'The Challenge of Why' by Doris Hamill

This is one of the more interesting books that I have read in recent times. The book offers an interesting perspective on how philosophers might address the issue of 'how many ought to act' by studying 'how the universe actually is. the scientific evidence gathered I think is the greatest value by this book. It actually reminded me of a 300 page report I wrote when I was a mining analyst. I was too tired from editing my research to actually analyse it. I was burned out. In this case, the author has gathered a great deal of research, but I think ultimately failed to answer the question. I of course can have some sympathy because I know how difficult it is to write a book. In her case, she loves writing more than me, but I dare say she lacks the critical thinkers around her to tear her book apart. Starting with the negatives of the book:
1. Evidence: In areas the book's assertions are not well supported by evidence. This is particularly so in the area of ethics.
2. Loophole: The author seems to be claiming to have found a loophole to justify her ethics. I did not find the argument compelling. There was utterly no theory of values, and we have to accept with faith that humans should serve the 'common good' wherever that might lie.
3. Structure: The good was generally structured well, though not consistently so. I note that she was addressing issues of identity rather late in the debate.
4. Epistemology: I dont think she made a compelling argument for the exitence of instincts, nor did she display a good understanding of thinking-emotions. I think this reflected a limited understanding of psychology. In fact early in the good she suggests humans have instincts, though by the end of the book they have miraculously disappeared. She refers also to human innate knowledge.
5. Physics: The author did a very good job explaining the physics of the universe and shev employed it well in her discussion of values.
6. Mind-body dichotomy: I was not convinced by the mind-body dichotomy implied between the brain and spiritual worlds. Indeed she seems to accept the existence of a 'God' and reincarnation, though is unable to present evidence for either.
7. Ethics: The topic of ethics was dealt with particularly badly in the sense that no consideration was given to context in which force is applied. Taking her argument, you would have to conclude that the West was equally as reprehensible for facing Hitler, Hitler was for initiating force against neighbouring European states. She is clearly anti-war, blindingly so.
8. Economics: The author made a number of arguments against capitalism which I suggest highlight her lack of understanding of markets.

In general I believe the author is an avid reader who has pieced together some very poignant facts in support of her arguments, though I think as soon as she reaches more 'complex' topics such as economics, psychology and ethics, she struggles to make a meaningful case.

I gained a great deal from her understanding of physics, and was even pleased to read her interpretation of numeroous philosophers, who are rendered much more readable by virtue of her interpretation. Perhaps the greatest attribute of this book is its readablility. I think it makes a great introductory book to philosophy, and I recommend it with the latter qualifications. I have yet to meet a reader or author who has all the answers, and one can often derive meaning from where writers make errors. Its a foundation for new insights. One of the most refreshing aspects of Doris Hamill is that she was not at all predictable. I did not expect her to end up where she did.
'The Challenge of Why' - Buy The Book!
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com