What do you think?
Rate this book
A New Stoicism
What would stoic ethics be like today if stoicism had survived as a systematic approach to ethical theory, if it had coped successfully with the challenges of modern philosophy and experimental science? A New Stoicism proposes an answer to that question, offered from within the stoic tradition but without the metaphysical and psychological assumptions that modern philosophy and science have abandoned. Lawrence Becker argues that a secular version of the stoic ethical project, based on contemporary cosmology and developmental psychology, provides the basis for a sophisticated form of ethical naturalism, in which virtually all the hard doctrines of the ancient Stoics can be clearly restated and defended. Becker argues, in keeping with the ancients, that virtue is one thing, not many; that it, and not happiness, is the proper end of all activity; that it alone is good, all other things being merely rank-ordered relative to each other for the sake of the good; and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Moreover, he rejects the popular caricature of the stoic as a grave figure, emotionally detached and capable mainly of endurance, resignation, and coping with pain. To the contrary, he holds that while stoic sages are able to endure the extremes of human suffering, they do not have to sacrifice joy to have that ability, and he seeks to turn our attention from the familiar, therapeutic part of stoic moral training to a reconsideration of its theoretical foundations.
272 pages, Paperback
First published December 8, 1997
102 people are currently reading
1046 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
Read
October 10, 2024UPDATED REVIEW: Wednesday, October 9, 2024
Philosopher Lawrence Becker imagines stoicism as an evolving philosophy. What if, he asks, stoicism continued as one unbroken tradition until now? Truth is, it would have become very much like most religions, doctrinaire, and would appear much in the way it does in the popular culture: a "sophisticated" form of victim-blaming. "Stop whining about your material circumstances. True freedom comes from within, and that's what you'll realize you already have if you let go of pipedreams like healthcare and a decent wage." But let's be charitable to Becker and go along on his ride.
Becker's stoicism (and that's what it is) reinterprets stoicism's injunction to "Follow Nature" as "Follow the facts." The reason? Becker is a naturalist and therefore doesn't accept the theology of yore. Fair enough. So whereas the old stoics would have said we ought to live according to God's plan and make our will align with his, which happens to be however the world turns out to be, Becker-stoic would say we need to adapt ourselves to the world as it is, which is however it appears to us in ordinary life or as science tells us it is.
It's fair enough advice to say we have to accept reality on its own terms and engage with it in terms of what you can and can't control. But frankly if you kill the theology of stoicism, you kill stoicism, because what you're left with is good old-fashioned critical thinking. Which is mostly good enough, but it need not be called stoicism.
But you know, actually, it's not good enough. You need a much more robust ethics to deal with the world's problems than what was offered in old-fashioned stoicism or Becker-style stoicism. And that's just a fact.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: March 5, 2010 (four stars)
Lawrence Becker imagines what it would have been like if Stoicism had been an unbroken tradition from antiquity to the present. He argues that had Stoicism been allowed to develop in this way, it would have changed in much the way he argues for in his book. In antiquity the common Stoic maxim was to live in accordance with nature. Becker argues, however, that even though this assumption was motivated by a belief in a universe whose purpose was rational and good for its parts, including humans, this was believed only because Stoics had a deeper commitment to following what the available evidence was at the time about the nature of the universe. Given that the folk scientific view in antiquity was that the universe was rational and good, the Stoics too believed it was rational and good. But given that the more sophisticated scientific view, Becker argues, does not view the universe in such a way and that the more developed science would have a person view the world closely in terms of the available empirical facts, the Stoic maxim would have changed into the view that one should live in accordance with the facts, that is, the way the world really is. As such, he thinks that Stoics should base their understanding about how to be a virtuous person on facts about human nature, including what humans are capable of doing and the tendencies and dispositions humans have. This is a neat book, but I seriously doubt that the trajectory Becker outlines seriously mirrors the trajectory Stoicism would have taken. Nevertheless, I thought it was an engaging read and kudos to him and the other so-called New Stoics.
Philosopher Lawrence Becker imagines stoicism as an evolving philosophy. What if, he asks, stoicism continued as one unbroken tradition until now? Truth is, it would have become very much like most religions, doctrinaire, and would appear much in the way it does in the popular culture: a "sophisticated" form of victim-blaming. "Stop whining about your material circumstances. True freedom comes from within, and that's what you'll realize you already have if you let go of pipedreams like healthcare and a decent wage." But let's be charitable to Becker and go along on his ride.
Becker's stoicism (and that's what it is) reinterprets stoicism's injunction to "Follow Nature" as "Follow the facts." The reason? Becker is a naturalist and therefore doesn't accept the theology of yore. Fair enough. So whereas the old stoics would have said we ought to live according to God's plan and make our will align with his, which happens to be however the world turns out to be, Becker-stoic would say we need to adapt ourselves to the world as it is, which is however it appears to us in ordinary life or as science tells us it is.
It's fair enough advice to say we have to accept reality on its own terms and engage with it in terms of what you can and can't control. But frankly if you kill the theology of stoicism, you kill stoicism, because what you're left with is good old-fashioned critical thinking. Which is mostly good enough, but it need not be called stoicism.
But you know, actually, it's not good enough. You need a much more robust ethics to deal with the world's problems than what was offered in old-fashioned stoicism or Becker-style stoicism. And that's just a fact.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: March 5, 2010 (four stars)
Lawrence Becker imagines what it would have been like if Stoicism had been an unbroken tradition from antiquity to the present. He argues that had Stoicism been allowed to develop in this way, it would have changed in much the way he argues for in his book. In antiquity the common Stoic maxim was to live in accordance with nature. Becker argues, however, that even though this assumption was motivated by a belief in a universe whose purpose was rational and good for its parts, including humans, this was believed only because Stoics had a deeper commitment to following what the available evidence was at the time about the nature of the universe. Given that the folk scientific view in antiquity was that the universe was rational and good, the Stoics too believed it was rational and good. But given that the more sophisticated scientific view, Becker argues, does not view the universe in such a way and that the more developed science would have a person view the world closely in terms of the available empirical facts, the Stoic maxim would have changed into the view that one should live in accordance with the facts, that is, the way the world really is. As such, he thinks that Stoics should base their understanding about how to be a virtuous person on facts about human nature, including what humans are capable of doing and the tendencies and dispositions humans have. This is a neat book, but I seriously doubt that the trajectory Becker outlines seriously mirrors the trajectory Stoicism would have taken. Nevertheless, I thought it was an engaging read and kudos to him and the other so-called New Stoics.
August 18, 2019
Excellent
If you are a serious prokopton, and are not a firm traditionalist, this is a must-read. It helped dispel many misunderstandings that I had with the traditional writings - things that I had initially found unpalatable in the modern age with our current understandings in science, medicine and psychological development. To me, Becker doesn't so much as reinterpret the original doctrines, but instead explains them in a modern context, using current understandings in science, medicine, and psychological development, that is easier to digest.
Becker's New Stoicism may not be exactly compatible with traditionalist views, such as his casting off of the divine providential logos, but ultimately, I think it does stay (mostly) true to the original teachings and provides a strong, rigorous defense.
It is my new Enchiridion.
If you are a serious prokopton, and are not a firm traditionalist, this is a must-read. It helped dispel many misunderstandings that I had with the traditional writings - things that I had initially found unpalatable in the modern age with our current understandings in science, medicine and psychological development. To me, Becker doesn't so much as reinterpret the original doctrines, but instead explains them in a modern context, using current understandings in science, medicine, and psychological development, that is easier to digest.
Becker's New Stoicism may not be exactly compatible with traditionalist views, such as his casting off of the divine providential logos, but ultimately, I think it does stay (mostly) true to the original teachings and provides a strong, rigorous defense.
It is my new Enchiridion.
October 28, 2016
I only got to read about a half of this book, dry and badly written as it is. Becker tries to „update” the ancient stoic doctrine in the abstruse and very dry fashion so typical of the contemporary analytical philosophy style. It is more an exercise in intellectual „masturbation” rather than a meaningful statement, as a book on such a subject should be. He is also incoherent, or so it seemed to me, in his position regarding the famed „is-ought” distinction, which he sometimes acknowledge but seems to disregard in his project of reconstructing ”ethics” from facts. The only somehow interesting parts of this book are the commentaries which he provided at the end of each chapter, which tend to focus more on the historical roots of stoicism. Reading through this book I got the impression that Becker wants to somehow program a „stoic” robot, providing all kinds of procedures and axioms, filled with references to normative logic and all the ”-isms” he could find. I know many will disregard this comment as malicious, but this is what I think. I do not care that so many people find something valuable in this kind of „philosophy”. For my part, it is nothing but prolix and pretentious trivialities masquerading as „rigorous” analysis. Analytical philosophy is the the revival of medieval scholasticism. There is absolutely nothing „stoical” in this approach.
April 16, 2020
Strongly based my dissertation off it along with the classic writers to augment. The flagship of modern stoicism. A must for anyone starting out on stoicism though recommend you at least be familiar with Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus first as quite technical without it.
Currently reading
February 7, 2010not that there's anything wrong with the old one...
May 25, 2019
A New Stoicism is an attempt to bring the ancient texts and ideas of Stoicism forward through the ages into our modern time, with updated and applied naturalistic ethical theory. Broken into seven chapters (with commentary at the end of each) and a postscript, Becker walks through an outline of his version of contemporary Stoic ethics, which he describes in three steps: “The first is a swift, largely declarative survey of the possibilities that remain open for stoicism (chapter 3). The second is a compressed but detailed presentation of the logic and general character of a Stoic form of naturalism (chapters 4 and 5). The third step is a schematic account of virtue and a good life, designed to address persistent prejudices about Stoic doctrine (chapters 6 and 7).”
If you scan the reviews for this book, you’ll see that those with a background in philosophy and formal logic have gained quite a lot from it, while the average layperson had to put up a mighty struggle to make it through. I fall somewhere in the latter half, and this book was pretty tough for me, although really interesting. I skimmed through some parts, re-read others several times, and patted myself effusively on the back when I understood something on my first go. Because of my very limited understanding of ethics and logic on this level, I feel like my rating/review here is probably undeserving and premature (until I read it 50 more times). I also felt like Becker was attempting to put ancient Stoicism onto solid and defensible philosophical ground, which is great and probably necessary, but I’m not the person that it needs defending from.
That said, I liked and appreciated a lot of what was said, and I think I'll be coming back to this book often whenever I need to rationalize or clarify certain aspects of Stoicism that may seem unsupported or too distant in their ancient form. I wrote longer review with a short breakdown of the chapters here. Happy reading!
If you scan the reviews for this book, you’ll see that those with a background in philosophy and formal logic have gained quite a lot from it, while the average layperson had to put up a mighty struggle to make it through. I fall somewhere in the latter half, and this book was pretty tough for me, although really interesting. I skimmed through some parts, re-read others several times, and patted myself effusively on the back when I understood something on my first go. Because of my very limited understanding of ethics and logic on this level, I feel like my rating/review here is probably undeserving and premature (until I read it 50 more times). I also felt like Becker was attempting to put ancient Stoicism onto solid and defensible philosophical ground, which is great and probably necessary, but I’m not the person that it needs defending from.
That said, I liked and appreciated a lot of what was said, and I think I'll be coming back to this book often whenever I need to rationalize or clarify certain aspects of Stoicism that may seem unsupported or too distant in their ancient form. I wrote longer review with a short breakdown of the chapters here. Happy reading!
December 22, 2022
The writing was greatly improved in the revision, though that still leaves it at best poorly written.
Quite a lot of the arguments made follow from many pages of concept definitions without motivation as to why this definition is being made. The presentation could have been changed for better clarity.
Beyond structure the style itself might be summarized with a sample: "Standards are legion"
If I have missed the idea of "whole life" evaluation of virtue in stoicism then forgive me. Otherwise I believe this concept was introduced here without explanation. By my understanding this is a significant departure from traditional Stoicism.
After reading some reviews here I think it should be pointed out that this is less a book about practicing any form of stoicism and rather about rebasing stoicism in current trends of psychology research. While the author points out that there is not much disagreement within the psychology community on those trends, the conclusions drawn from them by the author do not necessarily follow.
With that said, I would have liked to rate this higher had the presentation been better. While I believe the ideas have some faults they are interesting and well worth thinking about to those with an interest in the Stoics.
Quite a lot of the arguments made follow from many pages of concept definitions without motivation as to why this definition is being made. The presentation could have been changed for better clarity.
Beyond structure the style itself might be summarized with a sample: "Standards are legion"
If I have missed the idea of "whole life" evaluation of virtue in stoicism then forgive me. Otherwise I believe this concept was introduced here without explanation. By my understanding this is a significant departure from traditional Stoicism.
After reading some reviews here I think it should be pointed out that this is less a book about practicing any form of stoicism and rather about rebasing stoicism in current trends of psychology research. While the author points out that there is not much disagreement within the psychology community on those trends, the conclusions drawn from them by the author do not necessarily follow.
With that said, I would have liked to rate this higher had the presentation been better. While I believe the ideas have some faults they are interesting and well worth thinking about to those with an interest in the Stoics.
June 15, 2020
definitely not for beginners, made for somebody packing a wee bit higher IQ than myself
April 27, 2018
I wasn't sure what to expect when reading this book at first. I've been thinking about and enacting some stoic ideas for probably about two years now, and wanted to see another way of looking at stoicism.
Becker's book is an explanation of stoic theory. This means he explains how to update Stoic theory (that is, the ancient Stoics) and how to come up with a usable, interesting virtue ethics theory with the backing of modern ideas. I find this project interesting, and also quite believable.
I especially liked how Becker goes over the logic of stoicism, and emphasizes important points of stoicism in ways I hadn't really thought about before. For example, he made much clearer to me how stoicism is both about having agent control (that is, being able to make decisions) in a deterministic (or quantum indeterministic) world, and how this is not in tension with each other as stoics understand what it means to be an agent. I also thought the ideas on stoic emotion were novel, and helpful for understanding how stoic thought.
If you think you might have some interest in stoicism, then this book is a good overview of what stoicism really is or should be. If you have no interest in stoicism, then I wouldn't recommend this book. It's great for getting a better understanding of the current stoicism project, but if that doesn't have any meaning for you, then I'm afraid you'll find this book boring.
For me, this was a great book as it provoked a lot of thought about my own life, and my own motivations and goals.
Becker's book is an explanation of stoic theory. This means he explains how to update Stoic theory (that is, the ancient Stoics) and how to come up with a usable, interesting virtue ethics theory with the backing of modern ideas. I find this project interesting, and also quite believable.
I especially liked how Becker goes over the logic of stoicism, and emphasizes important points of stoicism in ways I hadn't really thought about before. For example, he made much clearer to me how stoicism is both about having agent control (that is, being able to make decisions) in a deterministic (or quantum indeterministic) world, and how this is not in tension with each other as stoics understand what it means to be an agent. I also thought the ideas on stoic emotion were novel, and helpful for understanding how stoic thought.
If you think you might have some interest in stoicism, then this book is a good overview of what stoicism really is or should be. If you have no interest in stoicism, then I wouldn't recommend this book. It's great for getting a better understanding of the current stoicism project, but if that doesn't have any meaning for you, then I'm afraid you'll find this book boring.
For me, this was a great book as it provoked a lot of thought about my own life, and my own motivations and goals.
December 26, 2020
Uncomplicated ideas presented in an unnecessarily complicated way.
This was my first book about stoicism and I wouldn't recommend it for beginners. However, it did teach me lots about stoicism. But there were things I didn't care for because I have not read any original stoic texts.
Becker also expresses his ideas of stoic virtue morality in mathematical terms. His original idea is to define stoicism as if it survived through the ancient times until today and developed along the way. How would it look today? More precisely, how would stoic morality and happiness change from the ancient times until today? How would the idea of predetermination and life purpose change?
I thought this highly academic text was very detailed, but overly cramped with unnecessary words. The sentence structure is convoluted. The writing style hides the message and point of the sentences. As I said, the uncomplicated idea presented in an overly complicated way.
Then we have the mathematics at the end. Every idea presented through mathematical formulae. Why? It's a new idea for sure (I've never seen that done before at least), but what is the purpose? Easier understanding? For mathematicians maybe, not for philosophers who are not mathematicians.
Nevertheless, it is a good source for further reading about stoicism. It has a lot of bibliography and reading suggestions and excerpts. I should read some base texts about stoicism before entering such an academic conversation as in A New Stoicism.
This was my first book about stoicism and I wouldn't recommend it for beginners. However, it did teach me lots about stoicism. But there were things I didn't care for because I have not read any original stoic texts.
Becker also expresses his ideas of stoic virtue morality in mathematical terms. His original idea is to define stoicism as if it survived through the ancient times until today and developed along the way. How would it look today? More precisely, how would stoic morality and happiness change from the ancient times until today? How would the idea of predetermination and life purpose change?
I thought this highly academic text was very detailed, but overly cramped with unnecessary words. The sentence structure is convoluted. The writing style hides the message and point of the sentences. As I said, the uncomplicated idea presented in an overly complicated way.
Then we have the mathematics at the end. Every idea presented through mathematical formulae. Why? It's a new idea for sure (I've never seen that done before at least), but what is the purpose? Easier understanding? For mathematicians maybe, not for philosophers who are not mathematicians.
Nevertheless, it is a good source for further reading about stoicism. It has a lot of bibliography and reading suggestions and excerpts. I should read some base texts about stoicism before entering such an academic conversation as in A New Stoicism.
July 30, 2023
Very underwhelming. I was expecting an updated version of Stoicism. Instead, this book is basically a collection of essays written by a contemporary academic philosopher. That is, it has very little relation to Stoicism or ancient Philosophy.
This is an example of the problem that Pierre Hadot highlights in his books. Contemporary academic philosophy is purely theoretical and speculative. Ancient Philosophy was eminently practical. There isn't anything practical in this book. Which is surprising once you learn that Lawrence Becker suffered disabilities due to Polio since he was a kid, and yet most likely lived a Stoic life.
Still, it's a worth read, not only because it is an example of the problem of modern academic philosophy, but also due to the effort and some interesting ideas and commentary of ancient Stoic texts.
This is an example of the problem that Pierre Hadot highlights in his books. Contemporary academic philosophy is purely theoretical and speculative. Ancient Philosophy was eminently practical. There isn't anything practical in this book. Which is surprising once you learn that Lawrence Becker suffered disabilities due to Polio since he was a kid, and yet most likely lived a Stoic life.
Still, it's a worth read, not only because it is an example of the problem of modern academic philosophy, but also due to the effort and some interesting ideas and commentary of ancient Stoic texts.
May 29, 2021
I've gone through several books, ancient and modern, about Stoicism and have managed to begin progressing in my mind and life in regards to those principles. I picked this book up, in order that I might clarify old or discover new details that could help me fine tune those principles. However, this book is beyond my scope. I'm not even sure what it's about.
November 16, 2018
I gave up after 15 pages. It's too hard. I suspect only academia or people with Philosophy degree can digest this. A layman like me has no hope.
January 7, 2019
This book is probably a very good book on ethics and stoicism, but it is too far academic for me and where I am in the exploration of Stoicism.
Read
July 27, 20190
March 24, 2020
This is a hardcore textbook if that’s what you’re looking for. I’ve found it useful as a reference
Read
April 8, 2020Unfortunately not for me. It is very philosophical and academic.
October 12, 2021
I'm reading the words but nothing is sticking. I'm not sure what the point of this book is.
September 1, 2022
A very comprehensive breakdown of the form modern Stoicism could take. Difficult to understand without a formal education in philosophy in general, however.
July 17, 2024
Boooooorrrrring.
January 16, 2021
This seems to be written for PhDs in philosophy and no one else. I couldn’t quite tell if it is the concepts themselves, or the writing that is abstruse. The finally chapter had some insights that I could grasp, but everything else was incomprehensible to me. If I’m being honest, PhD level philosophy seems like a ridiculous endeavor after reading this.
August 11, 2025
Goodness what a punishingly impenetrable tome this book turned out to be.
When I picked up this book, I was genuinely excited. This wasn’t just another book on ancient philosophy—it was THE book that kept getting name-dropped by some of the smartest modern thinkers in the Stoicism space - authors I’ve followed and admired talk about it with something approaching awe. “Transformational.” “Deeply influential.” With praise like that, how could I not be intrigued?
So I settled in, expecting to be challenged, sure—but also expecting to walk away with new insights, a fresh take, maybe even a clearer sense of how Stoicism could thrive in our modern, science-loving, post-Epictetus world.
And then... I started reading.
Let’s just say, the enthusiasm didn’t last long.
Because despite the bold premise and the glowing endorsements, this book reads like a punishing uphill trip through molasses. It seems to be ACTIVELY trying to keep the reader out. The writing is dense, technical, and tangled up in academic jargon. And not just occasionally—relentlessly. Every idea feels like it’s been wrapped in ten layers of abstract language before it’s allowed to come out and say hello.
Now let me be clear: I understood what was going on. I didn’t feel lost or confused about the general direction Becker was heading. But I did feel like I was dragging my brain through dense jungle just to get there. Every chapter, every paragraph, every sentence felt like it had been designed to be as roundabout and inaccessible as possible. Like a brilliant dinner party where the host insists on speaking in riddles while everyone else is just trying to pass the bread.
And that’s what’s so frustrating. There’s no question that Becker is incredibly smart. The ideas he's working with are big and important. He’s attempting something bold here—updating Stoic ethics with modern philosophical tools and scientific sensibilities. I respect that. But I can’t help wondering: why on earth would you make it so hard for people to actually engage with your work? Shouldn’t you want the reader to come along for the ride, not leave them wheezing on the side of the road?
It’s not that philosophy has to be breezy. I don’t expect Stoicism to read like beach fiction. But there’s a difference between challenging your reader and alienating them. The writing in this book isn’t complex because the ideas demand it—it’s complex because the author chooses it to be. And that’s a big difference. The prose didn’t elevate the ideas. It buried them.
In the end, I couldn’t help but feel like this book was a missed opportunity. There’s clearly a lot of wisdom here. I know it’s inspired great thinkers. But the experience of reading it just wasn’t worth the effort for me. I could practically hear the ideas whispering from behind the wall of words, but I couldn’t get to them without feeling like I was forcing my way through a hedge maze with a butter knife.
At the end of the day, good ideas don’t have to be easy—but they do need to be minimally accessible. I don’t care how great your ideas are, if you lack the basic writing skills, get some help. Hire a co-author or a competent editor.
This book was just a missed opportunity.
When I picked up this book, I was genuinely excited. This wasn’t just another book on ancient philosophy—it was THE book that kept getting name-dropped by some of the smartest modern thinkers in the Stoicism space - authors I’ve followed and admired talk about it with something approaching awe. “Transformational.” “Deeply influential.” With praise like that, how could I not be intrigued?
So I settled in, expecting to be challenged, sure—but also expecting to walk away with new insights, a fresh take, maybe even a clearer sense of how Stoicism could thrive in our modern, science-loving, post-Epictetus world.
And then... I started reading.
Let’s just say, the enthusiasm didn’t last long.
Because despite the bold premise and the glowing endorsements, this book reads like a punishing uphill trip through molasses. It seems to be ACTIVELY trying to keep the reader out. The writing is dense, technical, and tangled up in academic jargon. And not just occasionally—relentlessly. Every idea feels like it’s been wrapped in ten layers of abstract language before it’s allowed to come out and say hello.
Now let me be clear: I understood what was going on. I didn’t feel lost or confused about the general direction Becker was heading. But I did feel like I was dragging my brain through dense jungle just to get there. Every chapter, every paragraph, every sentence felt like it had been designed to be as roundabout and inaccessible as possible. Like a brilliant dinner party where the host insists on speaking in riddles while everyone else is just trying to pass the bread.
And that’s what’s so frustrating. There’s no question that Becker is incredibly smart. The ideas he's working with are big and important. He’s attempting something bold here—updating Stoic ethics with modern philosophical tools and scientific sensibilities. I respect that. But I can’t help wondering: why on earth would you make it so hard for people to actually engage with your work? Shouldn’t you want the reader to come along for the ride, not leave them wheezing on the side of the road?
It’s not that philosophy has to be breezy. I don’t expect Stoicism to read like beach fiction. But there’s a difference between challenging your reader and alienating them. The writing in this book isn’t complex because the ideas demand it—it’s complex because the author chooses it to be. And that’s a big difference. The prose didn’t elevate the ideas. It buried them.
In the end, I couldn’t help but feel like this book was a missed opportunity. There’s clearly a lot of wisdom here. I know it’s inspired great thinkers. But the experience of reading it just wasn’t worth the effort for me. I could practically hear the ideas whispering from behind the wall of words, but I couldn’t get to them without feeling like I was forcing my way through a hedge maze with a butter knife.
At the end of the day, good ideas don’t have to be easy—but they do need to be minimally accessible. I don’t care how great your ideas are, if you lack the basic writing skills, get some help. Hire a co-author or a competent editor.
This book was just a missed opportunity.
June 25, 2015
A compelling argument for stoic ethics, grounded in materialism and separated from the teleological elements of ancient thought. Clearly and smoothly argued, but still dense and challenging. I sometimes struggled with the abstractness of the discussion and found the parts of the text that included concrete illustrations to be the easiest to understand. In places, the argument can seem frustratingly simple and so context-dependent as to say very little absent specific circumstances, but for me, Becker's reasonable and approachable grounding for ethical agency triumphs over Bernard Williams' Limits.
Read
February 12, 2020This book is written by and for philosophy PhDs and heavily uses discipline specific words. Unless you have that background then you probably wont be able to read it. i know i couldnt. because i couldnt understand what i was reading it i can not rate the book.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews