Read Online How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy By Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary
Read Online How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Read READER Sites No Sign Up - As we know, Read READER is a great way to spend leisure time. Almost every month, there are new Kindle being released and there are numerous brand new Kindle as well.
If you do not want to spend money to go to a Library and Read all the new Kindle, you need to use the help of best free Read READER Sites no sign up 2020.
Read How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Link MOBI online is a convenient and frugal way to read How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Link you love right from the comfort of your own home. Yes, there sites where you can get MOBI "for free" but the ones listed below are clean from viruses and completely legal to use.
How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy MOBI By Click Button. How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy it’s easy to recommend a new book category such as Novel, journal, comic, magazin, ect. You see it and you just know that the designer is also an author and understands the challenges involved with having a good book. You can easy klick for detailing book and you can read it online, even you can download it
Ebook About A collection of essays by fifteen philosophers presenting a thoughtful, introductory guide to choosing a philosophy for living an examined and meaningful life. A VINTAGE ORIGINALSocrates famously said "the unexamined life is not worth living," but what does it mean to truly live philosophically?This thought-provoking, wide-ranging collection brings together essays by fifteen leading philosophers reflecting on what it means to live according to a philosophy of life. From Eastern philosophies (Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism) and classical Western philosophies (such as Aristotelianism and Stoicism), to the four major religions, as well as contemporary philosophies (such as existentialism and effective altruism), each contributor offers a lively, personal account of how they find meaning in the practice of their chosen philosophical tradition.Together, the pieces in How to Live a Good Life provide not only a beginner's guide to choosing a life philosophy but also a timely portrait of what it means to live an examined life in the twenty-first century.Book How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Review :
How to Live a Good Life is a collection of chapters by various philosophers. The writing throughout the book is pleasant, and it makes for good joy reading. Since the chapters are written from different perspectives on what constitutes a good life or what can lead to a good life, quality of each chapter varies; so I’ll review this book in piecemeal fashion, rating each chapter, which is how I arrived at number of stars for the book as a whole. I will say that the priceworthy nature of the book leads me to recommend potential readers purchase the book, if it is the case that three or four of the chapters, to which I give high ratings, interests you. My complaints about the collection are few. I think the editors should have given some push to the individual chapter authors to focus on meaning, whether created individually, societally, or by some natural governing principle. The problem with the book is that some chapters present as personal codes of conduct, rather than a system of universal ethics, telling everyone what they ought to do. This made the book’s project unclear: is this a book about ethics, which tells us all how to live, or is it a collection of suggested codes of conduct that will result in fruitful, good lives? Many of the chapters present a worldview, but in no way indicate how they will result in a good life or even explicitly draw out what is good. In this, I realize that the book is supposed to be accessible to a popular audience, but the tradeoff is in clarity, direction, and the concrete nature of the book as a complete project. In short, the book’s unity is lacking. It’s parts, however, make up for this –or, at least, some do. A second bit that is lacking is an introductory discussion of what is “good.” Even at this, if the intent is to allow each author do define that for each chapter, they don’t explicitly do so. The editors probably didn’t want to give a “truth, beauty, and the good” discussion out of Plato’s corpus, as a preliminary starting point, just because the anthology will go in many non-Western and non-traditional directions; but then I think each author had to do a fair job of examining “goodness,” however briefly.I’ll say a few words about each chapter below, preceded by the rating I give the chapter.Ch. 1 on Buddhism: 5 stars. Flanagan presents an approach, list of concepts, and gives some sense of how it comes together to live a good life. “World-making” and compassion are central tenets of the Buddhist framework. He even presents an excellent piece of wisdom about this system of thought via a question asked to the Dalai Lama: should a Buddhist kill Hitler? Flanagan also makes plain that the popular Western Buddhism-as-happiness is bunk, as the framework is intended to reduce suffering, not endow one with happiness.Ch. 2 on Confucianism: 4 stars. Van Norden does a pretty good job unloading many of the complexities of Confucianism, which is no easy task in such a short length, especially when trying to suggest the system of thought, as a way to live. The central concept of Confucianism, as discussed, was interrelatedness of individuals to one another, and then again in the sense of the interrelatedness of humans to the Cosmos.Ch. 3 on Daoism: 4 stars. Wang offers that the Dao is a metaphysical framework, and thus an ethical one, rather than merely a suggested code of conduct to produce a good life. “Dao is the ultimate source of all things.” Having read a fair amount of Daoist writings, I didn’t find this chapter compelling, by comparison. While Wang does lay out nicely some of the core concepts for newcomers to understand the philosophy, I didn’t feel that his presentation was quite as invigorating as many Daoist-advocating writers. That’s a shame, because I think the Dao is worth incorporating into other worldviews, wherever compatible.Ch. 4 on Aristotelianism: 3 stars. I’m familiar with Kaufman’s work, because I watched his old iTunes University lecture series on introductory philosophy, which led me to read a number of his other writings. That’s why I was disappointed in this chapter. He doesn’t really establish Aristotelian ethics as an empirical practice that is inherently process oriented, which I think kills some of the more vibrant components of Aristotle’s ethics. He did well to cover the notion of flourishing, but I don’t understand how flourishing can be assessed without a growth-oriented mindset. He focuses on relationships and activity, which is great, but I think the heart of the essay was missing. Worth reading for newcomers, but nowhere near what the essay should have been.Ch. 5 on Stoicism: 5 stars. This essay might be reason enough to buy the book. Pigliucci writes a vibrant account of what Stoicism is, misconceptions, imbues the philosophy with meaning, and he goes so far as to discuss aspects of its practice. In short, this essay, in its construction and content, is what I thought the whole book would be. Pigliucci offers Stoicism as a code of conduct, but he also offers the historical metaphysical commitments, which make it a complete ethical framework. Much care was put into the writing of this essay, showing the author’s passion for this particular philosophy.Ch. 6 on Epicureanism: 4. The historical inclusions (e.g., Thomas Jefferson) and discussion by Crespo really made this essay interesting. Crespo explained in clear detail the commitments of philosophy, and he addressed many of the misconceptions people have had about Epicureanism, both historically and in modern times. After reading the chapter, I’m not sure that I have as strong of a grasp of what the philosophy says or precisely the origins of the motivations; and so I think the chapter was a bit weak on the side of how compelling it was.Ch. 7 on Hinduism: 4. Hinduism always seems a bit complex to me, given all of the gods, texts, etc.; but I think Sarma does a fantastic job filtering Hinduism down to a worldview about how one might live a good life. Definitely, the chapter is a 5-star piece, in terms of how much I enjoyed reading it, but I really failed to understand the disjunction between the karmic notion and the disapprobation the author spells out regarding the class system. In short, if the reincarnation combined with the karma creates the classes, it seems to me that the author is simply disapproving of a natural consequence of his own philosophical system. Maybe Sarma wants to say that Hinduism is good for giving a code of conduct, but maybe shouldn’t be taken seriously as a complete philosophy –but he doesn’t seem to go there, presumably, he is religiously Hindu. Perhaps, this is somehow my failure, not following the author’s ideas perfectly well. In any case, the chapter was very informative and interesting.Ch. 8 on Judaism: 4 stars. I am a non-practicing Jew, so I was particularly looking forward to this chapter, as I have always been intrigued by Jewish tradition, philosophy, and practical worldview. Block does a great job drawing in the “code of conduct” aspect of this book. Unfortunately, I felt that the inclusion of “Fiddler on the Roof” was a bit tacky, and then the main way in which that production could have been involved was lost on the author. Block does well to say that there is no single Jewish philosophy of life, but misses the balance of tradition and interpretive, contextual adjustment by the Jewish communities, through the guidance of the rabbis and elders –and this would have been a more reasonable reason to incorporate “Fiddler.” I was not content with this essay, but it had some really bright spots.Ch. 9 on Christianity: 5 stars. McGrath’s essay rivals Pigliucci’s as the best of the bunch. McGrath achieves a clear set of reasons for his proposed manner of how to live. One major limitation of McGrath’s topic is that is can’t really be converted into a strict code of conduct, as Christianity ever remains a religious position. However, he does offer a “mere Christianity” take, which offers a non-dogmatic way of accepting Christian views and practices, which may intrigue some. Ver few in this book were able to achieve the level of discussion McGrath achieves in talking about meaning. A major shortcoming of this book, the origin of meaning is well explicated by McGrath, as it pertains to the Christian worldview.Ch. 10 on Progressive Islam: 1 star. Duderija attempts to give a politically correct presentation of Islam, in the form of “Progressive Islam,” which I had never heard. I was so confused by this chapter. The primary tenet of Islam is voluntary submission to God, so I don’t see how human-will-oriented progress is compatible. The chapter was an attempt to make Islam palatable to those who would not except central tenets and pillars of Islam. I think the chapter would have been much better, if the author focused on secularizing the religion, in order to preserve the humanistic components of the religion, such as almsgiving. However, this may have looked far too much like some of the later chapters, and the goal of this chapter was to include all of the major religions.Ch. 11 on Ethical Culture: 2 star. Most of my problem with Klaeysen’s chapter was that I did not find it interesting. It seemed all over the place, seeking to draw in way more content than is possible in such a short length. I think focusing on Jane Addams would have made an interesting launch point for the chapter, rather than rattling off names and assuming the reader is familiar with them. I also thought that dismissing myth-making as not meaningful particularly counterproductive: in what way is Ethical Culture a religion? I appreciated the discussion of Dewey and the incorporation of Carlo Rovelli, but this essay just didn’t come together in an interesting way for me, let alone a compelling way.Ch. 12 on Existentialism: 2 stars. To begin with, I am a huge fan of existentialism, so I was excited when I saw this chapter in the book’s table of contents. Unfortunately, the chapter should have been entitled something else, like “De Beauvoir and Sartre’s Existentialism.” I think Cleary’s choice of approach to existentialism was uni-dimensional, whereas the number of facets to Existentialism, itself, are so numerous, as any comparison of Tillich and Nietzsche or Heidegger and Kierkegaard will show. I think the Existentialism chapter ended up seeking to be cool, while clutching to Sartre and De Beauvoir, because the author wants to dispatch with traditional meaning and expectation in life, whilst finding a means of justification. The creating of what shall be one’s own essence comes at the cost of alienation of the self, which is clearly manifest in Kafka’s works. How is that a good life? The author does not say. Rather than speak anymore negatively of this chapter, I will say that the chapter does have some interesting engagement with the work of De Beauvoir and Sartre.Ch. 13 on Pragmatism: 4 stars. I have to chide the authors for their choice of Hunter S. Thompson as an example of a pragmatic life. After opening on Peirce and James’ struggle with the meaning of existence, which they rightly connect to the changing of their times (New England Transcendentalists into growing industrialization of the turning century), Kaag and Anderson bring in Thompson as their exemplar. I love Thompson, and I certainly love the authors’ discussion of Transcendental philosophy and its connection to Peirce and James, but suggesting Thompson is an exemplar is delusional, at best. A guy, who always felt alienated, and who ultimately committed suicide, ipso facto, cannot stand as a philosophical testimony for why Peirce and James did not commit suicide, despite their thoughts. I think this essay, and many others in the book, would have been better if they all had the guidance of being told to discuss meaning more thoroughly and explicitly in relation to the goodness of life.Ch. 14 on Effective Altruism: 1 star. Piper’s essay leaves me wondering what the real differences are between Utilitarianism and Effective Altruism. Many of the same problems seem to arise: without some governing principle, as afforded by, say, love, and through a metaphysical framework in the religious worldviews, it is not clear that secular altruism is tenable. The individual self is not worth as much as another (which seems paradoxical, itself), and it is certainly not worth as much as a collection of other individuals. For instance, in the trolley car dilemma, if the operator of the switch is you (tied to one of two tracks), and the other track has a group of individuals tied up, then you are obligated to do what maximizes the greater good. The individual self-worth is a major problem in these sorts of view. I take it that the authors of these ideas maintain that goodness relates to the collection, never to the individual, which seems like, itself, a good reason to employ one’s will to spurn the option, altogether.Ch. 15 on Secular Humanism: 2 star. Shook’s chapter is well written, but I think it is only really acceptable to someone who has already committed oneself to the views contained therein. There are highlights to the chapter, such as, in my view, correctly drawing out that secular humanism isn’t an enemy of religion. The chapter does not sufficiently separate itself from nihilism, as it struggles to create or find human meaning in the universe. I think I would have loved this chapter if it had been framed as an important add-on to other codes of conduct, religious worldviews, and philosophical frameworks for how to live. A philosophy of life is a considered set of principles by which one finds meaning, purpose, and coherence in the world. A philosophy of life contains an epistemology (what can be known), a metaphysics (how the world works), an ethical framework (how to behave and treat others), and variously a political philosophy that describes how society should be structured.It is hard to live a morally worthwhile and meaningful life without some set of guiding principles and ideals, and this is perhaps why so many people feel lost in contemporary times. Religion doesn’t feel relevant anymore, yet philosophy is something most people are not exposed to unless they happen to stumble upon it by chance or by their own volition (philosophy is conspicuously absent in public education).That’s what makes How to Live a Good Life potentially invaluable in today’s climate. The reader gains exposure to 15 ways of life that can provide the meaning, purpose, and coherence necessary to live productive and fulfilling lives. Each way of life is described by a prominent academic that—in addition to their academic qualifications—also identifies and practices the philosophy/religion. This makes for a fascinating read; instead of a series of encyclopedia entries, you get very personal accounts (without sacrificing scholarly rigor) of how each philosophy/religion brings meaning to each author’s life, providing an insider’s view of each subject.Unfortunately, the book has a significant flaw that can't be overlooked. You’ll notice that the subtitle is A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy. Since I think the way that we use words matters, it is worth thinking more deeply about what the term philosophy actually means.Philosophy has various definitions, but dictionary.com has a good one; it defines philosophy as “the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.” We can flesh out this definition by considering the history of the field. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom via rational investigation that takes nothing for granted and provides arguments for its positions and conclusions. The key elements in philosophical reasoning are doubt, questioning, and especially the provision of arguments.Now, I understand that religion presents a viable way of life for many people, but it is simply not philosophy. The philosopher A.C. Grayling said it best in his History of Philosophy:“If the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of religious doctrine, then the reflection that follows is theology, or theodicy, or exegesis, or casuistry, or apologetics, or hermeneutics, but it is not philosophy.”In the introduction of How to Live a Good Life, commenting on the various “philosophies” of life, the authors write, “To the degree that the metaphysics includes a significant reference to a transcendental reality, and particularly to a god or gods, that tradition falls more on the side of religion than philosophy, but that distinction is not crucial.”What? That distinction is not crucial? Are the authors really claiming that, if you believe that a personal god created the entire universe specifically for you and then revealed his plans in an ancient book, that this is not a relevant distinction between a field (philosophy) that is not supposed to take unargued positions for granted?To clarify, if people want to be religious, that is their prerogative, but if you read the book, the section on religious traditions feels entirely out of place. Why? Because, unlike the chapters on philosophy (like Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Existentialism, etc.), the religious authors refuse to argue for their positions. Here are some examples.On the chapter on Hinduism, Deepak Sarma writes, “When pressed on the issue of its origins or the location of karma, its ontological status, Hindus, even those professing the most systematic Hindu tradition, do not offer an explanation” Later, he writes, “Visnu is the actuator for the establishment of the universe, which is the location where karma can manifest....Beyond this Hindus neither ask, nor offer answers to, further metaphysical questions that arise from this belief ...This, like the lack of origins of karma, seems acceptable to me.” (I can’t help but think of Hitchens’ razor when I read this. As the late Christopher Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.")In the chapters on Judaism and Christianity, the authors describe why they think their respective religions are good for the world and how they provide meaningful narratives, but not why we should think they are true. Commenting on Christianity, Alister McGrath writes, “I shall make no attempt to defend or justify a Christian approach to meaning; my task here is simply to present and explore it.”This sure does not seem to fit the bill of Socrates’ “examined life.” Taking for granted the ultimate origin and purpose of the entire universe is one big fat unargued assumption. And this isn’t humility, it’s the opposite; to think that your religion has conclusive answers to the most difficult problems known to man—and that you don’t even have to argue for its truth!—is actually hubris on the largest imaginable scale. This is why a general feeling of intellectual disingenuity pervades the chapters on religion.I’ll reiterate; people have the right to be religious and to form their own beliefs, and there are plenty of very good and decent religious individuals that contribute greatly to the community. But don’t call religion philosophy, because it is most certainly not, and this book creates the false impression that two distinct disciplines are the same when in fact they disagree in the deepest possible epistemological sense.So I have very mixed feelings about this book. The essays on philosophy are generally well thought out and interesting, and even the essays on religion help to show how the religious mind works and why people tend to follow religions. So overall, it’s a fascinating book, and even if you identify more strongly with one way of life, you should be able to find useful insights from the teachings of the others.You might, however, call into question the entire idea of choosing a personal philosophy in the sense of molding yourself to one particular doctrine. If the purpose of a life philosophy is living a good and meaningful life, then isn’t it more important to live by the principles that make the most sense to you—and deliver the most benefits—rather than trying to ensure that you are a “true” Stoic, Epicurean, or Christian?This, I believe, is what Socrates was trying to tell us. No one has all the answers, and universal rules always have exceptions. We are limited and fallible, and the best we can do is examine our actions—not according to conformance to dogma or doctrine—but in accordance with our rational faculties that all humans share. We can select a general orientation to life, but not at the expense of surrendering our critical faculties to the conformity to orthodoxy. Read Online How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Download How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy PDF How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Mobi Free Reading How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Download Free Pdf How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy PDF Online How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Mobi Online How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Reading Online How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy Read Online Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary Download Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary PDF Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary Mobi Free Reading Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary Download Free Pdf Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary PDF Online Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary Mobi Online Massimo Pigliucci,Skye Cleary Reading Online Massimo Pigliucci,Skye ClearyRead The Art and Craft of Handmade Books (Dover Craft Books) By Shereen LaPlantz
Read Online The Language of Animals: 7 Steps to Communicating with Animals By Carol Gurney
Read Formative Assessment & Standards-Based Grading (Classroom Strategies) By Robert J. Marzano
Download PDF Earth User’s Guide to Teaching Permaculture By Rosemary Morrow
0 comments:
Post a Comment