A selection of the best from recent issues of the Philosopher

Philosophical Companion

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy,
ed Ted Honderich, Oxford OUP 1995, 
pp 1010, ISBN 0-19-866132-0, in the blue corner.
 

Here, however, we examine the latest entrant, Routledge's ambitious Concise Enyclopaedia,(distilled from its eleven earlier volumes) containing 2000 entries from some 1200 contributors (or 'the world's leading thinkers', as the blurb puts it). Pitted against what previously, for many, occupied the role, even if not quite fulfilling the task: Honderich's Oxford Companion.

Of course, the two works are slightly different. Honderich's carries the author's stamp and follows the author's prejudices. A paltry team of a mere 249 contributors produced the Companion's 1,932 entries. The Companion claims to be lively and to allow these the freedom to write essays on topics such as their favourite philosopher or philosophical question. The Routledge Encyclopaedia, as its name suggests, is more even handed, but still manages to amble into essay mode when dealing with topics like 'Mathematics: foundations of', or the various 'types' of philosophy. The Concise, it must be noted, has some odd priorites. 'Kant', for example, at just two paragraphs, seems underserved.

But the best, indeed, the only way, to evaluate such tomes, is to test them out with a few queries on suitably diverse topics, and see in fact which book is of most interest and use.

Applied Ethics. Under this heading, Honderich has Peter Singer's readable and business-like account of the field, albeit rather thin in detail, which finishes rather apologetically: 'since many of these problems are unassailable, it seems clear that it is better for us to reason about them, to the best of our ability, than not to reason at all.'

 If we follow the links in both works to 'bioethics', in the Companion we find an embarrassingly awful piece by one 'M. Warn' [no names, no pack drill] which in excruciating prose says that bioethics raises questions 'examined by bioethicists'. In the Concise, bioethics alarmingly sub-divides into several varieties plus 'Responsibility of Scientists and Intellectuals'. Overall, neither work is much use as a source on Applied Philosophy, although at least the Concise has an interesting piece on Economics and Ethics and recognises Philosophy of Education as a branch of the subject, something the Companion is again silent on.

Chinese Philosophy. Honderich's contributor looks briefly and unimaginatively through the 'history' of philosophy in China, delineating it as essentially Confucius, Mencius, Hsun Tzu and Chuang Tsu, and noting the practical ethics style of the Chinese. The entry then dwells in rather technical style on the various 'interpretations' and strands of Confucianism.

 Contrast with Routledge's entries on Chinese philosophy, including a general introductory piece by David Hall and Roger Ames which serves as a much more readable introduction to the field, and arguing that Chinese philosophy is not simply a form of practical philosophy but a more elaborate tool for achieving 'communal harmony', a notion familiar to the Ancient Greeks. The piece links to further well-written and clear accounts of Chinese aesthetics, to Buddhism and Chinese Marxism, (Maoism), legalism, Buddhism, Chinese logic, Mohist philosophy and self-contradiction in Chinese philosophy. It seems from Routledge that Chinese philosophy is a rather richer study that Oxford would dream amongst the spires, an impression repeated with many further enquiries of the two texts.

Plato. The Companion offers a staid but careful account of Plato's main works, followed by a dense discussion of Platonism, suitable only for consultation by those with several weeks to spare, although it is anxious to expose Plato as authoritarian and hypocritical. Malcolm Scholfield's account in the Concise, on the other hand, is a brisk even stimulating account. Platonism follows in various small sub-doses: Early, Middle, Islamic, Mediaeval and Renaissance. Plato's political philosophy is dealt with more effectively too here, than in the rather verbose essays of the Companion. 

 What is there then in the Oxford Companion? There are strengths. It seems there is plenty of room for long and glowing accounts of Oxford alumni, such as Harold Pritchard (who wrote a paper attacking 'moral theory') and A J Ayer of whom we are breathlessly, if inaccurately, advised that his 'finest work' is ' the classic statement of logical positivism'. Taking a page or two at random, we find Hart, H.L.A. of whom we are told "his work while Oxford's Professor of Jurisprudence transformed Philosophy of Law'; alongside Hare, Richard, recorded as being not only White's Professsor at Oxford but 'probably the most influential moral philosopher of his generation', and Hampshire, Stuart -  'Warden of Wadham College, Oxford' and holder of a 'distinctive and influential position'. 'And that's not to forget 'Oxford Philosophy' itself, a long account sitting comfortably at the heart of the Companion, but somehow overlooked by the Concise completely. 

Reviewed by Martin Cohen