Customer Reviews

Dictionary of Philosophy

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

 

 

There are many philosophical dictionaries on the market, but only one with the wit, scientific insight, and philosophical acuity of Mario Bunge's. Unburdened by peripheral terms from theology or forgotten philosophies, and uncluttered by entries on individual authors, Bunge seems to hold the exotic views that philosophy, a) like science, should be a living discipline which sloughs off its dead matter, leaving it behind for antiquarians to fuss over; and b) should be about reality and ideas, especially ideas about reality, not about trying to decipher, much less deconstruct, what some oddly famous person with a defective prose style might have meant to say about them. One might regret this dictionary's lack of almost any historical or etymological explanations, were it not for the fact that such information is the strength of many other easily available reference works. The net result is that this is a compact, engaging work which doubles as a modern philosophical treatise in microminiature. You will not, for example, find in it terms such as "eschatological", but you will find crystal-clear and interesting entries on "test", "technology, philosophy of", "praxiology", "tychism", "inverse problem", "mereology", "universal grammar", and "background of a research field". Some particularly valuable entries of medium or longer length include those on "mind-body problem", "mathematics, philosophy of", "linguistics", "atomism", and a series of entries beginning with "system". Others of a different sort include "charlacanism", "dadaism, philosophical", and "H". Some of the more acidly humorous remarks are buried though: the hilput, the unit measure of philosophical fickleness, is only mentioned in the entry for the latter, and not actually defined on its own.

This is absolutely not the one-stop philosophical dictionary to buy 24 hours before a final exam in philosophy 101- at least if you want to pass the course, and forget all about it ever after. Nor is it a specialized dictionary most likely to appeal to mathematicians or logicians, although there are several very useful entries on e.g. various logical topics of philosophical interest. It is though a great read and a great reference, stylistically more like Bierce or Johnson or Fowler than Webster. Beginners should be aware though, that while mostly very readable, there are some technical entries. While this really is a philosophical dictionary, it is a very unique one, and should be considered, and appreciated, as a philosophical work on its own.

Mario Bunge s Dictionary is terrific. It is a comprehensive, informative dictionary and it offers an idiosyncratic outlook. Bunge is a rationalist of the old school: a polymath, a systematizer, and a scientific philosopher; and he is reasonable, humorous, and competent. He is a phenomenon. Examples: Mereology is useful for those who happen to have bumped into the word and for experts: he introduces it and its place in ontology in 10 lines plus 3 cross-references. Bunge explains Free Logic and why is redundant and erroneous. This invites careful exposition; the curious may seek it in the first volumes of Bunge s Treatise . Situational Logic is less happy: Bunge says, no such thing . This is wonderfully Laconic and amusing, but insufficient; it could be, were some cross reference inserted, say, to the excellent item Praxiology . Even Sawdust Philosophy , not a term that readers will look up, is enlightening and has nice cross-references. Bunge s discussion of Quotes combines sense and humor with usefulness. So are Eclecticism , Exactification , God , Science , and Schrödinger s Cat and so on. An author of over 50 serious books in diverse fields, Bunge understandably boasts tremendously broad knowledge. Famous as a student of logic and mathematics, of ontology and epistemology, and of the natural science, he should be better known for his knowledge of and insights into the social sciences; the Dictionary should help. Bunge s familiarity with new intellectual trends and his jeers at trendy humbug are as terrific as ever. He is as appreciative of achievements as dismissive of the rest: Tell me how many psuedosciences you buy, and I ll tell you what your philosophy of science is worth ( pseudoscience ). He buys only one: the idea that all psychoses are physical. Still, his emergentism renders his biologism a middle ground between the more popular views and as such he should count as ally of all who are not duped by extremism: Consistency is vital, but it is useless when reached at the excessive use of Dot Dot Dot . Great fun and great value.

This book fills a much needed gap in the philosophical literature. It is a small dictionary of philosophical terms focusing on those relevant to the philosophy of science. It contains some humourous entries which actually make reading it rather than using it merely as a reference possible. (HINT: Look up "H", or "Dasein")