"Archetypes of Wisdom" by Douglas J. Soccio represents a different approach from the typical introductory philosophy text. Such texts generally fall into one of two categories. Either they are anthologies of (what one hopes are) the writings of the major philosophical figures past and present, or they are authored texts that simply tell us about what the great philosophers wrote (or, if they are organized by area of philosophy, what ethics is, what theory of knowledge is, what metaphysics is, etc., etc.). The former tend to be difficult for the introductory student to wade through, since most philosophical writing is slow going (not to mention, in the case of some philosophers, turgid). Thus, it weighs heavily on the instructor to try to interpret these writings in a way that students can understand. The latter, while usually (though not always) easier to understand, tend to import the author's particular biases and interpretations.
Soccio's text does a good job of avoiding these pitfalls. Although most of the writing is his own, he does include significant snippets from the philosophers he is covering. Moreover, he deftly weaves in biographical material and anecdotes concerning these philosophers with their ideas and in some cases shows how the lives of these thinkers influenced their philosophy. In addition, the text is amply illustrated with pictures and sometimes even with cartoons. There are also frequent "Philosophical Query" boxes that pose questions related to the text that encourage the student to think through the issues at hand. In addition, each chapter ends with a summary of the main points of that chapter as well as a set of questions for further reflection.
Because Soccio focuses primarily on just a couple philosophers from each era, other philosophers of significance, although their views are described briefly, tend to get short shrift. For example, in discussing British Empiricism, Locke and Berkeley get fairly brief mention, while Hume's views on a variety of issues are discussed in detail. It is unclear why a greater focus should be placed on Hume than on his predecessors. (Other philosophers of the period, such as Thomas Reid, are not mentioned at all.) Similarly, the twentieth century is represented by Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Now, it is true that they were both influential thinkers. But so were a host of other philosophers (such as Bertrand Russell), who would have been equally good representatives of the era. While this is a drawback it does not significantly detract from the overall value of this book.
