Philosophy Books

This is a very interesting book to read for a class or not. It makes you think in various directions regarding issues that you may not think about otherwise. A good discussion starter as well.

In the first part of the book, Riggiero provides scenarios to dismiss ethics based on the majority view, relativism, feelings, conscience, and culture. This is counter to those who propose following your "gut", or "do what feels good". In the second part of the book, he offers a procedural ethics based on obligation, moral ideas, and consequences.

The real meat of the book are "inquiries"; examples of ethical problems for the reader to work. They also promote a vague uneasiness of how difficult some of these short scenarios are. The uneasiness is useful and caused me to think deeper about the dilemmas. Students who are used to memorization, or looking for a "correct answer" may be frustrated. This book is not about the history of ethics (and that chapter is perhaps too sparse), or ethical theory, but about the process of thinking. My own desire for more worked samples, may indicate my uneasiness and search for a crutch of a supplied answer. I would urge also each professional reader, to look at his own professional organization's code of ethics, in light of possible scenarios that may be encountered.

I thought this book was a very well written book on Ethics. I used it for my Ethics class in junior college, and it was so well written, and very concise. It discusses ethical issues, as well as teaches the reader how to make good ethical choices. It discusses in each chapter in depth how each process in the decision process should be made, and gives many dilemmas, and examples at the end of each chapter. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Ethics

Very well written for the established learner - could prove frustrating for novice students. Many case studies with real world events to allow interactive exchange btw students - but requires professorial oversight to get beyond group think, interpersonal dynamics, and subjective bias.

A quick run-down for the lazy:
- The overview of philosophical thinkers is absurdly short.
- The history of ethics is also woefully abrubt.
+ it's fairly easy to read.
- lacks depth of analysis, contains strawman argument, circular logic, and other logical flaws.
- author insists on existance absolutes
- author frequently mixes up the meanings of ethics and morality.

Ruggiero focuses on pro-western attitudes, Christians, and christian apologists in the formation of his theories. He quotes studies out of context and uses rediculous extremes to underline 'grey areas' of argument. Often times the 'challenges' or questions in his text are flatly one sided or all too easy to answer.

I view this as a high school level text, wholly inadequate for college use, and decidedly biased.

Nevertheless, it's a good starting point for someone young and curious about ethics. I don't think it ever hurts to consider viewpoints, even faulty ones. Though I agree with much of the thrust of ethical position/slant of the text, I bridle at the abuse of logic and the strained conclusions.

Always be on the lookout for strawman argument, argument by anecdote, and appeal to emotions. These are huge logical flaws which destroy any argument no matter how well intended.

I'm using this textbook for a class on Issues in Education. It's ok not something that I would normally read.

Used this book for a university class. It provked may great debates regarding educational issues. I would highly advise!

This book is extremly dry. My graduate school professer HATED it, as did the rest of my class. Do not reccomend for a Human Behavior/Social Environment class!

Currently using this book in a theory class. There must be a better theory book out there. Bounces form one theory to another while covering a specific theory in a chapter. It is hard for a person unfamiliar with theories to understand what is relevant to the theory named in that chapter heading.

This book gives you a true and infomative insight into the running of society's helping organisations. I highly recommend it for volunteers, social work or welfare students/workers.

Malcolm Payne's book is widely used as a text book in social work theory courses in Aotearoa New Zealand. Its strength is its breadth and concise coverage of major theory's from a social constructionist perspective. The text's use of language can at times make it difficult to follow in places despite this it has been my experience that most social work students I have taught find it a valuable book to have invested in.

There are few books that lift the veil surrounding religion--Berger's book is one of them. Religion is not simply a spiritual phenomenon, it is a social one as well. Berger zeros in on this social aspect and allows us to see one of the reasons that every society has, and undoubtedly will continue to have, religion. Berger argues that human beings live in a peculiar world; it is a cultural world, a world of meaning, and religion plays a specific role in creating and maintaining this world. Is the book difficult to read as some commentators have said? Yes. Is it worth the effort? Undoubtedly. After reading this book, the reader will never view their world or religion in quite the same way.

Peter Berger's "The Sacred Canopy", while containing some insightful ideas, are too muddled down with Berger's personal terminology to be considered an interesting read. Does Berger point out some interesting and intriguing thoughts? Yes. But that's not the argument here. I consider myself an intelligent, university-educated individual, but Berger makes up his own words, comes up with entirely new meanings for existing terms, and throws in as many Latin terms as he can in one sentence, that simply trying to comprehend one sentence becomes a chore. Moreover, each chapter feels redundant with ideas expressed in previous areas throughout the book. Berger's inflated language gives the reader a feeling of his pompousness and self-importance. If you'd like the condensed version of the book, here it is: Religion was/is created by man as a "sacred canopy" to give us meaning as human beings, but we forget that religion is man-made and thus give power to religion to control us. The End.

A seminal work in sociological theory. Berger's argument that the process of being religious comes from a deep seated biological need for humans to structure their environments is both empirically demonstrable as it is important for theologians in order to understand the assumptions that govern doctrine.

The process is a dialectic from externalizing structures of understanding reality that create order. These are then apprehended as objects by others and internalized. From this internalization new structures will then emerge as the process continues. Epistemologically, this process is then regulated in terms of plausibility and legitimation. As structures of order are created, different ways of knowing and understanding the world are made plausible and thus different forms of knowledge are seen as legitimate ways of understanding and maintaining order in the world. The end of this process is to make the world a habitable place by mitigating the effects of disorder or "anomy".

The last piece on secularization traces the division of the numinous reality of God and the spiritual things of God and the physical structures of experience. This begins in the radical division between Yahweh and Israel, is re-united in medieval Catholicism, and then re-divided in Protestantism. Rationalism in the Nineteenth century then creates a challenge where theology is forced to define itself against a more plural environment where the plausibility of religious dogma is challenged by other equally plausible structures of reality. Maintaining these religious plausibility structures is legitimated in terms of marketing their respective value rather than assuming that one's dogma must be true in itself.

Berger closes with the state of this process in the late 1960's where theology was in the process of coming out of the neo-orthodox reassertion of the otherness of God and primacy of Scripture and investing itself with psychological and existential legitimation. He uses Tillich as an example of this.

It is important for theologians to understand that in the process of doctrinal analysis and synthesis, that theology is relative to social constructions that shape doctrine by virtue of being human. The tendency is to mask theology as some discipline which is beyond the reproach of answering the challenge of what we can observe empirically. This is not the case is theology is a discipline that can develop and progress as do other disciplines in the field of what humans can know and understand about the world and themselves.

People will have problems with some of Berger's ideas; namely that religion is a social construction. So, of course removing "truth" with a capitol T will offend. However wordy or latinate his words get, he is still, by far, much more lucid and friendly to native english speakers than the majority of those who write in this feild.
Those interested in the modern, g-d-free, clean shiny secular religious studies will find a useful text here.
Those complaining about his lingistic machinations simply have not been plunged into the rather absurdity that populates the majority of religious studies. It is not an "easy read" as one would read say non-fiction for enjoyment, but, by far, much more lucid and approachable than other writers.

This work is mostly a protraction of the ideas expressed in Berger's previous co-written book THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY. Those who are familiar with that work will most likely not be surprised by the arguments put forward here. Much of the same methodology and argumentation are employed once again. As for those who are not familiar with the previous work, I believe they will find that this book stands well enough on its own merits.

Berger's sociological approach to religion, although incomplete, is insightful. He attempts and, I believe, somewhat succeeds to find a middle ground between ideational and materialistic approaches to the sociology of religion. His focus remains consistently throughout the human agency in the construction of their social reality and how this reality becomes objectified and subsequently becomes reified as an immovable, impenetrable `thing' which is perceived as superhuman-and more specifically, the role of religion in facilitating and sustaining this very process. From here, he moves on to the nature of this dynamic in modern societies, secularism and pluralism being shorthand for this, and the problems of social legitimation this entails.

Overall, this work is too cursory and pithy to be too satisfying for those who desire a robust sociology of religion. As Berger states, it was not his intention to provide this. Rather, one finds an exploration of how his prior work could be applied to the sociological study of religion.

The book we ordered was in great shape and save us mega bucks. Thanks

This book is written with passion. Its story is told not through the author, but through the anecdotes, vignettes, and interviews provided by his students. A reader can tell what an inspired and inspiring teacher Mr. Michie really is. I would recommend this book to any new teachers or anyone interested in the problems of social justice and education in the US.

I read this for Education class and it was very interesting. Most books i read are very boring, this one i actually read the whole thing with no skimming. Based on a teachers' experience at a Chicago middle school.

Gregory Michie's series of vignettes weaves an interesting story of his life as a young, inexperienced teacher in a poor and violent public school system. Although the book's time line is scattered, the reader can easily get a feel for the struggles of both Michie and his students. Set in the 1990's in the "Back of the Yard" Mexican-American neighborhood in inner city Chicago, we are introduced briefly, yet intensely, to many of Michie's students who struggle to stay in school. The pages fly by because they are rich with dialogue and stories from Michie's colorful students. If you was looking for an insightful book with a passionate look into the mind of some diversely opinionated adolescents, this is a great book for you.
As a teacher, I found Michie's book inspiring. Although the time line, at points, is difficult to follow, I sincerely enjoyed the honest approach of the book. As a result of reading this text, I decided to spend more one on one time with some of my students. Michie, with the help if a reverend-like teacher, starts to look past the "gangster" in order to find the student inside. I thought that maybe I had been judging some of my most challenging students too quickly. Have I been subconsciously treating the students who I know to be involved in more trouble differently? Have I been ignoring kids because I think that "they don't care anyway"? I tried to put my feeling aside and at least talk to some of the students whom I found troublesome. Every day last week, I invited a new kid to eat lunch with me. Even if I could not be the extra-curricular, field trip-loving Michie, I could at least try something! With a few, I found immediate results. It seemed to me, that their classroom antics were a cry for my attention, and an individual conference was the perfect medicine. One child in particular, asked to have lunch with me again, and I complied. When he began misbehaving in class later on that afternoon, all it took was a sideways glance of disappointment, and he was back on track. This small simple strategy may seem obvious to many (and it was to me, I just never did it!), but it really worked. I do not think that I would have made an effort to spend quality time with my "problem" children if I had not read this book.

Greg Mitchie gives a very personal account about the compassion and hard work involved in teaching. There is a great balance between teacher and student reflections on school, in particular middle school, and life. It is a thoughtful and emotional insight into what being a teacher should be about - promoting student voice. Great read for anyone insterested in teaching at the secondary level, at the beginning of their teaching career or in an inner city.

The title of this book is based on a story told by Jesus according to the book of Luke. A man was attacked by robbers who stripped him, beat him up and left him half dead. Two passers-by saw the man and chose to do nothing. Then a Samaritan came upon the man and his heart was filled with pity. He cleaned and bandaged the wounds, took the man to an inn and paid the innkeeper to care for him. Jesus said, "You go, then, and do the same."

Deborah Stone's premise is that government should act like the Samaritan toward its citizens. I agree with her. This has been the Democratic Party's calling since Roosevelt's New Deal. Stone contrasts the Samaritan's actions with the Republican position of laissez faire economics. Unfortunately Stone does a poor job of explaining why it benefits everyone for government to help those in need, other than saying that it helps the needy be better citizens.

Much of the book is anecdotal evidence that helping others also benefits the helper. Stone focuses on individuals who do the right thing and feel good about themselves as a result. In one offensive section she glorifies people who committ welfare fraud as doing what is best for their families. She also makes heros of people who committ Medicare fraud as caregivers who do what is best for their patients. Stone paints these types of civil disobedience as altruistic.

Stone's cure for our currently inadequate system is government insurance for all life events that leave people unable to provide for themselves. Stone also talks about empowering citizens with programs such as affirmative action and Head Start.

I wish Stone's book had spent less time describing individual acts of altruism and more time delving into exactly how the government insurance would work. How will it be paid for? How can services be streamlined so that the use of each dollar is maximized? How can abuse of these programs be prevented? And how do we service the immense number of people who fall through the cracks of current government programs? The details on how to fix "The Samaritan's Dilemma" are too sketchy to make this book worthwhile.

This is the textbook I used for my Ethics class at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. It is a fantastic collection of ethical thought spanning 2,400 years. I was very surprised to realize how much of our own ethical thought, as well as legal system, is based on the beliefs and essays of previous philosophers. The best parts of this book are the introductions. Because this book is composed of exerpts from larger works, the introductions do a splendid job of giving the authors' historical background and explaining their writings. The introductions are so clear and concise that one could probably just read them and understand the ideas and arguments perfectly.

This is not directly a review, though I did find the information contained within Waltz's book to be very interesting. I took issue with his state-centric viewpoint however. For those of you more interested in the concept of 'individual analysis' that Waltz brushes aside, see the article "Let us now praise great men: bringing the statesmen back in" by Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack. The literature review section in particular deals with refuting Waltz theoretical conceptions from this book.

IR scholars has long debated on which level of analysis is the most appropriate and helpful level in approaching international relations. In his seminal book Man, the State, and War, Kenneth N. Waltz becomes the first to analyze the political philosophy behind each level of analysis and their interaction with one another. Unlike his later writings in which he develops a purely structural theory of international relations, in Man, the State, and War Waltz offers a more balanced view on the importance of each "images" for the study of world politics: "the `third image' describes the framework of world politics, but without the first of and second images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy," (238).
To briefly summarize Waltz's images, the "first image" is about human nature. Human-nature accounts explain war by analyzing the common characteristics (or defects) of human beings. These theories tend to attribute war to an "ultimate cause" that derives from human nature: "the root of all evil is man, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil, war," (3). Waltz's problem with searching for an "ultimate cause," however, is that ultimate causes frequently turn out to be the cause of everything. Therefore, Waltz criticized theories that explain war through human nature by arguing that human nature is the cause of as many good (and benign) things as evil ones (39).
The "second image" is about the characteristics of states: "the idea that defects in states cause wars among them," (83). Waltz analyzes several state-level accounts of war and peace some of which are very fashionable today, such as the peaceful nature of democracies and peaceful impact of free trade. The notion here is similar to the first image, if "bad" states (such as non-democratic or interventionist) can be erased then there will be no war (119). However, Waltz notes that there is no guarantee that good states will not revert to war. Waltz rejects state-level theories that would rely "on the generalization of one pattern of state and society to bring peace to the world," (122).
The "third image" is the international system. The absence of a world government renders the international system an anarchical one; and "in anarchy there is automatic harmony," (160). Thus, wars occur "because there is nothing to prevent them," (232). Waltz tends to view third image as the most important account of war among nations. Yet unlike in his later theorizing, he underlines the importance of the other two images: "we still have to look to motivation and circumstance in order to explain individual acts," (231). Hence, multiple levels of analysis.
My personal view on the levels of analysis question is that among the three different levels from which IR scholars approached to the study of conflict among states, state-level approach has been the most productive and helpful in terms of accounting for the conflict among states and providing us clues as to how to reduce or manage them. Thus, I do not share Waltz's inclination to the third image in Man, the State, and War. Yet in the final analysis, any single level is incomplete by itself. Waltz's Man, the State, and War is important for being the first to analyze the philosophical foundations of each levels of analysis and to argue the complementary relationship among them. "The real problem of IR scholars," Lipson observed, is "to integrate choice and structure," (1884, p. 20). And a successful integration of choice and structure inevitably requires making use of systemic as well as state-level theories. Indeed, this is the current trend in both theoretical approaches (Moravcsik 1997; Gilpin 2001) to and empirical analyses (Huth 1996) of international relations.

This work by Waltz is one of the cornerstone texts in international relations theory and is a must read for any serious student of the subject.

Essentially, Waltz uses three `images' to attempt to explain why states go to war. These images are, briefly, i) human nature, ii) the nature of states and iii) the state system, and he concludes that while all three levels are important, that it is the state system (ie that it is anarchical) that causes states to go to war.

Like all theories in IR, this one assists in building a picture of how and why states behave, but it is not a stand alone theory of state behaviour. No matter whether your beliefs are realist, liberal or strongly Marxist in describing states, this book adds an important element into the mix.

This asks some of the most important questions in political science. This was the book that launched Waltz's career, and it remains the most important book he has written. His question of war and his depressing conclusions are actually secondary to his method. He philosophically examines the question from three different angles in an inciteful and useful way. While some of it may seem obvious now, it wasn't in the 50s, and while it can be daunting to anyone without a background in philosophy and political science, it is a seminal work. Every scholar should take a look from different angles as Waltz has done.

This book has legs! I read it first in graduate school in 1969. I was impressed with the argument then, and still appreciate its power now. He identifies a key problem as (page 12) "identifying and achieving the conditions of peace. . ." He notes that, over time, three separate views have dominated discourse on the causes of war (and how to achieve peace): (a) human nature is the root cause; (b) the structure of states is the key factor; (c) the international system itself is the major variable.

The book proceeds in a linear fashion. First, he examines the variety of arguments locating the cause of war in human nature. However, he also notes that to link human nature to war is not easily done (there is, of course, much debate over exactly what human nature is--or even if there is such a given nature), and that political matters must be taken into account. As he considers the contributions of the behavioral sciences, he notes that (page 79) "The more fully behavioral scientists take account of politics, the more sensible and the more modest their efforts to contribute to peace become."

The second level of analysis is the structure of states themselves. He notes that some have argued that if the state had a proper structure, then peace would result. He considers, for instance, liberal theorists of the 19th century who made that point. One problem: While trying to create more liberal states, what about those illiberal ones who may engage in conflict? What then? The structure of the state won't prevent self-defense. Indeed, some liberals, like Thomas Paine, wanted to use force to democratize the world.

The final level of analysis is the structure of the international system itself. The main point here is that that system can be termed "anarchy." There is no central force to prevent outbreaks of violence. So, violence will occur. Interestingly, he begins the chapter on international anarchy with a quotation from Cicero (page 159) "For what can be done against force without force." States need to protect themselves when there is no mechanism to maintain peace; they will act in their national interest when threatened. The end result is the possibility of war whenever a country might be threatened. In Waltz' words (page 227): "According to the third image, there is a constant possibility of war in a world in which there are two or more states each seeking to promote a set of interests and having no agency upon which they can rely for protection."

In short, all three levels (images) must be understood. None is irrelevant. But the key to understanding war is the state of international anarchy. The book holds up well over time. It still presents a useful message, albeit from the hard-nosed realist position. Neocons won't like the argument that changing the structure of states won't make a lot of difference as long as there is international anarchy. Anyhow, for those interested in a fairly hard-headed analysis, this book still serves a useful purpose.

This book was delivered in excellent conditions, it was a brand new book and it arrived faster than I expected!

A previous reviewer asked what Thoreau might think of how society has developed commercially since he wrote this book. I have to also wonder what he would think of the ridiculous (in my opinion) and jingoistic cover of this current edition? The person who chose the cover design should have read the book. The cover is offensive, given the ideas the book contains. Penguin should be ashamed.

This is a classic novel. It's value as literature speaks for itself.
I received the product in the condition advertised, in two days.
I am completely satisfied with the purchase and service.

Thoreau is more than simply a writer who produced a great American classic. He exemplified the idea which perhaps as much as any other has come to be at the heart of the American creed. "If a man does not keep pace to his companion, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

Throreau when he went into the woods of Walden Pond on July 4, 1845 , a journey in solitude which would last just two years and two months, was the archetypal American individualist. He was the man 'doing his own thing' living in accordance with what only he could know was right for himself. This idea of 'radical individualism' has become part of the American common faith. Its abuses are legion and may be disastrous, but it also has brought about not simply 'better mousetraps' but a whole vast world of innovations and innovators, the like of which Mankind has never known before.

Thoreau as he writes in his introduction went to the woods to explore not simply the natural world, the outdoors he so much loved. He went to the woods to truly go more deeply into and know himself. As he says in his introduction:

" I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. Unfortunately, I am confined to this theme by the narrowness of my experience. Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men's lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me."

Thoreau in that enigmatic, epigrammatic aphoristic style, he shared with his great mentor and fellow pioneering poet- philosopher, Emerson connects the world within with the world without , connects the Concord woods with the Cosmos . He creates a work in 'Walden' of singular beauty and of its own special economy and principles in thought.

Thoreau was too an abolitionist, an opponent of the Mexican war, a civil disobedient who refused to pay the poll tax-, a pioneer
whose followers would include Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

But in his close looking at the world of nature and the world of himself he was first a great explorer of life and reality going out alone in his own way- however geographically close he may have been to home.

His words and his wisdom waken us even today to the hope of new and better worlds i.e. he also embodied the spirit of a great American optimism.

The great individual teaches us even in dark hours to find new worlds in ourselves outside our own darknesses. " There are new worlds yet to be born" he writes, " The sun is but a morning star"

Walden itself is a book that will make you re-examine every aspect of your life. I recommend buying another version. The writer of the introduction to this version is clearly not a fan of Thoreau. He certainly did not experience the spiritual somersault that 80% of the population would experience with this masterpiece, and so is ill-suited to comment on it. The quotations from other authors at the end of the book seem to have been chosen to undermine Thoreau, and the review questions are at best patronizing and at worst insulting.

In addition the type and pages are too small. You will want a larger volume with room for underlining and note-taking when you read this Walden.

This book is simply as good as it gets, straight- forward and clear.
Easy to read and the examples are to the point. I would recommend this book to anyone wanting a course in logic.

This book was used as a college level text for a Philosophy course in introductory Logicc. As a guide to SL, I found it easy to understand and informative when in conjunction with a structured lecture.

I have purchased and had a logic class using this book. On the one hand this book is excellent for the seasoned logic student. It really is. On the other hand unless you have an understanding text-supplementing professor, and unless you are seasoned logic student, then in my opinion this book is simply an 'unfair read', if not an incomprehensible read, even to the clever student. Only after learning Metalogic from other sources, was this book eventually treasured by myself for what it is. I have read the many comments here and they all seem genuinely on target. For a great introduction to Metalogic try a 1971 book called Metalogic(Hunter)UCP. Geoffrey Hunter's book is the ABC's of Metalogic. Also, I agree the 'assumptions' this book makes are riduculous. The very 'assumptions' that baffled me contradicted the very concept of step-by-step logical reasoning that the book was supposed to advocate. ( In my opinion if you think there were no assumptions in this book, then its because you knew of them from other sources.) Also, the book seemed to 'hide' or transform standard logic terms such as, for example 'prenix formulaes' for non-standard terms. So in my opinion you must know alternative terminonlogy before you can understand what some chapters are talking about. How I scrambled (and I know others did too) to keep up!Only after knowing the intermediate steps, does the LOGIC BOOK show, upon reflection, its true and genuine glory, but by then its too late, and your GPA has gone up in smoke. But if you really want a LOGIC BOOK to step you all the way to Metalogic, then this book really is the one to get. This is my opinion based on experiences using this book. All of my really intelligent graduate classmates (sharp as pins!) groaned at the use of this book. It is fair question to ask as to why logic, using this book, turned, for my class, into a genuine life-altering GPA busting nightmare. However, and again, in the wee hours of the night, I do see the wealth that this book offers, and it is, genuinely, a pleasure to posess. 'Heads up!' Dig?

This one's okay. A bit dry and tedious, but okay. There are better logic textbooks out there, though. If you're a philosophy major, I'd recommend either Harry Gensler's or Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic. They're much more interesting than this one. If you're a comp-sci major, you'd be better served by books specifically devoted to digital logic. For philosophy majors who want to go beyond basic logic, I highly recommend books by Graham Priest, particularly his Intro to Non-Classical Logic.

This logic textbook covers sentential and predicate logic. There are chapters on semantics, syntax, derivations, truth-trees and metatheory. Each chapter also contains many examples and exercises.
In my opinion, the chapters on truth-trees and derivations are the best. I found this book's method for universal and existential generalization and instantiation much easier to apply than the method introduced in some other textbooks. The most difficult chapters are those on metatheory.
I would have liked more guidance on constructing proofs in English and a more general outline of the method for mathematical induction. Standard paraphrases are introduced and rigorously applied for translating from English to SL but unfortunately not for translating from English to PL, which is more difficult.
I agree with a previous reviewer that this book could have made better use of graphics. There are some tables and boxes for definitions, strategies and lists of rules, but perhaps not enough. There are glossaries at the end of most chapters, but these could be extended.
While this book does not require any previous exposure to logic, it may prove difficult for many without this exposure or a patient instructor. Whether this textbook will be helpful to you probably also depends on your interests in logic. I was not interested in the chapters on metatheory. The book does not cover inductive, traditional, modal, epistemic or deontic logic.
Copi's "Introduction to Logic", Gensler's "Introduction to Logic" and Kahane and Tidman's "Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction" are easier and more user friendly than this book and introduce some important areas of logic not covered in this book. If you want a good introduction to logic to help you evaluate and construct arguments for philosophy, then I recommend any of these three books. For those who want a more difficult and focused introduction I recommend "The Logic Book".