Philosophical dictionaries
Have any of you ever used philosophical dictionaries and, if so, which one(s)? I am thinking about replacing my copy of Antony Flew's dictionary of philosophy, which I like quite a bit. I know there's the Oxford, the Cambridge, and the Penguin dictionaries of philosophy as well. The first is written by Simon Blackburn, whom I find a bit too polemical, the second is pretty huge and the most expensive, while the third I don't know much about.
There's also this dictionary of scholastic philosophy, which looks neat.
There's also this dictionary of scholastic philosophy, which looks neat.
Comments (8)
My favorite is probably the Honderich-edited Oxford Companion.
The Audi-edited Cambridge Dictionary is probably my second-favorite.
Yeah, it's an "encyclopedic dictionary." I just like the writing in it more than many other dictionaries. More often than not it has the right balance of focus, depth, clarity, breadth/scope of received views, and relative impartiality.
The Cambridge Dictionary is pretty close to it in style and quality, though.
Other dictionaries, including the online encyclopedias, have different strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.
Really I tend to find the most value in looking up stuff in a number of different sources, though.
http://www.ditext.com/runes/index.html
Part of the Preface:
The aim of this dictionary is to provide teachers, students and laymen interested in philosophy with clear, concise, and correct definitions and descriptions of the philosophical terms, throughout the range of philosophic thought. In the volume are represented all the branches as well as schools of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy. In any such conspectus, it is increasingly recognized that the Oriental philosophies must be accorded ample space beside those of the western world.
I concur. of all the books that have passed through my hands in the last 20 years, it's the only one I've kept. Paid $2 for it at a library sale. For some people, its age may be a drawback: I have the 1995 edition.
Better to keep a few rather than rely on one. Flew's is brief and comprehensive, and remains at hand. The Oxford (Blackburn) is similarly useful. The more comprehensive Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy makes an excellent dictionary.
But online resources take centre stage; the Stanford Encyclopaedia, of course, the IEP, and a subscription to Oxford Reference via the local library. Their search functions are indispensable.
I agree too. I have the 1995 paperback edition of Honderich's Companion. Having started to read philosophy again after a long layoff, I've found it very useful.
I also bought an electronic copy of the Oxford Blackburn dictionary, for portability. However that sometimes fails me perhaps because some entries are too compressed. The Blackburn entry on phenomenalism left me with more questions than answers. Honderich cleared much of my confusion, and pointed towards further reading.
Of course, Honderich is the editor, having gathered contributions from about 200 contributors. The phenomenalism entry is the work of Ernest Sosa, of Brown Univ.