I believe that in some bookstores "metaphysics" is used to classify books that are "new age," but, technically, in philosophy or for most philosophers, the domain of metaphysics refers to theories of what exist. In this usage, metaphysics is hard to avoid. For a good defense of this outlook, see E.J. Lowe's The Possibility of Metaphysics. Some metaphysical systems accept what may be called the "supernatural" (God, the soul), other systems of metaphysics may be pretty materialistic, e.g. the view that the only thing that exists are matter and energy. Accounts of what can be demonstrated rationally concerns the domain of epistemology (theories about knowledge and what can be known or justifiably believed). I personally think there are good, rational reasons for accepting some forms of metaphysics and rejecting others. For a good book on this, see Lowe's follow up book Metaphysics or Michael Loux's Metaphysics, or the Routledge Companion to Metaphysics (which just came out in paperback).

Hello Sara M: you might find Roger Trigg's Philosophy of the Social Sciences a good place to begin. Some philosophers do engage in what might be called sociology or, more generally speaking, history. Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor have produced sweeping treatments of the modern era (most recently Taylor's A Secular Age). Another book which combines philosophy and social studies is Habits of the Heart. You also might find John Searle's work interesting on social constructs. I know your question is about bringing sociological methods to bear on philosophy, but in the reverse direction, you might want to explore the ways in which philosophical work on the mind, language, and ethics might have a bearing on sociology. Good wishes, CT

Great question! Perhaps one reason one might be shy (but not dumb!) about asking someone who is their favorite philosopher is because questions about who is the favorite suggests something about liking or disliking, as in 'what is your favorite music?' which seems to involve asking "what kind of music do you like to listen to?'. In philosophy, though, someone might think some view is correct like utilitarianism but not like the theory or those who endorse it. Some philosophers also seem to be drawn to engage in theories they find wrong-headed; on this view, some atheists may be thought of as having theism as their favorite philosophy, even though (for them) it is their favorite view to attack! Be that as it may, it is clear that throughout history, many philosophers have had favorite philosophers. Aquinas's favorite philosopher was Aristotle, for example, Dennett loves Ryle, and so on. As for an analogy with science, I suspect a scientist should respect the question about whom he or she most admires...

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance might fit the bill, though it is a bit more oriented to metaphysics than epistemology / the theory of knowledge. I am not sure it is super entertaining, but C.S. Lewis's book Until We Have Faces is terrific; it is a re-telling of an ancient myth. You might also like novels by Hermann Hesse like Sidartha --it is a re-telling of the tale of Buddha's enlightenment, and is quite moving and rich for stimulating philosophical reflection. There is a new book: Alice in Wonderland and Philosophy, raising all sorts of great puzzles (including epistemological ones) and that could be read alongside of reading Lewis Carroll's classics. You might also check out the Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy book, which unearths interesting philosophy in connection with Rowling's work. Although not out yet, there is a forthcoming Sherlock Holmes and Philosophy book which might be great to read along side short stories and novels about Holmes. Here is another radical idea:...

There may be times when solitary philosophical reflection is healthy and vital. In totalitarian societies it can be dangerous to practice philosophy in public and maybe some thinkers (perhaps most famously Montaigne) appear to do their best thinking alone, but the model of philosophy we have from Socrates and Plato and others is one that encourages dialogue and community (even if Socrates was executed by his beloved or not always so beloved Athens!). I would encourage you to recall that "philosophy ' literally means the love of wisdom and that wisdom involves knowing WHEN and HOW to reflect and with whom... Of course I have no way of knowing this, but you might consider whether your love of philosophy as a practice is leading you to be overly rigorous or contentious or to promote estrangement from friends and others in your day-to-day life. You might follow the example of some great philosophers like Hume and Kant who were (to offer an under statement) highly critical and (in some respects)...

You have asked: who else writes about the mythical dimension of life from a philosophical vantage [point]? Ralph Harper would be good to check out (try his book Sleeping Beauty). He does some interesting philosophical and theological work on fairy tales, but his work does bear on what you might call the mythical (deep use of symbolism that resonates with the kinds of material you would find in the (highly recommended) The Oxford Companion to World Mythology (OUP, 2005)). Richard Wollheim might also be good. His writing is difficult (but not as challenging as Hegel!); you might check out The Thread of Life and The Mind and Its Depths. Jonathan Lear is also a contemporary philosopher who is sensitive to mythology (he combines philosophy and psychoanalysis). The philosopher and novelist Iris Murdoch might also be interesting, as she defends a fairly optimistic, contemporary, secular form of Platonism which may be seen as anti-tragedy. Check out her books The Sovereignty of the Good (1970) and The Fire...

Great question! I suppose the most common place where philosophers have worked to identify "straw men" or (another term sometimes used to name the same thing "Aunt Sallys") is in logic books that identify ordinary fallacies. My hunch, though, is that in debates, most philosophers would seek to help their interlocutor in expressing their beliefs...So, if someone was working with a deeply flawed understanding of Derrida, Marx, Nietzsche or the Bible, they might begin with trying to elevate or at least clarify the issues. So, if someone (I think mistakenly) thought of Nietzsche as morally bankrupt on the grounds that he was a nihilist, I might begin by making a case for Nietzsche's positive valuation of life or if someone thought the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary to divinely revealed precepts, I might begin by drawing attention to how the relevant verses can be re-contextualized and show that such a teaching is not obvious.

Probably the most recent attempt to engage Shakespeare by an analytic philosopher is Colin McGinn. I believe McGinn gives special attention to Shakespeare's wrestling with skepticism on different levels. I think McGinn is a fine philosopher, but his book has gotten some quite critical attention. Dale Jacquette has argued that McGinn does more to impose a philosophy on Shakespeare, rather than discover one. I suspect it would be very difficult to make a compelling case for a single coherent belief-system or philosophy in Shaekespeare's work as a whole. I suggest his genius lies in his openness to many conflicting currents in philosophy and religion. I am an analytic philosopher who has published an account of redemption in some of Shakespeare's work (this can be found in popular form in a book of "creative non-fiction" called Love. Love. Love, Cowley Press, 2005), but I would only claim to find a view of redemption in SOME of Shakespeare's work, rather than to make such a claim for all his work...

Good question! Analytic philosophers have had some influence in specific areas of American cultural life. So, for example, analytic philosophers such as Nagel, Raz, Dworkin, Murphy and others have had some impact on jurisprudence, philosophers have contributed to political treatments of medical public policy (Dan Brock was on some presidential panel under Regan), Danto and some other analytic philosophers have contributed to art criticism and thus the artworld, some analytic philosophers contribute to general cultural conversations on politics, religion and science (see, for example, the New York Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, etc). A host of analytic philosophers have also contributed to Blackwell and Open Court philosophy and popular culture volumes that cover films, telivision, etc... In my case, I have contributed to books on Narnia, Running, the series Lost, James Bond, Spielberg, Johny Cash, and even a book on Canabis and Philosophy. One of the most popular books in the...

Interesting! The historical relationship between "philosophy" and "psychology" is a bit complex. Some in psychology tend to see themselves as principally working from within the sciences or an applied science such as medicine, but some philosophers tend to see psychology as something that emerged historically from philosophy. In any case, the claim that human beings have a basic motive or drive to gain power is a bit abstract. I wonder if the professor meant something specific, such as the power to dominate or control other persons or something less sinister such as the power to think, feel, grow, act justly, and so on. In any case, theories of human nature are (in my view) naturally described as philosophical. Hobbes thought we fundamentally desire power and safety (social bonds are based on our shared fear of premature violent death). And this seems to be properly described as a philosophy that is distinct from, say, Thomas Aquinas' or John Locke's, both of whom thought we had a fundamental...