Reviews for Psychology of Politics and History

The average rating for Psychology of Politics and History based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-07-27 00:00:00 Heather Wright I didn't necessarily learn a lot from this book, but I still found it valuable and would recommend it to anyone grappling with issues of consciousness and embodiment. Noë's project seems to be update Merleau-Ponty and apply the old boy's philosophy to the current state of scientific research on the mind/brain. In some respects not much has changed since Phenomenology of Perception was written. We still seem to be living through the twilight of cartesianism. * Consciousness as something always situated - a dynamic interaction or dialogue between myself and my environment. Yet consciousness - human consciousness anyway - also possesses an extraordinary capacity for abstraction. Noë seems to acknowledge as much in his discussion of locked-in syndrome. Even when the body is paralyzed and its environment extremely impoverished, consciousness can persist. This would seem to lend a certain plausibility to classical dualism. This then becomes the really difficult problem: how to reconcile the fact that we are finite, situated beings with our apparent ability to transcend our immediate surroundings through thought. * Good discussion of other minds. The stake through the heart of solipsism is not a really solid argument or convincing piece of evidence. No one actually believes solipsism. The problem is in thinking it even needs to be refuted in the first place. Contra certain theories of developmental psychological, it's not as if children reach a certain age and are then able to hypothesize the existence of other minds, or an inner substance called consciousness. From the start consciousness is experienced as properly basic and embodied "Mommy's mind and baby's mind come to be in the coochy-cooing directedness that each sustains toward the other" - pp 33 (perhaps he could have found a less cutesy way to say this, but I think the point is valid) Noë could perhaps have gone even further in emphasizing the extreme rarity, & possible non-existence, of solipsism as an actually occurring phenomenon. Even the most extreme acts of cruelty do not imply a theoretical commitment to solipsism. Sadism would actually seem to require a fairly advanced level of empathy; in order to enjoy another's pain obviously you have to believe that they're feeling it. Noë seems to claim that the Nazis effectively denied that Jews (and other groups) possessed minds at all, but I don't think that's accurate. As far as I know, Nazis didn't justify their violence by claiming their victims were literally automata incapable of thinking or feeling pain. Rather, Nazi propaganda tended to use the rationale of revenge or self-defense, which suggests the other has some level of agency and therefore a mind. * Imagine someone in the 19th century saying: Steam engine technology is progressing so rapidly, in a few decades we may see a steam engine that's more intelligent than a human being

Review # 2 was written on 2013-02-25 00:00:00 Nolos Nolanos After coming across Mr. Noë's video on youtube (), I was intrigued and decided to follow up on his position that consciousness is something that "happens outside the brain." What a waste. To read this book is to observe an author attack a straw man with a piece of straw. Mr. Noë argues against the "brain-centric" approach taken up by contemporary neuroscientists toward the understanding of consciousness. The funny thing is that modern neuroscience is not "brain-centric" as a field; it's an interdisciplinary field that has many overlapping topics, branches and sub-specialties. Mr. Noë is a philosopher who is out of touch of the great diversity and ongoing developments (and promises) of neuroscience. It is disappointing to influence the general public to believe that contemporary neuroscientists pursue brain-centric / brain ONLY approach to understanding consciousness. Clearly the brain has been and will always be a responsive and dynamic part of the body that creates consciousness through its sensing, perception and engagement with the environment (through the body). We can throw out the dualism of Descartes. We can stomp out dangerous wrong ideas about how to understand and learn from the field of neuroscience (i.e. that the brain doesn't change, that consciousness is separate from the body or that neuroscience is a brain-centric field). These are understandings through science that build toward the future. Not this book.