The Big Questions of Philosophy by David Kyle Johnson

The Big Questions of Philosophy Reviews

• 
  Clif Hostetler

  These consists of thirty-six lectures, 30 minutes each, which in my estimation is the approximate equivalent of a one semester college course for three credit hours. It's a heavy dose of material, a small bit of which perhaps has stayed with me, but I don't feel ready for a final exam.
  
  I have included a "Listing of Lecture Titles and Their Grouping Into Sections" at the end of this review. It's available to be referenced if desired when my review makes reference to chapter and section titles.
  
  The first eight lectures which comprise the first two sections describe the basic rules and definitions related to rational reasoning and argumentation. Some of the word meanings and concepts reviewed include truth, knowledge, belief, deduction, induction, abduction, skepticism, empiricism, pragmatism, the difference between the noumenal and phenomena, and the traditional definition of “justified true belief.”
  
  Lectures 9 through 22 address issues related to religion, free will, and afterlife. As best as I can recall all hypotheses proposed when subjected to rational argumentation ended up with an unanswered challenge or criticism. Concepts such as faith don't carry much weight in the world of rationality.
  
  I noticed that the question about God in these lectures was not "does God exist?" Rather the lecture title is "What is God Like?" The definition of God generally discussed in these lectures is the generally accepted traditional concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, or omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent entity. Both atheists and theists can agree on the that definition, their difference is in belief. There was some discussion of alternative definitions of God such as God being the same as the universe which avoids some of the problems with the traditional definition of God—but not all. These lectures don't address my own personal favorite definition which is "serendipitous creativity," but I'm sure it can be challenged too.
  
  The lecturer makes a passing reference to what he called Silverman's Wager which is a reply to Pascal's Wager. The lecturer did not intend it to be a major concept to be considered—more as a joke. However, I really liked it so I decided to include it here. It's taken from the book,
  Candidate Without A Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt, by Herb Silverman. The two wagers are listed below:

  Pascal’s Wager: If God does not exist, we lose nothing by believing in him; while if he does exist, we lose everything by not believing.
  
  Silverman’s Wager: If God does not exist, we lose nothing by not believing in him; while if he does exist, we lose everything by believing.

  The reasoning behind Silverman's Wager is that a creator who cares about human beings and elects to spend an eternity with a chosen few would prefer to spend all that time with intelligent, honest, and rational people who require evidence before holding a belief. A God with superior intellect would not want to spend an eternity with the dullest and mindless souls who spent a lifetime regurgitating the articles of faith.
  
  The following quotation is taken from the end of Lecture 22 which is the fourth and final lecture in the section that explores the question, "Could there be an afterlife?" Lecture 22 itself asks the question, "Are You Really You?" I've selected this excerpt to summarize the findings thus far in the lecture series. The lecturer seems to be anticipating that listeners are becoming distressed by the preponderance of doubt being applied to the existence everything being considered.

  But at this point you might be getting a little distressed. We've seen reasons to doubt the existence of God and freewill, the afterlife, and now persons. How can life be meaningful if none of these things exist? Well, we're going to be talking about the meaning of life in the last lecture, and we'll see that things really aren't so dire as they may seem.
  
  But for now it's important to remember that wanting something to be true is no reason to think that it's true. You may want life to have meaning, but if your philosophical investigations drive you to the conclusion that if does not, well the fact that you want something to be true is not a good reason to reject the findings of philosophical investigations. Rejecting them anyway can only reveal that you are more concerned with protecting cherished beliefs than with having true ones.
  
  But there is another question relevant to life's meaning that we have yet to consider, the question of consciousness. For many the meaning of life may be derived from experiences we have, and so we must now ask, how exactly do we have experiences? How does the brain produce the mind? And what exactly is the nature of mind?"

  At this point the lecturer begins the three lecture series on, "What is the nature of mind?" In Lectures 23, 24 and 25 we learn that it's difficult to defend the concept of mind being different from the neurological functions of the physical brain. But if one accepts the concept that the mind and brain are the same it makes it difficult to say that an electronic cyborg that mimics human thinking doesn't also have a mind.
  
  Lectures 26 through 35 explore questions related to morality and government. The final Lecture 36 addresses the meaning of life. It appears to me that in this final lecture the lecturer has dropped the rules of rational argumentation and simply declared that some things have intrinsic value and meaning. A suggested example is the pursuit of justice or fairness.
  
  The following excerpt is from very near the end of the final lecture where the lecturer is summing up the ground covered in the preceding lectures and expressing his hope for the effect of the lectures on those who have taken the course:

  . . . taking this course should in no way push you toward the conclusion that your life is meaningless. In fact, I would like to argue that taking this course has helped make your life just a little bit more meaningful.
  
  Think back to the first lecture and when we talked about Plato’s cave and learned about the intrinsic value and good of true belief, about how in and of itself not to be duped and to really know how the world is. We then discussed how to accomplish both, how to reason carefully, find the best explanation, and not to fool yourself into thinking that you know something that you don’t. We then went on to explore some of the biggest questions in philosophy and were careful as we could be along the way. So don’t you have at least a little more knowledge than you did before, a little bit better understanding of the way the world is, and doesn’t that make your life just a little bit more meaningful, to be closer to the truth? Isn’t that why you bought the course in the first place?
  
  Now that’s not to say that we settled every question, but even if we never find the answers, even if our quest for knowledge is never complete, isn’t there intrinsic value in the search itself? Wasn’t Socrates right when he said that the unexamined life is not worth living? Thus hasn’t searching for the answers to the big questions of philosophy made your life just a little more meaningful?

  ________________________
  Listing of Lecture Titles and Their Grouping Into Sections:
  
  What Is Philosophy?

  1. How Do We Do Philosophy?
  2. Why Should We Trust Reason?
  3. How Do We Reason Carefully?
  4. How Do We Find the Best Explanation?

  What is Knowledge?

  5. What Is Truth?
  6. What Is the Best Way to Gain Knowledge?
  7. Is Knowledge Possible?
  8. Do We Know What Knowledge Is?

  Can Religious Belief be Justified?

  9. When Can We Trust Testimony?
  10. Can Mystical Experience Justify Belief?
  11. Is Faith Ever Rational?

  Does God Exist?

  12. Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
  13. What Is God Like?
  14. How Could God Allow Moral Evil?
  15. Why Would God Cause Natural Evil?

  Do We Have Free Will?

  16. Are Freedom and Foreknowledge Compatible?
  17. Do Our Souls Make Us Free?
  18. What Does It Mean to Be Free?

  Could There Be an Afterlife?

  19. What Preserves Personal Identity?
  20. Are Persons Mere Minds?
  21. Are Persons Just Bodies?
  22. Are You Really You?

  What is the Nature of Mind?

  23. How Does the Brain Produce the Mind?
  24. What Do Minds Do, If Anything?
  25. Could Machines Think?

  What is Morally Right and Wrong?

  26. Does God Define the Good?
  27. Does Happiness Define the Good?
  28. Does Reason Define the Good?
  29. How Ought We to Live?
  30. Why Bother Being Good?

  How Should Society be Organized?

  31. Should Government Exist?
  32. What Justifies a Government?
  33. How Big Should Government Be?
  34. What Are the Limits of Liberty?
  35. What Makes a Society Fair or Just?

  Can We Answer the Ultimate Question?

  36. What Is the Meaning of Life?
• 
  Gary Beauregard Bottomley

  I get irritated by people who think philosophy is a waste of time. A course like this one shows how profitable it is to learn critical reasoning and why it is so important for understanding our place in the universe. Most of the tough questions asked in the series don't have a cookie cutter answer, but all of them provided a method for approaching the question more profitably.
  
  For example, on the nature of identity, what does it mean to be the same person over time ("ship of Theseus" question), he will show that it's probably more profitable to realize that the categories and labels that we put on the concepts about self identity are convenient fictions, and there just might not be a way to answer the question properly. He'll say perhaps as in the Dr. Who TV show that an episode from season one is different from an episode from last season, but they are connected because they are part of the same series. We aren't episodes, but are the series of events that make us up.
  
  I loved the beginning lectures on the nature of knowledge and how absolute knowledge is best thought of as justified true believe. That series of lectures on knowledge and science (and there were several) helps put "philosophy of science" in perspective for me.
  
  One note, I had listened to his course on Metaphysics. Get this one instead, because most of the lectures from that course seemed to also be on this one, and you get a lot more lectures in this course including most of the ones on the other one thus giving you better value for your money.
  
  [I'll give a warning, if you're certain in your belief systems and have no doubt in your faith based things, this lecture might be a disconnect for you because he'll pretty much state that the soul makes no sense, God might not exist, free will is not what you think it is, and so on. As for me, I love learning things that challenge my world view and can recommend this lecture series for anyone who feels the same].
  Trumpus delenda est.
• 
  Thomas

  It was interesting and I honestly learned a lot, though not as much as I was hoping. I've been a science fiction fan my whole life so I've pondered most of these questions extensively already. I can't say that I agree with all of his conclusions, though they were still illuminating. I'll give him credit for that.
  
  I had one issue, though. In the section “What is the Nature of the Mind?”, in Lecture 21 “Are Persons Just Bodies?”, at about the 18:00 minute mark he says, “Now, it would be really nice if the cells that make up your brain, your neurons, were never replaced over time. If the neurons we’re born with were the same neurons we died with, it would be easy to account for personal identity over time. We wouldn’t even have to rely on physical continuity. We could just say that we’re the same person over time because we have the same brain over time. But this is not the case. Contrary to common belief, just like every other cell in your body, neurons die and are replaced. Your brain’s doing it all the time. There’s even ways that you can encourage the growth of new brain cells. I’ll leave that up to you to research.”
  
  My ears perked up when I heard that, as I was pretty sure that the part about all the neurons in our brains dying and being replaced is simply wrong
  
  Later, I checked the PDF where he puts it this way, “What’s more, we could say that body continuity is not as important as continuity of the brain. However, contrary to common belief, just like every other cell in your body, neurons die and are replaced in your brain. Mere physical continuity of the brain is not enough to preserve identity.”
  
  I found his statement on that subject frankly puzzling. Does he know something the world, in general, doesn't about this subject? I've always been under the impression that we really do have neurons that are with us from the cradle to the grave. It would've been a massive change in my understanding if I were wrong about that, so I did some research. Every reliable authority I encountered seems to confirm what I previously thought. One even put it this way, "Neurons in the cerebral cortex are never replaced. There are no neurons added to your cerebral cortex after birth. Any cerebral cortex neurons that die are not replaced." I do know that we lose neurons our entire lives and that recent research seems to indicate, that under certain circumstances, we can generate new neurons, but that isn't the same as saying that our entire brains replace themselves in our lifetimes. I think a more accurate understanding of this would have an impact on the entire discussion of identity in this course.
  
  Personally, I think it was appropriate that he mentioned Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill in the last chapter, since that, metaphorically, was what he was doing and trying to come up with a convincing argument about how our lives can have deep objective meaning despite the conclusions he came up with in this course. I think we'll have to do the heavy lifting for ourselves when in comes to that subject.
  
  I'm an optimist, and despite it all, I still believe in God. Call me a fool if you want. I honestly don't care.
• 
  Amirsaman

  ترجمه‌هایی که من در طول ده ماه از کتاب داشتم را می‌توانید با هشتگ #فلسفه در کانال من بیابید:
  t.me/radiotor
• 
  Wiebke (1book1review)

  I admit I didn't put in enough effort to get the most out of it, thus a lot went over my head. The lessons are well done and tackle a lot of questions. However, many didn't really bother me.
• 
  Haoyan Do

  I didn't know I would like this book so much. Actually I like it even if I probably didn't fully comprehend a big section of the book since a lot is about religions and a lot is about science fiction books or TV series. I surely have to come back to the book later on to reread it.
  
  I had thought that religion and reasoning cannot coexist--faith and logic don't mix--but I was delighted to find that the author presented pages and pages of reasoning about religious thoughts, morality, and philosophies concerning religion. So religion is not above reasoning after all. What fascinates me is the fact that during the argument both sides are rather resourceful in dragging in all kinds of conditions, extreme examples, and ancient as well as contemporary quotes from learned sages dead or alive. I never thought I would like a philosophy book. I took a philosophy class in college once, and I hated it. So boring. Yet at the time I was not discerning enough to know the difference between a subject being boring and a college course being boring.
• 
  C.A. Gray

  I hoped for an overview of the teachings of most of the greatest philosophers in history, but alas, that wasn't how this lecture series was organized. Instead, it was a series of discussions about major philosophical topics, according to the lecturer's perspective. I was also treated quite extensively to the lecturer's political opinions, which were of course presented as fact rather than opinion. Cleverly, too: he posited his opinions as well-disguised absolutes, on the level of "the sky is blue" and "the earth is round" and "2+2 = 4." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with such foundational principles is impossible to talk to, and you shouldn't waste your breath. Most of the lectures also discussed questions of religion, but from the point of view that nothing in the realm of religion is knowable (as one of those absolutes, on the level of 2+2 = 4). Once you start with that as an absolute, no argument can really be made. He just uses a lot of words to make it sound like anyone who thinks differently is stupid, because of course (back to foundational principle), nothing in the realm of religion is knowable. Since I disagree on something so fundamental, and since the vast majority of the book is about religious questions, I agreed with him on his first point: that it is a waste of time to listen.
• 
  Kruiser

  I'm a big fan of The Great Courses but this one was beyond tedious. There are some good critiques of the philosophy in the book in other reviews here so I'll just mention a couple of things I found annoying. Johnson is a fan of using pop culture to illustrate his points. Although I'm a fan of almost every movie or television show he referenced, I found it all to be a little "What can we do to spice this up for the kids?" rather than a helpful teaching tool. He also lets his politics slip into some places they didn't need to be. In the sections actually dealing with politics there are some references and assertions that are either naive or biased attempts at indoctrination. I'll admit I began skimming near the end. The last big irritation with this that I'll mention is that Johnson has a tendency to belabor a point. By the last couple of chapters I was numb from this.
• 
  James

  The big questions of philosophy answered unphilosophically.
  
  Logic of the book is weak, logic should be the foundation stone for a book about philosophy.
  
  Most of the arguments the author made after chapter 4 can be used against his own reasoning process and contradicts.
  
  The best written part of the book is the sample provided on Audible, was attracted by it and bought the audio book. But it is a downward journey after for me. If you expect the book is to be as objective as the sample, you might be disappointed too.
  
  Thanks for reading this comment, hope it helps.
• 
  Peter

  This was one of the better courses I've done from TGC. I usually complain about the lack of depth that some of these courses have, but that wasn't the case here. Sure, the lecturer could have gone into more detail on a number of topics, but I thought that the amount we got was a perfect balance between depth and breadth.
  
  There were multiple lectures on each section with each lecture examining a handful of related topics and theories. They all build nicely on each other and I found I learned a lot by just knowing the context of how some of the more modern approaches to the questions came about. The 'big questions' were also genuinely interesting and relevant, especially from a philosophical perspective. There were no easy answers to questions and, for the most part, the lecturer left things open for you to decide for yourself.
  
  In terms of negatives, I'd say a couple of topics weren't explained as well as they could have been. As the lecturer went about dissecting examples, I was sometimes confused about the premise or the objection. However, this didn't happen very often and my own confusion and objections were still interesting to think through. And I think that's really what I wanted from this course: to think more deeply about some fundamental questions most people don't even consider.
  
  This is a 4.5 star that I'm happy to round up. There was some inherent bias in the way the entire course was structured which made for some assumptions that weren't addressed and some easy objections that didn't get the time they probably warranted. Other than that though, I thoroughly enjoyed the listening experience thanks to the great narration from the lecturer and the engaging subject matter. I'll happily recommend this course for anyone with an interest in philosophy, although I know that's an unfortunately small portion of people.
  
  
• 
  Sagnik Chakraborty

  Deep, Thought Provoking, and Beautiful
  
  I have always loved the great courses on audible
  But found Prof David K Johnson quite late and this was his first lecture I listened to. Loved his narration, and the way he put together the big questions of philosophy and life in a coherent condensed way. That's hell of a task in itself.
  It helps if you already are familiar with philosophy as a subject, the thinkers, the ideologies - but for a beginner who's always been interested but never got around to read anything related to philosophy - this is 'the book' to start with. It wasn't a lecture/course or a book, it was an experience.
  Highly recommended.
  Next read : Prof David's MetaVerse
• 
  Tim

  "I was going to say I hope you enjoyed this lecture, but if you did it's because it just reinforced you're already held beliefs. I hope this lecture made you uncomfortable and challenged you."
  
  This quote at the end sums up the mood of this lecture which asks several of the tough questions. Top notch lecture.
• 
  Amber

  4/5
  This was super interesting. I have always been interested in philosophy, but never read much on it, so I feel like this was a great primer into the subject. Johnson does use a lot of pop culture references, which I don't love, but they did tie in nicely with what he was talking about, and I did "get" most of them, but if you didn't watch the shows or movies he was talking about it might not have the same impact (which is why I don't love pop culture references in my reading). I enjoyed how he talked about the different philosophical viewpoints and then deconstructed them and explained the positive, negatives and issues with each. I am becoming a big fan of the Great Courses series.
• 
  Heather Hoyt

  A decent overview of some philosophy, but some sections were better than others. I feel like he sometimes focused on questions that were less interesting to me than other questions he could have talked about.
• 
  Nilesh Jasani

  As a course, The Big Questions of Philosophy is well-designed, effectively presented, and immensely thought-provoking. For some, this is another kind of introduction to the major areas of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. However, it is more than a course because the big questions are spot on. Their sequencing makes sense as they do not appear like excuses to introduce any set of philosophers or their theories in any particular order. More importantly, the attempts to answer are genuine, with every chapter razor focussed on the issues at hand without any needless digressions. It is almost like whatever philosophical theories one learns are just a side-effect.
  
  While the Professor does not equivocate, he is far more persuasive while denying or destroying proposed answers than in providing assertive, constructive resolutions to any topic. His unequivocal refutations of many cherished beliefs mean the course will have a pleasant and palatable appeal to those who already share the author’s perspective.
  There is likely to be a self-selection in those who pick the course; it is an echo chamber of sorts.
  
  The biggest question for this reviewer, because of the book and not addressed in it, is why it is so easy in Philosophy to refute than to construct. This question is not as superfluous as it sounds. In a way, it is the mother of all questions that provide a context to why most philosophical arguments cannot but lead nowhere once done with criticizing others.
  
  Conventional languages are grossly inadequate in the attempts to tackle myriads of real-life issues they try to address. History of how these languages evolved, on the one hand, and the ever-rising complexities of life as humanity progresses, on the other, make the inadequacies exponentially more flagrant over time. Philosophers' habitual efforts to arrive at one-size-fits-all generalized proclamations work until the next one sits down to rip them apart.
  
  Imagine if the world had stuck with only Pythagorean-era Math and Newton or Bohr were needed to compose their theories in them. Conventional languages have not evolved at all compared to real life. This was when they were inadequate to address the life that was right from the start.
  
  Philosophers' artificial constraints – imposed to arrive at universal or generalizable conclusions – make their quests doomed before they begin. Let's use another example: we know that languages do not have sufficient words to describe billions of viruses and bacteria that exist out there. Simply asserting that some virus or a bacterium causes Covid is no more helpful than ascribing it to a demon. Suppose the statement “virus causes Covid” must have a strict truth value of 0 or 1. In that case, you could almost expect a horde of intellectuals going back and forth for centuries arguing how most "viruses" do not cause this or how this statement might conflict with another one that says a virus is a cause of something non- Covid or it is not just a particular type of virus that is a cause always but only within a context.
  
  Let's use this ridiculous example to see how similar philosophical wrangles on finding universal moral or even legal principles from conventional language are. A principal “Lying is bad” by one philosopher would evoke nothing but above virus-like, must-have wide range of exceptions to highlight the inadequacy of the dictum. This is even before the smarter ones begin debating the definition of a “Lie” or what is “Bad” in the same vein as trying to arrive at the meaning of what is meant by “conscience,” “soul,” “free will,” or “God.”
  
  Machine Learning tools are the latest scientific/technological set proving how we cannot achieve much in a structured quest using words or categories invented by ancestors eons ago. The best philosophers spent ages trying to fine-tune the meanings of the words to make them usable, only to be summarily dismissed by the next generations.
  
  As the professor concludes, this does not make philosophical quests, courses, or arguments unnecessary. We are wired such that many of us will want to seek the answers to the kind of big questions posed in the book, fully knowing the futility. Still, somebody should attempt a course on what could happen to a being who refuses to think about existential issues and universal principles while focusing on broad guidelines and creating room for addressing specific situations as they arise rather than looking for perpetual hypothetical answers.
  
  
• 
  Alex Shrugged

  This is a well-presented introduction to philosophy. The lecturer is very enthusiastic and at times a little silly in a good way. He occasionally makes references to science fiction movies and such. It helped. Certainly, this course is much better than the college course my wife is taking on religious philosophy. As with most philosophers, the lecturer has an ego as big as the sun. That works for him as a lecturer. He makes a few logical errors. (I'm sure he does not agree.) I've seen philosophers do this often. They seem to misstate an issue as if they are building a straw man in order to knock it down again.
  
  It is clear that some of his lectures (though not all) are aimed at complaining about the logic problems with Christianity... not Judaism. Christianity is a big target, and they do have a lot of logical problems with the major tenets of the religion. Can't help that. The Early Church was trying to deal with a lot of issues at the time. They had to make major decisions at the time and now they are stuck with those decisions. They'll survive, but from a philosopher's point of view, Christianity has problems.
  
  Judaism was also discussed, somewhat. The lecturer seemed to misunderstand what Judaism was about and didn't seem to realize that Jews to not see all the Hebrew Scriptures as equally authoritative as the Christians seem to do. (I am willing to be corrected about how the Christians view the Bible, but I know for sure that anything after the first 5 books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) is not particularly authoritative. We hardly even study the other books. We stick with the Torah and Talmud (which contains the Mishnah, Oral Law). Thus, when the lecturer complained bitterly about the Book of Malachi, I did not feel defensive about it. I think most Jews, when we come before G-d, will have a full list of complaints for G-d to answer for.
  
  FYI, I stopped writing my review and read Malachi. He was a prophet for the Northern Kingdom that broke away from Judea, and built a separate place for sacrifice rather than in Jerusalem where sacrifices are supposed to be offered. Malachi was conveying G-d's displeasure in the North's offering sacrifices other than in Jerusalem and the very poor quality as well. I do not see what the lecturer had to complain about. Either I misheard him (I am reviewing the audiobook), or he made a mistake in the citation and meant some other book of the Hebrew Scriptures.
  
  Continuing on... he hit all the major points in philosophy which was the promise of the title. He came up with a lot of answers to the big questions, but nothing definitive. Nevertheless, if you are going to take a course in philosophy, you have to know a few baseline arguments. This course provides them and he does it well. He kept my attention throughout.
  
  He seems reasonably versed in issues regarding quantum mechanics, but he seems to be unaware of the latest thoughts coming out of that field. He seems to be depending on certain laws of the universe to be absolutely true that are on shaky ground. Nevertheless, he makes some cogent points regarding the averaging out of chaos at the micro scale, so that one could make definitive statements about the macro scale. I hadn't thought of that. Good work.
  
  He does touch on political subjects occasionally. It is not oppressive. It is also not very useful.
  
  I plan on listening to this series of lectures again.
  
  
  
• 
  P Michael N

  I've never taken any philosophy classes but I've always been curious about what it's all about. After going through the lecture series I'm left feeling bewildered about what the heck going on. I thought we had some idea about what's going on, but it seems things are a lot more complicated than that. It makes me wonder whether or not we are really any different from every other animal that seems oblivious to what's "really out there" or "what's really going on" in the "real" world. We appear to have made some progress and we're asking all sorts of questions and coming up with answers that lead to great solutions, and yet more and more questions. Are we really getting closer to truth or are we just as far from any answer as if we hadn't even begun? Are we even headed in the right direction? I don't know, probably never will, but this series has left me thinking about a lot of things that I'd never thought about.
  One interesting idea (of many!) that I'd never heard of is the idea of a supervenient relationship between the mind and brain. This rises from an Epiphenominalist view that mental events in the mind are caused by physical events in the brain but have no effect on the physical events. So I can move my arm, say, and I feel like I decided to move my arm only because the movement of the arm is correlated with the mental sensation of moving the arm. The events just happen together because they have a supervenient relationship. It's not that one causes the other but that they just happen together, you can't have one without the other. That's a cool concept that really blew my mind. Fantastic series. "In another life", I would have probably become a philosopher, I love this kind of inquiry...whatever that means.
• 
  Rope

  Whew ... I am glad I’m a scientist instead of a philosopher. Using reason to try and address these “Big Questions” is dizzying and seems to never give a satisfactory answer. But I enjoyed the course immensely. It caused me to think about things that I rarely think about in ways that I never have before. While I don’t really have any answers, I now feel better equipped to think about many of these and other difficult questions that face us all as humans. I think this is really the point of studying philosophy, to help us reason and think better.
  
  The lecturer was excellent and the production was very well done. While the subject matter could get deep at times, the professor’s use of great geeky pop culture references (Star Trek seemed to be a favorite) helped explain tricky concepts and added humor to give the brain some relief. My favorite sections were “Could Machines Think” and the series of questions on government (“Should Government Exist”, “What Justifies Government”, “How Big Should Government Be”). I had a tough time with some of the earlier sections on the existence of God and such but I think this is because the questions were more difficult to address with reason ... no fault of the professor.
  
  I would highly recommend this course to just about anyone. I am a bit surprised to find that I agree with the lecturer who mentioned that the world would be a much better place if everyone was exposed to philosophy in order to reason, discuss and think more effectively.
• 
  Jack

  this was a pretty interesting course. 36 lectures that were a beginner's guide to philosopy. The first 10 lectures were really interesting and discussed reason, logic, knowledge, truth and the kinds of things i expected philosophers to deal with. The next 10 lectures got really strange. discussions on God, the mind, evil, souls etc made me think that philosophers have way too much time on their hands. None of the questions in those areas seemed to be answered. The author closed with 10 really insightful lectures covering the thoughts of the enlightenment philosophers on rights, government and liberty. Good stuff. Overall the course was definitely worth 18 hours of my time. It also inspired me to look into many of the topics further, which is what an introductory course is supposed to do.
• 
  Tiffany

  Again, a very thought-provoking and insightful book. Written for those who want to expand their thinking - don't read this if you're happy with how you currently view the world, because after reading you can't turn back. This book will make you question whether we have souls, where do morals come from, what is God like if there is a God, does the government have the right to tax people just because we live here, and many many more questions. It really does go through the big questions people have and uses logical analysis to break down these questions and explore all of the current theories and conversations. It is a great book if you are looking to expand your world view. It is not a great book if you don't want to shake the foundations of what you think you already know.
• 
  Patrick Green

  A broad selection of lectures addressing most of the important questions that plague modern philosophy. And it's a damn good one at that. This great course covers just about every major topic in philosophy: free will, religion, happiness, meaning, morality, politics, etc. While there is still a lot to be said about each of these topics, David Kyle Johnson's lecturing skills are quite impressive, and he manages to get through most of the material. Any beginning philosopher would do well to listen to this Great Course. It may not be the best medium form to cover philosophy (that spot lies with the Youtube channel "Crash Course"), but its definitely one of the better Great Courses out there.
• 
  Jake Beardsley

  Wonderful overview of major concepts in philosophy, including God, the problem of evil, what defines moral action, free will, the role of government and others. The professor isn't afraid to take a stance with these questions, but always leaves the door open for disagreement and frequently cites conflicting arguments. I learned a lot in my 18 hours. This course is probably not a good pick for people who have already taken a couple philosophy classes, but if you're pretty new like I am, or if you want a refresher you can listen to in your car, I think this is an engaging introduction.
• 
  Nick Traynor

  With 36 lectures covering the major themes of western philosophy over the past 2500 years, it was comprehensive in scope but still detailed and informative. Focusing more on the ideas themselves rather than the philosophers who conceived them kept the material relevant and interesting. I thought the lecturer was fearless in expressing his own viewpoints while still admitting of a range of opinions being valid on any given issue.
• 
  Jeff

  This has some interesting ideas but clearly from an atheistic humanist perspective. He has some compelling arguments to support his position. I found it interesting and challenging to follow him through his progression of logic and thinking. In the end, however, it comes down to the bottom line: faith.