Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy

by Michael Huemer

The world's best introduction to philosophy, Knowledge, Reality, and Value explains basic philosophical problems in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, such as: How can we know about the world outside our minds? Is there a God? Do we have free will? Are there objective values? What distinguishes right actions from wrong actions? The text clearly explains the most important arguments about these things, and it does so a lot less boringly than most books written by professors.

“My work is all a series of footnotes to Mike Huemer.” –Plato

“This book is way better than my lecture notes.” –Aristotle

“When I have a little money, I buy [Mike Huemer’s] books; and if I have any left, I buy food and clothes.” –Erasmus

Contents
Preface
Part I: Preliminaries
1. What Is Philosophy?
2. Logic
3. Critical Thinking, 1: Intellectual Virtue
4. Critical Thinking, 2: Fallacies
5. Absolute Truth
Part II: Epistemology
6. Skepticism About the External World
7. Global Skepticism vs. Foundationalism
8. Defining “Knowledge”
Part III: Metaphysics
9. Arguments for Theism
10. Arguments for Atheism
11. Free Will
12. Personal Identity
Part IV: Ethics
13. Metaethics
14. Ethical Theory, 1: Utilitarianism
15. Ethical Theory, 2: Deontology
16. Applied Ethics, 1: The Duty of Charity
17. Applied Ethics, 2: Animal Ethics
18. Concluding Thoughts
Appendix: A Guide to Writing
Glossary

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Metaphysics

357 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2021

Reviews

[Andrew Molitor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This, uh, this is not a good book.

About me: I have degrees in mathematics, and as a result have some background in Mathematical Philosophy, which is definitely not Philosophy. However, it tends to make me think Philosophers are careless, sloppy, gits. Also, despite the math background, I think a pure rationalist approach to understanding the world and especially humanity is a profoundly bankrupt one. Since Huemer is pretty clearly a capital-R Rationalist in maybe not quite the most extreme way, we are immediately at odds on several fronts. With that, onwards:

Well, the book serves, after a fashion as an accessible introduction to philosophy, so if that's what you're looking for it's going to be a lot better than diving into Kant, so that's nice.

The trouble with it, though, is that it's not really an intro to philosophy, it's an intro to Michael Huemer's philosophy. He tackles any number of the Big Questions, but when it's something he has an opinion on, he pretty much tears down all the answers except one, and then argues for that one (often with a sort of pro forma "reply" "reply to the reply" format to give the sense that he's taking objections seriously, and so on.)

As an intro it fails on technical grounds as well, notably in that Huemer sprinkles propositional logic throughout, without really giving as anything more than a cursory sketch of it to get started with. He is, as a rule, careful to explain what he just said in words as well, but that begs the question "why the fancy math-like stuff?" The answer that seems obvious is "to make my arguments look more convincing" but maybe I am being unfair. He hates this usage of "beg the question" and makes a modest fuss about it, but he's wrong.

The general flavor is of a professor who has spent decades arguing undergraduates into dust, and who is now writing down his Best Of arguments for a presumed population of more undergrads. If your goal is to humble members of the football team who want to talk about the Trolley Problem, this is the book for you, I guess.

His general strategy is to lay out all the standard positions on whatever thing we're thinking through, note the problems with all of them (Rationality with a capital R is like that, it turns out that nothing actually has a pat answer when you think carefully about it) and then reach for his magic get out of jail card which is: You're Allowed to Use Your Intuition If You're Careful.

The worst case of this is the chapter of Personal Identity, the idea of a "self", or "you-ness." Questions like "would a Star Trek transporter really transmit 'you' or would it murder 'you' and make a copy of 'you' at the destination that merely thinks it's 'you?'" arise.

Huemer defines some characteristics of what a personal identity is, which are recognizably very western/enlightenment ideas, declares them to be obvious, and produces his answer which is: A Soul. What is a soul, you ask? Well, it's an intuited thingy that has literally no properties except that it matches exactly the criteria he's laid out for what a personal identity is.

This is pure, unadulterated, sophistry.

On the point of western/enlightenment ideas, this is another thread that crops up pretty often. Huemer seems to hew to a general set of modestly retrograde ideas, a kind of optimistic 1950s view of the world that progress is inevitable, that it's all going to work out in the end, and eventually all humankind will live and think pretty much like mid-century Americans did. He's not offensive about it, and it's not something he hammers a lot, but you can tell that he's a 50ish American white dude without a lot of effort.

Thankfully, the soul thing is absolutely the worst thing in the book. The rest is significantly better.

The trouble, as I see it, is that distinguishing the sophistry from the better material is, by definition, going to be difficult for the intended audience of n00bs. Huemer waves his hands a bit but does not really give the reader the tools necessary to evaluate his arguments, and he is quite facile, so it's not always obvious when he's slipping you a mickey and when he's not.

The intention of the book is, I think, pretty clearly as much to convert people to Huemer's ideologies as it is to educate. If it were not presented as a kind of useful primer on philosophy, I'd be find with that, but the cover gives no indication that this thing is a statement of a specific set of positions.

It does provide, maybe, a useful reference for all those Trolley Problem stories that people like to drag out, along with, maybe, a useful summary of the various arguments that arise around them. So, it does function after a fashion as an introduction. Hence, 2 stars.

[Francisco Galán · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another amazing book by Huemer. I have a master's degree in Philosophy, and this is the best introduction to philosophy book I've ever read. It isn't as "introductory", though: it covers a lot of complex stuff but, fortunately, it is very, very clear.

[Filos · Rating 4 out of 5]

An accessible introduction to philosophy. Huemer writes in a clear, albeit biased (which he admits), manner.
There is a difficult balance when writing in a way that is simple and clear while not sacrificing content. It becomes very easy to become misleading when trying to be accessible. Huemer walks that balance really well.
As an intro to Philosophy, this is great.

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 4 out of 5]

So tempting to drop 5 stars on this book, but the section on normative ethics specifically was just too frustrating. Nonetheless, the easy-to-read and well-covered topic areas of philosophy is fantastic. Probably my go-to recommendation for anyone newer to the field and a curious appetite for what all the fuss is about!

[Eli · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book portrays itself to be an approachable primer on philosophy, but in reality is just Huemer trying to convert people to his ideology. He loves pretending to offer both sides of a philosophical debate, but really only gives a facile generalization of the side he personally disagrees with. His biases are so blatant it makes the book unbearable to try to take seriously. Many of his chapter conclusions clearly are the result of pure sophistry and not intellectual honesty.

I’ll share one quote from the end of his chapter on animal ethics. “If you agree with the arguments of this chapter, you should not only refrain from buying factory farm products yourself. You should also exert social pressure on other people around you. E.g., express serious disapproval whenever your friends buy products from factory farms.” Only an adamant Vegan with an I’m-holier-than-thou attitude would write such a thing.

[Parasuram Venkatesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is simply no better introduction to philosophy out there; Mike Huemer in his brilliance has absolutely cornered the market. In under 400 pages, he presents a cogent and crystal clear encapsulation of what philosophy is, why it is important, and how you should go about studying it. There is rigour without obfuscation, punchy presentation without unfair bias, and a confident tone that will help you clear out the conceptual clutter that is your head. It’s spring cleaning for your brain, and we all could use some more of that in our lives.

Highly recommended for everyone, regardless of your background knowledge of the subject.

[Mark Wooten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really nice overview of several introductory philosophical concepts. Huemer gives several sides to each issue and does a good job of articulating the pros and cons of each. He is humorous throughout which makes a philosophy text much more enjoyable to read. I really appreciated his first few chapters on how to “think like a philosopher” and make good arguments no matter what it is you’re arguing for. Strong recommend if you’re interested in a jumping off point for general philosophy.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not a philosopher, so I really don't have the ability to judge whether Michael Huemer has written a fair survey of the most important/popular philosophical topics, but I can honestly say that I've learned a lot. I would definitely recommend, and write down your notes/thoughts as you read (I regret not doing that!)

[Luke Vrotsos · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an accessible introduction to philosophy, albeit a fairly idiosyncratic one. Huemer covers much of the same ground as my introductory philosophy class in college did—epistemology, theism, free will, personal identity, and ethics—reviewing the major arguments and positions in each field without straying into unnecessary detail. His explanations are easy to understand, and he does a good job modeling the sort of dialectic common in philosophy classes. The only substantive problem with this book (and much of Huemer's writing) is that it often appears that he does not address the strongest version of his opponents' arguments.

Still, it is hard to look past the way the book is written, which is so biased and arrogant as to border on comedy. In the preface, he states that "I'm smart, I know a lot, and I'm not confused". Arguments he disagrees with are "embarrassingly confused" (158), "crazy" (260), "pretty much incoherent" (292), and more. Many of the chapters, especially Chapter 17 on animal ethics, are essentially just presentations of his position. Even when you agree with him, as I do on most issues, it can be frustrating to read. Huemer admits that this book is not meant as an unbiased introduction, but it is so far in the other direction that I doubt many college professors would assign it.

[Harrison Dean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clearly written and thought-provoking.

I like this book overall, however I was annoyed by his treatment of ontological arguments. The latest version he discusses is Descartes'. When critiquing a family of arguments, it's fine to have a historical survey, but you should also discuss contemporary versions. In the case of the ontological argument, it's evolved substantially in response to developments in modal logic. I'm not saying the argument works (I don't think it does), but it should be given a fair treatment.

Ask yourself how you would feel if a theist wrote an introduction to philosophy and only discussed 400 + year old arguments from evil. That would be unfair because there have been many developments in biology, philosophy, geology, and probability theory that affect the arguments.

[Rif A. Saurous · Rating 4 out of 5]

A generally good read. I learned a ton. I think the book could've benefited from a little more editing by someone who wasn't the author; sometimes the arguments feel a little strained or twisted. I was already familiar with Huemer's outlook from his blog and his "Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism" that this book was a little repetitive for me, but I had no trouble getting through it.

[Frederik · Rating 4 out of 5]

To quote the preface:
"This is an introduction for students who would like a basic grasp of a wide variety of issues in the field of philosophy. There are many textbooks you could look to for this purpose, but this one is the best."

Would have sounded arrogant if it wasn't so plainly true.

[Callan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Michael Huemer has a pleasantly chatty writing style and peppers this book with wit, insightful examples and historically noteworthy asides. The book also gives a reasonable coverage to what you'd typically expect from an introduction to analytic philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, metaethics, ethics etc.). In particular, Huemer is keen to lay out the various taxonomies in those questions that are considered important in modern philosophical debates (moral realism, normative ethics, the question of identity etc.).

In spite of these qualities, I found it thoroughly tedious to get through this book. Huemer implores us early on and towards the end of the book, that philosophy should be about about taking on the best arguments of the opposing positions and then he proceeds to not do that for the proceeding hundreds of pages.

He explains at one point that to not accept the laws of classical propositional logic is to not understand the meaning of the symbols being used. Really? I think Graham Priest really _does_ understand the meaning of logical connectives, as do those mathematicians that don't accept the law of excluded middle or those philosophers that argue over the objective nature of the axioms of formal logics (plural). Huemer spends an entire chapter knocking down relativism, but not the relativism of Nelson Goodman, no, no - it is the purported relativism of his undergraduate students who believe any old rubbish going. Huemer gives a rather feeble account of moral anti-realism and then essentially screams "but murder is bad dummy!". At one point he introduces Mackie's queerness argument which he describes as embarrassing. He then uses essentially some variant of the queerness argument to say that moral naturalism is not going to work because moral properties are nothing like the reductionist account scientists give of water.

I don't think this is a _bad_ intro into the subject per se, especially since disagreement and frustration are excellent motivators, and it does indeed have a decent Intro to Philosophy coverage. Nonetheless, I feel that Huemer has a significantly better book in him if he were to rid himself of some of his knee-jerk "that's stupid and dumb!" responses.

[Jacob Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

After laying out the positions on an issue, my undergrad philosophy professor liked to remind us: there are people smarter than me on both sides.

The author of this book takes a more, let's say, self-confident tone. He tries to give all sides a fair hearing but has no compunctions in guiding you toward his own preferred view. It's a fun and thought-provoking read, though if it's your first encounter with analytic philosophy, remember not to assume it's an unbiased guide to the field. (Is any book ever?)

Part of what makes the book interesting is that Huemer has some unusual views. Most strange might be his argument that you should believe in either a creator or the existence of souls; he thinks the fine-tuning argument for a creator has some weight and that postulating a multiverse is only a good response to it if "persons have immaterial souls" (p. 155).

There's a lot here I'd like to respond to or think more about, but to start with, I wrote a reply to one of his arguments about free will.

Chapter 17 is a nice resource on the question of whether it's ethical to eat meat; Huemer gives a rapid-fire discussion (and rejection) of 17 arguments defending the practice.

(crosspost)

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

C’est une introduction à la philosophie très récente et la plus accessible (que je connaisse pour l’instant) d’un point de vue de la philosophie analytique donc très porté sur les débats et sujets actuels. Il est assez complet : il brasse la logique/les raisonnements, l’épistémologie, la religion (principalement le théisme) et l’éthique (métaéthique, utilitarisme versus déontologisme et éthique animale). On trouve un style facile, décontracté et même humoristique (“Kant qui torture les étudiants de philosophie.”, “Les gens font moins d’enfants dans les pays riches car ils préfèrent jouer à Call Of Duty.”, etc.).

L'auteur n'hésite pas à présenter et à défendre ses propres positions (assez cependant "progressiste" : pro-immigration, agnostique ou pro-avortement, agnostique sur Dieu, végétarien éthique...). En soi ce n'est pas si grave, car il communique bien l'état d'esprit à avoir quand on fait de la philo : démarche rigoureuse et esprit critique, c'est bien ça en soi le plus important. Il manque juste un aspect historique jusqu'aux philosophes antiques et médiévaux, et des trous sur les positions traditionnelles, par exemple la loi naturelle n'est pas mentionnée face au déontologisme et à l'utilitarisme.

[Tejas Subramaniam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very clear and well-written. Some of the arguments are too concise and could use more explanation (e.g., the claim on why some infinities are possible while others are not – based on whether an infinite series requires something to possess an infinite natural, intensive magnitude – doesn’t seem immediately clear). Arguments are sometimes answered with “the conclusion seems suspicious, so the premises must be false” rather than direct answers to premises. His phenomenal conservatism heavily influences the book, especially after he introduces it. The tone might be offputting to some readers, although I mostly found it pretty funny. I enjoyed it as an intro to philosophy. To be clear, he argues for his own views, and argues against other views, in every chapter, and admits that it is biased. So you shouldn’t simply nod along to everything he says; I recommend reading him critically. That’s part of the learning experience!

[Alex H · Rating 5 out of 5]

As engaging as you'd expect from a book by Huemer. It probably is one of the most accessible and comprehensive introductory-philosophy texts out there. I studied philosophy a little at university and have read around the topic a bit since, so not all of KRaV was new to me but I appreciated refreshing my understanding of common fallacies, sound and valid arguments, and revisiting topics like personal identity and free will.

Make no mistake: this is not a pop-philosophy book; it's a thorough textbook and a review of the main ongoing debates in philosophy. It just so happens to be written very clearly. So, while it's a pleasure to read, it does require engagement from the reader and can be challenging. (Huemer encourages the reader to reread and evaluate his arguments, and then think of their own).

I'm sure I'll dip back into this again.

[mohave · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book certainly doesn't start well when the author negates that philosophy is basically a series of opinions. Indeed the entire book is about the author trying to convince you about his own personal positions on various topics, for example moral realism and free will.
Already the title is controversial. Common sense is extremely subjective: not only different people, but also different cultures and different historical times have and had their own definition of common sense.
This book screams dishonesty to me. It's not an introduction nor a "guide" because, if it was one, then the author should have assumed a completely different intellectual posture.

[Dio Mavroyannis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good, common-sense explanations of a lot of ideas. I think his attacks on utilitarianism are especially interesting.

I think that when he writes his books he has much narrower explanations than when he speaks. His focus is on arguments for and against certain arguments. These are mostly fair characterizations but I find that the reader won't come away with a solid linkage of the concepts or ideas.

So, while I think it is a good book to read for somebody with a general interest in philosophy, I don't think this serves as a good intro to get the big picture categories.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

I keep trying

Another try at philosophy without success. I forced my way through this book, but like most of my efforts with philosophy, I found myself saying bullshit a lot. I keep wondering g if the people who came up with this stuff could have found something better to do. Many of the arguments seemed either circular or pointless. I think I’ll stick to my math and science books and leave philosophy to others.

[Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very palatable intro to Philosophy

A very easy and entertaining read from someone who clearly not just understands philosophy but has also mastered the art of teaching. Full of interesting examples and covering arguments from a wide range of interesting topics, I kept looking for excuses throughout the day to continue reading it. It’s such an easy read, I’d recommend it even for those who are mildly curious about philosophy.

[X · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a good introduction to philosophy and I particularly enjoyed how the author approaches the most fundamental questions on existence, reality or the existence of God. And it is also readable and funny for being a Philosophy book.

However, there is one chapter that I consider weak, and is the one on "animal ethics". The author is clearly a vegan and all his arguments are very biased as well as the way he approaches the topic, unlike the rest of the book.

[Steve Gross · Rating 3 out of 5]

Confirmation of my view that Philosophy is largely a waste of time, simply an attempt to define things that can never be fully defined.
More clarity than most in this field, but of course the author has to show us he's hip by using the word "asshole" and taking swipes at Donald Trump. How pathetic.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marking this as read to be kind to myself, I actually made it 77%, might come back and finish some day. This was a pretty good introduction to a lot of complicated theories in relatively simple language. The author is heavily biased against some philosophical positions, but it's so heavy handed its almost funny instead of annoying.

3.5 of 5 stars, rounded up

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

My personal world-view is that the quality of ones life is a personal choice, and until one sees that essential truth, one will not be able find the essential key to unlock the door leading to a shift in consciousness that determines the quality of one's own life. It is a basic shift toward being responsible for one's experience, and away from placing blame elsewhere.

[Allen Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I quite enjoyed this book and especially appreciated Huemer's conversational style. I found the material wide ranging, some parts more challenging than others, but overall time well spent. I plan on reading more of Hummer's material as well as some of the works that he outlines near the end for "Additional Reading".

[Alejandro Ramírez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reseña: Knowledge, Reality, and Value* de Michael Huemer

Este libro es una excelente introducción a la filosofía. Si no eres filósofo, considero necesario leer una obra introductoria como esta.

Pero, ¿por qué estudiar filosofía?

1. Las preguntas filosóficas son, por naturaleza, fascinantes.
2. Estudiar filosofía te ayuda a pensar de manera correcta.

Lo que más me gustó de este libro es que verdaderamente enseña a razonar correctamente. Está estructurado en cuatro secciones: la primera aborda la lógica, la segunda la epistemología, la tercera la metafísica, y la cuarta la ética. Además, incluye un apéndice muy útil para quienes escriben de manera académica, titulado "Guía para escribir".

Lógica

He discutido mucho sobre temas académicos en redes sociales, y algo que he notado es lo difícil que es encontrar personas que sepan formular un argumento correctamente. Un argumento se compone de premisas y una conclusión.

Los argumentos tienen ciertas características: pueden ser válidos o inválidos, convincentes o no convincentes, circulares o no circulares, y sólidos o no sólidos.
Un argumento es válido cuando las premisas implican la conclusión. Un argumento es sólido cuando es válido y todas sus premisas son ciertas. Un argumento es circular cuando las premisas contienen la conclusión. Un argumento es convincente cuando las premisas hacen la conclusión más probable.
Para que un argumento sea bueno, debe ser válido, coherente, no circular y sólido.

Sin embargo, la mayoría de las personas que no han aprendido a pensar de forma estructurada tienden a presentar argumentos con fallas en estas áreas o caen en pensamientos falaces. En el libro también se describen varios tipos de falacias, y además de esto, Huemer nos recuerda la importancia de cuidar nuestro pensamiento irracional, es decir, evitar los sesgos cognitivos y las creencias erróneas, como la idea de que nada puede ser conocido con certeza.

En esta sección, Huemer profundiza en muchos temas que te ayudan a pensar mejor y a discutir de manera más eficaz.

Epistemología

La pregunta central de la epistemología es sencilla: ¿qué podemos conocer?

A través de esta pregunta se desprenden otras. ¿Es posible realmente saber lo que existe en el mundo externo? ¿Podemos dudar absolutamente de todo? ¿Qué pasaría si estuviéramos viviendo en una simulación? Huemer explora argumentos que contradicen el escepticismo absoluto sobre la realidad del mundo externo, y nos ofrece herramientas para abordar estas complejas preguntas.

Metafísica

Para mí, esta es la sección más interesante del libro, ya que se enfoca principalmente en dos temas: la existencia o inexistencia de Dios y la identidad personal. En cuanto a los argumentos teológicos, Michael Huemer concluye que la existencia de Dios no puede explicar el mal en el mundo, lo que lo lleva a defender una postura atea.

Al abordar la identidad personal, Huemer utiliza la clásica paradoja del barco de Teseo. Su conclusión es que las personas, a través de la introspección, son capaces de percibir su propia alma, y en esta reside su identidad personal. Por ejemplo, si existieran dos clones idénticos a nosotros, lo que nos distinguiría de ellos sería nuestra "alma", es decir, nuestra percepción consciente de quiénes somos.

Ética

En esta sección, Huemer analiza varias teorías éticas, siendo las dos más destacadas el utilitarismo y la deontología. Llega a la conclusión de que ambas posturas, llevadas al extremo, pueden ser peligrosas. El utilitarismo absoluto puede derivar en conclusiones monstruosas, mientras que la deontología absoluta puede ser incluso más peligrosa. Para resolver esta tensión, Huemer propone una versión moderada de la deontología. Además, dedica una parte del capítulo a la ética animal, donde presenta argumentos sólidos a favor del vegetarianismo, que invitan a cuestionarse si comer carne es moralmente correcto.

Apéndice: Guía para escribir

La parte final del libro es un apéndice con consejos sobre escritura, especialmente útiles para quienes se dedican a la investigación. Yo mismo me dedico a la investigación, y los consejos de Huemer me hicieron reflexionar y reconsiderar algunos de mis escritos. También incluye aclaraciones sobre errores comunes de puntuación y redacción, lo que resulta de gran ayuda para mejorar la calidad de los textos.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

First book of the year. This was a very entertaining and readable introduction to philosophy. Huemer has his quirks, of course, but that's par for the course and even part of the appeal.

[Seth Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

got a lot out of this!

[Hunter Bissette · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m an undergraduate philosophy student who loves reading intro to philosophy books. This is the best intro to philosophy book I’ve ever read. You should read it too.