I purchased the book as it was reccomended by my philosophy tutors during my alevels. I found that it was easy to understand, and I thought that the exercises at the end made you think over the content that was covered within the chapter. Also he would have a dialogue as to showing different arguments that there are to the subject. He also covered the different fields in philosophy. But Hospers did have the habit of often rambling on, at times he would loose the thread by compeletly going in circles or mentioning issues that did not appear to be relevant to what he was trying to cover. Throughout the dialogue of opposing views I often was wondering who was more confused, him or myself as it would seem that the characters would end up swapping sides which either showed lack of consistency or confidendence within the arguements. Did not seem that he thought about the logic of dialogue in particular. Also the book seemed to make poor references to important people who influences a particular field of study. E.g. When covering philosophy of science how could have Hospers missed to mention Karl Popper who introduced the validation of a scientific theory on the basis of it being confirmed or falsified, not to mention Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigms? I became so frustrated I have not finished the book
I would be very hesitant to recommend this book to a novic who is interested in taking up philosophy seriously, there are far better books to start off with, one of them ironically being fiction.