I thought it was OK, but I felt it was more a critique of philosophy as shoe-horned into a purely analytical method than something that would appeal to most fol

I thought it was OK, but I felt it was more a critique of philosophy as shoe-horned into a purely analytical method than something that would appeal to most folks. From Wikipedia [0]: > The narrator examines the modern pursuit of "Pure Truths", claiming it derives from the work of early Greek philosophers who were establishing the concept of truth in opposition to the force of "The Good". He argues that although rational thought may find a truth (or The Truth) it may never be fully and universally applicable to every individual's experience. Therefore, what is needed is an approach to life that is more inclusive and has a wider range of application. He makes a case that originally the Greeks did not distinguish between "Quality" and "Truth"—they were one and the same, arete—and that the divorce was, in fact, artificial (though needed at the time) and is now a source of much frustration and unhappiness in the world, particularly overall dissatisfaction with modern life. Socrates in Plato's writing focused acutely on finding these capital-T Truths that were universal. The book argues that focusing exclusively on this can't fully inform you on how to live a good life. Note that arete means both quality and skill. To simplify a bit a person's character was believed to be built on virtue, and someone who was a "skillful" (arete) at being a person was a virtuous person. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance#Philosophical_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_...