Interested in love? Here’s our list of the best non-fiction books about the history and philosophy of love! bullet (C3) Is it correct? For a position to merely be coherent and complete isn’t enough; the available evidence must point in its direction as the correct contender for truth. Coherence is necessary; completeness is important; but only correctness, in addition, gives you what you fully need. An internally consistent viewpoint that’s comprehensive in its sweep but at odds with the facts doesn’t do you much good in a practical way. Key works: Human, All too Human (1878–1880), The Gay Science (1882–1887), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1891), Beyond Good and Evil (1886), The Genealogy of Morals (1887), Ecce Homo (1888) It is every bit as much our business to ask about these things as it was theirs. But because they have already started the process, we can benefit from their thinking. Philosophy trains us to analyze. It also trains us to assess competing claims. Do people have free will, or are all our actions determined by heredity and environment? Does God exist . . . or not? Do humans survive physical death, or is everyone destined for personal extinction on the cessation of bodily functions? Does life truly have meaning, or is everything we do ultimately without any real sense and purpose? Is rollerblading great exercise, or is it the fastest route to the emergency room? (Okay, so not all questions are cosmic in proportion.)

The various opinions of philosophers have scattered through the world as many plagues of the mind as Pandora’s box did those of the body; only with this difference, that they have not left hope at the bottom. Key contributions: Writing the greatest and most accessible of all existentiIn ancient times, the famous Roman statesman and author Cicero complained, There is nothing so absurd that it hasn’t been said by some philosopher. Of course, he, too, was some philosopher. But what about the other human beings who bear that label? What’s our view of them? More fans of philosophy

Searle’s Chinese Room objection focuses on contentful mental states like belief and understanding, what are generally called intentional states. But some philosophers conclude that functionalism is a good theory of intentional states but that it nevertheless fails because it cannot explain other sorts of mental states—in particular, they say that it cannot explain sensations and other conscious mental states. Many arguments for functionalism depend on the actuality or possibility of systems that have mental states but that are either physically or behaviorally distinct from human beings. These arguments are mainly negative arguments that aim to show that the alternatives to functionalism are unacceptable. For example, behaviorists famously held that psychological states are not internal states at all, whether physical or psychical. But, the argument goes, it is easy to imagine two creatures that are behaviorally indistinguishable and that differ in their mental states. This line of reasoning is one of a family of “perfect actor” or “doppelgänger” arguments, which are common fare in philosophy of mind: Many people seem to fear self-examination, as if looking at and evaluating their most basic beliefs and values is somehow a threat. But a philosophically reflective examination of our most basic assumptions and commitments doesn’t necessarily have a corrosive effect. It may, by contrast, have a purifying effect. The fundamental goal of philosophical examination isn’t criticism in a negative sense, or any sort of rejection or abandonment. The true goal is understanding. And yet a greater level of understanding often results in a refocusing, a shedding of unnecessary or unimportant activities and an adopting of others — rebalancing and changing our lives in a positive way.Don’t expect colorful illustrations here. However, what you will get is a wonderful summary of key philosophical strands of thought, how they relate with each other, and how they’ve shaped our modern world today. The enterprise of philosophy itself, philosophy as a genuine human activity, can and should be great. Not to mention the fact that philosophers can be our friends. On this topic, I should perhaps quote the great poet John Milton, who wrote: When we’re young, other people decide what we wear, what we eat, and when we can play. All too often, even after we’re older, other people still decide what we do during the day. We make choices, lots of them, but often from a limited selection of options that our environment, our friends, families, and employers, and simple habit, present to us. Rarely, if ever, do we stop to reflect on what we truly want in life, on who we are and want to become, on what difference we want to make in the world, and thus on what’s really right for us. And that is the unexamined life — the life that is lived at some level almost as a sleepwalker, somnambulating away the hours, days, and years. It’s a life that is experienced on automatic pilot — a life based on values and beliefs that we’ve never really looked at, never really tested, never examined for ourselves. Tip