Customer Reviews

Dennett and his Critics: Demystifying Mind (Philosophers and their Critics)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Dahlbom's essay collection unavoidably invokes the image of a lion at bay, surrounded by a hyena pack. They snarl defiance, snap at perceived weak spots, duck and weave in clear frustration. In the end [literally, in this volume] the monarch's strengths prevail as he disposes of his tormentors one by one in a series of deft swipes. Dahlbom has done us a service with this volume in exhibiting why Dennett is one of today's foremost thinkers. He shows that so many express their envy of Dennett's abilities with their own self-enhancement.

Dennett has several aspects working for him, beyond just clarity of thinking. Uncommon in a philosopher, Dennett subscribes to no "school" of thought. While several of these essays attempt to confine him in a niche, he's far too flexible to be pigeon-holed. That flexibility is a source of frustration for these critics in many respects. Never rigid in his thinking, Dennett accepts criticism where it's warranted. But the critic must be conversant with the latest developments in many fields, not just philosophy. Dennett's root strength is his reliance on all science for his concepts. He's conversant with evolutionary biology, computer science and other relevant fields. While this gives him a significant edge in cognitive studies, his presentation of evidence leads critics such as those in this collection to label him arrogant. This "arrogance" is simply due to his being right far more than he is wrong.

While available space prohibits a thorough review of these essays, a few noteworthy items should be identified. Colin McGinn stresses the need for "logical laws" of psychology. He finds the brain's operation must be innately equipped to use logic in order to function at all. While these "laws" are yet to be fully derived, McGinn argues that as rational beings, humans must operate within a mathematically logical framework. He accepts Dennett's three-level structure of "physical stance, design stance and intentional stance," but insists a fourth level, a "logical stance" must be added in order to properly establish the basis of human reasoning. This view counters Dennett's long-held view that "laws" of philosophy are misplaced. He contends that the brain "uses" logic, but doesn't have logic "built in."

The essay by Jerry Fodor and Ernest Lapore reflects the attitude that Principles precede supportive arguments. They challenge Dennett's use of the "intentional stance" as a biological feature in natural selection. They want him to fit his ideas about evolution of cognitive abilities into a set of well-defined "central principles." In order to clarify their intent, they define various "schools" of interpretation with an implied challenge to Dennett to adhere to one of them. Dennett naturally finds this invitation counter to his expressed methods, suggesting that Fodor and Lapore have "drawn and quartered" philosophy.

Kathleen Akins demonstrates the impact of three years' studying under Dennett's tutelage. Her essay responds to the famous Thomas Nagle essay, "What is it like to be a bat?" Her rejoinder is a well presented and thoughtful depiction of how bats perceive the world. Superficially, this appears meaningless to the human viewpoint. Akins' realistic picture of the bat's world [which Nagel failed to achieve], however, provides an improved foundation for establishing a valid depiction of the human outlook on the world.

Dennett's response to these essays demonstates the dangers in attempting to "shoehorn" him into one or another of the "schools" of philosophy. He is more concerned with deriving good ideas, whether his own or that of others. Once found, he wants to share them with others and inspire yet more suggestions. If the ideas fail to fit into an existing niche, so much the worse for the niche. He does philosophy in the most practical manner possible - "in an engineering spirit" - as he puts it. As with any engineer, he is cautious about accepting what appears to be a good idea until it can be fully tested. He resists Richard Rorty's call for him to be "more ambitious, more radical and more glamorous." Dennett's stance is based on scientific principles - evidence, not glamour, is the quest.

The first essay in this collection of essays is an excellent explanation of the reason for religion: religion is a virus of our minds. It is also well written, entertaining, and provides a model of cultural change that seems sound. A must for anyone who wants to understand why we have the world we have today