Regular marked price: $14.00Discount Price: $11.20
Cost Savings: $2.80 (20%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 100
EAN num: 9780684818689
ISBN number: 068481868X
Label: Touchstone
Manufacturer: Touchstone
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 224
Printing Date: April 01, 1997
Publishing house: Touchstone
Sale Popularity Level: 53210
Studio: Touchstone
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
For the very first time in paperback, the illuminating critique of modern thought from America's 'Philosopher for Everyman' (Time).
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
I would highly recommend this book to everyone as a nice answer to the cultural relativism of yesterday - or "postmodernism" if you would prefer. Essentially he gives a very good case that we really do exist and that yes, you are responsible for your actions. Also, happiness isn't the main goal in life, and by the way - there is an absolute right and wrong (and it isn't based on the existence of God).
Adler could be dogmatic about his views but I think he had a very good reason - his reasoning and logic would stand up under scrutiny.
I didn't give it five stars because at points he was a bit redundant and I think the writing style wasn't always as lucid as it could have been. But, those are very minor criticisms.
Rated by buyers 
-
The following is my take on Adler's Ten Philosophical Mistakes. Please forgive my mistakes in advance and feel free to correct me here or via email at jldarrouzet@gmail.com.
1. Consciousness and Its Objects:
Mis-taking "that by which" we are conscious of our ideas, perceptions, memories, imaginations, conceptions or other objects of thought, for "that which" we apprehend during consciousness.
At the extremes, the former objects allow us to communicate at the highest levels of human experience; mistaking the latter for the former leads to solipsism, the assertion that everthing of which I am aware or conscious is a figment of my own mind.
All of us can partcipate in the former approach. It is commonsensical. There is only one solipsist, right?
2.The Intellect and the Senses:
Mis-taking the brain's ability to experience sensations for the mind's ability to intellectualize during cognition.
At the extremes, the former limits are mental functions to our brain's activities or lack thereof, and denies the existence of anyting that is non-sensible; the latter leads to artificial intelligence (the re-invention of angels). The former leads to a radical forms of materialism (nominalism, subjectivism, solipsism, complete skepticism, and cynicism); the latter to radical forms of idealism (archetypal universalism, conceptualism). We are human beings. Our brains are necessary for cognition and intellectualization, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves to act in those ways.
3. Words and Meaning:
Mis-taking the use of verbal description for significant communication of ideas.
"...our ideas do not have meaning, they do not acquire meaning, they do change, gain or 'lose' meaning. Each of our ideas is a mean and that is all it is. Mind is the realm in which menaings exist and whrough which everything else that has meaning acquires meaning, changes meaning, or loses meaning." "A meaningful word, a notation with significance, is a sign. Signs that are only and always signals are used by animals. Humans use signs that are signals and also signs that are form designators to refer to other mental concepts. Communication reduced to verbal descriptions using strings of code words amount to signals on an animal level. Communication of only strings of ideas amounts to an endeavor at artificial intelligence. Commonsense communication works between the extremes. Naming is not merely asserting the existence of something or someone and giving it or him or her a description, but rather naming is an acknowledgment of a being that exists beyond the domain of my mind.
4. Knowledge and Opinion:
Mis-taking two different approaches for knowledge and restricting others to mere opinion: the approach of skepticism and logically positive sciences or the approach of phenomenalism and transcendental philosophy for knowledge.
At the extremes, skepticism masquerades as knowledge because it claims only empirical evidence to be real, but must resort to doubting doubt itself to provide a "private" proof of a possible starting point.
Likewise, logically positive sciences masquerade as knowledge by asserting axiomatically starting points from which to launch hypothetical proofs.
Rather than reach knowledge from this approach, we reach self-rightgeous indulgence of self.
On the other extreme, the raw data of phenomena is offerred as what is really known and all other views are pushed into mere opinion, thus rendering the intellectual enterprise an ultimately futile exercise of attempting to communicate beyond phenomenal worlds which may or may not be shared.
Likewise, transcendental concepts of the mind are invented and offerred to secure what is really known and all other views are pushed into mere opinion, thus again rendering the intellectual enterprise an ultimately futile exercise of attempting to communicate beyond transcendental concepts of the worlds which may or may not be shared. Rather than reach knowledge from this approach, we reach self-rightgeousness domination of others.
Based in large part on the mistakes noted in 1,2, and 3, these approaches fail to deliver what commonsense readily acknowledges. Few things are certain. Logic, mathematics, and definitions provide certain starting points for communication.
Most things have sufficient evidence to support our knowlege of them; but they move from opinion to knowledge based on accumulated viewpoints and observations and no relevant or pertinent contradictions. Science and commonsense experiences themselves exemplify this kind of knowledge. And finally, the knowledge that is not so supported is referred to as opinion.
5.Moral Values:
Mis-taking "right" moral values supported by opinions, built with might, for moral values with "might" supported ... Read More
Rated by buyers -
I thought this book was so useful that I bought ten more copies to give to friends (interested in philosophy). It is a relatively easy read for a layman. However, Chapter Ten has serious errors.
Rated by buyers 
-
As Adler himself admits, the title of this book is inaccurate, since it covers more than ten philosophical mistakes. I'd like to add that it also makes more than ten philosophical mistakes. This is not to say that the book is without value. Adler is a very clear writer, with a kind of conversational style that makes complex issues seem easy. But for the most part he also treats these issues too simplistically and ignores problems with his own views. The issues are not that easy, after all.
To consider just one example, take his defense of moral objectivity. His basic argument is that subjectivists ignore that there is a basic prescriptive (or normative) truth which, along with descriptive truths, can be used as a foundation for objectively true moral judgements. This basic prescriptive truth, according to Adler, is that "we ought to desire whatever is really good for us and nothing else" (p. 125). And, he adds, the reason we know this is so is that it is a self-evident truth, meaning that it is impossible for us to think otherwise. But that's obviously not the case. It is very easy to imagine thinking that we ought to desire what is not good for us. Suppose, for instance, that someone has no interest in living much longer, no interest in being in good health, etc. Then they may believe that they ought to do things that are bad for them, e.g., for the sake of enjoyment.
And even if that were not the case, there are other problems with Adler's use of this one "truth" as a basis for moral philosophy. For instance, how do we settle disputes between two parties when each desires what is really good for themselves but where their desires conflict?
Adler does make some good points, especially on the very first chapter ("Consciousness and Its Objects"). But any potential reader should be aware that there are good counter-arguments on almost all of these issues.
Rated by buyers -
I would have given this book more than three stars when I read it around ten years ago, but my general outlook has changed since then.
First, the good points about the book: It is written in a clear style which anyone who has a general interest in the subject can understand.
Adler subscribes to the Aristotelian philosophy. If I recall correctly, he also likes Locke and the 20th Century British analysts. Aristotle, Locke, and the British analysts have promoted what might be called the 'common sense philosophy.'
This little book by Adler is in that vein; if a view seems to defy commonsense, it must be wrong--a distinction wasn't made along the way.
The problem is that a view being commonsensical per se is no way necessarily right. I submit that we should accept views, whether commonsensical or not, because they stand up to critical scrutiny.
For example, Adler in just a few lines dismisses the Kantian ethics--just a version of the Golden Rule which is empty. I do not subsrcibe to the Kantian ethics but it cannot be readily dismissed like that.
Adler says that there are axioms in philosophy. But he ought to well know : 1) his collegues dispute what axioms there are, for example, in ethics, and 2) some of his collegues have rejected such a notion in the very first place. For example, that good old Aristotleian axiom, the Law of the Excluded Middle, is rejected by some philosophers (and some logicians, mathematicians, and physicists.) Quine in his famous paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" argues that no statement is immune to revision.
Quine and company might be all wrong but there is no consideration on these opposing views in the book. Why argue against a view when you can kick a stone, or life a hand? (Concerning hand lifting: a prominent 20th Century British analysist, G.E. Moore, offered a "proof" of the external world. This was his stunt: He lifted up one hand, and said, "This is a hand." Then he lifted up another hand and said, "This is another hand." I am not making this up. I ran this "proof" by a intelligent co-worker, and he said, "What does THAT prove?")
The commonsense philosophy will get followers and the proponents will be considered to be a genius by some because it re-inforces unexaminated prejudices.
Find other books like this one:
