Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ellie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ellie!rapaport
From: rapaport@ellie.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <-40300@ellie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 10:44:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ellie.-40300
Posted: Mon Apr 29 10:44:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 06:55:10 EDT
References: <1069@ratex.UUCP>
Lines: 32
Nf-ID: #R:ratex:-106900:ellie:-40300:177600:964
Nf-From: ellie!rapaport    Apr 29 10:44:00 1985


> 
>      I recently mail-ordered a copy of the 2nd edition of *Dictionary of
> Philosophy*.
>      My advice to others is: Don't get it; get the 1st edition.


Professional philosophers (of whom I am one) generally avoid Runes's
DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY for its inaccuracies and for a celebrated
controversy over its articles on logic.  (Apparently, Runes changed
the articles without the authors' permission.)

If you want a good reference on philosophy, go to the ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF PHILOSOPHY (Macmillan Free Press, 1967).  It's a bit out of date,
but authoritative.  

A good dictionary is A. R. Lacey, A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY
(Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976).

I'm told that the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA has good articles, too,
though I haven't checked it out myself.

-- 
				Bill Rapaport

				Dept. of Computer Science
				SUNY Buffalo
				Buffalo, NY 14260
				(716) 636-3193

uucp: ...decvax!sunybcs!rapaport
csnet/arpanet:  rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay.