I hated this book. It is in the tradition of philosophy written to be inoffensive to females of very conventional sensibilities. I mean, the REAL tradition of such books, not some metaphor you could think I invented because I wanted to write a negative review.
For example, Kelly says that Leibnitz "believed" that ours is the best of all possible worlds; in fact, Leibitz wrote that "philosophy" only as innocuous reading for a particular female patroness of his. As Bertrand Russell explains quite clearly, this was not Leibnitz's real philosophy. The "best of all possible worlds" philosophy that was rightly parodied by Voltaire in Candide was "at best" only a comic-book version of Leibnitz's real system, called the Monodology. But you will not learn this from Kelly. The Adventure of Philosophy, this isn't.
As another example, you can find dozens of pages devoted to various theistic approaches to philosophy, and only two pages to anti-theistic approaches, which are carefully called "the argument from evil." Gosh, I wonder whether Kelly's students have a bias towards belief in God?
If you think philosophy is best when it is easy to understand and offends the fewest number of people, you might really love this book. If such is your case, perhaps this book is for the best... of all your possible worlds... and whatever box you keep it in.
Was this review helpful to you?