Yeah, I have a bunch of them.

My favorite is probably the Honderich-edited Oxford Companion.

The Audi-edited Cambridge Dictionary is probably my second-favorite.

Looks like that Oxford one is pretty expensive. What do you like about it? And is it a dictionary or what?

Just buy it used if you're interested in it.

Yeah, it's an "encyclopedic dictionary." I just like the writing in it more than many other dictionaries. More often than not it has the right balance of focus, depth, clarity, breadth/scope of received views, and relative impartiality.

The Cambridge Dictionary is pretty close to it in style and quality, though.

Other dictionaries, including the online encyclopedias, have different strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.

Really I tend to find the most value in looking up stuff in a number of different sources, though.

Still in print and online since 1942 - DD Runes editor. Very helpful to non academics for many topics & thinkers:

http://www.ditext.com/runes/index.html

Part of the Preface:

The aim of this dictionary is to provide teachers, students and laymen interested in philosophy with clear, concise, and correct definitions and descriptions of the philosophical terms, throughout the range of philosophic thought. In the volume are represented all the branches as well as schools of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy. In any such conspectus, it is increasingly recognized that the Oriental philosophies must be accorded ample space beside those of the western world.

My favorite is probably the Honderich-edited Oxford Companion. — Terrapin Station

I concur. of all the books that have passed through my hands in the last 20 years, it's the only one I've kept. Paid $2 for it at a library sale. For some people, its age may be a drawback: I have the 1995 edition.

A zombie thread.

Better to keep a few rather than rely on one. Flew's is brief and comprehensive, and remains at hand. The Oxford (Blackburn) is similarly useful. The more comprehensive Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy makes an excellent dictionary.

But online resources take centre stage; the Stanford Encyclopaedia, of course, the IEP, and a subscription to Oxford Reference via the local library. Their search functions are indispensable.

It’s a good idea to understand a philosopher on their own terms, and by that I mean: get at what part of their words is created (technical), specific to them, or the same as others but in a different sense, or purpose, etc. I would think it a bad idea to have terms generalized between two philosophers, much less across philosophy. As well, ordinary words can be terms in the hands of philosophy: know, see, appear, conscious, mean, intend, real, certain, criteria, truth, belief, and on and on. And I would only read a philosopher’s reading of another’s work, rather than any generalization of someone’s work, or, worse, a label. You’re better off grabbing a classic and stumbling around in the dark with the actual text, with the most important part being the thoughts you have in response, what it brings up, how it might make more sense than your first impression, be more than just able to be dismissed, somehow important to learn from, etc.

I agree too. I have the 1995 paperback edition of Honderich's Companion. Having started to read philosophy again after a long layoff, I've found it very useful.

I also bought an electronic copy of the Oxford Blackburn dictionary, for portability. However that sometimes fails me perhaps because some entries are too compressed. The Blackburn entry on phenomenalism left me with more questions than answers. Honderich cleared much of my confusion, and pointed towards further reading.

Of course, Honderich is the editor, having gathered contributions from about 200 contributors. The phenomenalism entry is the work of Ernest Sosa, of Brown Univ.