Customer Reviews

The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction

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

 

 

In THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND: A SHORT INTRODUCTION, Prof. Edward Feser provides an excellent introduction to this branch of philosophy. Not surprisingly, Prof. Feser starts with the contemporary genesis of the issue in the writings of Descartes and proceeds to the various attempts by materialists to reduce or explain mental events by purely physical processes.

This book is introductory in nature and doesn't presuppose any knowledge of philosophy. Given its broad scope, it could even be used as an introductory work in philosophy. Prof. Feser hits some of the basics of epistemology such as realism and idealism. He also incorporates a fair amount of metaphysics as well, discussing personal identity and the question of universals. However, it can be a bit hard going at times, if for no other reason than many of the theories used to defend materialism are difficult to understand and even a bit strange. I found that skipping over the difficult parts and going back to them later to be helpful

Unlike other introductions I've read, Prof. Feser interacts with Thomas Aquinas and the contemporary school of analytical Thomism. The glossary was quite helpful. (For some reason, my copy of the book is entitled "PHILOSOPHY OF MIND", leaving out "THE".)

If you want a brief but comprehensive overview of the philosophy of mind, I can't think of a better book. Prof. Feser is quite good at describing the opposing views of what the human mind is, meaning: the materialist approach which views the mind as the product of purely physical states and interactions, and the dualist approach which views the mind as fundamentally unphysical--and he is fair to both sides. Indeed, as his closing chapter on the virtues of the classical approach to the mind makes clear, he finds the modern dualist and materialist views both...unsatisfying. Well written with excellent examples.

The book aims are to provide a solid introduction both to the traditional arguments against materialism and to the contemporary arguments in favor of it. The author does an excellent job of achieving that. His use of clear and simple language in explaining complex arguments provide the mind with enough light to shine the path to understand the twist and turn of the philosophy of mind. By including a further reading material (not just a list) at the end of each chapter makes it very easy to widen one's scope to understand each and every idea one is interested in.

I was interested in the Thomistic view of the mind and soul per another book of Feser. It does not cover as much as I thought, but goes over the competing theories at a reasonable length. Includes comprehensive further reading guide for all the themes covered. The book didn't dissapoint at all. Quite the opposite. WARNING: ATTENTIVE FOLLOWING OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK MAY ACTUALLY ASTONISH YOU.

I'm glad I bought it so I can reference later. Great buy.

At first glance the book seems like a 'neutral' introduction to philosophy of mind. But when you start to read it, gradually the author shows his real intentions. Instead of reviewing the various positions in the philosophy of mind in a fair light, Feser attacks all accounts of materialism and of Darwinism. These positions are debunked without much compelling argumentation - in fact, Feser glosses over nearly all reasons which have made these positions so compelling in recent decades - in favor of Feser's own brand of Cartesian dualism conjoined with a revived Thomism (both poorly argued for). When I looked up the author on Google I found out why. It appears Feser uses an introductory text on the philosophy of mind to further his more general agenda as a religious (specifically, Catholic) believer: Feser's aim is to defend these beliefs against any claims made in modern science and philosophy which seemingly cannot be brought in agreement with his beliefs.

The lack of convincing argumentation apart, the book's introductory nature does not sit easily with this dogmatic agenda, and certainly makes for a poorer text in selecting pertinent arguments in discussing contrary positions. What's more, while authors are certainly entitled to bias and favouritism in their own views, I found it distasteful that the author does not state his own more up front (or, at all).

I strongly recommend to avoid this text when finding one's way in philosophy of mind. There are much better argued and dogmatically neutral alternatives around (e.g. Colin McGinn's "Character of Mind").