Rating: 
Summary: Down in flames--Mayday!
Review: Having read a number of Gray's other books on liberalism and found them, despite aggravated differences of perspective, crisply interesting at least in an acerbic sort of way, I found this latest piece a case of going down in flames. What happened to the poor fellow? Is it a nervous breakdown? We even get a dash of bad Schopenhauer, an entirely uncalled for swipe at Kant, etc...
This book is smoking gun evidence of the confusing and pernicious influence of Darwinian thinking on the social sciences. We even have, with Gray, the full before and after evidence of the wrong influence exerted.
Nietzsche was one of the first, and Gray, one fears,will probably not be the last, to go haywire under the influence of Darwin. E.0. Wilson and the sociobiologists are getting their wish, take over the social sciences. (A little unfair, a lot of Gould here too, on progress). And the results are evident in the sudden deterioration of classical subjects. I am puzzled that noone in the establishment warned the author that Darwinian theory is a propaganda routine and anyone dumb enough to rewrite liberal theory on the basis has no business writing a book in the field at all. Didn' the author figure out this was a legitimation tactic, the economy stupid, and not to take it so seriously? Just because most of academia has been silenced here doesn't mean the bigwigs don't know how to bluff it.
Thus we find Mr. Grey a casualty. The material on Kant and Schopenhauer makes no sense, nor does the diatribe on progress add up to anything but a bit of rehashed Gould. Darwin's theory is a fake and the conclusions about progress are therefore up in the air. For the record, Gould has pompously done more harm by his seeming leftist viewpoint buttressing Darwin than all the sociobiologists, who are at least more transparently ideological. The results are escalating confusion. Still, this book was interesting in a lurid sort of way. But, I would say, to any other liberal theorists out there, don't get suckered into this kind of sociobiological 'take over' mode that all too clearly got one confused convert here. If you peddle propaganda for Dawkins' groupies, you have to remember which part was truth, which fiction. Else, poor will try to rewrite basics in this cancerated vein.
Rating: 
Summary: Modern Thought but Not There Yet
Review: I became interested in this book while reading a review panning it in The Nation by one Danny Postell (thanks to Arts & Letters Daily). Clearly it was visible that John Gray was after a definition of humans that integrates our discoveries from cognitive science, that we are just animals who are curse with intelligence, sufficient intelligence to figure out things but insufficient to control our actions --what I call the ability to rationalize ("much of the difference between us and other primates lies in our being considerably better than them at explaining our behavior"). Postel (I have no clue who he is and what kind of training he has in modern scientific thought but I am sure that he is sufficiently burdened with a knowledge of humanities verbiage to get the book wrong); Postel was panning Gray exactly for the reasons that would make this book insightful. So I BOUGHT THIS BOOK BECAUSE OF A BAD REVIEW!
What struck me with this book is that Gray converges in opinion to the discoveries of the New Science of Man --without quoting from neurobiology, cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, the Kahneman-Tversky Heuristics & Biases Tradition. It is remarkable that he identified the ills of the so-called humanist tradition without assistance from the works on rationality posited by Kahneman and his peers.
This book is worth 4 stars because here we have a literary intellectual who manages to break through the mud in his knowledge. It would have been worth 5 stars had Gray read a few more works in scientific thought beyond Darwin. Anyway I am very impressed with a literary intellectual capable of this empirical and realistic view of man.
Rating: 
Summary: primal scream philosophy
Review: I hope Professor Gray feels better.
I have to tell you I enjoyed many aspects of this book, Straw Dogs. Nihilist philosophies of the West can be very entertaining. Except in this modern age, they begin to attack Buddhism, being multicultural at last.
The problem is he didn't represent Buddha's teachings as he taught it. His attack is about as modern as post-modern relativism. There were two aspects of philosophies that Buddhism rejects. Eternalism - there is a God, he controls phenomenon, my soul is eternal. And nihilism, everything is illusion, everything ends at death, there is no effect and causation. The two views he put forth, first, of the Taoist mold, that of fatalism and natural determination, was taught by Purana Kassapa, Buddha refuted this as nihilism. Ajita Kesakambali taught the other view he put forth, mainly, that we consist of elements, and there is no life after death. This also is a form of nihilism of course. Buddha did not teach that everything is illusion, that is a Hindu and Mahayana teaching. Both are really very similar. He taught there is nonself, that the self is impermanent and subject to dhukkha, suffering. If Buddha taught illusion, why did he state the four noble truths? Because we really do suffer.
Now that Western philosophers have humbled themselves to include Eastern philosophies in their ideas of the world, lets hope they can figure them out. They are very old and very durable.
Rating:
Summary: Just showing off his gray matter
Review: I was really disappointed, perhaps because of my high expectations. I really enjoyed Gray's previous books. As Carl Jung (whom the author called a Gnostic in passing) would have surely said about this book - it is too cerebral. I would call it clever. Actually I am convinced that should John Gray have carefully read Jung, he would be more careful in labeling him. Jung, like Gray himself, was a devotee of the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. Clearly Gray's book is founded on Schopenhauer philosophical outlook and follows his gloomy view of humanity. But unlike Schopenhauer and his follower Gray, Jung was not a pessimist. His whole point was that unlike the human kind in general, an individual human soul does have a chance. I respect John Gray, although I think he is wrong in this book. Still, he has many interesting insights. He is a fearless critic of enlightenment and ferocious opponent of ideologies based on the blind faith in progress. His earlier book on the philosophy of Isaiah Berlin was pretty good. His other book about crisis of global capitalism 'False Dawn' was fantastic. He is best then writhing about economics. Alas, 'Straw Dogs' can't really hold a candle to his previous works - it is really a regression. It was all in all a big disappointment for me...
Rating:
Summary: Sloppy thinking, sloppy writing
Review: In a nutshell: collect all the negatives about human existence to sustain your claim that the whole species should be done with, the quicker the better, so that mythical Gaia can have her way. The ultimate destruction: replace Christian, humanist or any other superstitions with a bold one, void of all human dimension. Collapse into aphorisms, translate disparate facts and findings into prejudiced conclusions, wallow in pessimism. Gray messes up time frames from the next 50 years to the next 50 million, nothing is forever, but this does not mean certain things are not worth living and striving for. Collect some praise quotes on a book cover from the people you quote in your book to make it sell. I thought of myself as an inveterate pessimist untill I read this book. There is a line at which pessimism stops making sense: as a human for me sense and meaning are human categories, whatever the continuity among species dictates, abolishing humans is abolishing sense and meaning. Without humans, there will be no Gaia, there will be a planet, a rock with crawling whatevers, turning around a ball of hot gasses turning around a minor galaxy turning around itself, fleeing whatever. Does this mean I do not recommend reading this book ? No, most books are worth reading, most ideas are worth challenging, certainly the most challenging, that is why I gave it 3 stars and because that is the humanist tradition.
Rating: 
Summary: The fact of the matter...
Review: is that nobody knows the truth about the universe, but we make speculations. John Gray makes his, and it offends people's desperate attempts to cling to the notion that we are a meaningful species capable of attaining something better.
The bottom line, without drawing this out as an entire critical review, is that John Gray has a nihilistic but realistic answer to the many philosophical questions of the human condition that most philosophers have been afraid to ask. Naturally, the book has received harsh criticism as a result.
In my humble opinion, this is one of the best books I have ever read. It is refreshing, honest, unafraid, and comforting in a way for the truth-seeker disillusioned by our age and what little it has to offer the soul-intellect.
Rating:
Summary: An anguished plea
Review: John Gray concludes his book with a tragic entreaty: "Can we not think of the aim of life as simply to see?" His plea for awareness reveals the cloak of obscuratism our mythology has draped over all nature. Reading Straw Dogs is like being abruptly roused from a pleasant dream. "Wake and shake!", he cries. Wake up to the falsity of the dogmas under which you live. Shake them off and recognize that we live within reality's domain, not that of phantasms and fables. These ideas disturb the comfortable, yet offer little comfort to those seeking an easy answer to life's challenges. Gray understands our need for solace, but he knows reality isn't a tourist resort. Nature is a harsh realm and he wishes us to confront enduring questions honestly. Writing this book means he thinks we can do that. Gray's thesis relies on aknowledging our place in the realm of nature. We are, he reminds us, merely a part of the animal kingdom. We are neither a special creation nor particularly unique. Writing alone, with the continuity it provides, sets us apart while granting significant powers. The "continuity" led to the notion of human "progress" and "perfectability". In an evolutionary sense both ideas are false, and we are evolution's product. Even humanism, supposedly rational and secular, has fallen into the trap of seeking "perfectability". Gray finds this misleading and self-serving. He examines the work of Western philosophers, the guides to our thinking, finding them mistaken or misleading. In today's milieu, Lovelock's Gaia concept of the whole planet acting like a single organism, should be reconsidered. Whether the details of this idea are valid is irrelevant. It is the notion that we are apart from the remainder of nature that we must cast away. The monotheist dogma granting us "dominion over the earth" is the most pernicious idea developed by humanity, Gray asserts. Gray's text is fragmented without sacrificing continuity. His techique allows pauses for reflection. He posits ideas, questions, suggestions, assertions freely. Stop and think about them as you read. He tumbles many icons - he indicts Christianty on the second page, suggesting what will follow. He is resolute and articulate about how important these questions are to us. A superficial look at this work may lead the reader to feel hopeless. If there was no hope, however, Gray wouldn't have bothered to write this book. Like any thinker, he's concerned about the future. The prospects appear bleak, but not insurmountable. He assumes the reader is intelligent enough to consider and act on realistic solutions. "Perfectibility" of humanity within nature may be impossible, but with an informed outlook "accomodation" can be achieved. The first step, however, is the shedding of false dogmas. Being informed isn't an easy task, Gray concedes. He presents the thoughts of previous philosophers, but without direct attribution. If you need references, his extensive bibliography is a fine starting point. It's also a few years' study syllabus. Taking his quotes at face value isn't the issue, however. What must be confronted are the values that you, the reader, hold and cherish. Can you "live to see", or will you remain wrapped blindly within dogma? Read Gray and make up your own mind. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: brilliant, wide-ranging polemic against humanism
Review: john gray has struck gold in this far-reaching book on what it means to be human. he forces his readers to realize that all hopes for the future of humanity are misplaced. there will be no miraculous $q$cure$q$ for the disease humanity has become, which will miraculously transform the relationships of humans with nature (and between themselves) into harmonious ones. further, there is no hope to be gained from the anticipation of an imaginary afterlife, or even the simple ideal of a $q$chosen life.$q$ instead, gray recommends that people simply accept life's irrationalities as they really are. like the taoist lao tzu, who inspires the book's title, gray recommends a life without purpose or morality, a life based on skill and intuition rather than knowledge. in my opinion, gray's book is commendable for its honesty and scope. it shows the world as it really is, not how people want it to be. of course, although his aphoristic style is not as strong as nietzsche's, and his writing style is, in general, somewhat terse, gray's writing is overall interesting and readable. i would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in popular philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: the folly of the human animal
Review: John Gray was once upon a time an optimistic liberal. He fell under the spell of the Gospel of the Free Market in the Thatcherite 1980s, and thus made a transition to conservatism. When he discovered that Thatcherism/Reaganism wasn't really conservative at all, but rather a dogmatic radicalism, he became an old-school conservative. He proceeded to reject the Enlightenment tout court, and embraced post-modernist relativism. Now, he has taken a further step into simple misanthropy. Gray has written a jeremiad against Christianity, the Enlightenment, science, and any hope of bettering people or the planet we live on. This is a performative contradiction, of course, because if there is no cause for hope, why write a book? What's the point? Fame and money are the only reasons left, one must suppose, and that supposition is perfectly consistent with Gray's line of argument -- all lofty ideals and dreams are illusions.
Despite all that, I enjoyed the book and recommend it. It's a quick, easy read, quite entertaining, and I'm sure you can find it in the libraray. There are many useful citations in the back to more substantial books you might want to read to pursue Gray's points, many made in the form of sound-bite one-liners. Depending on what you bring to it, you may or may not find it shocking -- STRAW DOGS is mainly based on the growing knowledge from the field variously known as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology or biological anthropology. Humans are animals, not demigods. Gray's second main point I think is less appreciated and more important, and that is the evidence that the human species is embarked on a neomalthusian experiment -- overshoot the ecosystem and see what happens.
That's good cause for a jeremiad, and if Gray's disjointed ramblings focus more people's attention on this ("death focuses the mind") then it is worth something. Gray is having none of any sort of schemes for improvement, though, let alone salvation. His presentation is totally negative (we are nothing but "exceptionally rapacious primates"), which of course is a good strategy for provoking discussion, hostility and sales. I detect, though, a positive agenda, which Gray only intimates between the lines, and that is the most conservative belief system of all, animism. If humans dropped their pretense at superiority and stopped all their doomed scheming, accepting their equal status with their fellow animals, and acted with humility and reverence toward their fellow beings, then all might be well. This seems to be Gray's covert plan for salvation, and it is in fact one I can wholeheartedly endorse.
Gray goes too far in throwing out the Enlightenment. Rationality does clearly seem to be lacking in most human behavior, but what of it does exist is important to foster, encourage and spread. (See Daniel Dennett's latest, FREEDOM EVOLVES, which makes the same assumptions as Gray, but reaches a very different conclusion.) Sure it seems like an uphill struggle that we're likely to lose, but I could see that years ago (33 years ago to be precise), and I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't found reasons to try. Being an intellectual bomb-thrower is fine for someone still young and full of indignation, but there is a planet of sentient beings who expect more of someone like John Gray -- carpe diem!
Rating:
Summary: the folly of the human animal
Review: John Gray was once upon a time an optimistic liberal. He fell under the spell of the Gospel of the Free Market in the Thatcherite 1980s, and thus made a transition to conservatism. When he discovered that Thatcherism/Reaganism wasn't really conservative at all, but rather a dogmatic radicalism, he became an old-school conservative. He proceeded to reject the Enlightenment tout court, and embraced post-modernist relativism. Now, he has taken a further step into simple misanthropy. Gray has written a jeremiad against Christianity, the Enlightenment, science, and any hope of bettering people or the planet we live on. This is a performative contradiction, of course, because if there is no cause for hope, why write a book? What's the point? Fame and money are the only reasons left, one must suppose, and that supposition is perfectly consistent with Gray's line of argument -- all lofty ideals and dreams are illusions. Despite all that, I enjoyed the book and recommend it. It's a quick, easy read, quite entertaining, and I'm sure you can find it in the libraray. There are many useful citations in the back to more substantial books you might want to read to pursue Gray's points, many made in the form of sound-bite one-liners. Depending on what you bring to it, you may or may not find it shocking -- "Straw Dogs" is mainly based on the growing knowledge from the field variously known as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology or biological anthropology. Humans are animals, not demigods. Gray's second main point I think is less appreciated and more important, and that is the evidence that the human species is embarked on a neomalthusian experiment -- overshoot the ecosystem and see what happens. That's good cause for a jeremiad, and if Gray's disjointed ramblings focus more people's attention on this ("death focuses the mind") then it is worth something. Gray is having none of any sort of schemes for improvement, though, let alone salvation. His presentation is totally negative (we are nothing but "exceptionally rapacious primates"), which of course is a good strategy for provoking discussion, hostility and sales. I detect, though, a positive agenda, which Gray only intimates between the lines, and that is the most conservative belief system of all, animism. If humans dropped their pretense at superiority and stopped all their doomed scheming, accepting their equal status with their fellow animals, and acted with humility and reverence toward their fellow beings, then all might be well. This seems to be Gray's covert plan for salvation, and it is in fact one I can wholeheartedly endorse. Gray goes too far in throwing out the Enlightenment. Rationality does clearly seem to be lacking in most human behavior, but what of it does exist is important to foster, encourage and spread. (See Daniel Dennett's latest, "Freedom Evolves," which makes the same assumptions as Gray, but reaches a very different conclusion.) Sure it seems like an uphill struggle that we're likely to lose, but I could see that years ago (33 years ago to be precise), and I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't found reasons to try. Being an intellectual bomb-thrower is fine for someone still young and full of indignation, but there is a planet of sentient beings who expect more of someone like John Gray -- carpe diem!
|
