21 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a landmark on the path of well-being, September 14, 2004
This review is from: Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being (Hardcover)
This book was exceedingly enjoyable to read. Right from the beginning, readers of Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being are whisked away on an unprecedented philosophical and scientific oddysey. Beginning with a brief overview of philosophy, Dr. Cloninger shows how certain beliefs on the nature of being, knowledge, and conduct, which provide the basis for his science of well-being, are confirmed by current scientific thought. Examining the ideas of those that he calls "positive philosophers," Dr. Cloninger points to how modern science is beginning to validate the worldviews held by these thinkers, and suggests that what allowed them such wisdom and penetrating insight was not merely their intellectual ability, but rather their intuitive capacity.
Dr. Cloninger takes us through his initial 2 theories of personality and shows how neither his biological model nor his cognitive model of personlity (nor contemporary theories of personality for that matter) are comprehensive enough to explain many fundamental human experiences such as: creativity, self-awareness, free-will, and intuition. Inspired by these limitations he conceived his model of coherence which points to human self-awareness as the path towards well-being. He describes the importance of rational intuition vs. the inadequacy of reason and cognitive strategies for acquiring freedom and happiness; then he dares the reader to inquire into whether it is possible "to learn to share the intuitions of a wise person." Integrating recent scientific discoveries from biology, genetics, physics, and neurology with the philosophical and moral truths from the likes of Plato, St. Augustine, Spinoza, Hegel, and Gandhi, Dr. Cloninger's Feeling Good is a book that is certain to become landmark on the path of well-being.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The wellness of well-being, September 1, 2004
This review is from: Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being (Hardcover)
In his book Cloninger seeks to integrate psychology, sociology, genetics, physics, and the humanities by illustrating how each contributes to the knowledge of being human as it pertains to subjective well-being. In order to accomplish his laudatory goal, he brings his own intuitive wisdom and important disciplines to his table to convince the reader that not only is a science of health and well-being possible, but vastly overdue. Indeed, without a science of well being, how is it possible to have a valid science of illness or pathology?
Perhaps the most integrative concept Cloninger employs is that of self-awareness of one's own consciousness. His second greatest concern is to collapse dualistic systems into coherent and unitary ones, only thought to be dualistic because of our Western manner of bifurcating the world.
Though some readers may not be able to follow the nuances of each discipline, the thesis of his book is never lost, namely, that self-aware consciousness is both an end in itself and a means to life satisfaction, human authenticity, and a better social good. For Cloninger you cannot have subjective well-being without social well-being.
Several years ago the American Psychological Association published in their major journal three separate issues on "Positive Psychology." The Jan. 2000 issue of American Psychology was devoted to "Happiness, Excellence, and Optimal Human Functioning." A year later the same journal dedicated issues to "Positive Psychology" and "Creativity." Publishing three separate issues in their house organ indicates A.P.A.'s awareness of the urgency to address these almost singularly important issues about the meaning of health. Cloninger has gone quite a few steps further ahan these A.P.A. publications by synthesizing vast amounts of loosely related data from numerous "stand-alone" academic disciplines, never before attempted.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Could have been far better if he stayed with what he knows and minimized the "philosophy" and quantum and modern physics, March 1, 2008
This review is from: Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being (Hardcover)
Given the title and subtitle of the book, the positive reviews, and the credentials of Dr. Cloninger, I was surprised by his many references to quantum physics, non-causal and non-local phenomenon, and his attempt to use these to explain consciousness and mental states. I was also surprised by the polemical nature of it.
Readers with a background in quantum physics may be put off by his extensive reliance on quantum physics. He seems unaware of the concept of decoherence; of the smallness of Heisenberg's number; of conditions required for certain phenomenon (e.g., non-locality) to be observable. That he can find physicists to quote does not indicate that these quotes are consistent with the views of a majority of physicists, or that his use of terms is appropriate. A second edition may be improved if Cloninger reads "Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory," by E. Joos, et al. (2003). However, omitting the references to quantum physics and instead focusing on the psychological problems would help more.
Cloninger's book has many statements with a flavor such as (p. 197), "Such phenomenon as noncausality and nonlocality were so contrary to everyday experience that physicists . . . were forced to undergo a revolution in their thinking . . . Now these phenomenon are firmly established experimentally in physics. Nevertheless, many conservative psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers of mind continue to think in terms of classical physics." He seems to think such statements free him to apply terminology of quantum physics to the brain in an imaginative and poetic fashion.
Cloninger recognizes the importance of experiences that may be termed "oceanic feelings." He includes useful discussions of meditation. A problem for many with a scientific-historical orientation is a lack of a way to think about "oceanic" experiences that does not conflict with their views of reality. This problem appears to be a source of Cloninger's feeling a need to mix quantum physics and psychology. A far better discussion of similar topics is in the last half of Herbert Fingarette's, The Self in Transformation: Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and the Life of the Spirit (Harper, 1963). His chapters 7 and 8 are brilliant in his discussion of the "ontological status of reincarnation," etc. For poetry of oceanic feelings, T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets is far better than Cloninger's poetical use of quantum physics. Jesus said, "the kingdom of God is within you," (Luke 17:21). Using concepts of quantum physics to understand that experience seems misguided.
This book would be more intelligible, persuasive and to-the-point if he were to stay closer to the experiences and not dwell on philosophy and physics. His emphasis on distractions calls to mind Buddha's, "Bear always in mind what it is that I have elucidated and what it is that I have not elucidated. . . . I have not elucidated that the soul and the body are identical. I have not elucidated that the monk who has attained (the arahat) does exist after death. . . . . I have not elucidated that the arahat both exists and does not exist after death. . . . And why have I not elucidated this? Because this profits not . . And what have I elucidated? Misery have I elucidated; the origin of misery have I elucidated; the cessation of misery have I elucidated; and the path leading to the cessation of misery have I elucidated. And why have I elucidated this? Because this does profit ... tends to absence of passion, to knowledge, supreme wisdom and Nirvana." (quoted in D.S. Noss and J.S. Noss, History of the Worlds Religions, 9th ed., p. 187-188.
Readers may be amazed by Cloninger's treatment of William James and David Hume. They are listed as examples of "negative philosophers," along with Machiavelli and Rand. He states that an assumption of "negative" philosophers regarding conduct is, "Freedom is the opportunity for individuals to strive to maximize their self interests and desires for which fulfillment." His contrast of Hume and James' views with views he attributes to "positive philosophers" is a case of a blind man looking at two elephants. He compares the leg of Hume's elephant with the ear of the "positive philosopher's" elephant. He appears aware of modern studies of the evolution of altruism, e.g., E. Sober and D. S. Wilson's, Unto Others: the Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (Harvard: 1998). These authors discuss evolutionary altruism, psychological altruism, proximal causes, and ultimate causes. Mixing these in comparisons can lead to confusion.
He writes, "Hume suggested that people might be happy to act benevolently on some occasions because, he suggested, such sympathy was a natural emotional predisposition or moral sentiment that we share with other animals, such as dogs. In other words, Hume claimed that kindness was an emotion like aggression, rather than a virtue that transcends conflict-based emotions." I tend to like people who have a natural emotional predisposition to kindness, empathy, and fairness, and who have a natural sense of pleasure in helping people who need it. Does Cloninger prefer with people who cogitate on "virtue that transcends conflict-based emotions"? What is the relevance of "conflict-based"? How does he know that a dog's feeling of kindness is less than a human's?
From what I know about James and Hume, I would be very pleased to have them as neighbors. I think they tried to be fair. James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" is an all-time classic and is wonderful in illustrating "oceanic" experiences. Cloninger emphasizes love and acceptance, but does not appear fair with writers he disagrees with. Damascio's discussions of James make far more sense than Cloninger's.
I'm wondering if Cloninger makes parapsychological claims in his mixing of quantum non-locality, etc., with "oceanic" experiences. I have the sense that he does. But he doesn't write clearly enough for me to understand what he is saying. Other brilliant scientists have fallen for parapsychology (see, Ray Hyman, "Parapsychological Research: A Tutorial Review and Critical Appraisal," Proceedings of the IEEE, 74, 823-849 (1986)).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
