633 books
—
722 voters
to-read
(150)
currently-reading (0)
read (1990)
did-not-finish (0)
history (487)
philosophy (256)
religion (187)
historical-fiction (177)
favorites (176)
society-and-culture (168)
fantasy (163)
currently-reading (0)
read (1990)
did-not-finish (0)
history (487)
philosophy (256)
religion (187)
historical-fiction (177)
favorites (176)
society-and-culture (168)
fantasy (163)
biography
(162)
science (145)
classics (118)
literary-fiction (114)
politics (110)
language-literature (105)
science-fiction (95)
mystery-thriller (79)
psychology (79)
intellectual-history (75)
contemporary-fiction (33)
science (145)
classics (118)
literary-fiction (114)
politics (110)
language-literature (105)
science-fiction (95)
mystery-thriller (79)
psychology (79)
intellectual-history (75)
contemporary-fiction (33)
“But recently I have learned from discussions with a variety of scientists and other non-philosophers (e.g., the scientists participating with me in the Sean Carroll workshop on the future of naturalism) that they lean the other way: free will, in their view, is obviously incompatible with naturalism, with determinism, and very likely incoherent against any background, so they cheerfully insist that of course they don't have free will, couldn’t have free will, but so what? It has nothing to do with morality or the meaning of life. Their advice to me at the symposium was simple: recast my pressing question as whether naturalism (materialism, determinism, science...) has any implications for what we may call moral competence. For instance, does neuroscience show that we cannot be responsible for our choices, cannot justifiably be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished? Abandon the term 'free will' to the libertarians and other incompatibilists, who can pursue their fantasies untroubled. Note that this is not a dismissal of the important issues; it’s a proposal about which camp gets to use, and define, the term. I am beginning to appreciate the benefits of discarding the term 'free will' altogether, but that course too involves a lot of heavy lifting, if one is to avoid being misunderstood.”
― Consciousness Explained
― Consciousness Explained
“The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "anti-realist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.”
― On Bullshit
But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.”
― On Bullshit
“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
― The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
― The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
“You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
― The Picture of Dorian Gray
― The Picture of Dorian Gray
Jo’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at Jo’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
More friends…
Favorite Genres
Polls voted on by Jo
Lists liked by Jo




















