The author gives us lots to think about, however, as I was reading through the arguments in each chapter, I found that he provided few (if any) reasons for rejecting traditional approaches to the questions he was addressing. Often his counter-arguments amounted to something along the lines of: “each of these positions holds their own, but, some of the arguments in favor of some of them seem somewhat ad hoc, so, I am inclined to lean in direction x.” Sometimes he simply suggests that a position should be accepted based upon a majority of contemporary scholars who lean in that direction. Having decided on the basis of a whim, or a majority, that he will lean in a certain direction, he then continues as if that direction has been proved. At the end, we have an elaborately built house of cards, but very little evidence that it is in inhabitable, and plenty of reason to doubt that it can even withstand a slight breeze. At the end, having worked carefully through this book, we are left with the “impression” that we know less about mankind than we did before starting, and are inclined, based upon a whim, to disregard the author’s opinions (just kidding, I will be writing a more substantive interaction with the author for an article).
I would suggest that the author’s desire to not depend upon classical metaphysics has forced him into a position of wanting to have his cake, and eat it too. He uses the language of classical metaphysics, but repeatedly rejects the metaphysics towards which the language points. It is, thus, robbed of its power. We are left repeatedly suggesting, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”