What do you think?
Rate this book
The Frames of Reality
The Frames of Reality introduces an innovative philosophical system that promises to be simple, elegant, and consistent. It is ambitious in trying to find a principle that explains the world and the way in which we perceive reality. Merging ancient Chinese Taoist philosophy with Kantian transcendental idealism, and being strongly influenced by scientific theories, this philosophy gives forward-looking perspectives on ethics, epistemology, political philosophy, religion, psychology, and metaphysics, among many others. Making use of accessible and straight-forward language this readable book brings philosophy to a wide range of readers
- GenresScience
364 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 1, 2015
32 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 of 1 review
January 23, 2016
I was sent a copy of The Frames of Reality a couple of weeks ago by the author, who said he thought I might find it interesting. I've just finished, and now I'm trying to decide how to evaluate it.
First, a few facts. The book is a work of philosophy, about 360 pages long. According to the the back cover, the author, Juan Gabriel Ruiz, is a 29 year old Columbian with a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Bogotá and a Masters in International Development from Tsinghua University, Beijing. His native language is Spanish, but he has written the book in English so as to be able to reach a wider audience. He has clearly read a good deal of philosophy, though it is not obvious that he has ever studied it formally. His favorite philosophers from the Western tradition appear to be Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Einstein, Russell and Wittgenstein. He is also very interested in the Chinese philosophical tradition. He often quotes Feynman, Dawkins and Taleb with approval.
Drawing on these diverse sources, Ruiz proposes a way of thinking about reality which centers on the concept of what he calls a "frame". He says at the start that he isn't going to define what a "frame" is, but illustrate using examples; the intention is that it will gradually start to cohere. The book doesn't in any way come across as the work of a crank. There is no imputation that the author has discovered some deep, mystical principle which has hitherto been overlooked. He intends, rather, to provide a conceptual tool which he thinks people may find useful.
One of the obvious messages of the book is that things can usually be viewed in many ways, none of which are necessarily better than others. It seems reasonable to apply this principle to the book itself. A superficial way of looking at it would be to complain about the presentation, which is unimpressive. There are errors in spelling and grammar on every page (e.g. the word "let's" is frequently misspelled as "lets"), and the fact-checking is on the sloppy side (e.g. we are told at one point that Aristotle lived three thousand years ago). Unfortunately, this will already be enough to convince many readers that the book is not worth looking at. If the author is serious about wanting to reach a wide audience, he might want to consider engaging the services of a professional editor and bring out a revised edition.
Another superficial approach would be to think about the author's character. The tone is quite personal, and you feel after a while that you have got to know Ruiz, who comes across as a pleasant and interesting guy. I soon decided that I wanted the book to be a success, and I think a fair number of readers will have the same reaction. But when you are writing philosophy, it's not obvious that character is the central issue. Michael Frayn's The Human Touch is charmingly written - so much so that even the great Alan Lightman was charmed - but it is a terrible piece of philosophy. So I'm inclined to discount this way of looking at things too, though other people may have a different reaction.
To me, the thing that determines whether a piece of philosophy is worthwhile is whether it changes the way you think. Plato makes you change your thinking about the notion of virtue, Wittgenstein forces you to reconceptualize your ideas about the nature of language, and Hume teaches you to be rigorous in your scepticism. I can see that the author finds the concept of a "frame" useful - so useful, in fact, that it has made him write this book - but I don't believe I've learned how to use it. At a couple of points, I felt I was maybe getting it. There is a recurrent argument about what we understand. We have a good understanding of certain simple things, for example the reactions in a chemical plant, and that tempts us to believe we understand much more. But whenever we think about anything that's genuinely important to us - what we should do, how we should act - we don't really understand it at all. If we look at things in one frame, a certain course of action may seem good (I prepared systematically for the exam and passed it with a high grade). If we look at it in another, it may seem bad (by passing the exam, I got into a profession I didn't like). In a third, it may seem good again (even though I hated the job I ended up with, it was as a result of taking it that I met my wife). We should try to be realistic about what it is we actually do understand, and how little it is in the greater scheme of things. But I still don't really grasp what a "frame" is, and there were many passages, particularly when the author was talking about the physical world, where I felt it was hindering rather than helping my understanding.
As you can see, I am undecided about the value of this piece of work. I don't think The Frames of Reality is a very good book as it stands. But maybe the author can write a better one if he reorganizes his thoughts in the right way. I hope this review encourages him to do so.
First, a few facts. The book is a work of philosophy, about 360 pages long. According to the the back cover, the author, Juan Gabriel Ruiz, is a 29 year old Columbian with a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Bogotá and a Masters in International Development from Tsinghua University, Beijing. His native language is Spanish, but he has written the book in English so as to be able to reach a wider audience. He has clearly read a good deal of philosophy, though it is not obvious that he has ever studied it formally. His favorite philosophers from the Western tradition appear to be Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Einstein, Russell and Wittgenstein. He is also very interested in the Chinese philosophical tradition. He often quotes Feynman, Dawkins and Taleb with approval.
Drawing on these diverse sources, Ruiz proposes a way of thinking about reality which centers on the concept of what he calls a "frame". He says at the start that he isn't going to define what a "frame" is, but illustrate using examples; the intention is that it will gradually start to cohere. The book doesn't in any way come across as the work of a crank. There is no imputation that the author has discovered some deep, mystical principle which has hitherto been overlooked. He intends, rather, to provide a conceptual tool which he thinks people may find useful.
One of the obvious messages of the book is that things can usually be viewed in many ways, none of which are necessarily better than others. It seems reasonable to apply this principle to the book itself. A superficial way of looking at it would be to complain about the presentation, which is unimpressive. There are errors in spelling and grammar on every page (e.g. the word "let's" is frequently misspelled as "lets"), and the fact-checking is on the sloppy side (e.g. we are told at one point that Aristotle lived three thousand years ago). Unfortunately, this will already be enough to convince many readers that the book is not worth looking at. If the author is serious about wanting to reach a wide audience, he might want to consider engaging the services of a professional editor and bring out a revised edition.
Another superficial approach would be to think about the author's character. The tone is quite personal, and you feel after a while that you have got to know Ruiz, who comes across as a pleasant and interesting guy. I soon decided that I wanted the book to be a success, and I think a fair number of readers will have the same reaction. But when you are writing philosophy, it's not obvious that character is the central issue. Michael Frayn's The Human Touch is charmingly written - so much so that even the great Alan Lightman was charmed - but it is a terrible piece of philosophy. So I'm inclined to discount this way of looking at things too, though other people may have a different reaction.
To me, the thing that determines whether a piece of philosophy is worthwhile is whether it changes the way you think. Plato makes you change your thinking about the notion of virtue, Wittgenstein forces you to reconceptualize your ideas about the nature of language, and Hume teaches you to be rigorous in your scepticism. I can see that the author finds the concept of a "frame" useful - so useful, in fact, that it has made him write this book - but I don't believe I've learned how to use it. At a couple of points, I felt I was maybe getting it. There is a recurrent argument about what we understand. We have a good understanding of certain simple things, for example the reactions in a chemical plant, and that tempts us to believe we understand much more. But whenever we think about anything that's genuinely important to us - what we should do, how we should act - we don't really understand it at all. If we look at things in one frame, a certain course of action may seem good (I prepared systematically for the exam and passed it with a high grade). If we look at it in another, it may seem bad (by passing the exam, I got into a profession I didn't like). In a third, it may seem good again (even though I hated the job I ended up with, it was as a result of taking it that I met my wife). We should try to be realistic about what it is we actually do understand, and how little it is in the greater scheme of things. But I still don't really grasp what a "frame" is, and there were many passages, particularly when the author was talking about the physical world, where I felt it was hindering rather than helping my understanding.
As you can see, I am undecided about the value of this piece of work. I don't think The Frames of Reality is a very good book as it stands. But maybe the author can write a better one if he reorganizes his thoughts in the right way. I hope this review encourages him to do so.
Displaying 1 of 1 review