The Making of a Philosopher: My Journey Through Twentieth-Century Philosophy

On page 222 the author explains his reputation as a tough reviewer of other books. I'd love to imitate him, but cannot avoid giving him five stars, for five reasons. First, I literally read this book at one sitting - OK lying down on my bed, for four hours 5 minutes, not even one trip to the john. Credit for page-turnability must go to the writing; but also to fine contributions by the editorial and design teams. Second, accuracy. He describes well the Oxford I knew as a B. Phil (Philosophy) student a few years earlier than him, also from a non-Oxbridge background. Third, determination. He was not from an academic family, and his first high school did not expect its students to go on to college. But once he got the thinking bug, there was no holding him back. Fourth, stimulation. This is not a crash-course in philosophy. However, enough is said sufficiently clearly on metaphysics - oddly, a word never mentioned - and on moral philosophy to stir my flaccid philosophical loins. Fifth, anecdotal warmth. I enjoyed the accounts of philosophers behaving generously or pettily. It's a book that humanizes philosophy. He had his spats with the Oxford establishment - and Rutgers has been the beneficiary For those with an interest in cross-cultural studies there are nice reminders that driving on the left is not the only habit that Brits need to correct if they want to become good Cis-Atlantic citizens.

How do people become professional philosophers? Why are some so strongly compelled by the analytic (philosophy of language) tradition in philosophy? It is these questions that CM illuminates in his brief but very readable 'intellectual' memoir. If these questions don't interest you -- as it appears they did not interest certain reviewers on this page -- don't bother reading TMoaP. If they do, read on. You're sure to be rewarded for the few hours' effort. 4 stars, not 5, only because the rewards -- in my view -- were not as ample as they might have been. By which I mean: I greatly enjoyed reading TMoaP; I only wish it had gone longer and at greater depth into the areas of CM's philosophical interest. Guess I'll have to give CM's 'serious' philosophy a read sometime. TMoaP succeeds on two levels: it is an interesting and entertaining memoir, and a spur to further -- and deeper -- reading in philosophy. What more should a reader expect?

This is a great book but I felt something cold inside of me while reading it. I don't know if it is cultural (the modern English philosopher's fear of displaying passion) but I had the feeling to talk to a plumber who developed expertise in abstract concepts and their relationships just as if they were small plumbing problems fitting together under a generalized plumbing theory. Perhaps philosophy needs to be treated like that, just like engineering --but not for me. At least I give myself the illusion of doing something more...literary. Colin McGINN teaches us that we need nevertheless to master the art of clarity of both thought and exposition. He write with perfect clarity: a clear, unburdened, unaffected, UnFrench UnGerman philosophical prose. The book has a presentation of the Kripke idea of naming as necessity of such clarity that I felt actually smart reading it.Other than that there is the feeling of drabness in part of the book of the type I got once at a conference in an industrial city West of London.

Philosophers are rarely, far too rarely, given to write a treatment of their field for the general public. Far too many "introductory" philosophy texts claim, in the preface or the intro, that this is a book for neophytes, for philosophical hatchlings waiting to dive off the tree, for "absolute beginners" when, by the third chapter, they're deep into metacognition or technical theories or truth. More often they skim deep subjects, and the skimming only produces useless mist that leaves the beginner dumbstruck and asking "so when do I learn the meaning of life?"This book is thankfully not at the level described above. True, it treats some subjects way too briefly, but it at least does so in a way that will probably whet the appetite, not totally confound. McGinn states his intention clearly in the book (and no, I don't care about "Author's Intentionality" or the "Death of the Author", at least not now) to write a popular philosophical work. That he has attempted this is admirable. Unfortunately, the most likely reader of this work will be philosophers or academics, which are precisely the people who probably shouldn't read it. Colin McGinn may be "famous" but he's not too famous outside of academia. I have yet to meet anyone outside of "philosophical circles" that's heard of him. The testimony from Oliver Sacks may help, but most likely people looking for more than what's here will pick up the book, be disappointed that it's too cursory, and accuse McGinn of self-congratulation (he is a bit self-congratulatory in places, but one has to make philosophy seem worthwhile while one is attempting to sell it).All of this is too bad, because the book does succeed in many places in making the "philosophical life" sound at least intriguing, challenging, and worthwhile. Insiders already know the life, and so that part of the book will probably be lost on them.Some of the more interesting passages deal with politics in academia. Those who flew to academia to escape the politics of corporate life and business did not escape as completely as they thought. In academia you get put in your place. In academia there is nepotism, cronyism, pointless squabbles over who gets what position and why, and the always dreaded budget looms and threatens your projects, positions, and teaching loads. McGinn shows glimpses of this part of academia throughout the book. His run in with Micheal Dummett (who he claims ran him down in front of colleagues, though we obviously don't hear Dummett's side) and his depressing falling out with Oxford are just two salient examples.Overall the book is a fast read, except for some passages that get a little more into the nitty gritty of technical details (but not too much). This book will not teach you how to be a philosopher, nor will it teach you philosophy (except at a very microscopic level). It may inspire you to look into philosophy, or to read St. Anselm, or Chomsky, or Saul Kripke, or Wittgenstein. Maybe some readers can relate with Mc

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."--Socrates All too often, philosophers write in an arcane, esoteric language baffling to laypersons untrained in the discipline. The layperson's reaction to reading such perceived mumbo-jumbo is typically "Say what?" or "So what?" In The Making of a Philosopher, Colin McGinn seeks to rescue philosophy from its ivory tower, bring it down to earth, and explain it in an accessible, engaging way. He is only partially successful; some sections of his book remain tough sledding. McGinn, 52, was born in West Hartlepool, county Durham, a small mining town in the northeast of England. He was educated at the Univ. of Manchester and Oxford Univ. He now lives in New York City and is a Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers. An analytical philosopher dealing with language and logic, McGinn traces his philosophical lineage from Plato and Aristotle, through Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant, to Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein--a tradition that emphasizes clarity, rigor, argument, theory, and truth. "It is not a tradition," he writes, "that aims primarily for inspiration or consolation or ideology. Nor is it particurlary concerned with 'philosophy of life"--though parts of it are. This kind of philosophy is more like science than religion, more like mathematics than poetry--though it is neither science nor mathematics." As an academic philosopher, McGinn has been interested mainly in epistemology, linguistic analysis, and cognitive science. Alas, in The Making of a Philosopher, he does not even mention my two favorite philosophers, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, nor does he deal with Eastern philosophy, other representatives of Continental philosophy, or post-modern philosophy. McGinn is probably best known as the author of a provocative essay, "Can the Mind-Body Problem Be Solved?" (which is by far the most cited, reprinted, and translated paper he has ever written). His answer to this question is no. "We aren't god, after all," he writes; "we are recently evolved organisms made of pretty low-tech materials. Our human intelligence is not cut out for the job" [of solving such knotty problems. "Maybe the human species cannot be expected to understand," he writes, "how the universe contains mind and matter in combination. Isn't it really a preposterous overconfidence on our part to think that our species--so recent, so contingent, so limited in many ways--can nevertheless unlock every secret of the natural world?" In my opinion, the "linguistic turn" that characterized 20th-century philosophy was unfortunate, leading to a dry, dreary, and dull wasteland. And, apparently, McGinn himself would agree. After spending many years as an analytic philosopher, he has now turned his energies to connecting philosophical concepts with "real life" and making philosophy accessible to educated laypersons. In discussing metaphilosophy--the philosophy of philosophy--McGinn points out that philosophy