What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of Matter
This groundbreaking book proposes that the universe around us is literally alive and conscious. This worldview restores a sense of the sacred to modern lives that have too long insisted that mind, spirit, and consciousness must be divorced from body, nature, and matter. Going back to the earliest days of Western philosophy, this book illustrates how the notion of intrinsically sentient matter is thousands of years old and has only recently been challenged by the currently dominant paradigm of materialism. By recognizing that matter feels, one can more closely relate to our bodies, planet, and cosmic environment as magnificent creations brimming with spirit and meaning.
320 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2002
12 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 5, 2012
One of the best and most thought provoking books I've ever read.
December 31, 2018
Consciousness, one phenomena we are so intimately connected with, yet so abstracted from us. Of the many questions about consciousness that we can't answer is regarding its origin. Where does it come from? Why did it come? Is there even a reason for it to come at all? Did it even "come"? De Quincey believes not.
DeQuincey believes there are three rational possibilities for the question of origin: Mind/Body dualism, Emergence Theory, and Panpsychism. Of the first option, deQuincey has some strong objections. Dualism, in its heart, is the Cartesian split of Mind/Body, which describes the mind as separate from the body, independent. This is a split of the material body from the immaterial mind (and/or soul). This line of thinking gives rise to many issues, ontological to epistemological. The greatest of the latter asks "If the Mind is immaterial, how does it obtain knowledge of the material Body? What is the relation between the two?" Examining the arsenal of issues, DeQuincey abandons Dualism. He then dismisses Emergence Theory, which states that consciousness emerges with complex enough matter (like brains), on the grounds of it lacking explanation power. What determines what is "complex-enough"? Besides, it would not explain what caused it to arise. DeQuincey rather hastily, in my opinion, jumps to panpsychism. He describes it as: “Everything is alive—aggregates as well as individuals—with spirit or experience. All matter (including trees, rocks, oceans, winds) is conscious to some degree or in some respect.” In other words, consciousness does not “arise,” but is an intrinsic feature of an object, a particle, like spin/charge.
In support of his theory, he invokes “Cosmoecology,” citing Einstein’s Relativity as it says that if matter is the same as energy, that ultimately disproves substance dualism, and hence supporting his stance. To support that all objects contain consciousness, he discusses “Quantum Choice” whereby a
In this argument, DeQuincy demonstrates an alarmingly superficial understanding of Quantum Theory, which he then uses to his advantage. He builds the argument on the basis that randomness implies choice, and since particles' choice are random, it implies they are "self-driven" and exhibit choice. Granting this absurd claim, choice still does not necessarily imply agency/consciousness.
He does make some other arguments that I do not have a strong counter-argument for, but it does raise an eyebrow (or two). Particularly how he favours panpsychism for the sake of purpose. He believes the universe should have some telos, and he finds the greatest way to unite teleology-blind science with purpose is through the panpsychist model. He still does not make it clear why it's necessary for the universe to have a purpose, and for that I find his teleology-driven philosophy unconvincing. If you happen to agree that the universe should have a purpose, he will provide quite a good party conversation starter.
Regardless, I find that his other arguments are quite convincing. He does make it clear that panpsychism is not necessarily the ultimate model describing consciousness, but it does give a wholesome understanding, and hence why it should be favoured.
This book is written for the layman, and is accessible for any reader. An interesting read, regardless of the above!
DeQuincey believes there are three rational possibilities for the question of origin: Mind/Body dualism, Emergence Theory, and Panpsychism. Of the first option, deQuincey has some strong objections. Dualism, in its heart, is the Cartesian split of Mind/Body, which describes the mind as separate from the body, independent. This is a split of the material body from the immaterial mind (and/or soul). This line of thinking gives rise to many issues, ontological to epistemological. The greatest of the latter asks "If the Mind is immaterial, how does it obtain knowledge of the material Body? What is the relation between the two?" Examining the arsenal of issues, DeQuincey abandons Dualism. He then dismisses Emergence Theory, which states that consciousness emerges with complex enough matter (like brains), on the grounds of it lacking explanation power. What determines what is "complex-enough"? Besides, it would not explain what caused it to arise. DeQuincey rather hastily, in my opinion, jumps to panpsychism. He describes it as: “Everything is alive—aggregates as well as individuals—with spirit or experience. All matter (including trees, rocks, oceans, winds) is conscious to some degree or in some respect.” In other words, consciousness does not “arise,” but is an intrinsic feature of an object, a particle, like spin/charge.
In support of his theory, he invokes “Cosmoecology,” citing Einstein’s Relativity as it says that if matter is the same as energy, that ultimately disproves substance dualism, and hence supporting his stance. To support that all objects contain consciousness, he discusses “Quantum Choice” whereby a
“[a quantum event’s] behavior will appear utterly random, uncaused. That’s exactly what is observed in the behavior of quantum particles. The observer will not be able to detect any difference between choice-driven action and purely random behavior. But to the quantum entity making the choice, there would be a world of difference. The quantum event would be self-caused, not uncaused. It is uncaused only in the sense that no causes external to itself influence its behavior.”
In this argument, DeQuincy demonstrates an alarmingly superficial understanding of Quantum Theory, which he then uses to his advantage. He builds the argument on the basis that randomness implies choice, and since particles' choice are random, it implies they are "self-driven" and exhibit choice. Granting this absurd claim, choice still does not necessarily imply agency/consciousness.
He does make some other arguments that I do not have a strong counter-argument for, but it does raise an eyebrow (or two). Particularly how he favours panpsychism for the sake of purpose. He believes the universe should have some telos, and he finds the greatest way to unite teleology-blind science with purpose is through the panpsychist model. He still does not make it clear why it's necessary for the universe to have a purpose, and for that I find his teleology-driven philosophy unconvincing. If you happen to agree that the universe should have a purpose, he will provide quite a good party conversation starter.
Regardless, I find that his other arguments are quite convincing. He does make it clear that panpsychism is not necessarily the ultimate model describing consciousness, but it does give a wholesome understanding, and hence why it should be favoured.
This book is written for the layman, and is accessible for any reader. An interesting read, regardless of the above!
July 22, 2014
Christian DeQuincy's is the most thorough discussion I have encountered of the case for why we should consider the world as conscious "all the way down." He critiques the traditional reductionist and materialist arguments that it cannot be, covers several alternative perspectives, and provides the clearest exposition I have ever read - and I have read several - of process philosophy's case that it is. In doing so he builds on Charles Hartshorne's work.
When I brought the book to the attention of a professor friend who teaches process philosophy at a major university he liked it so much he will make it required reading in one of his classes. Well written and accessible, I recommend him highly for inquisitive lay people interested in this issue.
When I brought the book to the attention of a professor friend who teaches process philosophy at a major university he liked it so much he will make it required reading in one of his classes. Well written and accessible, I recommend him highly for inquisitive lay people interested in this issue.
May 9, 2025
Me parece muy interesante el tema del libro (pampsiquismo y panexperiencialismo). Se explica muy a detalle las diferentes teorías acerca del pampsiquismo y también explica el autor porqué termina sumándose a una de estas corrientes, la cual nota como más lógica. A veces siento que el autor es muy redundante en varios temas y eso, en lo personal, se me hacía demasiado tedioso, no por nada tardé casi un año en leerlo (lo dejaba por temporadas y luego regresaba a él), aunque en general creo que logra su propósito de informar acerca de esta teoría dentro de la filosofía de la mente que intenta explicar el difícil problema de la consciencia
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews