Julian Baggini - How To Think Like A Philosopher (Granta, 2024) ****½

Excellent book on the clarity of thinking for philosophers. The title is somewhat misleading, in the sense that it gives the false impression that the book is addressed to a lay audience wishing to think like a philosopher, whereas the book is more written for philosphers or aspirant philosophers than for lay audiences. The content could be of interest to all of us in our daily lives, yet the book itself is full of references to philosophers and today's - mainly anglosaxon - community of philosophy, and as such primarily addressed to insiders of that community. 

His thoughts are refreshing, and especially on how to use philosophy in our everyday world, asking the right questions, making the goals of thought more important than the formal logic underlying it (which has of course its own limits), discussing things to come closer to the truth instead of winning the argument, being generous with your feelings when people make judgments because they may have formulated things not correctly, ...

I am happy that he makes a reference to Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", the book about which I wrote my Master's degree dissertation, and I agree that this book is much better than Pirsig's next book "Lila: an Inquiry into Morals". 

One of the more surprising facts in the book is the isolation of the philosopher in his or her thinking. He compares this to the more collective thinking in the East vs the "isolated islands" that individuals represent in the West. This may be true for philosophy, but in most other disciplines, whether research or corporate decision-making, collective reasoning with clear processes requiring expert input from various disciplines is the standard. It is odd that philosophy remains a kind of individual sport instead of a team sport.

I also like his balanced views on how to think: 

"Both gratuitious iconoclasm and slavish conformity are to be avoided. Just as we need to relinquish a sense of ownership of our ideas, we need to give up misguided feelings of loyalty to a particular thinker, theory or school. We need to be non-partisan. Reasoning well is not about taking sides". (p. 219)

At the end of the book, he adds a number of essential points: Attend, Clarify, Deconstruct, Connect. I give you a short view on "Clarify", because I think it essential to understand the value of uncertainty in the context of rational thought: 

"Time and again we find that the yearning for certainties, for universal validity, for principles that will cover all eventualities, turns out to be quixotic. Take the philosophy of science. Pretty much every scientist agrees that no description of 'the scientific method' captures all that scientists actually do. 'I'm sceptical that there can ever be a complete overarching theory [of sci­entific method] simply because science is about rationality,' says physicist Alan Sokal. 'Rationality is always adaptation to unforeseen circumstances - how can you possibly codify that?' Philosophers who believe they can fully prescribe the scientific method fail to recognise that 'the world is just extremely com- plicated.' They project their ways of thinking on to scientists so there is 'too much formal logic and too little reasoning that is close to what scientists actually do in practice'. Some are disappointed that a rational life leaves so much uncertain and so many loose ends. The dream of enlightenment turns out to be the reality of a bit less darkness. But disillusion is often the result of starting out expecting too much. A. C. Grayling says there is often a false assumption that 'If reason was so wonderful, things should be perfect.' No wonder that "hen things evidently aren't perfect, the conclusion drawn is that reason is not so wonderful" (p. 262)

One thing that disturbs me in his book, is the author's own prejudices and generalisations about industry. Without any evidence, he puts all pharmaceutical and food companies in the same basket of intentionally lying and robbing people of their money. Why this sloppy approach when he is so rigorous and open-minded on other topics? 

But let me end with a positive note. Almost everything Baggini writes and discusses is both excellent and useful. As he writes, thinging correctly is hard work: 

"If this sounds like hard work, that's because it is. Rigorous thinking is largely a matter of effort and application. We have evolved to be 'cognitive misers' using as little mental energy as we need to get us the next meal and the next offspring. It's easier not to think and if we must, it's more fun if we do so lacka­daisically, tossing off opinions around a boozy dinner table or spitting out hot takes on social media. No one is blameless, but there is an important difference between those who strive to do better and those who don't, those who push their intelligence to the limits and those who stay within them." (p. 277)

... and this makes his book all the more relevant. He summarises the key take-aways after every chapter, which makes it easy to return to when needed. Because everything he writes is so relevant for our daily struggles and the many mistakes in clear thinking we encounter in science, in policy-making, in journalism and other societal activities that it would be absolutely fantastic to write the same material for the lay person, and to integrate it in the curriculum of secondary schools.