Beast and Man
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £0.90
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature (Routledge Classics) for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.90, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
Philosophers have traditionally concentrated on the qualities that make human beings different from other species. In Beast and Man Mary Midgley, one of our foremost intellectuals, stresses continuities. What makes people tick? Largely, she asserts, the same things as animals. She tells us humans are rather more like other animals than we previously allowed ourselves to believe, and reminds us just how primitive we are in comparison to the sophistication of many animals. A veritable classic for our age, Beast and Man has helped change the way we think about ourselves and the world in which we live.
About the Author
Mary Midgley (1919-). A philosopher with a special interest in ethics, human nature, and science, Mary Midgley has a widespread international following for her work.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
First Sentence
Every age has its pet contradictions. Read the first page Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Every age has its pet contradictions. Read the first page Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
19 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Mary Midgley has made a career out of taking public muddles and examining them with a view to clearing up the muddle in a way which is always illuminating and often just obviously right. Here, she turns her wonderfully sharp attention to the debate between those who argue that human nature is a blank slate, completely open to shaping by the environment, and works which compare human behaviour with that of the other animals. In the process, she makes a brilliant contribution to our understanding of ourselves and our motives. This edition includes a new introduction where she points out that she has satisfied nobody in the debate. Well, I had my own disagreements at points, but I found her contribution readable, fascinating, penetrating and insightful as always. If you have any interest in what drives human beings, invest a few hours in this delightful book.
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This was Mary Midgley's first book, published when in her 50s, in 1977. This routledge classics edition has a superb and lucid preface by Midgley (a decent length too - definitely get this edition) which explains the relevance of the ideas in this book today, in a world where many academics promote a view of human nature built on the extremes of biological reductionism, or postmodern scepticism. Midgley's book is still very relevant today, and finds a useable middle-ground between these two. The real crux of this book is the chapter 'Why We Need a Culture', and the final chapter 'The Unity of Life'. Those who haven't time to read the whole 350-400 pages, I recommend reading at least the preface and these two sections, they really are worth reading. The writing style is clear and engaging.
Midgley outlines two popular views of the human subject, the 'sociobiogical' stance promoted by E.O Wilson, where man is nothing more than the sum of his biological parts, and the opposite view, whereby there is no 'human nature' whatever. This view, which Midgley referrs to as the 'blank paper' theory, takes many forms, including Satre's form of existentialism, as well as some forms of sociological theory (I presume Midgley is referring to Goffman and other symbolic interactionists - one of the biggest weaknesses of the book is she doesnt say, or cite, any of the sociology she is supposedly challenging). Psychoanalysis is often viewed as a plausible middle ground, but Midgley prefers the ethological standpoint, perhaps for its stronger empirical backing.
Her approach draws from a range of sources that vary as radically as from philsopher Martin Buber through to naturalist Konrad Lorenz. Her view, in brief, is that we are part of the animal world, and that, through ethology we can see many aspects of our nature which are not unique to us, which suggests they are part of our make-up, part of what it is to be our-kind-of-being in the world. For example, the discomfort at being stared at is an unusual but useful example - this is not produced by a cultural context, it is present in many species. The book also offers a defence of moral philosophy from Wilson's reductive determinism, and challenges sociobiology's Hobbesian view of humanity, where man is fundamentally out for himself. Midgley's claim is that we are social, cultural beings by nature - that is - by our very nature, we need others, and a wider culture, to complete us. We are interdependent beings. Her approach is refreshingly holistic, and some of the works she uses to build her case are very much worth reading in their own right too, e.g. 'The sovereignty of Good' by Iris Murdoch and 'I and Thou' by Martin Buber.
At times Midgley is a little too conservative for my liking, for example, she seems to take a great deal of modern applications of gender as natural which I would regard as changeable and as products of culture. There is so much reliance on ethology, which is good, except it is not balanced with a broader look at the extent to which concepts of human nature belong to specific discursive practices, available in specific historical/social settings. Here, some acknowlegement of Foucault, Weber, Mauss or Nikolas Rose is needed before Midgley's project can feel robust. Nevertheless, this is still a very important book and an excellent place to go to deflate the rhetoric of sociobiology, or to offer us a view of humanity that sees us as more than spaces passively filled by culture.
Midgley outlines two popular views of the human subject, the 'sociobiogical' stance promoted by E.O Wilson, where man is nothing more than the sum of his biological parts, and the opposite view, whereby there is no 'human nature' whatever. This view, which Midgley referrs to as the 'blank paper' theory, takes many forms, including Satre's form of existentialism, as well as some forms of sociological theory (I presume Midgley is referring to Goffman and other symbolic interactionists - one of the biggest weaknesses of the book is she doesnt say, or cite, any of the sociology she is supposedly challenging). Psychoanalysis is often viewed as a plausible middle ground, but Midgley prefers the ethological standpoint, perhaps for its stronger empirical backing.
Her approach draws from a range of sources that vary as radically as from philsopher Martin Buber through to naturalist Konrad Lorenz. Her view, in brief, is that we are part of the animal world, and that, through ethology we can see many aspects of our nature which are not unique to us, which suggests they are part of our make-up, part of what it is to be our-kind-of-being in the world. For example, the discomfort at being stared at is an unusual but useful example - this is not produced by a cultural context, it is present in many species. The book also offers a defence of moral philosophy from Wilson's reductive determinism, and challenges sociobiology's Hobbesian view of humanity, where man is fundamentally out for himself. Midgley's claim is that we are social, cultural beings by nature - that is - by our very nature, we need others, and a wider culture, to complete us. We are interdependent beings. Her approach is refreshingly holistic, and some of the works she uses to build her case are very much worth reading in their own right too, e.g. 'The sovereignty of Good' by Iris Murdoch and 'I and Thou' by Martin Buber.
At times Midgley is a little too conservative for my liking, for example, she seems to take a great deal of modern applications of gender as natural which I would regard as changeable and as products of culture. There is so much reliance on ethology, which is good, except it is not balanced with a broader look at the extent to which concepts of human nature belong to specific discursive practices, available in specific historical/social settings. Here, some acknowlegement of Foucault, Weber, Mauss or Nikolas Rose is needed before Midgley's project can feel robust. Nevertheless, this is still a very important book and an excellent place to go to deflate the rhetoric of sociobiology, or to offer us a view of humanity that sees us as more than spaces passively filled by culture.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
2 reviews
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful
A new favorite I will read again and again.
14 Jun 2003
Format:Paperback
Mary Midgley, one of Britian's most cherished moral philosophers, wrote "Beast and Man" at age 50. At a time where behaviorism and existentialism told the world that there was no such thing as instinct or human nature, Midgley took pen to paper after raising three kids and in observing them, realized how wrong that notion was. Kids have instincts, natures. What's more, these natures are not so far off from what we know of animals natures.
Now before I give the impression that Midgley's book is another sociobiology book in disguise, it is the farthest thing from it. The first thing Midgley does is to make it clear that phrases like "Man is JUST (substitute "merely", "only" or "simply") an animmal are not only unfair to animals, they are unfair to humans. Sociobiology even sadomasochistically revels in depressions like this. (after all, aren't we 'only' the 'third chimpanzee'?) Usually, the mistake made is to thihk that animals are 'humans that just haven't gotten there yet' or that humans are 'dressed up brutes that play at ratiionality'. Midgley spends many pages on tackling both of these assumptions, as tacit as they sometimes are.
From there, she tackles things like what it means to say 'instinct', why 'reductionism' doesn't explain much of anything, and intertwining them all with examples of why the 'lower animals' and humans have so much in common yet are so incredibly different.
In short, this book is not to be missed. It is informative, provocative, challenging and all the while written in a crisp and sensitive prose. Never has it felt so good to be called an animal.
14 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Whats the difference between man and animal?
11 Aug 2002
Format:Mass Market Paperback
After reading this book, you may decide that the similarities between man and beast are more important than the differences. Mary Midgley discusses many types of animals and how they compare to humans. Are you sure you are attracted to a certain behaviour because of something only inside yourself, or is it because you are moving as part of a flock similar to how birds do? When you learn something, is it because of your own experience or are you mimicking a leader like a rat does? How much better is the human race, in terms of love and compassion, compared to animals such as elephants? The exploration of these and many other questions might stun you.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
