An Introduction to Philosophy

by George Stuart Fullerton

The present book has been made as clear and simple as possible- that no unnecessary difficulties may be placed in the path of those who enter upon the thorny road of philosophical reflection. (Excerpt from original Preface)

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Unfinished, History, Historical, Reference

217 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1906

About the author

George Stuart Fullerton was an American philosopher and psychologist.

He graduated in 1879 from the University of Pennsylvania and in 1884 from Yale Divinity School. In 1904 he was appointed professor of philosophy at Columbia University, and served as head of the department.

He was the host of the first annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in 1892 at the University of Pennsylvania, and the APA's fifth president, in 1896.

In 1914, while he was exchange professor at the University of Vienna, World War I broke out. He was Lecturing at Munich, Germany, when he was imprisoned as a civilian enemy national. He remained imprisoned for four years, until the end of the war, and conditions were so harsh that he returned to the U.S. with his health permanently damaged. Nearly an invalid for the last decade of his life, Fullerton committed suicide at the age of 66.

Reviews

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

One thing I like about introduction to philosophy books, over histories of philosophy, is one gets to wade through many philosophical ideas and problems all approached from the biased perspective of the author, instead of (as with histories) just a summery of what dead philosophers thought. I find it interesting getting to hear someones opinions and reactions to the great thinkers throughout history, this all seems much more lively to me. Much of the book touches on the philosophy of mind, making a case for Parallelism (the idea that their is no causal relationship between the mental and the physical). The author dismisses the notion that Parallelism would result in man being an automaton, though not using the word, I got the impression that Fullerton is a compatibilist and thought libertarian freewill rather naive, I thought he created some strawmen however and didn't take the problems of parallelism seriously enough. Fullerton spent a decent amount of time arguing against Idealism, even in it's milder forms, he wouldn't agree with those that we can never directly know a thing, but only our perception of the thing. Fullerton didn't persuade me to his point of view on various topics, but showed me I need to reflect more on these subjects and refine my own opinions on them.

[Zablon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid summary of most ideas on the subject.

[Stetson · Rating 2 out of 5]

The progression of scientific knowledge has not been kind to Fullerton's ideas. It's probably unfair to fault him for this, but it makes a lot of the claims and reasoning here impoverished. There's also a significant irony (or more charitably knowing forethought) considering the introduction of the work that comments on trends in domain specific knowledge.

A tangent: I wonder if Harari lifted his "inter-subjective" or truth claims shared between minds about subjective knowledge from Fullerton.


A second tangent: I have to profess ignorance of Fullerton to this point and even a quick scan of his wiki makes it unclear why he's a historically notable philosopher.

[Rory Mcmanus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Difficult to read. The author is overfond of double negatives, and convoluted sentences that are hard to understand. The subject is already confusing without the added complication of obscure language and archaic words.

[Jim Manis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suppose if I'd read this book when it was first published (1915) I'd have rated it much higher. Time has taken its toll. For me, one of the more interesting aspects of the book is the language that Professor Fullerton uses to discuss his topic. It reflects the "most correct English" as the university would describe it of the time. The language used – diction and syntax – was itself a moral issue at the time. This is what the modernists ran away from as fast as their pens and typewriters would carry them. This is the language of the upper class in England, or at least what the better east coast schools in America perceived it to be.

[Qori Ilmanudin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Buku ini saya beli ketika di Pulau Sumatra. Entah kenapa tiba-tiba tertarik pada bidang filsafat. Penulis memberikan kita persiapan pikiran pada bab awal untuk menerima filsafat.

Beberapa orang mungkin mengkritik kata yang digunakan metaforis dan tidak umum. Penulis memberitahukan di akhir bahwa bahasa umum atau saya katakan yang dipermudah bisa jadi tidak menyampaikan apa pesan filosof.

Secara garis besar saya berpikir bahwa bahasa yang umum seperti memaksa filosof untuk memberikan jalan terjal bagi murid-muridnya. Buku ini memang memerlukan fokus dan konsentrasi, tapi tetap enak dibaca dalam santai.

[Elli Toney · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was not so much an introduction to philosophy, as it was a listing of concepts commonly pondered upon by philosophers throughout a specific period of time. He doesn't delve into the whole of time which has been documented, mainly 1500-1700. He is vague, and dances around some topics, while others are nauseatingly detailed. I found the writing to be extremely pompous, contradictory, and laden with his personal opinion. I'm glad this was free.

[Kevin Stilley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the content is excellent, some of it good, and some of it something else. If you can plod through the "something else" you will be rewarded with some solid insight into the discipline of philosophy. One positive feature of this older text is that it avoids the vacuous word games of so many recently published textbooks.

[Prasanna Maddila · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found it to be quite dry at the outset; however, therein my folly lay. This book is meant for a detailed through and is by no means a casual read. Many sections require multiple readings to fully soak through, otherwise the meaning is quite lost. All in all, it is a good introduction to reflective thought and philosophy, even if it exercises the same faculties that it aims to cultivate.

[Harriet Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

An Introduction to Philosophy

An Introduction to Philosophy by George Stuart Fullerton is an informative book . When you read it, you learn things. But, I didn't look forward to reading it.

[Julia Trenton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised with the use of plain and straightforward language Fullerton employed, especially given the tendency of philosophers and writers contemporary with him to use overly long, complicated, and flowery language. I am overall fairly impressed with how well this book has aged.

[Shawn C · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good primer for anyone interested in philosophy in general. However it was very dry.

[Endre Kornél · Rating 3 out of 5]

6/10

[Ira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whaaaaaaat?

This book was... good. But,it confused me. Not worth it. Really, not worth it. No recommendation for this. Just, stop looking and go look at another book. Ew.

[Azan Ramadhan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's very dry and really hard to understand for people who just started learn philosophy.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did not had enough pills in my bathroom to go thru this and understand it. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

[Justin Tapp · Rating 3 out of 5]

An Introduction to Philosophy (free at Gutenberg, sometimes for Kindle)
This book is not a history of philosophy, although Fullerton recommends such reading. (I have a history of philosophy text which I'll read in the coming weeks.) It's an overview of the problems that philosophy has tried to address for millenia. Fullerton writes of the Epicurians as well as the modern contributions by people still living in his day (1859-1925). As I read this book, particularly his comments critical of mathematicians and physicists playing part-time philosophers, I find it hard to believe he's not writing from 2006 instead of 1906.

So, this book is an undergraduate-level introduction into the problems of philosophy. I learned much of the surface, which is the point. Here are notes I took:

We depend on senses to determine what and how things are. We relate our understanding of objects we know to objects we don't know. How can we be certain that these material objects exist? How do we know that a chair in my mind is the same form as the chair in someone else's? We use senses to determine what is real, can things exist outside our senses which are also real?

Space is necessary, it cannot be deleted arbitrarily. For example, we cannot eliminate the outside of a man's hat and leave the inside. Is space infinite, infinitely divisible? Likewise, is time infinite, and infinitely divisible?

Augustine wrote thought-provoking statements on time-- time cannot be measured but you can have memories and have a relative idea of length. There is always the problem of determinism when dealing with time.

What is matter? Where do physical matter and the spirit or mind meet?

Hume, Locke, Kant, Spinoza. Apparently terms associated with Kant were more in vogue in 1906 vernacular than today.

Dualism, monism, epistemology, metaphysics.

Can we know an object or just know the basic idea of an object by its characteristics as perceived by our senses? Is the mind made up of material things or of ideas? What are ideas? The author makes it seems to all come back to Herbert Spencer.

Locke-- had serious contradictions.
- "had no right to accept an outside world."

Can we know anything, if so, what?
What insights do psychologists give to philosophy, the mind? Those interested in metaphysics tend toward Hegel. Mathematicians lean toward logic.

Fullerton takes a shot at mathematicians and physicists who engage in philosophy "part time, after putting down their pens" in their designated fields of expertise. This is problematic and they make errors that give a bad name to philosophy. This reminds me much of Lee Smolin.

Logic is useful for the undergrad, so all students should study it. Our political discourse would improve if everyone were trained in logic (hear, hear!).

Without Socrates there would have been no Aristotle. Without Hume there would be no Kant, Hegel, etc. We learn from others and build on both their mistakes and their plausible theories. We should always be skeptical of any new theory or finding. Psychology shows we fall into camps and despise those in different camps. He doesn't use the term "Bayesian" but essentially that's what he's arguing-- assign a probability to something being true and adjust that probability appropriately with new information.

I give this book 3.5 stars. I have no idea how well it has held up over time. But it's free and accessible to any interested party.

[Noula · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book! Although some parts didn’t make sense to me. Overall, I’m glad to have learned what philosophy is about.

[Jeni Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was the second free book I read using my kindle app, and as a relative newby to philosophy I was just looking for some essential reading to initiate me to the 'basics', so to speak.

Although I did turn my back on this book for a while (partly because I wondered whether it was more worthwhile to start with a more contemporary discussion of the subject), I'm glad I eventually made it through to the end!

I got what I was seeking from this book; an impulsion to look at things anew, to question, to reflect on everything I 'feel' and believe is true. I look forward to reading more books, ensuring I keep ever present in my mind the maxims at the book's conclusion to help me avoid common traps countless neophyte philosophers have fallen into!

[Dylan Bollinger · Rating 2 out of 5]

Downloaded this book to learn about philosophy, being as I have no philosophical background whatsoever. It is hard to read, seems like it restates the points made over and over again. Maybe philosophy is just not my style of study but, I really tried to get through this book, only made it halfway and I would always catch my mind wandering because of the repetition. Like I said, probably just not my thing.

[Luís Branco · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book helps the beginner in philosophy to get familiarized with some of the terms, names, theories, and even philosophies. It is a very good point to start from or even to refresh the mind of those costumed to deal with philosophy.

[Kieran · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought that is a good introduction to philosophy. However I had never read any kind of philosophy before, so I was unfamiliar with a lot of the terms used. It is a book that I will defiantly reread and it can even be used as a reference book.

[Lindsay · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book took quite a while to read, as I had to do it in small bite sized bits. However, it did make clear a number of philosophical points and got me thinking and questioning.

[Clarence · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is a well-rounded intro with many different perspectives and angles approaching philosophy. A little archaic sometimes, but good.

[Kingsley · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 / 5

[Carrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Required textbook that I enjoyed. I learned a lot in this philosophy class and found it very thought provoking.

[Matt Golden · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise and in depth look into the classic western philosophers and their ideas and influence in society and history

[Abdi Guled]

Great book....

[Sah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is definitely a good book that can be used for my students. Although its own semantics would be hard to read. But still Fullerston writing style is explicit!