Customer Reviews

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature: Thirtieth-Anniversary Edition

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

 

 

While certain aspects of this book will be unintelligible to those lacking a technical education (like me) in American analytic philosophy--or to those who've never read Sartre, Hegel or Heidegger--the style of the book renders its main points interesting and comprehensible to an intelligent, thoughtful reader. Rorty's main points come through clearly and powerfully. The metaphor of philosophy as a mirror of nature--and the imperative need to move beyond this metaphor--is compelling and independent of the more analytically dense portions of the book. The full second half is fairly easy to follow for those who have more than a passing interest in philosophy.

But, this isn't it's main value. If you're daunted by the prospect of reading Derrida or Foucault--or even Sartre--parts of this book are the most honest and readable abridgments I've run across. As a lit grad student, I barely understood Derrida. Reading Rorty was like being given a magic key to unlock the inscrutable mysteries of continental postmodernism. Some find Rorty's style strained, but I think he's one of the most talented English-language stylists philosophy has known--perhaps second only to Jane Addams or William James.

This isn't light beach-reading material, but it is a great read for those at all interested in contemporary philosophy.

I was a bit disappointed. Some interesting issues raised about science and linguistics, but the philosophy is somewhat tenuous. Clearly following the trend that only academic philosophers need understand each other leaves the intelligent layman out in left field. Carl Sagan once lamented this same trend in the sciences, that is, that astronomers need only write for other astronomers. Obviously, String Theory is headed in the same direction, making it unintelligible for all but physicists who have been trained in the new math. Great thinkers are readily grasped by readers outside their own field. I met a philosopher who didn't want me to read his book because it was too "technical". As far as I am concerned, if you can't put your theories into plain and lucid language, your work will become useless and discarded by the majority of people who read books and use libraries.