5 ms·
The problem with a list like this is that each of the books - and more importantly here, the selection of the books - has a very distinct view of the problems a
by thomasjudge 9y ago
The problem with a list like this is that each of the books - and more importantly here, the selection of the books - has a very distinct view of the problems and arguments. It's not at all objective. So in that way it may be a little misleading for neophytes to the field.
- briga 9y agoThe might be a side-effect of the fact that there is no broad consensus about how the brain works.
- jonnytran 9y agoI think the point that's trying to be made is: because there's no consensus, any list that attempts to be complete must include opposing view points. And this list doesn't do that.
- Fripplebubby 9y agoPerhaps, but also a list of "five best books" is not aiming to be complete - the restriction to 5 guarantees that it will be wildly incomplete!
- adrianN 9y agoIs there ever consensus in Philosophy? The field pretty much retreated to questions where we don't have objective answers.
- foldr 9y agoWhether or not there is a consensus has very little to do with the existence of an objective answer. For example, there is no consensus on God's existence, but there is presumably an objective fact of the matter as to whether God exists.
- adrianmonk 9y agoYou can be objective in how you present the various ideas and viewpoints that people have on the subject. Rather than saying a viewpoint is right, you explain the reasons people give for it, and then let the reader decide which arguments they buy and which they reject.
- rhizome 9y agoPhilosophy teaches us that there's no such thing as objective answers. All of us are beholden to subjectivity and perspective, which means we can't reliably judge whether something is objective anyway. Consensus is moot, and I'd go so far as to say that consensus is how you get religions.
- jmoss20 9y agoPhilosophy teaches you that? How? Most working philosophers do not hold this view. (https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 9y agoFirst, I'm speaking for myself, not the orthodoxy. Martin Luther was 500 years ago, after all. Second, what am I supposed to realize via that link?
- bobthechef 9y agoAgreed. That the list is restricted to five titles does not mean that we can't manage a better selection. Indeed, there are individual introductory books available (such as Feser's) that offer broader coverage.
- ChrisSD 9y agoFor that you'd want an undergraduate "Introduction to..." type book. I think Cambridge does some good ones but I don't know about this specific topic. Once you have an overview then you can read and contextualise arguments for particular views.
- adrianmonk 9y agoMaybe the problem is just with the title: "The best books on Philosophy of Mind". The words "the best" suggests that these are objectively the best 5 books overall. But in the article, it says "he selects five of [ emphasis mine ] the best books in the field". This basically means that, of the best (which could be hundreds), he has selected 5 that he likes for more particular reasons other than just quality. Perhaps a better title would be something like "Selected books on Philosophy of Mind". Hopefully we can assume they are high-quality books or they wouldn't bother to recommend them, so it isn't necessary to emphasize that with "best".