U3A Farnham, discussion board and forum

I thought I would support my proposal for Susan Wolf's "The meaning in life" with some editorial comments taken from Amazon.com:

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Given the unfortunate (but arguably necessary) divorce of psychology from philosophy more than a century ago, books like Meaning in Life and Why It Matters, which allow for dialogue between these disciplines, are a much-needed and much-welcomed development. . . . Wolf's essay is a psychologically sophisticated philosophical argument on the structure, reality, and importance of meaningfulness in life. Its psychological sophistication lies not in her mastery of any particular empirical literature but rather in her attentiveness to normal, everyday intuitions and feelings."--Russell D. Kosits, PsycCRITIQUES

From the Inside Flap

"Susan Wolf's picture of what makes life meaningful is at once powerful and down to earth, deeply argued but unpretentious. Part of Wolf's persuasive force comes from her stylish prose and cool treatment of profound concerns. This book is absorbing and a pleasure to read."--Kieran Setiya, University of Pittsburgh

"Susan Wolf is one of the clearest, most thoughtful, and most incisively elegant writers in contemporary ethics. She has an uncanny knack for putting her finger on important points and expressing them in ways that capture the imagination. In this book, she develops her ideas about meaningfulness in life with considerable subtlety, creating a work of genuine depth and importance."--John Martin Fischer, University of California, Riverside

I've been reading a lecture of Susan Wolf's on the subject of the "Meaning of life".

She says "According to the conception of meaningfulness I wish to propose, meaning arises
from loving objects worthy of love and engaging with them in a positive way."

She goes on to say "One might paraphrase this by saying that,
according to my conception, meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective
attractiveness, and one is able to do something good or positive about it. "

She goes on to say that weeding your garden might be meaningful - "it might be the beauty
of the potential garden that moves the gardener to sacrifice ease, and
exercise discipline in pursuing her goal."

Her paper is here - http://www.philosophy.northwestern.edu/conferences/moralpolitical/08/papers/Wolf.pdf

I find this very woolly. What is "objective attractiveness"? Why is weeding a garden "good or positive"?

Perhaps she explains later - I haven't read all her paper.

I weed my garden and also play solitaire a lot. I get a short term satisfaction out of both activities (repetitive behaviour with a small reward that triggers dopamine release). I know they are meaningless. In fact I believe all activities are meaningless except for the purposes or objectives you yourself give them - the reason "why?".

I notice that Ian T, David, Robert and Ann are not members of this forum so I will repost this as email.

Consciousness - A Very Short Introduction - Susan Blackmore.

I am not going to recommend this book after all. I have read a number of reviews - the following is typical. I think she would be too biased and irritating.

This review is from: Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Paperback)

Considering that this is a Very Short Introduction, this book is odd and I am ambivalent towards it.

On the one hand, it is well-written, persuasive and thought-provoking. On the other, it is openly biased and inappropriate for a short introduction to a new subject.

My misgivings about it mainly concern the style of presentation of the subject rather than Blackmore's actual opinions. These may or may not be correct, but it is unusual in an introductory work to present and then dismiss the opinions of swathes of other researchers and present your own views in the best light possible.

For example, the use of the word "magic" in scientific literature when describing a theory is obviously pejorative. Yet Blackmore uses it in this way several times, while also describing the theories of Descartes and the 20th century scientists Popper and Eccles as "hopeless". The only theories that receive unequivocal backing are her own and those of Daniel Dennett. Other opinions are often explained in terms of facile metaphors which lead the unguarded reader to see such views as silly.

Balance is not an easy thing to achieve and objectivity is, of course, the impossible goal. Yet Blackmore should have tried harder. The perspective she has may well be valid, but in an introductory work one should give a broad outline of the field and let the reader decide which arguments seems the most interesting or plausible. At most the reader can be given a prod in the directions that seem the most fruitful, but Blackmore indulges in several hearty shoves.

The above is the main criticism, but I also wonder whether Blackmore fully believes what she is saying or whether she has thought about the true implications.

Firstly, it is rather strange to write an introduction to a field of study and then argue that the thing being discussed is an illusion and does not exist - why not write an introduction to alchemy? Would a convinced atheist write a book introducing theology?

Secondly, consider this quote (p81), discussing the self: "We can equate it with some kind of brain process and shelve the problem of why this brain process should have conscious experience at all, or we can reject any persisting entity that corresponds to our feeling of being a self. I think that intellectually we have to take this last path." In the space of a few lines, Blackmore dismisses the self and uses the words "I think...". If the self does not exist, what does it mean to say "I think"? Whether or not Blackmore's view on the self is correct or not, her view on this and her writing a book on consciousness are blatantly contradictory. Who will read it? Why put your name on the cover? Perhaps "she" has thought of this: if the self does not exist, "she" can hardly be blamed for any flaws in the book.

Overall, it is a stimulating book to read and it will get you interested in the subject, but some may be tempted to throw it out of the window at various points. Perhaps Oxford should rename it a Very Controversial Introduction.

This is a contribution from Ian T on Nozick:

"You may remember back last year when we were discussing what new book to study I mentioned that I felt it would be fascinating to study a work that had an "application" in today's world. Well Nozick has in my opinion come close to that whilst giving us a treatise that will stretch our minds not only in the political and social sense but as a great work of modern philosophy.

Nozick is a modern Philosopher greatly influenced by John Locke - who some say had a major influence on the construction of the American constitution - and in the book Anarchy State and Utopia Nozick offers a challenge to the modern day liberalisation of Western states. He argues passionately that the state can only be justified in the narrow application of protection of the freedom and rights of the individual.

He goes on in the work to set out a new model of how the utopia he talks of might look. In so doing he encompasses ethics, economic theory and his theory of distributive justice.

I commend the book to the group as I think it will test and probably abrade our sensibilities; an antidote possibly to the classic philosophy we had studied over the last few years?"