What do you think?
Rate this book
Eco-Philosophy: Designing New Tactics For Living
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 3, 2019
This is one of those books where it's impossible to separate my "enjoyment" from the extent to which I agree with the arguments and frameworks presented, or at least find the defenses well-executed even if I do disagree
There are some things that Henryk Skolimowski - a professor of philosophy - says, which I - a random dude on the internet - find resonant or compelling:
1) Philosophy ought to aim its scalpel to the pressing problems of its age, not esoteric language games or intellectually-dextrous fancies.
2) There's a pressing need for a philosophy synthesizing and surpassing traditional humanism, which isolates humanity in making it the sole standard of moral consideration, and traditional ecology, which instrumentalizes nature as a means towards human continuation.
3) All that standard existentialist stuff about how we define the meaning of our own life in trying to transcend it
4) All that standard "we are made of star-stuff" stuff about the unique opportunity we've been given as the only known example of the universe grasping to know itself
These things provided some necessary guideposts through a book that often felt like a howling blizzard of wrongness:
1) In attacking the whole institution of empiricism's humble striving towards "objectivity" and evidence-based epistemology, HS practices what he preaches by not bothering to defend any of his arguments whatsoever - the first section feature some variation of "it's obvious that" or "it goes without saying that" at least once every other page.
2) There are fruitful intellectual discussions to be had on the effects of industrialization on the human psyche, from the hard sciences to the purely intellectual, but to take as axiomatic that it's been spiritually regressive, unequivocally and by necessity, is just lazy. If he's insisting that a world without faster-than-horse travel, electronic music, LSD, and the internet is more spiritually fulfilling than this one, I think we have irrevocable differences in our sense of what qualifies as "spiritual".
3) To interpret evolution as a force pushing inexorably towards complexity, with self-awareness as its ultimate pinnacle, is to fundamentally misunderstand the mechanisms by which it operates. Look, HS strikes me as a smart dude and I'm sure he did well in his high school bio classes, but I think anyone who's so much as read the wikipedia page to The Selfish Gene would see through the New Age-y characterization of humanity as the manifestation of a mysterious cosmic plan.
4) ... This one's a bit of a non-sequitir, but at one point, he reveals a bizarre contempt for the idea that in a wealthy society, we should be able to provide healthcare for those who need it without morally scrutinizing the choices they make with their bodies? Not sure what that has to do with trying to preempt coastal cities from being completely underwater in another 100 years, but w/e, ydy
There are some things that Henryk Skolimowski - a professor of philosophy - says, which I - a random dude on the internet - find resonant or compelling:
1) Philosophy ought to aim its scalpel to the pressing problems of its age, not esoteric language games or intellectually-dextrous fancies.
2) There's a pressing need for a philosophy synthesizing and surpassing traditional humanism, which isolates humanity in making it the sole standard of moral consideration, and traditional ecology, which instrumentalizes nature as a means towards human continuation.
3) All that standard existentialist stuff about how we define the meaning of our own life in trying to transcend it
4) All that standard "we are made of star-stuff" stuff about the unique opportunity we've been given as the only known example of the universe grasping to know itself
These things provided some necessary guideposts through a book that often felt like a howling blizzard of wrongness:
1) In attacking the whole institution of empiricism's humble striving towards "objectivity" and evidence-based epistemology, HS practices what he preaches by not bothering to defend any of his arguments whatsoever - the first section feature some variation of "it's obvious that" or "it goes without saying that" at least once every other page.
2) There are fruitful intellectual discussions to be had on the effects of industrialization on the human psyche, from the hard sciences to the purely intellectual, but to take as axiomatic that it's been spiritually regressive, unequivocally and by necessity, is just lazy. If he's insisting that a world without faster-than-horse travel, electronic music, LSD, and the internet is more spiritually fulfilling than this one, I think we have irrevocable differences in our sense of what qualifies as "spiritual".
3) To interpret evolution as a force pushing inexorably towards complexity, with self-awareness as its ultimate pinnacle, is to fundamentally misunderstand the mechanisms by which it operates. Look, HS strikes me as a smart dude and I'm sure he did well in his high school bio classes, but I think anyone who's so much as read the wikipedia page to The Selfish Gene would see through the New Age-y characterization of humanity as the manifestation of a mysterious cosmic plan.
4) ... This one's a bit of a non-sequitir, but at one point, he reveals a bizarre contempt for the idea that in a wealthy society, we should be able to provide healthcare for those who need it without morally scrutinizing the choices they make with their bodies? Not sure what that has to do with trying to preempt coastal cities from being completely underwater in another 100 years, but w/e, ydy
February 13, 2018
Voidaan ajatella, että rationaalisen argumentaation onnistuminen riippuu sen loogisuudesta ja runollisen argumentaation onnistuminen sen kauneudesta. Skolimowski ei onnistu kummassakaan; hän ei vakuuta. Hän lyttää empiiris-loogista valtavirtafilosofiaa, mutta ei kykene irtautumaan sen metodista, vaan yrittää piinallisesti hyökätä analyyttisen filosofian kimppuun sen omilla aseilla... ja epäonnistuu (yllätys!). Halusin sympata tätä kirjaa, mutta lopulta käteeni jäi hyvin vähän, vain muutamia mielenkiintoisia lauseita. Varmasti ekofilosofian (laajemmassa mielessä kuin Skolimowski sen määrittelee) puolesta on esitetty mielekkäämpiäkin puheenvuoroja! Jos ei: olemme todellakin pulassa. Skolimowskin ajatukset piirtävät kuvan miehestä, joka ei kykene hyväksymään jumalatonta maailmaa eikä valamaan siihen jumaluuden hitustakaan. Skolimowskin läpikotaisin (eli, mielestäni, lapsellisen) tympääntynyt ja tympeä asenne modernia maailmaa kohtaan ei itsevarmuutensa vuoksi herätä edes sääliä vaan pelkkää myötähäpeää.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews