Reviews for The structures of the life-world

The average rating for The structures of the life-world based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-06-14 00:00:00 Salvatore Distefano The blurb of this book describes it as a "cross-cultural comparative philosophy," which seems like a fascinating project. But it is really something a little different. It is a sociological description of philosophers throughout the world and throughout history. There is no philosophy done, no arguments or philosophical reasoning, rather the book describes the social dynamics of philosophical movements from about the fifth century BCE until the present day, individual by individual, generation by generation. I was attracted by the prospect of understanding Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy and Arab philosophy in such a way that they could be put alongside Greek and western philosophy in order to provide a global perspective. This book accomplishes that but it overwhelms with its detail. I confess I did not read the whole book. I read 245 out of 892 pages, the sections on Greek and Chinese and Indian philosophies, and then I skipped around and read another 100 pages, mostly about contemporary philosophy. I realized that, while there were interesting insights, the transitions between philosophers I recognized, such as Confucius and Lao Tzu, were many generations long and so complicated that I would never master them. I came to the conclusion that, for me, the best approach would be the "Great Books" approach, reading the classics of each tradition. There are sociological observations which are interesting, such as the "rule of small numbers." In the attention space of any generation, there can be only three to six notable philosophers. More than that, there are too many voices for a public discussion. Fewer than that, there is not enough disagreement to generate discussion. In the intellectual communities there is a struggle to become a leading voice. One quote caught my attention: "Depression, writer's block, the shifting of one's attention away from intellectual projects and back onto the everyday world: these are the typical pathways by which would-be intellectuals fail to make a mark and drop out of the field." I have been there. There were other observations of great interest. From a philosophical point of view, Buddhism was once the philosophy of India. Hinduism started as very diverse commentary on the ancient Vedas, but did not have a cohesive point of view which was defining. It was in the struggle with Buddhism (according to the author) that both Hinduism and Buddhism defined themselves and each other. For example, the caste system and reincarnation were not essential parts of Hinduism until Buddhism developed an attitude toward them, and positions solidified on both sides. Hinduism and Buddhism were in dialogue with each other until the Moghul invasion. At that point, Hinduism, based on Brahman heads of family, was able to resist the invaders better than Buddhism, based on monasteries allied with royal courts. Buddhism dispersed to Sri Lanka, Nepal, Tibet and southeast Asia, while Hinduism survived the Moghul invasion to become the dominant religion (and philosophy) of India. There were many other interesting insights, for example showing the family relationships among the branches of contemporary western philosophy, Anglo-American and Continental. "In reality, the two allegedly antithetical traditions are network cousins, full of common ancestors two and three generations back." This is a fascinating project, but I would prefer to read philosophy rather than the genealogy of philosophy.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-10-27 00:00:00 Carolina Scardine The sheer audacity of this book's mission is worthy of praise. Unfortunately, our author should have been a little more specific about his aims. What I am referring to is his tendency to use "creativity" in place what should (probably) be termed "large-scale creative influence." There are creative philosophers he didn't mention who have had mightier creativity than many of the philosophers he mentioned in his book. Fernando Pessao certainly deserves some consideration, seeing as though he has a mightier subjective philosophy than Nietzsche does. Jacques Lacan also deserve mention. Psychoanalysis, as a whole, deserved a lot of recognition.... But, for the most part, I enjoyed it. Definitely the best sociology book I've ever read. The theory is okay; the terms used seem a little botched up; but the writing is smooth and crisp.