I have read several books that I would not otherwise read, at least not now. But unfortunately it didn't work in this case. I never liked philosophy. I avoided it as much as I could, and throughout my studies I chose all the other possible classes to avoid philosophy.
I almost succeeded, only when I got my PhD I had to pass the philosophy exam. But it's also true that when I do something of my own choice, and not because I need it for school or university, I often like it a lot more. So I thought I would give this philosophical book a try.
Thanks to this exam I passed I know some basics. I'm in no hurry. I have plenty of time to read this book. Nobody will question me about it. I can read it slowly and who knows, I may even like it. Or so I thought. And it even promised to be a good book. Such a little science for the uninitiated.
You know, philosophical detective story I was expecting something well-written, which will allow me to finally immerse myself in philosophy and have some fun while doing on the way. But unfortunately, it's still a philosophical book, and I still hate philosophy. And this book not only cites extensive quotes from many famous philosophers, but also strongly relates to religion and the issue of God's existence.
And if there is something I don't like as much as philosophy, it's theology. The combination of the two had to end in failure for me. This book was a kind of experiment for me. I wanted to know if I would be able to enjoy a book about philosophy if I chose it of my own free will and if it was a popularized version.
And my experiment brought a clear result. The hypothesis has been refuted. I still hate philosophy and can't read a book about philosophy for pleasure. I decided not to rate this book, since obviously it is my fault that I didn't like it. Those who are interested in philosophy or religion can enjoy it. Aug 15, Mac rated it really liked it. Holt's book is very thought provoking and very clearly written with an occasional touch of humor.
That said, though I left with a pleasant reading experience, a deeper understanding of the issues, and lots to ponder, I didn't leave with the answer but then one shouldn't expect to, given the complexity of the question. I have read other books on related topics, and Holt's book is the most enlightening, the clearest, and the most informative by far. Sentences are carefully presented; ideas flow l Holt's book is very thought provoking and very clearly written with an occasional touch of humor.
Sentences are carefully presented; ideas flow logically from one to the other I often found Holt addressing my next question just coming to mind ; and the overall direction of the book is clearly drawn as the journey progresses. Perhaps the detective story subtitle could have been emphasized a bit more; i.
Typically, with books like these, I understand a little, barely understand some, and am confounded by all the rest. Here, I was able to follow most of the time. That's not to call attention to me as reader; it's to praise Holt as writer for a job well done.
Aug 20, Rob Adey rated it it was ok. I'm used by now to this kind of book not actually providing a satisfactory answer to the question posited, but this one is really infuriating. Holt speaks to an admirably wide range of thinkers about this ultimate question, but doesn't provide enough detail on their theories for us to get much of a handle on them.
Given that the range is so wide it wouldn't be surprising if some of the actual interviewees were unfamiliar with some of the other ideas in the book, it's a bit unfair for Holt to ass I'm used by now to this kind of book not actually providing a satisfactory answer to the question posited, but this one is really infuriating.
Given that the range is so wide it wouldn't be surprising if some of the actual interviewees were unfamiliar with some of the other ideas in the book, it's a bit unfair for Holt to assume we're totally up to speed with what he's talking about.
It makes one wonder if Holt is totally up to speed with what he's talking about. To give him credit, Holt has come up with his own actual answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Unfortunately, it's too boring to read - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. He sends it to philosopher Derek Parfit, who says, 'Interesting, I'll get back to you' and that is the last we hear about it. On top of this, Holt is one of those annoying writers who assumes everyone learned French and Latin as well as he did, and his writing style is basically Niles Crane.
I wish there was nothing, sometimes. Aug 19, James rated it liked it Shelves: non-fiction , philosophy. I found the discussion in this book on why there is something rather than nothing utterly charming and totally befuddling.
There was not a single page where I thought to myself ah yes that obviously makes sense, each page elicited a headache. In face of my own inability to understand any of this book, it is of course equally impossible for me to give any sense of whether this book is any good or not. Lack of understanding, leads one to either write the book off as the rubbish produced by a preten I found the discussion in this book on why there is something rather than nothing utterly charming and totally befuddling.
Lack of understanding, leads one to either write the book off as the rubbish produced by a pretentious wannabe absolute nonsense, or to hail it as a work of genius inaccessible to the likes of me.
For example, the theory of axiarchism which is essentially the view that the universe was created by an absolute need for goodness. The author sits down and interviews an identified expert who then takes the question and blows it out into ever greater levels of complexity and reasoning. A lot of these arguments rely on the reduction of logical assumptions into utter absurdity and of course represent arguments which on the face of it are more cultural cul de sacs reminiscent of the how many angels can dance on top of a pin then truly illuminating advances.
After the early discussion of physics and math, the majority of the book is given over to the attempts by philosophers and logicians to solve the question, in all cases this is western thought, a fact that impoverishes this book. I like the fact that there is a small but dedicated group of people happy to devote there lives to constructing purely metaphysical arguments without chucking in the towel and saying this makes my brain hurt. I was struck by the counter argument to the tenet I have always held that our minds are far too limited to ever understand the something versus nothing that so much that was impenetrable to former generations has now been explained admittedly in some cases explained to a very small group of people , and therefore why would this mystery not be equally solvable.
I regret that my academic and professional life always focused on fast answers driven by reducing complexity rather then leisurely contemplation of the unknown. Finally I sympathise with another reader who said the question I was left with was I did I ever even try and read this book. So in summary I got a lot out of this book, in fact almost everything but an answer into why the universe exists that I can even begin to understand. View 2 comments. Nov 28, Raphaela rated it did not like it.
I really, really don't like not finishing books, so congratulations to Mr. Holt for being one of the chosen few I gave up with about 90 pages to go. Part of this is my fault: I forced myself through the equally terrible Assholes: A Theory last year and should know by now that navel-gazing logic-heavy philosophical books based around thought experiments are not my cup of tea.
It was paining me to get through this to begin with, because at the end of the day, though armed with plenty of jargon a I really, really don't like not finishing books, so congratulations to Mr. It was paining me to get through this to begin with, because at the end of the day, though armed with plenty of jargon and intimidating vocabulary, Jim Holt is a bad writer, plain and simple; when I realized that in this guy's oh-so-noble quest to get to the bottom of no less comprehensive a question than why the world exists, he didn't deem it necessary to interview, cite, consult, credit, or indeed acknowledge a single person who wasn't a white man, I was done.
Gives me a fresh perspective on that tired "turtles all the way down" story a certain kind of person loves to reference: in the context of this book, whose author clearly doesn't think women have anything of value well, anything at all, actually to contribute to the pressing concerns of humanity, the one woman who gets a mention is one who made a stupid comment to a brilliant man delivering a lecture she obviously didn't understand and thus sealed her legacy as a droll punchline and illustration of the hilarious antics of uneducated plebeians for class acts like the author of this book and his cohorts.
Sep 23, Brenton rated it it was ok. An intriguing and hopeless search for the meaning of existence. William James called the question of existence "the darkest in all philosohpy. Jim Holt is an excellent writer who can explain philosophical, scientific and existential themes with skill.
He conducts interviews with leading scientists and philosophers who have explored the mysteries of existence using the tools of mathematics, quantum mechanics, platonic philosophy, and philosophical An intriguing and hopeless search for the meaning of existence.
He conducts interviews with leading scientists and philosophers who have explored the mysteries of existence using the tools of mathematics, quantum mechanics, platonic philosophy, and philosophical inquiry. Unfortunately, the book is dominated by the materialistic assumption that the ultimate explanation will be physical rather than Personal.
There's nothing essentially new--reality consists of Pythagorean numbers, the Platonic good, superstrings, qunantum fluctuations, or perhaps nothing at all--one wonders if philosophy ever advances beyond Thales' water ontology! To his credit, Holt does interview one theistic philosopher, Richard Swinburne, but his report on the interview seems biased strongly in favor of naturalism.
Two episodes in the book leave the Christian reader feeling pity rather than frustration for Holt given his anti-theistic bias. First, he grippingly narrates the agonizing ordeal of watching his dog die.
Second, in the final chapter he narrates the death of his mother following the previous passing of his father and admits he has no final solution to the existential mystery of his own existence. He writes, "And what is the endpoint of this longed-for journey of expiation, atonement, and restored unity? That warm maternal sea from which we emerged--the eternal home of contented unconsciousness.
I would not be reunited with my parents until I, too, entered the nothingness that had already absorbed both of them. That was the real eternal home. And now I had a clear run to the Void. But what of the ontological status of personhood, the self, emotions, moral values, desires, and everything else that makes us human?
Unless a Personal metaphysic is adopted, one will never solve the riddle of existence. Apr 12, John Alt rated it it was amazing. Why does this book review exist? Because its author poured himself a cup of coffee the other morning and sat down in front of the computer to write it.
Why did he write it? Because he wanted to, silly. Where did the book come from? Its author wrote it. This is becoming tedious. Okay, how about this? Where did the universe come from? One interpretation of the Big Bang theory is that it emerged from nothing--in the final analysis, then, it, time, space, cups of coffee, blogs, book reviews, books, yo Why does this book review exist?
One interpretation of the Big Bang theory is that it emerged from nothing--in the final analysis, then, it, time, space, cups of coffee, blogs, book reviews, books, you and me, the kitchen sink, everything came from nothing. In short, this leads to the most fundamental question of all: How does something come from nothing?
In the 5th Century BC, Parmenides explored this question and since then a long line of philosophers have tackled it. A related question: How about these words you are reading? How did they get from something called my brain to this page? From this page to your brain? Yeah, I know all that stuff about brain lobes and light spectrums, but how did they really get there? After all, your brain is enclosed in darkness.
How does it get lit up? Consciousness is supposed to occur inside your skull and yet you experience it as empty space. So how do you get around this something-nothing issue?
Somebody's grandmother had one idea. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.
Just order a taller stack of turtles. One is the hard problem of consciousness. How can science explain what it is like to be you? To be me? The other is the origin of the universe. With regard to the Big Bang, it really does look like something--spacetime--came from nothing, and how can that be? If this were a contest, religions would score one point for themselves, with zero for science. Jim Holt asks questions about cosmology of eminent thinkers.
A reviewer says "More philosophical than scientific in bent, Holt wants not only an explanation of how you get something from nothing but also how such an explanation might be possible at all. View 1 comment.
Holt was never going to get much beyond a detailed description of "what is" or "why what is is the way it is," when the book's central question is actually "Why is there something rather than nothing?
Sartre, Heidegger, Hegel, and phenomenology recieve a passing nod, Castoriadis whose theory of magmas came [ahead of its time] to an explanation of creation ex nihilo is nowhere to be seen. Jim Holt clearly knows whereof he speaks, but whereof he speaks is a little off-piste for the resolution of this issue. This review of contemporary thinking on the question of existence represents the best of North American intellectual journalism where the writer tries to represent the intelligent 'ordinary joe' in his search for knowledge.
Of course, it has its irritations. The American literary style is almost defined by its narcissism - the fact that Jim Holt is sitting in the cafe that was patronised or matronised by Sartre and De Beauvoir is of very little interest. We want to get to the meat but that's ju This review of contemporary thinking on the question of existence represents the best of North American intellectual journalism where the writer tries to represent the intelligent 'ordinary joe' in his search for knowledge.
We want to get to the meat but that's just how they do things over there and he is possibly the least narcissistic of American literary types that I have come across in a long time. At least he does not spend ten pages describing the snow in Nebraska as if it was a creative writing class. What is of interest is the selection of well edited interviews with various leading academics and intellectuals on the meaning of existence, interspersed with some excellent guidance notes from Holt himself.
When he stops being fascinated by local colour, his own personal reactions to such fundamental matters as death are well written and thoughtful. I am averse to sentimentality over animals but he helps me to 'get' why the death of his 'pooch' actually matters. That is quite an achievement. Indeed, death is the existentialist sub-text - a close call on the road with Professor Grunbaum, the atheist, and the interview with Updike just before his death, the death of the dog and the death of the author's mother.
The dog and the mother seem to be strikingly equalised in death. Holt's final conclusions are mine because there seems to be no other conclusion. Rarely, I won't reveal what that conclusion is because, equally rarely, the 'detective story' structure of the book would make that a spoiler. What I can say is that this highly readable book will give an intelligent lay person an insight into the general trends in modern thought on the question of existence with plenty of solid background on the history behind such thinking that is necessary to get a sense of what is going on here, especially for those with no significant philosophical background.
This really should work as a book for the general reader. We have the aggressive Jewish-atheist secure in his lack of interest in the big questions, the outre theories of physicists and cosmologists as well as their more measured responses, the rather soppy theism of Swinburne and the unconvincing aestheticism of the mathematical Platonists. I rather liked the idea of the universe coming into being as the accidental by-product of some alien lab experiment where the alien universe continued to exist quite happily with us having no way of knowing who our absent-minded and disinterested creators may have been.
But it is just an idea. We then have the completely unjustified insistence on prior ethical meaning of Leslie talk about 'wishful thinking'! Any one of these interview-essays would be a stimulating article in itself in 'The New Yorker' Holt's journalistic home but, taken together with the excellent introductions, explanations and personal experiences, they all create a book that will inform, educate but, best of all, make you think.
My own non-spoiler conclusion on the book is that it helps to bring these extremely clever people down to earth for us. There are some questions where, for all their intelligence, they know no more than we may know. The intellectual legerdemain and intense and complex constructions of theoreticians and moralists all end up eventually where we all end up - making our own choices about meaning on the basis of our own stance in relation to the world. The interview with Swinburne on his theism perhaps brings this out most clearly but it is a theme throughout the book - even the Platonists who seem to have at least Number on their side fall at the last gate on the possibility that we cannot know that number does not break down beyond our own comprehension of it.
Mathematics may describe our world but not the world - which may be unknowable. One senses the long shadow of ultimate unknowability over the book and the resort to belief of anyone who goes beyond the somewhat rigid and closed-in world of Grunbaum.
It is as if we are all engaged in a sentimental 'best bets' strategy based on preferences and that rather does throw one back on to classic existentialist views of our relationship to meaning and to the world.
Certainly, the book is a corrective to the enthusiasm of those who think higher mathematics and cosmology necessarily rather than possibly describe the ultimate nature of existence. Nevertheless, the sheer pleasure, aesthetics and excitement of trying to understand the world and making discoveries on the way since philosophy gives us a scientific approach of sorts to language and phenomena as well as to science itself come out of this book.
It shows us that philosophy is what intelligent humans do. Perhaps this is best expressed by the severely analytical Oxonian Derek Parfit who must be regarded as the thinker's thinkers in terms of rigour. This does not mean that he is the most right but only the most committed to the method: indeed, one suspects that his rigour can often 'miss the point' even where his actual argumentation stands up but that is another matter.
In a lovely passage, Parfit who is rather obviously being very patient with his slightly less capable interviewer comes to a view of the self which I happen not to share that might depress others but says: "My life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which I was moving faster every year, and at the end of which there was darkness.
I now live in the open air" [Page ] Others will recognise the sentiment though it is just sentiment. The point is not whether Parfit was right or wrong in his analysis of the self but that, ultimately, his stance in his case, the virtue of analysis as enabling description of the world led to a 'way of seeing' that made him happier or more whole or more integral whatever!
This is what philosophy does - not necessarily make people happier or more integral but it changes them and enables them to become more aligned with who they are with the risk that who they are is something that wants not to be. The power of the intellect as is shown in almost every example in the book is placed at the service of a stance towards existence.
We do not understand existence so much as invent it. And the ending of the detective story which will not be revealed tells us more about Holt and probably me than it does about the world. May 30, Abu Hayat Khan rated it it was amazing Shelves: rationalism. Holt didn't have a definitive answer. Mar 12, Harold rated it liked it Shelves: philosophy , theology , logic.
I took a college philosophy class more than two decades ago. Although not related to my major I wanted an A in that class more than anything. True to the story I missed it by like. That was my introduction to the mystery of existence. I was hooked as I'm sure most of you reading a review of this book would have been. Holt relates his introduction as a high schooler reading Satre's Being and I took a college philosophy class more than two decades ago.
Holt relates his introduction as a high schooler reading Satre's Being and Nothingness. This book takes on the Zen Koan of the title. The author studies and meets famous philosophers, theologians, particle physicists,cosmologists, mystics and even the late John Updike. All weave fantastic webs in the language of their expertise that take you so deep into their esoteric language that you forget it's still a Zen Koan.
Which came first the chicken or the egg or the tree falling with no one to hear it. I did learn that Satre hung out at the Cafe de Flor in Paris and if I make it I will ponder the great questions over more drinks than he typically did. This book was entertaining. It did have a moving plot twist. I got out of it what I expected but not much more. I would give 3. If you liked it more I am happy for you. Good luck to all of you on your quests for Grails and metaphysical certitude, unless you are my asshole philosophy professor that is.
Aug 01, Nika rated it liked it Shelves: nonfiction-philosophy. Too much belly button lint in here for my taste. Feb 02, Kyle Muntz rated it really liked it. Because of my background, the philosophy felt a little basic, but a lot of the physics were engaging and new, and seeing them together was a nice treat.
Like most metaphysics surveys, it spent a while grappling with the Christian god but fortunately didn't take long before dismissing the idea though Holt did it with tact I guess which might help some readers.
Altogether: this is nice and worth checking out, and there's probably a lot for you here unless you're a specialist in both physics and metaphysics Apparently the NYTimes reviewed it well and I can definitely understand why; this book isn't an end in itself or anything, but it really stands out especially compared to similar books that try the same thing and don't do nearly as good a job. Jan 07, Emily rated it it was ok Shelves: did-not-finish , book-club. I've decided not to finish this book.
Sure, it has taught me enough about Leibniz and Spinoza to be vaguely re-interested in specific metaphysicians, but Holt's self-absorbed and self-serving writing style is not worth my time. I am happy to read this kind of musing from authors I already like, but this was my first dip into Holt and, frankly, I have better things to do. Mar 29, Josh rated it really liked it.
Actually more like 4. Engaging and thoughtful and deftly told probably all these adjectives are used in the blurbs, but in this case they're accurate. Anyhow, it's fascinating stuff. Holt reminds us philosophy can be fun, too. Three cheers for deep thought and wild conjecture! May 06, James Murphy rated it it was amazing. Why is there something rather than nothing? It's a classical philosophical question. As Jim Holt tells it, Martin Amis once remarked in an interview that we're about 5 Einsteins away from answering the question of why things exist and how the universe popped into being.
Taking the thought to heart, he gave himself the task of talking to a succession of experts--particle physicists, theologians, philosophers, cosmologists, mystics, and a great writer, heavy thinkers all--who he hoped would prove Why is there something rather than nothing?
Taking the thought to heart, he gave himself the task of talking to a succession of experts--particle physicists, theologians, philosophers, cosmologists, mystics, and a great writer, heavy thinkers all--who he hoped would prove to be one or two or three of those Einsteins shining a light down the path toward the answer.
But before beginning he felt he had to come to an understanding of the concept of nothingness, which he concluded has been proven to be impossible because in order to experience nothingness there's still the consciousness explaining it.
Too, such a nothingness would still be contained in something, which leads to the spiraling argument that nothing is an ontological option and that the universe is an impossibility if there's no one to observe it. Holt's investigation takes the form of a story, told engagingly and in ways accessible to everyone. Those he talked to are academics and scholars who have an answer or part of one: 1.
Adolf Grunbaum, a philosopher of science whose approach is to take existence for granted because it doesn't need an explanation. Richard Swinburne, who says the most reliable scientific explanation is always the simplest one, and in the case of creation and existence the God explanation is the simplest. David Deutsch first theorized the multiverse.
He thinks there is no bottom line principle which explains everything. The philosopher Robert Nozick thinks existence is so rich it contains, in its absurdity, both something and nothing. Alex Valenkin, who has suggested that a quantum vacuum existed before and made possible the Big Bang. Steven Weinberg thinks that only by determining why things are the way they are will we shed light on why there is anything at all.
The prominent Platonist Roger Penrose thinks that pure mathematics proves a world other than our own exists. In fact, he says there are 3 worlds or realities: the physical world of classical physics, the Platonic other world, and the world of human consciousness, in our brains.
John Leslie posits a cosmos consisting of an infinite number of infinite minds, making our universe the contemplative product of one of those minds. He says the universe exists because it ought to exist, because Plato's vision of the Good created the need for it. Donald Parfit thinks that one of the multiverses is one in which nothing does exist. The novel Roger's Version was written by John Updike. In it he addresses the issue of God by having a character browbeaten into seeing that the universe came from nothing at all and that, further, the Barthian idea of God is so alien to reality that He could not have created it.
God possibly may be found to exist through ontological necessity or math, but it would be a different God from that of the Old Testament or Billy Graham. Does Holt come to a conclusion? I think he does, if I understand him well enough. Part of Holt's method is to keep breaking physical reality down into its basic components and examining their relation to each other. Eventually he comes to the self and the idea that what we mean by existence is that thinking and feeling human beings think and feel themselves to exist.
It's been said before, that humans create reality. Holt explains that at some moment in the history of the universe some atoms happen to come together in a certain way to create the self, each of us. The I springs into reality by recognizing itself and I creates reality by recognizing the physical world. All knowledge becomes self-knowledge and therefore creates the world.
Holt recites Wittgenstein: "The world is my word" and "I am my world. It either ceases to exist or it never came to be. Did I fully understand all of this?
No, but I was never lost, either. Holt makes it more accessible that I'd hoped. I began the book anxious that I might be beyond my experience and that only by risking mental hyper-extension and brain hernias would I begin to grasp it.
The subject is a difficult one. It's arcane and hard to wrap your mind around. Holt writes clearly, though, and in a manner which presents the concepts and widely-flung ideas and how he came to them as stories or parts of stories so that it's all rather engaging.
If I didn't grasp every nuance of it, the read would have been much worse had the prose been a thick paste of scientific and philosophical terminology. Holt eases the journey, too, by being funny. The book also accomplished something important other than its obvious instructive values: it did what all good books should do, it made me want to read it again.
It deserves another read, not because it's so difficult that it needs more clarification, but simply for the breadth of its understanding and for its elegance of expression. Jun 18, Elazar rated it it was amazing. Wonderful book. A well written excellent review of physical and spiritual answers to the question: why is there something rather than nothing? Aug 08, Vegantrav rated it really liked it.
Holt interviews a number of different thinkers: philosophers, scientists, and theologians, engaging with them and their ideas on why being something has triumphed over nothing. Holt also offers his own personal ruminations on the ideas of those whom he interviews and, in the end, provides his own answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing.
Holt's conversation with the German philosopher of science Adolf Grunbaum was one my favorite interviews. Grunbaum argues that there is nothing at all mysterious in existence: he professes to be not in the least amazed or astounded that something exists rather than nothing. Finding it puzzling that there is something instead of nothing, Grunbaum argues, is a bias of Christianity, arising out of its doctrine of creation ex nihilo.
Only those infected with this Christian idea, Grunbaum the crotchety atheist avers, would think that nothing should otherwise be the norm thus rendering the existence of something as in need of explanation. Grunbaum simply takes it for granted that something—namely this world—exists and is not at all amazed that the world exists.
The scientific interviews provide nothing really new to anyone who reads popular scientific books by the likes of Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Freeman Dyson, and Michio Kaku: there is much talk of the multiverse, string theory, quantum fluctuations, and what may caused the Big Bang and whether the Big Bang was a unique event.
Another of the interviews that I particularly enjoyed was that of Derek Parfit, the British philosopher most well known for his works on personal identity and moral philosophy. I will say that I'm not convinced that Holt actually solves the problem of why there is something rather than nothing, but he, utilizing Parfit, provides a rather ingenious approach. I think the idea that something exists being the default ontological position makes a great deal of sense.
I'm also in the camp of those who think that it may just be a brute fact that there is something rather than nothing, and we humans may very likely never have an answer to this question that is completely intellectually satisfying: there may be some facts about existence—namely, the very fact of existence—that cannot be explained.
The final sections of the book address the problems of the nature of the self and the extinction of the self at death, and these are also fascinating. Holt addresses the problems with trying to define exactly what the self is, and he draws extensively on the thought of my favorite philosopher, David Hume, as well as upon the thought of a contemporary philosopher, Thomas Nagel.
Overall, this is a completely absorbing book. It is a quick and easy read even for the layperson who has no philosophical training and no scientific background, and Holt is an engaging writer who presents the subject in a light yet still erudite fashion.
I very much enjoyed this book and definitely recommend it. Jan 17, Evin Ashley rated it liked it. I cannot emphasize the great relief that comes in finally finishing this book.
The struggle with which I waded through the muddy creek of Jim Holt's "Why there is Something rather than Nothing," can be attributed to both 1 the unyielding stream of incredibly dense scientific theory and philosophy flowing forth from Holt's babbling brook of conscious narrative, and 2 his own subconscious, surfeited ego which rudely interrupted much of said running commentary.
I eagerly immersed myself into thi I cannot emphasize the great relief that comes in finally finishing this book. I eagerly immersed myself into this book like a doe-eyed forest nymph; curious to explore its depths, and alas, I emerge from its relentless onslaught like an irritable swamp monster; both scaly and barnacled, squinting in the glare of the merciful sun, groaning a la Chewbacca, and finally collapsing in a heap on dry land.
There was so much going on in this book, and often times I felt Jim would jump from concept to concept upon convenience; if it aligned with his general teleological "hunch", he would dive more in-depth. This was hard for me to gauge, however, without the level of theoretical knowledge either he or his subjects possessed.
It became a constantly frustrating feeling, like witnessing a debate tournament on a topic you feel passionately about, but cannot participate in. So, I should educate myself more on these topics, and appreciate Holt's narrative in bringing them to my awareness. The second frustration I derived from this book stemmed from the author's unassuaged ego in the midst of all this exploring, making it a lot more personal than need be. I appreciate that he wanted to pepper quite a few dry, technical concepts with lively, tangible anecdotes, but they came across as pompous and self-indulgent.
I grew tired of hearing about the entire contents of his dinner and flamboyant midnight strolls in Europe. I wanted to get back on track - I didn't need a break, as he did. Another aspect of the book that brought me great frustration: I noticed how he always wound up at Oxford University, and he even admitted to believing the quest for unlocking all the universe s 's mystery lied within All Souls College. It is evident in his broad offerings of theory that he was quite rabidly focused on the tenets of Western schools of thought.
At the very end of the book, he threw in a random anecdote about a Buddhist puppet on a French TV program; his only acknowledgement of Eastern philosophy. He also had a romantic bent in him, which craved manifesting itself as a cohesive and biased thread throughout his musings, often times infatuating himself in the sensuality of his expert subjects. He would describe the mood and environs leading up to encounters with knowledgeable men never women! So, when he sojourned to Texas or Canada, things were bizarre and earthly; but back at good old All Souls, things were ethereal, pristine and just as they should be.
He then came up with a bizarre "proof" at the end of his musings, like a lump sum of all the contents of his pleasing interviews, which he intended to pass off as yes indeed, a proof as to why the world exists.
Overall, this is a book written by a clearly knowledgeable lad to inspire thinking in others, but lacking in humble acknowledgement of what he does not know. Holt took an interesting approach with this book, combining a serious, if somewhat light-hearted, philosophical inquiry into a profound metaphysical question with a non-fiction style situated between autobiography and travelogue. The question is "why is there something rather than nothing?
This whirlwind of an introduction is enough to lay out the basics of the problem and why it is such a head-scratcher. The remainder of the book follows Holt as he travels to meet a range of theologians, philosophers, physicists, and even the late John Updike.
The perspectives are varied, as suits a work of this scope, and Holt is careful to stop for a breather and exposition at each stage so that those without a philosophical background can follow along. Holt managed to shift me into philosophy mode and get my wheels turning at many points, as any good work of this nature should. From Adolph Grunbaum's a priori skepticism about nothingness to John Leslie's axiarchism and Derek Parfit's Selectors, there are some beautiful ideas touched on here, and to Holt's credit he largely shies away from interjecting any hard-line personal beliefs.
There is one chapter near the end where, after speaking to Parfit, he attempts to flesh out a metaphysical explanation; while this was interesting, I didn't find it any more compelling than the other alternatives insofar as actually being "an answer". Even science, often considered the final answer and indeed the only route by which an answer may be forthcoming, is at a loss, and may remain so when confronted with the brute fact of Being.
As with so much in philosophy, it's the journey that matters more than the destination. Despite finding no answer, indeed conceding that there may be no answer, engaging with the question is rewarding in its own way. To my reader's eye, Holt qualifies as a wonderful writer. The style is easy-going and accessible under the weight of considerable philosophical matters while managing to do them justice.
The science-minded who want hard answers and Truths and are similarly offended by metaphysical speculation will be put off, but for anyone interested in the inquiry that lies beyond science and where science fits into that puzzle , I'd suggest giving this a look. Jan 05, Stephen rated it it was ok. Holt's existential detective story checks off every one of my pet peeves about contemporary mainstream nonfiction. Instead, authors begin with a vague but intriguing question—"Why does the world exist?
I do not play that game and stopped reading the book mid-way through when it was clear that my time was being wasted, but the manipulation must work or else it wouldn't be so widespread. This approach is meant to turn the essay into something it's not: a mystery wherein the reader is invited to accompany the author on a journey of discovery. Often, the journey is one of self-discovery and, true to form, Holt frequently shoehorns his irrelevant experiences and musings into the narrative.
A New York Times bestseller on first publication, this new paperback edition provides a much-needed new take on history's greatest conundrum, in the vein of previous bestsellers like Michael Brooks' 13 Things that Don't Make Sense. Lire la suite Fermer. Voir mon panier poursuivre mes achats.
Extrait gratuit. Why Does the World Exist?
0コメント