2 of 5 people found the following review helpful
unconvincing writing style but good ideas,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Hardcover)
This is an interesting and courageous book given the rather abusive attacks launched by the defenders of evolutionary orthodoxy. Its original idea is to be commended but it possesses many weaknesses. Most of all it is not convincing, one never feels that the author really fully believes what he is talking about. Why is this so? It is the writing style which is convoluted, confusing and needlessly tedious at times. Occasionally it blooms with a few interesting pages where the argument grows and convinces the reader. Unfortunately this does not happen anywhere near enough. Nonetheless, the ideas concerning value, consciousness etc are good ones when it comes explaining them using current scientifically accepted arguments using the mechanistic, reductionistic, evolutionary perspective which is the only acceptable approach allowed by the scientific orthodoxy. The book does appear to get a little confused between the evolutionary type ideas and the older materialist and idealist philosophies expressed since the enlightenment. I believe that this book could have been much better and far more convincing if it had been better written and with more passion.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 27 Feb 2014 01:07:33 GMT
A. J. Bradbury says:
With ll due respect, I would have found it much easier to take this review seriously if you had adopted a less pompous and more honest tone. For example, if you had written the more direct comment:
"Most of all I did not find it convincing. I never felt that the author really fully believes what he is talking about"
Rather than the pseudo clairvoyant claim:
Most of all it is not convincing [not to you, maybe], one never feels that the author really fully believes what he is talking about [so if you mean "I" why not say so?]
By the way, what do you know about Nagel's previous contributions to this debate? And what qualifications do you have that nabled you to judge whether he knows and/or believes what he is talking about>
‹ Previous 1 Next ›