I read some books ! It might be better to write something about each of them. I wish I could write a long form of a book review but time dictates otherwise.
A mathematician’s apology is one those rare books which makes you very uncomfortable and at the same time add so much more to your understanding that you feel unfettered gratitude towards the author for offering that unique experience to you.
Second Creation is for those who love history of science or History, Period. In this painstakingly detailed and accurate yet lucid account of modern physics ( unification of three fundamental forces into a workable and mathematically “surefooted” except gravity, of course). I immensely enjoyed this book. It has a well carved out ‘afterword’ and ‘notes’ section and one would not go unrewarded for the effort to stroll through it.
For all those ardent DFW fans out there, Every Love Story Is a Ghost Story: A Life of David Foster Wallace is such a valuable addition to his readers and frankly, to everyone who loves behind the curtain stories and escapades of a creative writer. I am still in awe of his New York Times piece about US Open Tennis finals ! His ‘ Brief Interviews with Hideous Men’ and ‘A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again’ are one of my favorites. DFW’s interview on Fresh Air about his book ‘Infinite Jest’ is quite telling about the very person he was. I really wish he was alive today! I wonder how he would have responded to the chaos ‘This‘ 2016 Election cycle is.
Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos made me furious. It is such a bad critique of Neo-Darwinian point of view and I am not even a mad dog naturalist!
Jerry Coyne’s Faith vs Fact is a very good read. Sean Carroll’s ‘The Big Picture’ is extremely well written and a book which stays with you long after you are done reading it. I follow Carroll’s writing on his blog, So I was waiting for this book to come out for a while now. I enjoyed every page of it. Caution for fellow ‘Naturalists’ who share similar point of view – refer Carroll’s account of ‘Naturalism’ in comparison with Paul Horwich’s Naturalism as opposed to Alexander Rosenberg’s Naturalism. Non- naturalists also have plenty to enjoy in this Scientifically state-of-the-art and philosophically delicious book which is worth having.
Disagreement in philosophy is pervasive and irresoluble. There is almost no thesis in philosophy about which philosophers agree. If there is any philosophical thesis that all or most philosophers affirm, it is a negative thesis: that formalism is not the right philosophy of mathematics, for example, or that knowledge is not (simply) justified, true belief. That is not how things are in the physical sciences. I concede that the “cutting edge” of elementary-particle physics looks a lot like philosophy in point of pervasive and fundamental disagreement among its respected practitioners. But there is in physics a large body of settled, usable, uncontroversial theory and of measurements known to be accurate within limits that have been specified. The cutting edge of philosophy, however, is pretty much the whole of it.
David Chalmers’ argument about ‘glass half full view’ is less than convincing. I am pretty much with Peter van Inwagen when it comes to ‘glass half empty’ view of progress in Philosophy. I am currently reading his ‘The Problem of Evil: The Gifford Lectures’.
I enjoyed Chalmers’ the Character of Consciousness. His writing on Philosophy of Mind is much more appealing for non-Philosophy majors like me than his contemporaries. I was not much drawn to Philosophy of Mind before, but Chalmers’ appearance on Sam Harris’ podcast changed that.
I found out that ending every post with an adage or a wise quote often makes that post worth much more. I also find it hard to disagree with myself.
As Camus would put it –
‘In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.’
Happy Reading \o/