What do you think?
Rate this book
Examined Life: Excursions With Contemporary Thinkers
Eight renowned thinkers take philosophy to the streets in interviews drawn from a Toronto International Film Festival premiere Examined Life boldly takes philosophy out of the dark corners of the academy and into the streets, reminding us that great ideas are born through profound engagement with the hustle and bustle of everyday life, not in isolation from it. A companion to Astra Taylor’s documentary film, the book features interviews with eight iconoclastic and influential philosophers, conducted while on the move through places that hold special resonance for them and their ideas. Peter Singer’s thoughts on the ethics of consumption are amplified against the backdrop of Fifth Avenue’s posh boutiques. Michael Hardt ponders the nature of revolution while surrounded by symbols of wealth and leisure. Judith Butler and a friend stroll through San Francisco’s Mission District questioning our culture’s fixation on individualism. And while driving through Manhattan, Cornel West—perhaps America’s best-known public intellectual—compares philosophy to jazz and blues, reminding us how intense and invigorating the life of the mind can be. Offering exclusive moments with great thinkers in fields ranging from moral philosophy to cultural theory, Examined Life reveals philosophy’s power to transform the way we see the world around us and imagine our place within it.
240 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2009
20 people are currently reading
356 people want to read
About the author
Astra Taylor
24 books206 followersAstra Taylor is a writer, documentary filmmaker, and activist. Her films include Examined Life, and her books include The People’s Platform.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
June 10, 2022
Not a bad read but wouldn’t be my first choice and not something I’d buy (was a library book). There were a few thinkers who I thought had some really good points and were very coherent (Cornel West; Peter Singer; Martha Nussbaum; and Judith Butler). And a few others that I feel maybe weren’t at their best that day (Avital Ronell; Kwame Anthony Appiah; Micheal Hardt; and Slavoj Zizek) not sure if their books are any better sometimes a good editor can make anyones ideas look really good.
All in all it was worth taking a gander and wasn’t a total waste of time for something I chose at random from the library.
All in all it was worth taking a gander and wasn’t a total waste of time for something I chose at random from the library.
July 23, 2019
This was the book I eventually flung across my living room.
It then hit the front door and landed with a satisfying splat sound on the tile floor, where it remained for several hours.
I grew so tired and frustrated with these "contemporary thinkers" that talk as if they had lost touch with reality.
I know that these interviews are meant to stimulate and motivate discussions of social and cultural issues, but I felt the arguments made were far fetched and lacked reason.
Except for Cornel West's interview titled "Truth" I could not have cared less about this collection of philosophical discussions.
NOTE: The documentary film of the same title, which is identical to the book, was a bit more interesting, since the passion these thinkers possess could be seen on screen.
ElliotScribbles
It then hit the front door and landed with a satisfying splat sound on the tile floor, where it remained for several hours.
I grew so tired and frustrated with these "contemporary thinkers" that talk as if they had lost touch with reality.
I know that these interviews are meant to stimulate and motivate discussions of social and cultural issues, but I felt the arguments made were far fetched and lacked reason.
Except for Cornel West's interview titled "Truth" I could not have cared less about this collection of philosophical discussions.
NOTE: The documentary film of the same title, which is identical to the book, was a bit more interesting, since the passion these thinkers possess could be seen on screen.
ElliotScribbles
June 18, 2015
excellent talks with influential living philosophers.
October 3, 2012
This is a brilliant idea—cruising around with serious thinkers and engaging them in conversation, in settings of their choice. Cornel West in a taxi, Michael Hardt in a rowboat, Marth Nussbaum on Chicago’s lakefront… This is the transcript to the movie, which I haven’t seen, but I found the book to be a casual and satisfying way to become more familiar with the new thinkers.
The unique set-up makes for kinesthetic conversation, allowing for serendipitous stimulation and encounters, and, as Taylor hopes, to bring philosophy “to the streets.” The hope that follows is that these intellectuals use language that is accessible to a popular audience. Some, like Cornel West, are public intellectuals who need no reminder of the need for accessibility, while others, like Slavoj Zizek, seem almost bent on willfully resisting it.
Zizek’s conversation with Taylor, while entertaining (it is conducted in a garbage dump) is ultimately useless. He says nothing to advance the cause of the suffering, preferring instead to propose bourgeouis aesthetic positions and play philosophical games: “I think that what is truly threatening is not trash as such, it is separating trash, it is throwing trash out. I think that the ultimate horror is, again, a nice green pasture or whatever where trash disappears. I think that an ideally balanced (environmentalists use this term) ecological society would have to be a totally chaotic space where trash is simply part of our environs, not discriminated against” (180).
In contrast, West’s contribution was enjoyable. I found his ability to draw from the African American experience and cultural expression (especially jazz and hip hop) as well as make fresh the classics (like Plato) to be an impressive performance; revealing a brilliant mind at work. His evocation of Theodor Adorno also stuck with me: “The condition of truth is to allow the suffering to speak.” I feel like that statement grounds philosophy a little, and provides a promising frame for the conversations that Astra Taylor sets out to have with the thinkers in this collection. For West’s part, he lists desire in the face of death, dialogue in the face of dogmatism, and democracy in the face of domination as a sort of orientation for his thinking. His discussion of dedication to this responsibility, and Avital Ronell’s notion of never completely meeting such responsibility, remind me of Simon Critchley’s notion of the “infinitely demanding.”
Contrast these ideas of responsibility to those of Peter Singer, which Kwame Anthony Appiah takes to task. He rejects Singer’s appeal to us to do more than our “fair share” (however that is determined) in order to compensate for those who aren’t doing theirs. Appiah rightfully argues that Singer’s line of thinking takes us down a dangerous path in which we become some sort of martyr do-gooders and begin to deny ourselves of what other areas of philosophy would identify as “the good life”—friends, family, community, etc. Never mind the point that we can’t do the “fair share” of work for the rich and powerful—those who are the obstacle to a more equal society—even if we wanted to! A more astute thinker than Singer once observed, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
Further, Appiah points out that shouldering additional responsibility (again, whatever that means) would cause most of us to simply walk away. Which, I imagine, is exactly what the Bank of America security guard did after hearing Singer’s reply to his question of how Singer can get his ideas to the 5% or 1% of the richest Americans (this is before Occupy!). Singer reminds him that all of us can give a little and secondly, that some of the wealthy like Gates and Buffett are “receptive.” Let’s pause a moment and review the significance of this encounter. Here, a worker, who watches the wealthy enter and exit one of the institutions and corporations responsible for our unequal society, wants to engage a philosopher. This is exactly the kind of encounter that Taylor hopes her project to have. A meeting with a famous philosopher should leave one inspired, but instead (I imagine), the guard is left with the disappointing, even insulting, message that he should give more to charity and that, in fact, some rich people do too. This is a sixth-grader’s solution to poverty.
Besides critiquing Singer, Appiah makes the interesting observation (and by implication, a critique of the philosophical tradition itself) that most problems are practical—not theoretical—and ultimately, agreement on what is to be done is more important than agreement on why it is needed to be done: “Most of our value commitments are not theoretical, they’re practical, and most of what we say in justifying them is a kind of rationalization (104).
Hardt is interested in drawing theory out of social practice: “…don’t ask what is to be done. Don’t even try to answer that question. Instead, ask what are people already doing and then look at tht kind of theorizing that’s going on collectively in the movements” (151). He sees an urgent need to do so because the Left no longer has much in the way of proposals: “We’re living in a period when, in order to ensure its legitimacy, the Left has had to abandon the notion of revolution. So what’s left after the possibility of a radical transformation of society has been written off? What’s left, for the Left, are practices of resistance, practices of critique and civil disobedience. In other words, it’s a strictly negative vocation” (135).
This makes sense to me. It often feels that to be Left is to be defensive or to be critical. Protesting the war, publishing articles about how right-wing policy makers are wrong and duping the public, but not so much on the offensive. I’m not sure how useful the discourse of revolution is as a solution to this problem, but Hardt emphasizes that the Right has successfully adopted it, and how other words like “democracy” are equally squishy and problematic (nonetheless, he speaks of revolution in terms of freedom and democracy). For him, revolution really entails transforming human nature so that people are more capable of democracy. While he begins with this sort of patronizing Leninist position, he sharply rejects Lenin’s belief that dictatorship is necessary in the interim before democracy. Rather, Hardt argues that only democratic means can produce democratic ends. The task at hand, then, it seems, is to tap into people’s democratic impulses and develop their democratic practices. But Hardt’s line of thinking sort of cul-de-sacs when challenged to think about what methods might be used to bring out organic forms of cooperation and solidarity. He speaks of it as being a “glacial process,” which effectively postpones democracy not unlike Lenin’s sort of “purgatory” or “deferred utopia” (Hardt’s words) that Hardt criticizes. Ironically, he points to camaraderie found among workers on the factory floor as an example of organic terrain for democratic training, yet Hardt’s best known work (together with Antonio Negri) theorizes post-industrial “immaterial labor.”
The unique set-up makes for kinesthetic conversation, allowing for serendipitous stimulation and encounters, and, as Taylor hopes, to bring philosophy “to the streets.” The hope that follows is that these intellectuals use language that is accessible to a popular audience. Some, like Cornel West, are public intellectuals who need no reminder of the need for accessibility, while others, like Slavoj Zizek, seem almost bent on willfully resisting it.
Zizek’s conversation with Taylor, while entertaining (it is conducted in a garbage dump) is ultimately useless. He says nothing to advance the cause of the suffering, preferring instead to propose bourgeouis aesthetic positions and play philosophical games: “I think that what is truly threatening is not trash as such, it is separating trash, it is throwing trash out. I think that the ultimate horror is, again, a nice green pasture or whatever where trash disappears. I think that an ideally balanced (environmentalists use this term) ecological society would have to be a totally chaotic space where trash is simply part of our environs, not discriminated against” (180).
In contrast, West’s contribution was enjoyable. I found his ability to draw from the African American experience and cultural expression (especially jazz and hip hop) as well as make fresh the classics (like Plato) to be an impressive performance; revealing a brilliant mind at work. His evocation of Theodor Adorno also stuck with me: “The condition of truth is to allow the suffering to speak.” I feel like that statement grounds philosophy a little, and provides a promising frame for the conversations that Astra Taylor sets out to have with the thinkers in this collection. For West’s part, he lists desire in the face of death, dialogue in the face of dogmatism, and democracy in the face of domination as a sort of orientation for his thinking. His discussion of dedication to this responsibility, and Avital Ronell’s notion of never completely meeting such responsibility, remind me of Simon Critchley’s notion of the “infinitely demanding.”
Contrast these ideas of responsibility to those of Peter Singer, which Kwame Anthony Appiah takes to task. He rejects Singer’s appeal to us to do more than our “fair share” (however that is determined) in order to compensate for those who aren’t doing theirs. Appiah rightfully argues that Singer’s line of thinking takes us down a dangerous path in which we become some sort of martyr do-gooders and begin to deny ourselves of what other areas of philosophy would identify as “the good life”—friends, family, community, etc. Never mind the point that we can’t do the “fair share” of work for the rich and powerful—those who are the obstacle to a more equal society—even if we wanted to! A more astute thinker than Singer once observed, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
Further, Appiah points out that shouldering additional responsibility (again, whatever that means) would cause most of us to simply walk away. Which, I imagine, is exactly what the Bank of America security guard did after hearing Singer’s reply to his question of how Singer can get his ideas to the 5% or 1% of the richest Americans (this is before Occupy!). Singer reminds him that all of us can give a little and secondly, that some of the wealthy like Gates and Buffett are “receptive.” Let’s pause a moment and review the significance of this encounter. Here, a worker, who watches the wealthy enter and exit one of the institutions and corporations responsible for our unequal society, wants to engage a philosopher. This is exactly the kind of encounter that Taylor hopes her project to have. A meeting with a famous philosopher should leave one inspired, but instead (I imagine), the guard is left with the disappointing, even insulting, message that he should give more to charity and that, in fact, some rich people do too. This is a sixth-grader’s solution to poverty.
Besides critiquing Singer, Appiah makes the interesting observation (and by implication, a critique of the philosophical tradition itself) that most problems are practical—not theoretical—and ultimately, agreement on what is to be done is more important than agreement on why it is needed to be done: “Most of our value commitments are not theoretical, they’re practical, and most of what we say in justifying them is a kind of rationalization (104).
Hardt is interested in drawing theory out of social practice: “…don’t ask what is to be done. Don’t even try to answer that question. Instead, ask what are people already doing and then look at tht kind of theorizing that’s going on collectively in the movements” (151). He sees an urgent need to do so because the Left no longer has much in the way of proposals: “We’re living in a period when, in order to ensure its legitimacy, the Left has had to abandon the notion of revolution. So what’s left after the possibility of a radical transformation of society has been written off? What’s left, for the Left, are practices of resistance, practices of critique and civil disobedience. In other words, it’s a strictly negative vocation” (135).
This makes sense to me. It often feels that to be Left is to be defensive or to be critical. Protesting the war, publishing articles about how right-wing policy makers are wrong and duping the public, but not so much on the offensive. I’m not sure how useful the discourse of revolution is as a solution to this problem, but Hardt emphasizes that the Right has successfully adopted it, and how other words like “democracy” are equally squishy and problematic (nonetheless, he speaks of revolution in terms of freedom and democracy). For him, revolution really entails transforming human nature so that people are more capable of democracy. While he begins with this sort of patronizing Leninist position, he sharply rejects Lenin’s belief that dictatorship is necessary in the interim before democracy. Rather, Hardt argues that only democratic means can produce democratic ends. The task at hand, then, it seems, is to tap into people’s democratic impulses and develop their democratic practices. But Hardt’s line of thinking sort of cul-de-sacs when challenged to think about what methods might be used to bring out organic forms of cooperation and solidarity. He speaks of it as being a “glacial process,” which effectively postpones democracy not unlike Lenin’s sort of “purgatory” or “deferred utopia” (Hardt’s words) that Hardt criticizes. Ironically, he points to camaraderie found among workers on the factory floor as an example of organic terrain for democratic training, yet Hardt’s best known work (together with Antonio Negri) theorizes post-industrial “immaterial labor.”
September 8, 2009
This book is a series of interviews with "modern-day philosophers," originally developed as a documentary but the book contains the full text of the interviews. I picked it up because I normally think of philosophers as old dead guys. However, I found the diversity and richness of thought in these interviews to be really striking. I definitely did not agree with many of the things that they said, but I liked that because I think it's good to have your fundamental assumptions challenged sometimes. Like one of the philosophers said:
"You know, Kafka says that a book should hit you like an ax in a frozen sea. So maybe if you were to ask me, what works have dented you, thrown you overboard, proven to be very disturbing, or devastated you? (...) Because very often the things I return to in my work are the things that have harmed me."
Intellectual/ethical harm as a productive experience - I like it. I've certainly found that to be true.
"You know, Kafka says that a book should hit you like an ax in a frozen sea. So maybe if you were to ask me, what works have dented you, thrown you overboard, proven to be very disturbing, or devastated you? (...) Because very often the things I return to in my work are the things that have harmed me."
Intellectual/ethical harm as a productive experience - I like it. I've certainly found that to be true.
December 9, 2021
if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com
300916: not always the philosophers i might want to talk to- in many cases dead, in many cases other languages- but engaging quick portrayal of thoughts and styles, even if more political philosophy, if no exploration of more complex attunement such as phenomenology. pleasant way to imagine an afternoon...
300916: not always the philosophers i might want to talk to- in many cases dead, in many cases other languages- but engaging quick portrayal of thoughts and styles, even if more political philosophy, if no exploration of more complex attunement such as phenomenology. pleasant way to imagine an afternoon...
May 5, 2020
Wisdom in the streets. Nice to here philosophers speaking about matters in simple terms and very educational.
September 7, 2021
I really like the concept and the idea of interviewing Slavoj Zizek in a garbage dump about ecology is world-historically funny, to me. I appreciated the interviews with Cornell West and Zizek, I think the standout interview for me was with Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor about the technology of walking.
Michael Hardt turned in the best political interview and while I appreciate continental wackiness Avital Ronell's interview was a bit too much for writing. I'm sure it's great on film.
That is my greatest critique of the book. Much of what works well on film loses coherency in writing, meaning the ideas are not as clear or as explored as they could be--there's a lack of affect and vitality that I think causes a loss of meaning. That said, it's a decent primer on the boundaries of mainstream philosophy for the lay reader.
Michael Hardt turned in the best political interview and while I appreciate continental wackiness Avital Ronell's interview was a bit too much for writing. I'm sure it's great on film.
That is my greatest critique of the book. Much of what works well on film loses coherency in writing, meaning the ideas are not as clear or as explored as they could be--there's a lack of affect and vitality that I think causes a loss of meaning. That said, it's a decent primer on the boundaries of mainstream philosophy for the lay reader.
November 2, 2013
I liked some of these conversations better than others. High points: Anthony Kwame Appiah, Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor, and Martha Nussbaum. Disappointed by Cornell West, Slavoj Zizek and Avital Ronel.
July 21, 2017
I read the chapter w/ Judith Butler. She was interviewed on a walk w/ Sunaura Taylor, who uses a wheelchair.
Sunny Taylor: I guess the question is, what do we want from society? What do we want a society to be? Do we want a society that only values people for the ways in which their bodies are efficient or fit these norms of productivity and profit? Or do we want society to value the sort of dependency that all people share?
Butler: Do we or do we not live in a world in which we assist each other? Do we or do we not help each other with basic needs? And are basic needs there to be kind of decided on as a social issue and not just my personal, individual issue? Hopefully people will take it up and say, "Yes, I too live in that world in which I understand that we need each other in order to address our basic needs. And I want to organize a social and political world on the basis of that recognition!"
We see the systematic production of precarious populations, populations that are always living on some edge, whose survivability is not guaranteed, it's not guaranteed by anyone, and the retraction of the obligation to imperiled populations, to refugees, to the poor, to those who are without health care. We're seeing a heightening of that precariousness under contemporary conditions.
It really poses the question of whether we still conceive of the human community as a system of necessary interdependency. There are people who really want to say no, who really want to break that and let certain lives go, for the purposes of maximizing profit or even a theory of the survival of the fittest.
Sunny Taylor: I guess the question is, what do we want from society? What do we want a society to be? Do we want a society that only values people for the ways in which their bodies are efficient or fit these norms of productivity and profit? Or do we want society to value the sort of dependency that all people share?
Butler: Do we or do we not live in a world in which we assist each other? Do we or do we not help each other with basic needs? And are basic needs there to be kind of decided on as a social issue and not just my personal, individual issue? Hopefully people will take it up and say, "Yes, I too live in that world in which I understand that we need each other in order to address our basic needs. And I want to organize a social and political world on the basis of that recognition!"
We see the systematic production of precarious populations, populations that are always living on some edge, whose survivability is not guaranteed, it's not guaranteed by anyone, and the retraction of the obligation to imperiled populations, to refugees, to the poor, to those who are without health care. We're seeing a heightening of that precariousness under contemporary conditions.
It really poses the question of whether we still conceive of the human community as a system of necessary interdependency. There are people who really want to say no, who really want to break that and let certain lives go, for the purposes of maximizing profit or even a theory of the survival of the fittest.
June 7, 2018
I do believe this book has changed my life along with the course that required me to read it. I am very fortunate because my professor taught Astra Taylor and taught her in the same course I am taking that is forcing me to read this book. I feel like this text offers so many interesting ideas on how one should live and look at the word. I love their ideas that they offer about ethics. My favorite interviews that I am sure to re-read constantly are Avital Ronell's and Judith Butler's. This is not a good review, but I just want to state how I admire this existing text.
September 20, 2020
The Kwame Anthony Appiah interview that talks about fundamental responsibilities we have toward everyone (even if we of course prioritize our families & those close to us) felt especially important now in a time of public health crisis & the responsibility we all have to protect each other & slow disease spread.
January 21, 2019
The interviews in the book really give you pause and make you reflect. Very accessible format to delve into philosophy. The only thing that bothered me were the several typos that I found...drives me nuts in a published text!
February 28, 2018
Exciting and gripping book on philosophical issues that are contemporary. A good read at school or at the university.
Read
June 4, 2019I'm just gonna leave this here
https://www.chronicle.com/article/I-W...
https://www.chronicle.com/article/I-W...
January 24, 2021
Read for my Contemporary Critical Theory class
Read
April 29, 2021not bad
April 17, 2023
Somehow, I found myself putting on the Examined Life documentary at least once a week for something like two years straight. This book is a solid companion piece.
Currently reading
July 6, 2009i saw the movie by myself last month and really enjoyed it. i have very little knowledge of western philosophy. i never studied it in school really, and even though i respect it, it is hard for me to get into.
the movie was a nice little primer on what is philosophy and what are different philosophers saying about it.
the book version is great because, for instance, i could not follow cornel west at all, his mind works so fast and he refers to concepts that i don't know. reading him was much easier to follow. other people like peter singer or judith butler and Sunaura Taylor were more engaging and easy for me to follow maybe because they used less academic language to describe what they were taling about? or maybe they were just talking about things like gender, the environment and disability, which are things i think about a lot already.
i would love to talk with other disability activists about the sunaura talyor/judith butler portion of the movie. i thougth the first five minutes felt on the tokenizing side of disability, but the last five minutes of their interview felt really poignant making connecitons between things like disability, gender, culture and the way people walk.
the movie was a nice little primer on what is philosophy and what are different philosophers saying about it.
the book version is great because, for instance, i could not follow cornel west at all, his mind works so fast and he refers to concepts that i don't know. reading him was much easier to follow. other people like peter singer or judith butler and Sunaura Taylor were more engaging and easy for me to follow maybe because they used less academic language to describe what they were taling about? or maybe they were just talking about things like gender, the environment and disability, which are things i think about a lot already.
i would love to talk with other disability activists about the sunaura talyor/judith butler portion of the movie. i thougth the first five minutes felt on the tokenizing side of disability, but the last five minutes of their interview felt really poignant making connecitons between things like disability, gender, culture and the way people walk.
Read
September 15, 2009Read an excerpt from Examined Life on STOP SMILING Online:
As dusk fell over Manhattan, I stopped to pick up Cornel West from his midtown hotel. He agreed to let me conduct an interview while driving him to the New School, where he was scheduled to give a lecture with the philosopher Simon Critchley. Although Examined Life was conceived as primarily pedestrian, the car ride seemed an appropriate way to bring the peripatetic concept up to date. How else would a modern-day flaneur travel? The cameraman sat in the front passenger seat; West and the soundman, who also operated the second camera, took the back. I did my best to guide the conversation while navigating rush-hour traffic.
Read the excerpt...
As dusk fell over Manhattan, I stopped to pick up Cornel West from his midtown hotel. He agreed to let me conduct an interview while driving him to the New School, where he was scheduled to give a lecture with the philosopher Simon Critchley. Although Examined Life was conceived as primarily pedestrian, the car ride seemed an appropriate way to bring the peripatetic concept up to date. How else would a modern-day flaneur travel? The cameraman sat in the front passenger seat; West and the soundman, who also operated the second camera, took the back. I did my best to guide the conversation while navigating rush-hour traffic.
Read the excerpt...
July 19, 2010
I soaked this book up pretty quickly. I love the discussion of contemporary issues. On the other hand, I'm not entirely impressed with any of the philosophers in this book. Some I like as people, others I found somewhat irritating in there attitudes. One even suggested the they had become a philosopher because they didn't want to do work at a typical job. That's nice. The problem is, we all do a fair amount of philosophizing when we have peaceful moment to reflect.
Overall, I did really like the book, particularly the the style it was written in, as a dialog. It made you feel like you were part of the discussion, and gave you a better understanding of the philosophers themselves. I'd image erading the actual philosophers book would be no where near rewarding.
Overall, I did really like the book, particularly the the style it was written in, as a dialog. It made you feel like you were part of the discussion, and gave you a better understanding of the philosophers themselves. I'd image erading the actual philosophers book would be no where near rewarding.
August 29, 2009
from Martha Nussbaum: "For the first part of my career, I worked on ethical issues, not issues of justice. I moved into that area when I . . . . learned about inequalities of opportunity around the world, [and:] saw how urgent the issue of global justice was and how little philosophers and economists had done to confront it well. So I decided to focus at least part of my work, from then on, on that questions."
February 5, 2016
This is an excellent introduction to living philosophy. The reader can't help but walk away with a greater awareness of what philosophy is in today's world, and the varied voices and perspectives out there. These are passionate, intelligent, and eloquent people, and even where one doesn't agree with a particular philosopher, their views are at least understandable.
February 18, 2015
I read 2/3 of the essays in this. Some were filled with flashes of brilliance and inspiration, some were filled with laughable pretension. Martha Nussbaum bringing the social contract into contemporary times and Judith Butler talking about ability, movement, and interdependence were highlights. NOT for beginners in philosophy.
September 13, 2011
With fuller, more complete interviews, the book is richer and easier to follow than the film of the same name, which has been significantly edited for time. I'm not a huge fan of the film, but I quite enjoyed the bool.
May 7, 2012
I'm not a huge fan of Taylor's redirectional interviewing style; I do think this book would be valuable to middle and high school teachers who want an accessible intro to philosophical topics and vocabulary.
July 12, 2011
I liked the film better, that's all.
December 2, 2011
Would read again and highly recommend.
January 12, 2013
Watch the movie instead.
The book is a transcription of what is said by the thinkers in the movie, and without the visuals the book comes off pretty light.
The book is a transcription of what is said by the thinkers in the movie, and without the visuals the book comes off pretty light.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews