- Buy this product and stream 90 days of Amazon Music Unlimited for free. E-mail after purchase. Conditions apply. Learn more
Are You an Illusion? (Heretics) Paperback – 6 Jun 2014
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Special offers and product promotions
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
"It is a very big little book. Midgley manages in just 150 pages to say more than most scholars manage in a lifetime. ... Midgley combines both the ability to place intellectual fashions in their broader context with having lived long enough to personally witness the rise and fall of many of them. ...in this bite-size book she digests some of the toughest intellectual challenges of our day." -- Stephen Cave, Financial Times
About the Author
Mary Midgley is one of the most respected moral philosophers of her generation and the author of many books including The Solitary Self (2010).
Customers who bought this item also bought
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Science is normally presented as pure, untainted by messy human subjectivity. 'The scientific method' has become seen as the only way of knowing, of developing the evidence needed to come to conclusions and make progress. As Mary Midgley points out, for example, what started as a hypothesis to see how statistical methods could be applied to human behaviour, became a strongly held view that all there is to humans is their behaviour.
The primacy of physics has much to do with the fascination with numbers which goes back to Pythagoras and the discovery of the mathematical basis for musical harmony. But numbers are not an appropriate medium for all explantion as shown by the table example below.
Her argument is not to deny what has been achieved in the sciences, but to put it in context, to show that the sciences represent one, very powerful, way of looking at things, but there are others. She uses the simple case of a table which can be described in terms of its make-up at the nano-science level, or as a carpenter would want to know if he wanted to copy it - or we could add, a householder who wanted to determine whether it would fit and look good in the space available in their home. None of these explanations are better or more true than the other, each is appropriate to the relevant context.
Midgley also draws attention to the ancient dualism of Plato, of the Ideal and what we see, noting that we use this still in everyday speech, like for example in referring to legal decisions - it is legal, but it is justice? We do not have difficulty with this concept, although we might be hard put to explain what Justice is. With the spread of religion, in particular Christianity, the difference between the spiritual world and the material world was increasingly stressed. However as religion began to be attacked as superstition and an 'unnecessary hypothesis', many stressed the material to the exclusion of any other type of explanation. Many of today's scientists just accept that there is only the material, although as she points out, the alternatives do not have to be any religion.
Her short book is particularly addressed to those scientists and others who have used some findings from neuroscience to say that our bodies do things before our brains become aware of them and so our sense of self is an illusion. Certainly, neuroscience has developed amazing insights into how the brain works, but as Midgley points out that the conclusions drawn from the work (on tennis players and hand movements in a fMRI scanner are a step too far. Yes, the movement may come before the brain 'lights' up, but at some point before that, the subject had to be told to raise its hand and had to decide to comply. If we are simply illusions, whose illusion are we? If we are simply illusions, how do these eminent scientists themselves get to do the complex, demanding, long term work involved in making discoveries in science?
While Crick and Dawkins are well known eminent figures, I would have liked some discussion on Damasio who has been at the forefront of the discussion on the implications of neuroscience and also of Heisinberg and the uncertainty principle, but accept that there is little room in 150 pages....
On a more confused note the author seems to take the possibility of the self being an illusion as meaning it does not exist, I thought being an illusion meant that it is not quite what it seems. My other reading suggests the self is often taken to be consciousness and be in control of the person, whereas there is some evidence that this is not the whole story, hence the claim that the self may be an illusion.