Reddit reviews Sophie's World

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder

After reading a couple of the replies, it came to me that you might enjoy reading Sophie's world. It's a novel, but also a general introduction to Philosophy. Since you're sort of 'starting over' in terms of personal philosophy and looking at the world in a new way, you might find Sophie's journey comforting and fun as well. I picked it up a few years ago while I was living in Japan and couldn't put it down:

http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-Novel-History-Philosophy/dp/0425152251

note: I'm linking to the Amazon page because it describes the book better than the Wikipedia page, imho.

You might find Gaarder's Sophie's World of interest.

I like Sophie's World.

It really depends on what you are interested in. There is quite a lot to choose from, even in English.

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder is a great novel, especially if you're interested in philosophy. Although I first read it as a teenager; so it could be I remember it with rose tinted glasses.

Popular Music from Vittula Is a really funny coming-of-age story set in rural Sweden in the 1960s.

You could try Hunger by Knut Hamsun if you want a classic.

Sophie's World -When I was around 19. I havent tried re-reading it for years, but I think I found it at perfect age.

This is probably gonna hurt...

http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-Novel-History-Philosophy/dp/0425152251

Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder. It's the history of Western Philosophy told through a meta-mystery about a girl receiving mysterious postcards in the mail written c/o her to some other girl she's never heard of. I read it when I was a Senior in high school and it was both an incredible LOST-esque story as well as an easily digestible intro to the major philosophers and their schools of thought. GET IT. READ IT. ENJOY.

What about sophie's world? Does a really good job of introducing the basic history and why philosophy is important. Although it's a kids book, so probably below her.

This may be too simplistic for what you're looking for, but Sophie's World is a pretty good introduction to philosophy.

> This is where I'd disagree with you. I think you should maybe check out some higher level apologetics, or philosophical defenses of theism, to see how believers attempt to respond to that charge.

Fair enough. I will withhold judgment until I've had a chance to understand how higher apologetics deals with evidence.

> If a Christian says "our claims in no way rely on modern claims of X supernatural ability" then it's hard to see how modern claims of supernatural happening can really relate to theist claims. Again, I think the keys are the Resurrection and the Incarnation.

I remember being taken aback when I first realized that James Randi considered religious claims as perfectly eligible for the $1 million dollar prize. So I can understand that religious people don't see themselves reflected in ghost hunters, or UFO abductees. But on the other hand, I suspect that users of homeopathic medicine would similarly take umbrage at being lumped in with cryptozoologists. Whatever you commonly practice doesn't seem strange to you.

What I'm struggling with is how an outside observer might distinguish Christianity from other superstitions, or from other religious traditions. As I said above, I'll withhold judgment until I can read some higher apologetics.

> I'd reply with the question of what sort of claims that are scientifically testable does classical theism make that have not been verified

Unfortunately, it's been years since I read it, and I gave my copy to a friend. I vaguely remember several items, but I doubt I could do them justice. I also hesitate to recommend it, as it's really not that great. It makes a lot of bald assertions, but it doesn't actually get into much detail - presumably to keep the book suitable for general audiences. You essentially have to trust Strenger's good word as a physicist.

I did find it to be the most compelling of the "new atheist" books, though, due to its focus on facts and its lack of rhetoric.


> I'd suggest wondering why they are considered to be among the greatest minds of all time by many people who are vastly smarter than you or I

No worries there - I have little doubt that the issue is mine and not Hegel's.

That said, one thing that surprises me about philosophy is the manner in which it is taught. Even beginner texts on the subject, such as Sophie's World seem to be merely a whirlwind tour of the key thinkers and their ideas.

Contrast this with mathematics. As undoubtedly brilliant as Newton and Leibniz were, no student today still learns calculus from their original texts. Indeed, with updated notation and 300 years of refinement by admittedly lesser minds, modern treatments of the subject are simply better than the originals.

I'm surprised that philosophy doesn't seem to go through a similar process.

> You can't expect to simply read a 1000 year old highly technical philosophical argument without a lot of grounding in the time period, vocabulary, and relevant philosophy that is simply assumed by the authors

That's good to know. I feel kind of sheepish admitting that I was underwhelmed by Plato. I'll have to tackle him again when I have a better grasp of his environment.

> 1.) you're not simply reading yourself into their works ... or 2.) you're not simply saying "oh these philosophers are the best because I understand what they're saying and they agree with what I already believed."

Criticism accepted. Appreciate the advice.

Disclaimer: I haven't read Chronic City, so I don't know exactly what you're after, but here's some real/unreal/you're not quite sure what's going on fiction.

Sophie's World Awesome book, I've read it at least 3 times

Shutter Island