Philosophical Explanations

I found this book an excellent excursion into a variety of philosophical problems. The goal of the book is to provide philosophical explanations, with the key word being explanations. My favorite parts of the book are the thought experiments. One of which concerns the replacement plank by plank of a wooden boat. The question is asked at which point is the boat a different boat? This is a question of being/becoming. This same thought experiment can then be mapped on to a human being and its constant change in physical matter (i.e., cells replacing old cells, etc.) Robert Nozick is probably one of the most important American philosophers of the latter half of the 20th Century. I highly recommend this book if you are interested in philosophy or thinking in general.

I tend to agree with that great scientist Hans Eysenck when he said "all philosophers do is yak, yak, yak, but show them a fact and they fall on their face." Nozick is different. He doesn't provide many facts, but he deals directly with the subjects we want philosophy to tackle, including: Why do we exist? What is free will? What is an ethical life and why should we lead it? Of course, he doesn't provide any definite answers, but you get the feeling that Nozick has led you a little along the road of understanding. It may only be a few inches along a very long road, but it's a start. I think the section on metaphysics is the most successful part of the book. The chapter "Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?" is literally awesome. I can't pretend the book is an easy read, although Nozick is very clear compared with most philosophers. I shall read it again and I'll give myself a month to do it!

I remember once in a seminary class the professor was trying to emphasise a philosophical point, and was grasping for the name of someone who had written an essay that concentrated on the 'wrong points', as this professor put it. He couldn't remember the name, but said instead, 'that upstart philosopher from Harvard'. At that point, I knew he meant Robert Nozick. I don't necessarily agree that he is an upstart, but I can see why academics of certain complexions and backgrounds might. In his book `Anarchy, State, and Utopia', he challenges conventional thinking on many socio-political theories of the current culture -- liberalism, socialism, and conservatism. This book irritated many people, and while it has somewhat faded from view, still remains a text that calls for consideration. Nozick's follow-up book, `Philosophical Explanations', is the continuation of Nozick's philosophy in the areas of metaphysics, epistemology, and value. He continues his pattern of exploration (a particular word Nozick likes to use with regard to his method): `At no point is the person forced to accept anything. He moves along gently, exploring his own and the author's thoughts. He explores together with the author, moving only where he is ready to; then he stops. Perhaps, at a later time mulling it over or in a second reading, he will move further.' This is indeed the manner I found this book most useful, in re-reading at different times to pick up on different aspects of the narrative and the theory. Nozick explores in the introduction the difference between explanation and proof -- proof requires (in most manner of logical thinking) a particular pattern of argument with dependent pieces being led in a certain direction of inexorable conclusion; explanation can be tentative, sometimes dialectical, subject to revision without throwing out the entire structure built. This, obviously, is a problem for rigourous scholars and philosophers. It certainly gives a sense of the kind of subjectivism that liberal academia is constantly accused of, and angers those who are set on belief and discovery of absolutes. But in his discussion of how to take skeptics seriously, he addresses the problem of what becomes important for consideration. That a skeptic becomes convinced of the argument does not solve the problem, for the questions remain even in the absence of the skeptic. It is to the argument. to the problem that philosophical explanations and theories must speak. That being said, there are some presuppositions that must be made at the start. This is precisely the area in which explanation becomes of more value than proof. By using the method of explanation, one can modify the structure without 'breaking a chain' of proof that would require the whole structure to be abandoned. As we none of us can start from an objectively neutral starting point, this becomes an intriguing and valuable way of approaching the subjects. Modern psychology, sociology, and political science strive

Ideas can provoke, and even individuals who are absolutely determined to be objective and weigh each idea or opinion without getting emotionally involved usually at one time or another find themselves in heated debate. One can only speculate on the reasons why anger typically accompanies the exchange of ideas. One would think maybe that individuals intelligent enough to discuss sometimes very complex ideas would not permit themselves to get agitated. Another possibility, from a biological/evolutionary standpoint, is that anger is a kind of defense mechanism: that it reacts against new ideas as these disturb the cognitive equilibrium of the individual. Since ideas determine an individual's outlook and how he/she deals with reality, too rapid a change in the individual's conceptual structure might threaten the individual's survival. Early in the introduction to this book, the author makes a strong and uncommon case against what he has termed 'coercive philosophy'. This, he says, is characterized by its terminology: arguments are "powerful", and best when they are "knockdown". Such arguments, if the premises are believed by your "opponent", force your opponent to the conclusion, which he/she must believe, lest they be labeled as "irrational", the latter they are told, and some of them believe, is the ultimate anathema. But if they do not, the "owner" of the argument is in trouble: he/she is faced with someone who is perfectly comfortable with the "irrational" label. What does the arguer do then? Therefore, the author asks the reader to consider another approach to philosophy, and that approach is reflected in the title of the book. The role of philosophy is to explain, not to argue. Good philosophy will explain the fundamental problems and curiosities of life, such as ethics, the mind-body problem, the nature of knowledge, and so on. As the author puts it: "There is a second mode of philosophy, not directed to arguments and proofs: it seeks explanations. Various philosophical things need to be explained; a philosophical theory is introduced to explain them, to render then coherent and better understood." This is a delightfully optimistic approach to philosophical inquiry, for it assumes from the beginning that the individuals who are engaging in the philosophical conversation are willing to sit down and discuss calmly, rationally, and openly, the issues at hand. The author assumes the reader is such a person, and the book is full of thought-provoking ideas presented in a way that respects the dignity and intelligence of the reader. His discussion of "explanation versus proof" is fascinating and in fact has applications in artificial intelligence. I found chapter five on "The Foundations of Ethics" the most lucid of all in the book, and I thoroughly enjoyed its reading. That does not mean that I agree with all that he asserts. In fact that opening sentence of the chapter, that states that "ethical truths find no place within the contemporary scie

Great book. Seeks to ask the right questions, not necessarily to answer them. And, to respond to a previous reviwer, "I, too, seek an unreadable book" is a Nietzsche reference, not an "attempt to draw in the reader as a co-conspiritor". The idea is to have a book full of ideas that are so overwhelming that you have to put it down, close your eyes, have a drink of water.