Person and Object is a powerful study in metaphysics. The book has four chapters and five appendices (though one is just a summary of his definitions). Chapters and appendices are free standing. The topics are predominantly metaphysical--Chisholm addresses agency, identity through time, mereological essentialism, four-dimensionalism, ontology, etc. But many of the discussions enter epistemological questions as well (e.g. the first chapter, the fourth appendix). Throughout, Chisholm demonstrates a keen ability to make distinctions, and has the helpful habit of formalizing many of his definitions.

One of the features that's particularly nice about this book is the way Chisholm addresses both philosophical ideas and also how it is one is to address philosophical ideas. (This is most clearly seen in his useful Introduction.) In some ways I feel that I didn't just learn about philosophical theories in this book, but how do think about philosophical theories as well. Although he defends some controversial theses, his defenses are well-thought out and carefully written. A professor of mine once expressed that Person and Object was one of his favorite books in metaphysics; I can see why. It's a great book that I hold in high esteem.

Oh wow, I get to be the first reviewer of this one too? I ripped off this review's title from someone else on some other book, I don't remember which, but couldn't resist because it applies so well to Chisholm's _Person and Object._

In his book, that titan of analytic philosophy explores some basic concepts of personhood and their interrelations: self-knowledge, agency, action, identity, etc. The satirical Philosophical Lexicon (look for it online) has an entry for "chisholm" as a verb that means "To make repeated small alterations in a definition or example. 'He started with definition (d.8) and kept chisholming away at it until he ended up with (d.8'''''''').'" This isn't what Chisholm does in this book (I think Plantinga does more chisholming than Chisholm ever did, myself!), but rather, starting with basic principles of "self-presenting" knowledge and such, he works "outward" from there via a series of definitions that build one from another, creating a network of philosophical structure knowledge and agency as fundamentals rather than artifacts of folk psychology to be eliminated by way of some exercise of "methodism." (Chisholm elsewhere elucidates the difference between particularism and methodism, and his favor for the former, in his "The Problem of the Criterion".) This fundamental approach largely accounts for Chisholm's method of "elimination" described in the above paragraph (which may well sound paradoxical!): we already _know_ what we mean by knowledge, action, etc.; what remains is to clarify the concepts by elucidating what they are _not_. And that Chisholm does _par excellence._