Scan barcode
A review by snappydog
The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist
5.0
Five stars here not necessarily because I believe that every claim McGilchrist makes is literally true, nor because it's an incredibly enjoyable read, but rather because despite its flaws this must be one of the most thought-provoking works I've come across.
Others have given their observations (at length) of the not-good-nesses, and those things are probably all worth taking into account, but I think paying close attention to what this book says - without feeling compelled to take all or any of it as gospel - is a rewarding experience. You might come out of it wondering whether some claims made about your brain, its history, and how it will affect your future might not be literally true, but be nevertheless useful as metaphors or analogies that can help you think about how you think.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that what you take from McGilchrist probably depends on how you expect to listen to him. If you want hard, evidence-based, empirical and definite SCIENCE, then you'll probably read it in that way and feel a bit underwhelmed. If you're OK with something that's interesting and stimulating but doesn't necessarily get at hard facts so exclusively or neatly, then you might find it sparking some interesting thoughts.
(That said, I also don't think it makes spiritual, alternative, or pseudoscientific claims. I'm not really sure it makes many claims at all, just observes a few tidbits that have to do with neuroscience and goes 'well, wouldn't it be interesting if...?')
Others have given their observations (at length) of the not-good-nesses, and those things are probably all worth taking into account, but I think paying close attention to what this book says - without feeling compelled to take all or any of it as gospel - is a rewarding experience. You might come out of it wondering whether some claims made about your brain, its history, and how it will affect your future might not be literally true, but be nevertheless useful as metaphors or analogies that can help you think about how you think.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that what you take from McGilchrist probably depends on how you expect to listen to him. If you want hard, evidence-based, empirical and definite SCIENCE, then you'll probably read it in that way and feel a bit underwhelmed. If you're OK with something that's interesting and stimulating but doesn't necessarily get at hard facts so exclusively or neatly, then you might find it sparking some interesting thoughts.
(That said, I also don't think it makes spiritual, alternative, or pseudoscientific claims. I'm not really sure it makes many claims at all, just observes a few tidbits that have to do with neuroscience and goes 'well, wouldn't it be interesting if...?')