J.D. Steens (Author of Philosophical Travels with Carl)

J.D. Steens made a comment on Jon Stout’s review of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think " At the tail end of the book, he discusses, extensively, the variations between these two models, which explains scenarios such as yours where conserva ...more "
Jan 31, 2026 09:20AM · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book really liked it Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
Not remembering I had read this in 2015, I just re-read and wrote the following review, which syncs up nicely with my first review, with one exception: This is not just another take on American politics; I think it requires a paradigm shift in the wa ...more
Jan 31, 2026 09:00AM · 3 likes · like · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book liked it Introduction to Aristotle by Aristotle	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
This collection of writings gives a truncated picture of Aristotle’s comprehensive worldview. Of Aristotle’s writings, only On the Soul and Nicomachean Ethics are provided in full. Aristotle is about the science of his time and specifically about the ...more
Jan 24, 2026 07:48AM · 1 like · like · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book did not like it The Metaphysics by Aristotle	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
The writing is near impenetrable. With one exception, I'm not sure why one would want to spend time trying to decipher this thick book to understand what he is saying. I suppose the metaphysics part, the book’s title, is about the first cause for move ...more
Jan 24, 2026 07:30AM · like · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book liked it Return to Reason by Stephen Toulmin	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
This is more or less an intellectual autobiography. Toulmin pulls in all of the philosophical, scientific, and literary thinkers/writers, more than a few of whom seemed obscure, and weaves his narrative: Universal, theoretical, abstract Reason got co ...more
Jan 24, 2026 07:16AM · like · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book liked it The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All―But There Is a Solution by Greg Lukianoff	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
There is one chapter on right-wing cancel culture (e.g. book bans, shutting down DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] initiatives, and putative critical race theory in schools), but the rest of the book deals with cancel culture by the progressive left ...more
Jan 24, 2026 06:56AM · like · see review
J.D. Steens made a comment on Jon Stout’s review of Photos of Nepal's Tarai 1960s-1975 " Wandering around the Tarai again - good way to describe it. I have same reaction when going through these pics. "
Jan 20, 2026 09:33AM · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book did not like it The Universe and the Teacup: The Mathematics of Truth and Beauty by K.C. Cole	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
I couldn't get into this book. Not interesting. From some areas I do know something about, I think she hops on the bandwagon with some popular topics and gives mathematics (and scientific authorities) unwarranted credit for solving this and that prob ...more
Jan 19, 2026 07:19AM · like · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book did not like it De Anima (On the Soul) by Aristotle	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
De Anima is soul and soul is life and its capacity for self-movement. It stands in contrast to inorganic matter that is moved but does not move itself. Aristotle breaks down the soul into the nutritive faculty, sense perception, intellect and desire. ...more
Dec 29, 2025 01:08PM · 1 like · like · see review
J.D. Steens rated a book liked it The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
Most science writing is about what we can see. It’s about the land and nature. Relatively, what happens below the earth’s oceans, about 70% of earth’s surface, doesn’t get much attention. This is the niche that Carson fills. Carson wrote this book in ...more
Dec 29, 2025 09:18AM · like · see review

J.D. Steens made a comment on Jon Stout’s review of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think

" At the tail end of the book, he discusses, extensively, the variations between these two models, which explains scenarios such as yours where conserva ...more "

J.D. Steens rated a book really liked it

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think
by George Lakoff

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Not remembering I had read this in 2015, I just re-read and wrote the following review, which syncs up nicely with my first review, with one exception: This is not just another take on American politics; I think it requires a paradigm shift in the wa ...more

J.D. Steens rated a book liked it

Introduction to Aristotle
by Aristotle

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

This collection of writings gives a truncated picture of Aristotle’s comprehensive worldview. Of Aristotle’s writings, only On the Soul and Nicomachean Ethics are provided in full.

Aristotle is about the science of his time and specifically about the ...more

J.D. Steens rated a book did not like it

The Metaphysics
by Aristotle

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The writing is near impenetrable. With one exception, I'm not sure why one would want to spend time trying to decipher this thick book to understand what he is saying.

I suppose the metaphysics part, the book’s title, is about the first cause for move The writing is near impenetrable. With one exception, I'm not sure why one would want to spend time trying to decipher this thick book to understand what he is saying.

I suppose the metaphysics part, the book’s title, is about the first cause for movement in the world, a First Mover who itself is not moved, which for Aristotle has the distinct flavor of the Divine. In that regard, he’s aligned pretty much with Plato, though I suppose Plato had more “stasis” built into his philosophical system (the Eternal causes worldly things to move).

The exception is his perspective on teleological movement, not that I understood what he was saying vis-a-vis his other three causes of causality. But in these days of hard science and social science, teleology has been kicked out of the discussion even though it’s clearly the case that an acorn grows into a tree, kids have their baby teeth replaced by adult teeth, and all life starts from a seed of some sort and ends up in some different form at maturity. This is an inherent part of life - a cause within that develops into a predetermined form in some generalized sense. But the word that literally describes this gets tossed so that we are left without a word to describe what is obvious: The end is built into the beginning, not by god but by evolution. Teleology has such a bad connotation that we are left with the discomforting notion that whatever life is, it is not that.

Where teleology runs into problems is when it’s thought that teleology only means that there’s a purposeful causer in the cosmos that makes things happen in a certain way, much along the way of Hegel’s Absolute that has guided history through time to some pre-ordained end, or more generally, that the divine causes things in the material world to happen for Its purpose. That’s taking liberties with cosmic causation and should be tossed.

Taking another crack at this notion of teleological causation, there’s nothing pulling the world. There’s no external purpose, for which we and the material world exist. That presumes way too much given the weight of the evidence. But doesn’t cosmic movement result from energy differentials, which get resolved by moving toward equilibrium states until new sources of energy upset the balance again? Isn’t this movement toward equilibrium, to no energy differentiation, or toward states where energy is whole (not divided), a teleological process? Isn’t the End, in effect, driving this movement to Zero (or One, however numerically to characterize it)?

Seen this way, when there is consistency or at least no inconsistency with the science of today, is Aristotle’s Metaphysics relevant today? ...more

J.D. Steens rated a book liked it

Return to Reason
by Stephen Toulmin

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

This is more or less an intellectual autobiography. Toulmin pulls in all of the philosophical, scientific, and literary thinkers/writers, more than a few of whom seemed obscure, and weaves his narrative: Universal, theoretical, abstract Reason got co This is more or less an intellectual autobiography. Toulmin pulls in all of the philosophical, scientific, and literary thinkers/writers, more than a few of whom seemed obscure, and weaves his narrative: Universal, theoretical, abstract Reason got cocky and claimed too much for its domain. That’s the reason why Reason is capitalized. Since Descartes, it’s taken on a cult-like status whereby anything short of its exacting standards is sloughed off as not worthy of serious attention. Knowledge comes via Reason; anything short of that is not.

While Toulmin points out that Reason in the sense that he uses it has an important role to play in the acquisition of knowledge, he argues that we need to balance it with the practical reason of Aristotle, as outlined in Nicomachean Ethics. In doing so, he argues that Reason has overstated its claims. He says that Newton’s contribution to cosmological science was limited to orbiting systems that approached universal perfection, yet his theory of gravity only applied to “two bodies at a time.” Of Newton and his followers, Toulmin writes that it’s about a “Physics that never was.” It was really chaos theory, anything but the universality that goes with eternal perfection. I’m not sure what he means about Newton, but it seems suspect. In contrast, the virtue of Aristotle's approach for Toulmin is that it deals with, and guides, everyday life. I suppose the thrust of that argument is to avoid extremes and focus on the Golden Mean. The pragmatists - Dewey and James - were good at this kind of approach to life. Forget highfalutin theories and work on problem solving instead.

Toulmin then reframes this distinction between Theory (Reason) and Practice by another distinction: the virtue of non-verbal knowledge, in contrast to verbal knowledge and “the elitism of the literate.” Toulmin is good in his criticism of the “science of humanity,” and the social sciences that “are keen to be the ‘Newtons of social theory,’” He’s also good on Plato, and notably in this comment: “When Plato declared that Gorgias and the Sophists prostituted their skills by setting up ‘knowledge shops,’..it was he who was guilty of a vulgar libel. Academic jealousies turn out to be as old as the Academy itself.”

But I’m not wild about what Toulmin otherwise puts forward. In the absence of any higher understanding about what’s going on in day-to-day affairs, resolution of various turmoil situations become a relativistic free-for-all, to be resolved by who is dominant and who is not. Pragmatists are not immune from operating by their own hidden agendas as to what is right and wrong. Didn’t James have a problem with Midwestern nasal speech, and didn’t he see himself in Varieties of Religious Experience as “twice born?” Toulmin lauds Emerson, but didn’t Emerson and have some New England snobbery vis-a-vis those who were not New England? Aristotle constructed his ideal man, as if such a “man” is free of his or her own values. Toulmin points out that Reason and science, even hard science, does not operate, really, with a value-free agenda, so I don’t know why practical or pragmatic philosophy would be any different.

I don’t know why the title to Toulmin’s book is Return to Reason. Despite his disclaimers, Reason is a problem for Toulmin. The book is a wholesale criticism of Reason, and an argument for Reasonableness, such as getting real and solving problems. The future, he says at the end of the book, “is the province…for practitioners who are ready to act on their ideals. Warm hearts allied with cool heads seek a middle way between the extremes of abstract theory and personal impulse. The ideals of the practical thinkers are more realistic than the optimistic daydreams of simple-minded calculators, who ignore the complexities of real life….” ...more

J.D. Steens rated a book liked it

The Canceling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff

The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All―But There Is a Solution
by Greg Lukianoff

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

There is one chapter on right-wing cancel culture (e.g. book bans, shutting down DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] initiatives, and putative critical race theory in schools), but the rest of the book deals with cancel culture by the progressive left There is one chapter on right-wing cancel culture (e.g. book bans, shutting down DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] initiatives, and putative critical race theory in schools), but the rest of the book deals with cancel culture by the progressive left.

As the book defines it, those who are cancelled must be not only called out for their wrong-headed viewpoints, but punished - publicly shamed and banned from whatever they are doing.

Lukianoff and Schlott suggest that the origins of cancel culture came from Herbert Marcuse in the mid-1960s. In the Marcuse view, “Regressive conservatism was to be fought with intolerance, censorship and even violence.“

This argument found an especially warm home in academia throughout what the authors say are the three eras of political correctness. The first was 1985 - 1995, which was the beginning of “the social justice school of critical theory.” In that view, limits on free speech considered hateful, racist, or sexist was entirely appropriate given that the battle lines had been drawn between the oppressors and the oppressed. The oppressed were minorities and women. Curtailing free speech at odds with race and gender equity was a remedy for oppression.

The authors call the second era “The Ignored Years.” Here, academia consolidated the gains in social justice theory by curtailing “viewpoint diversity” and increasing tuition cost to pay for an academic bureaucracy to enforce such diversity on college campuses. In that climate, the general mantra was that “conservatism was wrong by definition, and victimization via microaggressions, including especially “verbal aggression” that harmed a student’s mental health, came to the forefront.

The third era the authors call the “Great Age of Political Correctness,” which began after 2014. In this era, curriculum fidelity, faculty hiring, and student entry to graduate programs were all subject to the DEI test, and “thought terminating cliches and slogans” (e.g., mansplaining, male toxicity, cultural appropriation, white fragility, etc) enforced conformity vis-a-vis the standards for political correctness.

For the writers, this is all wrong-headed stuff, in large part because it violates the spirit of the first amendment’s right of free speech: that even if we’re wrong by whomever’s standards, we have a right to express our thoughts. Lukianoff and Schlott, though, don’t fall into the trap of saying that anything goes. If our thoughts lead to harm - Holmes’ clear and present danger test (concern about someone yelling fire in a crowded theater when there’s no fire) - that’s when restrictions apply.

But here’s the nub when it comes to “wrong speech” as seen by the politically correct left: such speech aggresses, i.e. causes mental harm to those who hear it. That’s a point of contention, certainly for the writers, but, aside from that debate, they object to the extreme measures to curtail free speech by using the powers of government and institutions to punish those who for whatever reason commit (or have committed) an offense.

Interestingly, the writers do not discuss (much, or at all, on whether, wholly or partially) on the substantive merits of what is regarded as politically correct. Use of negative stereotypes, reinforce unwanted, unwarranted, negative perceptions. Putting down women and minorities, and use of bullying language are offensive. In addition to eliminating opportunities, it’s rank behavior that accentuates advantage for some at the expense of others. Though their focus is on the methods employed by cancel culture, I think it’s fair to say that their negative reaction applies also to the substance of what is being criticized. Predictably, the book suggests remedies (“what can be done about it”), which might be summarized as, shortly, “stop doing cancel culture stuff.”

In addition to what the book puts forward about punishing those who hold wrong opinions, and the conflict with free speech, there are three other points that merit highlighting. There’s a lack of humility about those who believe they have the truth about this and that, which warrants criticizing those who have deviant opinions. There’s ample room for error about what is true and best and what is not (that’s a virtue of relativism). Added to this is a certain true believer arrogance where cancelling comes across as moral superiority, judging and thereby ranking, and no one likes that. Second, the one thing that gets lost in the cancel culture debate is that for a democracy to function, there has to be tolerance and compromise for differing perspectives, even when they are generally regarded as wrong. That ‘s the higher price of democracy. Society thrives more by compromise than Truth. Sometimes you have to let the smaller stuff go, and save your protest for the bigger issues. Third, standards for excellence (competence) get shoved aside, on the pretext that the standards reflect dominant white culture and that identity, per se, provides inherent qualifications. The book gets at this with “citation justice” and DEI hiring practices. It also is a trap that academia falls into when professors say, regarding minorities, that no one fails their class, or when Democrats tout candidate qualifications based on race and gender. It’s one thing to put into place a full suite of programs to provide opportunities for the disadvantaged, but that’s different than saying that someone is qualified largely by identity alone (though this is never the overt argument). ...more

J.D. Steens made a comment on Jon Stout’s review of Photos of Nepal's Tarai 1960s-1975

Photos of Nepal's Tarai 1960s-1975 by Bob Nichols

" Wandering around the Tarai again - good way to describe it. I have same reaction when going through these pics. "

J.D. Steens rated a book did not like it

The Universe and the Teacup by K.C. Cole

The Universe and the Teacup: The Mathematics of Truth and Beauty
by K.C. Cole

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

I couldn't get into this book. Not interesting. From some areas I do know something about, I think she hops on the bandwagon with some popular topics and gives mathematics (and scientific authorities) unwarranted credit for solving this and that prob I couldn't get into this book. Not interesting. From some areas I do know something about, I think she hops on the bandwagon with some popular topics and gives mathematics (and scientific authorities) unwarranted credit for solving this and that problem.

She says some Nobel prize winner proved mathematically that "no democratic voting system could ever be completely fair." Not sure why that's a revelatory accomplishment. Quoting a researcher, Cole writes that unfair "'inevitably means different things to different people. When my kids say something's unfair,..what they really mean is, they didn't get what they want."' Disagreement on outcomes goes with Democracy, where people have different points of view. But of course, fairness on outcomes is different than voting systems that are set up to determine policy outcomes. If we disagree on policy outcomes, we still might regard the voting process by which we get those outcomes as being fair. That's the way it used to be in the pre-Trump era, but that's not where Cole is at when she writes that "The one thing that most parties do agree on is that the current system is the worst."
Before that conclusion though, she writes that "In the end, deciding which voting system is the fairest of them all comes down to, well, voting." So....the current system is the worst, but it's also the fairest? And isn't this the way Democracy works? Voters make the decision about how to conduct elections?

Cole gets into the rational "social choice theory" that applies mathematics to allocate societal benefits fairly ("Fair Division"). Not sure here why mathematics gets the credit which is built into our biological being, as Darwin observed in 1870's and as others with common sense have known all along. Group life is essential to survival and well being. We are bred to merge with the group, and to do that we must walk the line between our own self-interest and the interests of others within the group. That means we are disposed to, and impelled by, a wide array of social instincts to give up some of our own self-interest on behalf of the good of the group (a collection of self interests).

In a separate chapter, Cole gives mathematics credit for the golden rule. That rule, in all its variant forms, appears in a wide variety of cultures for a reason. It, and reciprocity, is necessary for group life to cohere. She touts the Axelrod book on the evolution of cooperation as if that feature of group life is a mathematical creation when it, with reciprocity and the golden rule, is built into our biology. It's necessary for our self-interest.

In her discussion of game theory, Cole notes that mathematical models prove that self-interested behavior doesn't work - because predators run out of prey - relative to cooperation. Pull in Darwin though, and you get a different picture. Within any group are those that seek the benefits of group life without any of the responsibilities that go with it. In other words, they go through the motions to hide self-interested imperatives. They manipulate and lie; they smile and screw people over. They dominate when they can get away with it. And, regarding game theory, it's the same. Cole writes that "Clearly, if one party cooperates while the other cheats, the cooperator is a sucker. But if both cheat, no one gets anything." She is setting aside common sense here. Other-regarding people who intend to get to yes in any dispute resolution process will be suckers if the others are not playing by the same rues.

Cole touts Lynn Margulis's excellent book that shows our bodies are made by cooperators. But, then, Cole doesn't note that our bodies have to fend off self-interested viruses and bacteria that have only their own interests in "mind." That sleight-of-hand business extends to her comments that, while the connection between smoking and cancer is proven statistically, "smoking caused by any particular case of cancer is near impossible to demonstrate." Really?

Cole's big thing here is that causality, taking from the quantum world, is in the end probabilistic: it applies generally, but not to individual cases. She notes that Einstein refused to go there - and we're familiar with the debates he had with the quantum theorists in this regard, but then she writes this: "Unpredictably, argued Born, does not mean that subatomic behavior does not have causes; it only means that it has causes too subtle and complex for us to untangle." While she calls Einstein's debate with Born "delicious," I am not sure what to make of this Born quote as it seems to substantiate Einstein's perspective, though I think she's making a point about causality in a probabilistic sense. Just because we cannot (inherently, because the act of observing via light influences what we see) know what's going on at the subatomic level, this doesn't mean that causality does not exist at an individual particle level. ...more

J.D. Steens rated a book did not like it

De Anima (On the Soul)
by Aristotle

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

De Anima is soul and soul is life and its capacity for self-movement. It stands in contrast to inorganic matter that is moved but does not move itself.

Aristotle breaks down the soul into the nutritive faculty, sense perception, intellect and desire. ...more

J.D. Steens rated a book liked it

The Sea Around Us
by Rachel Carson

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Most science writing is about what we can see. It’s about the land and nature. Relatively, what happens below the earth’s oceans, about 70% of earth’s surface, doesn’t get much attention. This is the niche that Carson fills.

Carson wrote this book in Most science writing is about what we can see. It’s about the land and nature. Relatively, what happens below the earth’s oceans, about 70% of earth’s surface, doesn’t get much attention. This is the niche that Carson fills.

Carson wrote this book in 1950, before plate tectonics pulled a lot of pieces together into a comprehensive theory to explain a good part of what happens with seascapes below the ocean surface. As a result, she writes about underwater ridges and mid-ocean islands that breach the ocean surface without putting these into the now generally accepted plate tectonics context.

Carson discusses the role of oceans in global climate patterns,* and, in doing so, she also mentions natural cycles that contribute to warmer climate. In this regard, she states that “it is almost certainly true that we are still in the warming-up stage following the last Pleistocene glaciation - that the world’s climate, over the next thousands of years, will grow considerably warmer before beginning a downward swing into another ice age.” She does not reference the current emphasis on human contributions to global warming.

Carson is a model for clear, interesting and pertinent science writing. In closing this book, she touches on the significance of her topic in this way: “[T]he sea lies all around us. The commerce of all lands must cross it. The very winds that move over the lands have been cradled on its broad expanse and seek ever to return to it. The continents themselves dissolve and pass to the sea, in grain after grain of eroded land. So the rains that rose from it return again to the rivers. In its mysterious past it encompasses all the dim origins of life and receives in the end, after, it may be, many transmutations, the dead husks of that same life. For all at last return to the sea - to Oceanus, the ocean river, like the everflowing stream of time, the beginning and the end.” This, which sums up the title of the book, is writing that is up there with Muir and Leopold.

*In discussing the relevance of oceans to global climate patterns, Carson relies on the early 20th century writing of Otto Pettersson’s theory (Climatic Variations in Historic and Prehistoric Time, 1912) of climate variation, caused by submarine tidal waves. Carson refers to this work as “an extraordinarily interesting document,” though I’m not clear how it affects climate. A magazine article states that “oceanographers and climate scientists have learned much about internal waves (the “internal tide” being just one special, dramatic example of internal waves), including the realization that they play an essential role in ocean ecosystems and the climate. These giant swells—most as tall as skyscrapers—tear through the world’s oceans. Yet a large internal wave’s biggest effect comes not from its journey, but from its death. When an internal wave breaks against an underwater landmass such as a continental slope, just as waves break on a beach, it violently mixes the warm upper layers of the ocean with the cold bottom layers. This mixing pulls heat and carbon dioxide down to the ocean’s depths, and cycles nutrients back up toward the surface.” ...more

J.D.’s Year In Books

J.D. Steens’s Followers (37)

J.D.’s Bookshelves

J.D.’s Friends (9)

J.D. Steens

Goodreads Author

Learn more
Ask the Author

Popular Answered Questions

Combine Editions
J.D. Steens’s books

33 posts
J.D. Steens's Blog

Not a Writer

rss
J.D.’s Recent Updates

J.D.’s Friend Comments

	Philosophical Travels with Carl: Freedom in the Oregon Outback it was amazing 5.00 avg rating — 1 rating — 3 editions	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
	Babu: A Philosophical Quest it was amazing 5.00 avg rating — 1 rating — 3 editions	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars
	Graybeard: A Chimpanzee Does Philosophy it was amazing 5.00 avg rating — 1 rating — 2 editions	Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Rate this book Clear rating 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

J.D. Steens’s Followers (37)

J.D. Steens

Goodreads Author

Popular Answered Questions

rssJ.D.’s Recent Updates

rss
J.D.’s Recent Updates