R E V IE W S
445
d e n ts , b u t n o t f o r la c k o f h e lp f u l e x a m p le s o r c a r e f u lly a r tic u la te d p o s itio n s .
T h e s tr u c tu r e o f th e b o o k is w e ll- s u ite d to th e c la s s ro o m , p a rtic u la rly th e
te c h n iq u e o f p a ir in g c o n tr a s tin g a r tic le s . T h e c o lle c tio n d o e s le a n h e a v ily
o n t h e p r o b le m o f c o n s c io u s n e s s , a n d m a y b e b e s t s u ite d to in s tr u c to r s w ith
a s tr e n g th o r in te r e s t in th e a re a .
Deirdre Kelly and Ted Lougheed, Department o f Philosophy, Carleton University, 3A35
Paterson Hall, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa ON K1S 5B6; Deirdre. Kelly @ carleton
.ca; Ted.Lougheed@carleton.ca
Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings,
6th edition
J o h n P e r ry , M ic h a e l B r a tm a n , a n d J o h n M a r tin F is c h e r, e d ito r s
N e w Y o rk: O x f o r d U n iv e r s i ty P r e s s , 2 0 1 3 ; p b k , 8 7 2 p p ., $ 8 9 .9 5 ; 9 7 8 - 0 - 1 9 - 9 8 1 2 9 9 - 8
D E N N IS K N E P P
Introduction to Philosophy
is a n a n th o lo g y f o r in tr o d u c to r y p h ilo s o p h y
c o u r s e s th a t tr ie s to c o v e r m a jo r to p ic s w ith b o th c la s s ic h is to r ic a l s e le c ­
tio n s a n d m o r e c o n te m p o r a r y a n a ly tic a l r e s p o n s e s . F r e q u e n tly , th e c la s s ic
r e a d in g s a re p r e s e n te d in th e ir e n tir e ty w ith little e d ito r ia l i n tr o d u c ti o n a n d
f e w f o o tn o te s , s o th a t th e in tr o d u c to r y s tu d e n t w o u ld p r o b a b ly s tr u g g le to
u n d e r s ta n d h o w th is r e a d in g a d d re s s e s th e r e le v a n t to p ic . A s k ille d in s tr u c to r
c o u ld c re a te a q u a lity c o u r s e w ith th is te x t b u t w o u ld n e e d to b r in g a lo t o f
e x tr a k n o w le d g e a n d m a te r ia l to d o so .
T h e b o o k is d iv id e d in to s e v e n p a rts w ith n u m e r o u s c h a p te rs .
P a r t I: P h ilo s o p h y
P a r t II: G o d a n d E v il
A . W h y B e lie v e ?
B . T h e P r o b le m o f E v il
P a r t III: K n o w le d g e a n d R e a lity
A . P la to a n d th e C o n c e p t o f K n o w le d g e
B . D e s c a r te s a n d th e P r o b le m s o f S k e p tic is m
C . H u m e ’s P r o b le m s a n d S o m e S o lu tio n s
P a r t IV : M in d s , B o d ie s , a n d P e r s o n s
A . T h e T r a d itio n a l P r o b le m o f M in d a n d B o d y
B . M in d s , B r a in s , a n d M a c h in e s
C . P e r s o n a l Id e n tity
D . F r e e d o m , D e te r m in a tio n , a n d R e s p o n s ib ility
P a r t V: E th ic s a n d S o c ie ty
A . U tilita r ia n is m
B . K a n tia n E th ic s
C . A r is to te lia n E th ic s
©
Teaching Philosophy,
2 0 1 4 . A ll ri g h ts r e s e r v e d . 0 1 4 5 - 5 7 8 8
D O I: 10 .5 8 4 0 / t e a c h p h i l 2 0 1 4 3 7 3 3 3
pp. 4 4 5 ^ 1 4 9
446
Teaching Philosophy 37:3, September 2014
D. Justice and Equality
E. Challenges to Morality
Part VI: Existential Issues
Part VII: Puzzles and Paradoxes
A. Zeno’s Paradoxes
B. Metaphysical and Epistemological Puzzles and Paradoxes
C. Puzzles of Rational Choice
D. Paradoxes of Logic, Set Theory, and Semantics
E. Puzzles of Ethics
The book ends with a thirty-three page “Glossary of Philosophical Terms.”
There are over fifty different contributors to Introduction to Philosophy.
Here are some interesting highlights from the list of contributors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two Ancient Greek philosophers: Plato (three selections) and Aristotle
Two Latin Medieval philosophers: St. Anselm and St. Aquinas
Three French philosophers: Pascal, Descartes, and Camus
Two German philosophers: Leibniz and Kant
No contributions from Islamic, Chinese, or Indian philosophers
Forty-three analytic philosophers from England, U.S., Australia, and
New Zealand
• David Hume has the most selections with five
• Thomas Nagel is next with four selections and Bertrand Russell with
three.
The list of contributors makes it clear that Introduction to Philosophy is really
an introduction to English-speaking analytic philosophy, especially philoso­
phy of mind. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. Every anthology
must have a selection bias given that it is impossible to include everything.
And I assume that most of the instructors who would use Introduction to
Philosophy are educated in analytic philosophy and would teach it too. The
editors know their potential audience.
There is a lot of interesting analytic philosophy represented here. I like
seeing six different selections in the utilitarianism chapter—including Peter
Singer who can reliably spark discussions in intro courses. The justice and
equality chapter has essentials like Rawls and Nozick as well as two essays
about women’s equality and Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “Racisms.” The phi­
losophy of mind selection is quite generous with excerpts from Dennett, Paul
Churchland and so many more. An instructor who wishes to make philosophy
of mind the centerpiece of their course will find this a very useful anthology.
The editorial bias for analytic philosophy influences the anthology in
many ways: some comic and some tragic. It’s amusing to me that part VI is
an entire section devoted to existential issues. It is the smallest part of the
anthology, but the title “Existentialist Issues” is like announcing that there
will be a part of the anthology that includes non-English speaking European
philosophers. But it is not the case. Of the nine “Existentialist” selections,
R E V IE W S
447
th e r e is a tw o - a n d - a -h a lf p a g e s se le c tio n fro m C a m u s ’s “T h e M y th o f
S isy p h u s,” b u t th e re s t are a n a ly tic p h ilo so p h e rs. T h e ed ito rs d e c id e d e x is ­
ten tia lism w a rra n te d tw o sele ctio n s fro m T h o m a s N a g e l, b u t n o th in g fro m
K ierk ega ard , N ie tz sc h e, H eidegg er, S artre, o r any one w h o co m es to m y m in d
as an e x iste n tia list p hilo so p h e r. T h e a n th o lo g y also h as n o sele ctio n s fro m
H e g e l, M a rx , S c h o p e n h a u er, o r any th in g c o m m o n ly la b e le d “ C o n tin en ta l
P hilo sop hy .” I th in k th e fu n n ie st e x a m p le o f this is in th e G lo ssary . T h e entry
continental philosophy rea d s, “ See a n a ly tic a l p h ilo so p h y ” (8 45). F lip p in g to
analytical philosophy reveals: “A n aly tic al p h ilo so p h y is ofte n c o n tra ste d w ith
continental philosophy, th e so rt o f p h ilo so p h y th a t h a s b e e n m o re d o m in a n t
in F ra n c e , G erm a ny , S p ain , Italy, an d so m e o th e r E u ro p e a n c o u n trie s” (8 40).
C o n tin e n ta l p h ilo so p h y is th e O th e r u n d e rsta n d a b le o n ly as not-this.
A g ain , an an th o lo g y m u st have a b ias given th a t it is im p o ssib le to in clu d e
ev e ry th in g . T h e in stru c to r w h o w o u ld u s e o v e r tw o h u n d re d p a g e s o f c o n ­
te n t on “M in d s, B o d ie s, a n d P e rso n s” w o u ld p ro b ab ly n o t b e d isc u ssin g th e
H e g e lia n dialectic o r th e N ie tz sc h ea n Ubermensch. B u t th e b ias d o es h av e the
c o n se q u e n c e o f p re se n tin g h isto ric a l m ate ria l w ith o u t any h isto ric a l con text.
T h e re is an a ssu m p tio n th a t p h ilo so p h e rs are d isc u ssin g tim ele ss issu e s and
th a t P la to ’s co n cern s ab o u t k n o w le d g e are b a sic a lly th e sam e as o u r co n cern s
a b o u t kn o w le d g e . T h is c a n b e se en in th e ed ito ria l in tro d u c tio n s to rea d in g s.
S o m e o f th e e dito ria l in tro d u ctio n s are tra g ic m issed op p ortu n ities. H e re ’s
th e en tire in tro d u c tio n to th e A . M . T u rin g sele ction :
A. M. Turing (1912-1954), a Cambridge mathematician, made fundamental
contributions to the theory of computation. (285)
T h e re ’s n o th in g ab o u t h is fa sc in a tin g life o r h is tra g ic d e a th c o m m ittin g
su ic id e b y e a tin g a p o iso n e d a p p le ra th e r th a n fa c e th e c h e m ic a l c a stratio n
o f a c o n v ic ted h o m o se x u a l in 1950s E n g la n d . M a y b e th a t’s n o t rele v an t to
h is “fu n d a m e n ta l c o n trib u tio n s” b u t it co u ld m ak e th e b a sis fo r an in te restin g
c o n v e rs a tio n ab o u t w h e th e r se x u ality in flu e n c e s a th in k e r and how m u ch o u r
th o u g h ts ab o u t h o m o se x u a lity h a v e c h a n g e d sin ce T u rin g ’s suic id e. E v e n
i f i t ’s n o t releva nt, the in tro d u c tio n sa y s n o th in g ab o u t h is “fu n d a m e n ta l
co n trib u tio n s to th e th e o ry o f c o m p u ta tio n .” W h a t d id h e d o ? D id h e cre ate
a co ol ap p ? M y 18 ye a r o ld in tro stu d e n ts g e n e ra lly d o n ’t kn o w m u ch ab o u t
life b e fo re sm a rtp h o n e s an d a few lin e s ex p la in in g T u rin g ’s “fu n d am e n ta l
c o n trib u tio n s” co u ld p ro v id e th e m w ith so m e m u c h n e e d e d h isto ric a l p e r­
sp ectiv e o n techn olog y . P lu s T u rin g ’s sto ry in clu d e s b re a k in g th e E n ig m a
c o d e a n d de v e lo p in g c o m p u te rs to h elp d e fe a t th e N azis. In m y e x p erien ce,
tellin g th e h ig h lig h ts o f T u rin g ’s b io g ra p h y m akes h im m u ch m o re in te re st­
in g to in tro stu d en ts. T h e y m ig h t n o t k n o w m u c h histo ry , b u t th ey d o k n o w
th a t th e N a z is w ere th e b a d gu ys.
T h e e d ito rs h av e c h o se n to in c lu d e a few h isto ric a l sele ctio n s to se t up
p ro b le m s b u t th e ir ah isto ric al e d itin g ca n b e a rea l d e trim e n t. C o n sid e r the
o p e n in g p a rt I: P h ilo so p h y . T h e re are th re e o p e n in g essa y s b y th e ed ito rs
o n stu d y in g p h ilo sop h y, lo g ic , a n d w ritin g (m ore o n th a t later). T h ere are
448
Teaching Philosophy 37:3, September 2014
then two reading selections. Bertrand Russell’s “The Value of Philosophy”
is a fine choice. Russell is canonical, a clear writer, and explicitly discuss­
ing this issue. But the next reading is the entire Plato’s “Apology: Defense
of Socrates.” I think that some parts of Plato’s “Apology” are relevant for
discussing the value of philosophy. But there is much that is not relevant.
In his opening comments, Socrates discusses his many accusers including
a “writer of plays” who have probably soured the jury against him. Who’s
that? An intro student won’t know. They won’t know who Socrates is or why
he is on trial or why any of this is relevant.
To make matters worse, the editors don’t really introduce Plato’s “Apol­
ogy” at all. There is a short introductory paragraph from the editors that men­
tions Socrates once. They should at least mention that these are his words in
his defense after the prosecution has spoken. The introduction says nothing
about why he is trial or why he never apologizes in this supposed “Apology.”
Instead, the introduction is about something else entirely:
Plato’s most famous work is The Republic. One of his most famous philo­
sophical ideas is that the word that we experience through our senses is
defective, but there is a more real world that is inhabited by the real forms
or ideas of the transient objects we experience. These forms, unlike the tran­
sient objects that approximate them, are eternal, unchanging, and the basis
for the structure of the world. (22)
This introduction has nothing to do with the “Apology” and makes Plato
sound like a complete crazy person. There is nothing to help in reading and
understanding this selection. There is nothing here that would make philoso­
phy interesting or relevant. In addition, there are only two brief explanatory
footnotes, and just one key term—“Sophist”— which they don’t bother to
define. The confused student could probably use help with—let’s say—the
“Oracle of Delphi” to understand Socrates’s ironic divine mission. It would
be helpful to know that Antyus is the prosecutor in order to understand the
scene where Socrates’s crossexamines him about corrupting the youth. An
introductory student might like to know at least that corrupting the youth
is one of the charges brought against him. Since the editors of Introduction
to Philosophy have chosen the topics route, they should edit their historical
selections. Cut out 80 percent of Plato’s “Apology.” Keep the stuff that is
relevant to the issue. And provide some editorial guidance with an introduc­
tion and a real list of key terms.
Consider part III, “Knowledge and Reality.” The editors understood that
only a few pages of Plato’s “Theaetetus” are relevant for setting up the Gettier problem. There is no need to include Plato’s words on Heraclitus and
Parmenides. But in the next chapter, the editors included all six of Descartes’s
“Meditations on First Philosophy” to set up the problem of skepticism. That’s
unnecessary. The first two meditations would be sufficient. The rest of the
selection would make no sense to an introductory student.
R E V IE W S
449
Introduction to Philosophy d o es sta rt w ith lo ts o f ed ito ria l g u id an c e fo r
th e stu d en t on ho w to read , ho w to w rite, an d ho w to th in k log ically . T h a t’s
n ic e in th eo ry ; b u t I d o u b t any stu d en t w o u ld fo llo w it in reality. F o r ex am ple,
in ex p la in in g how to rea d ph ilo sop h y, th e ed ito rs e n co u rag e rea d in g th e tex t
an d a sk in g a first q u e stio n w h ich lea d s to a seco n d q u e stio n an d read in g , a
th ird , a fo u rth , a n d fin ally a fifth level o f q u e stio n a n d rea d in g . F iv e levels
o f rea d in g ? H o ne stly , I ’m th rille d if m y stu d en ts re a d th e m ate ria l at all. I
fin d it d iffic u lt to im a g in e stu d en ts rea d in g an y th in g in th is tex t five tim es.
S o m e serio us ed itin g w o u ld h e lp to g et th e stu de n ts to re a d it at all. T h e
an th o lo g y d o e s n ’t lo o k readab le: sm all fon t, tw o den se co lu m n s p e r page, ju s t
a co u p le sim p listic d raw in g s, an d v ery sm all m arg in s (w h ich m ak es tak in g
n o tes in th e m arg in s im p o ssib le!). T h is an th o lo g y lo o k s in tim id atin g an d a
rea l ch o re to read . I th in k few stu d en ts w o u ld w an t to k eep th is an th o lo g y and
m o st w ill lo o k fo rw ard to rese llin g it a t th e b o o k sto re as so o n as po ssib le .
Dennis Knepp, Big Bend Community College, Philosophy and Religious Studies Depart­
ments, 7662 Chanute Street, Moses Lake WA 98837; dennisk@bigbend.edu
Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your
Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong
D av id E d m o n d s
P rin c e to n , N .J.: P rin c e to n U n iv e rsity P ress, 2 0 1 4 ; h e, 2 4 0 pp ., $ 1 9 .9 5 ; 9 7 8 -0 -6 9 1 15402 -2
JIM RO B IN SO N
In h e r 1967 article “T h e P ro b le m o f A b o rtio n a n d th e D o c trin e o f th e D o u b le
E ffect,” P h illip a F o o t ask s if a tro lle y d riv er sh o u ld k ill o n e m an to av oid
k illin g five. H e r q u e stio n and an sw e r led to so m u ch sch o la rly d iscu ssio n
th at th ere is no w a su b -g en re, tro lle y o lo g y. D av id E d m o n d s p ro v id es, in a
clear, a c cu ra te an d e n g a g in g w ay, a b rie f h isto ry o f tro lle yo lo g y. A lth o u g h
he is co n c ern e d w ith w h e th e r it is m o ra lly p e rm issib le to p u sh a larg e m an
o ff a b rid g e in o rd er to save five o th er m en w h o are tie d to a tro lle y track ,
th e scop e o f th e b o o k is m u ch b ro ad er; in fa ct, in so m e resp e c ts it is b ro ad e r
th an trolleyo lo g y.
W ritin g fo r th e g e n e ra l read er, E d m o n d s gives th e rea so n in g fo r b o th
sides o f th e variou s disc u ssio n s. H e also o u tlines th e relev an t m o ra l p rin cip les
an d th eo ries an d p ro v id es b io g ra p h ica l in fo rm a tio n ab o u t th e p h ilo so p h ers.
T h u s w e are to ld ab o u t th e D o c trin e o f D o u b le E ffe ct, c la ssic a l U tilita ria n ­
ism , th e C ateg o rical Im p erativ e and , as w ell, ab o u t F o o t’s tim e at O x fo rd
an d h e r re la tio n sh ip s w ith E liz a b e th A n sc o m b e, Iris M u rd o c h an d L u d w ig
W ittg en stein . S im ila r b io g ra p h ical acco u n ts are giv en ab o u t A q u in as, K ant,
B en th am , M ill an d o th ers. A lth o u g h th ese acco u n ts co n trib u te little to an
u n d ersta n d in g o f th e tro lle y p ro b le m , th ey are in te restin g .
© Teaching Philosophy, 2014. A ll rights reserved. 0145-5788
DO I: 10.5840/tea chp hil20 1437334
pp. 449^451
Copyright of Teaching Philosophy is the property of Philosophy Documentation Center and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.