| Title | : | The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0452287448 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780452287440 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 320 |
| Publication | : | First published July 5, 2005 |
The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher Reviews
-
Here's a question for vegetarians: if a pig were raised in a comfortable and humane slaughterhouse, would you eat it? What if that pig were also genetically modified to want to be eaten - if being eaten was indeed its life's ambition? How about a genetically modified chicken that had lost its sense of self, environment, pain, pleasure etc.? It'd be like plucking a potato from the ground.
Another one, for everyone: let's say you're a doctor, and you have a patient who falls unconscious while on life-support. Beforehand she asked over and over again to be taken off the machine, but to your chagrin, an ethics committee forbids you from doing so. One day a random passerby - a janitor, perhaps - accidentally knocks out the plug and disconnects the patient from the machine. You let it go and the patient fades away: after all, you took no measure in shortening the her life, you just failed to prolong it. Are you justified?
In his book The Pig That Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini delves into various thought bombs that will leave your mind blown. In each of its 100 chapters, he spends one page detailing a thought experiment and then two pages afterward discussing its philosophical implications. He writes with conciseness and clarity, including all of the necessary information without falling into pretension. Each chapter raises questions and dilemmas with no easy answers. The topics range from the necessity of torture, to supererogatory behavior, to the authenticity of godless morality, and much more.
The best part about this book is that Baggini does not force any of his own beliefs, whatever they may be, into his writing. He leaves the thought experiments open-ended so that they are ripe for analysis, and even when the subjects touch on hefty issues like abortion and atheism, he never takes a definitive stance or pulls you a certain way. You have to think for yourself.
This book makes me wish that I could major in philosophy and never have a care in the world about employment or the economy. I would highly recommend this to anyone who wants to a full-on brain workout; if thinking about deep issues leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you should skip this one (actually, don't do that, challenge yourself and you won't regret it!) But I'll end this review by saying this: the chapter on Newcomb's Paradox made me want to scream in intellectually stimulated delight while ripping my hair out because my brain hurt too much. Actually, I guess I was like that for a lot of this book. Read it.
*review cross-posted on my blog,
the quiet voice. -
This book is like being forced to hang out with a high school philosophy teacher who tries to get the cool kids to like him by demonstrating how "crazy" philosophy can be.
Well, maybe it wasn't that bad.
But it wasn't that good either. -
I thought this deserved 3.5 stars, but I'm perfectly happy to round up to 4 on the grounds that it was entertaining, thought-provoking, unpretentious and well-executed. Other reviewers have faulted it for lacking philosophical depth, but really - what could they have been expecting? The author makes no pretences, and the format of the book couldn't be clearer. It is what it sets out to be - 100 brief "philosophy" puzzles, each following a strict 3-page format, in which the puzzle/paradox/point of contention is described in the first page, then discussed (or resolved in those cases where resolution is possible) in the remaining two pages.
So, yeah, that format doesn't afford much scope for teasing out an issue in great depth. But it works better than you might think. Different vignettes can be used to approach a given theme from different angles and Baggini revisits his more interesting themes several times throughout the book (each chapter cross-references others that are loosely related). I don't necessarily fault an author for having a gimmick - sometimes it's an unhelpful distraction, but sometimes it can provide a kind of structure that turns out to be entirely beneficial. This book was an illustration of how a constraint can be useful - the 3-page limit helped keep things focused.
How well the book turns out is, of course, critically dependent on two factors:
1. How smart and interesting are the scenarios chosen for inclusion?
2. How good is the author at exposition? (which has a whole number of subdimensions - is his style academic? dull? accessible? sloppy? clear? irritating? credible? condescending? humorous?)
Baggini acquits himself well on both counts. Though he doesn't quite manage to pull off the folksy humor to which he aspires, his style is brisk, without condescension and free of annoying tics. More importantly, he is effective at hitting a decent balance in tone between the academic and the popular.
The selection of thought experiments was better than I had anticipated. Obviously, they're not all going to be winners - for instance, I personally no longer find anything even remotely interesting in Zeno's paradox, Buridan's ass, other people's famous inability to grasp the fact that coins and roulette wheels don't have a memory, the notion that living forever would suck all the joy out of life, or the inability to know how another person perceives color. But I do have a definite weakness for questions pertaining to ethical and moral choice, so those vignettes kept me entertained for hours. In general, the author covers the major bases - consciousness, perception, reality, pain, empathy, morality and ethics. For me, the most interesting scenarios were those which explored the nuances of moral responsibility in various hypothetical (but very concrete) settings.
What sealed the fourth star were the chapters that nudged me out of my comfort zone. For example, the scenarios which addressed our stewardship of the environment and the ethical treatment of animals captured and held my attention. The book's format favors concrete, crisply formulated, scenarios - the kind that you find yourself thinking about days later. Many don't have an obvious 'right' answer, in these cases Biaggini is smart enough not to try to provide one - he just wants to get you thinking about this stuff. At his most effective, he's almost demonically successful - for the last two days I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to come up with a convincing argument to dispel the notion that I'm suspended in a pod of amniotic fluid with a computer feeding me all the necessary stimuli needed to make me think my virtual reality is 'actual' reality.
Whimper...
There are limits, however. Despite the cogency of the arguments presented as ethical justification for eating our deceased family pets, Boris and Natasha need have no fear*. The crockpot and the Foreman grill have no role in their future.
*: Sadly, I understand all too well that this is the kind of sentimental foolishness to which we humans are susceptible. I have no illusions about the kitties' behavior should I drop dead and leave them unfended for. The transition from living food provider to dead food source would, I imagine, be rapid.
But I digress. The bottom line is that I enjoyed this book quite a bit more than I had expected to -- the author's particular gimmick actually worked out pretty well. -
كتاب مثير استمتعت جدا بقراءته
من أروع ما قرأت في مجاله
يحتوي على ١٠٠ فكرة فلسفية يناقشها على مدار ٢٥٠ صفحة
أفكار ذكية ومعضلات صعبة تستفز العقل
لا يختبر الكتاب بم تفكر، ولكن كيف تفكر
لم يفسد استمتاعي به سوى بعض أفكار الكاتب الإلحادية، ولذلك ينقص التقييم نجمة
أنصح بقراءته لمن امتلك القدر الكافي من الفطنة ليفرق بين كتب العقيدة وكتب الفلسفة التي يكتبها ملحد -
The idea of a thought experiment itself is very interesting. Throughout this book, many well known, and lesser known, thought experiments from throughout history are presented. Besides this, the assortment is good in that the thought experiments pertain to many topics besides just ethics. These facts lend themselves to, at a minimum, demonstrating the power and recurrence of such a technique for creating new ideas. If I were to summarize, I would say thought experiments are simply the technique of considering hypothetical "what if" scenarios to demonstrate points or exercise ideas. I find the technique to be on par with the art of asking good questions and second to logic and linguistics. However, despite this, it is very rare for this technique to be explicitly taught anywhere.
The book, understandably, tries to encourage the reader to think for themselves, however the pace was a bit too brisk with somewhat bare explanations given for the experiments. As such, I do wish it would have expanded more thoroughly by explaining the connections such experiments have to other theories as well as various famous answers to the experiments. It should also be noted that other collections of such thought experiments are online, such as on Wikipedia. However, I do not think they are as well curated, written, then explained as done here. Searching for other books on thought experiments, it seems this is the most, and only, popular one at the moment. Nonetheless, I shall have to see to learning more about this. -
This one barely made it to my philosophy list. Barely.
I confess, I've been guilty of judging the book by its cover. I picked it up because I couldn't resist the lure of bacon that's practically begging to be eaten. For a meat-lover turned vegetarian due to issues of animal cruelty, a pig that wants to be eaten would be a blessing, right?
Not really, as it turns out. For, I found much of this book unpalatable and the rest indigestible. Ok, enough with the bad puns and onwards to the review. I think this book is enough to tickle your brain cells a bit, but surely not enough to work them into an energetic workout. Many of the so-called thought experiments are repetitive in nature and just not elaborate enough. If you are the kind of armchair philosopher who wants simplistic, catchy things to think about, maybe you should read this.
But, if you enjoy deep philosophy or have had any exposure to it, I'd suggest saving your money and your time. After all, there are more important things out there than to think about pigs that want to be eaten. Hence, this book could be used as a bit of a primer to let's say, get a high schooler interested in philosophy.
Personally, I prefer deeper conundrums. -
كتاب يجعلك تفكر فى الواقع ، ثم يقودك للبحث عن واقعية ذلك الواقع .. وفى النهاية يدفعك إلى أن تسأل : هل كل هذا واقعى ؟
كتاب يجبرك على التفكر والشك فى أبسط الأشياء التى تراها أنت بديهية وتقودك فلسفته لإعادة النظر فيما نعرفه حقا ً عن المعرفة و الوجود والواقع والأخلاق و العدالة و الفن وحتى الدين و العقيدة ، لا يتقيد عن شئ ولا يملك أي محظورات ، وهذه هي عادة الفلسفة ... تقتحم كل شئ بلا قيود -
As much as I want to learn more about philosophy, these collections of snippets continually let me down. This one in particular remains very pedestrian, with none of the thought experiments in the first quarter actually enticing me to think about them for more than a minute. Even originally interesting setups, like Plato's cave allegory, are turned boring and simplistic in Baggini's hands. In addition, I've long held that philosophy is 10% ethics and 90% intellectual masturbation, and this book (again, at least in the first 25 experiments) is quite heavily focused on the latter.
-
You have to admit it: the title and tagline of the book instantly rise your curiosity. Fortunately, the intriguing and entertaining presentation continue in the content, too. Big and small philosophical questions are presented in light, easily digestible form.
While the book could be examined every now and then and read only occasionally, I ended up finishing it very quickly. The "experiments"/examples and their analyses are very short, so reading "just one more piece" became very addicting. -
-كتاب مثير وذكي.. يطرح تساؤلاتٍ ولا إجابة عليها، كمن نكون حقا، أو ما الذي تسعى غريزتنا لبقائه. مالذي نريده أن يستمر؛ "هل هي أجسادنا؟ أمخاخنا؟ حياتنا الداخلية، أرواحنا؟" متى نتخلى عن المبدأ براحة ضمير تامة؟ لماذا المبدأ أصلا؟ وغير ذلك في صورة مائة مقال وبالتالي مائة تساؤل.. تتشابك المائة في بعضها البعض أحيانا وتتفرق في أخرى، تساؤلات تنم عن عقل ديكارتي التأثر، لكنه غير منغلق على المبادئ الأولية للرياضة والمنطق والدين كما كان ديكارت.
-وضع باجيني أمامنا بعض المسلمات الدينية والشعبية بل والعلمية والمنطقية أحيانا ثم نقدها ثم شكك في المسلمات والنقد على السواء، كان يترك لذهني تكرار مثل شعبي عندنا يقول: "ودنك منين يا جحا؟" فيُدير جحا يده اليمنى فوق رأسه ليشير إلى أذنه اليسرى. يقصد ذهني بذلك: ما حاجتنا إلى النقد ما دمنا سنشكك فيه؟ على فرض أنه عندما يدخل الشك على النقد فإنه يعود إلى أصل الفكرة، أي؛ كما نقول رياضيا: "سالب في سالب بموجب" أو كما نقول بلاغيا: "نفي النفي إثبات" ولكن بعد أكثر من تساؤل؛ لعلي أنا الساذجة في الحكم على المقصد من التشكيك في النقد، فمن الممكن أنه أراد أمرا ثالثا غير السالب والموجب أو النفي والإثبات، أراد أن نغرق في التساؤل، فقط..
-لنأخذ مقال "قوة الروح" مثالا؛ طرح تساؤلا بعد افتراض أن لدينا أرواحا وأنها مستنسخة. ما الذي يتبع ذلك؟ يقول باجيني في نقده للفكرة: "ما يعطينا إحساس أننا نفس الشخص هو درجة محددة من التواصل النفسي والاستمرارية [...] ماجوري تحتاج أن تخبر فيث ماذا فعلت زوسايم وماذا فكرت لأن فيث لا تتذكر كونها زوسايم، ولم تحس بنموها من زوسايم" ثم يقول في الفقرة الأخيرة: "لكن الآن فكر في كيف يبدو الأمر عندما تنظر إلى صورة فوتوغرافية لنفسك كرضيع. لتعرف كيف كان ذلك الشخص يبدو، ينبغي عليك عادة أن تسأل شخص كان بالغا في ذلك الوقت ويستطيع التذكر. ستسأله (كيف كنت أبدو؟) كما تسأل فيث ماجوري (كيف كنت أبدو في طروادة؟) روابطك النفسية مع هذا الشخص قد تكون ضعيفة جدا لدرجة التلاشي تقريبا. هل يعني هذا أنك، بإحساس حقيقي جدا، نفس ذات الشخص مثل ذاتك وأنت طفل بأكثر مما تكون فيث نفس الشخص مع زوسايم؟".
*في الواقع لم أستطع استنباط الاعتبارات الأدبية التي تتعلق بالترجمة العربية -كما قال المترجم في مقدمته- التي جعلت عنوان الكتاب "تربيع الدائرة" بدلا من "الخنزير الذي يرغب في أن يؤكل" وهما اسمي مقالين في الكتاب؛ غير أن الأول عنوان سيكثر تسويق الكتاب بسببه، لأن المجتمع العربي متدين أو محافظ أو أصولي.. ولا تتردد عليه كلمة "خنزير" إلا في الذكر النادر السيء، وله علاقة بالقذارة والنجاسة، فلن يثير العنوان الأصلي أي فضول، بل على عكس ذلك؛ قد يؤثر سلبًا، ولهذا فإن الاعتبار الوحيد ليس أدبيًّا، ولكنه تسويقي شكلي، لأنه عند قراءة النصين نجد مقال "تربيع الدائرة" به طرحا غير مقبول مجتمعيا، بل ومنطقيا؛ كما ذكر باجيني نفسه بحيادية شبه مصطنعة، عن المقال الآخر.. وأنا، لأسباب قد تكون عقدية أو عقلانية لا أعلم، لا يتسوعب رأسي فكرة أن يتحدى الإنسان الله، وإن كنت بخيبة أمل أتمرد أحيانا.. إلا أن الإنسان لو وضع الحقيقة والتعايش معها والتطور لذاته بدلا من التحدي هدفا، لأصبح العالم أكثر واقعية وترفا في نفس الوقت.. بدلا من تخليق ما هو كائن بتصرف، والبقاء باستماتة على ما هو فانٍ بتصرف أيضا..
-نعود إلى محتوى الكتاب لنقول أنه طرح مشكور وترجمة معقولة جعلت سرد الأفكار سريعا وفهمها يسيرا، وجاء الترتيب مشوقا بالفعل، حيث وضع بعد كل مقال المقالات التي تتعلق به، نجدنا، في النهاية، مسحوبين داخل تسلسل موجي جميل وذكي، ويفتح على الأذهان فكرة أن تتساءل أكثر من التساؤل نفسه. إنه يعرض أسلوبا لنقد المسلمات، عامة كانت أم طائفية، أسطورية أو علمية، لا يهم! المهم أن تشكك دائما وألا تجعل للعفن إلى عقلك سبيلا..
*مرة أخرى إلى العنوان، لأنه كان السبب في شرائي الكتاب؛ الكتاب الوحيد الذي لم أُلق نظرة "عن" محتواه قبل اقتناءه، أبذلني مجهودا حد محاولة تربيع الدائرة فيما تبقى من ذهني الرياضي ولا أعرف.. ألأنها لا تُرَبع مهما حاولت؟ ثم ما الذي يجعلني أتخذ نقطة معينة من الدائرة أجعلها رأسًا لزاوية، وأترك التي قبلها أو بعدها؟ وأي قوس (منحنى) محدد البداية والنهاية، هذا الذي أحكم عليه بالاستقامة دون غيره يملك بداية أخرى ونهاية أخرى سيفرقان في نقطة أقصى التَّقَوُّس؟ أم أن طرح التساؤل المتحدي من الفيلسوف على الله كان ضربا من المغالطة المنطقية؟!
الله أعلم حيث يجعل حكمته.. -
This book introduces 100 thought experiments in philosophy. Imagination without reason is mere fancy, but reason without imagination is sterile. That is partly why scientists and philosophers alike have always used imaginary scenarios to help sharpen their ideas and push them to their limits. The purpose of such ‘thought experiments’ is to strip away the things that complicate matters in real life in order to focus clearly on the essence of a problem.
The author deals with real-life ethical dilemmas. Is eating meat morally wrong? What if an animal like a pig could be genetically engineered to give consent and says that it actually wants to be eaten? Or imagine a chicken that comes from a genetically modified bird which has been ‘decerebrated’. In other words, it lives the life of a vegetable, with no awareness of self, environment, pain or pleasure. Is killing it no more barbarous than uprooting a carrot?
Can a god be all-loving and still allow excessive suffering and pain? Could God have made a world in which there was less suffering but in which we had the same opportunities to exercise our free will?
What is the source of our knowledge? Do we learn about the world through appearances? Is there something more fundamental that we don't have access to? Do we have to be skeptical about everything? Can we be certain about our knowledge?
Do we have free will? Does free will require that we escape the physical causal chain altogether? Can we do that? Is freedom the ability to do what we choose, irrespective of what has happened up until the moment of the choice?
This book tries to answer some of these questions and more. -
Amusing at times, but completely pointless at other times. Baggini's thought experiments seemed to repeat. He goes too far into "what if" land. Throughout the book he takes ideas from philosophers like Descartes and Plato and writers like Douglas Adams (hence the title) and Ray Bradbury and changes the philosopher's original scenario or vignette into his own version. I found this approach useless; I would have rather had the original at my fingertips.
-
Reading this for a Book Club. We are reading it by chapters and discussing it over the year
-
This book was a Christmas gift from an old friend who clearly knows me well. Despite having studied philosophy reasonably intensively in the past, this little book of thought experiments was both entertaining and engaging. One of the things that I love about philosophy is that it can be read and understood at many different levels and this book is no exception. Baggini has taken 100 famous philosophical conundrums, re-written them in his own words and then added a brief discussion of the topic at hand. These can be used at face value, as short sharp ideas that you may not have thought about before or as a starting block for more serious thought and contemplation. In this way, the book will suit all levels of philosophical ability, from beginners to the more advanced.
This book has been widely criticised for lacking in philosophical depth and in some ways, this could be seen to be true. Debates that have gone on for centuries are summed up in just a few pages. However, it very clearly is not meant to be a deep philosophical work but rather, an accessible overview of some of the most famous, most potent and longest-running problems in philosophical history. They are not meant to be deep evaluation in themselves but rather, a springboard for great discussion – they are the thought experiments, the results and consequences of which are found within the reader rather than in what is being read: which brings me back to the issue of philosophical depth. The depth depends on what is put into it from a reader’s point of view and the experiments are not intended to be read passively. Surely the depth is derived from the reader (or thinker if you will) rather than from the issues in themselves – you get out of it what you put in to it. I believe that Baggini intended to hold up a mirror, that he is the messenger and is showing these problems for the reader to work on themselves.
One thing that Baggini does do particularly well is to make old and often stuffy philosophical ideas more relevant to modern society and more easily accessible than other long, stodgy works of philosophy. He does this by re-working the concepts into relevant tales, referencing characters from television, books and films as well as modern technology such as televisions, automatic weaponry and virtual reality computers. A good example of this re-hashing is when he turns the old adage “if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?” into a tale of aliens, movies and unusual sensory experiences.
Overall, this book is an excellent starting point for a budding philosopher that leaves out all the usual stodge and gives a wide-ranging view of many different schools of thought and ideas. The book is also a lovely little trip down memory lane if you are a more advanced philosopher, taking a fresh look at all those old conundrums that got you interested in philosophy in the first place. On top of this, it is just plain entertaining.
Well recommended. -
This book delivers what it promises: engaging 100 thought experiments that are a wonderful introduction to the most basic philosophical puzzles. It is a great read for anyone new to philosophy and those who feel overwhelmed by the history of philosophy and keep asking themselves, "Well, where do I start?"
I, being someone who knew about half of the things discussed in this book, did not feel that it's boring or stale since the author cleverly wrote out different hypothetical scenarios as an introduction to each concept, and they were almost always humorous and witty (I mean, come on, the title IS a reference from a Hitchhiker's Guide book). Easily one of the best "popular philosophy" books.
It should be pointed out, however, that this is not a reference book; and that is why it doesn't leave you satisfied since it covers ideas VERY briefly and not in depth at all. Nevertheless, the author mentions the source of most experiments so you may easily expand on a particular subject (which is why I am at the moment waiting to get my copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra!) Also, it cannot be read in one sitting: you read so little, and you think so much. Which makes this book a great one for those who are easily bored by reading walls of text, but don't mind spending too much time with it.
Overall, I recommend it. It's a nice addition to any library. -
I suppose this might be classed as "philosophy for the uninitiated"; not that there is anything wrong with that. The author makes no pretence that this is anything other than a basic set of philosophical problems designed to get the reader thinking for his or herself, and in that aim I would say he succeeds. The 100 "thought experiments" set out are wide ranging; covering ethics, religion, perception, identity, the nature of the mind, logic, and others. Generally they are variations on well-known known philosophical questions, and the author references each in turn. Personally for me the moral and ethical items were the most thought provoking, but everyone will have their own interests. For the most part the author leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions, with the notable exception of where he discusses religion. I would imagine the author is an atheist since he can't resist the temptation to draw some firm conclusions when discussing religion, and I think a religious person could get annoyed and upset reading this book.
There were a few weaknesses. Some of the "experiments" were very similar to each other, to the point where the author was at times covering almost the same ground as before. Overall though I found this mentally stimulating, and I had a few of my preconceptions challenged. I think that's always a worthwhile exercise. -
This book literally goes as following:
100 1-page Scenarios where the dilemma in the titled paraphrased over and over again and followed by a 2 page explanation and bullshit "reflections" on the scenario.
Ill give you examples of my own that might as well have been used in this book.
"What if a child really loves to be beaten, isn't beating that child resembles taking him to an amusement park, since to his perception of beating, it is really fun.
Is it morally wrong to beat that child, or are we simply making one more child happier, and therefore we can claim nobility."
OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
This book can be bested by the concept created by the Green brothers of an evil baby orphanage, which is portrayed in a video that only takes less than four minutes to finish.
This book is annoying and lazy and definitely not worth your time. It makes the ridiculous claim of being thought provoking, where the only thought it provoked in me is how it is marvellously disrespectful of the intelligence of its audience. -
What a wonderfully thought-provoking book about some of the most interesting philosophical questions posed in our modern world!
Julian Baggini is a masterful thinker who poses captivating arguments from various perspectives. I’m particularly intrigued by this book because he specifically likes to delve into topics about artificial intelligence/supercomputers/virtual reality, the mind/subconscious/identity, and some of the most basic moral dilemmas of our time.
If you’re interested in thinking about various topics in politics, literature, and religion in new ways, then I highly recommend giving this one a try! -
Volt jó pár érdekes gondolatkísérlet, hasonlat, amik képesek voltak beteljesíteni azt, amire születtek: elgondolkodtattak. De azért amellett sem szabad elmenni szó nélkül, hogy Baggini magyarázatai (magyarázkodásai) kisebb arányban hoztak újat, mintsem volt önismétlés, sőt néha hiányoltam bizonyos gondolatokat, elmélkedéseket, gondolatláncokat, melyek ezekhez a filozófiai kérdésekhez pontosabb megoldást nyújthattak volna.
-
I appreciate what this book was trying to do but it could have been a lot better. So many of the scenarios were repetitive and getting at the same questions (mostly philosophical questions of the self which is….. not my fav). The discussions of each scenario were brief and a little too shallow. If they had condensed this to like 20 scenarios and discussed variations and thoroughly analyzed the implications, it would have been a better read. There were certain ones that I had never heard of before and his writing wasn’t completely dry so it wasn’t a total waste of time.
-
This was a really intriguing book full of thoughts that made my mind spin (in the best way) it helps you look differently upon your life and although they’re theoretical experiments the morals aren’t.
I would definitely flick back to some of these individual experiments during my time studying philosophy and I thjnk it’s a very valuable novel that captures philosophy nicely.
I would recommend reading this gradually. If rushed I think you miss the importance of it. -
Наткнулся на эту книгу, когда искал, что почитать, чтобы познакомиться поближе с философией (и не уснуть).
"Свинья..." построена следующим образом: в каждой главе автор рассказывает некую вымышленную историю, в которой подымается тот или иной философский вопрос, а затем рассматривает этот вопрос с разных сторон. И так 100 раз. Есть ли Бог, а если есть - подчиняется ли он законам логики? Что есть мораль и как лучше поступить при цугцванге? Что есть справедливость и так ли уж плоха уравниловка? Что важнее: индивидуальные права женщины или права неродившегося ребенка? И вообще, если дерево падает в безлюдном лесу, издает ли оно хоть какой-то звук?
Книга читается очень легко, при том что я часто откладывал текст в сторону и задумывался над тем или иным парадоксом. В итоге растягивал удовольствие, читал по две-три главки за раз.
У книги есть только один негативный побочный эффект - вас одолеет релятивизм. После ее прочтения вы на всё станете смотреть скептически прищурившись. "Я знаю, что ничего не знаю"... -
بالنسبة للمترجم يستحق وحده 4نجمات ونصف, مجهود رائع لمواضيع صعبة ومثيرة للبلبلة وعثراته اضعف من ان تلحظ
ترجمة رائعة يستحق عليها التهنئة
بالنسبة للكتاب نفسه فينصفه الثلاث نجوم
الكتاب بدا لي انه تجميع لمقالات منشورة في جريدة او مجبلة لكثرة تكرار الفكرة والاحالة لقضايا اخرى داخل الكتاب
الكتاب عبارة عن رياضة ذهنية ممتعة سلسلة من المواقف بعضها متخيل وبعضها حقيقي مع تعديلات معينة لقياس مدةى فهمك لذاتك وانفتاحك للعالم وحقيقة اخلاقياتك ومنابعها
لكنه ليس لأي قارئ, فهو حتما غير مناسب للقارئ البسيط الذي قد يزلزل الكتاب مفهومه وعقائده دون امتلاكه لما يوازن به الحيرة التي يبثها المؤلف في الصفحات (المؤلف يركز على الاسئلة اكثر من الاجوبة كعادة الفلاسفة باستثناء قطاع الإله والخلق) وليس مناسب للقارئ الكمي الذي يمضي على نفس نهج حاملي التوراة (كمثل الحمار يحمل اسفارا) ويكتفي بالابنهار بالاراء والافكار الغريبة ويسارع الى اي تشكك يستغله في خلع افكاره وافكار مجتمعه عنه والقاءها دون محاولة للبحث عن الرد
كفائدة الكتاب رياضة ذهنية, مفيد لضرب المسلمات البسيطة التي نعيش معها يوميا ولو تاملنا فيها فسنصطدم بانها اكثر تعقيدا مما نتخيل (كمفاهيم اللون والطعم والاحساس والوعي والالم الخ)
الكتاب مفيد كذلك في التعرف على الجانب العملي من الفلسفة. وهو جانب تدهور في عالمنا العربي خاصة بعد موت مجموعة من انشط الفلاسفة العمليين في مصر واعتبار كتبهم مجرد تراث ادبي في غياب النقاش والحركة التي كانت تثيرها مقالاتهم
وصل الامر ان قرأت تعليقا لصديق يصف مصطفى محمود بانه لا يفهم كيف يتم اعتباره فيلسوفا والا فاين مذهبه الاكاديمي ثم خفف من الكلمة وقال انه متفلسف وليس فيلسوف :)
يظل في الكتاب بعض النقاط التي تحتاج لتعليق وبعضها سلبيات صريحة
أولا التكرار: الكتاب يحتوي على 100لغز فلسفي /فكري//لغوي
لكن هناك ثلاث افكار رئيسية تكررتسواء بتناول وجهة نظر جديدة او بنفس وجهة النظر السابقة بمجرد اعادة صياغة
1. مفهوم الانا او الوعي بالذات
2. مفهوم الاخلاق وعلاقتها بالصح والخطأ وبالصالح العام
3. مفهوم الاله والخلق والقدرة الالهية وهذا بسبب التحيز اضعف اجزاء الكتاب
بالاضافة لافكار اخرى تكررت بمعدل اقل مثل: تاثير القلة او التقربية -مفهوم ذاتية التجربة وفي الوقت ذاته عموميتها عبر اللغة--تناقض الاعتماد الكلي على المنطق والتجربة الشخصية
تناول الافكار تنوع بين الاجوبة المفتوحة واثارة الذهن باكثر من احتمال (كما نبه المترجم لذلك) بينما بعضها سقط في تحيزات الكاتب سواء التحيز للانسانية على حساب العقل او التحيز للالحاد على حساب الايمان
السلبية الثانية سلبية علمية لا اعرف هل بسبب عدم اطلاع الكاتب على العلوم الب��تة خاصة علوم الاحصاء والرياضيات ام بقصد التجاهل لاتاحة التفكير للقارئ حرا بدون اجوبة نهائية؟ الكثير من الافكار التي ناقشها لها حلول رياضية بسيطة اختص بها بديهيات في علم الاحصاء يجبر على التعاطي معها اي عالم تطبيقي. مفاهيم الاحتمالية-حالة الفوضى وتاثير الفراشة-التراكمية-مفهوم الاجابات والمسارات المتوازية في فزياء الكم-مبدأ عدم التاكد كلها اجابت بشكل شامل عن الكثير من القضايا المعلقة كالمفوم التراكمي لازالة ذرة الرمل من كومة رمال او متناقضة سباق اخيل والسلحفاة الخ
السلبية الثالثة في الافكار التي تناولت الجانب الالهي. ظهر انحياز الكتب لافكار معينة في مناقشته لبعض القضا��ا الاخلاقية ومفاهيم الصح والخطأ لكن بصورة مخففة مع اتاحة الفرصة لاجوبة مضادة احيانا. فيما يتعلق بالالوهية انحيازه للالحاد جعله يتجاهل ردودا مشهورة على الكثير من القضايا التي ذكرها (كمفهوم تربيع الدائرة وان الخطأ في السؤال وليس في القدرة مع تجاهل احتمالية تغيير المفهوم داخل عقل الفيلسوف كجزأ من كلية القدرة) تجاهله لحجج مضادة فحين تناول بسخرية لاذعة فكرة البستاني الخفي تجاهل مبررات من يتحدث عن البستاني بأن هناك شجر مقلم فمن الجنون ان تفترض ان الرياح هي التي قلمته المرة الوحيدة التي ذكر فيها حجج مضادة كانت ردا ساذجا على احجية المقامرة الشهيرة المؤيدة للالوهية والايمان: انت ملحد فانتاما تتلاشى بعد الموت او تعذب بينما لو مؤمن اما تتلاشى وتستوي مع الملحد او تنعم فالافضل لك هو الرهان على الايمان
هنا فقط تحرك الكاتب لوضع ردود تعتمد على الحظ والمساواة وتتجاهل دور العقل في الموازنة والدراسة والمقارنة بين الاديان
كذلك اغفل تفسيرات وقواعد دينية متعددة. فكل الاديان تميز بين البشر والانبياء بينما هو يفترض المساواة وعدم العصمة واستواء نزول الوحي على عامة البشر. حين تناقش قصة الذبح والاضحية فإما ان تناقشها في اطارها وان المقصود بها انبياء اختصوا عن بقية البشر بنبوة ووحي واما ان تناقشها بصورة مجردة فيصبح حديثك عن وضعية الوحي واختلاف المقاصد بلا محل
ما يمكن ان يخفف فقط من هذا الانحياز هو ان في الكتاب مناقشات اخرى تزلزل الاعتماد الكلي على العقل في فهم ما وراء الذات والطبيعة وحتى ما في داخل الذات والطبيعة. فالاعتماد على المنطق لنفي الالوهية مماثل للاعتماد الطلق عليه لنفي السبق عن اخيل وهو يطارد السلحفاة ولنفي القروية الهندية لامكانية ان يتواجد نهر يجع بين الثلج والماء معا -
Didn’t finish. Turns out I don’t really like philosophy all that much.
-
(Personal Response)
I think that this book has a very interesting point of view on some unique subjects such as religion, philosophy, and paradoxes. This book is one with a new view for me since most of the books I read are typically about a main character while this one is composed of 100 three page chapters. The style that this was proposed in was something that myself as a reader found interesting enough to read for a while and I actually finished it. I thought I would never manage to finish this book mostly just do to the fact that this is so long to read out because it does not stay in the same place the whole time so I get lost every now and then but overall an okay book.
(Plot)
The plot of the story is really hard to talk about mostly due to the factor that there is no plot just hundreds of cut up little stories everywhere. I think that the most interesting one of this little stories is when Hitler sent a missionary to try and persuade the British to turn their heads at the actions they cause. The stories all showed interesting little ideas on how some people struggle with ideas and then they get explained as best as they can to show what the right thing be to do during this problem.
(Characterization)
The name Adolf Hitler is mentioned in the book for trying to get the prime minister of Britain to make him not try and fight to find a way of saying I have taken this land and we don't need to fight and lose the life of thousands of people. The Indians are in the book and are shown with some interesting knowledge on spiritual levels. The name God had appearances and was shown with many flaws of his power.
(Recommended Audience)
I think that people who would get a nice evening out of reading a book about ideas that are not the most easily comprehended. I would say that the time spent reading this could be worth it if you really wanted to learn how to read a book about comprehensive ideas. I would say people from the ages of early teens to mid aged people could probably read it if they wanted to. -
Is it right to eat a pig that wants to be eaten? The Pig That Wants to be Eaten by Julian Baggini is a very intriguing book centered on moral philosophy. The book also questions whether thinking morally or thinking rationally would be more acceptable given a number of situations. On top of that, Baggini writes the book in a way that makes the reader question their morality and own thoughts. Baggini writes in reflection of thought experiments. These are obscure stories that isolate the real world issues discussed in the text, from other variables of the outside world. While Baggini writes to express ideas, she expresses everything from a neutral point of view, giving all the information for all situations, and forcing the reader to reflect on what they have read. This makes the reader come to his or her own conclusion based on what they independently think or believe in. Baggini succeeds almost flawlessly at this. At first reading 300 pages of moral issues seemed undesirable to me, but this book has ended up being quite possibly one of the best books I have ever read, and a highly enjoyable experience.
Word count: 193 words. -
I have to steal another reviewer's opening sentence - Is it right to eat a pig that wants to be eaten?
The answer is - of course! Because even the ones that don't want to be eaten taste great. Mmmm, bacon...
I waffled on giving this a 4 or a 5. It has some truly great observations and discussion points. Most of the intro stories are outstanding. And writing a book like this just has to be really hard. But -
I had two things that kept me from rating this a 5. One was that some of the topics just didn't intrigue me, while others really did. A bit uneven. Second, I found myself wanting more discourse in the follow-ups on some of the topics. So in the end, I wish he had narrowed down the field to maybe half as many topics and then expounded on the remaining ones more. As it was it felt like some were added just to fill space. They were weak and the follow-up not so great.
Still, it is very thought-provoking and I found myself discussing some of these topics with others as a result. Well worth reading. -
The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten is a series of thought experiments from different forms of media. The title references a scenario from The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.
The book is filled with references to stuff like The Matrix, Star Trek, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and other forms of media. For example, if you have ever considered the teleportation plot elements in Star Trek, you probably know about the idea of a copy being made and the original being destroyed. If that is the case, then is it murder or suicide?
Going on to The Matrix, the entire idea comes from a modified form of the Evil Genius from Descartes. We all know this one, yeah? Let's imagine that an evil mastermind can manipulate our senses. With that said, how do we differentiate reality from fiction?
Another one I recall is the Ship of Theseus. If you replace all the pieces of something, is it still the same item?
The book is good, but it's not great. It reminded me of a lot of various thoughts I have had before.
Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time. -
I bought this as with 100 short one page 'thought experiments' it looked like Martin Cohen's book of 101 short 'Philosophy Problems'. And indeed there are a lot of similarites, but I found the style repetitious and in places, condescending. I don't think it's as 'funny' as it wants to appear (with the quirky title and cover) and it sure ain't going to teach anyone much philosophy. Triumph of marketing over content, I guess. Bit like 'Sophie's World', in that respect.
