finhatfield's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

More of a 3.5
This will definitely be useful for my thesis but I am also glad that I've finished it.
It would be nice if the bibliography included more of the references found in the footnotes.

lukescalone's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

Heavily reliant on continental philosophy, almost to the point where it reads as pseudo-science. Maybe this book has a decent argument somewhere (beyond "our modern understandings of 'perception' or 'attention' have their roots in the new visual experiences of the late nineteenth century"--which makes sense in itself, but I can't evaluate the argument), but it's impenetrable to me. I'll have to pick it up again later.

ekul's review

Go to review page

2.0

Heavily reliant on continental philosophy, almost to the point where it reads as pseudo-science. Maybe this book has a decent argument somewhere (beyond "our modern understandings of 'perception' or 'attention' have their roots in the new visual experiences of the late nineteenth century"--which makes sense in itself, but I can't evaluate the argument), but it's impenetrable to me. I'll have to pick it up again later.
More...