Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.99 AVERAGE
2.99 AVERAGE
I wanted to like it more than I did. Maybe I just got lost in the writing style. But I was hoping that there was going to be more to it than I felt that there really was. And I guess I was really hoping there would be more insights or something else besides stoicism acceptance of these people in our lives. So it felt a lot more empty than I had hoped that it would be.
Definitely not the light read I expected after reading the back cover. Very heady and steeped in philosophy. Basically at the end of it...spoiler alert...you really can't do much about the assholes in life except not to be one yourself.
I was unfortunately disappointed in Assholes: A Theory. It had a lot of promise but I found that many of its individual parts fell short of presenting a unified theory. The writing style is more akin to a stream of consciousness, as Aaron James presents one idea/micro-theory after another, question after question with no clear answers. Shortly after beginning Chapter 2, I found myself completely confused and lost, wondering what topic I was even reading about in the first place.
I was mostly confused about why the chapter on Asshole Capitalism was included. Short of presenting an all-out attack on capitalism itself, which has no bearing on the rest of the book, I have no idea why James would choose to include a chapter on assholes in capitalism and not the assholes of society in general. There was a lot of name-dropping—Hobbea, Rousseau, Aristotle, Freud, Kant, Marx, etc.—but I got the impression they were merely intended to impress or confuse the reader and draw attention away from the fact that there was no unified "asshole theory" to be found in this book. I, for one, am certainly confused but not impressed.
I'm glad that Chapter 1 at least was clear about the theory presented, because without it I would have had no idea what I was reading. There were a few statements that I agreed with at the beginning, such as the claim that assholes believe themselves either morally superior or morally exempt. Most of the claims after that were unsupported and vague. There was virtually no attempt to prove the ideas presented here through any scientific data; all evidence was circumstantial. James uses examples that are either clearly special cases, such as celebrities, or generalizations, which certain could happen but are not proven to happen with any consistency. Many "asshole moves" described in this book sound very much like imagined situations presented as real ones in order to further James's argument. Now, I'm no expert, but I do know that if you're going to present a strong case, you have to have compelling evidence that is NOT made up to support it.
Speaking of unbiased support, I find that not only does James use questionable evidence, he also editorializes where it is unnecessary. He writes on page 130 "As the wise Epictetus explains..." and on page 173 "G.A. Cohen, the brilliant but sadly missed political philosopher...". I'd never heard either of those names before I read this book and now that I've read them, accompanied by such lofty descriptions, I don't think they are wise or "brilliant but sadly missed", I think they were philosophers being used by James to present a case for an argument I can't even understand, and by introducing them in such a way, James thinks he increases his credibility. I say let the quotes present their credentials for them and worry about constructing your argument in a way that makes it stronger, instead of trying to hide a half-assed argument behind tricks and subterfuge.
I have only two other major problems with this book. The first is that I find it sexist. In the chapter entitled "Gender, Nature, Blame", James points out that "assholes" are most often considered to be men and that when we think of women being assholes, we call them bitches. He starts an argument that blames society for training people to think an act this way, which is one of the few things in this book that I agree with, but then makes a claim that asshole men are preferable to bitch women, because at least with assholes you know where you stand because they are rude to your face. Now, I don't claim that some women don't go around behind others' backs, but I think it's a huge disservice to assume that all women are like that. Some certainly fit James's description of the asshole, but he just blows on past that and assigns the labels as he sees fit. I don't consider myself an asshole and I'm not taking this personally, but I will always fight for women's rights to be considered on the same gender-neutral terms as men, even those of us who are unabashedly horrible people. "Asshole" doesn't necessarily have to refer to men; after all, women have them too. It's a gender-specific insult because society has made it so. I think the way James addresses this issue is retroactive and short-sighted. I expected much more from a chapter on how the term "asshole" came to have its gender-specific connotation.
And lastly, I was horrified to find that James labeled all the whites of South Africa as assholes for their relation to the apartheid system. Apartheid was undoubtedly horrific and bloody, but it's irresponsible to assume that all the whites were assholes. And if we're going to be calling people names, "asshole" is not the one that comes to mind regarding people who intentionally held an entire country in slavery, poverty, and violence. It was an inappropriate example and I think it detracts from the gravity of the apartheid situation simply to call its perpetrators "assholes". Even James admits in his opening chapter that you can't compare someone like Hitler or Stalin, men who committed repeated, intentional atrocities, to the everyday Asshole who may be frustrating but ultimately doesn't change the course of one's life. Maybe the whites of South Africa were to blame for apartheid, maybe some were guilty of being apathetic bystanders, but that makes them either worse than assholes or simply people who were blinded and misguided by their society.
Overall, I'd say that, as a theory, Assholes is a flop.
I was mostly confused about why the chapter on Asshole Capitalism was included. Short of presenting an all-out attack on capitalism itself, which has no bearing on the rest of the book, I have no idea why James would choose to include a chapter on assholes in capitalism and not the assholes of society in general. There was a lot of name-dropping—Hobbea, Rousseau, Aristotle, Freud, Kant, Marx, etc.—but I got the impression they were merely intended to impress or confuse the reader and draw attention away from the fact that there was no unified "asshole theory" to be found in this book. I, for one, am certainly confused but not impressed.
I'm glad that Chapter 1 at least was clear about the theory presented, because without it I would have had no idea what I was reading. There were a few statements that I agreed with at the beginning, such as the claim that assholes believe themselves either morally superior or morally exempt. Most of the claims after that were unsupported and vague. There was virtually no attempt to prove the ideas presented here through any scientific data; all evidence was circumstantial. James uses examples that are either clearly special cases, such as celebrities, or generalizations, which certain could happen but are not proven to happen with any consistency. Many "asshole moves" described in this book sound very much like imagined situations presented as real ones in order to further James's argument. Now, I'm no expert, but I do know that if you're going to present a strong case, you have to have compelling evidence that is NOT made up to support it.
Speaking of unbiased support, I find that not only does James use questionable evidence, he also editorializes where it is unnecessary. He writes on page 130 "As the wise Epictetus explains..." and on page 173 "G.A. Cohen, the brilliant but sadly missed political philosopher...". I'd never heard either of those names before I read this book and now that I've read them, accompanied by such lofty descriptions, I don't think they are wise or "brilliant but sadly missed", I think they were philosophers being used by James to present a case for an argument I can't even understand, and by introducing them in such a way, James thinks he increases his credibility. I say let the quotes present their credentials for them and worry about constructing your argument in a way that makes it stronger, instead of trying to hide a half-assed argument behind tricks and subterfuge.
I have only two other major problems with this book. The first is that I find it sexist. In the chapter entitled "Gender, Nature, Blame", James points out that "assholes" are most often considered to be men and that when we think of women being assholes, we call them bitches. He starts an argument that blames society for training people to think an act this way, which is one of the few things in this book that I agree with, but then makes a claim that asshole men are preferable to bitch women, because at least with assholes you know where you stand because they are rude to your face. Now, I don't claim that some women don't go around behind others' backs, but I think it's a huge disservice to assume that all women are like that. Some certainly fit James's description of the asshole, but he just blows on past that and assigns the labels as he sees fit. I don't consider myself an asshole and I'm not taking this personally, but I will always fight for women's rights to be considered on the same gender-neutral terms as men, even those of us who are unabashedly horrible people. "Asshole" doesn't necessarily have to refer to men; after all, women have them too. It's a gender-specific insult because society has made it so. I think the way James addresses this issue is retroactive and short-sighted. I expected much more from a chapter on how the term "asshole" came to have its gender-specific connotation.
And lastly, I was horrified to find that James labeled all the whites of South Africa as assholes for their relation to the apartheid system. Apartheid was undoubtedly horrific and bloody, but it's irresponsible to assume that all the whites were assholes. And if we're going to be calling people names, "asshole" is not the one that comes to mind regarding people who intentionally held an entire country in slavery, poverty, and violence. It was an inappropriate example and I think it detracts from the gravity of the apartheid situation simply to call its perpetrators "assholes". Even James admits in his opening chapter that you can't compare someone like Hitler or Stalin, men who committed repeated, intentional atrocities, to the everyday Asshole who may be frustrating but ultimately doesn't change the course of one's life. Maybe the whites of South Africa were to blame for apartheid, maybe some were guilty of being apathetic bystanders, but that makes them either worse than assholes or simply people who were blinded and misguided by their society.
Overall, I'd say that, as a theory, Assholes is a flop.
A succinct introduction to ethics and ontological discourse. Assholes are something we all deal with—or, perhaps, even are—and his insight into their nature is keen. Some have commented negatively in regards to this book, saying that they were hoping for something funny or entertaining. This is not that book. While remarkably less dry than most philosophical texts it is, still, a philosophical text. That it’s subject is assholes shouldn’t be taken as an indicator that it is written in humor. As a work of philosophy, it’s fairly intro level (some knowledge of ethic helps, but James does a good job of walking the lay reader through it) and his argument is made convincingly.
I don't know too many of these, thankfully, but I'm curious to find out what makes them tick.
-
I don't have enough philosophy background to truly understand most of the points presented, but it was an interesting theory.
-
I don't have enough philosophy background to truly understand most of the points presented, but it was an interesting theory.
Philosophy can be funny, but just because the subject matter seems that it should be funny, does not mean it ought to be and this is not a fault of the work or it's author. A true philosophical work to understand the nature of assholes historical and cultural.
With a name like Assholes: A Theory I was expecting sharp-witted satire. Turns out this is a serious book. And that is it's problem: it tries too hard. Tries to hard to prove that 'assholes' exist. We know they do. Tries too hard to determine what creates them (a bit of nurture, a bit of nature). Tries to hard to define them (not dictators or murderers, although they might have asshole traits). Tries too hard to tells us what we can do about them (not much to nothing) and how to react to them (try to avoid them). And it does this all in a ponderous, pseudo-scientific manner that had me yawning from start to finish. No satire. No wit. No fun at all. Based on my expectations, I was quite disappointed. Still think there is a good book to be written with that title. This isn't it.
Assholes makes some good arguments, and I'm glad I read it, but there are large portions of the book that I don't think added much. I was excited for the discussions of gender, capitalism, and the nature of moral responsibility, but James doesn't have much to say on these topics that won't already be familiar to people who know the basics. The first chapter or two (but mostly the first) give an interesting and plausible sketch of the asshole, but the rest of the book fails to develop this model. I saw a lot of promise in the early parts of the book, but in the end I was disappointed.