Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by joelogsliterature
Philosophy of Mind by Jaegwon Kim
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
A fantastic introduction to the subject that could serve a number of audiences from ambitious dilettantes to graduate students wanting a quick reference or review for certain ideas. Here you find several of Kim's original arguments put in pleasant form without really losing anything. Two main examples are: (1) the wonderfully presented closure overdetermination argument against non-reductive physicalism; (2) the pairing problem objection to substance dualists is also a triumph. Both of these are broad, abstract claims that supersede specific objections. Such a tendency is seen throughout the book, with the other essential theme being perhaps that of supervenience, although here I wish he'd allowed for more use of diagrams in explicating arguments, as I think this relation is mysterious to the uninitiated, despite most of the book being very accessible.
Lots of additional readings of note are provided. My only complaint on that front is that too much is given without enough demarcation as to what is truly essential classical background (e.g. Meditations on First Philosophy, Putnam's Brains and Behavior) versus go-to references (e.g. the Oxford handbook) versus Kim's favorites versus additional perspectives. I also have some minor gripes with some presentations of science-based arguments, but they end up being immaterial by and large.
I do wish non-physicalism were given slightly more attention. It is certainly a minority viewpoint, and I think we have good reason to label it as unserious if only for verification reasons, but idealism and the like are certainly relevant. A few philosophers like Hegel and Spinoza get shafted a bit, but I get not wanting to dive into that for an introduction like this.
Lots of additional readings of note are provided. My only complaint on that front is that too much is given without enough demarcation as to what is truly essential classical background (e.g. Meditations on First Philosophy, Putnam's Brains and Behavior) versus go-to references (e.g. the Oxford handbook) versus Kim's favorites versus additional perspectives. I also have some minor gripes with some presentations of science-based arguments, but they end up being immaterial by and large.
I do wish non-physicalism were given slightly more attention. It is certainly a minority viewpoint, and I think we have good reason to label it as unserious if only for verification reasons, but idealism and the like are certainly relevant. A few philosophers like Hegel and Spinoza get shafted a bit, but I get not wanting to dive into that for an introduction like this.