Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Machiavelli for Our Times, 4 April 2005
At first I thought this book was going to be a piss-take, especially if you look at the way it's been marketed. However, it's really a very witty and serious defence of the intellectual in today's world. Fuller seems to be especially riled by the craven nature of academic life -- and how that stifles intellectual activity. He is also very hard on politicians (like Blair) who abdicate their intellectual responsibility, though Fuller is much softer on journalists.The book features a very amusing and informative dialogue between 'The Intellectual' and 'The Philosopher', each of whom appears as the evil twin of the other. The book ends with a FAQ section which really attempts to address the sorts of issues an aspiring intellectual might want to know about. Clearly, the life of the intellectual is not for the squeamish -- at least as Fuller portrays it -- but it's a life worth living.
|
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Wonderfully insightful, 12 Aug 2006
Steve Fuller's compact but high octane look at the motivations and perspectives of intellectuals is very enjoyable indeed. This book is full of stimulating insights. There are 3 main sections: a general introduction to the intellectual and his methods, an imaginary conversation between a philosopher and an intellectual (to highlight the differences), and finally a question and answer session which serves to fill in whatever blanks remain. It is a very good format and makes for a quick, lively read. So if you've ever wondered what separates the Chomskies, Hitchens, Greers, Galileos, Dawkinses and so on from the rest of the world, this book is definitely for you. It is also refreshingly inexpensive. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
3 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not recommended, 8 Mar 2008
Luckily, I didn't buy this book - I read it in my university library. It's not at all what I expected from the title and description (although later, having heard Steve Fuller debating, I was not surprised).
Fuller discusses 'truth', 'power', 'thinking', etc. but makes no attempt at all to define these terms - let alone to engage with the varied and interesting debate surrounding these ideas. He does not bother to generate any arguments, expand the boundaries of knowledge, engage with real debates and ideas, or even present existing theories in an interesting way. His 'arguments' are loose, winding, and often either ridiculous or exceedingly obvious. Where you can find a train of thought, which is rare, it is a subject that has inevitably been discussed at length, and with far greater eloquence, elsewhere. As a result, much of the book is tedious, outlandish, and at worst, nonsensical. I find it difficult to understand why anyone enjoyed this book. I can only imagine that they were swayed by the self-satisfaction and smugness that Fuller attempts to extend to his readers.
This is not a serious book, and I do not recommend it at all. Anyone with a very basic knowledge of philosophy will recognise it to be completely nonsensical. And beginners would do far better elsewhere.
|
|
|
|