You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.0 AVERAGE
4.0 AVERAGE
Although it's well written, and I like the author, I found that the book's whole premise is flawed.
It roughly says that if today rich people can afford to buy antidepressants, we now live better than the hunters and gathers who didn't have access to pharmacies.
It roughly says that if today rich people can afford to buy antidepressants, we now live better than the hunters and gathers who didn't have access to pharmacies.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I should start out by saying that I appreciate what Pinker is trying to do in this book, as I am more or less sympathetic to his argument – that science, reason, and intellect, as understood from the Enlightenment are the most valuable tools we have to promote human happiness and well-being, and they have done a remarkable job of doing this over the past two centuries. He goes through numerous examples of how, precisely, our world has gotten better through the application of Enlightenment principles, and how the pathway forward is reasonably clear. To this end, I think he nails the argument that, despite all the negativity we are inundated with day in and day out, we have reason to believe our lives, and the lives of humans and creatures everywhere, will be better in the future.
I have two major problems with his arguments, almost solely in the third part of the book - specifically where he illustrates the “root causes” of the progress he illustrated in Part 2. One is the theory that we can simply distill the Enlightenment to three concrete elements – Truth, Science, and Humanism – and that we can surgically remove vestigial elements that are not those things – namely religion, superstition, romantic ideals, etc. I am always skeptical of these arguments, particularly in the historical context, because the concepts of truth, science, and humanism are not natural instincts for the human mind, as Pinker states numerous times – they had to be discovered and refined. This was an organic process that evolved over centuries of trial and error throughout the world. Just as with any evolved complex system, the whole of the Enlightenment and its resultant human progress is more than the sum of its parts, and I am not nearly as sanguine as Pinker is by his conclusion that we can simply hone in on the things we want, pluck them out of historical and cultural context, shake off the “undesirable” traits, and replicate ad infinitum.
The second problem is a specific instance of the first. In his defense of humanism, Pinker states that it is a series of moral values that philosophers and religious leaders the world over can agree to, and reasonable people can form a logical argument around. Therefore, he concludes, no need for any theological ethical paradigm like Christianity or Islam, with its silly historical backwardness. Part of this is putting the cart before the horse. Many philosophers and religious authorities came to the humanist values from a religious context first, and then backfilled the universalism of the value with logic afterwards (something Pinker earlier noted correctly as a very human behavior). Another part is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Humanism, and its associated political philosophy of classical liberalism, were never intended to be guiding lights to ultimate objective truth – they are methods by which we can stop killing each other. They have succeeded at that. This should not mean that religion is without value, simply that it must be an individual endeavor, not a political one, with the freedom of association firmly established. Finally, I cannot help but note just how sophomoric his arguments against religion actually were – “no booming voice from on high with trumpeting angels has been scientifically proven, therefore there is no God” is the kind of silly, bad faith (no pun intended) arguments we get from militant anti-theists, using the worst positions of mystics against all of religion. We call that nut-picking, and it is not science.
Despite these two major problems, I do believe Pinker has done a great service – plainly laying out the basic, incontrovertible argument that the Enlightenment has improved humankind considerably, and we should not, in our despair and desperation, dismiss its lessons and goals.
I have two major problems with his arguments, almost solely in the third part of the book - specifically where he illustrates the “root causes” of the progress he illustrated in Part 2. One is the theory that we can simply distill the Enlightenment to three concrete elements – Truth, Science, and Humanism – and that we can surgically remove vestigial elements that are not those things – namely religion, superstition, romantic ideals, etc. I am always skeptical of these arguments, particularly in the historical context, because the concepts of truth, science, and humanism are not natural instincts for the human mind, as Pinker states numerous times – they had to be discovered and refined. This was an organic process that evolved over centuries of trial and error throughout the world. Just as with any evolved complex system, the whole of the Enlightenment and its resultant human progress is more than the sum of its parts, and I am not nearly as sanguine as Pinker is by his conclusion that we can simply hone in on the things we want, pluck them out of historical and cultural context, shake off the “undesirable” traits, and replicate ad infinitum.
The second problem is a specific instance of the first. In his defense of humanism, Pinker states that it is a series of moral values that philosophers and religious leaders the world over can agree to, and reasonable people can form a logical argument around. Therefore, he concludes, no need for any theological ethical paradigm like Christianity or Islam, with its silly historical backwardness. Part of this is putting the cart before the horse. Many philosophers and religious authorities came to the humanist values from a religious context first, and then backfilled the universalism of the value with logic afterwards (something Pinker earlier noted correctly as a very human behavior). Another part is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Humanism, and its associated political philosophy of classical liberalism, were never intended to be guiding lights to ultimate objective truth – they are methods by which we can stop killing each other. They have succeeded at that. This should not mean that religion is without value, simply that it must be an individual endeavor, not a political one, with the freedom of association firmly established. Finally, I cannot help but note just how sophomoric his arguments against religion actually were – “no booming voice from on high with trumpeting angels has been scientifically proven, therefore there is no God” is the kind of silly, bad faith (no pun intended) arguments we get from militant anti-theists, using the worst positions of mystics against all of religion. We call that nut-picking, and it is not science.
Despite these two major problems, I do believe Pinker has done a great service – plainly laying out the basic, incontrovertible argument that the Enlightenment has improved humankind considerably, and we should not, in our despair and desperation, dismiss its lessons and goals.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Excellent. Be prepared to have your go-to progressive liberal reactions challenged with DATA...and come away with a sense of optimism. Not in a Pollyanna way either- there's still plenty to be upset about and things to work for but there's some good things going on too.
challenging
emotional
medium-paced
Quite biased and unbalanced; I expected more intellectual honesty from the man.
A helpful read that allows the reader to take a step back from the immediacy of the daily news and look at the bigger picture, particularly trends that demonstrate the significant degree by which quality of life has improved over the past few centuries.
I finally finished! It took me two years of reading this book off and on to reach the end. Multiple trips to the library, near-countless days reading one or two pages. I took copies of this book with me camping in Northern California and for Thanksgiving in Southern California. It's been on planes, Muni-trains, and automobiles. It's been around.
I don't know if it's his writing, my attention span for non-fiction, or just feeling like "Okay I get it" early on into it, but I don't think it's ever taken me this long to get through a book before.
I don't even know if I liked it or not, tbh. I did like how it made me feel; between the thrill of accomplishing what turned into a seemingly endless task and the sense that "everything is going to be alright" the book engendered in me, I was left feeling triumphant both as an individual and as a human by the time I closed it for the last time.
But then, of course, I read some reviews, both here and elsewhere on the web, and it seems like Pinker might have skirted past some inconvenient facts to make his point. I don't know.
I definitely want to believe his thesis, and I think it's mostly true, but then again (to misquote Chapelle's Rick James) motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.
I don't know if it's his writing, my attention span for non-fiction, or just feeling like "Okay I get it" early on into it, but I don't think it's ever taken me this long to get through a book before.
I don't even know if I liked it or not, tbh. I did like how it made me feel; between the thrill of accomplishing what turned into a seemingly endless task and the sense that "everything is going to be alright" the book engendered in me, I was left feeling triumphant both as an individual and as a human by the time I closed it for the last time.
But then, of course, I read some reviews, both here and elsewhere on the web, and it seems like Pinker might have skirted past some inconvenient facts to make his point. I don't know.
I definitely want to believe his thesis, and I think it's mostly true, but then again (to misquote Chapelle's Rick James) motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.
Enlightenment Now was recommended to me by a family member who thought I had an overly pessimistic view on today’s world. Pinker did not change my mind on the current state of affairs but did give me some interesting perspective. Before this book I had the opinion that things are not great right now and they have the potential to get a lot worse. After reading this book, I still believe that the state of the world is not great, but, despite this, things have never been better. I think there is something to the Pinker argument that information regarding progress is difficult to find and comprehend because it occurs over a long period of time.
For example, there is merit to acknowledging life expectancy in the US has gone up 25 years in the last century, we’ve eradicated small pox, we spend less time doing laundry than we did in the 1920’s, and the percentage of the world living in extreme poverty has decreased fivefold in the last 50 years. However, Pinker cheerleads the progress associated with capitalism without really addressing any of the criticisms. I would have loved to see Pinker address some Marxist critiques of capitalism in good faith. Marx predicted exactly what we are witnessing now—the stagnation of growth leading to the system consuming the structures that sustained it. As a result, Marx predicted, corporations start preying on the working class, automating and relocating jobs in order to maintain this unsustainable growth and hallowing out our political institution as they become subservient to corporations. I could take Pinker seriously if he at least acknowledged these critiques. Instead, Pinker seems to take his critique of leftism straight out of the Fox News playbook--using the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin as arguments that socialism is bad.
Pinker’s views on environmentalism also seems hopelessly optimistic, essentially pushing the idea that science will save us from global climate crisis. According to Pinker, we are making progress in protecting the environment because he occasionally sees stone walls while jogging through New England suggesting that farmland has become more efficient. The same goes for war—Pinker stated, “Yet the biggest single change in the international order is an idea we seldom appreciate today: war is illegal.” Yeah--let’s not even address the atrocities committed by the American Empire—decades of coups and propping up military dictatorships in Central America in order to support American capital or the ongoing human rights violations against Palestinians. To name a few.
Overall, I thought it was an interesting but frustrating read. I would have preferred just the facts/charts without the hundreds of pages of Pinker pontificating about the magnificence of neoliberalism.
For example, there is merit to acknowledging life expectancy in the US has gone up 25 years in the last century, we’ve eradicated small pox, we spend less time doing laundry than we did in the 1920’s, and the percentage of the world living in extreme poverty has decreased fivefold in the last 50 years. However, Pinker cheerleads the progress associated with capitalism without really addressing any of the criticisms. I would have loved to see Pinker address some Marxist critiques of capitalism in good faith. Marx predicted exactly what we are witnessing now—the stagnation of growth leading to the system consuming the structures that sustained it. As a result, Marx predicted, corporations start preying on the working class, automating and relocating jobs in order to maintain this unsustainable growth and hallowing out our political institution as they become subservient to corporations. I could take Pinker seriously if he at least acknowledged these critiques. Instead, Pinker seems to take his critique of leftism straight out of the Fox News playbook--using the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin as arguments that socialism is bad.
Pinker’s views on environmentalism also seems hopelessly optimistic, essentially pushing the idea that science will save us from global climate crisis. According to Pinker, we are making progress in protecting the environment because he occasionally sees stone walls while jogging through New England suggesting that farmland has become more efficient. The same goes for war—Pinker stated, “Yet the biggest single change in the international order is an idea we seldom appreciate today: war is illegal.” Yeah--let’s not even address the atrocities committed by the American Empire—decades of coups and propping up military dictatorships in Central America in order to support American capital or the ongoing human rights violations against Palestinians. To name a few.
Overall, I thought it was an interesting but frustrating read. I would have preferred just the facts/charts without the hundreds of pages of Pinker pontificating about the magnificence of neoliberalism.
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced