Decent performance

Norman Dietz does a decent job narrating this “introductory” book on metaphysics. I expected something more freshman college appropriate in this book but instead got a more detailed and complex one that I slogged through, especially in the chapter addressing logic, cause and effect, and statistical analysis. From then on (about the last half of the book), Blackburn seemed to think he had permission to perceive a more advanced audience than the one he started off with at the beginning of the book. Then it just got frustrating and I was wondering if I was reading the same book. I would not read this book if one is seeking an introduction. The title is deceptive. It is not compelling and it is not an introduction.

Great book, terrible narrator!

I bought this audiobook excited to revisit one of my favorite introductions to philosophy. I own a dogeared hard copy and I’ve spent many hours with Mr. Blackburn as my guide through the big questions of philosophy. I bought extra credits just so I wouldn’t have to wait on my monthly selection. When I downloaded the book however, the narrator was so terrible that I could not make it past the first paragraph! He reads with the cadence of a 1950s radio announcer selling dish soap. The most infuriating part is the loud breath he takes after EVERY SENTENCE. I’m not usually very picky about narrators, but I immediately returned this one.

A Highly Recommended Starting Point for Philosophy

Would you listen to Think again? Why?

I'm not sure this is the type of book that'd garner a second listen from most readers unless there was something you didn't quite understand, but that's just my opinion and I can't speak for anyone else.

What other book might you compare Think to and why?

The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is another recommended starting point for the subject of Philosophy by /r/philosophy, I haven't gotten around to giving it a read but I hope to soon.

Did Norman Dietz do a good job differentiating all the characters? How?

The narrator did a spectacular job but something a lot of people could probably look past but I couldn't was that he kept over-pronouncing(idk if this is a real word) the letter 'h' in 'wh' words. He'd almost blow out a little of his breathe every time he'd say what, or why during the introduction where both those words are frequently used.

If you were to make a film of this book, what would the tag line be?

I don't think I'd want to watch this movie unless they gave it some Bill Nye spin and the tag line would have to be something along the lines of " The Philosophy Guy" (patent pending, but not really).

5 people found this helpful

A decent into to philosophy

Overall, I felt that I got a basic understanding of why philosophy can be useful, what proper philosophy looks like, and a hint of how it should be critically/logically considered. Many examples and explanations were simple enough that I could easily grasp the subject at hand, but some were not. The author stated that he tried to present an unbiased example of multiple philosophical views but I distinctly felt that there was busy for some views and against others. The reader spoke very clearly but I marked him down because something about the manner of his reading made it sound like he was a salesman trying to pitch a product; most of the sentences were read with an impressive voice that made the sentence seem like a critical point, but most sentences were not critical points.