You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
rjkamaladasa's review against another edition
3.0
I'm being a bit harsh giving this 3 stars because it is a really good book and everyone should read it. But there are inherent flaws on Iain's arguments that I cannot come to terms with. The first being that he treats the Right Brain as superior to the Left brain (the master and the emissary), which in itself is a hierarchical (left brain) way of thinking. Second, the author doesn't realize that religion is mostly left brain oriented. The inability of the left hemisphere to deal with uncertainty is the cause of all this God, karma, reincarnation hypothesis. The third and most important is the fact that the author doesn't warn about the right-brain impulsivities that plague most of the Eastern world. The herd mentality, the lack of individualism, the lack of introspection, the lack of proactiveness are all causes of a dominant right-hemisphere suppressing the left brain. And anyone who's lived in an eastern country (or even a small village) would immediately realize this.
So rather than giving the high-ground to one hemisphere, this book would've been so much better if it was balanced. Rather than a Master and an Emissary, it would've retained it's scientific touch (which it does so brilliantly in the first few chapters) if the story was about two masters, struggling, co-existing and co-inhabiting the brain.
So rather than giving the high-ground to one hemisphere, this book would've been so much better if it was balanced. Rather than a Master and an Emissary, it would've retained it's scientific touch (which it does so brilliantly in the first few chapters) if the story was about two masters, struggling, co-existing and co-inhabiting the brain.
soofka's review against another edition
slow-paced
5.0
“” The left hemisphere, with its rational system-building, makes possible the will to action; it believes it is the one that makes things happen, even makes things live. But nothing in us, actively or positively, makes things live - all we can do is permit or not permit, life, which already exists. “”
Last year i read a book named “7 1/2 lessons on the brain” and it was clearly stating there is no difference between the two hemispheres, without giving any further explanation. Thankfully I still decided to read this wonderful book.
A journey not only through the brain and its functions but also through art, history, society, music , psychology and culture. This is a deeply researched book that tries to give a profound explanation of why things are as they are in our life and in our western world. No wonder it took the author 20 years of research to reach this conclusion. And, as he states, it’s not really a static and firm conclusion since nothing is really knowable and certain.
The first part explains the brain and its functions, while the second tries to go through the history of the modern western world.
As we reach the last chapters a dystopian world which seems hollow, materialistic, power-seeking, superficial and utilitarian is presented. Trust doesn’t really exist and everything is looked at from a self-gaining perspective, value is given only based on mechanical and utilitarian characteristics and even empathy and altruism come from a place of self reward. A reality where the population seems connected but is deeply longing for a place where to feel safe. The book was published in 2009, expanded in 2012. I don’t really remember how the world was back then, but I know that this description feels a little too familiar in 2024.
And if all this is not enough to explain the world we live in, here is a concrete example:
“ measures such as a DNA database would be introduced apparently in response to exceptional threats and exceptional circumstances, against which they would in reality be ineffective, their aim being to increase the power of the state and diminish the status of the individual”. -
But we didn’t even need the exceptional threats and circumstances to give our dna away. Our society deteriorated so much that our mechanical self interest was enough to create a trend of sharing dna information into the public “just for fun”.
I can’t lie, it took some effort to read this book because of the large amount of information it contained, but it was worth it.
rossbm's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
1.5
What a snooze fest! Tried listening to the book as audiobook. Something like 40 hours. So repetitive. Droning on and on about the differences between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. To be honest, only got about 15 hours in before stopping.
Even now, having trouble remembering that the left hemisphere is more verbal, "digital", classifying things. while right hemisphere is more intuitive, seeing patterns, "grasping the whole". The author seems obsessed with the glorifying the right hemisphere. It's like, why don't you just marry the right hemisphere if you love it so much?
Kind of ironic that he drones on and on about the differences between the two hemispheres while praising the right hemisphere, given that it is supposedly the left hemisphere that specializes in distinguishes between individual parts.
I stopped reading/listening by the time he gets to the crux of the book, which is some kooky theory that our society and environment is dedicated to the left hemispheres tendencies and that the environment also reinforces these tendencies.
Still, some interesting things in this book, but should have been way, way, shorter and less dogmatic.
Even now, having trouble remembering that the left hemisphere is more verbal, "digital", classifying things. while right hemisphere is more intuitive, seeing patterns, "grasping the whole". The author seems obsessed with the glorifying the right hemisphere. It's like, why don't you just marry the right hemisphere if you love it so much?
Kind of ironic that he drones on and on about the differences between the two hemispheres while praising the right hemisphere, given that it is supposedly the left hemisphere that specializes in distinguishes between individual parts.
I stopped reading/listening by the time he gets to the crux of the book, which is some kooky theory that our society and environment is dedicated to the left hemispheres tendencies and that the environment also reinforces these tendencies.
Still, some interesting things in this book, but should have been way, way, shorter and less dogmatic.
pantsuitparty's review against another edition
4.0
Wouldn’t even know where to start on reviewing this. It’s really good though. There are some pretty sweeping generalizations and cherry-picking from arts and culture to really ‘nail the point home’ (and yes, some glaring omissions as well), but I think McGilchrist does a good enough job disclaiming that fact from the get-go.
There’s so much to cover here that he’s bound to miss the mark on a couple of levels. Ultimately it doesn’t detract from the multi-layered, thoughtful and systematic reveal of some pretty major shifts in humanity, and what they’ve wrought (and are wreaking).
There’s so much to cover here that he’s bound to miss the mark on a couple of levels. Ultimately it doesn’t detract from the multi-layered, thoughtful and systematic reveal of some pretty major shifts in humanity, and what they’ve wrought (and are wreaking).
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
2.0
Is This An Overview?
The brain has hemispheres that are involved in every task. But, the way in which the hemispheres are involved are different. Their roles are different. They deal with the same information in different ways. The different roles of the hemispheres enable the brain to function effectively, but the differences also provide different experiences of reality which creates conflict. They have different values and priorities. They function well when cooperating, but their competition with each other creates friction. Problems occur when giving prominence to a hemisphere over another. The problems occurring due to the conflict are felt indirectly, through culture. Social problems develop through lack of tolerance at other methods of thinking, as they appear incompatible, with the other being wrong.
Caveats?
This book contains a myriad of different cultural and philosophical references. Prior knowledge of the references would enable the reader to better understand the book. References that can be interpreted to favor the primary claims about the hemispheric differences.
aadhikari's review against another edition
5.0
I know very little of neuroscience beyond what I’ve read in this book and I have no way of knowing if the brain’s two hemispheres function exactly as described here. But that didn’t really matter for my appreciation of this work. Beyond an account of the functioning of the brain, The Master and the Emissary offers a rich account of two modes of human experience which are both complementary and oppositional. The account accorded with my own intuitions and clarified much of my own experience. As with most works of of large-scale system building, it seems likely that much of the book's specifics might be discredited by further research. But the staggering ambition of the work is part of what makes is so interesting. I think its relevant that McGilchrist is an independent scholar – I doubt such a work is producible within the academy. I have never read anything by an author so deeply immersed in scientific research who simultaneously possessed such a deep grasp of the humanities. I am used to scientists dismissing philosophers like Hegel, Merleau-Ponty or Heidegger, so it was refreshing to see McGilchrist engage deeply with their work and present a convincing account of how it sheds light on brain function and human experience.
The second part of the book, which analyses the entire history of western culture through the lens of the divided brain, could very easily have degenerated into a selective and potted history. And I am in fact more skeptical of the second part than the first, as I am of all attempts to demonstrate how biological reality shapes human culture. (I am not saying I don’t think links exist between the two, just that our knowledge is too fragmented and partial to provide a sweeping account over thousands of years.) But still there is much that is provocative here, and McGilchrist is nuanced enough to anticipate criticism. I agree with his criticism in the book's later sections of modern art's tendency towards greater abstraction and the move away from intuition in the pursuit of novelty. But I fear that some of the later sections, the one on modernism and post-modernism particularly, could lend grist to the ignorant online right-wing philistines who extol western classical art and culture while denigrating anything modern. This is not to say that McGilchrist has much in common which such people – his own understanding of modernist art is in fact sophisticated and he expresses appreciation for several modernist writers and musicians. Nonetheless, one could quibble with many of his characterizations. For example, he mentions Beckett as a writer particularly prone to an alienated, left-hemisphere orientation. But I think that Beckett, with his emphasis on bodily movement and the subterranean movements of the mind, could easily be shown to have expanded literature in the direction of a right-hemisphere orientation, just as McGilchrist says Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger did for philosophy.
The second part of the book, which analyses the entire history of western culture through the lens of the divided brain, could very easily have degenerated into a selective and potted history. And I am in fact more skeptical of the second part than the first, as I am of all attempts to demonstrate how biological reality shapes human culture. (I am not saying I don’t think links exist between the two, just that our knowledge is too fragmented and partial to provide a sweeping account over thousands of years.) But still there is much that is provocative here, and McGilchrist is nuanced enough to anticipate criticism. I agree with his criticism in the book's later sections of modern art's tendency towards greater abstraction and the move away from intuition in the pursuit of novelty. But I fear that some of the later sections, the one on modernism and post-modernism particularly, could lend grist to the ignorant online right-wing philistines who extol western classical art and culture while denigrating anything modern. This is not to say that McGilchrist has much in common which such people – his own understanding of modernist art is in fact sophisticated and he expresses appreciation for several modernist writers and musicians. Nonetheless, one could quibble with many of his characterizations. For example, he mentions Beckett as a writer particularly prone to an alienated, left-hemisphere orientation. But I think that Beckett, with his emphasis on bodily movement and the subterranean movements of the mind, could easily be shown to have expanded literature in the direction of a right-hemisphere orientation, just as McGilchrist says Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger did for philosophy.
thejdizzler's review against another edition
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
5.0
This has got to be one of the best books I've read ever. McGilchrist's central thesis is that we are divided individuals: each hemisphere of our brain has a different way of seeing the world, and these two "ways of being" are often fundamentally incompatible with each other. The left hemisphere takes an incredibly detailed, but mechanistic and often abstracted view of reality. The right hemisphere by contrast is better at taking a big picture view of things: it is through this hemisphere that we understand art and music, appreciate individual differences and make sense of our own existence at a fundamental level. In McGilchrist's view the proper relationship between these two hemispheres is that of Master and Emissary (his central metaphor). The right hemisphere notices some facet of experience, the left hemisphere interrogates that aspect of experience in a more mechanistic and rational manner, and then this is in turn reintegrated back into the holistic experience of the right hemisphere.
However, in our society, this asymmetry has been broken. The left hemisphere is fundamentally unable to understand the perspective of the right, and as McGilchrist has chronicled in this book, has gradually been taking ground from the right hemisphere. This has lead to a society with an inability to treat others as human beings, rather as mechanistic flesh robots, and the loss of meaning in religion, and the arts. The master has been led away in chains, to return to McGilchrist's central metaphor, borrowed from Nietzsche.
This book touched on a feeling I've been having for a long time about our society. Since my freshman year at MIT, where I stopped being satisfied with good grades, fast times, and material consumption, I've been skeptical of the materialism inherent in almost all answers given to us in our search for meaning. I remember a particular moment when I entered into the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and saw the light shining down onto Christ's tomb from a skylight. I was immediately filled with a sense of wonder, and a conviction that there was something about the place that was divine. Yet not a minute later, my mind was filled with sneering skepticism about the engineering of the building being designed to give me that experience. The backlash to that backlash was a moment that I think changed my life: I no longer wanted to be the kind of person that would dismiss profound spiritual experiences because I could explain them mechanistically. Yes, there is a place for logic and rationalism in our search for truth, but only in service to our intuition and faith in something larger than ourselves. Maybe there's a reason why almost all societies have posited something along the lines of eternal recurrence and reincarnation. Maybe there's a reason why we feel so depressed in the modern West without our traditions and spiritual practices. Maybe science isn't the only way to truth.
I'm not sure exactly what to change about my life as a result of this book. Specific actions, in any case, seem to be the domain of the left hemisphere, not the right. Rather, I need to shift my worldview. Less focus on metrics and deliverables, or more on living differently. Less "rational" self-help, and more reading of thinkers like Kierkegaard, Fromm, Unamuno, and of fiction. More connecting with individuals, online, in real life, or through literature, and less with abstract principles.
I'm also very grateful to have read this with Tessa, Amanda, and Logan. Philosophy book club keeps bearing fruit.
However, in our society, this asymmetry has been broken. The left hemisphere is fundamentally unable to understand the perspective of the right, and as McGilchrist has chronicled in this book, has gradually been taking ground from the right hemisphere. This has lead to a society with an inability to treat others as human beings, rather as mechanistic flesh robots, and the loss of meaning in religion, and the arts. The master has been led away in chains, to return to McGilchrist's central metaphor, borrowed from Nietzsche.
This book touched on a feeling I've been having for a long time about our society. Since my freshman year at MIT, where I stopped being satisfied with good grades, fast times, and material consumption, I've been skeptical of the materialism inherent in almost all answers given to us in our search for meaning. I remember a particular moment when I entered into the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and saw the light shining down onto Christ's tomb from a skylight. I was immediately filled with a sense of wonder, and a conviction that there was something about the place that was divine. Yet not a minute later, my mind was filled with sneering skepticism about the engineering of the building being designed to give me that experience. The backlash to that backlash was a moment that I think changed my life: I no longer wanted to be the kind of person that would dismiss profound spiritual experiences because I could explain them mechanistically. Yes, there is a place for logic and rationalism in our search for truth, but only in service to our intuition and faith in something larger than ourselves. Maybe there's a reason why almost all societies have posited something along the lines of eternal recurrence and reincarnation. Maybe there's a reason why we feel so depressed in the modern West without our traditions and spiritual practices. Maybe science isn't the only way to truth.
I'm not sure exactly what to change about my life as a result of this book. Specific actions, in any case, seem to be the domain of the left hemisphere, not the right. Rather, I need to shift my worldview. Less focus on metrics and deliverables, or more on living differently. Less "rational" self-help, and more reading of thinkers like Kierkegaard, Fromm, Unamuno, and of fiction. More connecting with individuals, online, in real life, or through literature, and less with abstract principles.
I'm also very grateful to have read this with Tessa, Amanda, and Logan. Philosophy book club keeps bearing fruit.