Books I've Read
Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time, Dava Sobel: Before reading this book, I never actually understood why having a reliable timepiece would allow one to measure longitude, nor did I understand why measuring longitude was a problem for early explorers. This book explains these topics rather clearly, all in the course of telling the story of John Hamilton's successful quest to develop a reliable timepiece. It's a fun read, but I wish it went into more detail about the specifics of what made Hamilton's chronometer so innovative. (1/07)
Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley & Livingstone, Martin Dugard: This is a fun read, but in reading it I felt like I was only getting a cursory overview of Stanley & Livingstone's epic adventures. And I don't understand why books like these don't contain a number of detailed maps that outline the progress of the explorers as their exploits are recounted in the course of the book. Instead, they tend to just have one big map in the middle that gives everything away. Since most of these books derive a large part of their narrative drive from getting you to wonder about what's going to happen next (even if you already know how things are eventually going to end up), it's positively counter-productive to have a big map that gives everything away in the middle of the book. (12/06)
The Objective Eye, John Hyman: I think every philosopher should read this book. (12/06)
Primates and Philosophers, Frans de Waal: If there's one thing a good philosophical education should teach you, it's the complexity of distinctions like the explanation/justification distinction, or the natural/artificial distinction. de Waal hasn't had such a philosophical education, and although it's hard to know exactly where he stands with regard to such distinctions, I'd bet he doesn't appreciate any of their complexities (if he even recognizes these distinctions at all). (12/06)
Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe, Laurence Bergreen: An alright read, but it takes a while for the real action to start and I wasn't really able to care about any of the characters. (12/06)
On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche: All I can say is: I liked this a lot more as an undergrad. This was probably my favorite philosophy book as an undergrad--maybe I liked Wittgenstein's Tractatus more--and it was certainly the book I read the most. I read it in at least five different classes, and I was *so* into it. But re-reading it again for the first time in years, I can't help but be struck by how it is 99% assertion, and only 1% justification. How is one supposed to evaluate the truth or falsity of his claims? (11/06)
A Voyage for Madmen, Peter Nichols: If you are looking for a seriously fun read, get this. (11/06)
Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic, Nicholas Pappas: This is a pretty sophisticated book, even though it is an introductory work that doesn't presuppose any philosophical background. Highly recommended. (11/06)
The Republic, Plato: How seriously are we supposed to take Socrates' claims? About 50% of them are totally absurd. For instance, are we really supposed to believe that the musical mode of a song is going to determine it's effect on our souls? (11/06)
Devil in the White City, Erik Larson: This book is amazing. It is replete with historical detail, all presenting in a clear and utterly absorbing manner. It makes me want to go explore Jackson Park and the Midway immediately. (Too bad I no longer live in Hyde Park.) I only have two criticisms of it. First, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why it doesn't contain more photos, maps, and diagrams. Many of his descriptions of the buildings, people, fairgrounds, and inventions would benefit enormously from visual illustrations. But almost none whatsoever are provided. I read it too quickly to find a copy of the Dover collection of photographs of the fair. But I know that my ability to imagine the details would've benefitted from having those photographs close to hand. I recommend buying the Dover collection, or the other popular history of the fair (with photographs) when you buy this book. My second criticism is that he has a rather obvious technique for moving the narrative along that wears pretty thin throughout the book. Whenever he introduces something or someone famous, like the sinking of the Titanic or the inventor of the Ferris wheel, he doesn't refer to them by name. Instead, he all but says the name--in such a way that it should be obvious who or what he is talking about--and then only at the last minute reveals that that's who or what he's talking about. This gets really old, really quickly, and while I can see why he might think it makes for more entertaining reading ("Oh, the inventor's name is Ferris? He's talking about the invention of the Ferris Wheel!"), it doens't. It just gets old. That said, this is a great, fun read, and really helps make the White City alive again. One final detail: he discusses Louis Sullivan's criticisms of the White City (that it killed American architecture and led our city planners to slavishly imitate the Romans), and says he thinks these criticisms are overrated by architectural critics and historians, but he doesn't really say why. I wish that he had discussed this topic at greater length. If only because I'm open to being persuaded that Sullivan, as much as I love him, had an axe to grind. (10/06)
A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality, John Perry: It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine writing a more clear introduction to the topic of personal identity--i.e., what it is, what the main arguments are, and why it matters--but I don't know if I'll ever use this book in an introductory class again. All of the arguments are put forward with amazing clarity, but, to be honest, this only makes their weaknesses transparent to almost anyone. If this book provides a model of what it is to focus on arguments, it also provides a model for why arguments can't be what really makes philosophy interesting. Not that I don't like arguments. It's just that it's hard to get introductory students interested in them. (10/06)
In the Heart of the Sea, Nathaniel Philbrick: An enjoyable and absorbing account of the story of the Essex, a Nantucket whaleship that was sunk by an enormous sperm whale in the middle of the Pacific. I've always liked survival stories, and I've recently become rather interested in sailing, so this book satisfied multiple interests. (09/06)
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, George Berkeley: A defense of the claim that matter doesn't exist, that it is a fiction created by philosophers (i.e., Descartes, Locke) that only leads to skepticism and atheism. Someone whose judgment I probably shouldn't have trusted told me that young students love this book. Berkeley's very smart, and he has an ability to put difficult thoughts very clearly, but reading him makes me bored with philosophy. And it's hard not to see similarities between his view and a that of Wittgenstein, at least as Witters is read by some (i.e., as he's read by those who tend to ascribe anti-realist views to him, but then deny that he's an anti-realist). (09/06)
The Darwin Wars, Andrew Brown: This is a very engaging and readable, albeit journalistic, account of debates over the limits of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. (08/06)
Flame Trees of Thika, Elseph Huxley: I love this book. And, as a kid, I loved the BBC mini-series based on it. (08/06)
The Best of A.J. Liebling, A.J. Liebling: This is a collection that was compiled in the early 60's, with Leibling's help. I prefer it to the more recent collection. (07/06)
Philosophy of Mind (2nd Ed.), Jaegwon Kim: This is a very good introduction to the philosophy of mind. (06/06)
Streets for People, Bernard Rudofsky
Having Thought, John Haugeland: I think every philosopher should read this book.
An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, Alexander Miller: This is the single best overview of contemporary metaethics, although I disagree with many of Miller's conclusions.
Essays in Quasi-Realism, Simon Blackburn
A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, David Foster Wallace: The title essay in this collection of essays is one of my favorite essays of all time.
Edison's Eve, Gaby Wood
Mind and World, John McDowell
The Claim of Reason, Stanley Cavell
Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman
On the Road, Jack Kerouac
The Brothers Kararmazov, Foyodor Dostoevsky
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter S. Thompson
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn
White Noise, Don Delillo
Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley & Livingstone, Martin Dugard: This is a fun read, but in reading it I felt like I was only getting a cursory overview of Stanley & Livingstone's epic adventures. And I don't understand why books like these don't contain a number of detailed maps that outline the progress of the explorers as their exploits are recounted in the course of the book. Instead, they tend to just have one big map in the middle that gives everything away. Since most of these books derive a large part of their narrative drive from getting you to wonder about what's going to happen next (even if you already know how things are eventually going to end up), it's positively counter-productive to have a big map that gives everything away in the middle of the book. (12/06)
The Objective Eye, John Hyman: I think every philosopher should read this book. (12/06)
Primates and Philosophers, Frans de Waal: If there's one thing a good philosophical education should teach you, it's the complexity of distinctions like the explanation/justification distinction, or the natural/artificial distinction. de Waal hasn't had such a philosophical education, and although it's hard to know exactly where he stands with regard to such distinctions, I'd bet he doesn't appreciate any of their complexities (if he even recognizes these distinctions at all). (12/06)
Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe, Laurence Bergreen: An alright read, but it takes a while for the real action to start and I wasn't really able to care about any of the characters. (12/06)
On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche: All I can say is: I liked this a lot more as an undergrad. This was probably my favorite philosophy book as an undergrad--maybe I liked Wittgenstein's Tractatus more--and it was certainly the book I read the most. I read it in at least five different classes, and I was *so* into it. But re-reading it again for the first time in years, I can't help but be struck by how it is 99% assertion, and only 1% justification. How is one supposed to evaluate the truth or falsity of his claims? (11/06)
A Voyage for Madmen, Peter Nichols: If you are looking for a seriously fun read, get this. (11/06)
Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic, Nicholas Pappas: This is a pretty sophisticated book, even though it is an introductory work that doesn't presuppose any philosophical background. Highly recommended. (11/06)
The Republic, Plato: How seriously are we supposed to take Socrates' claims? About 50% of them are totally absurd. For instance, are we really supposed to believe that the musical mode of a song is going to determine it's effect on our souls? (11/06)
Devil in the White City, Erik Larson: This book is amazing. It is replete with historical detail, all presenting in a clear and utterly absorbing manner. It makes me want to go explore Jackson Park and the Midway immediately. (Too bad I no longer live in Hyde Park.) I only have two criticisms of it. First, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why it doesn't contain more photos, maps, and diagrams. Many of his descriptions of the buildings, people, fairgrounds, and inventions would benefit enormously from visual illustrations. But almost none whatsoever are provided. I read it too quickly to find a copy of the Dover collection of photographs of the fair. But I know that my ability to imagine the details would've benefitted from having those photographs close to hand. I recommend buying the Dover collection, or the other popular history of the fair (with photographs) when you buy this book. My second criticism is that he has a rather obvious technique for moving the narrative along that wears pretty thin throughout the book. Whenever he introduces something or someone famous, like the sinking of the Titanic or the inventor of the Ferris wheel, he doesn't refer to them by name. Instead, he all but says the name--in such a way that it should be obvious who or what he is talking about--and then only at the last minute reveals that that's who or what he's talking about. This gets really old, really quickly, and while I can see why he might think it makes for more entertaining reading ("Oh, the inventor's name is Ferris? He's talking about the invention of the Ferris Wheel!"), it doens't. It just gets old. That said, this is a great, fun read, and really helps make the White City alive again. One final detail: he discusses Louis Sullivan's criticisms of the White City (that it killed American architecture and led our city planners to slavishly imitate the Romans), and says he thinks these criticisms are overrated by architectural critics and historians, but he doesn't really say why. I wish that he had discussed this topic at greater length. If only because I'm open to being persuaded that Sullivan, as much as I love him, had an axe to grind. (10/06)
A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality, John Perry: It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine writing a more clear introduction to the topic of personal identity--i.e., what it is, what the main arguments are, and why it matters--but I don't know if I'll ever use this book in an introductory class again. All of the arguments are put forward with amazing clarity, but, to be honest, this only makes their weaknesses transparent to almost anyone. If this book provides a model of what it is to focus on arguments, it also provides a model for why arguments can't be what really makes philosophy interesting. Not that I don't like arguments. It's just that it's hard to get introductory students interested in them. (10/06)
In the Heart of the Sea, Nathaniel Philbrick: An enjoyable and absorbing account of the story of the Essex, a Nantucket whaleship that was sunk by an enormous sperm whale in the middle of the Pacific. I've always liked survival stories, and I've recently become rather interested in sailing, so this book satisfied multiple interests. (09/06)
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, George Berkeley: A defense of the claim that matter doesn't exist, that it is a fiction created by philosophers (i.e., Descartes, Locke) that only leads to skepticism and atheism. Someone whose judgment I probably shouldn't have trusted told me that young students love this book. Berkeley's very smart, and he has an ability to put difficult thoughts very clearly, but reading him makes me bored with philosophy. And it's hard not to see similarities between his view and a that of Wittgenstein, at least as Witters is read by some (i.e., as he's read by those who tend to ascribe anti-realist views to him, but then deny that he's an anti-realist). (09/06)
The Darwin Wars, Andrew Brown: This is a very engaging and readable, albeit journalistic, account of debates over the limits of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. (08/06)
Flame Trees of Thika, Elseph Huxley: I love this book. And, as a kid, I loved the BBC mini-series based on it. (08/06)
The Best of A.J. Liebling, A.J. Liebling: This is a collection that was compiled in the early 60's, with Leibling's help. I prefer it to the more recent collection. (07/06)
Philosophy of Mind (2nd Ed.), Jaegwon Kim: This is a very good introduction to the philosophy of mind. (06/06)
Streets for People, Bernard Rudofsky
Having Thought, John Haugeland: I think every philosopher should read this book.
An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, Alexander Miller: This is the single best overview of contemporary metaethics, although I disagree with many of Miller's conclusions.
Essays in Quasi-Realism, Simon Blackburn
A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, David Foster Wallace: The title essay in this collection of essays is one of my favorite essays of all time.
Edison's Eve, Gaby Wood
Mind and World, John McDowell
The Claim of Reason, Stanley Cavell
Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman
On the Road, Jack Kerouac
The Brothers Kararmazov, Foyodor Dostoevsky
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter S. Thompson
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn
White Noise, Don Delillo
posted by Charles P. Everitt at 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home