Top critical review
6 people found this helpful
I have doubts as there are factual errors
on 1 February 2010
Up until recently I would have agreed with the other reviewers but now I have doubts as I have started reading entries in my own field rather than just looking up entries in related fields. I would hope that other fields are properly represented but it is clear that anything to do with "Indian Philosophy" is not. Putting aside the question of whether Indian thinking should even be classed as philosophy since this means applying a Greek term to a totally different culture and mindset the entries are factually incorrect. This is probably in part due to some of them being written by Indians who have consciously or unconsciously the Indian nationalism agenda in mind. Any others must be due to being written by people who are not specialists in this field and have been misinformed, probably for similar reasons. There are too many errors to give all the references for them. It is that bad. One instance, for those who know, will suffice. Under 'Upanishads' the derivation for the word Upanishad is given according to the opinion of Max Muller as meaning "sitting at the feet of the master" and this has been considered incorrect for many years. As far as I know, only Staal still thinks it valid and even he would not describe it as "at the feet of the master" but just "sitting close". The correct meaning most scholars give is "correlation" or "secret doctrine". This is not untypical of these kinds of philosophy compilations and I only hope that more care has been given to the accounts of western philosophy as that is what I need it for. Anyone finding factual errors in the western philosophy entries, please comment.