What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ecological Self
MATHEWS, THE ECOLOGICAL SELF. LONDON, 1991, x 192 p. Encuadernacion original. Nuevo.
- GenresPhilosophy
Hardcover
First published April 16, 1991
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 2, 2022
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book." ~Nietzsche.
Applies here. Good, if it was shortened by 80-90% percent. Overly pedgogical.
Applies here. Good, if it was shortened by 80-90% percent. Overly pedgogical.
October 15, 2024
Mathews is a cosmologist that in TES bridges an academic gap between two domains that are intuitively related, as far as many practitioners of each are concerned: physics and eco-spirituality. It is also true that there is mistrust and condescention going both ways, probably more from the physics side, in FM's realm of academia.
While physics, eco-spirituality, and the relationship between the two have evolved since TES was first published, it still holds some strong philosophy, especially in its broad understanding of the universe as a self-realizing-system (read: alive).
Her argument is presented in 4 parts:
A. Argument against Atomism
B. Argument for Substance Monism
C. Argument for living beings replacing atoms as the most basic building block in our understanding of the universe
D. Argument for inherent value in the universe as a living being, and for human meaning residing in participation in the cosmic will-to-being
I won't delve into each part, but I'll say that FM's strongest arguments are in parts A and B, with D showing an important stylistic change on her part, from formalist philosophy to more of an essay about how her philosophical ideas should impact us ethically and spiritually.
Personally, I found the root of her argument to be the assertion that the universe is alive. She gets there by arguing that
A. The universe is real, and behaves like a system
B. The universe cannot be taken for granted (why should there be something rather than nothing?)
C. Therefore, there is something like a will-to-being (in Spinoza's terms: conatus) in the universe
D. The universe, endowed with this conatus, confers reality/concreteness down to all things; and confers life down to all systems (organisms), embedded within it
*I gave TES 4 stars because the argumentation is not always airtight
While physics, eco-spirituality, and the relationship between the two have evolved since TES was first published, it still holds some strong philosophy, especially in its broad understanding of the universe as a self-realizing-system (read: alive).
Her argument is presented in 4 parts:
A. Argument against Atomism
B. Argument for Substance Monism
C. Argument for living beings replacing atoms as the most basic building block in our understanding of the universe
D. Argument for inherent value in the universe as a living being, and for human meaning residing in participation in the cosmic will-to-being
I won't delve into each part, but I'll say that FM's strongest arguments are in parts A and B, with D showing an important stylistic change on her part, from formalist philosophy to more of an essay about how her philosophical ideas should impact us ethically and spiritually.
Personally, I found the root of her argument to be the assertion that the universe is alive. She gets there by arguing that
A. The universe is real, and behaves like a system
B. The universe cannot be taken for granted (why should there be something rather than nothing?)
C. Therefore, there is something like a will-to-being (in Spinoza's terms: conatus) in the universe
D. The universe, endowed with this conatus, confers reality/concreteness down to all things; and confers life down to all systems (organisms), embedded within it
*I gave TES 4 stars because the argumentation is not always airtight
Read
January 22, 2023a firmly acceptable text which appears to have been quite conclusively blown away since its time. Mathews' reading of Spinoza is nice and appreciated but she's really not one to unpack these things in the most coherent fashion. Her quantum content is good and I'm glad she's incorporating it but it's leaving desires ,
this isn't to say it's Bad or even difficult so much as clunkily expressed. The digressions aren't worth their space & I can imagine the quantum image a first-time reader leaves with isn't all too serviceable. I suppose I'm avoiding the term 'over-complicated' because I think that's an extremely lazy criticism and I don't think this book Is that, as such. a better editor perhaps could have turned this around
I appreciate Morton's aside in chapter one of Ecology without Nature which manages to really swipe at this book without even mentioning it by drawing it into a canon of the predictable, the 'for-granted' undeep deep ecology. cheeky
this isn't to say it's Bad or even difficult so much as clunkily expressed. The digressions aren't worth their space & I can imagine the quantum image a first-time reader leaves with isn't all too serviceable. I suppose I'm avoiding the term 'over-complicated' because I think that's an extremely lazy criticism and I don't think this book Is that, as such. a better editor perhaps could have turned this around
I appreciate Morton's aside in chapter one of Ecology without Nature which manages to really swipe at this book without even mentioning it by drawing it into a canon of the predictable, the 'for-granted' undeep deep ecology. cheeky
December 21, 2024
Goated philosophy book – takes the best bits of Spinoza, Einstein's theory of relativity and panpsychism to create something that feels genuinely life-affirming and grounding. Keen to read again.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews