Ten philosophical mistakes pdf

Ten Philosophical Mistakes. An illuminating critique of modern thought from America's "Philosopher for Everyman" Time. Ten Philosophical Mistakes examines ten errors in modern thought and shows how they have led to serious consequences in our everyday lives. It teaches how they came about, how to avoid them, and how to counter their negative.

Angels and Us. A wonderfully enlightening work on the affinities between angels and human beings. Notify me of new posts via email. View all posts by sykatherine.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Instagram. Posted on 15 Jul 30 Jul by sykatherine. Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Evidently, the good is variable and mysterious; that's why people argue and fight. And if you believe that there is a transcendent good, fine, but if you can't point to it in a way that causes everyone to agree that you're pointing to the correct thing, then you haven't solved the problem of the arguing and the fighting.

The book is free of jargon, but it's completely abstract, and it appears to be aimed at philosophy students. It doesn't hook onto any contemporary issues that explain why a non-academic should care.

Other than his references to philosophers in a certain canon Kant, Hume, Locke, Spinoza , the author gives little indication of his place or time. The United States, At the end of Chapter 4, "Knowledge and Opinion," in promoting the notion that philosophers pursue truth and not mere opinion, he betrays a concern that, if we do not make it clear that philosophy is a search for truth, then philosophy as a discipline will be devalued. If philosophical speculation is not respected in its claim to have a hold upon the truth about reality, our culture will cease to have generalists.

It serves less well as a pitch to readers outside academia as to why they should care about philosophy as a discipline. At the end of Chapter 6, "Happiness and Contentment," he does hit a pragmatic activist note: It's not enough to have "a will rightly directed to happiness as the ultimate goal and habitually disposed to choose the right means for achieving it" p. This fairly uncontroversial statement is, however, still abstract. His examples are the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage; these weren't calls to action in This only demonstrates that philosophers can make assessments in hindsight.

It doesn't persuade me that if we avoid certain specified philosophical mistakes then we are more likely to end up on the right side of history. Aug 30, David rated it really liked it. This is a bold proposition from start to finish. The idea that any Philosopher can find the others mistakes and, somehow, has it better is perhaps brash. I found it interesting to walk through this work. I found most interesting was discussing various conceptions of man's "State of Nature" which some use a very interesting view of man as an individual to then bolster anarchism, libertarianism, etc.

He also makes an assertion which I recall from Nietzsche about Philosophy being concerned as much about what ought to be as with what is. He makes claims which I have trouble accepting. I am uncomfortable when Philosophy becomes a purely speculative and academic process. I think we need to think about what ought and what we are capable of. Our ideas of virtue in the past might not represent what man is, or is really capable of, or how man thrives best.

I am use man to refer to humans not just males. I am glad that he did make clear his Aristotelian position in the book, since, until he did, I always felt like something was being hidden. I was left bothered by what I felt to be an inadequate definition of happiness.

Perhaps, I missed it, but it seemed crucial to his arguments at points, and I am unclear what he meant. For someone so clear in so many ways, this seems to be a glaring omission. Jul 26, John Harder added it. I think a survey course in philosophy might be in order prior to reading portions of this challenging read.

The early chapters dispute specific philosophers such as Kant, Lock and Hume. Broadly Adler explores conclusions depending on whether they are derived by pure inward thought or through interaction with the outside world. Adler feels that depending on which of these methods a philosopher advocates, he will typically take it to an extreme think of Plato and the allegory of the Cave.

Ideas I think a survey course in philosophy might be in order prior to reading portions of this challenging read. Ideas derive from the physical, inward contemplation and the physical with can only be contemplated intellectually i.

Also fictitious items are also part of our reality as they are part of what we are and influence how we perceive reality — is not Captain Ahab a real character?

The latter chapters of the book deal with broader issues such as if there is human nature and human existence without as much finger pointing at specific philosophers. I enjoyed reading this book, but, frankly I am too dumb to digest and argue its points intelligently. I think I need to re-read this before I can recommend it…and my brain is tired and I need to move on to some fluff. Dec 15, Ian rated it it was amazing. Betrand Russell says in his Problems of Philosophy that, despite the predilections of some fusty philosophical bone-pickers, a modern philosophical education should begin with Kant.

Adler wrote this book in part to show what a tragic mistake that is. All sort of errors in modern thought derive from not being conversant with the great thinkers of the past, and Adler shows time and again how a little dose of Aristotle is good for what ails you.

This book, along with Adler's other book Aristotle fo Betrand Russell says in his Problems of Philosophy that, despite the predilections of some fusty philosophical bone-pickers, a modern philosophical education should begin with Kant. This book, along with Adler's other book Aristotle for Everybody, would form a great introduction to the classic Aristotelian-Thomist synthesis in philosophy and its applicability to many of the seemingly insoluble problems of modern thought.

Feb 14, David Peixoto rated it it was amazing. An eye opener against some basic mistakes made by celebrated philosophers that resulted in major consequences in our daily lives.

Adler knows deeply what he is talking about. Luckily I read this book before getting deeper into modern philosophy. Mar 03, Charity rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites , gladhave-read. Adler is a clear thinker, a philsopher who refuses to shroud his thinking with jargon. I have read this book every decade since its publication and I always walk away freshed. I need to buy some of his other books-some I have read and some I have not read. Jul 16, Jennifer rated it liked it.

Second half was better than the first. It took me awhile to get into it, but the bits about happiness and contentment and human nature were great.

Dec 14, Erik marked it as to-read Shelves: another-sort-of-learning. I registered a book at BookCrossing. Dec 29, Cbarrett rated it really liked it. Adler is gifted in communicating the meaning and implications of difficult philosophical ideas, as well as evaluating and analyzing them. He also knows how to read a book, how to speak, and how to listen. Dec 29, Jeffrey rated it it was ok. The writing is pretty good, and he provides a good overview of major ideas in philosophical thought, but Adler fails to offer sound reasoning for the arguments that he makes.

In the introduction, Adler states that he will discuss ten mistakes that modern philosophers have made that have warped the way that people reason.

Although Adler proceeds to survey ten issues that he calls "philosophical mistakes," in almost every case, Adler fails to provide compelling evidence for the position that he ta The writing is pretty good, and he provides a good overview of major ideas in philosophical thought, but Adler fails to offer sound reasoning for the arguments that he makes.

Although Adler proceeds to survey ten issues that he calls "philosophical mistakes," in almost every case, Adler fails to provide compelling evidence for the position that he takes. Instead, he states his own beliefs as truth and dismisses any disagreement as a "mistake.

Although Adler describes Locke's theory well, he disagrees with Locke's statement that these ideas are the only things we encounter for sure, which are private and not observable by other people - in Adler's opinion, our ideas come from the real objects around us that are public and those objects are the things by which we know and perceive things.

However, he goes so far as to call Locke's perfectly legitimate statement that "our ideas are the only thing we have certainty about" a mistake because it leads to either extreme skepticism or solipsism, which he calls untenable.

However, it is not true that Locke's theory necessarily results in skepticism or solipsism, and there is no evidence that shows either of those two beliefs to be false, so Adler has no justification for calling Locke's theory of ideas an "error" or a "philosophical mistake.

This kind of reasoning occurs in almost every chapter of the book, and leads to a flawed conclusion where Adler presents his philosophy as the only viable position to take. Thus this book gets two stars for its adequate presentation of philosophical ideas and clear writing, but no more due to the lack of sound reasoning throughout the book. Oct 23, Geoff Steele rated it it was amazing. Thoughts are not objects; we perceive objects by thoughts Because it is impossible to know the thoughts of other people without them telling you their thoughts through a different medium: i.

Distinguished that man is not just different from animals in degree, but in kind. Jan 06, Keith Miller rated it really liked it. I thought that this was a good book.

From reading other reviews I noticed that many thought this book Part I was a dismantling of the likes of Hume, Locke etc. I did not see it as that.

He clearly gives credit to these philosophers when the logical outworking of an idea is tenable. However, it doesn't make sense to support ideas that are clearly in error. He also provides support of why certain ideas have error. All in all, he is simply arguing that the plague of modern philosophy is to not re I thought that this was a good book. All in all, he is simply arguing that the plague of modern philosophy is to not retrace errors to the source.

Many of today's philosophers simply pile on more falsities to explain away contradictions. He mentions that he would describe himself as an Aristotelian BUT he does not agree with all of Aristotle's philosophical ideas.

Feb 02, John Martindale rated it liked it Shelves: philosophy. After I picked this book up at a book-sale, I opened it up and gave it a chance, I immediately found that reading Adler is like a stroll down a smooth going trail.

But with that said, though it was easy to go from point A to point B, I often would wonder what I had just read after finishing the chapter.

So yeah, though the writing was smooth and flowing, Adler didn't always seem to figure out the clearest and most memorable ways to explain the 'mistakes' and his solution to them, especially in t After I picked this book up at a book-sale, I opened it up and gave it a chance, I immediately found that reading Adler is like a stroll down a smooth going trail.

So yeah, though the writing was smooth and flowing, Adler didn't always seem to figure out the clearest and most memorable ways to explain the 'mistakes' and his solution to them, especially in the first half of the book. Yet, still I'd like to read the book again, if for no other reason than it is interesting reading critiques on modern philosophical ideas from a "common sense" philosopher who feels the ancients Aristotle and Aquinas are much more philosophically sound.

Ten philosophical mistakes The premise of Adlers book is to highlight shuttle but devastating errors in the philosophy derived mostly from the 16th and 17th centuries in such areas as truth, knowledge, existence, and consciousness. An obvious fan of Aristotle, Adler believes much of the errors from the later era are due to those philosophers footballing Aristotle and Aquinas as outdated in their schemes of thought.

Adler goes on to show how even a slight correction of some blatant mistakes made b Ten philosophical mistakes The premise of Adlers book is to highlight shuttle but devastating errors in the philosophy derived mostly from the 16th and 17th centuries in such areas as truth, knowledge, existence, and consciousness. Adler goes on to show how even a slight correction of some blatant mistakes made by greats such as Hume, Locke, and Descartes can be easily fixed.

Mistakes Aristotle himself had avoided. Apr 01, Jeremiah rated it really liked it Shelves: philosophy. Adler's famous saying was that, "Philosophy is everbody's business. Whether we consciously think of it or not we all hold to a philosophy of everything life.

The only question is whether we are going to think well or poorly about them. Adler was a master at communicating difficult ideas on a level even a student in junior high school could understand without leaving out key parts of an important issue.

This book touches on ten of the most important ideas that effect us all, and pe Adler's famous saying was that, "Philosophy is everbody's business. This book touches on ten of the most important ideas that effect us all, and permeate our culture whether we realize it or not. Feb 14, Michael Connolly rated it really liked it Shelves: reviewed , revisit , philosophy. Adler criticizes the German Idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant for asserting that the human mind is inherently incapable of understanding reality.

Kant said that we can never understand things in themselves, but only their appearences. Adler asserts that Kant's mistake has substantially damaged the subsequent development of philosophy.

Adler argues for a return to Aristotle's position, which is that reality is both objective and knowable. Nov 19, Paul rated it really liked it. Adler convinces me that Locke, Hume, and Kant were all tragically wrong in important ways. In Ten Philosophical Mistakes , Adler proves a lucid and credible writer.

His expansive learning and common sense add up to wisdom. Jul 22, Izhan Noorzi rated it really liked it. Adler always has his own words encapsulating a very broad paradigm into a simpler word which is easy to be understood for the thirst knowledge seeker, and not to forget layman. This book may give you essential and sensational yet decisive 5 primary followed by 5 secondary issues to be chewed and digested.

Nov 01, Daniel marked it as not-read Shelves: miscellany-of-philosophy. Adler's general argument is this: the important modern philosophers, beginning with Descartes, made certain errors which have had disastrous results for contemporary notions of the objects of consciousness, the nature of the human mind, the nature of Jun 01, Steve rated it really liked it.

I read this in spurts and very slowly, as I wanted it to sink in. It is very hard to be critical of one's own time, and that is what Adler is doing in this work. Highly recommended to anyone wrestling with modern philosophical thought.

Jul 05, Gavin rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Scott Lind. Adler shows how the biggest mistakes of philosophy stem from Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant.

We ought to go back to Aristotle and Aquinas to deal with these mistakes and confusions. Aug 25, April rated it it was ok. Some good points but the author is clearly a classically trained philosopher who seems to have forgotten that the majority of us are not.