You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.11 AVERAGE
4.11 AVERAGE
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I really struggled to read this book, at times that was because it dealt with some very confusing (to me) concepts in metaphysics and quantum mechanics. But mostly because I found the whole thing so frustrating.
Let's start with the good. I really liked the layout of the chapters, with an initial premise that maps out his idea, and a further section where he digs deeper into objections or further thoughts. I also respect him for being very good at anticipating what my objections would be. There was also definitely interesting philosophy and ideas in here, however I felt like too often they weren't the ones the author was advocating.
I think, if you accept his assumptions, then he makes a really convincing and compelling story. But I don't accept his assumptions, and I think he argues them quite poorly. He'd often take something as true, or outline why he thinks it in a very cursory way, and then use it to build up his further points. I also think he doesn't give enough thought to alternative explanations. Some were dismissed because he just found them unconvincing, or improbable, with little more explanation. His own ideas were certainly treated with kid gloves in comparison. An example might berejecting materialism because it cannot create consciousness/experiential understanding, but failing to give any thought to how a fundamental base layer of consciousness in the universe creates anything other than consciousness. The last chapter was also quite rogue and bizarre, though unlike others I found the taxation post-script quite fun!
Overall, despite some ideas that were broadly interesting, I was left deeply frustrated and unconvinced by this book.
Let's start with the good. I really liked the layout of the chapters, with an initial premise that maps out his idea, and a further section where he digs deeper into objections or further thoughts. I also respect him for being very good at anticipating what my objections would be. There was also definitely interesting philosophy and ideas in here, however I felt like too often they weren't the ones the author was advocating.
I think, if you accept his assumptions, then he makes a really convincing and compelling story. But I don't accept his assumptions, and I think he argues them quite poorly. He'd often take something as true, or outline why he thinks it in a very cursory way, and then use it to build up his further points. I also think he doesn't give enough thought to alternative explanations. Some were dismissed because he just found them unconvincing, or improbable, with little more explanation. His own ideas were certainly treated with kid gloves in comparison. An example might be
Overall, despite some ideas that were broadly interesting, I was left deeply frustrated and unconvinced by this book.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
inspiring
slow-paced
Entertaining, but a bit academic. Not super easy to understand for general audiences. Still recommended since it is a fresh argument that you don't hear that often.
The author makes a sweeping survey of different ways of approaching and understanding consciousness, life, and the Cosmos. There are some fascinating theories out there, and it is clear that materialistic science will only get us so far. I also applaud him as a clearly Left-leaning English intellectual stating that religion is important. You don't hear that often from that camp.
However, I will say that the very end of the book ALMOST undermines the rest. It feels out of place--like a clumsy aside versus the intellectual calories of previous chapters. If he so clearly misunderstands economics, the early 20th century in relation to taxation, and the importance of individual rights--it begs the question, what else is he getting wrong from earlier chapters? Or perhaps he just needs to re-explore those topics with the same rigor he applied to the rest of the book?
However, I will say that the very end of the book ALMOST undermines the rest. It feels out of place--like a clumsy aside versus the intellectual calories of previous chapters. If he so clearly misunderstands economics, the early 20th century in relation to taxation, and the importance of individual rights--it begs the question, what else is he getting wrong from earlier chapters? Or perhaps he just needs to re-explore those topics with the same rigor he applied to the rest of the book?