I had a mental love affair with David Hume. I found myself intigued and captivated and frustrated all at once. And, in the end, there was something liberating and alienating. To believe or not to believe--that's something Hume leaves to the reader. Oh, by the way, technically, the sun doesn't rise, nor does it 'set' or fall. The earth spins around its axis--the side that is facing the sun is day; the side facing away from the sun is night. And yet, after reading David Hume, I might even doubt that explanation.

Actually, the rising sun example is often cited as something Hume was completely unsure about. (theoretically, of course) Hume was essentially unwilling to believe anything, be it materialistic or spiritualistic.

just a comment for the person below. don't be so sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. you're commiting the fallacy of causation, which hume would frown upon. read some more hume. he was a smart man.

This little book tells the story of the most important turning point in the history of Western thinking. That it is full of surprises, shows how widely misunderstood is the subject it treats. One of the most important things it demonstrates, without necessarily meaning to, is how radical skepticism has historically been an ally, rather than an enemy, of religion, and an enemy, rather than an ally, of science.

Popkin is the undisputed master of this subject, and this book is filled with summaries and precious exerpts of works no longer accessible to most of us, and is worth buying for that reason alone.

Don't be put off by the title. This really is the best introductory book on philosophy. Very readable. It was the first philosophy book that I read (I was in high school at the time). I subsequently went on to study philosophy at Oxford University (England) and Cornell, where I got my PhD in philosophy. Later, I wandered into the field of "computers" where I've had a long and happy career. But I still remember PHILOSOPHY MADE SIMPLE.

This is the best among several introductory books on the subject that I have read. Philosophers and related terms are clearly explained with the support of historical background. Nearly all philosophical ideas are introduced with both sides of the arguments. Sort of the story telling approach make those ideas easy to follow. I highly recommend it to those who want to learn more on philosophy, even for advanced students. I agree with the previous reviewer that one should consider it to be the only book on philosophy carrying aound with for reference. As the preface of the latest edition says, this subject can't be made simpler. Many thanks Mr. Popkin and Mr. Stroll for your great effort.

I am a 4th year philosophy major and it was a great reference book for me. It is really hard to travel with all your books so this one made it easy to look up theories that you made need a little extra help understanding. Or for those out there that have never taken a philosophy course this book would be an easy way to begin to understand philosophical theories.

When I was browsing on Amazon, I was surprised to see that this book (In Europe it is called 'The Pimlico History of Western Philosophy, edited by Richard H. Popkin and effectively written by -indeed- a 'small army of connaisseurs') had an average rating of 4.5 stars. To me the largest part of the book is utterly unreadable. Many sections seem like an endless row of quotations connected by lines of interpretative thought from each expert. No doubt that these people are experts in their field, but their capacity to transmit the basic ideas as intended by the philosophers discussed (or at least the interpretations of those ideas), is very poor. Nor do the discussions stimulate philosophical thought in the reader himself. Probably this might not be the purpose of this book, but in my personal opinion every history of philosophy should encourage the interested layman to contemplate on the big questions concerning metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and ethics. Or as Storig formulates it very well in his excellent 'Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philospie':

What can we do? What should we do? What may we believe?

If you are looking for the answers to these questions, do not read this book. The remark Popkin makes in the introduction of this book concerning 'History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell is really cheap: "Russell wrote his book hastily out of financial desperation while jobless in N.Y.C. at the beginning of WW II. Since Russell was a scholar of very few topics he covered, and uninterested or hostile to others, his opus is most engaging as Russelliana but hardly as history of philosophy". And further: "This work (Popkin's) is not intended to compete with this classic (Russell's)". Well, I read both and the conclusion is easily made. Pimlico doesn't come even close to Russell's. Indeed Bertrand Russell treats the history of philosophy in a very personal style and frankly ventilates his opinion on the great minds of western philosophy. But he does this in such a way, that it is still possible to get a clear picture of the original ideas unbiased by Russell's opinions. Also Russell's book does stimulate the educated reader to think and judge for himself. And, frankly, - but this is my personal opinion - although I do not agree with Russell's judgement in a number of cases, his statement that the philosophic ideas of some great men like Berkeley - who denied the existence of matter; material objects exist only through being perceived - are to be classified as insanity, despite the sometimes ingenuous arguments Berkeley made to support this view.

I would like to spare one section from Pimlico's from my harsh criticism. That is the one written by Avrum Stroll on 'Twentieth Century Analytic Philosphy'. The eleven chapters he wrote give a very accessible introduction to this difficult subject, although I feel he could have spent more words on the Tractatus in the Wittgenstein chapter. Stroll's contribution prevents the rating from dropping to one star.

The Columbia History of Western Philosophy narrates western philosophy in a more collective way than traditional histories of philosophy, and, for related reasons, its editor, Richard H Popkin, has called upon a diverse group of specialists to edit the chapters.

This is both Politically Correct and academically conventional, but it means that the Columbia history is not a good introduction to philosophy for the general reader: instead it is an excellent reference book for someone already versed in philosophy.

In former days, the history of philosophy was biographical, and focused on the thought of the major dead white males. .... Throughout his book, Popkin's authors provide this Politically Correct equal time and the general reader already well-versed in philosophy can learn much. But Popkin, in the selfsame interests of Political Correctness, fails to have his team judge, and for that matter, the judgements of a team are almost guaranteed to be a least common denominator. The sophisticated and academic reader can be left with more questions than answers, but the general reader is, I think, ultimately confused: did Plato mean what Plato said or was Plato messing with our minds? Should Spinoza have gotten married and settled down? Was Theodore Adorno a schnook or a good guy? ....

The Columbia History is destined to become a classic. Richard Popkin assembled a small army of experts to write this history. The result is a text that is useful not only to the scholar, but to the general reader and student as well. Although a book like this suffers the danger that it will be simply a collection of unrelated essays on each philosopher or school of philosophy, Popkin provides notes that connect the separate articles. The thorough bibliography and index make this book particularly useful. Every student of philosophy should own a copy. Highly recommended.