Take a photo of a barcode or cover
o88 's review for:
This is a really cynical take on human nature so you must read carefully. There are many insights that are thought provoking, but he tends to stretch the truth to have it neatly fit into a Darwinian framework. The conclusion reached by Darwin is that human beings have the capacity to be moral animals, but Wright's misanthropy is always in the shadows reminding the reader how we inherently are immoral. He writes:
“In this sense, yes, we are moral; we have, at least, the technical capacity for leading a truly examined life; we have self-awareness, memory, foresight, and judgment. But the last several decades of evolutionary thought lead one to emphasize the word technical. Chronically subjecting ourselves to a true and bracing moral scrutiny, and adjusting our behavior accordingly, is not something we are designed for. We are potentially moral animals — which is more than any other animal can say — but we aren't naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't”
The book then explores topics ranging from marriage to friendship to social status to altruism and how all behaviour is ultimately rooted in self-interest and passing our genes on to the next generation. It's a very reductive and deterministic take on things. It's a little too neat and chauvinistic as well. I really enjoyed Wright's book "Why Buddhism is True" so I was let down with this one as it just came off as morally bankrupt. To be fair, this book was written in the early 90's so perhaps his disdain towards humanity has cooled off some. Criticisms aside, the book itself is impressive and is a seminal work in the controversial field. There may very well be some hard truths here, but not enough attention was given on how we can evolve to be better than this. Ultimately, a healthy balance of science, philosophy, spirituality and the arts will encapsulate ‘why we are the way we are’ much better than evolutionary psychology and can provide an ethical path forward while reconciling the realities of what we are and what we potentially can be.
3/5
“In this sense, yes, we are moral; we have, at least, the technical capacity for leading a truly examined life; we have self-awareness, memory, foresight, and judgment. But the last several decades of evolutionary thought lead one to emphasize the word technical. Chronically subjecting ourselves to a true and bracing moral scrutiny, and adjusting our behavior accordingly, is not something we are designed for. We are potentially moral animals — which is more than any other animal can say — but we aren't naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't”
The book then explores topics ranging from marriage to friendship to social status to altruism and how all behaviour is ultimately rooted in self-interest and passing our genes on to the next generation. It's a very reductive and deterministic take on things. It's a little too neat and chauvinistic as well. I really enjoyed Wright's book "Why Buddhism is True" so I was let down with this one as it just came off as morally bankrupt. To be fair, this book was written in the early 90's so perhaps his disdain towards humanity has cooled off some. Criticisms aside, the book itself is impressive and is a seminal work in the controversial field. There may very well be some hard truths here, but not enough attention was given on how we can evolve to be better than this. Ultimately, a healthy balance of science, philosophy, spirituality and the arts will encapsulate ‘why we are the way we are’ much better than evolutionary psychology and can provide an ethical path forward while reconciling the realities of what we are and what we potentially can be.
3/5