Scan barcode
pidgevorg's review
3.0
A very disorganized and mostly incoherent book. Honestly I was kind of puzzled... The author seems to have some insightful things to say about the relevance of the philosophy of Romanticism, the historical collusion of the scientific establishment with political and economic powers, etc. And it would all be wonderful, if he actually, you know, went ahead and said all that. If he spend a decent number of pages plugging Romanticism, or looking at trends in scientific research... Sadly, for the most part he seems to be focused on nitpicking some very specific and also very puzzling things.
A ton of space is devoted to criticizing the books of Hitchens, Dawkins, and other New Atheists, apparently for failing to talk enough about philosophy and art. Not that they don't deserve criticism in general for their sloppy logic, but since the main goal of those books was to lambast religion, why on earth should anyone even expect them to talk about anything else? Their concept of beauty and their understanding of the role of metaphor in culture seems deficient to White. Sure, and that might be because those topics are not relevant to the subject of their books. Or is there some rule that everyone who so much as mentions a philosophical idea in writing is obligated to give an account of their view of aesthetics? Is their writing automatically an attack on the Humanities if they don't? When did this get established? Did I miss the memo?
Another pressing problem for White is that neuroscientists have apparently also declared war on art and philosophy. How does he know? Because a couple of them have used unsophisticated metaphors while trying to explain complex science to the general public, and one of them even (gasp!) claimed that science has discovered how creativity works (that guy has apparently been discredited for bad journalism and his book was pulled, but I guess White is a fan of flogging dead horses). Actually, any empirical inquiry into how creativity and self-awareness arises in the brain is offensive to White. And that's because a. these things are just unknowable because he says so, no evidence needed, and b. empiricism is a by-product of militant capitalism and is hell-bent on destroying true creativity. And true creativity is, of course, embodied by cranky "artiste" types, and never by software engineers or, god forbid, industrial designers (people who design floor mops are for some reason especially worthy of contempt). Never mind that oppression and exploitation were alive and well for millennia before empiricism was even a speckle in Galileo's eye, or that communist and socialist nations are just as enamored with science as the US, if not more. Or that the practical inventions White loves to deride are the very things that liberated most people from backbreaking and mindless labor and gave them the time to indulge in that same Romantic "play" and "creativity" he loves to endorse. Or that advances in neuroscience can save lives. Who cares about that, right? Let's study Schelling's philosophy instead.
"If I have to choose between Schelling and the blunt weapon called a brain scan, I'll take the German," says White. So I suppose while we're all busy "alienating" ourselves from the vile posers who design floor mops, Schelling will come back from the dead and cure Alzheimer's? Or does White not realize that this is why our society funds things like neuroscience? And that the excitement for these advances, which he bizarrely interprets as attacks on philosophy, is actually people hoping to help their fellow human beings? I guess he's too busy fending off these mythical attacks on the Humanities which never actually happened.
So there I was, shaking my head at this sad travesty of a book... It was like seeing a crazy homeless person on the train, arguing loudly with the voices in his head--I totally agree, and I would love to take his side, except that his attackers are not actually there. Anyway, there I was, frustrated with this mess of a book, when I got to the Afterword, which he apparently wrote for the second edition in response to some criticisms. In it, he responds to these criticisms by actually making his point, concisely, logically, and coherently. And I was like, "Oh, that's what you were saying? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?" Sigh. Moral of the story? Always read the friggin afterword first.
A ton of space is devoted to criticizing the books of Hitchens, Dawkins, and other New Atheists, apparently for failing to talk enough about philosophy and art. Not that they don't deserve criticism in general for their sloppy logic, but since the main goal of those books was to lambast religion, why on earth should anyone even expect them to talk about anything else? Their concept of beauty and their understanding of the role of metaphor in culture seems deficient to White. Sure, and that might be because those topics are not relevant to the subject of their books. Or is there some rule that everyone who so much as mentions a philosophical idea in writing is obligated to give an account of their view of aesthetics? Is their writing automatically an attack on the Humanities if they don't? When did this get established? Did I miss the memo?
Another pressing problem for White is that neuroscientists have apparently also declared war on art and philosophy. How does he know? Because a couple of them have used unsophisticated metaphors while trying to explain complex science to the general public, and one of them even (gasp!) claimed that science has discovered how creativity works (that guy has apparently been discredited for bad journalism and his book was pulled, but I guess White is a fan of flogging dead horses). Actually, any empirical inquiry into how creativity and self-awareness arises in the brain is offensive to White. And that's because a. these things are just unknowable because he says so, no evidence needed, and b. empiricism is a by-product of militant capitalism and is hell-bent on destroying true creativity. And true creativity is, of course, embodied by cranky "artiste" types, and never by software engineers or, god forbid, industrial designers (people who design floor mops are for some reason especially worthy of contempt). Never mind that oppression and exploitation were alive and well for millennia before empiricism was even a speckle in Galileo's eye, or that communist and socialist nations are just as enamored with science as the US, if not more. Or that the practical inventions White loves to deride are the very things that liberated most people from backbreaking and mindless labor and gave them the time to indulge in that same Romantic "play" and "creativity" he loves to endorse. Or that advances in neuroscience can save lives. Who cares about that, right? Let's study Schelling's philosophy instead.
"If I have to choose between Schelling and the blunt weapon called a brain scan, I'll take the German," says White. So I suppose while we're all busy "alienating" ourselves from the vile posers who design floor mops, Schelling will come back from the dead and cure Alzheimer's? Or does White not realize that this is why our society funds things like neuroscience? And that the excitement for these advances, which he bizarrely interprets as attacks on philosophy, is actually people hoping to help their fellow human beings? I guess he's too busy fending off these mythical attacks on the Humanities which never actually happened.
So there I was, shaking my head at this sad travesty of a book... It was like seeing a crazy homeless person on the train, arguing loudly with the voices in his head--I totally agree, and I would love to take his side, except that his attackers are not actually there. Anyway, there I was, frustrated with this mess of a book, when I got to the Afterword, which he apparently wrote for the second edition in response to some criticisms. In it, he responds to these criticisms by actually making his point, concisely, logically, and coherently. And I was like, "Oh, that's what you were saying? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?" Sigh. Moral of the story? Always read the friggin afterword first.
lukeedbend's review
1.0
I couldn't even finish this.
Ad hominems galore.
All the author does is offer straw mans and attacks with rhetorical questions claiming the questions and statements cited imply some sort of ideological agenda.
The author characterizes Richard Feynman (discover of the Feynman electron) thus: "someone who was almost as famous for playing the bongos and going to strip clubs as he was for physics".
If the alternative White wants to offer to science is straw man attacks, I'll have to stick with science.
Save yourself. Don't buy this. It's bad. Real bad.
Ad hominems galore.
All the author does is offer straw mans and attacks with rhetorical questions claiming the questions and statements cited imply some sort of ideological agenda.
The author characterizes Richard Feynman (discover of the Feynman electron) thus: "someone who was almost as famous for playing the bongos and going to strip clubs as he was for physics".
If the alternative White wants to offer to science is straw man attacks, I'll have to stick with science.
Save yourself. Don't buy this. It's bad. Real bad.
matthew_p's review
2.0
A screed against the lack of the metaphysical or an acknowledgement of the observing Self in the writing of contemporary "New Athiests" (Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al.). A little frothy for my tastes, but a point that needs making.
jthhhhhhhh's review
4.0
Popularizer of humanities takes on popularizers of science, I guess? Lord knows we need more people who can write about the humanities compellingly.
bearunderthecypresses's review
1.0
I was originally interested to see what White had to say when I read the purpose of his book was to, "find the resources to compose an alternative narrative about what it means to be human. I hope to show that many of those resources are to be found in the poorly understood tradition of Romanticism." (pg.11) In the end, White's book turns into a poorly argued critical theory/humanities rant about using metaphor in scientific contexts/descriptions. The brain as a computer metaphor is discussed more clearly in other sources, and better arguments for and against can be read elsewhere. (Ask Wendy Behrend all about it.) It became more comical than serious after the introduction, and while there were funny one-liners spaced throughout, this book taught me a lot about my own argumentative writing errors. This is what an argument looks like when too many targets are chosen to "be critical of," when too many topics are attempted (all the topics end up getting addressed and introduced, but there's barely any analysis or connection between points before we're off and running to the next topic/point/cynical observation), and this is what it looks like when an unpopular position is argued without a convincing defense or explanation. There's nothing ground breaking about Romanticism in here, and White focuses a lot on the "counterculture" aspect of Romanticism, when there is much more in the tradition to learn from.
rjzn87's review
2.0
You don't need to write a whole book to outline how Hitchens and Dawkins are arrogant. Trust me, we all know. They also happen to be pretty smart dudes, so we just put up with their sass. I agree with the general premise, that the atheist movement often leaves something to be desired and is too science driven at times-- but White didn't offer alternatives, really. Working, as I do, exclusively with science curriculum, I can't help but think that science doesn't fill up and satisfy a person completely. I was looking for a book to explain how science could work hand in hand with art and literature and history--instead of being the ultimate power to which all else boils down. This book could have been that, but instead it was mostly whining and deliberately misunderstanding the statements of famous atheists.
More...