This short and artfully written book was published after Hume's death. Hume did not wish to experience the controversy engendered by the arguments advanced in the book. It is likely as well that Hume was concerned also with offending some of the moderate Presbyterian clergy who were his personal friends and had been his partisans in other controversies. This book is primarily an attack on the idea that the exercise of reason and logic provides support for religion, and particularly that application of reason leads to strong evidence for the existence of a beneficient God. This line of thought had become particularly popular among liberal theologians in the first half of the 18th century and was a widely held notion among Enlightenment intellectuals across Europe and North America. This idea is still widely held today and can be seen in the writings of the so-called 'intelligent design' advocates of creationism. Hume's criticisms, then, are not only of historic interest but continue to have relevance to our contemporary lives.

The Dialogues are constructed as a 3 cornered argument between three friends. Demea, a man upholding revealed religion against the idea that reason provides support for the existence of God. Cleanthes, an advocate of natural religion. Philo, a skeptical reasoner who attacks the positions held by Demea and Cleanthes. For those who like Hume's sprightly 18th century style, this is a fun book to read. Hume artfully divides some of his strongest arguments between Cleanthes and Philo, and gives the Dialogues the real sense of a dispute among 3 intelligent friends. Philo is generally taken to represent Hume's positions but Cleanthes articulates some strong arguments and provides some of the best criticisms of Demea's fideism. Much of the book is devoted to attacking the argument from design, which Cleanthes attempts to defend against assaults from Philo and Demea. In many ways, the argument from design is the major idea of those supporting the natural religion approach to existence of God. Hume's critique is thorough and powerful. It even includes an anticipation of Darwin's idea's of selection, though the basis for Hume's critique is primarily epistemological. In the later parts of the book, Hume attacks also the comsological argument for the existence of God, though this discussion is relatively brief and a bit confusing. Hume's analysis is consistent broadly with much of his philosophical work. In many ways, his great theme was the limitations of reason, and this book is an example of his preoccupation with the relatively limited role of reason in establishing certain facts about the universe. He finishes with short criticisms of the idea that religion is needed for a stable and well ordered society and defends the usefullness of skeptical reasoning.

It is important to view the Dialogues as part of a critique of religion that Hume sustained in several works. His Natural History of Religion, the On Miracles section of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understacing, and other essays comprise a broad criticism of religion. Other pillars of religion, such as the existence of miracles and revelation, are criticized in his other work. While Hume denied being an atheist and was apparently disturbed by the dogmatic atheism of French philosophes he met in Paris, he was certainly not religous in any conventional sense.

This is a short and very readable book but the power of its arguments are totally out of proportion to its length.

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.

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.

This book, edited by Goldish and Popkin, presents essays on messiahs and messianism from a conference at the Clark Library. It covers a period from the late 15th century to the mid-18th century. Included are: Eric Lawee on Isaac Abarbanel's messianic theory; Matt Goldish, "Patterns in Converso Messianism"; Kenneth Krabbenhoft on Herrera's Kabbalah; Jacob Barnai's discussion of Sabbatian polemics; Richard Popkin on Christian reactions to Sabbatai Zevi; Allison Coudert, "Kabbalistic Messianism versus Kabbalistic Enlightenment"; Elisheva Carlebach on failed messiahs and Jewish conversion to Christianity; Elliot Wolfson the convert Johann Kemper's use of messianism to try and convert other Jews; Harris Lenowitz on Jacob Joseph Frank in Offenbach; and Martha Keith Schuchard, "Dr. Samuel Jacob Falk: A Sabbatian Adventurer in the Masonic Underground." Although these are separate essays, various themes recur. These include the interplay between Christian and Jewish ideas, and the common hope for an end to history as we know it. This volume contains much information not readily available elsewhere and I highly recommend it.

I thought I might be able to learn something from a book which takes a vast overview of philosophical problems, illustrated by concrete examples, but I did not get very far into this book. Is it so typical that philosophers are so high up in their ivory tower that their hypothetical situations lack any substance?

This book has no idea how often it is wrong about fundamental things like law; like how real people who have problems is not at all the same as how people have legal problems. Americans should realize: they live in a country where even their legal problems have legal problems, and people who want to count ballots better watch out that the Supreme Court does not get in their way. Strange cases might involve something more unusual than "two persons arrested for stealing money." (p. 22). If one of them is younger, it might be assumed that the other "is a hardened criminal, arrested and convicted many times for various offenses. His stealing is a part of a pattern of behavior." (p. 20). Judges might expect to consider that a young person hasn't had time to get caught as often, in imposing their sentences, but this book expects [wrongly, I'm sure] the jurors to be informed of everything the defendants ever did, and then argue about giving more punishment to whomever is worse. "In the cases of the two thieves, we can imagine a debate among the jurors, some of whom might argue that, independent of the histories of the accused persons, equal crimes should be treated equally, and some of whom argue that background factors should be taken into consideration in dispensing justice." (p. 22). If an attorney is effectively representing the thieves, all the extraneous information about a pattern of behavior will be excluded as prejudicial beyond the weight of its probative value, but this book, like most philosophy, would totally boggle everyone's mind if it tried to realistically describe how attorneys can complicate things. Sentencing guidelines now take much of this out of the hands of judges, so any defendant who is not treated according to a standardized chart could become an obstacle to the judge advancing in federal courts, where confirmation hearings harp on odd behavior. Pickering is not listed in the index, but the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are unlikely to confirm him for an Appeals court because of the case of Daniel Swan, who seemed to Pickering to be too young and drunk to serve six years for burning a cross in the yard of the interracial couple in his neighborhood. Causing trouble in his neighborhood was something that even his neighbors didn't seem too concerned about, if you can guess which state he lived in. Whole vast crowds of people have been burning crosses in movies that I have seen, set back in the days before television, when people got out and did things together, and everybody had some sense of what kind of consequences, like arson or bombing, was sure to follow. Daniel Swan might have been released from prison in less than two years, sentenced for a lesser crime than whatever Timothy McVeigh was convicted of for an actual revolutionary bombing, but McVeigh was old enough to know better, as anyone who ever went to Waco, Texas to try to help David Koresh must be by now.

I'm far too extreme to read a whole book that considers anything which is perfectly clear an extreme. "The extreme right-to-life position advances the following considerations in support of its position: First, it argues that from the moment of conception, a human fetus is a human being, and that all human beings are persons. Second, as mentioned above, it states that such persons are innocent of any crime." (p. 23). The second step is necessary because we already know that people who have been born are part of a society that constantly kills, sometimes counting the dead, but considering the production of meat an agricultural item that is easier to replenish than 90 percent of the large fish in the ocean, now that we have almost saved the whales. If there is anything people haven't killed, I am not sure if I have heard of it, though I know that in section 125 of THE GAY SCIENCE, Nietzsche wrote, " `Where is God?' he cried; `I'll tell you! We have killed him -- you and I! We are all his murderers. . . . Do we still smell nothing of the divine decomposition? -- Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!" For real Christians, it is communion that makes this kind of thing a ritual participation in who we are, body and blood, and if killing millions is what we do, it seems likely to continue regardless of anything this book might say about protecting the innocent.

Popkin and Stroll, using skepticism as a springboard, have written an insightful, informal introduction to philosophy. The book is clear and readable but not superficial. In a neutral way, the authors review how all great thinkers from the Greeks to the contemporary have dealt with theories about our ability to know anything.
The work is structured in three parts: The first defines skepticism and deals with different philosophers. The second applies various philosophical principles to the study of religion, ethics and politics. The third is a debate between the authors, one of them is a skeptic. I heartily recommend this book to the general public.

The authors show commendable effort in tackling such an ambitious project. Unfortunately their scholarship is often spotty. One example of many: they base their discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses on superficial, secondary, non-scholarly sources. They state that Jehovah's Witnesses "reject the use of tobacco and alcohol, and will not accept blood transfusions." (P. 158) This is more-or-less correct regarding blood transfusions, but the authors of this book are obviously not aware of the fact that the scholarly literature concerning Jehovah's Witnesses documents widespread alcoholism among the Witness leadership. Similarly, on page 456 and elsewhere, the authors make sweeping statements concerning John Calvin, statements that they fail to document, and which, in fact, constitute gross oversimplifications. On the other hand, the authors, with more attention to research and more mature reflection, are no doubt capable of writing a much better book some time in the future. They need to go back to the library !

This book was enjoyable to read. Books looking at messianic beliefs through history seem to be a burgeoning market. A better one covering the same material is Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millenium. As well, there are books that cover a very specific part of the picuture, such as Michael Barkun's Religion and the Rascist Right, examining British-Isrealism and Christian Identity. Part of the charm of Messianic Revolution is its looseness in defining radical religious politics. It often seems the authors include an idea or group simply because it interests them and then they shoe horn it gently into the narrative. This may not make for a authoritative book but it does keep the story and subject interesting and should lead the reader to read more on this subject.

Any brief review carrying a theme through many centuries will cover certain aspects in an overly simplified or superficial manner. But the test is if in the end the information provided grants us insight that would otherwise have been lacking. "Messianic Revolution" by Katz and Popkin stands up well to this test. Although at certain points early on the book seems to drag, by the second half all the pieces tie together well. The reader gains an understanding of where many messianic concepts current today had their origin. Such understanding can on the one hand break down prejudice caused by ignorance, on the other hand it can give the reader healthy caution in reviewing his own religious concepts. It is important to note the use and constant potential abuse of prophetic interpretations.

If we understand historically where we came from and how we arrived at this point at the turn of the millennium, we can have our eyes that much wider open as to what will or will not occur in the next.

I wanted to state my own agreement with the previous reviewer. It is a book that gives original material. If that is what you are looking for, the book strikes major themes within the works. If you are looking for further exposition on those works, this is not the book for you. As there is very little original material besides those cited it is hard to justify a high rating, but don't let the rating dissuade you: the original text is what it is (of course translated into English as appropriate).

Philosophers included are (in order): Amerigo Vespucci, Desiderius Erasmus, Martin Luther, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Michael de Montaigne, Francis Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Blaise Pascal, Baruch Spinoza, Nicolas Malebranche, Gottfried Leibniz, and Pierre Bayle, for a total of about 333 pages of their works (the rest is bibliography, index, and introduction).

This is a short anthology of philosophical writings from Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries. The selections are traditional, but this is to be expected from the limited space available that precludes a selection of anyone but the major philosophers of the period, though there is a strange absence of any of the philosophes of the early Enlightenment.

A page or two detailing its historical context and giving relevant biographical information briefly introduce each selection. However, these are quite brief and often do not give the philosophers an adequate philosophical context, and it will be difficult to use this anthology on its own. It will be useful as a reference of original source materials to accompany a book or course on the history of philosophy.