Comments: My world o'blogs

I would take Wieseltier's review with a huge grain of salt. Personally, I think his disgust with Dennett's book simply reflect the fact that his own religious sensibilities were offended. Dennert is a philosopher and an expert on the subjects of evolution and consciousness. Wieseltier is none of the above. His simply adopting a withering and erudite tone does not make him correct.

Posted by Bob at February 19, 2006 12:00 AM

"Maybe it's just the reviewer's way of writing that makes me dislike author Daniel C. Dennett even without reading his book?"

Just out of curiosity, have you read either much Wieseltier or Dennett before? This sentence seems to suggest you're unfamiliar with either of them, but perhaps it's just a quirk of the phrasing.

If you're not familiar with them, I'd recommend much of both author's rather vast bodies of work over the decades as worthwhile. Naturally, I also disagree with each of them on a variety of matters (Wieseltier being vastly more eclectic, given his decades as literary editor at TNR, and, well, decades of eclecticism; Dennett pretty much stays with philosophy of mind, and lately his anti-religion crusade; however, I'd say that Dennett on the nature of consciousness, and on cognition, can be quite fascinating, though also quite debatable; his colloboration with Hofstadter on The Mind's I was also quite interesting, I thought, as one might imagine).

Posted by Gary Farber at February 19, 2006 12:23 AM

It did seem to me, Bob that the reviewer had an axe to grind. I guess I should just be glad that he was obvious enough that his bias showed, even to the casual reader.

Thanks for the suggestions, Gary. I might try either of these guys on some other topic (and now that you've refreshed my memory, I'm sure I've read Dennett in the past).

Posted by Anne at February 19, 2006 09:55 AM