What Philosophers Think edited by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, Continuum, 拢45/$75, ISBN 0826467547 Reviewed by Mike Holderness
IF YOU had free will, in the folk-wisdom sense of the word, then the decisions you made would take place without any kind of causality, so they would occupy a corner of the universe in which there was no science. Conversely, the kind of 鈥渇ree will鈥� that seems to be consistent with a universally causal universe consists of no more than the statement that you do not (I sincerely hope) have a gun to your head, are not in prison and not suffering psychosis.
Or so I am persuaded by the interview with philosopher Ted Honderich in What Philosophers Think. That little poser should persuade you that what (some) philosophers think is interesting, and should persuade your tax adviser that buying the book is wholly and necessarily an expense of your work as a scientist. It also illustrates why philosophers get so obscure: almost nothing means what folk-wisdom would have it mean, including, of course, 鈥渕ean鈥� and 鈥渋t鈥�.
Advertisement
Highlights of the other interviews include the biologist Richard Dawkins being reasonable about genetic determinism. The one that will probably merit most re-reading, though, is that which Jonathan Ree entitled 鈥淏eyond realism and anti-realism鈥�. 鈥淩ealism鈥� here means the conviction that there is an external world out there, independent of our observations. Ree鈥檚 gentle disdain for the still-furious argument is illuminating. The editors have a deft touch with difficulty and with controversy. Skating swiftly over the truly surreal section on religion, I suggest you are compelled to read this.
Mike Holderness was forced to write this