Sophie's World is a popular book. I was surprised to find that its English translation is only twelve years old, it seems to have become somewhat omnipresent in certain circles since then. For the many English majors or other people with liberal arts degrees who haven't studied the technical field of philosophy in great detail, this book is kind of a way to catch up with the basic trends of Western Thought without having to read the five to ten thousand pages of Western philosophical work. In other words, this book was a Philosophy for Dummies book before its time. It is also, in addition to that, a pretty interesting book, with its framing plot about young Sophie and the intrigue that surrounds her letters. Although tastes differ on the literary merits of the framing story, it seems to be at least interesting enough to propel people through the book.
The problem with the book, from my viewpoint, is that the framing story attempts to relate itself to the history of Western philosophy. In the framing story, in which a girl named Sophie receives a letter claiming that the world is a magic trick which people must attempt to resolve by "climb up...to stare right into the magicians eyes"; and then, over the course of the book, and over Sophie's education, she learned more about the history of Western philosophy, and also about a mysterious conspiracy hovering around her. At the end of the book, she learns that life is just a dream, and that she is actually a fictional character. The framing story seems to be a retelling of the gnostic story of Sophia.
The problem, as I see it, is while the wonder of Sophie in the framing story; and the beginning of Western Philosophy amongst the presocratics in the textbook section may be comparable, as the book progresses through the history of Western thought, it pulls away from the type of mystical riddle that Sophie's understanding of unreality reveals. Modern philosophy is, in the mainstream, not the project of uncovering a spritual mystery, or even of engaging people's wonder at being; but rather of applying reason and discourse to politics and society. The last three thinkers deal with are Darwin, Marx and Freud- thinkers whose thought doesn't seem to be that applicable to the mounting surreal conspiracy that surrounds Sophie.
It could be that the author of the book wanted to write a textbook on philosophy, and whipped up the framing story without a care that it would, at the end, not really have much to do with the subject matter. It also could be that he is making a purposeful contrast between the early wonder that sparked philosophy, and the gradual retreat into materialism and technicalities of modern, "professional" philosophy. He could also be making references to something so arcane and esoteric that it has escaped my notice. In any case, from a literary standpoint, the disassociation between the framing story and textbook near the end of the book is a bit disappointing.