Is philosophy obsolete? Are the ancient questions still relevant in the age of cosmology and neuroscience, not to mention crowd-sourcing and cable news? The acclaimed philosopher and novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein provides a dazzlingly original plunge into the drama of philosophy, revealing its hidden role in today’s debates on religion, morality, politics, and science.
At the origin of Western philosophy stands Plato, who got about as much wrong as one would expect from a thinker who lived 2,400 years ago. But Plato’s role in shaping philosophy was pivotal. On her way to considering the place of philosophy in our ongoing intellectual life, Goldstein tells a new story of its origin, re-envisioning the extraordinary culture that produced the man who produced philosophy.
But it is primarily the fate of philosophy that concerns her. Is the discipline no more than a way of biding our time until the scientists arrive on the scene? Have they already arrived? Does philosophy itself ever make progress? And if it does, why is so ancient a figure as Plato of any continuing relevance? Plato at the Googleplex is Goldstein’s startling investigation of these conundra. She interweaves her narrative with Plato’s own choice for bringing ideas to life—the dialogue.
Imagine that Plato came to life in the twenty-first century and embarked on a multicity speaking tour. How would he handle the host of a cable news program who denies there can be morality without religion? How would he mediate a debate between a Freudian psychoanalyst and a tiger mom on how to raise the perfect child? How would he answer a neuroscientist who, about to scan Plato’s brain, argues that science has definitively answered the questions of free will and moral agency? What would Plato make of Google, and of the idea that knowledge can be crowd-sourced rather than reasoned out by experts? With a philosopher’s depth and a novelist’s imagination and wit, Goldstein probes the deepest issues confronting us by allowing us to eavesdrop on Plato as he takes on the modern world.
(With black-and-white photographs throughout.)
Novelist and philosopher Goldstein (The Mind-Body Problem) has an imaginative conceit: to bring Plato into the 21st century by having him go on an American book tour. Here, Plato hauls around a Google Chrome computer, generally finds modern technology "wondrous," and takes the Meyer-Briggs personality inventory. In lieu of Socratic dialogues, he engages in contemporary American ones, appearing in a panel at the 92nd Street Y to discuss education and child-rearing with a psychologist who sounds like Alice Miller and a writer who sounds like "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua. These witty contemporary sections constitute about a quarter of the book, while the remainder consists of an in-depth study of Plato's views and the historical and intellectual context of his times. Goldstein explores such concepts as the Athenian ideals of aret and of achieving kleos, and topics such as the challenge to philosophy posed by contemporary science. She proves a clear and engaging writer, and though the more academic parts of this book take precedence over the entertaining and accessible contemporary passages, overall, this is both an enjoyable and a serious way to (re)learn Plato's ideas.
Could be better
It has been a while since college and the wonderful reviews pre-publication, stirred my interests. The book has wonderful parts, especially the first and last chapters but overall it alas, did not meet my expectations.
I think as an overview it is just ok. In university, I was taught that in presenting an argument it is easy to take the best of your side and contrast it to the worst of your opponents' and come out looking great. It is even more unfair to attribute traits to your enemies that have no basis in reality. I refer to the chapter that parodies Bill O'Reilly. Let me say I am not a regular watcher of his show, but have seen it on several occasions, the last probably being 2009. He had a much fairer engagement with his guests then Ms. Goldstein allows him in the book. His views are not even close to what was expressed in this book. The only closed mind was that of Ms.Goldstein.
I doubt the authors' biases permeated other chapters, but who can be sure?