What do you think?
Rate this book
Afreeism: How a New (and Ancient) Understanding of the Universe Can Transform Society and Enrich Our Lives
Afreeism, the understanding that free will is an illusion, is a concept so powerful that it profoundly transforms the way we see the world. Its origins date back over two millennia, yet it is substantiated by modern scientific discoveries. By embracing afreeism, we can learn . . .
• To live without guilt, regret, remorse . . . and to live more joyfully.
• To judge others less, opening ourselves to greater acceptance and understanding.
• To live in the moment, shedding the baggage of the past and the worries for the future.
• To work toward a more just world, knowing that our actions matter.
Afreeism requires no leaps of faith. Professor Marks lays out the philosophical history and scientific underpinnings of afreeism while exploring the surprising benefits for those who embrace it.
• To live without guilt, regret, remorse . . . and to live more joyfully.
• To judge others less, opening ourselves to greater acceptance and understanding.
• To live in the moment, shedding the baggage of the past and the worries for the future.
• To work toward a more just world, knowing that our actions matter.
Afreeism requires no leaps of faith. Professor Marks lays out the philosophical history and scientific underpinnings of afreeism while exploring the surprising benefits for those who embrace it.
286 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2021
2 people are currently reading
6 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 20, 2021
Brilliant book on afreesim (lack of free will) and the implications of that
Why are you reading this review? Why did you check this book on the fascinating subject of free will? There is a cause for that and hopefully this clearly written book will turn you, the reader, into a cause for further actions that are good for you and the world at large. In other words, you, just like everyone and everything else, are a caused cause. As the author puts it succinctly on the first page, "What is this radical yet ancient idea? It is simply this: we have no free will. The universe is a web of causation dating back to the beginning of time. Our actions are a part of this web. Although we feel that we are making decisions through free will, this is just an illusion. We could not have acted differently than we did." The rest of the book is a brilliant defense of this idea (afreeism) and more importantly its implications on the personal, societal and global levels.
This is my *first* complete review of any book ever! So a review of my review pointing out any weaknesses or mistakes would be greatly appreciated. This will only serve to better any reviews I may write in the future. I usually read books, and if they're good, I read them again, and move on. Often, I decide to review a book but then procrastinate on it. Why is that? I don't know exactly why but I can tell you that that was determined long before the procrastination. And this logic applies to just about anything and everything that any of us think, feel or do. It's all a vast complex web of interconnected actions and events.
Many books have been written making the case for, or (like this one) against, the existence of free will. If you are new to the subject and find that it sparks your curiosity, then I also recommend the neuroscientist Sam Harris's short but brilliant "Free Will" and Richard Oerton's "The Nonsense of Free Will" and "The Cruelty of Free Will". Mr. Oerton has an impressive background in English law and is quite passionate about determinism and the myth of free will. The author of this book, Stephen Marks, is a legal expert too - he's a professor of law at Boston University. I don't think it's a coincidence that many legal experts argue passionately for or against free will - it's such a contested issue. Indeed, my first introduction to the topic many years ago was by reading about the Leopold and Loeb murder trial, which happened almost a century ago, and their lawyer Clarence Darrow - there are a few good films based on that story if you are a movie junkie. Hopefully this book will make it clear that the idea of free will is an illusion. But it goes much further than that. It is in three parts - dispelling the myth of free will, the societal implications of that and finally personal afreeism.
Part I makes the case, convincingly in my opinion, against free will. The author also discusses the concepts of moral obligation (compatible with afreeism) and moral responsibility (incompatible with afreeism). Two chapters that I really liked in this part are the "Lens of Causation" and "Counterarguments". In the former, he explains how afreeism makes us view the past and the future differently. Ironically, afreeism makes you feel more free and the causal nature of our universe tells us that what we do matters. There is a strong rebuttal of the "fatalism" argument usually made against hard determinism. "Afreeism is a philosophy of action, not of futility", the author rightly concludes. In the "Counterarguments" chapter, he leaves no stone unturned and defends afreeism cogently against libertarian, compatibilist, semicompatibilist and consequentialist arguments.
The part concludes with a history of this 'contentious' idea. It shouldn't be controversial really because the scientific and logical evidence is pretty much against free will but our species seem to have evolved to believe in myths like free will and the supernatural - yes these nonsensical ideas do provide an evolutionary advantage, but that requires its own book. This quote from early in the book, "If free will is an illusion, then it is an illusion held by many, many people. The question is why? It can be argued that the concept of free will, like the concept of a god, is a social evolutionary adaptation. That is, some beliefs may contribute to society even if they are not true. A society whose members believe in free will may be more likely to survive than a society whose members do not believe in free will." For more details on this evolutionary adaptation, check out Yuval Noah Harari' masterpiece, Sapiens. Pretty amazing how many generations had debated the topic of free will. We just keep coming back to it. Will the neuroscientific evidence be the final nail in the coffin of free will? I don't know but I hope more people lose their unsubstantiated faith in it and I think this clearly written book can help them in the process.
The history chapter includes references to philosophies like Stoicism and non-theistic religions like Buddhism which agree with afreeism and they are mentioned several times throughout the book. The author is careful to point out though that there are parts in them that are either irrelevant to afreeism or simply depend on unsubstantiated faith - seldom a good idea. Spinoza is obviously included in the discussion. I would have liked to see Baron d'Holbach mentioned too but the information in this chapter is more than enough.
Part II discusses the societal implications of afreesim. Philosophy shapes our outlook on political and economic policies. The author covers everything from criminal law to foreign policy to economic injustic to immigration. To say that afreeism causes a radical shift in one's view of how society, and indeed the world, should be governed would be an understatement. An important reference point throughout this part is the following two point Equality Principle:
1. Unless there are reasons for doing otherwise, the costs and benefits of society should be distributed equally.
2. Deservedness cannot be a reason for distributing the costs and benefits of society unequally.
I loved how the author reframes this principle according to the issues being discussed. For example, when outlining an afreeist immigration policy, the Equality Principle becomes:
1. Unless there are reasons for doing otherwise, people should have the freedom to move wherever they want.
2. Deservedness cannot be a reason for limiting freedom of movement.
Show that to a xenophobe and congratulations, you're in political hot potato. The keyword here is "deservedness". That's the gist of the argument and the book: in a causally or stochastically deterministic universe, no one deserves anything, good or bad. Admittedly, this is unsettling for most people when first confronted with it, but the beauty of the author's approach is to be brutally honest about reality embracing the positives while trying to find solutions to restrain or counterbalance the negatives.
Take for example the chapter on the Sinvergüenza (Spanish for "without shame") Problem. It was quite refreshing to see the author say the following, "...one might reasonably worry that the elimination of shame, guilt, remorse, and regret, might remove some of the incentives for good social behavior. We, as afreeists, cannot ignore this." Not to worry. He goes on to explain how other potent measures of control, internal and external, can perfectly coexist with afreeism. In a nutshell, we will be just fine.
I said refreshing because the approach taken by him simply is intellectually honest. Contrast this rational, evidence-based philosophy to the dogmatic doctrines of most ancient belief systems, including Abrahamic religions, in which an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being endowed us with an inscrutable soul possessing a peculiar ability called free will to explain why good or bad happens in the world. Mysteriously supernatural through and through. When mass murder or a genocide or a terrorist act or an illegal war happens, then we just blame it on man's wicked exercise of his free will. The existence of evil in the world is cunningly 'explained'. And the situation didn't get any better with the emergence of liberal humanism either. Another quote by the author Yuval Noah Harari summarizes this, "[A] huge gulf is opening between the tenets of liberal humanism and the latest findings of the life sciences, a gulf we cannot ignore much longer. Our liberal political and judicial systems are founded on the belief that every individual has a sacred inner nature, indivisible and immutable, which gives meaning to the world, and which is the source of all ethical and political authority. This is a reincarnation of the traditional Christian belief in a free and eternal soul that resides within each individual. Yet over the last 200 years, the life sciences have thoroughly undermined this belief. Scientists studying the inner workings of the human organism have found no soul there. They increasingly argue that human behaviour is determined by hormones, genes and synapses, rather than by free will—the same forces that determine the behaviour of chimpanzees, wolves, and ants. Our judicial and political systems largely try to sweep such inconvenient discoveries under the carpet. But in all frankness, how long can we maintain the wall separating the department of biology from the departments of law and political science?"
Two chapters in this part that really engrossed me were the ones dealing with the criminal justice system and freedom in a deterministic world respectively. Very briefly, the former assures us that although we have to abandon the notion of retribution, we can still have other measures at our disposal. Specifically, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation will continue to make sense as morally justifiable bases for punishment. The section outlining Derk Pereboom's (another brilliant author and free will skeptic) treatment of crime as a serious communicable disease and thus basing criminal law on the public health model was particularly educational for me. The chapter on freedom was just as good. In a nutshell, yes we can have freedom, including political and economic freedoms, in a deterministic world even if we don't have free will, if we define freedom as the absence of constraints on action.
The final part of the book deals with personal afreeism - what does a lack of free will mean to our personal lives? Good things to all intents and purposes. The author starts with the case for humility since no one deserves anything and we are but a tiny speck in the vastly complex deterministically unfolding universe. Does the world need more humble people? Yes, please! Thereafter, he makes the case for further advantages of afreeism, namely tolerance, self-acceptance, engagement and resilience. But even before that, he honestly tell us that you can still have these qualities without being a free will skeptic. It's just that afreeism makes them more justified and salient.
The author concludes the book with a chapter on meaning. He correctly anticipates the reader's wonder on what's life about if our universe is a wholly deterministic existence since the beginning of time? Traditional belief systems provide an answer but to be convinced of it, you have to invoke faith. That's a problem for science-based afreeism which mandates evidence and logical reasoning. So why we're here? We don't know, and most likely there's no reason at all. In my view, we're just a cosmic accident or as Prof. Marks puts it, "Indeed, there does not appear to be any reason why we are here beyond the fortunate coming together of physical forces."
If you agree with that, then you're in good company. Bertrand Russell wrote in “A Free Man’s Worship”, “That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."
The late French Noble prize winner and biochemist Jacques Monod in his influential "Le Hasard et la Nécessité" - "Chance and Necessity" said, "The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other words, the systematic denial that "true" knowledge can be got at by interpreting phenomena in terms of final causes - that is to say, of "purpose.""
Last but not least, Richard Dawkins in "River out of Eden" wrote, "Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
So we just 'play our bit' in this big theatre of existence. But to do that we need to know how meaning fits within an afreeist perspective. The author defines meaningfulness as a neurological phenomenon that can be cultivated by personal development, social engagement and other-directed purpose.
The book was published only two weeks ago, so for a first printing of a first edition, it's quite good to have only a few typos - I found just three with my deteriorating eyesight. [edit 8 June 2021: these were corrected immediately by the author]
Will you like this book? I can't think of any page that was not educational for me. Will you become a free will skeptic after reading it? I don't know since I was already a skeptic and the book just buttressed my lack of belief. But I will say this. If you keep an open mind and try your best to let go of any unhelpful belief systems, not just theistic ones but also some secular nonsense - think of Ayn Rand's Objectivist claptrap, then you will likely appreciate that afreeism is not just common sense, but that it can also be a truly revolutionary idea for us and the world.
On a lighter note, I think I have praised the author enough already. Remember, we're in a deterministic universe where accomplishment is an illusion. Incidentally, he does write about gratitude in a deterministic universe, "a thank-you that means that what you did made me happy, makes perfect sense in a deterministic world." I couldn't agree more so thank you Steve for this wonderful book. All the same, he had to write this book and I had to read it and write this review which you had to read and your subsequent decision to buy and/or read the book or not had already been taken and so on and so forth...and all of that was determined before any of us was even born. Fascinating, isn't it?!
Why are you reading this review? Why did you check this book on the fascinating subject of free will? There is a cause for that and hopefully this clearly written book will turn you, the reader, into a cause for further actions that are good for you and the world at large. In other words, you, just like everyone and everything else, are a caused cause. As the author puts it succinctly on the first page, "What is this radical yet ancient idea? It is simply this: we have no free will. The universe is a web of causation dating back to the beginning of time. Our actions are a part of this web. Although we feel that we are making decisions through free will, this is just an illusion. We could not have acted differently than we did." The rest of the book is a brilliant defense of this idea (afreeism) and more importantly its implications on the personal, societal and global levels.
This is my *first* complete review of any book ever! So a review of my review pointing out any weaknesses or mistakes would be greatly appreciated. This will only serve to better any reviews I may write in the future. I usually read books, and if they're good, I read them again, and move on. Often, I decide to review a book but then procrastinate on it. Why is that? I don't know exactly why but I can tell you that that was determined long before the procrastination. And this logic applies to just about anything and everything that any of us think, feel or do. It's all a vast complex web of interconnected actions and events.
Many books have been written making the case for, or (like this one) against, the existence of free will. If you are new to the subject and find that it sparks your curiosity, then I also recommend the neuroscientist Sam Harris's short but brilliant "Free Will" and Richard Oerton's "The Nonsense of Free Will" and "The Cruelty of Free Will". Mr. Oerton has an impressive background in English law and is quite passionate about determinism and the myth of free will. The author of this book, Stephen Marks, is a legal expert too - he's a professor of law at Boston University. I don't think it's a coincidence that many legal experts argue passionately for or against free will - it's such a contested issue. Indeed, my first introduction to the topic many years ago was by reading about the Leopold and Loeb murder trial, which happened almost a century ago, and their lawyer Clarence Darrow - there are a few good films based on that story if you are a movie junkie. Hopefully this book will make it clear that the idea of free will is an illusion. But it goes much further than that. It is in three parts - dispelling the myth of free will, the societal implications of that and finally personal afreeism.
Part I makes the case, convincingly in my opinion, against free will. The author also discusses the concepts of moral obligation (compatible with afreeism) and moral responsibility (incompatible with afreeism). Two chapters that I really liked in this part are the "Lens of Causation" and "Counterarguments". In the former, he explains how afreeism makes us view the past and the future differently. Ironically, afreeism makes you feel more free and the causal nature of our universe tells us that what we do matters. There is a strong rebuttal of the "fatalism" argument usually made against hard determinism. "Afreeism is a philosophy of action, not of futility", the author rightly concludes. In the "Counterarguments" chapter, he leaves no stone unturned and defends afreeism cogently against libertarian, compatibilist, semicompatibilist and consequentialist arguments.
The part concludes with a history of this 'contentious' idea. It shouldn't be controversial really because the scientific and logical evidence is pretty much against free will but our species seem to have evolved to believe in myths like free will and the supernatural - yes these nonsensical ideas do provide an evolutionary advantage, but that requires its own book. This quote from early in the book, "If free will is an illusion, then it is an illusion held by many, many people. The question is why? It can be argued that the concept of free will, like the concept of a god, is a social evolutionary adaptation. That is, some beliefs may contribute to society even if they are not true. A society whose members believe in free will may be more likely to survive than a society whose members do not believe in free will." For more details on this evolutionary adaptation, check out Yuval Noah Harari' masterpiece, Sapiens. Pretty amazing how many generations had debated the topic of free will. We just keep coming back to it. Will the neuroscientific evidence be the final nail in the coffin of free will? I don't know but I hope more people lose their unsubstantiated faith in it and I think this clearly written book can help them in the process.
The history chapter includes references to philosophies like Stoicism and non-theistic religions like Buddhism which agree with afreeism and they are mentioned several times throughout the book. The author is careful to point out though that there are parts in them that are either irrelevant to afreeism or simply depend on unsubstantiated faith - seldom a good idea. Spinoza is obviously included in the discussion. I would have liked to see Baron d'Holbach mentioned too but the information in this chapter is more than enough.
Part II discusses the societal implications of afreesim. Philosophy shapes our outlook on political and economic policies. The author covers everything from criminal law to foreign policy to economic injustic to immigration. To say that afreeism causes a radical shift in one's view of how society, and indeed the world, should be governed would be an understatement. An important reference point throughout this part is the following two point Equality Principle:
1. Unless there are reasons for doing otherwise, the costs and benefits of society should be distributed equally.
2. Deservedness cannot be a reason for distributing the costs and benefits of society unequally.
I loved how the author reframes this principle according to the issues being discussed. For example, when outlining an afreeist immigration policy, the Equality Principle becomes:
1. Unless there are reasons for doing otherwise, people should have the freedom to move wherever they want.
2. Deservedness cannot be a reason for limiting freedom of movement.
Show that to a xenophobe and congratulations, you're in political hot potato. The keyword here is "deservedness". That's the gist of the argument and the book: in a causally or stochastically deterministic universe, no one deserves anything, good or bad. Admittedly, this is unsettling for most people when first confronted with it, but the beauty of the author's approach is to be brutally honest about reality embracing the positives while trying to find solutions to restrain or counterbalance the negatives.
Take for example the chapter on the Sinvergüenza (Spanish for "without shame") Problem. It was quite refreshing to see the author say the following, "...one might reasonably worry that the elimination of shame, guilt, remorse, and regret, might remove some of the incentives for good social behavior. We, as afreeists, cannot ignore this." Not to worry. He goes on to explain how other potent measures of control, internal and external, can perfectly coexist with afreeism. In a nutshell, we will be just fine.
I said refreshing because the approach taken by him simply is intellectually honest. Contrast this rational, evidence-based philosophy to the dogmatic doctrines of most ancient belief systems, including Abrahamic religions, in which an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being endowed us with an inscrutable soul possessing a peculiar ability called free will to explain why good or bad happens in the world. Mysteriously supernatural through and through. When mass murder or a genocide or a terrorist act or an illegal war happens, then we just blame it on man's wicked exercise of his free will. The existence of evil in the world is cunningly 'explained'. And the situation didn't get any better with the emergence of liberal humanism either. Another quote by the author Yuval Noah Harari summarizes this, "[A] huge gulf is opening between the tenets of liberal humanism and the latest findings of the life sciences, a gulf we cannot ignore much longer. Our liberal political and judicial systems are founded on the belief that every individual has a sacred inner nature, indivisible and immutable, which gives meaning to the world, and which is the source of all ethical and political authority. This is a reincarnation of the traditional Christian belief in a free and eternal soul that resides within each individual. Yet over the last 200 years, the life sciences have thoroughly undermined this belief. Scientists studying the inner workings of the human organism have found no soul there. They increasingly argue that human behaviour is determined by hormones, genes and synapses, rather than by free will—the same forces that determine the behaviour of chimpanzees, wolves, and ants. Our judicial and political systems largely try to sweep such inconvenient discoveries under the carpet. But in all frankness, how long can we maintain the wall separating the department of biology from the departments of law and political science?"
Two chapters in this part that really engrossed me were the ones dealing with the criminal justice system and freedom in a deterministic world respectively. Very briefly, the former assures us that although we have to abandon the notion of retribution, we can still have other measures at our disposal. Specifically, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation will continue to make sense as morally justifiable bases for punishment. The section outlining Derk Pereboom's (another brilliant author and free will skeptic) treatment of crime as a serious communicable disease and thus basing criminal law on the public health model was particularly educational for me. The chapter on freedom was just as good. In a nutshell, yes we can have freedom, including political and economic freedoms, in a deterministic world even if we don't have free will, if we define freedom as the absence of constraints on action.
The final part of the book deals with personal afreeism - what does a lack of free will mean to our personal lives? Good things to all intents and purposes. The author starts with the case for humility since no one deserves anything and we are but a tiny speck in the vastly complex deterministically unfolding universe. Does the world need more humble people? Yes, please! Thereafter, he makes the case for further advantages of afreeism, namely tolerance, self-acceptance, engagement and resilience. But even before that, he honestly tell us that you can still have these qualities without being a free will skeptic. It's just that afreeism makes them more justified and salient.
The author concludes the book with a chapter on meaning. He correctly anticipates the reader's wonder on what's life about if our universe is a wholly deterministic existence since the beginning of time? Traditional belief systems provide an answer but to be convinced of it, you have to invoke faith. That's a problem for science-based afreeism which mandates evidence and logical reasoning. So why we're here? We don't know, and most likely there's no reason at all. In my view, we're just a cosmic accident or as Prof. Marks puts it, "Indeed, there does not appear to be any reason why we are here beyond the fortunate coming together of physical forces."
If you agree with that, then you're in good company. Bertrand Russell wrote in “A Free Man’s Worship”, “That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."
The late French Noble prize winner and biochemist Jacques Monod in his influential "Le Hasard et la Nécessité" - "Chance and Necessity" said, "The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other words, the systematic denial that "true" knowledge can be got at by interpreting phenomena in terms of final causes - that is to say, of "purpose.""
Last but not least, Richard Dawkins in "River out of Eden" wrote, "Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
So we just 'play our bit' in this big theatre of existence. But to do that we need to know how meaning fits within an afreeist perspective. The author defines meaningfulness as a neurological phenomenon that can be cultivated by personal development, social engagement and other-directed purpose.
The book was published only two weeks ago, so for a first printing of a first edition, it's quite good to have only a few typos - I found just three with my deteriorating eyesight. [edit 8 June 2021: these were corrected immediately by the author]
Will you like this book? I can't think of any page that was not educational for me. Will you become a free will skeptic after reading it? I don't know since I was already a skeptic and the book just buttressed my lack of belief. But I will say this. If you keep an open mind and try your best to let go of any unhelpful belief systems, not just theistic ones but also some secular nonsense - think of Ayn Rand's Objectivist claptrap, then you will likely appreciate that afreeism is not just common sense, but that it can also be a truly revolutionary idea for us and the world.
On a lighter note, I think I have praised the author enough already. Remember, we're in a deterministic universe where accomplishment is an illusion. Incidentally, he does write about gratitude in a deterministic universe, "a thank-you that means that what you did made me happy, makes perfect sense in a deterministic world." I couldn't agree more so thank you Steve for this wonderful book. All the same, he had to write this book and I had to read it and write this review which you had to read and your subsequent decision to buy and/or read the book or not had already been taken and so on and so forth...and all of that was determined before any of us was even born. Fascinating, isn't it?!
August 10, 2021
Overall a good read with great implications on outlook of life, putting the past behind us, focusing on the present mindfully, and looking to the future. I do appreciate the level of detail the author goes into describing the concept of 'Afreesm', or lack of free will. Basically the 'everything is meant to be' mentality, but with a much more palatable, understandable approach and discussion.
My main criticism is towards the end, the author makes some tangential claims and discussions regarding politics, social policies, and religious ideas. I understand why these tangents were made and if this is the author's true objective, I can not argue with that. To this reader, though, these detract and distract from the overall manuscript. I believe the author has described this topic well enough that the readers can understand the implications made and apply the concepts taught themselves without having to go to this granular of detail. To me, this is ultimately the goal of the writing.
My main criticism is towards the end, the author makes some tangential claims and discussions regarding politics, social policies, and religious ideas. I understand why these tangents were made and if this is the author's true objective, I can not argue with that. To this reader, though, these detract and distract from the overall manuscript. I believe the author has described this topic well enough that the readers can understand the implications made and apply the concepts taught themselves without having to go to this granular of detail. To me, this is ultimately the goal of the writing.
June 14, 2021
What a pleasure to read this fascinating and timely book. Marks' clear accessible prose style will appeal to everyone who has pondered the age-old puzzle of free will. His tour of the history of these questions is both thorough and concise — never straying far from the central thesis. His argument is well-presented, and elaborates how Afreeism offers a liberating approach to day-to-day live.
A book for lovers of ideas.
A book for lovers of ideas.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews