Customer Reviews

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

By getting the second edition of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy I believe to have achieved the best dictionary of this kind. But when I say "the best" I mean "the best there is" and not "the best there could be", since, apart from the enormous and useful information offered by this work, which is in no way comparable with others of the same kind that I have read or consulted, there are certain lacks that bothered me. In my opinion, there are three critics that can be opposed to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. The first one is the preponderance of the information concerning modern Philosophy and Logic, which is not justified by the importance of the concepts or authors involved. For example, the article concerning the theory of "possible worlds" (which has really been given enough importance only in the last half of the XXth century) is longer than the article concerning Zeno's paradoxes. Also, minor philosophers and logicians of the XXth century are presented in distinct articles, while the presocratics (Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Anaxagoras etc.) are all presented in one article and some of them didn't even get their name mentioned. The second critic is similar to the first one, but it concerns a certain part of non-modern Philosophy: the scholastic (medieval) one. The schools, authors, works and concepts of this age are presented partially or aren't presented at all. Examples: I couldn't find any information about Joachim Jungus or about his "Logica Hamburgensis"; Raymundus Lullus is presented in an article of the same length as the one about a Chinese neo-Confucian philosopher that lived a century before him and didn't make any great revolution or anticipation in oriental Philosophy (as Lullus did in European Logic and Algebra); the discussion of the universals has no article of her own, only one side of the discussion (the realism) being presented and the other one (nominalism) ignored, not to speak of the authors involved in this discussion, most of them not being mentioned. Finally, it bothered me the accentuation of Anglo-Saxon Philosophy and Logic, understandable only if the dictionary would have been written for the use of the people from UK or US (the utility of this dictionary, in my opinion, was meant to be universal). I believe it to be unjustified to present a Scottish philosopher such as Mary Sheperd (whose influence in philosophy is minor) in a dictionary that ignores important thinkers of Antique Philosophy. However, since I don't mean to discourage the possible buyer or reader, I repeat what I've said in the beginning: although it has certain lacks and could have been written in a better way, I believe that the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is the best work of this kind. Not only somebody interested in Philosophy as a hobby, but also somebody who is or intends to get specialized in Philosophy will find in this work useful information, that one might have problems in finding using ordinary dictionaries.

This is the best of the philosophy "dictionaries". Far from a bias toward the East or against the Continent, the CDP has one fairly obvious selection critieria. Anybody still alive doesn't get in. There is no Derrida, but there is also no Putnam, no Davidson, no Searle, no Rorty, no Habermas, and so on. Each of these philosophers are discussed in articles about particular ideas. They just don't have biographical entries. The only serious quarrel I have concerns the use of the word "dictionary". Many basic philosophical terms are omitted and the articles, though coherent, balanced and readable, are of encyclopedic length. Looks more like a small encyclopedia of philosophy to me.

This is not a reference work for beginners. The "definitions" are densely written, by scholars too used to reading some dense writing themselves. It's quite possible this is a useful resource for those with at least moderate exposure to the field--as evidenced by the other reader reviews. But I would warn those looking for quick overviews and accessible summaries of difficult concepts to eschew this one. I'm an amateur, and I didn't find this helpful.

The second edition of THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY corrects many of the deficiencies of the first edition, but many remain. Especially troublesome are lapses of historical awareness. For example, the entry ABDUCTION (which is available on this website) does not mention that the term was introduced into philosophy by the noted American logician C.S. Peirce (1839-1914}. Peirce used it in senses related to, but other than, that assigned to it by the entry. Another example occurs at the TYPE-TOKEN entry, which describes another contribution by Peirce. Here, thankfully, Peirce is given credit , but for something that he did not do and in fact for something that was done centuries earlier, perhaps before Socrates, namely distinguishing between a category and one of its members. Another troubling type of deficiency is a surprising lack of comprehensiveness. For example, the entry MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS, after adequately describing this basic field of pure mathematics and mentioning its application to geometry known as "analytic geometry", fails to mention its other main mathematical application, its application to number theory known as "analytic number theory". Perhaps there will be a third edition in which these and other glaring shortcomings can be addressed. It must be said, however, in all fairness, that this is by far the best work of its kind known to this reviewer. It has been criticized for its "dense writing", which is like criticizing a watchdog for its ferocious-sounding bark.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that over the last 30 years there's been a dramatic improvement in the quality of short reference works in philosophy since I first studied it way back then. I had several of the classic one-volume books in the past, including some that are out of print now, such as Dagobert Runes's brief Dictionary of Philosophy (which wasn't exactly a "classic," but anyway, it was an enjoyable brief exposition nevertheless), but I think the ones that are available now are much better.

This book is certainly an example of that trend, considered by some to be the best in the field, and for good reason. The current edition sports a team of 440 contributors, with 400 new entries, including 50 on important contemporary philosophers. It also claims to have more entries on non- Western and non-European philosophy than an other comparable volume, including Arabic, Islamic, Japanese, Jewish, Korean, Latin American, and even African. I can't vouchsafe all of those claims, but certainly the coverage of Arabic and Islamic subjects is much more extensive than was the case in such reference works in the past. Another thing I liked is the coverage of modern logicians such as Quine and also philosophers of science, which was my main area of interest, is especially strong.

The entries range in length from a brief paragraph to an entire column (the pages are printed in two-column format), to several pages for important philosophers or key ideas in the history of philosophy. This book will appeal mostly to serious students and professionals seeking a brief refresher or discussion of whatever topic they're looking for, but the writing is often livelier than one might expect for a philosophy tome. Some, such as the one for Emerson, are as readable and enjoyable as anything I've ever read in the field, competing with Hector Hawkins's wonderful little book, Philosophy for Pleasure, a little gem of an introductory classic from the 50s that is now long out of print. All in all this is a great reference work and sourcebook for anyone interested in the subject of philosophy.

I noticed in the bibliography section of many of the current philosophy texts that I have read that this dictionary was listed or recommended. That was the number one reason why I bought this reference work. Having read and used it for the last three years, I can see why it is so recommended. The Board of Editorial Advisors for the book is amazing (i.e. William P. Alston, Fred Dretske, Norman Kretzmann, Alan Gewirth, etc.). Some of the contributors include Marilyn McCord Adams, Fred Dretske, C. Stephen Evans, William Hasker, Kai Nielson, Luis P. Pojman, William L. Rowe, Robert C. Solomon, Peter Van Inwagen, William J. Wainwright, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Keith E. Yandell, and many, many more. This dictionary covers everything imaginable in the area of philosophy (all branches), and even some theology. Furthermore, Philosophers are covered, what they taught is covered, and reaction to what certain philosophers taught is covered as well. It contains 4,000 entries written by some 380 scholars/specialists. Thus, it is as the back cover totes, an "indispensable one-volume dictionary."

This dictionary is handy for quickly learning the basics about a philosopher or idea. The entries are concise, and I find the definitions of analytic terms especially helpful for precise understanding. When I started graduate school, I used it enough that I decided to buy a second copy so that I could keep one at home and one at the office.

I use this quite frequently during my doctorate studies. It is helpful to find information about philosophers, theories, and just plain hard words you've never encountered before but are used everyday by some! Worth the price and the binding holds up surprisingly well considering it's size.

I have used both the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and this dictionary. I prefer the Oxford Companion because it contains more definitions and clearer expositions. But both books neglect recent Continental types of philosophy; yet, the Oxford fares much better in this regard than the Cambridge.

I lack training in philosophy but often read nonfiction criticism that requires a bit of philosophical background. This book provides that background without sending my tired eyes to the much longer entries in the eight volume _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_. From the Dictionary's depth and breadth of concise entries, with references to related and equally concise entires, I can usually learn enough to answer my immediate question. The entries also point me to where I should dig if I want deeper background. This Dictionary now permanently resides beside my reading chair.