這本書很大部頭，有八百多頁，是一本文集，選的文章有經典的，也有當代的，全都是上乘之選，歸入不同的題目下（例如 “Minds
and Bodies”, “Morality and Moral Problems” 和 “Philosophy and the Good Life”）。類似的文集市面上已有很多，但這一本卻有兩個特點：一，每篇文章都加插了不少編者的注解，幫助讀者理解；二，每篇文章後都列了一些問題，以刺激讀者思考文章的內容。
假如你想「實牙實齒」進入哲學的門檻，有足夠的毅力，英文閱讀能力亦許可，這本書便很適合你；然而，假如你只想輕輕鬆鬆涉獵一下哲學，看這本書就會太辛苦了。不過，這本書也不一定要全本讀，只揀一兩個題目看也可以，重要的是你肯化心力慢慢讀、細細想。
順便一提，其中一個編者 Laurence BonJour 是很有名氣的哲學家，他在 1985年出版的 The Structure
of Empirical Knowledge 是知識論的重要著作，對我也頗有影響。
多謝介紹，考完公開試後，再拜讀此書！
回覆刪除這本書相當貴，你看看可否在網上找到二手的（如果是第一版的二手書，應該在十美元以下）。
刪除Thx a lot!
刪除因為小弟是UW哲學系畢業生，
回覆刪除跟BonJour一面之緣，但不了解。
而Ann Baker是小弟philosophy of language的講師。
(Ann不是教授)但她的教學技術比許多同系教授 好得多，
因此，小弟認為她非常適合寫 哲學介紹類的課本。
按：Ann Baker的第一課頗深刻，因為講的 不是別的，
是怎樣討論哲學同時能專重別人。
那個quarter,有一些Theory上的不解，她願意用十多個email來解釋，
我問完，她再答‧‧‧
她是個好老師
UW哲學系不錯呀！
刪除談到入門文集，我有一事想請教。若想入門一個哲學範疇，希望在入門書外看看當前的討論，你認為 Philpapers 是個好地方嗎？你認為這網頁編輯材料做得好不好 (就是說會不會太 random 不全面)？謝謝！
回覆刪除如果想知道甚麼是熱門問題，或想找某些哲學家的最新文章，philpapers 當是好地方，不過，那裏的文章良莠不齊，有時看了 abstract 覺得有趣，但看全文卻很不行。
刪除謝謝你的回覆。我之所以問，就是用下去發現文章好像很「垃雜」，而且還有 "forthcoming" 的文章，不知它是讓人自由上載新 entry 沒有系統管理還是怎樣。
刪除Philpapers 是有人管理的，但不會篩選文章。
刪除這本書好像有第二版。另有，Oxford University Press 有本Reading Philosophy也是很好好入門書，比這本提供更多讀哲學文章的指引。
回覆刪除我 link 的已是第二版。
刪除我知道 OUP 有本文集是 John Perry, Michael Bratman 等 Stanford 教授編的，但書名不是 "Reading Philosophy"。
深謝教授介紹。
回覆刪除不用客氣。
刪除想到Library.nu（前名gigapedia）找找有沒有這本書下載，結果發現網站個多月前閉關了，可惜！
回覆刪除Wong,
回覆刪除The book seems harder than a 入門書.
//UW哲學系不錯呀！// What make you say that? I'm curious. --zpdrmn
Yes, most of the articles selected are not easy.
刪除The philosophy department of UW has BonJour and some other fine philosophers. I have a good impression of the department also because I know several people who got their master's or PhD there.
Zpdrmn,
回覆刪除What do you mean by "curious"?
「難以理解」還是「好奇想知道」？
你是華大生嗎？或是華大哲學生？
Several people (2 generations) in my extended family are graduates of UW. --zpdrmn
刪除Are they majoring in philosophy ?
刪除Are you a UW student too?
And would you answer my question of your usage on "curious"? I am so curious! (好奇想知道）
They weren't majoring in philosophy. If they were, I didn't need to ask Wong.
刪除I'm not a student of any institutes. I'm a student of life.
I am using the dictionary meaning of curious: "marked by desire to investigate and learn"(m-w.com.) I'm curious in many things. You can see some of them, if you're curious enough, by the many comments I left on Wong's blogs.
If I weren't curious I wouldn't wander in Wong's cyberspace.
I was so curious once I read an article in the Wall Street Journal by a scientist a few days ago I emailed and asked him something about arctic ice cap melting because he didn't mention it in his article.
I tried some shark meat before and it tasted so bad. I was so curious and discussed it with my family and questioned whether evolution applied there.
I think I have said enough. Maybe it's my turn to ask you some questions, if you don't mind. --zpdrmn
Missing info: The article in WSJ was about global warming
刪除Yup! I will answer any question you ask if I can. And thank you for your long and nice reply.
刪除Since you are a graduate of UW, would you briefly introduce, besides Bonjour, 1 or 2 philosophers who are among the best there? (I'm not talking the best instructors of philosophy but philosophers.) --zpdrmn
刪除talking about--I meant
刪除Mmm...In our department, I think Professor Arthur Fine would be the best. Wong, do you know this guy too?
刪除"He is a past president of the American Philosophical Association and the Philosophy of Science Association and has for many years been on the editorial board of the journal Philosophy of Science, one of the leading publications in the field. " (I copy this from wikipedia as I don't think I can introduce him better than this)
In fact, I didn't "really" take his class as I have no interest in philosophy of Science, and Professor Fine he only teaches philosophy of Science, not even any Logic and old school philosophy.
PS, the Reason why I use "really" is that Professor Fine came the our lesson to share once. he is talkative, old but brilliant. he said he would never teach Ethics to undergraduate student.
Yes, Arthur Fine is a famous philosopher. I think he's even more well-known than Laurence BonJour. (There is another famous philosopher named "Fine", Kit Fine.)
刪除Thanks, I think I'll refrain from asking more questions. --zpdrmn
刪除How about Queen Mary in London and University of Sydney?
回覆刪除I am not familiar with these universities.
刪除教授你好，
回覆刪除小弟只是一名高中學生，
對西方哲學具有興趣，
自知英文能力不足，難以容易理解西方哲學(英文版)內容，
雖則已經讀完了中文版的《蘇菲的世界》(理解了各個哲學家的特點和歷史背景)和李天命多本有關有神論的Logic謬誤的書籍，
換句話說，就是我想「實牙實齒」進入哲學的門檻，雖則有足夠的毅力，但英文閱讀能力不足以應付哲學類書籍。
請問我應該繼續閱讀較為入門的書還是應該慢慢鑽研和理解較為進階和深入的書呢？
你應該先學好英文。
刪除Thanks for answering my question.
刪除But how to study English effectively?
如果你只是要訓練自己讀英文哲學書（而不用寫或講），那倒簡單，迫自己多看便成了。起初會讀得很辛苦，很多地方看不明白，但慢慢看，查字典詞書，堅持下去，一年內必有大進步。可用 Thomas Nagel 的 What Does It All Mean?開始，把書看兩三次亦無妨。
刪除想當年看兩二頁英文的柏拉圖，每頁有數十個字唔識，逐個字查，很辛苦，用了四五個鐘。但進步很快。如果你有些SM傾向 (好似阿王咁)，會更好。
刪除我有些 SM 傾向？怎麼我自己不知道？
刪除估下啫，在我心目中你唔係好正常。原來你冇咖？
刪除唔正常有好多種，唔一定係有 SM 傾向嘅，知冇？
刪除我想問問阿Yan一個問題
刪除自瘧屬於S定M呢﹖
同埋﹐做gym算唔算一種自瘧呢﹖
你有精神問題﹐又做過gym﹐我諗得你先識答(爆)
文少：
刪除//自瘧屬於S定M呢﹖
- S 完後 M 掛。
//同埋﹐做gym算唔算一種自瘧呢﹖
- 應該有啲：做時頗辛苦，之後有快感。
//你有精神問題﹐又做過gym﹐我諗得你先識答(爆)//
- 超，好似有調查話香港有八成人精神有問題，我估你都有精神問題。
//我估你都有精神問題//
刪除- 大家心照。
Yan:
刪除//S 完後 M 掛。//
問題係﹐自瘧可以S邊個呢﹖
//應該有啲：做時頗辛苦，之後有快感。//
完全唔知點解做gym可以有快感。
//超，好似有調查話香港有八成人精神有問題，我估你都有精神問題。//
我日日訓到自然醒﹐好多人恨都很唔到﹐所以精神絕對無問題!(笑)
文少：
刪除//問題係﹐自瘧可以S邊個呢﹖
- 你冇睇過杜琪峰《神探》咩，可以一分七，打麻雀都得呀。
//完全唔知點解做gym可以有快感。
- 有安多芬囉： http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/exercise-depression
//我日日訓到自然醒﹐好多人恨都很唔到﹐所以精神絕對無問題!(笑)//
- 不過我真的懷疑你精神上過度活躍。
Hi Mr. Wong,
回覆刪除I'm self-studying that anthology you recommended. I've just finished reading Descartes’s Meditation Three, and have a few questions. If you have time, would you answer them, please?
1. If I can use present scientific views to dismiss arguments in a historical essay, should I do that? For example, Descartes suggested that cold is a non-thing because it is the absent of heat. If I consider heat and cold as feelings created in the brain and by nerve impulses, then I can dismiss Descartes’s point because cold is not the absent of heat in this sense, but I don’t know whether it is good to do so.
2. If Descartes, or anyone, gives out a metaphysical or a priori claim that I am confused or doubt, what should I do? For example, the claim that a substance contains certain modes (e.g. purely thinking mode, extension, and shape); what is the right way to treat such kind of claims?
3. If I disagree with a conclusion (namely, in Meditation Three, the existence of God), and if that same conclusion is used as the premise of some further argument (in Meditation Six), can I rightly reject that further argument?
I guess you have encountered these situations before because you are a philosopher. It will be very helpful to me if you can share your experience.
city
1. It depends on whether the scientifically incorrect view is essential to his main argument. (By the way, it is not clear from the text that Descartes thinks cold is the absence of heat.)
刪除2. Philosophy has to be done very slowly. You don't have to either accept or reject the claim; you can remain skeptical until (after studying more philosophy) you are able to make a better judgment.
3. You can reject the conclusion without rejecting the logic of the argument.
Many philosophers don't use 'heat' to refer to a certain kind of sensation or feeling, bu rather to a dispositional property that causes people to have that kind of feeling in suitable circumstances. So, your disagreement with Descartes may be just a verbal dispute.
刪除Mr. Wong,
回覆刪除Thank you very much for replying. I still have two more follow-up questions in 1 and 3:
1. If the scientifically incorrect view is not essential to the main argument, even if I don’t agree with the view, I can let it pass. Is this right?
2. That’s useful. You neatly solve my problem.
3. So I can suppose the conclusion to be right (although actually rejecting it), and continue to read and check the validity of the further argument?
(Actually I think the heat and cold problem is not important, and I am wrong to say that Descartes “suggests” that cold is the absence of heat; it is better to say that he is unsure about that issue and is merely considering different possibilities.)
city
Normativity,
回覆刪除Thank you for making the distinction. Initially I was also trying to make that distinction, but I think I made it irrelevantly in a context that doesn’t need that distinction, and thus it becomes a verbal dispute.
city
city,
回覆刪除1. Yes.
3. No, you don't have to suppose the conclusion is right. If you think one of its premises is false, then even if its logic is perfect, you can still reject its conclusion.
Mr. Wong,
回覆刪除Thank you. I've learned more about how to do philosophy.
city
No problem.
刪除