I originally picked p this book because I was reading What We Owe To Eachother and wanted someone to explain Scanlon's arguments against subjective re...moreI originally picked p this book because I was reading What We Owe To Eachother and wanted someone to explain Scanlon's arguments against subjective reasons to me. Where I was at least partially on the fence before, I'm now pretty firmly convinced that Schroeder's view (or something like it) has to be right. For the uninitiated, the debate is (broadly) whether reasons are just brute features of the universe, or can be explained by reference to the psychology of the agents who respond to them. Schroeder here gives a thorough and compelling case for the latter.
This book presents some fairly sophisticated and technical philosophical arguments, but does so in a way that is surprisingly accessible. It almost makes you think that the technical apparatus of contemporary philosophy can actually be useful for something. While the book likely won't convince non-reductive normativists who deny that any explanatory account of reasons can't get off the ground, I was intrigued to learn that Schroeder himself started out a skeptic of Humean theories, and only developed the one he presents in this book when he realized that all the arguments against Humean theories are bad. His dissection of these arguments has the virtue of digging out assumptions that people on both sides of the debate have made about Humean theories generally, and one by one rejects a lot of these common assumptions to present a view that, ultimately, purports to do the work of both Kantian and virtue theories. (I'm still not too sure about the Kantian bit, but there you go.)
The sort of arguments Schroeder makes are generally to suggest why his view is more likely correct than any others that have been proposed. These sort of "more likely" arguments can be a bit underwhelming, but I think Schroeder's right that a more modest aim such as this is better than more ambitious arguments that fail to prove anything. Maybe the latter can be more fun to read, but this book shows that you can write just as engagingly while being rigorous.(less)
This is the best book I've read all week (never mind that it's the only book I've read this week). While not philosophy, it should be required for all...moreThis is the best book I've read all week (never mind that it's the only book I've read this week). While not philosophy, it should be required for all philosophers who talk about rationality and agency, as well as social scientists, and for that matter everyone. Ariely gives concise and clear descriptions of his experiments going back several years, and extrapolates general forces affecting our choices and motivations. These vary from findings that basically prove what should be common sense (SURPRISE! 20-year old males show impaired judgment when aroused!), to effects that are genuinely surprising (did you know people are almost twice as likely to cheat when the payoff is non-monetary?). Ariely also tries to use these findings to give practical advice for how we can counteract these affects in our decision-making, pointing out that awareness can help but that, like optical illusions, we may not be able to avoid their influence. I picked this up randomly on Saturday and finished 5 days later; if you're not in law school you can probably do it in 2 - and I would highly recommend you do.(less)
if you're looking for a one book summary on Evo Devo, this is it. explains how embryology has transformed in the past several decades to become one of...moreif you're looking for a one book summary on Evo Devo, this is it. explains how embryology has transformed in the past several decades to become one of the most exciting areas of biology, producing some of the best evidence for evolutionary history.(less)
this is one of the better books written in 20th century analytic philosophy. also one of the more infuriating. anscombe charts out an area of inquiry,...morethis is one of the better books written in 20th century analytic philosophy. also one of the more infuriating. anscombe charts out an area of inquiry, intentional action (or "acting under a reason"), drawing on aristotle and to some degree wittgenstein as guides. along the way, she gives her own account of what practical reasoning is meant to be. anscombe exemplifies the virtue of stating things we all know to be true yet are always inclined to forget when we do philosophy.(less)
This book presents a way of understanding thought as a formal system. It doesn't so much "argue" for that position as teach you a lot of logic, math,...moreThis book presents a way of understanding thought as a formal system. It doesn't so much "argue" for that position as teach you a lot of logic, math, AI, and even a little neuroscience and genetics to give you the tools to understand this. That said, GEB is obviously not so much for those who a) already understand the afore-mentioned fields and/or b) already accept the main thesis of the book. I fall squarely within category b), and have some background in the topics mentioned in category a), although not enough that this book wasn't worth reading. Having worked in the past to understand Gödel, I came away from GEB with a much deeper understanding of the proof itself and related concepts in math/logic. And while I didn't need convincing that thought is basically a property of a formal system, Hofstadter's outlook on this is enough to give the most insightful cognitive scientist some food for thought.(less)
One day in June I was joking with my sister, "I should TOTALLY write a story about an autistic detective! He would go around solving mysteries, but th...moreOne day in June I was joking with my sister, "I should TOTALLY write a story about an autistic detective! He would go around solving mysteries, but then not telling anyone about it because he doesn't relate well to people!" And then I thought for a second, and said "oh wait, I think there's already a book about this."
As someone who likes neurology case histories and detective fiction, this sounded like the book for me. And it was, kinda. A few months after buying it I started to read it while waiting for a plane and basically didn't put it down for more than 30 seconds during the flight. This book definitely grabs you enough to steam through it in about 3 hours.
While it was somewhat fulfilling to read, I did have my reservations, though. For one thing, Haddon does a pretty good job overall at presenting you his story through the eyes of an autist, which is to say the prose isn't the most graceful. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to strike you with it's stiltedness and make you think about how the thought process of your narrator differs from your own. This is an effective technique, but one wonders if it's the best narrative choice for an entire novel. The story actually comes to a rather abrupt finish in the last twenty pages or so, which almost suggests that Haddon himself got tired of generating a story in this voice and wanted to put the book down himself. But of course, that's just speculation.
The narrator's unusual perspective is also indicated by the little tidbits of psychological facts that Haddon peppers the book with - which I found to be hit or miss. At times, they genuinely excited my curiosity. When the narrator describes failing a false belief test as a child, it made me wonder, do autists really remember in vivid detail a test like this so that they can understand how they failed it once they gain the ability to track intentions? It's just surprising enough for me to believe it, although it's unclear whether this is substantiated. But this episode also provides an example of the clumsiness of these insertions, as it comes off a little awkward for the narrator to tell us about his false belief test to begin with. For a book written in an autists voice, a little awkward can be a good thing, and maybe that's why this book just didn't wow me once I put it down three hours later.(less)
After watching 15 minutes of the movie, I figured I should go to the text and read Albee's words before seeing the rest of Burton and Taylor's renditi...moreAfter watching 15 minutes of the movie, I figured I should go to the text and read Albee's words before seeing the rest of Burton and Taylor's rendition. I have to admit, it's only made me more eager to see how they perform certain lines - at times Albee's rendering of dialogue drifting from drunkenness to eloquence is jarring to read, but I imagine could be delivered by a talented actor in a way that I'd completely believe it. Regardless, having the words laid out on the page gives you a certain perspective, allowing you to track the development of themes in the discussion or flip back to compare with earlier lines, which viewing alone denies you, so I'm glad to have picked this up.(less)
this would have been pretty eye-opening, if i hadn't gotten the central insights from other subsequent books that described diamond's thesis. still wo...morethis would have been pretty eye-opening, if i hadn't gotten the central insights from other subsequent books that described diamond's thesis. still worth it for the wealth of examples diamond cites in support of his arguments. the chapter on political systems is something i still need to digest in some respects.(less)
Stardust is everything you could want in a Neil Gaiman book. 50 pages in you'll start thinking to yourself that none of the characters are going to be...moreStardust is everything you could want in a Neil Gaiman book. 50 pages in you'll start thinking to yourself that none of the characters are going to be what they seem (a la Neverwhere or American Gods, or in one of its best uses, A Game of You), but you still have no idea how that's going to play out by the end of the story. One might complain it's a bit on the short side, but since it's designed to accompany what I hear are some very pretty illustrations (my copy didn't have them, unfortunately), you just have to accept that this work is meant as an short, sweet, fairly tale rather than a sprawling epic. Having read the non-illustrated, version, I can say the words stand on their own; although I did at times find myself thinking of ways I could adapt this for film, and then realizing "oh damn. they did that already."(less)
Loading...
