A. C. GraylingRezensionen

(His super snarky one-page intro to the section on 20th century "Continental Philosopher," whom he very unfavorable compares to the Anglo-American modern empiricist-analytical school, is hilarious.

When readers want a current issue clarified, they can always turn to A.C. Grayling. The man has written clear, concise and insightful analyses of all sorts of current problem areas in several dozen books and I have no idea how many papers. This latest timely effort, Who Owns The Moon? deals with preventing mankind from ruining outer space, much as it has done to this planet. Because one thing we know for sure: without regulation, Man will ruin whatever he touches, in order to become richer.

What Grayling has going for him is the precedents of the Antarctic and the oceans. In those two cases, most of the countries of the world, including those without direct access to the oceans, have signed on to treaties making them agree to abide by sane rules. So much of the book is direct references to and from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (1967 & 1982) and the Antarctic Treaty (1961). It means there is hope.

Arguably the most important rules are those concerning law. Individuals are bound by the laws of their home country for any actions they take in the Antarctic or on the high seas. Otherwise, they would be above the laws of all countries. And the UN has no police.

The UN’s efforts are quite naturally diplomatic in nature. Their main strategy seems to be getting as many nations as possible to sign on. The result can be vague language instead of easily understood direction. For example, take nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Signatories “should refrain” from deploying them, rather than “all signatories are forbidden to deploy.”

The common principle that ought to be retained is “for the benefit of mankind as a whole.” As an operating principle, this is golden. It attempts to address the continuing tragedy of the commons, whereby someone or some country tries to scrape everything it wants from what is meant for all to share. It is endemic to mankind and can only be corralled by laws, enforcement, and penalties.

Yet the holes in the treaties are big enough to drive fracking equipment through. For example, anyone is allowed to explore Antarctica, but if a corporation decides to drill or mine, there is no one to stop it. And while people are supposed to be regulated by the laws of their own country, what if the country cannot be identified? What if it cannot manage such an investigation or prosecution? What if it has no space force or navy to physically seize the operation and shut it down? If Elon Musk fulfills his wish to explode nuclear bombs above Mars every five seconds over a period of years to heat the atmosphere and make it thicker, who back on Earth will be able to stop him today?

This kind of thing has already happened right here, Grayling says. “The Southern Ocean is an awful example of what happens when a common resource (the fishery) is open to commercial exploitation, and what might happen on the continent itself.”

Which leads to the air or space above. Grayling cites Arthur C. Clarke (who certainly informed my appreciation of outer space as a child): “As Earth rotated, every country would be claiming sovereignty over every region of space.” So everyone needs to agree to sane rules.

So far, countries have behaved remarkably civilly, but that could change at any moment. China, for one, is very big on privacy and total secrecy, which is totally opposite to what the treaties provide: open facilities for all to visit, mutual aid when needed, restitution to their native countries when humans are rescued, and so on. And then there are the wildcard billionaires like Musk, Bezos, Branson and their ilk, whose private agendas remain unknown, as well as how they might or might not co-operate with other billionaires and nations in space.

For years, nations kept signing treaty additions such as mutual aid and returning humans to their nations, until 1979, when only five signed on to the “Agreement concerning the activities of states on the moon or other celestial bodies.” This was a clear warning sign.

Grayling’s justified fear becomes clearer and more obvious with every passage and every act: “The truth is that space is not a separate warfighting domain, but a projection and continuation of Earth as the scene of almost continual warfare, somewhere or other, in most years of any decade.”

One of his biggest fears is the scramble. Suddenly, from the mid nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth, nations scrambled to lay claim, plant flags, build physical presence and declare loudly their possession of parts of Africa. All of it. King Leopold of Belgium actually did it for himself and not his country. It was enormously destructive, and of course, the ramifications are still very much felt today, two hundred years later. It’s all about grabbing resources for profit, and there is absolutely no reason to imagine it won’t happen on the moon or Mars, or even just beyond Earth’s atmosphere. Elon Musk continues to launch tens of thousands of his own satellites there, ever expanding the reach of his Starlink firm, from which he can cut off the entire country of Ukraine from the internet, for an unpaid bill. For all we know, he could be building Earth’s first ring; that’s how much hardware he flings out.

And while Antarctic treaties have taken care of some details quite well, there are time bombs abounding. No one is allowed to claim rights to the mineral wealth of Antarctica, for example, which is not now an issue because the land is miles below the ice, and current technologies cannot detect them. But there is a sunset to that clause – 2048. That should just be about the time the ice has sufficiently melted and the ice pack sufficiently broken up, that some country or company will want to make a grab for it. Almost certainly, this will result in another scramble, and/or wars.

This is major ugly stuff, but even the small stuff is a threat. The Law of the Sea waits until Article 194 (and 195) to mention that signatories must “prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.” Who is going to police miners from cyanide heap leaching hills and chemical slag ponds on Mars? Who is going to stop them from cutting off mountain tops because there should be lithium underneath?

So on the one hand, we have a lot of experience on Earth with the issues of keeping the commons in good repair. On the other hand, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet, where the wild west of outer space multiplies those challenges. Not that we’ve done so well here, either, as the Cod Wars, the plastic floating islands, and the total overfishing of all of the oceans demonstrate so vividly. I was optimistic that Grayling could paint a path to success when I first began reading Who Owns The Moon? By the time I finished, not so much.

David Wineberg

While I appreciated the sentiment and most content, the lack of source citations for the individual writings was frustrating. I tried googling select quotes a number of times with limited success. I would have liked to have easy access to the source material. Also, the length of the histories seemed outsized compared to the other types of writings selected. I realize that this format mimics the bible itself well, but most readers of the bible that I know use bibles with footnotes and cross references. And i shudder to say that I would have liked to see the versification which is available in standard editions of most of the selections.

Very anti faith and anti Christian. Very biased in his opinions with wild generalisations.

CUPRINS

1. Prefata - pag. 5
2. Abrevieri - pag. 7
3. Viata si opera - pag. 9
4. Logica si filozofie - pag. 33
5. Filozofie, minte si stiinta - pag. 63
6. Politica si societate - pag. 86
7. Influenta lui Russell - pag. 116

8. Bibliografie suplimentara - pag. 133
9. Index - pag. 135

I was very disappointed with this book. My experience with the Oxford University Press “Very Short Introductions” series is that they are understandable by the general public. Sometimes bits here and there are more challenging but they are usually generally suitable for a lay reader. The first 30 or so pages of this book fall into that category, as do the last 30 or so pages. But the middle 60 pages were, to me, completely incomprehensible.

I’m mystified that there are so many good reviews for this book on Goodreads. I would really like to know if *anyone* found the middle of this book understandable - not counting those who already have some pretty good background in analytic philosophy, or had covered Wittgenstein in a college course already, or had already spent some considerable amount of effort studying him already. Fine if this book makes people in those categories happy - but it shouldn’t have been included in a series that purports to make ideas available to “anyone” (OUP’s term, in the front matter of the book).

I was expecting a bit more real world examples of the ills caused by religion, however the book focused more on philosophical arguments (which is also good) and just mentioned real world examples in passing. It did do a good job of putting the arguments in easy to understand forms and ended with a much more uplifting description of humanism and its benefits

Six stars. Will return with a full review once my brain has cooled down below boiling point.

This interpretation of Wittgenstein is both very good and horrible. What is good is that Grayling is no mindless fan of Wittgenstein, and his conclusion in this book goes as far as to doubt whether Wittgenstein is a capable philosopher at all (and not more a poet prophet). This is unique and daring in a book meant as an introduction to Wittgenstein's thinking. What is quite horrible is that Grayling has the ability, which more analytical philosophers have, to kill the material which they deal with. Under the mask of an objective interpretation (a contradiction), Grayling portraits Wittgenstein's theories as if we are dealing with a book of law. His ideas are explained well, but nowhere in this book is any passion for philosophy present. This ultimately kills Wittgenstein's genius, because it is precisely in his dancing with words that his talent lies.

Grayling seems to think that philosophy can be a cold process, detached from emotion and context. This coldness and harshness are his strengths when critically analyzing Wittgenstein, but it are his weaknesses when it comes that what ultimately fuels great philosophy: passion. Without passion, I don't care about clarity.

12/2/21

12/2/21

I did come away with at least the illusion I understood something of what Wittgenstein was talking about in the Tractatus and in his later works. How much I will retain and how much I could explain to anybody else are two very different matters.

Way too opinionated for what it aims to be.

Esta história da filosofia explora as principais questões intelectuais que persistem ao longo dos séculos e nas mais variadas circunstâncias. Grayling examina o enraizamento histórico das linhas de pensamento que compõem a filosofia como a conhecemos hoje.
Começa antes de Buda e Confúcio, segue para as antigas escolas gregas de pensamento, através do domínio do cristianismo sobre o pensamento europeu, para a Renascença e o Iluminismo quando os desenvolvimentos nas ciências naturais e revoluções no pensamento sobre o status moral dos indivíduos tiveram um impacto dramático na forma de ver o mundo.
O autor passa então para os filósofos modernos como Darwin, Marx e Freud, cujo pensamento deu origem às ciências sociais. Finalmente toca a filosofia e a lógica que desempenharam um papel importante na ascensão da computação e da ciência cognitiva.

Un libro come questo di 682 pagine, in inglese, non lo si legge, lo si tiene sul comodino e lo si consulta ogni qualvolta nella battaglia quotidiana della vita, hai bisogno di capire di cosa sono fatti gli uomini e il luogo dove abitano. Un viaggio nella storia della vita e di chi, chiamandosi o chiamato filosofo, cerca o ha cercato di capire il senso di tutto. Ardua impresa davvero, ma Grayling mi pare ci riesca alla meglio. Lo conosco per avere letto altri suoi libri. Si dichiara a-teo, ma non è prevenuto. Liberamente scrive quello che pensa e capita di farsi capire ed essere accettato anche da chi non la pensa come lui. E questo posso essere anche io che filosofo non sono, anzi sono l'ultimo arrivato in questo campo della conoscenza. Per ora ho letto soltanto la bellissima introduzione e il capitolo sugli stoici. Mi ritengo un seguace di questa filosofia anche se sono un dinosauro digitale. Anzi, proprio per questa ragione. Una filosofia che ha oltre due millenni di vita, che ha ancora qualcosa da dire a chi nasce e vive nel terzo millennio dell'era moderna, significa pure qualcosa, non vi pare?

Bertrand Rasëll ishte një nga filozofët më të famshëm dhe më të rëndësishëm të shekullit të XX. Në këtë shtjellim të jetës dhe veprës së tij, A. C. Grayling na paraqet qoftë kontributet që Rasëlli solli në mendimin filozofik dhe në logjikën e shekullit të XX, qoftë pikëpamjet e tij të gjera mbi arsimin, politikën, luftën dhe moralin seksual. Rasëlli shihet si një nga themeluesit e filozofisë analitike moderne, si dhe një ndër personalitetet që luajti një rol të rëndësishëm në revolucionin e sjelljeve dhe qëndrimeve sociale që u shfaqën në mbarë botën. Ky libër na jep një vështrim të qartë në lidhje me tërë arritjet dhe shtrirjet e mendimit të Rasëllit.

Ludvig Vitgenstaini ishte një filozof jashtëzakonisht origjinal, ndikimi i të cilit në mendimin e shekullit të XX shkon përtej kufijve të filozofisë. Në këtë libër, që synon ta shtjellojë mendimin e Vitgenstainit në mënyrë sa më të kapshme dhe të kuptueshme për lexuesin e gjerë, A. C. Grayling hedh dritë mbi natyrën dhe mbi ndikimin që krijuan idetë e Vitgenstainit. Në këtë libër autori rreh të përshkruajë qoftë mendimin dhe idetë që Vitgenstaini lëvroi në periudhën e tij të hershme, qoftë mendimin dhe idetë që lëvroi në periudhën e tij të mëvonshme, duke rrahur të ngërthejë ndryshimet dhe lidhjet mes tyre për të na dhënë kësisoj përftesat që ndikimi i vazhdueshëm i Vitgenstainit krijuan në hullinë e mendimit bashkëkohor.

A very good over view of a history of (mainly) western Philosophy.
Have tried a few before but have foundered.
A few reasons for the success of this version:
- about the right length, both overall but also for each individual topic
- took time to not just use the technical language but explained those instances where the same words may have been used but with different meanings
- at times humorous to boot.

Also learnt a new word “redound” which I, at first thought was a typo, as the word (when first used) was in a context that lent itself to meaning “rebound”, and it has a very similar meaning.

It included short sections on Indian, African, Chinese and Arabic-Persian philosophy. I di not find these worked as well, which is probably as much to do with my comparative unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

Big Ship
29 December 2019

Un libro come questo di 682 pagine, in inglese, non lo si legge, lo si tiene sul comodino e lo si consulta ogni qualvolta nella battaglia quotidiana della vita, hai bisogno di capire di cosa sono fatti gli uomini e il luogo dove abitano. Un viaggio nella storia della vita e di chi, chiamandosi o chiamato filosofo, cerca o ha cercato di capire il senso di tutto. Ardua impresa davvero, ma Grayling mi pare ci riesca alla meglio. Lo conosco per avere letto altri suoi libri. Si dichiara a-teo, ma non è prevenuto. Liberamente scrive quello che pensa e capita di farsi capire ed essere accettato anche da chi non la pensa come lui. E questo posso essere anche io che filosofo non sono, anzi sono l'ultimo arrivato in questo campo della conoscenza. Per ora ho letto soltanto la bellissima introduzione e il capitolo sugli stoici. Mi ritengo un seguace di questa filosofia anche se sono un dinosauro digitale. Anzi, proprio per questa ragione. Una filosofia che ha oltre due millenni di vita, che ha ancora qualcosa da dire a chi nasce e vive nel terzo millennio dell'era moderna, significa pure qualcosa, non vi pare?

This book is basically the non-fiction backstory to Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle (starting with [b:Quicksilver|823|Quicksilver (The Baroque Cycle, #1)|Neal Stephenson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1377095669s/823.jpg|1610031]). Except the Baroque Cycle manages to cover a lot more of the world. But this was up-front about its restrictions of location and scope: it was going to cover (Western) Europe in the 17th century and the changes that society underwent.

And it does it hard. It's a solid (both sturdy and dense) history book. It's often somewhat opaque (not assisted by the author's fondness for somewhat old-fashioned syntax and construction) especially when the author digs enthusiastically into the nitty-gritty of philosophy (obviously a favourite of his; not so much of mine), but in general it does a great job of laying out the moving and shaking elements of the period, with lots of interesting asides. (The power of postal services! Sweden's stint as a world power! The self-defeating stupidity of the Holy Roman Emperor!) It was, all in all, a good overview of the many ways in which 17th century mindset change manifested.

And then the conclusion of the book tacks on the compulsory "looking forward" bit about the ease of myth and the challenge of education that honestly made me wish that was the point of the book. But oh well.

(I didn't power through 20% of the book in one sitting; a lot of that page-length was the notes section.)

A real disappointment from a historical perspective. Although I agree with the author’s conclusions that the firebombing of German cities and the atomic bombing of Japanese cities were not unjustified and criminal, his analysis is extremely burdensome and convoluted. As an Oxford professor of philosophy, the author seems more interested in using what are objective issues, i.e., whether the Allied bombing of German cities and the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan were militarily or legally justified, as the basis for examining the subjectivity of such topics as morality, ethics, etc. The overwhelming majority of the book examines the different subjective interpretations of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘ethical’ and ‘unethical’, etc., by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and other philosophers, with virtually no connection to the issue at hand.

The author’s bootlicking of Churchill is also extremely irritating. Rather than being the racist, imperialist warmonger that he was, the author depicts Churchill as the ‘cautious or ‘reluctant civilian killer, a diehard anti-fascist whom was always concerned about civilian casualties during the war. Churchill’s willingness to do something that was militarily unjustified and morally wrong, as this author concludes, was due to the influence hawks in Churchill’s War Cabinet had on him and, naturally, Stalin.

I wouldn’t recommend this book.

Years after reading The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran, I found this. This, to me, is a more practical take on the material you'll find in The Prophet. This has replaced The Prophet as my go to book. It is functional, doesn't have the poetry and artistic flourishes, and gets straight to the point. Presents the topics in an easy to digest form.

Professor Grayling argues that the development of the modern mind was a byproduct of the times that they were part of. The questioning of authority and breakdown of what people knew and accepted for centuries was brought into light by a number of events that had no religious explanations.

For instance, a supernova came into existence and was seen by many astronomers. This called into question the idea that the sky was immutable and unchanging. So if the Bible was wrong about that, what else could it be wrong about? Not to mention the numerous wars and quarrels over land that erupted during this time. Since a lot of disasters happened, people began to doubt the Divine Right of Kings.

Although all of this was happening, many people still believed in magic and superstitious ridiculousness. Take Isaac Newton as an example. Yes, he invented Calculus and showed an explanation for many things that happened with celestial objects but he wrote a lot more about alchemy, biblical interpretation, and magic than he did on physics and math.

All these ideas are well and good, but without people to share them, they may as well not be there. That is where a number of people come in that acted as "human internet servers." Sending correspondence all across the continent of Europe, people such as Marin Mersenne helped to spread these new ideas.

Although it was interesting and very enlightening, I guess I wasn't really expecting this book to be mainly focused on history. Sure it talks about the things that people founded and did at the time, and the scaffolding of modern science and culture that was established, but these all seem to be asides to the other content of the book.

It doesn't take much to write a half-decent essay. The internet is full of them, and there's plenty of material on Medium that's worth checking out. The question is - what separates a good essay from a great essay? What makes an essay worth including in a book celebrating the form - especially if all of those essays spring forth from the same mind?

The answer in the present case is that the essays must represent the possibilities of the form. There are a multitude of different essay types, from the exploratory, meandering essays of Montaigne, the exclamatory, iconoclastic works of recent masters such as Christopher Hitchens.

A. C. Grayling covers much of that territory in this superb book. His writing has a timeless quality, and very literally so: reading it, I at first forgot that Grayling is a contemporary writer (and in fact he appears in many YouTube videos, so if you want to put a voice to the man it's easily done). But when you read Grayling you might imagine a writer of antiquity stepping forth to offer elucidation on a philosophical point - his sentences are so well-constructed, his paragraphs so well-crafted, and his point so well-made that it feels very much like reading from the pantheon of great essayists already.½

An important book.....a difficult read, but worth the effort.