The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them

I truly enjoyed this book. One can always find something to carp about in a philosophy text, but this book does an excellent job discussing a number of BIG questions - mind, free will, the self, ethics, the meaning of life. If you have read widely, you will have seen many of the arguments presented here, but Flanagan does a wonderful job of weaving them together. I especially enjoyed his approach to ethics as a normative science (!) describing human ecologies. Flanagan's exposition will almost certainly challenge some of your ideas, but the objective here is not to find some final set of answers, but rather, to refine our questions. In that, the author succeeds brilliantly.

I was going to grad school in philosophy before I read this book--I think--but I was worried about whether or not I would ever get to work on the things that really matter. I'm not worried anymore. Although I am wondering if I'll have to do all the other work Flanagan has done before I get the nerve to publish anything. Cognitive neuroscience, psychology, literature (with minor side interests in sociology and religion)--it's a wonder that I can understand anything the man says. But I found this book to be one of the clearest, most enjoyable things I ever read. The Problem of the Soul is an amazing synthesis in which ethics meets the scientifically savvy 21st century--it's the book Nietzsche would have written if he had been interested in being understood. No other single text has had such an impact on the way I think, and I am in awe of the man who can build so much of the argument from scratch while getting so much right. Flanagan does indeed have the hands of a surgeon: there's no flinching here, and it's a light touch the whole way through. Whatever pain might be involved in the excision is masked by this surgeon's crooked grin; good humor is a great palliative.This book is for people who want to enjoy reading something that will challenge how they think. It's an amazing primer for academic philosophy (frightening how much I learned without even realizing it--I can't tell you how much I wish I'd read it before I took all those stupid courses), and it reads like a novel. I can honestly say that I've never before had the experience of having to make myself put down a philosophy text in order to get some work done. It was a beautiful thing.Written for a general audience, The Problem of the Soul comes across as a late-night conversation with a really exciting person you just met at the local pub or coffeehouse. It's written with style and personality, and you truly feel as if you get to know this guy. Which turns out to be a good thing--he's a really great person.I don't want to give the impression that I'm all for everything that Flanagan says. Actually, I'm the president of the group responsible for promoting interfaith dialogue on campus at Duke University, and I have something of a vested interest in refuting many of his arguments about matters of faith. I wish I could. I do believe there are some valid responses to most of the things he says, but I also believe that all those responses involve some serious re-evaluations. One thing I'm certain of is that all religious people have an undeniable obligation to read this book (to themselves, to their faiths). I applaud Flanagan for the effort he puts into opening up a genuine dialogue: he shows extreme sensitivity in treating people of faith as fellow creatures worthy of dignity and respect (even as he challenges the very beliefs that are generally thought to provide the foundation for that faith).Reading this book refreshed my vision and rekindled my passion for philosophy. If I had to recommend

In this book, one of the world's most important and under-recognized philosophers addresses what is arguably the major cultural question of our times: Can the humanistic and even religious view of human nature be reconciled with science?Flanagan is a witty, entertaining writer, who eschews the jargon and abstractions that deaden the prose of the vast majority of academic philosophers. And unlike philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, Flanagan is less intent on demonstrating his cleverness than on presenting his thoughts as clearly as possible. Although he is steeped in knowledge-from Aristotle to the latest findings of cognitive science-Flanagan wears his learning lightly. His writings are rigorous enough for professionals-philosophers and scientists paid to ponder the mind-body problem and other enigmas-while remaining accessible for lay readers. And shouldn't philosophy be for everyone?Flanagan is basically a scientific materialist, who believes that the mind is a function of the brain and cannot exist independently of it. In The Problem of the Soul, he dismisses such supernatural concepts as God, the immortal soul, life after death, and even free will, defined as freedom from physical causality. But he argues convincingly that if we jettison a supernatural outlook, we are left not with an anything-goes nihilism but with an even more secure foundation for morality. Flanagan deftly draws upon his personal experience to explore certain questions-for example, what concept of a self makes sense, given all the changes we pass through in life? He reveals his family's history of alcoholism, his decision to stop drinking, his recent interest in Buddhism. In the hands of a lesser writer, this approach would seem self-indulgent, but Flanagan makes it poignant and compelling. There is a warmth suffusing his prose that counteracts the chill of his ideas, and even lends them a kind of tacit support: ultimately, it is simple human decency that will save us (if we can be saved) and not faith in some supernatural metaphysics.A book like this is bound to provoke-indeed invites-objections, and I have a couple. One is that the free will Flanagan attacks-a dualistic version that assumes absolute freedom from physical causality--is something of a straw man. I believe that science undermines any meaningful concept of human choice, including the one that Flanagan articulates.I also see a potential weakness in Flanagan's concept of an "ethical ecology." He suggests that, just as ecologists seek to understand the factors that contribute to a healthy ecosystem, so should our ethics aim at delineating conditions conducive to our "flourishing." The tenets of ecology-for example, the notion that diversity of species leads to ecological stability-are contentious, to say the least, and hence might not provide the kind of the secure foundation for human ethics that Flanagan envisions. But of course Flanagan wrote this book not to give us answers but to incite further reflectio

Philosophy was once concerned with wisdom, the big picture. What is a person? How shall I live? Why be moral? Analyltic philosophy in the 20th century treated these questions as largely untractable, leaving the impression that they were not worth asking. Owen Flanagan is one brave soul willing to take on the big picture. Framing his project in terms of the conflict between the manifest or humanistic image and the scientific images (Wilfred Sellars), Flanagan -- with appointments at Duke in philosophy, neurobiology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology and brain science tries -- and, even more remarkably, succeeds -- in providing a compelling and uplifting philosophy of persons that takes seriously our nature as gregarious social animals that evolved according to darwinian principles. We are selfish and benevolent animals with big brains. We can puff up our image with all manner of supernatural and mysterious stories and props. God created us in his image with prospects to sit for all eternity at his right hand. We are spiritual beings possessed of a faculty of free will. Flanagan explains why all this might seem consoling and uplifting but isn't. Quine proposed that good philosophy is continuous with science. Flanagan shows that this is so. This is the book -- the only book -- to relentlessly show by careful and sustained argument how mind, morals, and the meaning of life are preserved even though we are animals and the mind is the brain. The most important philosophy book is a very long time.