The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Paperback)

~ Robert Audi (Editor)
Key Phrases: immanent intentionality thesis, ethical constructivism, epistemic regress argument, Chu Hsi, Duns Scotus, United States (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is very comprehensive, thoroughly up-to-date, and probably the best short reference book in English on philosophy." Richard Rorty, University of Virginia

"The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is a superb reference work that will help philosophers and non-philosophers alike to understand major figures and ideas in the history of philosophy. Superbly cross-referenced and meticulously edited it will also provide students and teachers with leads to follow, and guides for further reading and research." Edward Said, Columbia University

"Elegantly-written and thoughtfully compiled, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is an essential reference work for any humanist's library. An accessible digest of even the most complex ideas central to the Western philosophical tradition, the Dictionary is a remarkably useful introduction to the history of ideas and to the thinkers who have been so passionate about these ideas." Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

"The first edition of this comprehensive yet concise dictionary quickly established itself as one of the preeminent reference sources in the field. The second edition is significantly larger, including 400 new entries, many on non-Western and non-European philosophy. A noteworthy change from the first edition is the inclusion of some 50 entries on living philosophers, and much attention has been paid to rapidly developing fields such as bioethics and political philosophy. Many of the existing entries have been expanded (e.g., the entry "postmodern" is some 50 percent longer than in the previous edition). A collaborative work of truly international scope, the dictionary is both indispensable both for the range of subjects covered and for the lucidity of the writing." J. R. Luttrell, Princeton University

"Written with authority and comprehensiveness, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy belongs in every philosophy reference collection." Reference Book Review

"It is sure to be a mainstay reference work for years to come. Highly recommended." The Readers Review

"Concise and readable but comprehensive in coverage..." S. P. Foster, Choice

"This is easily the best one-volume reference tool on philosophy that I have seen...I found articles on topics that I knew nothing about very helpful, succinct and clear; on those I am familiar with, the treatment was invariably excellent." Australasian Journal of Philosophy

"All in all, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is a remarkable achievement....it will prove to be extremely useful to teachers and students of philosophy." Ethics

"This is a must-buy volume, a standard reference work on which scholars will be relying for decades." Steve W. Lemke, The Theological Educator

Product Description

Widely acclaimed as the most authoritative and accessible one-volume dictionary available in English, this second edition offers an even richer, more comprehensive, and up-to-date survey of ideas and thinkers written by an international team of 436 contributors. This second edition includes the most comprehensive entries on major philosophers, 400 new entries including over fifty on preeminent contemporary philosophers, extensive coverage of rapidly developing fields such as the philosophy of mind and applied ethics, more entries on non-Western philosophy than any comparable volume, and increased coverage of Continental philosophy.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 1039 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (September 1, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521637228
• ISBN-13: 978-0521637220
• Product Dimensions: 9.9 x 7 x 2.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (29 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #58,051 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #14 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Reference

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

35 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The best there is, not the best there could be, October 13, 2000

By	Dragos Bucurenci (Bucharest, Romania) - See all my reviews

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.

25 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The dictionary is balanced and readable., April 11, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Paperback)

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.

41 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Tough going, September 5, 2000

By	Scott Saccenti (Colora, MD USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.