Customer Reviews

The Last Word

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In this volume, Thomas Nagel mounts his case for rationalism against the onslaught of several varieties of subjectivism and relativism.

The kernel of his case is his more-or-less-Kantian claim that there is a "category of thoughts that we cannot get outside of," which in some way provide a basic structure that we have ultimately no choice but to regard as objective. Once we recognize this category of thoughts, he maintains, "the range of examples turns out to be quite wide."

He proceeds to demonstrate his point in the areas of language, logic, science, and ethics (to each of which he devotes a chapter). His arguments are intended to show, essentially, that meaning, logical necessity, the demand for order in objective reality, and normativity are not reducible to matters of pure subjectivity, and for the most part they are fairly successful.

His closing chapter -- "Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion" -- is remarkable for several reasons, not least of which is its stunning candor. Nagel is an atheist who nevertheless recognizes that his somewhat Platonic commitment to reason, and in particular to a Peircian belief in an objective "order of . . . logical relations among propositions," raises the question "what world picture to associate it with." He cannot avoid the "suspicion that the picture will be religious, or quasi-religious," and notes that rationalism "has always had a more religious flavor than empiricism."

And -- here comes the candor -- he attributes at least some anti-rationalism to a "fear of religion" which he confesses himself to share: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

He finds, though, that he must acknowledge the distinct possibility that "the capacity of the universe to generate organisms with minds capable of understanding the universe is itself somehow a fundamental feature of the universe." He adds at once that this view need not amount to "anything that should count literally as religious belief" -- though, honestly, it is hard to see why not.

At any rate, whatever the implications for religion, Nagel's arguments in this volume are delivered with his usual clarity and flair and will be of interest to anyone seeking a philosophical defense of reason. As Nagel himself notes not far from the outset of his book, the knowledge that subjectivism is self-refuting may be as "old as the hills," but it seems that it cannot be too often repeated.

This is classic Nagel. He is one of the most important philosophers in America today. And his philosophical prose style clearly demonstrates why that is the case: it is clear, direct, and straightforward. This text (along with Mortal Questions and A View From Nowhere) would be a great Intro. to Philosophy text; it is a superb example of how analytic philosophy should be written. There are actually arguments here. Imagine that.

Yes, the text bashes various forms of relativism and subjectivism (in favor of "objective facts" and "objective values"). But possibly the most important chapter is titled, "Logic." Read this chapter. I won't ruin the sunset ending for you.

I highly recommend this text. As well as: Searle, Mind, Language, Society; and Nozick, Invariances.

Ostensibly, Nagel's work is an assault on extreme relativism/subjectivism. On another level, it complements Nozick's "Nature of Rationality" (while rightly attacking Nozick's misuse of evolutionary principles). If extreme relativism/subjectivism were the sole objective, Nagel could have defeated it with a single statement: "All truth/logic/science/ethics is relative/subjective," is self-refuting (which Nagel cites).

But the rationalist Nagel really has a stronger objective. He rightly wants to insist that constructivist/subjectivist/relativist (he uses "perceptivist") claims against reason, logic, science, and ethics are embedded in the very criteria they want to deny, and worse, their efforts to use external criteria "to get outside" to challenge these claims is (1) impossible (because they use the very tools they criticize), or (2) untenable, because they use irreducible principles in one category to assault irreducible principles in another, or Ryle's "category mistake (misuse)," (3) implausible, because they substitute less plausible hypotheses to assault rationally and empirically more plausible hypotheses, or (4) two or more of the preceding three. Except for ethics, his observations are valid.

The chapter on ethics is more elusive and certainly inconclusive. He begins with ethics as a species of practical reason, itself a feature of decision-theory, which is distinctly non-instrumental (a controversial claim, he concedes), that requires "reasons" (i.e., justifications). Except for the "non-instrumental" claim, there is nothing controversial thus far. Everything that follows, however, seems lost. He begins denying Hume's "pleasure/pain" motivation of ethics, raises the empathy factor (Hume, Smith), admits emotions (typically non-rational) are often involved (Hume, Smith), as are other "background" information (Mill, Bentham), that "impartiality" is one of its features (all but virtue theory), as is the "universifiability" of the action (deontological, consequentialist), then gives a concrete consequentialist example, followed by a concrete deontological example, of "reason," then concedes he isn't sure where all this leads. I assume this exercise was meant to instantiate that agents act for "reason(s)," but the "reasons" are intended to satisfy individual integrity for having acted.

The final chapter is a series of ruminations, something about naturalism not becoming a religion, Nozick's (mis)use of Darwinism as an escape hatch, and a reminder that the natural world and our use of it also necessarily includes us in it (a dominant theme throughout).

Nagel reinforces Nozick's point about rationality being inherently circular, but according to Nagel that is simply necessary and unavoidable (not an objection). The principal idea is the individual's inability to escape his embeddedness, much less his ability to approach his perspectives "outside" them is both impossible and undesirable, and why these facts repudiate extreme subjectivism/relativism. Most philosophy students already know this. Most in postmodernism and the humanities don't, and they will most benefit from this book.

A Rorty-bashing classic. A must read for pragmatists. Whether Nagel has really given the last word in favor of the realists is another question.

Nagel's claim is that those who argue against reason must use reason and thus automatically invalidate their claims. But the threat posed by subjective deflationsists is more comprehensive and robust than that. For the most popular "argument" for subjectivism is not very rational at all. It is more like an ad hominem. It suggests something like, "reason is just an unfashionable and unjustifiable manifestation of the will-to-power."

The Enlightenment made Reason fashionable. Deflationists don't necessarily want to defeat reason its own terms. They simply want to make Reason and its Pretensions upopular. Then we will all have to end all statements with "of course, that's just what I think personally."

I think that Nagel in right in saying that those who are resolutely rational cannot get outside of the heavier claims of reason, or even the lighter ones. The danger is that people may simply cease to reason at all. Assuming that that is a danger and not a liberation.

Unfortunately, it would probably take entire squadrons of Fighting Nagels to stem the subjectivist tide. Which means that the Last Word may be a scream instead of a rational argument. But "The Last Word" is certainly an honest try by an honest guy. Buy it before it becomes illegal.

As a graduate student in Religious Studies and Philosophy, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and plan to reference it in my papers. Although, this may not have been the author's intent, his logical and objective approaches to reason, help support the universal and exceptionless principles of the faith! Should be a must-read for any theologian as pointed out in recent religious periodicals like Christianity Today.

Nagel takes on a daunting task: to refute the current philosophical fashion, postmodernism. Going against the grain of contemporary academic thought, Nagel asserts that there are indeed truths that do not depend on our social or cultural perspective. He defends objective truth in logic, science, and even ethics. I have some sympathy for his position, and appreciate the many good points he asserts. In the end, though, I think his refutations are not quite up to the task he has set himself. Still, it is a good effort...and in any event a readable window onto an important contemporary battle in philosophy.

Thomas Nagel made me a follower with this book. "The last word in philosophical disputes about the objectivity of any form of thought must lie in some unqualified thoughts about how things are-- thoughts that remain, however hard we may try to get outside of them or to regard them merely as contingent psychological dispositions." And with that he proceeds to prove it by looking at language, logic, Science, and Ethics. However, it is his last chapter, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion" that I bought the book for, and the last chapter I find myself returning to often.
In that essay he argues, quite convincingly, that "an evolutionary explanation of rationality" is "necessarily incomplete." But being a pastor it is his statement "I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true, and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." That haunts me, and has haunted me for quite sometime.
Have we Christians so poorly presented the love of Christ for the world, that people should fear his forgiveness? The only conclusion I can come to is in many cases yes. Though I must say, an honest atheism like this is one I can respect. It is refreshing to hear a man like Nagel question whether anyone is indifferent to whether there is a God. Especially when this is compared to many childish rants against religion that pass for arguments today and are engulfed by the masses.

I'd've given this book a 5, BUT Nagel does tend to be impressively repetitive. In his defense though, he explains that it's because one oughta take the subjectivist stance seriously as it applies to every field.

Beautiful book. Half of it reads like poetry -- what oughta be prosaic is more like poetical in that its truth touches the soul [so to speak]. There are some eye-widening points in here (that should never have needed to BE points -- those damnable subjectivist hippies!).

Nagel, by means of precisest incision, reveals more of man's philosophical pith. We have "cogito, ergo sum" and we have


The Last Word.

In this lucid, compact and profound volume the always incisive philosopher Thomas Nagel goes about defending the very thing that makes philosophy possible: reason. Reason has been under attack of late. Whether it be deconstructionist continental nonsense (usually of the Gallic variety) or reductionist empiricism (think Richard Dawkins) reason itself has been a whipping boy in the intellectual community. In forceful prose Nagel reasserts the primacy of classical reason to all human understanding and thought; the variety in which he reasserts his basic argument is both convincing and creative. It's somewhat sad that the relativist, reductionist status quo of the academy forced this classical defense by this modern enlightenment thinker. Though his other work, like the brilliant "Mortal Questions", shed more light on his philosophical preoccupations, this work in many ways elucidates the structure in which Nagel attacks all his philosophical quandaries. One interesting result of this books thesis, one that goes slightly ignored in the text, is the metaphysical implications of the existence of reason in a "naturalistic world." An unabashed atheist, Nagel is, nonetheless, perplexed by reason's ontological status and even describes his acceptance of reason as "Spinoza-istic." The reality of reason in a evolved species is an interesting problem and perhaps one for future study, but the point of "the last word" is to reassert the NECESSARY primacy of reason to any and all judgements. I found it utterly convincing.