Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids by Scott Hershovitz
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
4.25
Not great, but solidly good.
First, the idea that kids are junior philosophers, making allowance for their non-adult thought processes, is a good and sound one.
Second, this book is primarily about philosophy, not parental psychology, contra some low-star reviewers. It may be wrapped inside of what looks like parental psychology. And? It's readable. As is the best philosophy, like Camus novels or the dialogues of Plato or even more by Hume.
Third, the political sections in the middle? They're ultimately philosophical, too; morals and ethics is a branch of philosophy, after all. Arguably, political science is, too. After all, Aristotle said that man is an animal of the polis.
Now, a couple of dings.
In the first of the two political chapters, after correctly noting that sex is not gender and vice versa, Hershovitz uses the prefix "trans" as a noun. He's not alone, yes, but that doesn't fly in my Wittgensteinian linguistic world. Transgender? Transsexual? Sometimes one, sometimes the other? Which is it, Scott?
Later, in the chapter on "truth," he gets a philosophical (and sociological) issue wrong. "Was Beethoven better than Bach?" is different than other evaluative judgments he lists because it doesn't involve morals. It's aesthetics, and he knows better because he previously mentioned it as a branch of philosophy, and between philosophy and law, he presumably knows the old Latin maxim, De gustibus non disputandum.
First, the idea that kids are junior philosophers, making allowance for their non-adult thought processes, is a good and sound one.
Second, this book is primarily about philosophy, not parental psychology, contra some low-star reviewers. It may be wrapped inside of what looks like parental psychology. And? It's readable. As is the best philosophy, like Camus novels or the dialogues of Plato or even more by Hume.
Third, the political sections in the middle? They're ultimately philosophical, too; morals and ethics is a branch of philosophy, after all. Arguably, political science is, too. After all, Aristotle said that man is an animal of the polis.
Now, a couple of dings.
In the first of the two political chapters, after correctly noting that sex is not gender and vice versa, Hershovitz uses the prefix "trans" as a noun. He's not alone, yes, but that doesn't fly in my Wittgensteinian linguistic world. Transgender? Transsexual? Sometimes one, sometimes the other? Which is it, Scott?
Later, in the chapter on "truth," he gets a philosophical (and sociological) issue wrong. "Was Beethoven better than Bach?" is different than other evaluative judgments he lists because it doesn't involve morals. It's aesthetics, and he knows better because he previously mentioned it as a branch of philosophy, and between philosophy and law, he presumably knows the old Latin maxim, De gustibus non disputandum.