Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointing and down right poor treatment of the subject
Review: About 2 years ago, I was in the middle to reading anything that I could on the issue of free will. I was carrying on long discussions about it, the nature of the universe, the necessity of a quantumly random universe for free will to exist at all and so on.I was so happy to find Dennett's book, and then I read it, I found myself shaking my head and complaining out loud about its content. "How can he say that? ", or, "Come on, he can't be serious!". For an example, Dennett twists the definition of free will so far that he has it existing inside a deterministic universe. Well, you don't have to think about it very long to realize that free will can't exist in a deterministic unless you're talking about a free will that is significantly different from what even the introduction philosophy class tells you it is. Dennett's argument centers on the definition of "free" and "will" and ownership of that will. He essentially make the semblance of free will the same as free will through various examples and cases. Another thing that Dennett said in the book that I just couldn't get over was, "the past doesn't effect the future...". Of course the past effects the future, it's called "cause and effect". If you think about it, take a pool table for an example, as soon as you strike the cue ball with the cue, the outcome of where the balls go is determined. Even if you argue that quantum mechanics makes the idea invalid (i.e. you could never predict the outcome), it is nevertheless, the striking of the cue that effects what happens from then on. Once the cue ball starts moving, the striking of it is in the past, and is effecting the outcome. Therefore the past effects the future. Last, but not least, I was incredibly annoyed at Dennett's references. He references, literally about 5 to 10% of every sentence he writes. Great, he's well read and references thoroughly, but in the end, I just kept thinking that Dennett couldn't actually think for himself. Certainly, his conclusions on free will tell me that.
Rating: 
Summary: Thorough and complex
Review: Although I do agree that Compatibalism does "save" the notion of free will by thoroughly distorting it, I think that Dennett's overall analysis of the issue is one of the most thorough and illuminating that I've encountered. In particular, he does a masterful job of debunking the "horror" of a world where one's will is contingent on external factors. As such, I find that I can accept his notion that our wills are "free enough", even while balking at his contention that this actually amounts to something that ought to be called "free will". Readers who are more familiar with his popular works (such as _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ and _The Minds I_) should be warned that this is an academic work. He obviously presumes that his readers have more than a passing familiarity with philosophy in general and cognitive philosophy in particular as well as presuming that his readers are competent enough to handle a scholarly work. Someone who is used to only reading science popularizations may find themselves getting in over their heads, although I do suspect that any reader who is interested in the field should be able to take something away from this. Never the less, caveat emptor.
Rating: 
Summary: Dissolved--but not entirely
Review: Compared to most philosophers and given the complexity of the arguments that he makes, Dennett is relatively easy to read and clear. Be warned though, if you are not used to reading philosophy, this probably will not be the easiest book to follow. If you are used to reading philosophy, particularly analytic philosophy, this book should be very easy for you to follow. Dennett's approach to the problem of free will reminds me of Wittgenstein's approach to traditional philosophical problems. Wittgenstein claimed that the best approach to take with many philosophical questions is to "dissolve" rather than solve them. He held that certain questions cannot be asked or at best do not make sense. The job of the philosopher is to find those questions and expunge them (This is an oversimplification but it does at least capture some aspects of Wittgenstein's philosophy). I will not lay out for you how exactly Dennett arrives at a "solution" in this book, but his method does resemble-- in some ways-- Wittgenstein's method. One can only marvel at the way Dennett presents philosophical problems. His presentation is both humorous and thorough. While reading his critique of some people who have written on the topic of free will, I often laughed out laud, given his somewhat sardonic, but at the same time, apparently accurate characterization of those writings. One last note, if you think similar to the reviewer who gave Dennett one star, be warned; Dennett is not going to directly answer the problem of how if the statement "everything that will happen necessarily will happen" is true free will exists, i.e., free will in the sense that I could have done otherwise. If you are expecting a direct answer to this, again, you could be disappointed. But then again, you could like what you read. Dennett might change your mind about what counts as free will and what counts as a valid response to the question of whether or not free will exists.
Rating:
Summary: Hardly disappointing and poor...
Review: Daniel Dennett's _Elbow Room_ is a nicely written piece on the compatibility of determinism and free will. He notes that even if the world is deterministic, there is a certain amount of freedom (or elbow room) for man to operate within. The previous reviewer who stated that "you don't have to think about it very long to realize that free will can't exist in a deterministic [universe]" has apparently missed all of the philosophical work relating to "Compatibilism," which is the very idea that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Dennett presents a nice case for the plausibility of this viewpoint, pointing out why the scary thought experiments that others have created to make determinism seem so horrible cannot be reality. He also makes a clear distinction (that is sometimes blurred) between fatalism and determinism, and in questioning some underlying assumptions makes the idea of free will much more understandable. It may take some concentration to read (I am only beginning to study Philosophy and so had to read a number of sentences over before fully comprehending), but that hardly takes away from the quality of the book. Definitely recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Well on the way.
Review: Dennet's approach to free will seems to have two main thrusts. First, Dennet explains, and I think very convincingly, that even in a deterministc world our deliberations matter for the issues we expect and want them to matter to. They are part of the causal fabric and they affect the outcome. He also starts down an interesting road with regard to what determinism really means and why it might not be so bad. He points out, I think rightly, that the future is unkowable in principle for anyone (except an opmipotent being) because of chaotic effects. This means that in principle (not just in practice) even if we had all the information and knew all the laws of physics we could not predict what will happen, not be able to predict the future. So even though we will tread only one path through life (some day we wand others will be able to look back and see that path) we don't know what it will be. This is a good idea, but as Dennit admits it needs more filling in. The idea is interesting but the implications are still quite unclear to me. So we have two major threads. First, our deliberations matter (at least for some things and more likely for the things that we expect or want them to matter to) and second, the future is an unknown and therefore contains genuine opportunities. Together these ideas can actually support the seeming contradiction that even in a determined world, we have free will. I don't agree with everything in the book and there is clearly more filling ut to be done on some of the more inetersting issues, especially the implications of those issues. However, the book is entertaining, thought provoking, and sheds significant light on the issue by cleaing up some bad conceptual muddles. Also, it will be just plain good for your brain. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this question.
Rating:
Summary: Stretching constraints
Review: Dennett combines clarity of thought with clarity of expression to re-introduce the question of "free will." It's an age-old topic, but Dennett's knowledge of nature gives him fresh insight in grappling with the issue. He concedes at the outset that "free will" is usually considered a topic for academics to wrangle over. One of his special talents, however, is bringing such subjects out of the scholastic arena and into everyday life. He recognizes that all of us are plagued by outworn traditions and mind-blinding prejudices. He wants us to free our minds of these restraints. From there, he hopes we will enter a future based on more rational concepts. It's an ambitious programme, but one Dennett presents with outstanding conceptual ability and skillful prose. Dennett's use of the "intuition pump" to expose the "bogeymen" that plague our reason makes him unique among philosophers. It's an analysis tool that more should emulate. More significantly it's a method we should all learn. Rigid thinking leads us down wrong paths and this work is a guidebook for avoiding that. One of the wrong paths is the idea that "free will" and "determinism" are absolutely separate - there is no way to reconcile the two concepts. Dennett shows that there are many forms of "determinism" in nature, and we are part of nature. Humans, however, have a decision-making capability the rest of nature lacks. We have "elbow room," based on our consciousness, which gives us the ability to make choices. The dividing line between what nature imposes and our mentality allows, is vague and indistinct, sometimes contradictory, but it's there. Dennett wants us to recognize, so far as we can, which is which. Dennett concedes that there's an apparent paradox in this view. If we are the product of evolutionary forces, why isn't our behaviour preset in our genes? It is, according to Dennett, but exercises only limited influence. Our complex intellect allows us to modify those natural roots and give us what we see as unlimited choices. We call this condition "free will". Dennett reminds us, however, that free will is no more an absolute than determinism. Dennett's rejection of absolutes in any guise have led to many critical assaults on his work. Yet, as almost the sole philosopher to adopt natural selection as part of his thinking, he has shown his work to be the most rationally based of all. Far from "dodging" issues, he shows how this open approach can actually lead to a firmer grasp of issues. As he points out, the issue is not a "choice" of absolute options, but "control" over the conditions. It's not just choosing which path, but perhaps the building of a new one. For Dennett, a topic such as "free will" is far from limited to academic discussion. A clear concept of what free will entails has ramifications in law, education and many social policies. He addresses many aspects of applying his definition of free will in the final chapter "Why Do We Want Free Will?". With a strong sense of the pragmatic, Dennett shows why our understanding of the concept has meaning for us all. With his witty style and practical approach to what otherwise might be an obscure topic, Dennett has given us a highly readable and realistic overview. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking and entertaining
Review: Dennett has written a very thought provoking analysis of how free will is compatible with determinism, clearing away the bug bears and myths, by analysins just what we mean by 'choice' 'can' and 'inevitable'. Definitely the leading book on the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: Outstanding book - Dennett is a great writer. He tackles one of the most important philosophical issues with this little volume, are we free or not? Does free-will exist or is it just a fanciful dream? Dennett does a good job of putting these questions in their right historical, philosophical, and scientific context. I read this for the first time in Grad School and have kept it in my library since. If you want to understand the issue of free-will, correctly, then you need to purchase this book and give it a read.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: Outstanding book - Dennett is a great writer. He tackles one of the most important philosophical issues with this little volume, are we free or not? Does free-will exist or is it just a fanciful dream? Dennett does a good job of putting these questions in their right historical, philosophical, and scientific context. I read this for the first time in Grad School and have kept it in my library since. If you want to understand the issue of free-will, correctly, then you need to purchase this book and give it a read.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Enough for Who?
Review: The author's thesis is that most people have a muddled conception of what determinism entails, and that if they thought about it, they would realize that it really isn't as bad as it seems. I have to agree and disagree with this thesis. First, I would agree that determinism would not necessarily feel bad if it is true. As long as you have a feeling that "you" are the one making the decision and not somebody else, the average person is gonna be happy. However, there are a lot of Christians in the western world, and free will really does have to be defined in a certain way for Christian belief. Of course determinism is not acceptable to Chirstians, for theological reasons! I do agree with the author that free will is never defined by its defenders. They always tell us what it's not. It's not determinism. It's not randomness. It's that other thing that we haven't figured out how to spell yet. Overall, the thesis is interesting and should get you to thinking what determinism might "feel like" if it were indeed true. Or maybe you already know what it feels like...
| 
