Sam
After having been positively surprised by the provocatively titled “Against empathy” I decided to pick up this book in spite of its title. I guess I should have trusted my intuition. Kastrup spends considerable time explaining why his version of idealism is more intuitive than materialism. But even if we would agree with that, how is it an argument for his speculations? Modern physics isn't intuitive to most people. Why would reality be obliged to conform to our biases?The descriptions of minds as vortices in a universal stream of consciousness are elaborate and visceral. This was to me the best part of the book. But at the end of the day they are just metaphors. Kastrup admits that, but then adds that physics is also made up of “just metaphors”.What really put me off was the tone. He writes with contempt about competing and much better supported theories and the people that developed them. Please don't use expressions like “the intellectual elite” or “mainstream media” if you want to be taken seriously.
After having been positively surprised by the provocatively titled “Against empathy” I decided to pick up this book in spite of its title. I guess I should have trusted my intuition. Kastrup spends considerable time explaining why his version of idealism is more intuitive than materialism. But even if we would agree with that, how is it an argument for his speculations? Modern physics isn't intuitive to most people. Why would reality be obliged to conform to our biases?The descriptions of minds as vortices in a universal stream of consciousness are elaborate and visceral. This was to me the best part of the book. But at the end of the day they are just metaphors. Kastrup admits that, but then adds that physics is also made up of “just metaphors”.What really put me off was the tone. He writes with contempt about competing and much better supported theories and the people that developed them. Please don't use expressions like “the intellectual elite” or “mainstream media” if you want to be taken seriously.
