Philosophical Explanations

by Robert Nozick

In this highly original work, Robert Nozick develops new views on philosophy’s central topics and weaves them into a unified philosophical perspective. It is many years since a major work in English has ranged so widely over philosophy’s fundamental the identity of the self, knowledge and skepticism, free will, the question of why there is something rather than nothing, the foundations of ethics, the meaning of life.

Writing in a distinctive and personal philosophical voice, Mr. Nozick presents a new mode of philosophizing. In place of the usual semi-coercive philosophical goals of proof, of forcing people to accept conclusions, this book seeks philosophical explanations and understanding, and thereby stays truer to the original motivations for being interested in philosophy.

Combining new concepts, daring hypotheses, rigorous reasoning, and playful exploration, the book exemplifies how philosophy can be part of the humanities.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Metaphysics, Politics, Unfinished, Anthropology, Cultural

784 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1981

About the author

Robert Nozick was an American philosopher and professor at Harvard University. He was educated at Columbia (A.B. 1959, summa cum laude), where he studied with Sidney Morgenbesser, at Princeton (Ph.D. 1963), and Oxford as a Fulbright Scholar. He was a prominent American political philosopher in the 1970s and 1980s. He did additional but less influential work in such subjects as decision theory and epistemology. His Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) was a libertarian answer to John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, published in 1971. He was born in Brooklyn, the son of a Jewish entrepreneur from Russia, and married the American poet Gjertrud Schnackenberg. Nozick died in 2002 after a prolonged struggle with cancer. His remains are interred at Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Took me about two months to finish it. It's clearly written and the terminology uses mostly commonplace terms(i.e., it's not like loopy Sartre or Heidegger and their 'beingness-within-becoming-beingness'es.) However, Nozick doesn't seem to want readers to fill in the gaps for him and his explanations can border on tedious. The book itself covers all sorts of questions relevant to philosophy. He proposes his own theory for the purpose of philosophy, which is not to seek philosophical truths (this page already contains an explanation of what the theory is, if you can guess.) His refutation of radical skepticism is perfect for those moments when you find yourself in a debate over solopsism with someone at a bus stop or the check-out lane. I'm not a fan of his positions on ethics. The last chapter is about the purpose of life and is purely light-hearted fun, but not without making a few good points along the way.

[Jimi Olivo · Rating 5 out of 5]

The chapter on 'why there is something rather than nothing' is the best exposition of the subject I've ever read. NOTE: I have not yet completed this book. I just keep reading that chapter over and over again.

[Toren Spencer-Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophical Explanations
Robert Nozick

1. There should be clear, expert evidence connecting the person to the crime that they're accused of. Based on this, and their moral character, should they be punished or forgiven?
2. A foreigner should get a fair court case in American courts, even though they speak a different language than the English spoken in American courts.
3. Some people have received photon or chemical brain surgery which alters their thoughts from their normal state before the surgery.
4. In court, a person’s punishment should be proportionate to the person’s crime.
5. A person’s punishment should not be excessive.
6. Courts should consider whether a person is a first offender or second or repeat offender.
7. Courts should consider if a person intended to cause the harm done, and if the harm done was more than the harm intended.
8. Mental health professionals, like police and law enforcement should have a dress code, code of conduct and code of behavior like police officers have.
9. Mental health professionals should obtain a search warrant from a judge before entering a person’s home.
10. Mental health professionals should gather more information before making an arrest or hospitalization. If they get complaints from witnesses, then question the witnesses to determine if the complaints are justified or unjustified, or lies or the truth.
11. A person’s court case should not be delayed by people making petty objections over trivialities, or the person needing water to drink, or a person who has a stutter and cannot explain himself.
12. Some people curse or use explicit words as a natural part of their language, but this does not mean that they are violent or will break any laws.
13. Some people are physically strong and athletic, but this does not mean that they are violent or will break any laws.
14. Some people do not like explaining themselves to anyone other than police or law enforcement.
15. A person’s court case should not be delayed by race when race isn’t an issue, or other excuses.
16. State laws are more clearly stated than mental health laws.
17. A person should not display an irrational fear of something that makes it difficult to communicate with them.
18. A person should not display an irrational attachment to common household items.
19. The criminal justice system and the court system are professional, structured, organized, hierarchical systems in American government.
20. The nature of punishment in the criminal justice system involves ways to show the offender what he did wrong and teach or reform him in order to prevent this behavior from being repeated.
21. A person has the right not to make statements to police or law enforcement if he chooses not to.
22. Unlike colleges or universities, teachers in mental health classes do not have training or licenses to teach.
23. Mental health classes should have approved methods and standards for treating the mentally disabled.
24. A psychiatrist should not keep asking his patient the same question over and over again.
25. Organizations that are involved in children’s lives should contact family members who that child trusts, because many families contain members who children don’t trust.
26. Alexander Pushkin suggests that because of the problems that humans have faced in history, (racism, wars,) humans are entitled to their anger or sadness.
27. Psychiatrist's paperwork should be logical, organized, and have statements that clearly link a person's behavior to his or her mental illness.
28. Many authors suggest that man is a normal creature who is entitled to freedom and independence under law, as long as man follows the laws of his country.
29. Omitted.
30. Witnesses should not tell absolutely outrageous and incredible lies about other people.
31. Prosecutors should not exaggerate a person’s crime into a bigger matter than it actually is.
32. Prosecutors should not use scary language to describe a person’s behavior.
33. Prosecutors shouldn’t charge someone for crimes that they committed years ago that they have already been punished for.

1. Did the doctor commit malpractice, and if so, how?
2. Did the doctor use the right judgment when treating the patient?
3. Did the patient take the medication as prescribed by the doctor?

1. How were your thoughts and behaviors before the brain surgery compared to your thoughts and behaviors after the surgery, and how do you keep the same thoughts and behaviors that you had before the brain surgery after you've had the brain surgery.
2. Leads to the discussion of how we define ourselves, and the search for self identity.
3. Refers to the original persom, before the brain surgery, and the new person, after the surgery.
4. Brain surgery to assist long distance travel, and how changes in the body can also assist this. Brain altering surgery can ssist travel by air, land, and sea.
5. Psychological development in normal stages vs psychological development at too rapid a pace, and the discussion that follows.
6. Persons have conceptions about themselves, of what is important about their being themselves. Social groups can also influence this.
7. Examine a view of identity over time.
8. Brain surgery that alters the mind in unacceptable ways.
9. Generalizations used to describe a person's actions.
10. Some writers have speculated that when people sleep and dream, an astral body actually moves off from the sleeping body and in some realm performs the dreamed actions.
11. Healthy body as natural and involves self-regulation and self-maintenance.
12. If you can accept that mental illness did not originate at birth, then you prove that the person does not have a mental illness.
13. Omitted.
14. Omitted.
15. In the discussion, jumping from one reasonable level to the next, instead of jumping from one lelev to much higher level.
16. If a person gives a reasonable, convincing argument in court, in their own defense, then the court is supposed to rule in their favor.
17. Remind doctors that they should be honest, and not deceive people.
18. Logical connections vs confusion in a court of law.
19. In some instances, you're not in violation of a criminal law, but you're in violation of a less severe, more flexible mental health law.
20. Examine Hume's lesson, that there are no logical connections between events, and past events do not predict the outcome of future events.
21. Perhaps mental illness definitions were established independently, or on their own.
22. Keeping the possibility for additional actions in the future.
23. It is surprisingly difficult to calm oneself down after one has been physically active.
24. Experienceing speakers for sounds: low tones, high tones, and other tones.
25. The quieting meditative experience.
26. Differences between the mystic and nonmystic, and how do mystic principles affect our live today?
27. The job of an investigator is to gather information, and make connections.
28. Patients don't take a counter position, they take more of a questioning, intuitive, alter-position.
29. Shrines in the area - what are their purpose? Are the approved by the parks department? Where can we go to gather more information about them?
30. Examine the case where the parents turn o the son and express their wish to put him in prison. The parents refuse to compromise with others in their sons release.
31. Suppose a method is good for some types of statements but not others.
32. What method are psychiatrists using to treat their patients?
33. Many court cases today are difficult cases to decide. They are not simple cases, and they are difficult cases to judge.
34. Acting on witness statements without confirming their truth.
35. Using wisdom, experience and judgement to confirm or deny the truth of witness statements.
36. Isolating or prosectuing the minority in the group.
37. The object, or purpose of the court system is to give people the opportunity to gain their independence and freedom.
38. Omitted.
39. Consider the case of the student who goes to school and takes hallicinogenic drugs, and then writes about his experience, and also consider groups of people who use hallucinogenic drugs together.
40. Consider the cases of pathological liars.
41. Different external factors that delay progress.
42. Ask the judge, what do you want to hear from me? How can I get my client off?
43. Humans make mistakees in life as a means of social development.
44. We shouldn't quibble over petty details.
45. The failure to share relevant knowledge, or read relevant information is a problem.
46. Sometimes, arguments can sound believable, but they are really false and inaccurate in many ways.
47. Discusses a genetic engineering experiment to change the world.
48. A person shouldn't go around screaming, complaining or shouting.
49. Acting instantaneously vs acting based on deliberation and knowledge.
50. Some people believe that knowledge is a problem in the world, and refuse to learn new things.
51. When a person is moved out of their home area, then they lose some of the authority that they previously had.
52. Please visit my blog, www.scholarlyinformation.com for more university-level book reviews, food ideas, and more.

Thank you,
🌹🌹Toren Spencer-Gray

[Joshua Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I had stopped after chapter four, I would have given this book five stars, but Nozick's discussion of ethics is one of the most pathetic attempts I've read in a long time. His discussions of epistemology are interesting whether or not you agree with his position, but to step from the analytic to the continental and change so radically in methodology is sudden and presents a problem for consistency. I got whiplash.

At best, Nozick's last two chapters are weak. He presents an Aristotelean ethic so deep in the aether-void that it's basically impossible to follow. His discussion of "values" could be interesting if his terms were appropriately qualified and if he was really clear about his position on the "is-ought" debate.

As the text stands, he doesn't clarify an issue at the heart of ethics (that "is-ought" rift) until the very end of the chapter, at which point he has successfully introduced an entire system of ethics that doesn't seem to adhere to his answer about that debate.

But I'm not going to get down on the text too hard. The first four chapters really are fantastic. His discussion of epistemology is interesting, and he's very well grounded in the fundamentals of analytics. It's a fantastic introduction to those areas of study.

[Volbet · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I'm ambivalent to the way Robert Nozick explained philosophy in Philosophical Explanations, I really do like what the book set out to do.
Creating a common framework of understanding on the basic questions of philosophy would indeed make it easier to discuss more advanced philosophical topics. And I do think Nozick got around to the most important topic and, in a way only Nozick can, gave some explanations to those topics.

The only issue is that Philosophical Explanations is far from a exploration of pure phenomenon (is that even possible?) Instead, this is a very narrow exploration of the themes put forth in the book. Narrow in the sense thar Nozick never deviates from the analytical and almost reductionistic rationalist methodology that made him famous with Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
This especially comes out in the first half of the book, where Nozick seem almost incapable of grasping of knowledge as being seated anywhere but in the person. For example, when Nozick explains the I, the existence of the subject in a philosophical sense, he can only conceive of the Self being existent in the rationalizing of the individual. Never does it even cross the page that a Person is defined not only in relation to themself, but also in relation to their social life.
I know Nozick, and his brand of analytical philosophy in general, doesn't really like the idea of social realities, but a lot seem to be lost in the book by the lack of acknowledgement of the social aspects of humanity.
I'm obviously not saying that Nozick had to agree with me, nor that the two methodologies are exclusionary to one another, but Nozick's silence silence on any methodologies that could go against his own is curious.

[Michiel Perdeck · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am still reading the book. The chapter *“Philosophy and the Meaning of Life”* is especially entertaining and thought-provoking. Although the title reminds one of *Monty Python*, it actually contains some valuable insights (which is not to imply that *Monty Python’s* films and TV shows lacked valuable content…).

Much of this chapter is about “meaning.” What puzzles me is how this concept is defined by Nozick. Everyone has some idea of what it means, but what is Nozick’s definition? Is “meaning” an objective property of something (a thing, process, etc.), or is it subjectively or culturally assigned? I have the impression that Nozick’s idea of meaning is primarily cultural and subjective. He gives examples from various religious traditions, where “meaning” depends on the existence of an “infinite entity” and even functions as a kind of “proof” of such an entity’s existence. I do appreciate how he points out that this is a circular argument—and therefore, ironically, without meaning(!).

His treatment is reminiscent of the medieval scholastics, who reasoned in a highly logical and rational way about the existence of God (though of course they reached very different conclusions from Nozick’s).

I would be interested in discussing Nozick’s use of the term “meaning” with another reader of this book.

[Doni · Rating 3 out of 5]

The thing I like best about Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations is his humility. He is not trying to persuade us of THE truth. Rather, he is exploring possible ideas and frameworks of philosophy. This leads him to create suppositions that philosophers who are more concerned with coming across as authoritative might be comfortable with. I especially like the different scenarios he creates for the relationship between “ought” claims and “is” claims. I also like how he posits that ethics may be a requirement for knowledge.

The thing I like least about Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations is that he transforms ideas into equations. This does not really seem to service the ideas, but seems more like laziness because he doesn’t want to keep referring back to statements he’s already written.

[Michael Norwitz · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thick and curious tome, in which Nozick tackles enduring philosophical problems ... skepticism, free will, ethics, and literally the meaning of life ... attempting a style which explores each topic deeply without attempting to formulate an argument. His intellect is considerable and he mulls deeply and profoundly on these and other problems, yet without an argumentative structure the book often feels meandering and aimless. This might have been better off had it been written as a popular book, but his style frequently lapses into academicese which makes it an unlikely gift for a casual reader.

There is a lot to learn from the book, but one must decide whether the patience is worth it.

[Clay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dreadfully dense (I’m sure I only grasped a fraction of its contents) but sporadically insightful. Particularly stimulating was the section on why there is something rather than nothing. His framing (inegalitarian vs egalitarian theories) transformed how I think about the question. The section on ethics and values was, as I have come to expect from Nozick, quite embarrassing and sloppy, aside from his takedown of subjectivists. His fixation on prohibiting coercion or force at the expense of all other values is completely unfounded. He is clearly working backwards from his conclusion. And what the fuck “organic unity?”

[Julian Weitzenfeld · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, to be honest, I could not bring myself to continue far with this book. Nozick's approach to philosophy is academic and artificial and nothing he said grabbed me. He starts with the philosophical literature and produces clever games unmoored from the way the world actually is to "explain" concepts. I am generally unconvinced by philosophers who depend on ontologically impossible thought experiments to explore concepts that have grown in our real world. They (the philosophers) tend to have had privileged lives.

[Malcolm Morano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Possibly the best book I’ve ever read.

[Walid · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book explores the philosophical concepts of identity, human certainty, free will, and values with great depth and clarity.

[Dario Vaccaro · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me more than a year to finally read through and study this monster of a book, but fortunately this is because many things happened in my life as a philosopher and I didn't manage to find a lot of time or energies left to continue it for long intervals.

My general view on "Philosophical Explanations" is that its quality levels are very volatile. And the reason for this is understandable: Nozick wrote an incredibly ambitious work, ranging from global metaphysics to the meaning of life; from metaethics to knowledge theory; from libertarian free will to theories of identity. All these topics are held together by a few underlying metaphilosophical takes: a) that philosophers should focus on questions that make us "tremble"; b) that philosophers should not seek to convince but rather to show how something seemingly impossible is possible; c) that philosophers should take seriously the idea that a theory is better when it can "self-subsume", aka, be itself an instance of what it claims.

Starting from the metaphilosophical assumptions, explicitly stated in the Introduction, I have several problems with b) and c). Most crucially, I find it unacceptable to view philosophy as merely providing POSSIBLE accounts, that will inevitably be accepted or rejected by the reader depending on their biases; the account we should follow is the one that works best or, at least, better than its known alternatives. Moreover, the problem can be easily seen by applying Nozick's own self-subsumption strategy: if this metaphilosophical account is just one of the possible ones out there, there is no special reason to favor it instead of another equally logically coherent one; if, instead, a metaphilosophical view is forceful enough to convince the reader, then the reader can, from their perspective at least, take it as the more convincing theory.

When it comes to Nozick's first-order philosophical views, as I said I reacted in various ways given the wide variety of them: some I found interesting, others ridiculous, others illuminating. To give a few examples: in metaethics, Nozick supports a complex realist view of value which advanced my understanding of value-tracking, but his idea that value simply IS organic unity seems completely arbitrary and too narrow to me; on the topic of free will he offers an excellent reason why we WANT to have libertarian free will, but no concrete arguments in favor of its existence (which he admits to); the Metaphysics section was overall very interesting, with my highlight being his way to save the principle of sufficient reason from the objection that there are empirical reasons to think we cannot explain everything; finally, the section on knowledge is probably the weakest one: his requirements for knowledge are insanely demanding, they are incompatible with closure, and his appeal to closest possible worlds does not convince me (because he assumes we are not BiVs and then takes it that the closer possible worlds to us are ones where we are not BiVs. The problem is that you cannot assume you are not a BiV to show that you know you are not a BiV).

Overall, I found it surprising that his least known ideas are also the more promising from my perspective. But all of them are surely bold, interesting, and for the most part pretty original. I recommend this book to people who have some experience in philosophical literature, because some sections may not be easy to follow for novices, but who want to explore ideas that are not all directly connected to their primary interests.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am deeply impressed at myself for finishing this, and relatively quickly.
Nozick goes on a journey, presenting a unified philosophy of the most important and toughest questions. Instead of arguing, something he views as coercive and disrespectful to your value, he offers explanations of how things are possible. At many times his philosophical wonkery can be tough to get through, and he did lose me in parts. His argument for retributive punishment is impressive and presents a challenge to my position that I will need to reconcile. I benefitted greatly from this book and I will carry his insights in how I approach philosophy in the future.

[Larry · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read it quite a while ago, but I didn't want to review it because there is at the same time much and not much to be said about it. The reason for that is Nozick frequently takes problems, proposes way too many ways of dealing with it, some relevant, some less relevant, some completely beside the point, and it takes an insane amount of patience to keep track of his reasoning. I find this aspect of his thinking (and style) simultaneously amusing, cute, sympathetic and tedious.

The first part of the book about metaphysics is a bit awkward. Nozick defends his thesis about closest-continuers against Parfit's criticisms, essentially making the case that there are no essences and identities but merely continuers of selves throughout time (for instance, you are the closest continuer of your younger self) in the form of spectrums of selves rather than distinct identities that resist time. Why not. Then, Nozick deals with every single possible criticism of his position he can think of. The chapter about 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is an exception in this, as it is pretty well-wrought and well-argued. The discussion about self-reference that follows is worth reading too.

The second part about epistemology is by far the best one. Nozick attempts to offer a rebuttal to famous skeptical points made about reality (it's all a dream, the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment and so on) and he chiefly argues that to know is to have a belief that tracks the truth, and that knowledge is not closed under logical implication, which means (and this is a powerful thesis if you ask me) that it does not follow from the fact that we don't know or can't know whether we are dreaming or not that we cannot know things about the world.

And then comes to the part about ethics. All I can say about it is it definitely convinced me that ethics might be a field of inquiry analytical philosophy is not very well suited for (though I neither read Moore nor Mackie so maybe I'm just biased). Nozick essentially designs very elaborated ways of making very simple and intuitive points, often misrepresenting the views of the philosophers he evokes.

To be hontest, I'm not sure Nozick is a great writer insofar as his style does not work very well with the format or the length of a book. Maybe he should have sticked to articles, which arguably would have led him to rein himself in.

[D · Rating 2 out of 5]

We are all just a few years past something or other, if only childhood. Even the monuments themselves, so serenely in command of culture and intellect, must have been children once and adolescents -- so they too are immigrants to the realm of thought. It wouldn’t hurt for an acknowledgment of this occasionally through their magisterial prose to peep.

How are we valuable and precious?
There is sexual experience with its own playfulness and possibilities, its focused freedom, its depth, its sharp pleasures and its gentle ones, its ecstacies. What is the mind’s excitement and sensuality? What its orgasm? Whatever it unfortunately will frighten and offend the puritans of the mind even as it expands others and brings them joy.

An act is wrong in virtue of some other features it has, for instance, causing (needless) suffering, betraying the trust of a friend, initiating genocide.

What we want is both

(a) to be the best kind of person, and
(b) to have the best kind of life.

Responsiveness to each flitting thought and emotion links one closer to the person but not to the centrally unifying traits of the person. The moral principles against murder, coercion, manipulation, and lying are valid summaries of what is demanded of us by responsiveness to other value-seeking selves.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contains painstakingly subtle investigations of metaphysics, epistemology, and value theories. Its good, but it takes a considerable investment of time to plod through. I would say the chapters on metaphysics were of the greatest use and interest to me.

[Erik C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wide ranging, and fairly apolitical (Nozick is most known for his libertarian views).

The passages on the meaning of life are fairly tounge in cheek, yet manage to be the best selections on the topic I've ever read.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful collection. And it's not libertarian mumbo jumbo: the essays cover a variety of topics.

[Doug Farren · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book just wasn't for me. You need to have a serious background in philosophy before tackling this one! I was unable to finish it.

[Ebnarabi · Rating 4 out of 5]

i find the best parts of the book are epistemology( the tracking theory.... etc), and the meaning of life.... further, the expostion of 'why there is something rather than nothing' is a must read.

[David Gross · Rating 2 out of 5]

I skimmed most of it. I didn't find it nearly as engaging as Anarchy State and Utopia.

[Serdar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely not light reading, but rewarding for those willing to go the distance. For those who already have some experience with philosophy, and plenty of mental stamina.

[zimu]

Chapters read: Knowledge and Skepticism

[mk.miles_ · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times really hard to understand. At times really satisfying when you understand it. Also has a really sick cover.