21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Warning! Abridged!, October 27, 2007
This review is from: Thomas Reid's Inquiry and Essays (Paperback)
The editor says, "The present edition is an attempt to 'let Reid speak for himself.'" Yet he deletes the first two sections of Reid's primary essay and begins with the third! And he continues this practice throughout the work. Unacceptable. Get the whole story in an unabridged edition - Reid is worth reading.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Monotonous Litany of First Principles, October 12, 2005
This review is from: Thomas Reid's Inquiry and Essays (Paperback)
Reid is the perfect antidote to Descartes, Berkeley, and Hume. He is also progenitor of ordinary language philosophy and ordinary common sense. The sensible world is restored as a first principle; something that cannot be proven, but all must concede exists. And all perception is veridical. The Inquiry captures all the nuances of the five senses as we ordinarily have come to know them. Ditto, reason, which is the focus of the first Essay. Yes, reason can lead one into infinite regress, especially when it comes to causes and effects, but we necessarily rely on some element of reason (conception, imagination, judgment) to give us bearings in the world. The final Essay is on morality. It is the least interesting, if only because Reid appeals to the "Author of our being" to establish first principles of right and wrong. Even so, humans are endowed naturally with a moral sense so that many of the appeals to God could just as easily be appeals to our endowment by human nature. But the number of his first principles is inordinate.
One of the problems with Reid's entire approach is the number of his first principles. I stopped counting after forty. Somehow that many first principles defeats the whole notion of first principle. Even if I agree with Reid that Descartes' starting point, the thinking self, is the wrong first principle, at least Descartes starts with one first principle and deduces others. Likewise, Berkeley and Hume, one to an idealist conclusion, one to a sceptical conclusion. Reid's approach is manifestly opposite. Since he insists so much of what we are consists of numerous first principles, soon the whole notion of "first principle" loses its meaning. In a sense, to save the rest of ordinary language and common sense philosophy, he must abuse the ordinary notion of "first principle."
Somehow, there needs to be a better balance. Surely, that man is sentient can itself be a first principle, and that man is a rational animal can be another, and from these two, the others can be deduced. Maybe not. That's the predicament of modern philosophy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No