What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Think? The Evolution of the Rational Mind
In a world where natural selection has shaped adaptations of astonishing ingenuity, what is the scope and unique power of rational thinking?
In this short but wide-ranging book, philosopher Ronald de Sousa looks at the twin set of issues surrounding the power of natural selection to mimic rational design, and rational thinking as itself a product of natural selection.
While we commonly deem ourselves superior to other species, the logic of natural selection should not lead us to expect that nature does everything for the best. Similarly, rational action does not always promote the best possible outcomes. So what is the difference? Is the pursuit of rationality actually an effective strategy?
Part of the answer lies in language, including mathematics and science. Language is the most striking device by which we have made ourselves smarter than our nearest primate cousins. Sometimes the purely instinctual responses we share with other animals put explicit reasoning to the movements of a trained athlete are faster and more accurate than anything she could explicitly calculate. Language, however, with its power to abstract from concrete experience and to range over all aspects of nature, enables breathtakingly precise calculations, which have taken us to the moon and beyond. Most importantly, however, language enables us to formulate an endless multiplicity of values, in potential conflict with one another as well as with instinctual imperatives.
In short, this sophisticated and entertaining book shows how our rationality and our irrationality are inextricably intertwined. Ranging over a wide array of evidence, it explores the true ramifications of being human in the natural world.
In this short but wide-ranging book, philosopher Ronald de Sousa looks at the twin set of issues surrounding the power of natural selection to mimic rational design, and rational thinking as itself a product of natural selection.
While we commonly deem ourselves superior to other species, the logic of natural selection should not lead us to expect that nature does everything for the best. Similarly, rational action does not always promote the best possible outcomes. So what is the difference? Is the pursuit of rationality actually an effective strategy?
Part of the answer lies in language, including mathematics and science. Language is the most striking device by which we have made ourselves smarter than our nearest primate cousins. Sometimes the purely instinctual responses we share with other animals put explicit reasoning to the movements of a trained athlete are faster and more accurate than anything she could explicitly calculate. Language, however, with its power to abstract from concrete experience and to range over all aspects of nature, enables breathtakingly precise calculations, which have taken us to the moon and beyond. Most importantly, however, language enables us to formulate an endless multiplicity of values, in potential conflict with one another as well as with instinctual imperatives.
In short, this sophisticated and entertaining book shows how our rationality and our irrationality are inextricably intertwined. Ranging over a wide array of evidence, it explores the true ramifications of being human in the natural world.
- GenresPhilosophyBiologyScience
200 pages, Hardcover
First published May 25, 2007
3 people are currently reading
61 people want to read
About the author
Ronald de Sousa
8 books11 followersRonald Bon de Sousa Pernes is a Canadian philosopher and academic. Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 1, 2012
A very difficult book. Pure Philosophy (probably not 101). Heard the author on CBC radio in the morning discussing rational thinking. Book subject: origins of mind.
Book takes up the Plantinga (theist, philospher) challenge:
-proposition that "Mind" is a product of evolution and natural selection; then mind [itself] is unlikely to be able to uncover the nature of mind or the process that gave rise to it.
(I consider this a classic immunization attempt by Plantinga, See Stephen Law: Believing Bullshit)
Plantinga favours a creator (of course) because he can't see circumstances that could reward the ability (of mind) for natural selection to work.
OK BUT if one assumes mind is a product of a creator [who singled us out] then mind is unlikely able to uncover, nature of itself either or the creator & his intentions.
de Sousa's response Chapter 3: What's the Good of Thinking?
Develops the case; to understand it readers need to understand "transitions" in evolution; also called emergence evolution (see also Robert Reid in my library Evolution by Natural Experiment)
Who should one trust in the opposing arguments? Consider motives and outcomes desired.
-the favoured "priesthood" [papacy or whatever you like] and control over others
OR
universal reason and personal control
[you choose]
"When enough people share a delusion ...[it] gets a religious tax exemption..."
I cannot make out why the nude image was chosen for the cover.
Book takes up the Plantinga (theist, philospher) challenge:
-proposition that "Mind" is a product of evolution and natural selection; then mind [itself] is unlikely to be able to uncover the nature of mind or the process that gave rise to it.
(I consider this a classic immunization attempt by Plantinga, See Stephen Law: Believing Bullshit)
Plantinga favours a creator (of course) because he can't see circumstances that could reward the ability (of mind) for natural selection to work.
OK BUT if one assumes mind is a product of a creator [who singled us out] then mind is unlikely able to uncover, nature of itself either or the creator & his intentions.
de Sousa's response Chapter 3: What's the Good of Thinking?
Develops the case; to understand it readers need to understand "transitions" in evolution; also called emergence evolution (see also Robert Reid in my library Evolution by Natural Experiment)
Who should one trust in the opposing arguments? Consider motives and outcomes desired.
-the favoured "priesthood" [papacy or whatever you like] and control over others
OR
universal reason and personal control
[you choose]
"When enough people share a delusion ...[it] gets a religious tax exemption..."
I cannot make out why the nude image was chosen for the cover.
Displaying 1 of 1 review