You Kant Make It Up

by Gary Hayden

Drawing on the writings of history’s greatest thinkers, You Kant Make it Up sends the reader on a thrilling, non-stop tour of philosophy’s most outrageous and counter-intuitive conclusions. Spanning ethics, logic, politics, sex and religion, this unconventional but light introduction to philosophy will challenge your assumptions, expand your horizons, infuriate, entertain and amuse you.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Humor, History, Reference

224 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

If you look at the ratings I give, here on Goodreads, you might think that I'm very easy to please, since many of them are five-star. But that's because I tend mostly to rate books I love and admire, rather than just anything that comes my way.
I love classic literature, particularly classic British literature, especially Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Anthony Trollope.
As a writer, I'm influenced to some degree by every good book I've ever read - and quite possibly many of the not-so-good books too. But my biggest (conscious) influences are the philosophers Bertrand Russell and David Hume.

Reviews

[Alish · Rating 5 out of 5]

عنوان و زیرعنوان کتاب ممکنه قدری گمراه‌کننده باشند
خب اینکه فلاسفه ایده‌های عجیب زیاد داشتند چیز جدیدی نیست
اما کار جالبی که نویسنده کتاب کرده اینه که عملا بخشی از اندیشه فلاسفه رو در قالب این ایده‌ها و در فصل‌های مختلف خلاصه کرده و به زبان ساده توضیح داده
بعد هم دلایل اون فیلسوف برای دفاع از باورش رو آورده و مختصری هم به نقد اون اندیشه پرداخته
من خیلی زیاد از کتاب لذت بردم و به همه کسانی که دوست دارند مختصری از فلاسفه بیاموزند ولی کتاب‌های جایگزین رو هم سنگین می‌دونند توصیه میکنم
البته کسانی که فلسفه رو جدی مطالعه میکنند احتمالا کتاب رو واقعا "سرهم‌بندی" بیابند و خوششون نیاد
و اینکه ترجمه چندان جالب نیست

[Paulo (not receiving notifications)]

Philosophy! The Science of Sciences. The Key to Revelation and all that, folks. But as noble and important as It may be, it contains also funny, dark, weird or downright stupid moments. Let's check it out with this little book. So, let's embrace creativity and patience and keep an open mind towards unconventional ideas that the author, Gary Hayden has put together in this summary book.

(circa 460 BC) Socrates believed that by cultivating reason one could eliminate ignorance of Good and Evil and lead the individual to practice only the Good. It is not bad at all, but it is just nonsense because there is a huge gap between knowing what is correct and practising it.

(in 1710) Leibniz, a theist (belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god) said this is the best World possible. But if that were the case and this is the best world He could create, then He is Incompetent also.

(in 1818) Schopenhauer saw life as a pendulum swinging between pain and boredom and believed that Reality was the product of the blind Will that would be the basis of everything in a world that could in no way be worse than this one. Cheerful!

(in 1651) Thomas Hobbes was kind enough to bequeath us "Psychological Egoism". In short: All altruism has a selfish origin; We practice disinterested actions just to alleviate the pain of our conscience. Another one extremely positive and highly cheerful.

(circa 6th century BC) Parmenides is considered the first philosopher to use reason alone to define processes and concepts systematically. His method of exact argumentation and the recognition of the distinction between appearance and reality are still central in the history of philosophy. He left us a fundamental maxim: "What Is, is and what Is Not, is not"... What the hell...

(circa 500 BC) Heraclitus, an arrogant and unpopular guy, told us that nothing remains, everything is constantly changing. If I touch a rock for the first time, that will be the only time I will do it, because if I want to touch it a second time, I can't because it's no longer the same stone, it's "another one". Where did the first one go? Who replaced them?

(in 1603) Anselm of Canterbury developed the Ontological Argument to make life hell for all future philosophers. He intended to demonstrate that God exists by definition.
Even today there are people much more intelligent than me reading and re-reading the argument to try to make some sense of it.

(circa 300 BC) Plato gave us the Theory of Forms (or ideas), and with that invented Shadow Play, and imprisoned us in a cave, helpless spectators of the Shadow Puppets enacting the true Life; We are not living, just watching the Show.

(in 1689) John Locke became known as the "father" of British Empiricism. Because of his primary and secondary qualities of objects, our perception does not perceive (pun intended) anything and the orange colour is not orange. Daltonic?

(in 1929) Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in his philosophical treatises introduces us to the dark side of Karma: All pleasure obtained or pain suffered is deserved. The lottery winner or the starving child only gets what they deserve. Cosmic consequences, people.

(circa 400 BC) Pythagoras believed that through numbers, the universe and all its secrets could be revealed and understood. Odd numbers are masculine and even numbers are feminine. They slit his throat because of the beans.

(in 1827) Jeremy Bentham, a hedonist whose Utilitarianism of the Greatest Happiness Principle led him to create a formula of Happiness Calculation, that allows us to claim that Dan Brown is better than Shakespeare. This led John S Milton to state that the theory is valid if it does not apply to an intelligent human being but rather to a pig. It's not bad, just silly.

(in 400) Augustine of Hippo: burn baby, burn! Babies were born sinful and deserve to go to Hell! Obsessed with the Original Sin, he believed it was a genetic disorder, or an inherited disease originating in the first man and woman. Therefore we are all contaminated and condemned. Happy times the medieval Age.

(1882) Friedrich Nietzsche a Stoic? The most emotional philosopher of all reinterprets the myth of the Eternal Return, whose origin is lost in the night of Time and whose concept appears in human thought, from Greek and Hindu temples to our time. May God rest in peace because God is dead, but taking into account the nature of human beings, for thousands of years there will be caves where He will show His shadow...

(in 1709) George Berkeley proposed a theory that he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). To Berkeley, matter does not exist. Material objects are just a cluster of ideas in the mind; even our body and our gestures are a mere illusion, a set of ideas implanted in the mind. By whom? God, of course... After all, "Matrix" isn't from the 90s, it's from the 18th century.

(circa 300 BC) Plato. Oh no, him again...! He said that we don't learn anything, we just rediscover or remember All the knowledge we have stored in our mind, what we already know, because as the soul is immortal and eternal it has seen everything past, present and future and knows everything. If so, I just don't understand why doesn't that bastard "Memory" don't let me look less stupid.

(in 1654) Blaise Pascal says, Bet on God! I doubt this will allow us to win the lottery but Pascal demonstrated mathematically that betting that God exists is better than betting against it, even if we don't believe in Him the laws of probability tell us that it is smarter to believe. This is what you would call cheating the Game.

(in 1641) Descartes, a dualist philosopher? Let's talk about alien possession: the material body is occupied by an "ethereal entity" called Mind installed inside, in a "pine cone" between the two hemispheres of the brain to control the body. Gilbert Ryle called it "the Ghost in the Machine". Call the exorcists, please.

(in 1688) Nicolas Malebranche, the occasionalist: plagued us with the doctrine that states that God is the only true cause and origin of every action, mental or physical. My thoughts do not make my body move, they are "transmitted" to God and He (if he understands it that way) makes the body move. It's like a puppeteer at a fair theatre manipulating the puppets. And He better not let go of the threads...

(in 1714) Leibniz said: Everything in the universe is composed of simple, immaterial units called monads. A body is an aggregate of incorporeal entities. So how do they create solid bodies? They don't; space and time do not exist. Everything happens like in a computer game: It seems real but it isn't. Oops, my character lost his last life! I no longer have any monads left to finish the final dungeon.

(circa 200 BC) Epicurus asserted that philosophy's purpose is to attain as well as to help others reach happiness. Pleasure is the beginning and end of life; Even under extreme ache we must minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Hmmm! I believe more in Leonato (Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing): There never was a philosopher who stoically endured a toothache.

(in 1739) David Hume unleashed upon us his "Treatise of Human Nature".
Human beings constantly use inductive reasoning as an essential tool for survival, but this is not reliable because to work we have to be 100% certain that the future will be the same as the past. So we must go "back to the future" to be sure of anything. Is the law legal?
Let's not forget that according to Hume's Fork, a statement's meaning either is analytic or synthetic! Unless it's meat or fish...

(circa 5th BC) Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly known as the Buddha, tells us that according to his Second Noble Truth, life is suffering and suffering is caused by desire. We have to stop the Desire to achieve "Enlightenment", but I don't see the "Light" at the end of the tunnel that guides me to Nirvana. I think I was born in the wrong Universe. Damn the bloody cosmic Karma.

(circa 370 BC) Aristotle said that women needed to be subservient to men because they were unable to …control themselves physically and psychologically through the exercise of reason the way men can... Then he threw women a bone when he contended that both sexes had a soul capable of reason, however, women, being endowed with irrationality, weakness, passivity, and imperfection, were not capable of abstract reasoning and were bound to the domestic sphere.
Fortunately for him, he never met Indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher. Either he was sexually frustrated or didn't meet many women. Freud explains...

(in 1957) Ayn Rand defended the theory of Objectivism in direct opposition to Collectivism. The virtue of selfishness and the harm of altruism. She should have stopped "smoking" or eating "mushrooms". I wonder if she wouldn't be a cousin of the caterpillar Absolem...

(circa 1200) Myoan Eisai a Japanese Zen Buddhist priest, said that the key to ultimate enlightenment is... to stop thinking. If that works then I'm supposed to be already more "enlightened" than Buddha, but that can not be true because I still haven't learned to clap with just one hand.

(circa 1300) William of Ockham, the one famous for the "Ockham's Razor's" concept, said that God could never order anything bad because He is limited by His inherent goodness. Therefore He is not omnipotent. HERESY! immediately shouted John XXII! Light the bonfire...

(1905) Alexius Meinong tell us that Harry Potter doesn't exist. But we can only make a statement about something if that thing exists, so Harry Potter exists. Blame Meinong for his “square circles” and “negative existentials.

(1974) Thomas Nagel stated that luck, or the lack of it, shouldn't but does, affect what a person is morally responsible for! If you are at the "wrong place at the wrong time" it's your fault.

(in 1949) Gilbert Ryle in his " The Concept of Mind", order to behave yourself! Ryle was a behaviourist. He rejected the existence of the mind and stated that there is no "ghost inside the machine". It's true that when I hit my head, it sounds hollow.

(in 1689) John Lock was obsessed with Identity. Is the almost bald man I am today the same as the one with the Viking hair when I was young? If my consciousness could be transplanted into a pig's brain, would it become the person I am? I haven't eaten meat in a long time, but now I don't even want to see pork chops.

(in 1260) Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Contra Gentiles" pretended to explain the truth of the Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers. So we have a lecture about devoured missionaries and first and second-generation cannibals resurrected just to study the possibility of preserving identity.
In his "Summa Theologica" he identified six different sexual sins... What the... I only knew two!

(in 1936) A J Ayer with "Language, Truth and Logic" tells us that debates around ethical claims are not important...? According to Ayer, ethical statements are not verifiable, neither analytically nor empirically, and are therefore useless. Why to think at all, then?

(in 1847) Soren Kierkegaard the "Father of Existentialism" didn't believe in the Father of all things. However, he said his beliefs were misplaced but he would nevertheless remain faithful to them. He elevated faith to the level of absurdity with absolute paradox.

Philosophy is extremely important... or not... To return to David Hume and finish this, already long review that probably no one will read, ... profound statements about God the Soul, Absolute moral values, Identity and other nonsense, is nothing more than sophistry and illusions
Let everyone decide for themselves.

[Ariya · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very enjoyable read for someone considering as an immature philosophy self-taught learner like me. As the book provides many thought-provoking ideas and creative way to read, not chapter-by-chapter but fundamental ideas where you can premise at any chapter in the book by jumping into any topic you're interested and it's not confusing at all. Even though some ideas I couldn't care less, it's easy to follow through the end.

Gary Hayden, if I might assume, cares for the reader. He excellently crafts this book with not comprehending to those topics, but also well-constructed research. His language is so attainable not in a condescending way (as a bias one, like I've said about being so primitive in this field). I'm so impressed that he even counters each of the idea with critism, and questions lead to any other ideas similar yet different ground working. Only that each chapter is too short, or sometimes very brief to catch up with greater ideas, or even some of these aren't "strange" or crazy enough as they might sound, but promoted for entertainment to the readership.

[Palak Gupta · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book 2 years ago, when I knew absolutely nothing about philosophical theories and was too occupied with my academic reading to study a new discipline from scratch. It boils down some of the most complex ideas, and explains them using contemporary scenarios. Definitely not for someone well versed with philo, but an excellent starting point for beginners.

[Raghav Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good compilation of philosophical musings. Most of them are struggling with the problem of “consciousness” confusing it with ideas about creation, mind, reason, observation. Some of the ideas of “monism” and “dualism” are still open to arguments. Put some science / pseudoscience into the mix of lazy ruminations about the unknowable and it becomes a potent mix of strange ideas. Hopefully millennials will philosophise shit in a world where there is no leisure time for coming up with stuff like Monads. Good fun read though.

[Nicky · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is another book vaguely like the books of philosophy puzzles I was reading, with a very similar structure and tone. It's very simple to understand; it often didn't go beyond my GCSE and A Level Religious Studies classes, and none of it went beyond what I studied in my first year, when I took the first year of a philosophy degree.

On the one hand, it's frustratingly simple and repetitive for someone who knows a good bit about philosophy already, but on the other hand, that would recommend it to beginners. It's well laid out, too; you can skip through it for the stuff you're interested in, letting one idea lead onto another. There's a touch of humour in the whole treatment of it, which might help.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good as an 'introduction to philosophy' ....probably not for someone with a PHD in philosophy....more for someone who's interested in it...and thinks a lot...but less in a way of studying it....and more just generally enjoying it as a topic....I personally loved reading it, and I think that it was probably one of the best and most enjoyable philosophical book I've ever read...unlike most of them it's set out with each idea spread out so it's easy to read, understand and flip through....it's also written in a really personal and chatty tone, which I liked, because it made me feel as if I was having a discussion with a friend...rather than reading a book...

[Saaman · Rating 4 out of 5]

خیلی لذت بردم ازش. ایده‌هایی از فیلسوفان مطرح شده در این کتاب که قطعا در دوران‌هایی از زندگیمون به ذهن ما رسیده. این کتاب این ایده ها رو میگه، و میگه منشاش از چه فیلسوفی بوده و چرا گفته. خیلی خلاصه‌وار با دیدگاه کلی بعضی از فیلسوفا هم آشنا می‌شید. برای من که زیاد اهل خوندن فلسفه (بخصوص فلسفه کلاسیک) نیستم، کتاب مفیدی بود.

[Luh · Rating 4 out of 5]

* 3,5⭐ *


É bom, mas vamos com calma ahahaha. Eu gostei da forma como o autor aborda temas que eu já conhecia, mas sou sincera é necessário um bom estudo e conhecimento filosófico anterior para puder entender alguns tópicos. Agora se tem conteúdo que nos fazem parar de ler para pensarmos nas ideias estranhas destes filósofos bastante conhecidos, faz, e muito. Parei de ler inúmeras vezes, daí a demora, mas valeu a pena ter um debate comigo mesmo sobre temas como, o pensamento, sexo, deus, razão e entre outros. Aconselho a leitura aos que são curiosos e gostam de filosofia!☺️

[Phoenix · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Brief Odyssey of Philosophical Oddities

Focusing mainly on ontology (the theories of what can be known) with side trips to ethics and aesthetics, this is an enjoyable but light excursion through some of the more interesting ideas of classical philosophy with additional touches of humour. What readers may find surprising is how often these ideas were inspired by the need to support religious doctrine. For example John Locke argued for the duality of mind and body in order to defend the thesis of the immortality of the soul and Liebniz’s conjecture that this is the best of all possible worlds depends on his belief of an omniscient and all powerful God who’s infinite goodness would permit nothing less.

Targeted at a popular audience the book could also work as a “Cliff’s notes” for college students as it provides a rough cognitive map of the major contributors to the field. Most of the 43 vignettes centre around an individual such as Plato, Hobbes or Popper rather than a school of thought, though four center on eastern religious/philosophic ideas.

The structure of the chapters are self similar. Hayden places his subjects in the context of their era, summarizes one or two key ideas which may seem strange in the present day and then adds one or two subsequent arguments for or against. At the end of each chapter there are one or more arrows pointing to related chapters, somewhat in the style of a “create your own adventure book” indicating an alternate order of reading. It is worthwhile to draw a graph using these references to gain an appreciation of the overall relationship between the topics. There is also a brief Appendix at the end suggesting additional reading. IMV it could have been extended a bit (say 50 chapters) by straying into philosophical topics such as existentialism, deconstructionism or political philosophy. And whereas the tag team of Socrates deserve 3 chapters, the two chapters on Berkely could have been combined and Popper’s “World 3” fit more into the theme of oddities than his more mainstream theories of scientific proof. Rated 3.7/5.

[Jill Eshelman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did it take me almost nine years to read this book? Yes indeed it did. There’s not a reason it took that long. I easily could have read it in a day. But, no, it took me nine years. What can I say, I picked it up, I put it down for six months. I picked it up again. When I read it right before bed, I often had wild dreams. But it is a nice little bedtime read, otherwise. Just provocative enough to distract, thought provoking enough that you would probably tire yourself out going through the concepts.

I hope to some day pick it up again and read it in a weekend. It’s gotta be a wildly different experience than taking it piece by piece as you live and grow over such an extended period of time.

More of an indie bookstore purchase than a library loan 😂

[Alexander Kane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fun, easy to access reminder and introduction to some more familiar and outlandish philosophical arguments. Not only did it remind me of why I used to love the work of Socrates, but it was written well to get peek behind the surface of ideas by a whole host of philosopher like Liebniz, Nietzsche and St. Augustine. I like how the author is keen to show how diametrically opposing arguments e.g. we live in the best of all possible worlds vs. we live in the worst of all possible worlds can be equally valid. It's not the most in depth, but definitely nice conversation starter, if you're the right company!

[Nihan Kayatürk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Felsefe dolu bir yolculuğa hazır mısınız? Gary Hayden’in @omegayayinlari’ndan çıkan “Büyük Filozofların Tuhaf Fikirleri” kitabıyla bu yolculuk çok eğlenceli!

Kitapta, ünlü filozofların sıra dışı fikirlerini kısa anekdotlarla bulacaksınız. Hem lise öğrencileri için harika bir kaynak, hem de felsefeye yeni başlayanlar için ilgi çekici bir başlangıç kitabı!

Ben de derslerde kullanabileceğim ilginç bölümleri belirledim. Evet, hâlâ keşfetmeye devam ediyorum. Gelişimin sonu yok, değil mi?

Siz de felsefeyle ilgileniyor, yeni başlıyorsanız ya da farklı fikirler arıyorsanız, bu kitabı kaçırmayın!

[Fifi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gary Hayden's book is very informative. Unfortunately, he fails to present and construct subjects well. This book was designed to explain complex arguments easily to non-academics; however, it fails to do so.
Structure is one of the main pillars of any book on humanities. The fault here is that the same subjects were discussed in different chapters.
If chapters had been edited by subjects or thinkers per se, they would have been more comprehensive and approachable.
All the same, the book does justice to big ideas; unfortunately, it fails to justify its own purpose.

[Mitch Flitcroft · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book compiled 75 ideas from various philosophers and sages throughout the history of philosophy. Each idea is a few pages and follows a general structure: description of a seemingly absurd idea, identification of the seemingly absurd with a thinker, and then some analysis.

The content is accessible and suited to a general audience. It’s a decent read for a young person or somebody new to the field.

[Jay · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like others, I struggle how to explain this book. It does introduce a lot of philosophic theories, which is always good, but it often skims those theories in an effort to be brief. The result is that a lot of the things seem 'crazier' than they really are.

If you've NEVER read anything in philosophy, read this. Any harm done can be undone later, with deeper reading.

If you're in school for philosophy or have graduated...skip it.

[Amin369 · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب سرگرم کننده ای بود. اوایل کتاب برام نسبت با آخرای جذاب تر بود. ۴۳ دیدگاه فلسفی از فیلسوف های مختلف رو میگه و بحث های پیرامون اون نظریه هم نوشته میشه. یه نظریه ها واقعا جالب بود و یه چیزایی هم کاملا پوچ که حتا ارزش خوندنم نداشت. اسامی زیادی در کتاب هست که باعث میشه با آدم های بیشتری آشنا شید. آخر کتاب هم منابعی معرفی میشه برای کسایی که دوست دارن بعضی از مبحث هارو دقیق تر و جامع تر بخونن.
مراقب هم باشیم کنار هم بمونیم.

[Matty · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. I'm not usually one for non-fiction books but as a bit of a philosophy nerd I thought I would give it a try. It explains complex ideas in an understandable way that anyone would be able to understand. It has instances of humor and you can really tell that the author loves philosophy and knows his stuff. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who has even the slightest interested in philosophy.

[Siân’s Reading Corner · Rating 4 out of 5]

You Kant make it up is a great book that looks at many philosophical questions from the everyday to those more interesting questions. It looks at many philosophers from throughout the centuries and is great for those who are new to philosophy or have a great interest in it. Each of the chapters in the book link back to others and is a great read.

[Jen Gibbs · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun read. Bite sized philosophy in every-day speak.

[Kimhok Taing · Rating 2 out of 5]

Weirdest is what made them philosophers.

[kiyoko · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a great introduction to philosophy for me. It’s an easy read, & has definitely piqued my interest in reading more.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lighthearted and infinitely readable. Easy to dip into. Gives some great nuggets of insight!

[Nader Navazeshi · Rating 4 out of 5]

About philosophy... 👌 👍

[Elle Fernandes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Funny!

[Maher Razouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

النفعية و رأيها بالمتعة و الجودة!
.
.
عندما يسألني أحدهم ما هو فيلمي المفضل ، أجيب دون تردد ، طفل الكاراتيه (الجزء الأول). في هذه المرحلة ، تتهمني زوجتي بالغش . إنها مقتنعة أنني أمتلك تفضيلًا سريًا لفيلم قائمة شندلر ، أو غاندي أو المواطن كين.
ما الذي يجعلها تعتقد أنني أفضل حقًا المواطن كين؟ لست متأكدًا تمامًا. لكن الأمر له علاقة بكونه "أفضل" من The Karate Kid ، بنفس الطريقة التي يكون بها Puccini "أفضل" من Pussycat Dolls ، وشكسبير "أفضل" من دان براون . إنها تنسب إلي ، على ما أعتقد ، ذوقًا أفضل مما أملك.
لكن هل Puccini أفضل حقًا من Pussycat Dolls؟ هل شكسبير متفوق حقًا على دان براون؟ وهل هو ذوق سيئ حقًا أن تفضل "فتى الكاراتيه" على المواطن كين؟ ليس وفقًا للفيلسوف الإنجليزي (جيريمي بينثام) ، الأمر ليس كذلك. بالنسبة له ، كل الكلام عن الذوق الجيد والسيء كان مجرد هراء.
ولد جيريمي بينثام عام 1748 في عائلة مزدهرة من الطبقة المتوسطة. عندما كان طفلاً ، كان خجولًا وعصبيًا بشكل مؤلم ولكنه يمتلك ذكاءً رائعًا. بدأ دراسة اللغة اللاتينية في سن الرابعة ، ودخل جامعة أكسفورد في سن الثانية عشرة.
بعد التخرج درس القانون. تأهل لكنه لم يمارس. وبدلاً من ذلك ، كرس طاقته الكبيرة وموهبته للتفكير والكتابة حول الإصلاح القانوني. في عام 1789 نشر كتابه الرئيسي (مقدمة في مبادئ الأخلاق والتشريع).
كان بنثام متعصبًا. لقد ساوى بين السعادة واللذة ، واعتقد أن الحياة السعيدة هي ببساطة حياة تتفوق فيها اللذة على الألم. قادته مبادئ مذهب المتعة إلى صياغة عقيدة أخلاقية تعرف باسم (النفعية) والتي تنص على أن الشيء "جيد" فقط بقدر ما يزيد من المتعة أو يقلل من الألم.
السمة المركزية لنفعية بنثام هي "مبدأ السعادة الأعظم" ، والذي بموجبه يكون الإجراء الصحيح أخلاقياً في أي موقف هو الذي يجلب أكبر قدر من السعادة لأكبر عدد من الناس. هذا المبدأ أساسي لجميع أفكار بنثام حول الإصلاح القانوني والاجتماعي.
من الصعب للغاية ، بالطبع ، الحكم على التأثير الذي قد تحدثه تصرفات الفرد على السعادة العامة للمجتمع. أدرك بنثام ذلك ، وبالتالي توصل إلى حساب تفاضل جيد: طريقة لحساب مقدار المتعة والألم اللذين من المحتمل أن تسببهم الأفعال. حساب التفاضل والتكامل معقد للغاية ويستغرق وقتًا طويلاً لاستخدامه من قبل الأفراد.
كانت فكرة بنثام أن القادة السياسيين سيستخدمونها لمساعدتهم في صياغة القوانين التي تزيد من إسعاد السكان.
فكيف يرتبط كل هذا بمسألة الذوق السليم والسيئ؟

تحدث بنثام بشكل لاذع عن أولئك الذين يشجبون وسائل الترفيه الشعبية ؛ الذين يفسدون متعة الأبرياء من خلال ربطهم بـ "فكرة الذوق السيئ" ؛ واللذين يعتبرون أنفسهم "محسنين للجنس البشري" لكنهم في الحقيقة مجرد "ممتنعين عن سعادتهم".
وفقا له ، عندما يتعلق الأمر بحساب السعادة ، لا توجد ملذات عالية الجودة أو منخفضة الجودة. تعد الملذات الشديدة أفضل من المعتدلة ؛ تعد الملذات المطولة أفضل من الملذات قصيرة العمر ؛ وما إلى ذلك وهلم جرا. لكن هذا كله يتعلق بالدرجة وليس الجودة. لا توجد متعة تتفوق في جوهرها على أي متعة أخرى.
وفقًا لهذا الحساب ، فإن المعيار الوحيد للحكم على قيمة رواية أو مسرحية أو قطعة موسيقية أو هواية هو مقدار المتعة التي تنتجها. كتب بنثام: (قيمة كل من هذه الفنون والعلوم - أتحدث عن كل من التسلية والفضول - تتناسب تمامًا مع المتعة التي تنتجها) . لقد أعلن بشكل مشهور أن دبوس الدفع (اللعبة) ، يحمل قيمة بقدر الموسيقى والشعر.

ما هو الأفضل - الذي يجلب المزيد من المتعة - دان براون أم شكسبير؟ حسنًا ، بقدر ما يتعلق الأمر بالأفراد ، فهي مسألة ذوق. أولئك الذين يستمتعون بالقراءة الخفيفة ، والمؤامرات السريعة والكثير من التقلبات والانعطافات ، سيحصلون على متعتهم من شيفرة دافنشي ؛ بينما أولئك الذين لديهم ميل للشعر والبصيرة النفسية سيجدون أنفسهم مفتونين بهاملت.
ولكن ما الذي يجلب المتعة بشكل عام؟ دان براون . إليكم السبب ، كل من يقرأ دان براون تقريبًا يفعل ذلك فقط من أجل الاستمتاع ، والذي يصل إلى ملايين من وحدات المتعة بحسب حجم الكتاب. في هذه الأثناء ، يُعاني من يقرأ شكسبير ويتحمله كثيرًا بقدر ما يستمتع به . يقدم الشاعر الكثير من الألم مع المتعة.
لذلك ، حسب رواية بنثام ، دان براون أفضل من شكسبير.
ليس الأمر كذلك ، كما يقول جون ستيوارت ميل . ربما كان أقوى انتقاد لمطالبة بنثام ، جاء من تلميذه السابق ، جون ستيوارت ميل (1806-1873).
كان والد ميل صديقًا لبينثام و معجبا به ، وربَّى ابنه ليكون حامل شعلة النفعية. تعلم جون ستيوارت دروسه جيدًا. أصبح من أشد المدافعين عن مبادئ بنثام. لكن في سن العشرين خضع "لأزمة في تاريخه العقلي". توقف عن التمتع بأي متعة من دراسته. تركته رفقة الأصدقاء باردًا وغير مبال ؛ وحتى طموحه في أن يصبح مصلحًا اجتماعيًا عظيمًا لم يعد يحفزه.
استمر الاكتئاب ستة أشهر. خلال ذلك الوقت ، لم تساعد مبادئ بنثام كثيرًا في مواساته . في الواقع ، كان الشعر - شعر ويليام وردزورث - هو الذي قدم أخيرًا "الدواء لحالته العقلية" .
هذه التجربة غيرت وجهات نظر ميل تمامًا. أقنعته أن بعض الملذات أكثر قيمة من غيرها. لا يمكن لأي قدر من لعبة الدبابيس أن ينقذه من الاكتئاب كما فعل شعر وردزورث. لقد أخطأ بينثام. كان هناك ما هو أكثر من مجرد الكمية بالنسبة للمتعة .
كانت الجودة مهمة أيضًا.
وبناءً على ذلك ، فقد فصل الملذات إلى ملذات "أدنى" و "أعلى". يمكن للحيوانات والبشر على حد سواء الاستمتاع بالأصناف السفلية ، مثل الأكل والشرب والجنس. لكن القيم العليا ، مثل الصداقة والشرف والفن والموسيقى والشعر ، تعتمد على قدراتنا البشرية المتميزة. الحياة التي نقضيها في السعي وراء ملذات الدرجة الأدنى حصريًا هي ، في تقدير ميل ، حياة تافهة . إنك مؤهل لتكون سعيدًا إذا كنت خنزيرًا ، لكن الأمر يصبح أصعب بكثير إذا كنت شخصًا.
يبدو أن ميل كان سيصنف شكسبير بدرجة أعلى من دان براون!
.
Gary Hayden
You kant Make It Up
Translated By #Maher_Razouk

[Joe Baird · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars, a fun little book!

[Gary Hayden]

I can't really comment on this book since I wrote it.

I will, however, share this bookseller review from Niel Kenmuir at the UK's Waterstones books, because I think it sums up precisely what I wanted to achieve in writing it.


You Kant Make It Up!

Strange Ideas from History’s Great Philosophers, by Gary Hayden

What we have here is a kind of history of philosophy, potted and served with a big side of fruity relish. Hayden’s great little book focuses on the bizarre results which occur when you take your brain to the edges of profound thought. It’s a simple hook. After all, philosophers have said some utterly baffling stuff over the course of history. Take Bishop Berkely for example, he didn’t believe in matter! The sofa I’m sitting on as I type this up? It’s not made of matter, it’s just in my mind. Or how would you react if someone told you that Harry Potter was real? Well, that’s what Alexius Meinong would have said - if you can think about it, there must be something that your thought refers to. Like I said, pretty outlandish stuff.

This is an interesting way of introducing people to the nature and problems of philosophy. Shock them by showing them some outlandish conclusion, something that ordinarily only a mad man would say, and then show them the actual reasoning that led to the conclusion in the first place. After all, if you can understand why - and maybe I’m not choosing the best example here - St. Augustine though that, say babies deserve to go to Hell, then all of a sudden that sense of outlandishness can disappear. ‘Hang on, you mean he had a reason for thinking that after all? So he did!’ And if you still think that his conclusion wrong, well, now it is up to you to show why. Augustine gave his reasons, he showed you why he thinks babies should go to Hell. Can you provide a better counter argument? Of course, some of the positions presented are just plain ridiculous, and couldn’t be sensibly upheld in today’s liberated age. Could you agree with Schopenhauer’s claim that women are just ‘grown-up children’ for example? From personal experience it seems to me that this would be a more fitting description of men!

This is the great idea behind Hayden’s book. It doesn’t offer up philosophy as something to be mocked or as a series of baffling stupid ideas, but as something that is the result of being challenged, be it by religious ideas of the times, or questions regarding ethical behaviour, or indeed some grander questions that can help put your life in perspective (check out the couple of chapters on Nietzsche).

I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with an interest in life’s more perplexing questions. It’s a great little introduction to philosophy’s general problems, incredibly accessible and very easy to read. It’s useful for the more experienced reader of philosophy too - I personally found it beneficial as a little reminder course on the history of philosophy. I’m not always in agreement with some of Hayden’s criticisms, but that’s the nature of philosophy, it’s provocative, and in using some of the most provocative ideas in philosophy’s wonderful history, Hayden has a great hook to draw you in. And hopefully he’ll show you that some of them aren’t so strange after all.

[Vik · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book introduces 43 ideas from various philosopher's from history for you to cogitate and mull over.

Hayden runs a pretty similar format for each idea, he introduces it in a way that makes it easy to relate to and then provides arguments for and against to allow you to make up your own mind.

At least that is the theory but some of the ideas are introduced using phrases such as "this is a bizarre claim", "right up there with the weirdest" and "this sounds absurd". This is clearly going to prejudice any idea that might be introduced thus and I've dropped this down a star because of that. The presentation of even difficult ideas is well done and contemporary examples are used throughout (eg Harry Potter and Dan Brown), Hayden also writes with a touch of humour. On the kindle each chapter ends with links to related ideas so you can jump around or dip into it easily with the handy index at the back.

After all the ideas are presented there is a section on suggested further reading if you want to find out more. As a primer to some of the ideas from western and eastern philosophy this book is a great start but just try and not judge the ideas until you have heard the arguments for and against.

[Al Bità · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the cleverest ways of introducing people to thinking philosophically I have come across. Using very readable prose, Gary Hayden lures the reader into this world by taking a strange, odd, shocking or outrageous idea from various philosophers. He summarises the idea, then briefly discusses it. Arguments both pro and con are provided. Ultimately the reader learns that, odd though the ideas might be, there are good 'justifications' for each of them! There is a total of 43 ideas explored in 211 pages (so there's not a lot of detail to get lost in), and each of the 43 chapters has cross references to other related ideas within the book. The last section of the book provides a Further Reading guide for most of the entries, for those wanting to know more.

For someone wanting a 'brush up' on some of the most intriguing ideas in philosophy, this is a delight to read. For someone unfamiliar with the territory, this book will make you think in ways you never thought possible… Win, win, either way!