authors:
- Goldstein, Rebecca
content: Well written, interesting and engaging. This book makes the case that that
  philosophy has not and cannot be killed off by science, which position I wholeheartedly
  agree with. The book is an analysis and interpretation of Plato's and Socrates'
  philosophies. The main problem I have with the account is that it is strongly and
  explicitly apolitical. Although the author does describe the political background,
  she does not draw any conclusions from the strong connection between Plato's ethics
  and politics, which connection I think is obvious. I am influenced in my thinking
  by Karl Popper's treatment of this question in his "The Open Society and Its Enemies",
  which is not discussed at all in the current book. One of the important points Popper
  makes is that one should discuss a philosopher's ideas in light of the problems
  that he/she was facing, and that this makes it much easier to interpret the arguments
  used. In contrast, Goldstein argues that the issue of how the positions were arrived
  at is secondary to the issue of whether they are valid or not, a statement that
  I think misses the point.
date: '2016-01-24'
edition:
  published: '2014'
  publisher: Pantheon
goodreads: '18050049'
html: '<p>Well written, interesting and engaging. This book makes the case that that
  philosophy has not and cannot be killed off by science, which position I wholeheartedly
  agree with. The book is an analysis and interpretation of Plato''s and Socrates''
  philosophies. The main problem I have with the account is that it is strongly and
  explicitly apolitical. Although the author does describe the political background,
  she does not draw any conclusions from the strong connection between Plato''s ethics
  and politics, which connection I think is obvious. I am influenced in my thinking
  by Karl Popper''s treatment of this question in his &quot;The Open Society and Its
  Enemies&quot;, which is not discussed at all in the current book. One of the important
  points Popper makes is that one should discuss a philosopher''s ideas in light of
  the problems that he/she was facing, and that this makes it much easier to interpret
  the arguments used. In contrast, Goldstein argues that the issue of how the positions
  were arrived at is secondary to the issue of whether they are valid or not, a statement
  that I think misses the point.</p>

  '
isbn: '9780307378194'
language: en
lastmod: '2016-01-24'
path: /library/goldstein-2014.html
published: '2014'
rating: 4
reference: Goldstein 2014
reviewed: '2016-01-24'
subjects:
- philosophy
title: 'Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won''t Go Away'
type: book
year: 2014