Nozick, Robert

Average customer rating:

Masterpiece of Pop-Philosophy
I Loved This Book
Viscous or Brilliant?
Crystalline Reasoning Untested by Rock of Reality
brilliant but myopic

Anarchy, State and Utopia
Robert Nozick
Manufacturer: Basic Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Theory | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Leadership | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

A Theory of Justice: Original Edition
The Constitution of Liberty
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement
Political Liberalism (Columbia Classics in Philosophy)
Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality

ASIN: 0465097200

Book Description

In this brilliant and widely acclaimed book, winner of the 1975 National Book Award, Robert Nozick challenges the most commonly held political and social positions oaf our age--liberal, socialist, and conservative.

Customer Reviews:

Masterpiece of Pop-Philosophy .......2007-01-10

Nozick's A, S, and U is a great work of philosophy; not merely for its clear and forceful arguments, but because of its ability to act like a textbook. With ASU, you get a broad coverage of political theories, ethical theories, theories about argument, economics, government and more. Highly recommended for anyone who is doing philosophy at an undergraduate level.

I Loved This Book.......2006-06-18

An observation and common criticism of the book, both in this little Amazon fishbowl and elsewhere, is that Nozick takes givens, starts the arguments, and proceeds without initial justification of his givens.

The charge is accurate. So throughout the logic of the case he builds one finds comments like, "This does not take seriously the person as an individual" with no support or clarification. What are these statements? Are they broad appeals to what everyone has already recognized through some moral sensory apparatus, a moral fact? Are they simply what Nozick has taken as true beyond dispute, or at least, beyond fruitful argument?

Some times they are. Some times, as with property rights, Nozick has simply accepted the work of previous thinkers, there John Locke. Are there flaws with Locke's property rights base? Yes, indeed there are flaws with any theory, and one must accept the least flawed if he ever wants to advance to a higher subject. This is especially true of ethics. But Locke is certainly no insignificant thinker, but rather a reliable starting point of an analysis. And what the author perceives as commonly accepted (but not necessarily unanimously accepted) principles are fair game when one is presenting an argument--without such data, we have nothing but skepticism unbounded.

And yet many seem intent on criticizing Nozick for not reinventing the wheel--for simply filling in gaps in other theories, weaving certain ones together in new ways without going through the substrata of the entire philosophy of Western civilization, doublechecking each vein.

I find that criticism unfair. Each writer, each theoretician, must accept certain truths to begin with, accept some axioms and from thence go forward. It simply won't do to demand an entire universe in every book. Some times the premisses a writer starts with will be bizarre to the reader, and so he will not accept the conclusions. Those skeptical of "rights" in general will find trouble accepting where we are led--and if the premisses started with are so absurd perhaps we can rebuke the author for his warped view on reality. But nothing presumed here can be dismissed so easily. You may charge, accurately, that Nozick has yet to prove the existence of external reality, and ergo, this political argument is unsupported. But you're a silly person to do so.

And some of you take the idea that a progressive tax could be immoral to be simply insane, and thus you find the book's conclusion contrary to reality as such. But I tell you the quality of the book is not merely its truth (though I do believe Nozick has presented here a powerful moral truth), but also the case Nozick builds from the (often widely-held) premisses he selects, and the mastery and beauty of that case. I don't think anyone can fairly deny the grandness of what he has done here. (I am not arguing that truth is insignificant--I am arguing it is one of many components of quality).

To be honest, I loved this book. I loved the honesty, I loved the politics he justified, I loved the vibrancy of Nozick's arguments, the freshness of his methods, the power of the Rawlsian critique, the dangling tantalizing questions. I loved the parts I agreed with and those I didn't agree with.

I loved the setup--the journey through economic theory to bring us a just minimal state from the anarchist's state of nature. I loved the detours along the way--the discussion of animal rights, utilitarianism, punishment and deterrence. I loved the minimal state, and the crisp arguments that ruled any increase in it immoral. I loved the discussion of utopia, born like dessert after a full meal, a whole new set of fun arguments, providing us with more rich analytic devices, and exploding possibilities.

I loved Nozick's style--never, not for a second, patronizing. Smart, quick, concise and dense, poignant with its thoughts, and yet neighborly, polite, forthright and friendly. Were I not already a libertarian I'd be one now. Were I not already interested in philosophy, I would be now. Were I not already an ardent Nozick groupie, I would be now.

There is a passage where Nozick gives a short paean to Rawls, the beauty of his theory, the mastery of his technique. Surely Rawls deserves it, but there can be no doubt that after this work, Nozick deserves no less glowing praise. It is hard to stress sufficiently the warmth and artistry of what the author accomplishes: the birth of a political philosophy, and a journey there with every step amazing. No cliches, no tricks, just light.

With this book, the libertarians have carved a slice of truth from the world. We can be defeated--but now we must at least be faced.

Viscous or Brilliant?.......2006-01-11

When I neared the end of this book, I was learning so much, I couldn't believe how I drudged through it in the beginning. Except that I did so for a reason.

This book is divided into 10 chapters. The first 6 answer claims of anarchists--they establish the existence of the state as legitimate. These 6 chapters are tedious, tedious reading. To be honest, I got very little out of them. Yet, you have to read these to be able to understand the rest of the book (sadly).

The reason? Chapters 7-10 are flat out GREAT. He crushes the welfare state beautifully, humiliates Marxism, and so on. Excellent stuff. I got tons out of these chapters.

So, half of this book is tedious drudgery (though still very brilliant stuff, to be sure), while the other half is very beneficial and enjoyable.

Recommended, with conditions.

Crystalline Reasoning Untested by Rock of Reality.......2005-08-16

This book represents a crucial turning point in American political philosophy. It should be mandatory reading for anyone who would start making sense of the differences between pre-Reagan and post-Reagan political views of the world. By comparing the style and substance of this book with Rawl's Theory of Justice one might learn much about the philosophies that have driven the politics of these two eras.

This book is presented in three sections. The first argues for a 'minimal state' in preference to anarchy. The second attacks 'utopian' notions of society. The third poses the author's own model of the 'utopian' state. There is a glittery, shiny, mathematical precision to the arguments. And when one encounters arguments that make sense, the sketchy quality works to the book's advantage and the book shines.

In the first section the author imagines established societies without the protection of governmental bodies. He posits the evolutionary development of hypothetical security companies and illustrates how these firms would always fall short of providing the minimal protections even their own clients should reasonably expect. He derives a hypothetical governing body he calls the 'minimal state.' This body has the rights to do certain things we normally associate with government, But these rights, he argues, fall far short of those posited by others, including our own government. If one assumes away most of the problems industrial societies face, Nozick's notion of the 'minimal state' is an interesting one and perhaps even a sensible one. He certainly makes the case that it is preferable to anarchy.

To the extent that the last chapter is construed as an argument about the 'unabridged rights of free association,' it also stikes one as being sensible and clear; brilliant, even. But the author's argument is too sketchy to robustly support his grandiose intention.

The second section is more difficult to believe than the other two. Consider a counterargument Nozick poses to refute one argument in Rawls' Theory of Justice.' This argument is related to a queston about how to divide among a group's participants the excess gains that are realized as a result of cooperation. (Paraphrased for clarity.)

1) People are entitled to their natural assets ( i.e. intelligence, strength, so on)
2) People are entitled to the benefits that flow from their natural assets. (i.e. income)
3) People's holdings accumulate as benefits from their natural assets.
4) People deserve their holdings because of rightful means by which they accumulate.
5) It is wrong to wrest holdings from people if they deserve them.

The author suggests that Rawls would rebut this syllogism at line 1. Then he proposes an argument which reaches the same conclusion but avoids positing 1) . And claims victory.

Not so fast. The second line of the argument , 2), could mean that people deserve 'all of the benefits that flow exclusively from their natural assets.' This is a premise that is a little hard to dispute, but has no legs. It does not carry the argument where it needs to go, because practically speaking such cases are never in dispute. Alternatively it could mean that people deserve 'all of the benefits that flow at least in part from their natural assets.' It is upon this meaning that Nozick must base his argument if it has any relevance to the cooperative behavior that pervades the modern world. But this interpretation is of no help in resolving the disputed claims of ownership that arise regarding the excess profits of cooperation. All parties involved do precisely this - claim all the benefits that flow in part from their natural assets. And we arrive back at the problem Rawls was trying to solve in the first place. Nozick's counter-argument is only helpful in trivial, practically indisputable cases that involve no cooperation.

There are a number of other very simple objections one can raise to Nozick's syllogism. It appears, for instance, not to properly treat the case of children. This argument is too simple and its implications too involved to state here.

Perhaps we have misunderstood the author in this case. Still, this example illustrates a kind of disconnection with reality that pops up now and again throughout the second and third sections - a failure to recheck the mathematically derived world against common sense understanding of the real one. It represents a case where the form of an argument is the means of persuasion rather than its sense. And the form is set up by the facile wordings of the starting premises. The appeal to pure logic might be compared to the appeal of a geometric proof (one whose premises might be a little shaky, perhaps).

Or it might be compared with a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. It is bright and shiny and attractive. One might be left with the sense that the author, starting in London, has pointed his Silver Shadow of reason in the correct direction and, in attempt to drive it to the resource-rich continent of Australia, is methodically driving it right over the precipice at the Cliffs of Dover.

brilliant but myopic.......2005-04-07

This book is brilliant for its microscopic and short term analysis of what is just, but it leaves out the possibility that short term microscopic violations of liberty can ensure the long term maximization of liberty. In this way Nozick's treatise is myopic. His entire treatment of what I would consider the most important critizism of libertarianism (namely the fact that redistrobution is necessary to maintain stable equilibrium of the economic divide due to the fact that well off persons can "use this power to give themselves differential economic benefits") is but one paragraph long (p272) and seriously lacking in credulity.

On the microscopic level, one of my many complaints with Nozick's treatise is how, for example, slavery is to be prevented with only a minimal state. Nozick handles this point by suggesting that "in the short run a more extensive state" could "rectify" this situation (p231). My problem with this response is that the same force that would cause an injustice like slavery would also prevent such rectification. In other words, Nozick ignores the fact that practically speaking a minimal state is often prevented from self-organizing the creation of such a rectifying more extensive sate, and that this point must be taken into account if one wishes to believe that the minimal state is the most just in the long run. Only the extenisve state can insure that gross injustices like slavery do not naturally evolve out of a given system.

In the end, I respect much of Nozick's argument, and it may well be true that mandatory redistribution is unjust for those wealthy folks who do not wish to part with some of their money to help the needy. But that does NOT mean that such persons are not a**holes.

Average customer rating:

Difficult read
On reading Nozick
Simply lovely
Great book for the romantic philosopher
Nozick and his clone Nozick* write a book.

Examined Life
Robert Nozick
Manufacturer: Simon & Schuster
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Philosophical Explanations
Anarchy, State and Utopia
The Nature of Rationality
Meditations on First Philosophy: In Which the Existence of God and the Distinction of the Soul from the Body Are Demonstrated
Thomson Advantage Books: Philosophy: A Text with Readings (with CD-ROM and InfoTrac®) (Advantage Series:)

ASIN: 0671725017

Customer Reviews:

Difficult read.......2005-10-07

I couldnt read this book beyond the first chapter. Long winding and boring. One of the dullest books on philosphy.

On reading Nozick .......2005-08-31

In an Introduction to Philosophy course students are usually introduced to a whirlwind of different philosophers each with very different views. Even when the views of various philosophers are best understood through a realization of how they differ one from another, it can be very confusing trying to imagine how the different philosophical positions might amount to something practical. It is for that reason that I have selected Robert Nozick's little book The Examined Life to use in my class as an example of how a philosophical point of view can be used to address the practical aspects of life.

Nozick is fairly conservative. I might even be being conservative in describing him as "fairly" conservative depending on your viewpoint. He is often depicted as the conservative compared to the liberal John Rawls "Political Liberalism." For the most part I feel my students are conservative and so feel there would be a good match. So far the feedback from my students has suggested to me that my choice has been right on the mark.

While you can certainly read this text through from start to finish for my course I select different chapters to go with different topics in the main text for the course. Some chapters might make better sense if read in order.

On Nozick on emotions: I suppose an awful lot of philosophy (one reason some mathematicians can't stand it) is a fight over how to properly use words in relation to one another. One mathematician I know likes to be very precise. Wittgenstein argued that most philosophical problems could be solved just by clearing up the language. Once we clarified our language we would see that the problems were pseudo problems - fake! But we don't use our words in clear ways especially when talking to lots of people who use language in different ways among themselves - some people will understand you one way and others another and still others won't understand a bit. I myself have had the fun of saying something only to be clearly understood by many people to have meant just the opposite of what I was intending to mean! But imagine what it would be like to try to get everyone to use words in exactly a certain way and no other. "Precising" definitions - well, I suppose that is what school is for! But is Nozick an authority? Actually, I prefer Damasio's use of "emotion" in "The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness -- by Antonio R. Damasio.

Simply lovely.......2005-08-25

The Examined Life is the first I've read from Robert Nozick. I had read a review denigrating the book, one of his later works, as a mere "self-help book," but after flipping through it in a Borders' a few months ago, decided to give it a read. If nothing more than a "self-help book," it's one of the best of that genre. I feel expanded, even irradiated.

The title obviously comes from Socrates' famous line (challenge) in the Apology, and Nozick's answer is rich and full of blood. A set of meditations, touching upon one by one the significances of life, all flows forth and simply blooms from the opening line: "I want to think about living and what is important in life, to clarify my thinking-and also my life." The act of creation, sexuality, love (of parent, of child, of God), the nature of reality and its component dimensions, politics, eating, and much more are all probed, fleshed full and good.

The author's style is bold and broad: it charts new ground, it makes daring leaps from uncertain foundations. Yet, he remains modest and honest. Questions breed tentative answers and new questions: some are answered, some are ground into new questions once again. There is an unmistakable organic nature, and one is left with the warm reward of having more questions after finishing than one did when beginning. The meditations, each a chapter long, grow as crystalline lattices from little germs, pearls from simple sand. The prose is easy: the author, polite to the last, apologizes when brief incursions into metaphysics become necessary. And I, an atheist, was fascinated by these meditations on brahma and the Christian God, the creative guesses at age old paradoxes: why does He let evil things happen, and why is Enlightenment so hard to reach? And I, a libertarian, was intrigued by Nozick's own "betrayal" (if you will) of his previous positions, his investigation of political virtue and the noble-non-libertarian-whims of the electorate.

And I want to express just how much this book has changed me. I see things differently now; life itself is richer, holier, lighter. Paradigms have cracked. Possibilities are mossy and multiplied. One night I was miserable-why, I don't recall-so I flipped ahead a few chapters and read the meditation on happiness and then I was calm, content, and real.

Though the backbone is not obvious, one can sense a vague progress through the chapters, as Nozick develops his idea of the highest value, the multidimensional amalgam of "reality." What does it mean to be more "real?" How does one achieve more "reality?" What are the component parts and what are their relationships? He then attempts a grand, and-so he admits-very precarious assimilation of reality's dimensions into a rectangular matrix. When this exhausting work is done, the meditations turn to other intricacies that have been left unresolved: light and dark, the meaning of wisdom, a cute reflection on democracy, and the bittersweet conclusion, quiet and humble, sad in its finality, and positively verdant in (I don't use the word lightly) the love that shines forth.

And I loved reading his book. I hope one day I can repay the light he has shed upon me.

Great book for the romantic philosopher.......2002-04-18

There being so few reviews here on this work I thought I would read them all before adding my own, afterall if I would just be repeating the others why bother. I was very impressed by the general knowledge of Nozick and the philosophical sophistication of the reviewers. But I belive that same sophistication made them miss the boat on this one.
This is not hard analytic philosophy. This is an examination of everyday concerns about life that apply to everyone and it is written for everyone, not just those of us with degrees in philosophy. For the lay person, it provides a glimps at how a philosopher might approach a problem, even one where a straight answer may not be possible. The nature of "Love's bond" for example may do little more than create a framework for how to think about one's intimate relationship, but it does it in such a way as to expose the reader to the economic analysis of human motivation and also to such things as the motivations that keep people ( or political groups ) from even offering conditional statements. Even his use of parenthetical digressions encourage the reader to go beyond what he is presenting and apply their own analysis to the sub-issue. True, things like the difference between making love and f...king may not be of great philosophical importance at university but his distinction is insightful and fun and the sort of subject matter that tittilates the neophyte in to wondering why they never looked at it that way. Then that neophyte might also wonder what else they should examine in that light.
These days the only political philosophy that seems to rule the land is pragmatism, the only debate on ethics is between relativism and absolutism, and the only exposure to epistomology is via cyberpunk and "the matrix." Academic philosophers in the U.S. have made themselves invisible to the people by excessive analysis of the minutia of language, the nature of the mind, and other things that have no bearing on the common persons life. Nozick has, like Socrates, used this book to reach out to the common people in a way that demonstates that philosophy can still be relavent to them. This book encourages all to open their minds and to look at things in new ways. ( I have often lent it to other lawyers in my office only to hear things like " I never that of it that way.")
To sum it up, this is not Socrates closeted with plato discussing the nature of ultimate reality, this is Socrates, with a drink in his hand, reclining at the symposium and talking to his freinds.

Nozick and his clone Nozick* write a book........2001-12-22

This was a tricky book to read. At first I thought it was very uneven, but it turned out there was an odd type of systematic flaw that would reappear here and there; namely, that Nozick tries too often to quantify the unquantifiable. Let me explain that nebulous charge. The move from metaphor to math to metaphysics just doesn't work. It actually runs the other way. Metaphors are merely pedagogical devices to explain in very simplistic short hand what would otherwise take careful analytical methods to communicate. Now at first, it looks like Nozick is doing just that, trying to incorporate analytical methods where "they ain't been incorporated by nobody else," as some of my rural friends might put it. But it turns out that any time he talks of "proportionality" or "more reality" etc., he enters into a very peculiar type of confusion - call it "quantified metaphor." Now if you think that phrase makes little sense, then I believe you'll likewise find the book constantly recycling this irritating flaw. Yet if you think that phrase is perfectly legit, then you'll probably think there's something really deep going on here. If it were virtually anybody else writing the book, I'd say, "no way." But it's Nozick, for heaven's sake! Fortunately, the "more real" Nozick does come to visit occasionally: his sections on Wisdom and on The Holocaust put the Harvard heavyweight headlock on my soul. Well, they knocked me out, anyway. Maybe you'll think different. So keep your eye open for Nozick when he wanders in and out of the book. But skip over Nozick*, the quantified metaphor clone.

Average customer rating:

The Philosophical Journey
Philosophical Explanations by Robert Nozick
Brilliant
Explaining it all
An incredible book

Philosophical Explanations
Robert Nozick
Manufacturer: Belknap Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Psychology & Counseling | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Health Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Examined Life
Anarchy, State and Utopia
The Nature of Rationality
Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World
Knowledge and Its Limits

ASIN: 0674664795

Book Description

In this highly original work, Robert Nozick develops new views on philosophy's central topics and weaves them into a unified philosophical perspective. It is many years since a major work in English has ranged so widely over philosophy's fundamental concerns: the identity of the self, knowledge and skepticism, free will, the question of why there is something rather than nothing, the foundations of ethics, the meaning of life.

Writing in a distinctive and personal philosophical voice, Mr. Nozick presents a new mode of philosophizing. In place of the usual semi-coercive philosophical goals of proof, of forcing people to accept conclusions, this book seeks philosophical explanations and understanding, and thereby stays truer to the original motivations for being interested in philosophy.

Combining new concepts, daring hypotheses, rigorous reasoning, and playful exploration, the book exemplifies how philosophy can be part of the humanities.

Customer Reviews:

The Philosophical Journey.......2006-11-30

Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations is an award winning voyage into the depths of the dark abyss of our personal psyche. An extensive yet enthralling read, Philosophical Explanations if applied correctly, can open doors your mind never thought possible. For those with ample years of philosophical direction or research, Nozick's work may not be eye-opening, but for someone such as myself (relatively new to the realm of philosophical understanding), the teachings can be invaluable. While many of his views perplexed me, nonetheless I managed to profit greatly from his abstract methods of logic and reasoning.

Philosophical Explanations by Robert Nozick .......2006-08-04

Personally, I found this book too advanced. I love Nozick's The Examined Life - Philosophical Meditations. Each chapter of the Meditations is an adventure, but Explanations was over my head, More academic people than I would no doubt like it. Nozick was a genius.

Richard Waller
Albany GA

Brilliant.......2006-05-17

I read this book in 1983, and again this year. It is one of the best books of 20th Century philosophy I know of, and Nozick's meticulous and rigorous method is a lesson in itself, above and beyond the insights he has to offer.

Explaining it all.......2003-07-10

I remember once in a seminary class the professor was trying to emphasise a philosophical point, and was grasping for the name of someone who had written an essay that concentrated on the 'wrong points', as this professor put it. He couldn't remember the name, but said instead, 'that upstart philosopher from Harvard'.

At that point, I knew he meant Robert Nozick. I don't necessarily agree that he is an upstart, but I can see why academics of certain complexions and backgrounds might. In his book `Anarchy, State, and Utopia', he challenges conventional thinking on many socio-political theories of the current culture -- liberalism, socialism, and conservatism. This book irritated many people, and while it has somewhat faded from view, still remains a text that calls for consideration.

Nozick's follow-up book, `Philosophical Explanations', is the continuation of Nozick's philosophy in the areas of metaphysics, epistemology, and value. He continues his pattern of exploration (a particular word Nozick likes to use with regard to his method): `At no point is the person forced to accept anything. He moves along gently, exploring his own and the author's thoughts. He explores together with the author, moving only where he is ready to; then he stops. Perhaps, at a later time mulling it over or in a second reading, he will move further.'

This is indeed the manner I found this book most useful, in re-reading at different times to pick up on different aspects of the narrative and the theory. Nozick explores in the introduction the difference between explanation and proof -- proof requires (in most manner of logical thinking) a particular pattern of argument with dependent pieces being led in a certain direction of inexorable conclusion; explanation can be tentative, sometimes dialectical, subject to revision without throwing out the entire structure built.

This, obviously, is a problem for rigourous scholars and philosophers. It certainly gives a sense of the kind of subjectivism that liberal academia is constantly accused of, and angers those who are set on belief and discovery of absolutes. But in his discussion of how to take skeptics seriously, he addresses the problem of what becomes important for consideration.

That a skeptic becomes convinced of the argument does not solve the problem, for the questions remain even in the absence of the skeptic. It is to the argument. to the problem that philosophical explanations and theories must speak. That being said, there are some presuppositions that must be made at the start. This is precisely the area in which explanation becomes of more value than proof.

By using the method of explanation, one can modify the structure without 'breaking a chain' of proof that would require the whole structure to be abandoned. As we none of us can start from an objectively neutral starting point, this becomes an intriguing and valuable way of approaching the subjects.

Modern psychology, sociology, and political science strives to find patterns and 'expected events' in the lives of their respective individual and collective subjects. It is easy to see patterns that would support both the idea of free will and the idea of deterministic control.

The final chapter of this section deals with the meaning of life. Nozick offers no easy answers (so don't buy this book thinking that it has the meaning you're searching for!) -- the meaning of life is not a property imputed into the object (or subject). While Nozick does explore different considerations, ultimately philosophy cannot answer the question of the meaning of life in an emotionally and intellectually satisfying way. Nozick does explore what it means to have a God-based meaning attached to life, but this also has difficulties that philosophy has difficulty resolving. Is this where faith comes into play? Most probably, but a faith built on ignorance (particularly built upon deliberate ignorance) becomes more of a self-delusion than than a meaning.

Nozick finishes the book with philosophy connected in a value-based way to art, literature, and the humanities, in which many find those indescribable facets of the meaning of life. `We can envision a humanistic philosophy, a self-consciously artistic one, sculpting ideas, value, and meaning into new constellations, reverberative with mythic power, lifting and ennobling us by its content and by its creation, leading us to understand and to respond to value and meaning -- to experience them and attain them anew.'

This is not easy reading. This takes dedication, some philosophical background (particularly for the section on epistemology), and a desire for inquiry. Nozick's philosophy does not neatly fit the pattern of any particular philosophical school, so questions will arise from beyond the text. For the theologically minded (my particular area of concern at the present), the considerations here are important to take into account in avoiding many common intellectual blunders in theological explanation. Theology often draws on the explanation model of development rather than the proof model (as the proof model can fall to pieces very quickly with just a few assumptions challenged or removed). The themes and ideas contained here can help build a stronger theology (although Nozick might not have intended that as one of the purposes of this book!).

An incredible book.......2002-12-04

Ideas can provoke, and even individuals who are absolutely determined to be objective and weigh each idea or opinion without getting emotionally involved usually at one time or another find themselves in heated debate. One can only speculate on the reasons why anger typically accompanies the exchange of ideas. One would think maybe that individuals intelligent enough to discuss sometimes very complex ideas would not permit themselves to get agitated. Another possibility, from a biological/evolutionary standpoint, is that anger is a kind of defense mechanism: that it reacts against new ideas as these disturb the cognitive equilibrium of the individual. Since ideas determine an individual's outlook and how he/she deals with reality, too rapid a change in the individual's conceptual structure might threaten the individual's survival.

Early in the introduction to this book, the author makes a strong and uncommon case against what he has termed 'coercive philosophy'. This, he says, is characterized by its terminology: arguments are "powerful", and best when they are "knockdown". Such arguments, if the premises are believed by your "opponent", force your opponent to the conclusion, which he/she must believe, lest they be labeled as "irrational", the latter they are told, and some of them believe, is the ultimate anathema. But if they do not, the "owner" of the argument is in trouble: he/she is faced with someone who is perfectly comfortable with the "irrational" label. What does the arguer do then?

Therefore, the author asks the reader to consider another approach to philosophy, and that approach is reflected in the title of the book. The role of philosophy is to explain, not to argue. Good philosophy will explain the fundamental problems and curiosities of life, such as ethics, the mind-body problem, the nature of knowledge, and so on. As the author puts it: "There is a second mode of philosophy, not directed to arguments and proofs: it seeks explanations. Various philosophical things need to be explained; a philosophical theory is introduced to explain them, to render then coherent and better understood."

This is a delightfully optimistic approach to philosophical inquiry, for it assumes from the beginning that the individuals who are engaging in the philosophical conversation are willing to sit down and discuss calmly, rationally, and openly, the issues at hand. The author assumes the reader is such a person, and the book is full of thought-provoking ideas presented in a way that respects the dignity and intelligence of the reader. His discussion of "explanation versus proof" is fascinating and in fact has applications in artificial intelligence.

I found chapter five on "The Foundations of Ethics" the most lucid of all in the book, and I thoroughly enjoyed its reading. That does not mean that I agree with all that he asserts. In fact that opening sentence of the chapter, that states that "ethical truths find no place within the contemporary scientific picture of the world", I profoundly disagree with. But no problem, as the author encourages disagreement, and speaks to the reader over and over again, imploring him/her to reconsider their positions, think through the issues, ask themselves questions, and find answers never before thought of.

Indeed, everything about this book is good, and the practice of "philosophical explanation" results in a more productive and interesting methodology. There is no place for anger, ridicule, or other forms of negativity in philosophical, or any other forms of inquiry. Genuine respect for all ideas expressed by all individuals, no matter how radical, no matter how "offensive" is the optimum path to truth. Such a path may not be the shortest one, but it is certainly the best one.

Robert Nozick (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus)
Average customer rating:

Honest and Sincere Thoughts Rather than Analytical Theory; but only modest profundity; re-rated to only 3 stars

a pretty random collection of essays

Robert Nozick (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus)

Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
History & Surveys | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Criticism | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Robert Nozick.

Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers)

Examined Life

Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy

Anarchy, State and Utopia

ASIN: 0521006716

Book Description

This introductory volume is devoted to Robert Nozick, one of the dominant philosophical thinkers of the current age. Nozick's famous book, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), presents the classic defense of the libertarian view that only a minimal state is just. He has made significant contributions to such areas as rational choice theory, ethics, epistemology and philosophy of mind. In addition to philosophers, the book will be of particular interest to professionals and students in political science, law, economics, sociology and psychology. David Schmidtz taught at Yale University and Bowling Green State University before joining the University of Arizona, where he is Professor of Philosophy and joint Professor of Economics. His previous books include Environmental Ethics (Oxford), Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility (Cambridge, 1998) and Rational Choice and Moral Agency (Princeton). He lives in Tucson, Arizona.

Customer Reviews:

Honest and Sincere Thoughts Rather than Analytical Theory; but only modest profundity; re-rated to only 3 stars.......2005-08-23

You need not know Nozick's work to get something out of this book. The keywords are Honest and Sincere Musings on issues as Nozick proclaimed of himself. Most of the various authors in this anthology do the same: give genuine and sincere thoughts rather than formal analytic theory. Whether or not they are doing so to follow Nozick's example or whether or not they are musing on Nozick or his ideas or instead musing on their own ideas, these authors mostly come up with insights free of artifice. In redoing my review here (July 2006) I decided the book should only have 3 stars though. Put into context of more profound readings I have been doing, 3 stars is where this book ranks. Still, you can't go wrong buying this book if you're in the mood for a more relaxed, but still philosophical, bout of reading. For more profundity go elsewhere. If you like, use the Amazon feature to see all my reviews.

a pretty random collection of essays .......2005-07-13

The first thing you should realize about this book is that it is not a systematic introduction or explanation of Nozick - it is merely a collection of about 8 articles interpreting and criticizing fairly narrow areas of Nozick's thought.

The introduction or first chatper (don't remember which) provides a pretty good five page summary of Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia but the rest of the book is pretty worthless, pretty much like the journal articles you might expect to find if you searched for Nozick articles on JSTOR or EbscoHost or another online journal program.

If you can read the first chapter in a bookstore go for it, otherwise you are probably wasting your time and money.

Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers)

Average customer rating:

Keep This Book Alongside Anarchy, State, and Utopia
A NECESSARY companion to Anarchy, State, and Utopia
An Indispensable Guide to Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers)
Jonathan Wolff
Manufacturer: Stanford University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Theory | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Anarchy, State and Utopia
Robert Nozick.
Robert Nozick (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus)
Philosophical Explanations
Examined Life

ASIN: 0804718563

Customer Reviews:

Keep This Book Alongside Anarchy, State, and Utopia.......2004-01-06

I don't have much to add to the other reviews of this excellent, well-written book. Although Robert Nozick's landmark book Anarchy, State, and Utopia entered the canon of political philosophy soon after it was published in the mid-1970s, it is a remarkably disorganized and difficult book. Here, English philosopher Jonathan Wolff carefully and lucidly reconstructs ASU's main arguments. Along the way he points out numerous problems and holes in ASU -- raising huge difficulties for its libertarian approach to politics -- but he is scrupulously fair and acknowledges that Nozick has changed the face of political theory. I read this book immediately after I struggled through ASU and I can't exaggerate how it deepened my understanding of Nozick's book. And it's short!

A NECESSARY companion to Anarchy, State, and Utopia.......2001-06-23

If you've read Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" (AS&U) or you are considering reading it, I stronly advise you to follow it by reading Jonathan Wolff's "Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State".

In my recent review of AS&U, I wrote many positive statements about it and expressed my agreement with many of the ideas presented in the book. I also wrote some negative statements regarding the organization of the presented material, the lack of concise summaries of significant concepts, and the frequency and magnitude of tangential discussions.

Whenever I read something with which I generally agree (like AS&U), I immediately seek out opposing views that I would consider an effective use of my time and thought. This time, my search led me to something that provided opposing views AND helped me to garner a better understanding of the ideas presented in AS&U - "Property, Justice, and the Minimal State".

"Property, Justice, and the Minimal State" provides important and relevant criticism of AS&U, presents most of its central ideas in a more concise and organized fashion, and contains excellent notes about other critics of AS&U and related reading material. (Alas, so much to read and think, so little time...)

I view "Property, Justice, and the Minimal State" as a NECESSARY companion to AS&U. If you read one and not the other, there is much that you could gain that you have not.

(My rating of five stars for this book should not be viewed as independent of my rating of four stars for AS&U. I believe that, had I not read AS&U earlier, I would not have been adequately qualified to (even) submit a rating for "Property, Justice, and the Minimal State". I rate this book five stars, at least partly, because it helped me to gain more from AS&U. My ratings of these two books are correlated and should be interpreted with that in mind.)

Now, on to read John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice"...

An Indispensable Guide to Anarchy, State, and Utopia.......2000-07-23

Jonathan Wolff has admirably succeeded in providing some clarity and focus to Nozick's often frenetic prose and disjointed ideas. Wolff presents a clear exposition of the main ideas in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (and thankfully avoids Nozick's digressions), and reviews some of the standard objections to Nozick's brand of libertarianism. He also offers some thoughtful replies on behalf of Nozick, though these are usually unconvincing (due more to Nozick than Wolff).

In my opinion, this book should be useful both to students of political philosophy as well as to political philosophers themselves. Wolff is very clear, very accessible, and does not assume a whole lot in the way of background knowledge (though familiarity with Rawls would be an asset). This book is extremely useful to anyone wanting to familiarize themselves with the debate on libertarian political philosophy.

Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World
Average customer rating:

A Steep Gradient

Philosophy is Back

No

In Memoriam

outstanding

Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World
Robert Nozick
Manufacturer: Belknap Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Free Will & Determinism | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Metaphysics | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Nature of Rationality

Philosophical Explanations

Anarchy, State and Utopia

Examined Life

Socratic Puzzles

ASIN: 0674006313

Amazon.com

Robert Nozick is a heavyweight among philosophers, and Invariances is just what one might expect from him. The book takes up a battery of core metaphysical questions: the nature of truth, objectivity, necessity, consciousness, and ethics. "My own philosophical bent is to open possibilities for consideration, not to close them," he writes. To that end, Invariances asks at least as many questions as it answers. Nonetheless, Nozick tackles his themes rigorously, making this a closely argued and engaging book.

Nozick is a political as well as theoretical thinker, and he is among the staunchest proponents of libertarianism. Here he widens his scope to investigate the metaquestions of philosophy and spells out his original conception of objectivity in the world. Nozick, who is Pellegrino University Professor at Harvard, writes with an analytic inclination that can be challenging for lay readers, but his arguments are always intelligent and intriguing. --Eric de Place

Book Description

Recent scientific advances have placed many traditional philosophical concepts under great stress. In this pathbreaking book, the eminent philosopher Robert Nozick rethinks and transforms the concepts of truth, objectivity, necessity, contingency, consciousness, and ethics. Using an original method, he presents bold new philosophical theories that take account of scientific advances in physics, evolutionary biology, economics, and cognitive neuroscience, and casts current cultural controversies (such as whether all truth is relative and whether ethics is objective) in a wholly new light. Throughout, the book is open to, and engages in, the bold exploration of new philosophical possibilities.

Philosophy will never look the same. Truth is embedded in space-time and is relative to it. However, truth is not socially relative among human beings (extraterrestrials are another matter). Objective facts are invariant under specified transformations; objective beliefs are arrived at by a process in which biasing factors do not play a significant role. Necessity's domain is contracted (there are no important metaphysical necessities; water is not necessarily H2O) while the important and useful notion of degrees of contingency is elaborated. Gradations of consciousness (based upon "common registering") yield increasing capacity to fit actions to the world. The originating function of ethics is cooperation to mutual benefit, and evolution has instilled within humans a "normative module": the capacities to learn, internalize, follow norms, and make evaluations. Ethics has normative force because of the connection between ethics and conscious self-awareness. Nozick brings together the book's novel theories to show the extent to which there are objective ethical truths.

Customer Reviews:

A Steep Gradient.......2005-08-28

Filled to overflowing with ideas and insights, this book is best taken in small doses. For me, it was very hard to follow, and quickly became a chore to read, something I am unaccustomed to, since I mainly read for pleasure. It was only the exposure to Nozick's trenchant analytical prose and the chance of encountering his occasionally brilliant insights that convinced me to press on. Certainly the book will require more than one reading, with only about 70 percent comprehension the first time around.

The book concerns the philosophy of science, and how the mathematical concepts relating to invariance under "all admissible transformations" can be applied to the notion of truth. The essential thesis is that objective, empirical truth is that which is invariant "under all admissible transformations". Ideas from special relativity and quantum mechanics are marshalled to support Nozick's argument that empirical truth is fundamentally relative with respect to space-time, but not relative with respect to social classes. Contemporary science is the filter through which all truths and questions about truth are passed. Though emphatically not reader-friendly, if you spend serious time with this book, you will no doubt come away with many fresh insights about the world. In summary, rewarding; but a rocky, steep climb.

Philosophy is Back.......2004-03-21

Philosophy has been under severe challenge from science, literally eating up its provinces: philosophy of mind went to neuroscience; philosophy of language to Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science,etc. This book shows that there is a need for someone to just specialize in the TRUTH, its scructure, its accessibility, its INVARIANCE.
Aside from the purely philosophical answers that scientists were grappling with, the book is like a manual for a new regimen in philosophy. It reviews everything from epistemology to the logic of contingency, with insights here and there about such topics as the observer biases (about computing probabilities when our existence has been linked to a particular realization of the process).
I am not a philosopher but a probabilist; I found that this book just spoke to me. It certainly rid me of my prejudice against modern philosophers.

No.......2003-11-17

Reading this book is like being forced to talk to a crazy person in a room with no windows for several days strait. Not to say that it is not a good book and presents complex yet troubling ideas in a clear fashion.

In Memoriam.......2002-09-11

This is a fine book by an important veteran philosopher. It's Nozick's last published book before his unfortunate death.

I also recommend: Williams, Truth and Truthfulness; Krausz, Relativism; Nagel, Last Word; Nozick, Philosophical Explanations; and Putnam, Realism with a Human Face; Searle, Social Construction; Searle, Rediscovery...Mind; Dummett, Logical Basis....

Chapter One is on truth and relativism. Nozick situates truth in space-time and discusses objective facts (and the attractions of a correspondence theory of truth). Chapter Two extends his discussion on objective facts; he brings in the philosophy of science. Chapter Three discusses modality (necessity and contingency), and the most interesting material here is on mathematical and logical necessity (see Dummett, Putnam, and Stroud). Chapter Four is on consciousness and the mind-body problem (compare with Searle, Chalmers, and McGinn). Chapter Five is a discussion on normative ethics.

I highly recommend this book. It is often quite clear and rigorous in parts.

outstanding.......2001-12-15

This brilliant book is Nozick's reply to Hawking's challenge to philosophers (or those claiming to practice philosophy) today at the end of "A Brief History of Time": why is the tail of science wagging the metaphysical dog (this image is borrowed from Nozick)? Physicists today are asking the good and serious questions in philosophy by making bold hypotheses, and thereby stretching metaphysical possibilities. Meanwhile philosophers are still largely enraptured by the illusion of necessary truths and certainty in all possible worlds. The idea of objectivity as expressed by the notion of invariances is a useful and enlightening tool Nozick has provided not just for understanding better the concepts of necessity and contingency (and how similar they actually are), but how they can be used to understand the way the mind and ethics work. A must read for anyone interested in philosophy. Nozick's clarity of thought, style and wonderful sense of humour make this a highly readable work.

Average customer rating:

Robert Nozick.
A. R. Lacey
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Surveys | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Robert Nozick (Contemporary Philosophy in Focus)
Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers)
The Nature of Rationality
Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy
Socratic Puzzles

ASIN: 0691090459

Amazon.com

A.R. Lacey's Robert Nozick, part of Princeton University Press's Philosophy Now series, is a careful and attentive look at Nozick's astonishingly wide-ranging philosophical career. Although Nozick is best known for his defense of libertarianism in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which showcases his argumentative acumen, his views have been largely met with disdain. But Nozick has also written on epistemology and metaphysics, and even pursued some tantalizing lines of thought about what it means to practice philosophy. In Robert Nozick, Lacey highlights his work but willingly points out when Nozick has crawled too far out on a philosophical limb.

The early chapters on ethics and politics are applicable to a number of discussions in contemporary ethics, enlivened by some of today's prominent ethicists. Unfortunately, what could be a broadly relevant book will at times perplex nonphilosophers. The chapters on epistemology and metaphysics, for example, are rife with symbology, an annoying tendency of professional analytic philosophers, even when narrative would be equally clear. Also, the book's final chapter, on the most time-honored of big questions, "the meaning of life," is rendered obscure by Lacey's regurgitation of Nozick's overly complex discussion. Nonetheless, the book is a useful synthesis for those particularly interested in Nozick. It's best suited for philosophers; those not conversant in Nozick's thought will likely find the book a dry read. --Eric de Place

Book Description

Although best known for the hugely influential Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick has eschewed the label ''political philosopher,'' as the vast majority of his writings have focused on other areas. Indeed, the breadth of Nozick's work is perhaps greater than that of any other contemporary philosopher. A. R. Lacey presents the first book to give full and proper discussion of Nozick's philosophy as a whole and of critical reactions to it, spanning areas as diverse as ethics, epistemology, and philosophy of religion.

The book begins by examining Anarchy, State, and Utopia and moves on to Nozick's noted work on the theory of knowledge and his notion of ''tracking the truth.'' Lacey explores the philosopher's metaphysical writings, including his ''closest continuer theory'' of personal identity, and his reflections on free will and the existence of God. He addresses the moral basis of Nozick's political philosophy in depth. Later chapters discuss his ideas of ''symbolic utility,'' his evolutionary account of rationality, and his varying treatments of Newcomb's Paradox. The book concludes with more general topics, including Nozick's thoughts on the meaning of life and what those who search for it are really looking for. Given Nozick's reluctance to respond to his critics, the book's discussion of the secondary literature on his work is invaluable. Throughout, Lacey finds themes that unite Nozick's diverse writings, noting, for example, his hostility to coercion of all kinds. Illuminating, informative, and clearly written, the book will be welcomed as an authoritative guide to Nozick's philosophical thinking.

The Nature of Rationality
Average customer rating:

Is the reason an atavistic human attachment or a device from divine inspiration?

Reasons for, and the Properties and Functions of, Rationality

Still a classical approach

The Nature of Rationality
Robert Nozick
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Consciousness & Thought | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Epistemology | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Logic & Language | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Humanism | Movements | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Philosophical Explanations

Examined Life

Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World

Anarchy, State and Utopia

Socratic Puzzles

ASIN: 0691020965

Book Description

Repeatedly and successfully, the celebrated Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick has reached out to a broad audience beyond the confines of his discipline, addressing ethical and social problems that matter to every thoughtful person. Here Nozick continues his search for the connections between philosophy and "ordinary" experience. In the lively and accessible style that his readers have come to expect, he offers a bold theory of rationality, the one characteristic deemed to fix humanity's "specialness." What are principles for? asks Nozick. We could act simply on whim, or maximize our self-interest and recommend that others do the same. As Nozick explores rationality of decision and rationality of belief, he shows how principles actually function in our day-to-day thinking and in our efforts to live peacefully and productively with each other.

Throughout, the book combines daring speculations with detailed investigations to portray the nature and status of rationality and the essential role that imagination plays in this singular human aptitude.

Download Description

Customer Reviews:

Is the reason an atavistic human attachment or a device from divine inspiration?.......2006-12-31

According the Greek mythology, the rationality was represented by Apollo, which meant the supreme perfection and the astonishing symmetry. In this sense, the author always proposes hisproblems in a disconcertingly original way: " Why exactly should we want to act and believe rationally ? ... Why should we formulate principles of action and try to stick to them ? "

As you know, the further discussion of these interesting issues would lead us to establish a large exchange of ideas.

"The man is conservator by own nature, but when this tendency weakens, the revolutions tend to preserve it"
Ernesto Sabato

Reasons for, and the Properties and Functions of, Rationality.......2006-07-11

Nozick, a consummate philosopher in the analytical tradition, addresses the central issue of philosophy itself. What is the nature of rationality? If Man is the rational animal that philosophers claim, what are the principles, features, properties, methods, functions, and purposes of reason itself? Nozick concedes any attempt to ground "reasoning" fails, and all reasons for reason are circular, but not viciously circular.

For the brevity of the book, Nozick covers considerable territory. He discusses how reason itself functions and the functions themselves (interpersonal, intellectual, overcoming temptation, investment, symbolic utility, and teleological devices), using decision-value (the most technical topic), Newcomb's Problem, Prisoners' Dilemma, and other distinctions, to explicate how one arrives at rational belief, the reasons we want rational beliefs, and some rules to obtain it.

The most interesting (and disappointing) chapter is on evolutionary considerations. Few philosophers to date raise the specter of evolution at all (unless it is the topic), when, as Nozick rightly suggests, it may have its own overriding features and its own reasons and justifications. He's clearly on to an important facet and introduces issues that "limit" the need for rationality as well as require it.

My principal cavil is that he treats natural selection as a purposive agent without any disclaimers or caveats. Worse, his natural selection's purposive agency is, of course, teleological. First, that's bad form, and second, it's bad (actually wrong) evolutionary science. A subsidiary cavil is that evolution becomes a "rug" under which a-rational, even irrational, decisions may be swept (which may be true, if he is not persuasive).

Ultimately, "a rational decision will maximise an action's decision-value, which is a weighted sum of its causal, evidential, and symbolic utility" (137, passim). And, while rationality is predominately instrumental, it is not exclusively instrumental, giving excellent exemptions and reasons for them.

He considers the effect of biases, preferences ("it is a function of the preferences and believes to be rationally coherent and approximately true [and minimally consistent], and it also is a function of the mechanisms that produce such believes and preferences to produce things like that, with those functions" [149]), reflexivity, interpretation, conditionalization, probability, philosophical heuristics, and imagination on the outcomes, regardless of the cause.

Overall the book succeeds admirably in capturing the nature of rationality, those features and functions which we expect it to have, why they are important, why rationality remains important for everyone (not just philosophers), some basic rules to achieve it, principles to guide us, and its purposes in human life. He does so with economy, clarity, coherence, consistency, always reflexively to determine necessity and sufficiency. His presentation is paragon for doing and writing philosophy well.

Still a classical approach.......2000-04-10

Nozick is famous, always clear-thinking, always expressing himself briefly but to the point. His style makes the book a wonderful philosophical enterprise. But in fact, Nozick is still where social science was 10 years ago. He makes an impressive effort of combining different paradigms, evidentialism, causal theory, cognitive psychology, in one overall approach; he then applies this monstruous creature to old problems and paradoxes. The true reasons of these paradoxes, as was shown, for instance, by Bach (1984), are violations of applicability of classical rationality and decision-making theory. Not surprisingly, Nozick arrives to the same result with quite a different methodology. So, in brief, the book remains a brilliant study of ideas brought into social science years before; Nozick succeeds in beautifully arranging various paradigms. He still fails to be innovative in what concerns foundations.

Average customer rating:

a few papers are great, a few insightful, some just clever

Socratic Puzzles
Robert Nozick
Manufacturer: Harvard University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Methodology | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Ancient | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Examined Life
Philosophical Explanations
The Nature of Rationality
Anarchy, State and Utopia
Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World

ASIN: 0674816536

Book Description

One of the foremost philosophers of our time, Robert Nozick continues the Socratic tradition of investigation. This volume, which illustrates the originality, force, and scope of his work, also displays Nozick's trademark blending of extraordinary analytical rigor with intellectual playfulness. As such, Socratic Puzzles testifies to the great pleasure that both doing and reading philosophy can be.

Comprising essays and philosophical fictions, classics and new work, the book ranges from Socrates to W. V. Quine, from the implications of an Israeli kibbutz to the flawed arguments of Ayn Rand. Nozick considers the figure of Socrates himself as well as the Socratic method (why is it a "method" of getting at the truth?). Many of these essays bring classic methods to bear on new questions about choice. How should you choose in a disconcerting situation ("Newcomb's Problem") when your decisions are completely predictable? Why do threats and not offers typically coerce our choices? How do we make moral judgments when we realize that our moral principles have exceptions? Other essays present new approaches to familiar intellectual puzzles, from the stress on simplicity in scientific hypotheses to the tendency of intellectuals to oppose capitalism.

As up to date as the latest reflections on animal rights; as perennial as the essentials of aesthetic merit (doggerel by Isaac Newton goes to prove that changing our view of the world won't suffice); as whimsical as a look at how some philosophical problems might appear from God's point of view: these essays attest to the timeliness and timelessness of Nozick's thinking. With a personal introduction, in which Nozick discusses the origins, tools, and themes of his work, Socratic Puzzles demonstrates how philosophy can constitute a way of life.

Customer Reviews:

a few papers are great, a few insightful, some just clever.......1998-10-02

Nozick's important papers are all here, from the ones that made his reputation thirty years ago to some insightful pieces from the mid '90s. The range is broad, as anyone who's read much of his work would expect; long-time Nozick readers will also recognize the unfortunately flip note in a few papers. On balance, though, there's a lot worth reading in this book, most of it thought-provoking.

Nozick made his reputation in the '60s with some really spectacular papers in decision theory. Those papers (Coercion; Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice, and Moral Complications and Moral Structures) are all here, which is helpful since the originals can be hard to dig up--I needed the Newcomb paper for my senior thesis way back when and had to wait like a month before the library located it.

These papers are dense, but deeply rewarding. Newcomb's Problem, which introduced this puzzle, is a good introduction to the field, technically rigorous but readable, though I don't really agree with his answer. Coercion has some stuff about rights that prefigures the claims in Anarchy, State and Utopia. Moral Complications is an amazing paper, really rich but still intelligible. I don't buy everything he says, and I think Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel have both come closer to describing how moral thought really works, but anyone interested in moral philosophy should study this paper.

The pieces on Socrates, Quine and the theory of explanation focus on various areas of philosophical method and choice of subject matter. Most of his suggestions here seem right or at least plausible, though he says an awful lot about reductionism without actually saying whether he believes in it or not.

The short pieces on various issues in value theory are mostly insightful, though a few are just clever. The doggerel on universal gravitation seems to show that Goodman's notion of aesthetic merit in insufficient, not flat-out wrong; his claim the the percentage of Israelis living on kibbutzim is a serious measure of how many people would choose socialism seems a stretch. The Characteristic Features of Extremism is sharp but disapointingly short. The review of Regan's Case for Animal Rights raises a serious challenge to hard-line animal rights ethics and proposes a solution to the problem of animals' ethical standing, though I'm not completely happy with his suggestion.

The final selection of short stories on philosophical themes includes twin gems, Testament and Teleology, which would be great on an introductory philosophy syllabus but don't really offer new insight. Oddly, his most famous story, "G-d", isn't here, probably because the published version was edited in a way he didn't like. It's too bad--that story has more bite than the ones here. The stories are all cute, though they're more clever than deep.

Understanding Utopia And The Natural Rights In Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia
Average customer rating:
Understanding Utopia And The Natural Rights In Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia
Cristian Ionut Vasilescu
Manufacturer: BookSurge Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Civil Rights & Liberties | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1419635247

Book Description

The main argument is that the salient contrast, in Nozick's theory, between the natural rights theory combined with the entitlement theory, on the one hand, and the utopian theory, on the other hand, is not given by the fact that one method starts from certain moral assumptions, while the other from certain epistemological constraints. The argument for this affirmation is that the general principles that are agreed upon, in both cases, are quite similar (in our studied case, full background rights to liberty and property). Nevertheless, the difference is given by the fact that the first approach is based on an invisible hand process explanation, while the utopian approach is based on a contractarian explanation. On short, while the invisible hand process uses an unchangeable moral given from which all the implications should be derived, the contractarian method used by utopia is subject to local bargaining.

Philosophers:

Philosophers

Philosophers