website statistics Pooh and the Philosophers: In Which It Is Shown That All of Western Philosophy Is Merely a Preamble to Winnie-the-Pooh - PDF Books Online
Hot Best Seller

Pooh and the Philosophers: In Which It Is Shown That All of Western Philosophy Is Merely a Preamble to Winnie-the-Pooh

Availability: Ready to download

In this splendidly preposterous volume, John Tyerman Williams sets out to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the whole of Western philosophy--from the ancient Greeks to the existentialists of this century--may be found in the works of A. A. Milne. Williams shows how Pooh--referred to here as "the Great Bear"--explains and illuminates the most profound ideas of the grea In this splendidly preposterous volume, John Tyerman Williams sets out to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the whole of Western philosophy--from the ancient Greeks to the existentialists of this century--may be found in the works of A. A. Milne. Williams shows how Pooh--referred to here as "the Great Bear"--explains and illuminates the most profound ideas of the great thinkers, from Aristotle and Plato to Sartre and Camus.


Compare

In this splendidly preposterous volume, John Tyerman Williams sets out to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the whole of Western philosophy--from the ancient Greeks to the existentialists of this century--may be found in the works of A. A. Milne. Williams shows how Pooh--referred to here as "the Great Bear"--explains and illuminates the most profound ideas of the grea In this splendidly preposterous volume, John Tyerman Williams sets out to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the whole of Western philosophy--from the ancient Greeks to the existentialists of this century--may be found in the works of A. A. Milne. Williams shows how Pooh--referred to here as "the Great Bear"--explains and illuminates the most profound ideas of the great thinkers, from Aristotle and Plato to Sartre and Camus.

30 review for Pooh and the Philosophers: In Which It Is Shown That All of Western Philosophy Is Merely a Preamble to Winnie-the-Pooh

  1. 5 out of 5

    Julie

    Pooh and the Philosophers: In-Which-It-Is-Shown-That-A-Fool-Is-Born-Every-Minute. Sigh. I admit I was curious. I admit to liking Benjamin Hoff's Tao of Pooh very much. As an antidote to sadness, or downheartedness, or just a vague bluesy feeling, it is exactly what works for me. There is no doubt in my mind that Winnie The Pooh is a Zen Master. My tongue is only a teeny bit in my cheek, for I can certainly embrace all the Zen qualities of Pooh when I tuck the book under my arm, stroll down the gar Pooh and the Philosophers: In-Which-It-Is-Shown-That-A-Fool-Is-Born-Every-Minute. Sigh. I admit I was curious. I admit to liking Benjamin Hoff's Tao of Pooh very much. As an antidote to sadness, or downheartedness, or just a vague bluesy feeling, it is exactly what works for me. There is no doubt in my mind that Winnie The Pooh is a Zen Master. My tongue is only a teeny bit in my cheek, for I can certainly embrace all the Zen qualities of Pooh when I tuck the book under my arm, stroll down the garden path to the pond, and spend a few pleasant hours, intermittently reading, and listening to the bees buzzing. Then along comes a brick like this. I never suspected for a moment that the author might be serious. Then I read, So when Pooh Bear experienced the burning pain of a bee sting, this symbolized the pain of discarding a cherished hypothesis. We note the unhesitating courage with which he performed the painful duty. We also see how great his anguish was when we go on to read, "his arms were so stiff from holding on to the string of the balloon all that time that they stayed up straight in the air for more than a week." What a brilliant picture of the way in which habit and emotion may cling to a belief that evidence and reason have rejected! I myself was in danger of my arms staying straight up for a week: I was desperately clinging to emotions that evidence and reason were rejecting, for I actually continued to read after this, despite my soul screaming out for mercy. Later, I encountered that blasted balloon again: The familiar phrase "the World of Pooh" itself signals a strong connection with Heidegger. ... Pooh's use of a balloon as a tool to get honey is obviously the key to Heidegger's emphasis on the use of tools and equipment to deal with the world outside. Even Heidegger's favorite phrase "ready to hand" to indicate equipment clearly derives from Pooh's phrase "about you" when he asks, "I wonder if you've got such a thing as a balloon about you?" Oh, clearly that is what Pooh meant. Obviously. So many absolutes. Coelholy. (My newly-minted word for being at one with the universe.) This is a sad little book in which Poor Pooh Has Been Made To Go Head-to-Head With All The Philosophers, From Aristotle to The Existentialists, And Emerges Exhausted And Traumatized. Pooh will be in therapy for the rest of his life. Or until I rescue him again and take him down to the pond, on a summer's day, to hear the bees buzzing -- but not feel those pesky (western) philosophers stinging. "My arms ache."

  2. 4 out of 5

    Josiah

    Taken by itself, this is a moderately funny satire of literary criticism and how absurd certain literary interpretations can become. The concept is funny, but the joke does eventually get old, so it would be a 3 star review if taken by itself. After reading through the Goodreads reviews, though, and seeing that almost everyone on here took this book 100% seriously, I'm upping this to 5-stars. I'm dying laughing over here at all the people who picked up this book, missed the inscription that said Taken by itself, this is a moderately funny satire of literary criticism and how absurd certain literary interpretations can become. The concept is funny, but the joke does eventually get old, so it would be a 3 star review if taken by itself. After reading through the Goodreads reviews, though, and seeing that almost everyone on here took this book 100% seriously, I'm upping this to 5-stars. I'm dying laughing over here at all the people who picked up this book, missed the inscription that said this book started as a casual joke, and thought the author was being serious at any point in this book. And then proceeded to write reviews hundreds of words long about how much they disagreed this book. For real? These people read a book that said that Sartre derived his concept of Nothingness from "Chapter Three of The House at Pooh's Corner" and thought the author was being at all serious about this? And then were actually persuaded (at least in the case of one reviewer) that maybe Nietzsche did get his ideas from Winnie the Pooh? Absolutely legendary. Rating: 3 Stars for the satire taken by itself; 5 Stars for its ability to hoodwink so many readers.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Ronald Barba

    I have never written a review this long. I could not put this book down...if only because I couldn't wait to finish it and not have to deal with Williams anymore. I cahhnt. I don't even know where to start. Dafuq is wrong with you people? This was terrible. There is a difference between a reader of philosophy and a student of philosophy. A reader of philosophy is precisely that: a reader; he/she reads books and essays of philosophy out of his/her own volition and out of genuine interest. A stud I have never written a review this long. I could not put this book down...if only because I couldn't wait to finish it and not have to deal with Williams anymore. I cahhnt. I don't even know where to start. Dafuq is wrong with you people? This was terrible. There is a difference between a reader of philosophy and a student of philosophy. A reader of philosophy is precisely that: a reader; he/she reads books and essays of philosophy out of his/her own volition and out of genuine interest. A student of philosophy not only reads a philosophical work, but studies it, questions it, and critiques every argument (good or bad) within the work. I am a student of philosophy, and this book is actually garbage. Literary analysis through a philosophic lens is not equivalent to "a preamble to all of Western philosophy". This is NOT a philosophy book--far from it. This is literary analysis utilizing philosophical principles as explanation. Or, even if it is viewed as a philosophical work, Williams focuses on a handful of passages to make his points. It can also be argued (and argued strongly) that his application of philosophy, in the particular, can just as easily been argued in terms of philosophy, in general, and thereby defeating his assertion that this world of Pooh encompasses all of Western philosophy. This book is geared towards the reader of philosophy. Williams stresses a definitive tone throughout the book, always leaving little doubt to the accuracy of his conclusions regarding the ties between Pooh and Western philosophy (there is "no possible doubt" and it is "definitely the case", among others). This same confidence is transferred to his reader, as well, always referring to the "well-informed reader" or the "observant reader"; Williams takes on a well-I-mean-obviously-you-know-that-this-principle-means-this-you-dumbass, Doctorate in Philosophy approach. I suggest that this is for the reader of philosophy because mere readers of philosophy love having their egos wanked: "Um, DUH, I knew that, and everyone else who didn't shouldn't even be reading this book" kind of shit (I mean, if you aren't part of the "observant reader" group, then why would you even continue to read this?), despite having only read, say, one book from Kierkegaard. A reader of philosophy would have or will give this book four or five stars because he/she is full of themselves, and think that points in this book are thought-provoking. Of course the Pooh tales are inherently philosophical, so are many other works of literature: philosophy is inherent in all things. I'll give some credit to Williams in that he 1) introduces basic principles & teachings from Western schools and 2) does so within the framework of children's fiction, which makes it generally easier for people to follow. If you're a fan of Pooh, then this book will definitely be a fun, interesting read. And I have nothing against Pooh philosophy scholars; I just think this book is a terrible example of such thought.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Maya Joelle

    Hilarious, but it was hard to get through so I didn't finish before it was due back to the library. I may return someday if I need a fun philosophical read. read Jan/Feb 2021 Hilarious, but it was hard to get through so I didn't finish before it was due back to the library. I may return someday if I need a fun philosophical read. read Jan/Feb 2021

  5. 4 out of 5

    Vartika

    I was mighty excited for this book, but I must admit I was rather let down — bored, even. This was exactly like reading one of those elaborate, densely creative essays on literary criticism in college, but with Winnie the Pooh in it. Still, I now have a fair idea of what the deal with Western philosophy is: it's Pooh; he said it all. Oh, and Sartre was just plain stupid. I was mighty excited for this book, but I must admit I was rather let down — bored, even. This was exactly like reading one of those elaborate, densely creative essays on literary criticism in college, but with Winnie the Pooh in it. Still, I now have a fair idea of what the deal with Western philosophy is: it's Pooh; he said it all. Oh, and Sartre was just plain stupid.

  6. 4 out of 5

    David

    All in all this book was an average book - it is a brief introduction to the classical world of Winnie-the-Pooh (not that Disney recreation) and western philosophy. What it does not do is go into any great detail on either area. It's tone is also extremely sarcastic and at time hostile towards the philosophers (the section on Sartre should be viewed as a direct attack, not an unbiased analysis). The book does one thing, however, which redeems it for all of its many short comings - it shows the r All in all this book was an average book - it is a brief introduction to the classical world of Winnie-the-Pooh (not that Disney recreation) and western philosophy. What it does not do is go into any great detail on either area. It's tone is also extremely sarcastic and at time hostile towards the philosophers (the section on Sartre should be viewed as a direct attack, not an unbiased analysis). The book does one thing, however, which redeems it for all of its many short comings - it shows the reader that the stories of Winnie-the-Pooh are inherently philosophical. While this may seem obvious to some readers, many people cannot see the philosophic overtones in popular culture. It is not there fault, it is simply a skill which takes training (As Dr. Robert Pirro once stated prior to his Film and Politics class, "My mission is to ruin your movie watching experience"). Reading this book can help people open their eyes to philosophies presence in the great works of fiction which define our culture. It is something that proves philosophy to be useful and important. The book also points the reader to a number of philosophers and books written by them and their school which can lead them to learning more. It can be a gateway for the love of wisdom, with a love of "The Great Bear" and the guide to that first discovery. And that is what makes this book worth reading.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Don Murphy

    Have a philosophy major and serving coffee not making ends meet? Do what the majority of other philosophy majors have done and write a book about Pooh! Why not. There's enough room to fit just about any topic and connect Pooh to it. What's next - Pooh and the Nazis? How about Pooh and the NHL coaches? Or, Pooh and the Archetypal Strippers. How is Eeyore like the over-the-hill prostitute? Now, write a book about it! Have a philosophy major and serving coffee not making ends meet? Do what the majority of other philosophy majors have done and write a book about Pooh! Why not. There's enough room to fit just about any topic and connect Pooh to it. What's next - Pooh and the Nazis? How about Pooh and the NHL coaches? Or, Pooh and the Archetypal Strippers. How is Eeyore like the over-the-hill prostitute? Now, write a book about it!

  8. 5 out of 5

    Tra-Kay

    The fantastic thing about this book is that not only does it humorously discuss the Pooh stories and the philosophers in a deeply knowledgeable and self-mocking, abstract yet lucid manner; but also actually critiques the philosophies and gives opinions about them. This is no mere "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar" "let's introduce concepts with fun stuff" book. THIS, my fellow readers, is a Scholar Fucking Around. I actually learned a fair bit and was inspired as well, because the lessons we The fantastic thing about this book is that not only does it humorously discuss the Pooh stories and the philosophers in a deeply knowledgeable and self-mocking, abstract yet lucid manner; but also actually critiques the philosophies and gives opinions about them. This is no mere "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar" "let's introduce concepts with fun stuff" book. THIS, my fellow readers, is a Scholar Fucking Around. I actually learned a fair bit and was inspired as well, because the lessons were incidental to Williams' silly and suspiciously well-substantiated thesis. This kind of learning is much more natural and therefore effective; so unlike cramming information from a textbook that lists in a dry tone the philosophers' basic beliefs. Life ought to involve MUCH MORE PLAYING! He uses the most wonderfully thorough one-sided logic (pg. 144 was probably the most nonsensical, which means I liked it best). It was a toss-up whether to categorize this under "philosophyreligion" or "comedy", a sort of confusion I wish I felt more often. "Tigger's search for a food that he really likes and Pooh Bear's eating the honey before giving the Useful--but now empty--Pot to Eeyore are a vivid critique of the main problem of Kantian ethics. The best-known version of Kant's basic moral principal, the Categorical Imperative, runs as follows: "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law." At once we face the problem: How can we fulfill Kant's criterion while choosing a suitable food or gift for a particular person? Anyone who made it a maxim to give everyone honey would have dissatisfied the recipient (Eeyore) in the given example. But if we make a separate choice for each recipient, we are not willing each choice to become a universal law. It may be answered that this is a quite unreal problem and that the obvious solution is to act on the maxim that we should give the sort of gifts the recipients will enjoy. Or--as that formula would allow us to give a case of whisky to an alcoholic or a gun to a psychopath--we could say we should give gifts which were appropriate to the recipient. But that merely means we ought to give what we ought to give. True but not very helpful. In other words, Winnie-the-Pooh has exposed what Alasdair MacIntyre called "the logical emptiness of the test of the categorical imperative" (A Short History of Ethics, p. 198). Obviously Kant needed Winnie-the-Pooh to clarify his own obscure prose. And we have just seen the Great Bear expose the unreality of Kant's ethical foundation."

  9. 4 out of 5

    Kayla Gutierrez

    At first, I wasn’t sure whether to take this author’s stance seriously; that Winnie the Pooh, the honey-loving bear in the Hundred Acre Woods, is actually representative of Aristotle who tries to enlighten the friends around him that the earth is round, and that his search for honey is symbolic of his search for the truth. A far-fetched idea written in a subty assuming manner, the book is entertaining, especially when the author depicts Eeyore as a follower of Neitszche and ties the major philos At first, I wasn’t sure whether to take this author’s stance seriously; that Winnie the Pooh, the honey-loving bear in the Hundred Acre Woods, is actually representative of Aristotle who tries to enlighten the friends around him that the earth is round, and that his search for honey is symbolic of his search for the truth. A far-fetched idea written in a subty assuming manner, the book is entertaining, especially when the author depicts Eeyore as a follower of Neitszche and ties the major philosophers (Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, etc.) to the Winnie the Pooh characters and their actions. It is interesting to note that Winnie the Pooh was published in 1926, but that some modern philosophers came out with the same ideas decades later. The author’s description of Ursinian scholars (those who study Winnie the Pooh, the all-knowing bear) adds to its light and clever tone. The author makes it a point to observe and dissect Pooh’s experimental behavior, which occurs in almost every story and is a sign of a true philosopher. His constant need to test theories often leads him into trouble. Even though Christopher Robin tends to dismiss Pooh’s theories, his behavior implies that he is intellectually stunted and will never mentally move forward. I could not help but laugh at the author’s obvious disdain for Christopher Robin, whom I myself don’t particularly like. Overall, a short and thought-provoking read for Winnie the Pooh fans.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Jeremy

    Cf. Hoff's The Tao of Pooh. Cf. Hoff's The Tao of Pooh.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Hans Rens

    Nice to find this site for a "review" I read Pooh (first my grandma read me the Dutch translation when I was a kid - long before Disney turned it into a cocacola red carricature - then I read that myself again, then later learning English I got the original Pooh. When I found Pooh and the Philosophers, I picked it up after glancing through only a few pages, and I never regret reading it. Yes, the style is worthy of Pooh itself: lots of tongue-in-cheek passages, and never ever it will be clear for Nice to find this site for a "review" I read Pooh (first my grandma read me the Dutch translation when I was a kid - long before Disney turned it into a cocacola red carricature - then I read that myself again, then later learning English I got the original Pooh. When I found Pooh and the Philosophers, I picked it up after glancing through only a few pages, and I never regret reading it. Yes, the style is worthy of Pooh itself: lots of tongue-in-cheek passages, and never ever it will be clear for the reader whether this is "an introduction to philosophy" or a mockery of it. It's a great tribute to The Bear, though and to Milne. Sometimes the book seems to go in circles ( but that's the literary equivalent of the search for the heffalump, isn't it ? ) Then I applied Socrates' seave : 1 is this "true" ? 2 If not (entirely) true: Does it make me happy ? 3 If not entirely true AND it doesn't bring happiness: do I NEED to know - for safety, protection ... ? To the TRUTH : As it is presented as non-fiction: it probably is half true. It's both a text on philosophy and a story about philosophy. The two sources are linked. They interfere and as always interference of waves with (almost) equal wavelengths, a beautiful but complex pattern appears. I like to admire the beautiful and complex pattern, then follow The Bear in exploring it. Admiration is soo much more fulfilling than mere "mentally understanding", though that has beauty in it as well. So it is probably partly "un-true", but there's enough truth in the book to go on. 2 Even if there is a partial un-truth : this book CAN make me happy. It references the good stuff of being, of remembering childhood, of remembering what boring adults call 'innocence": if you do not KNOW the easy ways of grown-up life, you need to TRY to do things, the difficult way (Eyore's house, the search for the Pole). Linking that attitude to scientific / philosophical "experimantal methods" is hilarious, and such a wonderful view on how to encourage the ways of science in daily life. Pooh as an example ! 3 Now do I NEED to know ? For Socrates, when question 1 was answered yes, 2 and 3 weren't necessary. Here we see 1 is answered with "more than half full", and 2 with "definately full, so bottoms-up" So 3: yes, you need to know there is a full glass to enjoy the bottoms-up. Enjoy the book I expected to find some reviews that would say it was too long. Or that this is "not a good book on real philosophy" But I find the other ones as well, echoing my idea that the "tongue in cheek" stance matches both pooh/Milne AND the general science that philosophy is. I am not a formally trained philosopher, didn't go beyond the big principles of the Philosophiae Naturalis. Newtons text is old and not an easy read, but hey it helped bringing people to the moon. We do need "philosophy" in our dayly life, and if we can do so lauching

  12. 5 out of 5

    Shiloh

    As a life long Winnie the Pooh fan, is it okay to say that this book actually offended me? I expected a fun, entertaining read and instead got mathematical and scientific explanations on what A.A Milne is realllly trying to tell us in the Winnie The Pooh story. The writers ideas as to why certain characters are as written, or why a something as trivial as a pot of honey are so far fetched I really couldn’t wrap my mind around it. If that weren’t bad enough, the writer managed to find ways of ins As a life long Winnie the Pooh fan, is it okay to say that this book actually offended me? I expected a fun, entertaining read and instead got mathematical and scientific explanations on what A.A Milne is realllly trying to tell us in the Winnie The Pooh story. The writers ideas as to why certain characters are as written, or why a something as trivial as a pot of honey are so far fetched I really couldn’t wrap my mind around it. If that weren’t bad enough, the writer managed to find ways of insulting the reader. “I fear there are some readers who did not work out this simple sum and so did not see it’s esoteric meaning...” He then proceeds to break his equation down for us simple folk. This book has no redeeming qualities.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Konstantin

    I must admit the only reason I finished this book is because it was short but in the end probably not even worth that time. There were a few philosophical points in it that I did not know before, but to other people who are, as I am, not familiar with the most important philosophers I would recommend finding another introduction/summary, as this one is somewhat tedious to go through. I do understand that the writing is somewhat satirical and not meant to be taken serious, but I only found this s I must admit the only reason I finished this book is because it was short but in the end probably not even worth that time. There were a few philosophical points in it that I did not know before, but to other people who are, as I am, not familiar with the most important philosophers I would recommend finding another introduction/summary, as this one is somewhat tedious to go through. I do understand that the writing is somewhat satirical and not meant to be taken serious, but I only found this style to be forced and tedious. There might be people who like that sort of style but for me it didn't work. If you like the first few pages, read on, it will stay that way, if you don't like them, there's no reason to read on.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Chloe Lee

    2.5-3 stars - essentially this is interesting, yet it seems that Williams has been trying too hard to emphasise that Pooh is the ultimate philosopher, that sometimes the arguments would be too forced. Moreover, in order to emphasise that Pooh is the philosopher, Williams has to pack the entire history of Western philosophy within 200 pages, and that would hence create confusion in certain areas as he would rush through his points instead of properly explaining (such as the association of honey w 2.5-3 stars - essentially this is interesting, yet it seems that Williams has been trying too hard to emphasise that Pooh is the ultimate philosopher, that sometimes the arguments would be too forced. Moreover, in order to emphasise that Pooh is the philosopher, Williams has to pack the entire history of Western philosophy within 200 pages, and that would hence create confusion in certain areas as he would rush through his points instead of properly explaining (such as the association of honey with truth - explained by still leaving readers confused potentially). Moreover, Williams's insistence that Pooh cannot be wrong, and it's either the fault of the reader or of the philosopher(s) bugs me slightly.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Toni

    An easy read that took an afternoon. It reads like an introduction to philosophical thinkers with analogies from Winnie the Pooh, but then it fails to open up the concepts in a way accessible to new readers of philosophy. The section about Hegel shows this perectly. If you do not have a basic understanding of Hegel, the concepts the book tries to open through analogies just seem too obscure. If you have a basic grasp of the philosophers in this book, then you will find it full of analogies to dem An easy read that took an afternoon. It reads like an introduction to philosophical thinkers with analogies from Winnie the Pooh, but then it fails to open up the concepts in a way accessible to new readers of philosophy. The section about Hegel shows this perectly. If you do not have a basic understanding of Hegel, the concepts the book tries to open through analogies just seem too obscure. If you have a basic grasp of the philosophers in this book, then you will find it full of analogies to demonstrate philosophical ideas, some failing to make sense, some veig dubious and some actually being very interesting. If nothing else, at least the book made me want to revisit Milne’s masterpiece.

  16. 4 out of 5

    D.J. Desmond

    This book was fun. Comparing a childhood gem to difficult philosophical concepts is a good idea and mostly is executed well. My issues are with details. Sometimes the philosophers’ ideas were not explained enough, and sometimes the correlation to Pooh was subpar. Overall fun, but don’t expect to be a philosophy major by the end, or a Pooh major.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Julia

    This book is a sad attempt to cash in on Benjamin Hoff's success with The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet. I was given this book by a well-meaning friend who knows my fondness for Winnie-the-Pooh. The author has absolutely no fondness for, nor understanding of, the essence of Pooh. This book is a sad attempt to cash in on Benjamin Hoff's success with The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet. I was given this book by a well-meaning friend who knows my fondness for Winnie-the-Pooh. The author has absolutely no fondness for, nor understanding of, the essence of Pooh.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Boo Dick

    I was patronized by this book at least a dozen times. "Pooh Bear is transcending the limits of phenomena even in the act of illustrating them, and is thus transcending the transcendental philosopher, Kant." I was patronized by this book at least a dozen times. "Pooh Bear is transcending the limits of phenomena even in the act of illustrating them, and is thus transcending the transcendental philosopher, Kant."

  19. 4 out of 5

    Annie

    I'm given this an extra star just for the entertainment value I got out of reading the other Goodreads reviews! The salty one-star reviews are priceless. It seems this book is divisive but could be used as an excellent test to seek out others who share my brand of off-beat nerd humour. I love it. I'm given this an extra star just for the entertainment value I got out of reading the other Goodreads reviews! The salty one-star reviews are priceless. It seems this book is divisive but could be used as an excellent test to seek out others who share my brand of off-beat nerd humour. I love it.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Derkaisermike

    What a delightful little book! Engaging, intriguing, and well written, Williams has done a fantastic job of providing a brief intro to a large number of philosophers and schools of philosophy through the lens of Winnie the Pooh. This was a very enjoyable read.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Kuan

    Interesting viewpoint on Winnie the Pooh

  22. 5 out of 5

    Eric

    An amusing take on the Winnie-the-Pooh stories, which does help elucidate some philosophical theories.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Andrew Ives

    Although this hardback book is indeed 'wonderfully erudite' as it says on the dustjacket, it feels rather quickly like a casual jocular notion spun out to 183 pages, somewhat lacking in the necessary comedy to keep the reader interested. This book always feels intelligent, must have required a massive amount of research, is flawlessly proofread and edited, nicely printed, laid out and illustrated. It is just rather samey, often feels laboured, unconvincing with its tenuous parallels and becomes Although this hardback book is indeed 'wonderfully erudite' as it says on the dustjacket, it feels rather quickly like a casual jocular notion spun out to 183 pages, somewhat lacking in the necessary comedy to keep the reader interested. This book always feels intelligent, must have required a massive amount of research, is flawlessly proofread and edited, nicely printed, laid out and illustrated. It is just rather samey, often feels laboured, unconvincing with its tenuous parallels and becomes fairly tiresome after only 40-50 pages. Funnily enough, it was only the Nietzsche chapter where I really believed the philosopher seemed inspired by Pooh. If this book was intended as an introduction to philosophy, a teaser to read more philosophers' works, or even Milne's work more closely, then it succeeds. As a comedic work, I found it a little wanting. 3.25/5

  24. 4 out of 5

    Chandra

    I made a second reading through this one (as unnecessary prep for an ethics course in which actual participation in what could be described as discussion was highly discouraged) and I was again struck by how little the book actually has to do with philosophy. It's great for lovers of Pooh (among whom I don't normally count myself) but disappointing for anyone seeking an overview of Western philosophy in any meaningful fashion. Pompously written to the point of amusement is it still an enjoyable I made a second reading through this one (as unnecessary prep for an ethics course in which actual participation in what could be described as discussion was highly discouraged) and I was again struck by how little the book actually has to do with philosophy. It's great for lovers of Pooh (among whom I don't normally count myself) but disappointing for anyone seeking an overview of Western philosophy in any meaningful fashion. Pompously written to the point of amusement is it still an enjoyable read, and fun to see the author use the same events from Pooh's adventures to demonstrate concepts from Plato to Camus.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Oceana2602

    It sounded good when it was lying there, next to the check-out line at Hugendubels. And after just having listened yet again to the most excellent Winnie-the-pooh audio books read by Harry Rowohlt, I was in the mood for some Pooh. Of course, I should have known that all I need to get philosophical about Pooh are the books themselves. Certainly not someone who "analysis" their philosophy for me. That's not to say that Williams isn't right in what he writes, or that his book isn't good. It might be It sounded good when it was lying there, next to the check-out line at Hugendubels. And after just having listened yet again to the most excellent Winnie-the-pooh audio books read by Harry Rowohlt, I was in the mood for some Pooh. Of course, I should have known that all I need to get philosophical about Pooh are the books themselves. Certainly not someone who "analysis" their philosophy for me. That's not to say that Williams isn't right in what he writes, or that his book isn't good. It might be. I just don't care about reading it.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Linda

    I put this book down. I only understood about 1/2 of what I was reading, and enjoying what I understood. But, I'm not up on philosophy jargon and didn't appreciate the writer insulting his readers, and throwing condescending remarks to those of us who read Pooh to our children. I also felt that he was stretching many of his points by taking the same scenes and applying them to different philosophers. I admit to being too dumb for this book, but smart enough to know when something is being overdo I put this book down. I only understood about 1/2 of what I was reading, and enjoying what I understood. But, I'm not up on philosophy jargon and didn't appreciate the writer insulting his readers, and throwing condescending remarks to those of us who read Pooh to our children. I also felt that he was stretching many of his points by taking the same scenes and applying them to different philosophers. I admit to being too dumb for this book, but smart enough to know when something is being overdone to suit ones ability to publish a book.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Mae

    Interesting funny book. Peculiar sometimes, but interesting. It is actually a serious book, but inevitably I had to laugh--the basic premise is that all philosophers in one way of another were inspired by Pooh. I mean, Pooh is certainly a wise bear and Milne a brilliant philosopher. But some of the situations used, where, well should I say a bit convoluted and brought in by the hair. (like we say in spanish) It is a good review for basic philosophy, and could be used as a conversation starter... b Interesting funny book. Peculiar sometimes, but interesting. It is actually a serious book, but inevitably I had to laugh--the basic premise is that all philosophers in one way of another were inspired by Pooh. I mean, Pooh is certainly a wise bear and Milne a brilliant philosopher. But some of the situations used, where, well should I say a bit convoluted and brought in by the hair. (like we say in spanish) It is a good review for basic philosophy, and could be used as a conversation starter... but a deep philosophical book, well it could be...

  28. 4 out of 5

    Heidi

    Brilliant. Anyone who has any appreciation for the World of Pooh bear should read this. Basically a quick survey of Western Philosophy as expounded by and summed up by and even exceeded by Edward Bear. By the time I got to the exploration of set theory as demonstrated by rabbit's "friends and relations" I had decided it would be one of my new favourites :o) (And I've just seen online that John Tyerman Williams is currently working on a book which "will reveal the secret of Jeeves and the hidden Brilliant. Anyone who has any appreciation for the World of Pooh bear should read this. Basically a quick survey of Western Philosophy as expounded by and summed up by and even exceeded by Edward Bear. By the time I got to the exploration of set theory as demonstrated by rabbit's "friends and relations" I had decided it would be one of my new favourites :o) (And I've just seen online that John Tyerman Williams is currently working on a book which "will reveal the secret of Jeeves and the hidden depths of Bertie Wooster." Words fail me, I cannot wait).

  29. 4 out of 5

    Russell

    I got about two thirds through this book before i couldn't take it anymore, I feel bad for giving it such a low score, but it was so boring I just couldn't read any more. I was hoping to get a brief introduction to western philosophy, but the author just tries too hard to tell you about how winnie the pooh demonstrates all of the philosophies and the sad truth is that he doesn't and the author obviously has a hard time demonstrating this. Do not let this stop you from reading the Tao of Pooh, be I got about two thirds through this book before i couldn't take it anymore, I feel bad for giving it such a low score, but it was so boring I just couldn't read any more. I was hoping to get a brief introduction to western philosophy, but the author just tries too hard to tell you about how winnie the pooh demonstrates all of the philosophies and the sad truth is that he doesn't and the author obviously has a hard time demonstrating this. Do not let this stop you from reading the Tao of Pooh, because that book is amazing.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Maria

    Ok, so this had potential to be good if it was like ten times shorter. I get it. This book was written as a joke and some of it was funny. I was gonna say that it dragged on past funny and well into annoying, but actually the last part was the best. I was very close to putting the book down ten-fifteen pages into it and would have missed my favorite part towards the end, where the author argues that Being and Time is post-Poohian. Even so, this gets one star.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.