The work of the great philosophers of the past is well known. From Aristotle and Plato to Kant and Wittgenstein, the answers to life's biggest questions have been discussed and debated endlessly. But, as philosophy itself teaches, there is never a final solution to a philosophical problem. In the search for higher meaning, Nicholas Fearn has traveled the globe to interview the world's most distinguished thinkers, from Derek Parfit, David Wiggins, and Bernard Williams, to Donald Davidson, Richard Rorty, and Bernard-Henri Lévi. Philosophy is a brilliant and compelling guide to the latest answers to the oldest questions, bringing to light what today's philosophers think about what it is to be human.
I'll be honest I was expecting a bit more of the latest thinking in terms of the life questions covered by this book but instead it read more like a summary of philosophical thinking from its earliest point to now with no real explanation of current thinking (unless I completely missed it with my non-philosophical mind). Because of this, I found it to be quite dense and difficult reading jumping from one theory to another with no real linkages. I don't mind getting the background to things but in this case I think it could've done with a bit more connection describing how and why theories did or did not change as time goes in. Or maybe philosophy is just not for me.
This book is the very antithesis of a page-turner. I had to read it in stages, which I had not expected. I had briefly studied philosophy at University and found it to be a challenging and positive experience. Fearn covers the same ground that my lecturer, the late Professor Eric Matthews, covered but somehow his discussion feels stilted and devoid of any kind of passion for his subject. Worse still, in his chapter on morality it would appear that Mr Fearn takes a dim view on all of our behaviour. His comparison of how the French and Bulgarians responded to Nazi pressure during the war is laughable, or would be if he didn’t take himself so seriously.
This book somehow doesn’t feel like a balanced overview, doesn’t really go into any depth with any of the interviews he undertook (he must’ve outlined something to get his advance from the publishers) and feels more like an excuse for the author to espouse his own particular point of view.
2 stars, 1 for allowing me to reflect on my time at university and 1 for getting me angry enough to think on the subject at hand. Sadly not as enjoyable as I had hoped for, nor as informative.