Nietzsche's thesis is very interesting (he complains that, as education becomes available to more and more people, it becomes shallower and more focusNietzsche's thesis is very interesting (he complains that, as education becomes available to more and more people, it becomes shallower and more focused on practical matters), and he develops his ideas as a mourner of rather idealised era in which universities were concerned mainly with Bildung, rather than with skills. He also takes the occasional bizarre jab at the advent of general linguistics. As a linguist, they gave me a heartily chuckle (and helped me see where he was coming from).
But the way he delivers his lectures is simply excruciating, and it's no wonder he never wrapped them up with a grand finale. Or any finale, for that matter. As John Gray said in his review of this book there's loads of "Romantic gibberish" you have to plod ahead doggedly until you get to the interesting bits. He does say in the preface he wants patient readers, so...
Anyway, in spite of the poor 2-star review, I really want to commend the translators on their good job. It's not their fault, after all. Fred's delivery here just isn't my cup of tea....more
Am I the only one who read "The Fox and the Hedgehog" and instantly thought of Sonic and Tails? It's really hard to concentrate on War and Peace whenAm I the only one who read "The Fox and the Hedgehog" and instantly thought of Sonic and Tails? It's really hard to concentrate on War and Peace when you really feel you should be breaking the sound barrier and clearing levels as you collect coins... Which is only fitting because, in a way, that's exactly what this book is about.
Isaiah Berlin focuses on tsarist Russia, long before Putin was born, although the tsar was a lot like Putin, except Putin isn't a tsar, mostly because tsars are now called "czars" or somethig. Back then, much like now, Russia couldn't decide if it wanted to be friends with the West, if it wanted special in its own way, or something else entirely. So, much like contemporary Russia, there were defeated liberals (such as Boris Nemcov, but without Ukrainian girlfriends), reactionary Slavophiles (like Dr. Robotnik) and the communists. But there were also Alexander Herzen, who had too many ideas, and Leo Tolstoy who reportedly had too few (and Isaiah Berlin shows this is wrong). And then there are foxes and hedgehogs, and how Tolstoy could be seen as being either both, or one disguised as the other. I don't want to give any spoilers, but Berlin knows what the fox says.
The Russians mentioned were all pretty much influenced by German idealists to some extent (think Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel), so most of them thought history was all about clearing levels (Herzen being something of an exception there, because he saw clearing levels is rubbish if there are no checkpoints to mark your progress), and Berlin tells us about what must be all players from 19th century Russia. There's even an index of names after you're done so you can keep track of who did what. Like Chekhov, who had to write to collect gold coins (so he was definitely a hedgehog, or a fox, or an echidna), thus confirming the book really is about video game characters disguised as Russian thinkers.
Unlike Sonic, there's no annoying background music, making this book better by default. Now go read it!...more
Just confirms my suspicions that Richard Dawkins is actually just someone from the 19th century. If someone ever tells me he's a time-traveller, I'llJust confirms my suspicions that Richard Dawkins is actually just someone from the 19th century. If someone ever tells me he's a time-traveller, I'll believe it straight away. ...more
Although he's not famous for his philosophical stances, it's interesting to see how British empiricism and continental idealism were deeply intertwineAlthough he's not famous for his philosophical stances, it's interesting to see how British empiricism and continental idealism were deeply intertwined in his thoughts. ...more
I read this as an introduction to Arthur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Vol 1 and, fortunately, that's what the author originallI read this as an introduction to Arthur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Vol 1 and, fortunately, that's what the author originally intended. He was able to critically summarise Schopen's aesthetics and metaphysics in just a few pages, and it was a very amusing read. However, some concepts that are alien to Western Philosophy because they were borrowed from Buddhism/Hinduism seem to have been lost in the author, who sees Arthur as an ordinary Neo-Kantian (which he sort of is), and not as a Buddhist Kantian (which I guess would be a better description), since he draws from Buddhism and Hinduism about as much he seems to get from Immanuel Kant. Oh, did I mention the first pages double as a very brief introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason?...more
First things first: Although Karl Popper had already published his idealised account of science in The Logic of Scientific Discovery some 9 years befoFirst things first: Although Karl Popper had already published his idealised account of science in The Logic of Scientific Discovery some 9 years before these lectures, which ushered in something of a golden age in philosophy of science, Michael Polanyi doesn't seem to have been much affected by it - their Austro-Hungarian origins notwithstanding. Also, even though he shares many insights with Thomas S. Kuhn (who is said to have attended some of Polanyi's lectures anyway), this is not exactly a pre-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions either. Scientific change is not really the central theme of this book. Having said that, it's a very good read.
As a PhD student, I must admit Polanyi gave the best description I've ever seen from a philosopher about actual scientific practice. Science behaves almost exactly the way he says, and I can't help noticing it's in accordance with pragmatist epistemology (he does mention John Dewey at some point) with his anti-scepticism and the belief in social knowledge (two points Charles Sanders Peirce would find all too familiar). If he seems to reduce science to mob mentality, that's because there's some truth to it. We're all flawed anyway.
Now, I would've given this book 4 stars had he not let scientists off the hook so easily (there's hardly any criticism that isn't embedded in several layers of justification saying it could be worse). Also, I'd have given it 5 stars had he offered solutions and ideas to scientists' shortcomings - instead, he just shows freedom and love for truth (loosely defined) are needed to keep science going, which is most definitely correct... but as Paul Karl Feyerabend later pointed out, this shouldn't be taken lightly. ...more
Haha, this is great! Not so much for the philosophy (that alone would've made this a 3-star book), but for the apparently angry (and wronged) Agassi tHaha, this is great! Not so much for the philosophy (that alone would've made this a 3-star book), but for the apparently angry (and wronged) Agassi talking about what it was like to know all these people. Kunh comes across as somewhat confused, Lakatos as something of a bastard, and Feyerabend as a pretty likeable (and Popperian) firebrand. Except for Lakatos, that's sort of what I expected.
As a result, I can't help seeing Agassi as Popper's bulldog (though just a quick visit to his Wikipedia article would've already shown me this much)... he even made me want to read all those doorstoppers Karl wrote to check what is(n't) original in Feyerabend. I should've done it a long time ago anyway.......more
Can't say I'm surprised I'm only the second person to rate this doorstopper - this is 900 pages long, written by 50 plus authors, and I was actually hCan't say I'm surprised I'm only the second person to rate this doorstopper - this is 900 pages long, written by 50 plus authors, and I was actually hoping a mock diploma on political philosophy would appear out of thin air once you finished reading this. But, alas, nothing of the sort happened. I mean, not that I'm aware of.
As you can see in the index, the book is divided into three parts: "Disciplinary contributions" (mainly the different kinds of philosophers and scientists interested in politics), "ideologies" (I'll let you guess what this is about), and "special topics" (i.e. everything else). The first two parts were very thorough, and the last one is made up of smaller chapters.
I've learned quite a lot, even about my own field (the chapter on "discourse" mentions a history of linguistics that we linguists usually neglect). The chapters are all written for complete beginners, so even a hopeless ignoramus about politics can learn from it (trust me on that one, I'm a living proof!). The first two parts are splendid, but some of the chapters on the third part felt a bit random, but with fun titles (the chapter titled "Dirty Hands" felt like a mini-treatise on applied ethics). By far, the second part about the ideologies is what most people think of when someone says "politics": from liberalism and socialism to conservatism and fundamentalism, it's all there.
There's so much information here it's hard to make sense of it all at once, but it was well worth it. From now on though, I guess I'll read shorter books... like the Bible....more
I know the book is called "Voltaire", but the book is not an ordinary introduction to Voltaire: Rather, it's a critique of Voltaire as an EnlightenmenI know the book is called "Voltaire", but the book is not an ordinary introduction to Voltaire: Rather, it's a critique of Voltaire as an Enlightenment thinker, written by someone who is not the Enlightenment's greatest fan. For this reason, this book is much more honest than an ordinary introduction to Voltaire.
There's an angry mob on Amazon complaining the book isn't quite what they had imagined. I can see why: This is a book about Voltaire as much as this is a book by John N. Gray - and, if you know a thing or two about John N. Gray, you should know he wouldn't praise Voltaire unless there was a very good reason (and there are a couple of them).
The only reason I didn't give this book five stars is because I wish the author developed some of the ideas more thoroughly. And, if you know John N. Gray, you already know a good deal of what's going to be said in this book, so I can't say I was surprised or blown away by it.
There should be more introductions like this one....more
O Kurwa, Poland can into awesome philosophy of science!
Everything about this book is fascinating. Published in German by a Polish physician/biologist,O Kurwa, Poland can into awesome philosophy of science!
Everything about this book is fascinating. Published in German by a Polish physician/biologist, in what's now Ukraine, this book could've shaken the very foundations of science in 1935... except it didn't. As a matter of fact, Ludwik had to fight for his life (and those of other Jews) during WWII after being pushed into Lviv's ghetto. And then, no one really cared about the book for quite a while. Then Thomas Kuhn, an American philosopher, independently developed some of the themes found in this book, and nothing happened again. Until, that is, the early 80's when the book gradually became more popular. Why?
Fleck himself could've seen it coming. He realised that discussions happen in thought collectives (he went way beyond science when he developed this concept), and these thought collectives may well "filter" facts - depending on what they consider relevant. When he penned this tome, no thought collective really cared about what he had to say. Then, 50 years later, a thought collective (that of philosophers of science) took interest in what he had to say. Thought collectives are fickle like that.
In order to illustrate his point, Fleck analysed the history of syphilis, making it the world's best book about syphilis ever published. Mainly because it's just a case study, and it could've been about anything else, really (Feyerabend talked about the Galileo Affair, coming to not altogether different conclusions). Truth is, its history developed haphazardly, and there was hardly a crucial experiment that sorted everything out. That's, Fleck would've said, a myth from popular science and vademecum science (that is, the science consumed by educated amateurs and presented by textbooks). Journal science, produced by scientists on the go, is hardly so neat.
All in all, this book will never be a best-seller. He's no science-worshipper (like Popper), no revolutionary (like Kuhn), and no Feyerabend (like firebrand). It doesn't mean this book is bad though. He was so enthralled in his own activities that he was probably too honest and careful for his own good. And, thanks to this, the book is amazing....more