, in particular, is in almost its entirety skippable.

[Nea · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very densely packed and tremendously useful book - I particularly enjoy how the authors balance between keeping concepts comprehensible but still very informative. Also, sometimes one gets surprised by wonderfully dry humour. This book is best read chapter by chapter, by making notes and sketching out concepts. If you're searching for an easy-digestible read, probably you'll be disappointed but if you are searching for something with a dense page/information ratio, this is a great choice - also useful for looking things up, due to the way it's structured and references added at the end of each chapter. As interested laywoman working through the book gave me lots of valuable insights.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my pursuit to fill in gaps and review concepts and arguments from philosophy, I came across some books that were utterly dreadful and should not be used for anything but quick reference. This was not the case with this book. Although I still see its value as being mostly about a quick reference if I need a reminder about a concept or topic I forgot about while reading something else, it was still delightful and informative to read it from beginning to end. It served as a good refresher on topics I knew, a reminder of the ones I was shaky about and a quick intro to others I was not familiar with.

[Usama Albastaki · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is nice introduction to the world of philosophy. It starts with simple concept and ends with complex one. It shows that philosophy has been always the basic of research and even the modern research and medical research. Accordingly, it is the basic of all the sciences and evidence based knowledge that we know today.

[Christopher Schaffalitzky · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a decent book. It feels like a novice book, but I guess it is. It was mandatory on the first semester at my university, where I studied philosophy. I would expect a toolkit to be more precise and, well, you know, useful. It wasn't one of those books I ever opened again, far from being essential reading. But it wasn't a waste of time, either.

[Floppy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bit weird, I mostly expected the book to explain various techniques for argumentation or critical thinking (and to be fair, a large part of the book was exactly that), but a lot was dedicated to explaining various points and arguments certain philosophers had made about metaphysics or epistemology. It was interesting, I definitely found myself wanting to learn more about some of the topics mentioned, but the coverage was not as extensive as I would have wanted.

[James Rivera · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent recourse for conceptual empowerment. The only thing keeping it from receiving a 5 star rating are the instances of bias when it uses concepts from philosophy of religion in a negative, and least charitable light.

[Erik · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read it cover to cover, and enjoyed every moment. It's not often you can say that about a reference work. Great refresher if you are in to the tools of argumentation (and not just arguing).