Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away
Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away book cover

Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

Hardcover – March 4, 2014

Price
$22.81
Format
Hardcover
Pages
480
Publisher
Pantheon
Publication Date
ISBN-13
978-0307378194
Dimensions
6.25 x 1.5 x 9.5 inches
Weight
1.75 pounds

Description

From Booklist *Starred Review* Plato lives! Brilliantly re-creating Plato’s philosophic dialogues, Goldstein transports the ancient Greek philosopher to the twenty-first-century headquarters of Google, where his probing voice engages three modern hosts in exploring what knowledge means in an age of computerized crowd sourcing. Further dialogues put Plato into conversation with an advice columnist fielding questions about love and sex, with a child psychologist arguing with an obsessive mother, with a television broadcaster trying to score political points, and with a neuroscientist certain he can resolve all intellectual questions with brain scans. Though Goldstein’s gifts as a novelist animate these dialogues, her scholarly erudition gives them substance, evident in the many citations from Plato’s writings seamlessly embedded in the conversational give-and-take. Goldstein’s scholarship also informs the expository essay that prefaces each dialogue. Readers soon realize that the philosophical project that Plato launched 2,500 years ago has evolved as modern thinkers such as Kant, Leibnitz, and Spinoza have redefined its focus and methods. Readers will also confront the doubts of twenty-first-century skeptics—particularly scientists—who dismiss philosophizing as an anachronistic word game. But Goldstein prepares readers to grapple with changes in philosophic thinking and—more important—to recognize the abiding value of an enterprise too important to leave to academic specialists. --Bryce Christensen Kirkus Reviews (starred review) “A witty, inventive, genre-bending work...Goldstein’s philosophical background serves her impressively in this reconsideration of Plato’s work, and her talent as a fiction writer animates her lively cast of characters....[Her] bright, ingenious philosophical romp makes Plato not only relevant to our times, but palpably alive.” Bryce Christensen, Booklist (starred review) “Plato lives! Brilliantly re-creating Plato’s philosophic dialogues, Goldstein transports the ancient Greek philosopher to the twenty-first-century headquarters of Google, where his probing voice engages three modern hosts in exploring what knowledge means in an age of computerized crowd sourcing....Though Goldstein’s gifts as a novelist animate these dialogues, her scholarly erudition gives them substance, evident in the many citations from Plato’s writings seamlessly embedded in the conversational give-and-take. Goldstein’s scholarship also informs the expository essay that prefaces each dialogue.” Hilary Putnam, John Cogan University Professor of the Humanities Emeritus, Harvard University “Plato at the Googleplex is an important and amazing book. It is important for two reasons: because philosophy is important, and Rebecca Goldstein does a wonderful job of explaining why, and because Plato’s genius remains inspiring, and she also does a wonderful job of explaining why, without losing sight of the fact that Plato lived and thought in a very different time, or losingxa0sight of the fact that he was the beginning, not the end, of philosophy. It is amazing because the book takes great risks—including the risk of including 21st century dialogues about Plato’s philosophy, and thereby risking comparison with the greatest writer of philosophical dialogues that ever lived—and succeeds, in part because she keeps the dialogues as light hearted in tone as they are serious in intent. As she did in Betraying Spinoza ,xa0Goldstein beautifully combines the skills of a distinguished novelist with breathtaking philosophical scholarship. I repeat, this book is important and amazing.” Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit “ Plato at the Googleplex is a wonderful book—enjoyably readable, full of stimulating insights and refreshing observations, unintimidatingly erudite, and salted with a gentle wit. xa0It will reward both readers who are professional philosophers as well as amateurs who are interested in acquiring a deeper understanding of what serious philosophy is all about and why it continues to flourish.” A.C. Grayling, author of The God Argument “This could be one of the best ever demonstrations of the value and utility of philosophy. Richly insightful, beautifully written, it is at once introduction, exploration and application, revealing the fascination and significance of philosophical ideas and their relevance to life. Like the Plato who figures largely here, Goldstein has both literary and philosophical gifts of the highest order: the combination is superb.” Colin McGinn, Wall Street Journal “I have not done justice to the richness and detail of this invigorating book. The combination of historical scholarship, lively presentation, vernacular dialogue, and intellectual passion make it a unique achievement. Plato may have died over two thousand years ago, but he lives on, vibrantly, in these piquant pages.” Liana Giorgi, New York Journal of Books “Books like Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex are of the rare type that contribute to the popularization of knowledge and create appetite for more. After reading this book you will . . . question your views and knowledge about politics, psychology, science, history, and ethics.” Stephen Fry “Rebecca Newberger Goldstein manages to be so funny and right.” Robert C. Robinson, Library Journal “It would have been easy for a lesser author to drop Plato in a number of modern-day situations, cook up some clever dialog, and land on the conclusion that the philosopher is as comfortable at Google headquarters as he was at the acropolis. Instead, MacArthur Fellow Goldstein imagines Plato and his interlocutors as complex characters. She shows that we’ve brought Plato forward with us into the boardroom and the classroom because of our dependence on the Socratic method for arriving at new knowledge and refining old wisdom. Alongside a few more serious essays, we find Plato debating the distinction between information and knowledge with a Google employee, taking a personality test at New York City’s 92nd Street Y, and debating a “hardline” host on cable news. Verdict: Goldstein is a serious scholar, and her careful citations, footnotes, and background research betray this fact. However, anyone with an interest in philosophy, Plato, or his legacy on Western culture will find this book to be an accessible and enjoyable read.” Publishers Weekly “Novelist and philosopher Goldstein has an imaginative conceit: to bring Plato into the 21st century by having him go on an American book tour. Here, Plato hauls around a Google Chrome computer, generally finds modern technology “wondrous,” and takes the Meyer-Briggs personality inventory. In lieu of Socratic dialogues, he engages in contemporary American ones....These witty contemporary sections constitute about a quarter of the book, while the remainder consists of an in-depth study of Plato’s views and the historical and intellectual context of his times....[Goldstein] proves a clear and engaging writer, and though the academic parts of this book take precedence over the entertaining and accessible contemporary passages, overall, this is both an enjoyable and a serious way to (re)learn Plato’s ideas.” David Auerbach, Slate “Consequently Plato at the Googleplex merits comparison to two of the best books of its kind in recent years, Kathryn Schulz’s Being Wrong and Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow , but Goldstein’s is, in my opinion, the best of the lot, not because it necessarily has more facts or science, but because it hits more deeply and broadly at the faults of our societal discourse and makes us (well, me at least) feel embarrassed over it.” Barbara Hoffert’s MY PICK, Library Journal “A MacArthur Fellow and award-winning author of fiction and nonfiction, Goldstein always delivers something exciting for inquiring minds. Here, she imagines Plato brought to life, hashing out challenges from Fox News on religion and morality, keeping Freudians and tiger moms from coming to blows, and wondering why crowd sourcing trumps experts. C'mon, philosophy is fun, and it sells. Think Daniel Dennett, Alain de, Botton, Jim Holt...” Michael Dirda, Washington Post “Highly original…. In Plato at the Googleplex , Rebecca Newberger Goldstein set out to showcase, in sometimes startling ways, the continuing relevance of a classic philosopher. But what’s remarkable is that she actually brings off this tour de force with both madcap brilliance and commanding authority.” The Week , Book of the Week “‘Every generation could use a Plato,’ said Clancy Martin in The Atlantic . If you doubt it, pick up Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s ‘ingenious, entertaining, and challenging new book.” In an attempt to challenge the widespread contemporary assumption that science is leading us ever closer to resolving all mysteries, the ever-inventive philosopher-novelist has imagined Plato on tour in America engaging members of today’s chattering class in friendly dialogues that expose the inadequacies of various accepted paths to wisdom….In the end, Plato can be a maddening figure because he never did get around to defining what living the good life would be. Much as he believed that careful thought might help us conduct ourselves more wisely, he remained skeptical even of his own capacity to discern the answer.” Nature “Into a weighty discussion of the Platonic world view Goldstein inserts fictional interludes that see Plato, Cromebook in hand, touring the Googleplex, a neuroscience lab and beyond.…this thought experiment usefully casts an eye on our turbocharged century. And it shows what survives of this classical titan: an ability to plumb the deep questions we still grapple with, from the nature of knowledge to morality.” Rebecca Newberger Goldstein received her doctorate in philosophy from Princeton University. Her award-winning books include the novels The Mind-Body Problem, Properties of Light, and 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction and nonfiction studies of Kurt Gödel and Baruch Spinoza. She has received a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, has been designated a Humanist of the Year and a Freethought Heroine, and is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2015.xa0She lives in Massachusetts. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. Plato at the Googleplex Dramatis Personae Cheryl, media escort Marcus, software engineer Rhonda, narrator and Cheryl’s friend The other day, I came into the city to meet my friend Cheryl for a drink and—her expression—a little tête-à-tête-ing. Cheryl and I are both New Yorkers transplanted to the West Coast. That’s one of the ties between us. It might be the only tie between us, but somehow we’ve fallen into the habit of being friends. We met at a pricey hotel bar on Nob Hill that’s decorated like an Italian bordello, with heavy red velvet drapery and gilded statuary. But it is—again Cheryl’s expression—quiet as a vault, which means you can hear yourself talk, even though, as usual, Cheryl did most of the talking. You can’t altogether blame her, given the interesting people she’s constantly meeting. She’s my own personal version of Gawker, a way of my getting a glimpse into the lives of the famous, the near-famous, and the willing-to-do-anything-short-of-landing-themselves-on-death-row-in-the-hopes-of-someday-being-famous. She was late, which was my first tip-off that something was up with her. Cheryl is super-organized, which is something you have to be in her line of work. Here’s how organized she is: while she was parking her Lexus, she called me and told me to order her a Long Island Iced Tea, which is a far stronger mixed drink than our usual Chardonnay.* The drinks were just being brought to the table when Cheryl arrived, amid all the jangling of the large silver bangles she was wearing. Cheryl is always in full Tiffany armor.xa0After she’d made her little joke about the waiters, who all act as if there were stiff entrance requirements enforced to get in here, including letters of recommendation from your high school math and English teachers, she settled down to tell me about her latest adventures escorting authors from one media event to another. Since everybody’s writing books these days, Cheryl gets to meet politicians, movie stars, all sorts of has-beens, alcoholics, and junkies, and even some authors who do nothing but write books. She’s got the knack, she says, so that people open up to her, and if she ever retires and writes a tell-all memoir she’ll need her own media escort as well as a good lawyer.xa0Boy, did I have an experience today, she launched in with little preamble. My author was a philosopher, which I just figured was going to be awkward and tedious. And he uses just the one name Plato, which struck me as not a little off-putting, as if he were on a par with a Cher or a Madonna. From the start I figured it was going to be one very long day, but I had no idea.xa0She took a long sip of her drink.xa0No idea at all, she continued. Plus his event was one of those Authors@Google things and that place always puts me on edge. It’s hard to breathe in the congested self-congratulation up there at the Googleplex. When somebody tells me that they work hard and play just as hard, which I hear every frigging time I go there, then I make it a point to roll my eyes . . . hard.xa0Cheryl rolled her eyes as she said this. Her coming down so hard on the Googlers for their high self-esteem is funny, in its way. If I had to escort the high-and-mighty the way Cheryl does, I’d be so intimidated I wouldn’t open my mouth unless absolutely necessary. I’m intimidated at one remove, just hearing about Cheryl’s authors. But no matter who Cheryl is escorting, she doesn’t know from awe. On the contrary, if you know what I mean. So it’s funny how irked she is by other people’s little gestures of self-importance.xa0Of course, there is the food there, she was saying. I always make it a point to take my authors to lunch there first. I’ve told you about the food there, right? I mean it’s gorgeous. Yoscha’s Café is my favorite. It’s huge and airy, and they’ve got dozens of food stations with different gourmet food so lovingly prepared you can just imagine the doting caretakers who sent their darlings out into the world. And of course it’s all free, as I explained to Plato. That’s the first thing to know about the food here, I said to him. They get breakfast, lunch, dinner, whatever, absolutely free. It’s feeding on demand.xa0I’d hate that, I told Cheryl. I’d gain ten pounds in a week.xa0Yeah, well, apparently that’s a “problem”—she air-quoted—which they complain about in their bragging sort of way. We work hard, play hard, and eat hard, which makes us exercise hard. Oh, my goodness, can you possibly grasp what a bunch of superior people we are? Cheryl was rolling her eyes again. Anyway, she went on, Plato was listening to me very intently—it’s almost disconcerting how intently he listens—even though I was just rambling on, kind of free-associating, just trying to make conversation because I could tell this guy’s skills at small talk were not the highest. You know, very ivory tower, though with extremely good manners, almost something aristocratic about him. Also he makes eye contact, unlike a lot of these types. In fact, he makes serious eye contact. His stare is penetrating to the point of aggravating. Anyway, when I finally stopped to take a breath, he asked me: And what is the second thing to know about the food here? You see, he’s got this very logical mind. If you say to him, here’s the first thing to know about something, then you’ve also got to give him a second thing to know about it. So I said, well, I guess the second thing is that it’s yummy. And of course it’s local and organic and all those other kinds of things that people around here are into.xa0And he asked me, have you ever heard of the Prytaneum?xa0No, I answered, what’s that, some hot new restaurant?xa0He sort of smiled, which he tends to do more with his eyes than his mouth, and said, in a manner of speaking, yes, it is hot. The sacred fire of the city is kept going there at all times, its flame carried to any new colony established by the metropolis.xa0Well, of course, I had no idea what he was talking about, though I vaguely sensed he was making some kind of a joke. He comes from Athens, I forgot to tell you that, and even though I’d been to Greece on that cruise with Michael before the kids were born, the more Plato spoke, the more I realized that Michael and I hadn’t seen the real Greece. I mean, you have no idea of how different they do things over there, at least to listen to Plato describe it. Anyway, he told me, the Prytaneum also serves free meals.xa0So I said to him, no kidding! That’s quite a deal. How can they afford to stay in business?xa0It is run by the city, he answered, and the meals are mainly for those who have rendered extraordinary service to the city.* I had a friend who got into some very unfortunate legal trouble. Socrates was charged on two counts, impiety and corruption of the youth.xa0Corruption of the youth? That sounds pretty dark. Was he some sort of pedophile? I asked him.xa0Not in the sense that you are most likely thinking, he said, though he loved youth.xa0Well, I hope not in the sense that I’m thinking! I said right back at him, which made him kind of wince.xa0The charge was more a matter of his not accepting the moral values of his society and his encouraging the young to question them as well. And he was right to question them and to get us younger men to question them. As proof of how corrupt the society was, the jury ended up convicting him.xa0And you should have seen his face when he said that, Rhonda. This was the first inkling I got that there was a lot going on behind his façade. He’s a restrained kind of person—very, I don’t know, formal.xa0And it’s true that every time Cheryl spoke Plato’s words she took on a formality, speaking slowly and precisely, as if every word had been carefully considered. She’s a natural-born actress who just automatically slips into impersonations.xa0In fact, the longer the conversation went on, she continued, the more I could see glimmers of genuine human feeling going on behind his marble façade. I could tell from the tightening of his jaw and from the way his voice, which is very soft to begin with,‡ went even softer, how traumatic this whole business with his friend Socrates must have been for him.xa0So I asked him: How long ago did this happen to your friend?xa0Oh, it’s ancient history, he said. I was a young man, not yet out of my twenties.xa0That’s interesting, I said, breaking into Cheryl’s narrative, which she doesn’t exactly encourage. It’s rare for a man to care so much for a friend, I said. Are you sure that Socrates was just a friend and not something, you know, more?xa0Well, of course the thought occurred to me, too, Cheryl said. But you don’t just come out and ask someone about that, especially not someone like Plato. You know, my trick to getting my authors to tell me so much? It’s asking the question just to the side of the one that I really want to ask. So I just said, what a terrible story. Didn’t he have a good lawyer?xa0Lawyers, said Plato and smiled. I have heard of such people.xa0Well, of course you have, I said to him, again wondering if this was an example of some kind of humor, you know a lawyer joke, especially since he said it with a slight smile. He has a pretty stiff face, with very strong bone structure, kind of broad around the forehead, and he doesn’t make any sudden motions, facial or otherwise. You can see what a powerful physique he must have had when he was younger, and he still holds himself ramrod straight.xa0We have no such people in Athens, Plato said. Accusers accuse and defendants defend. Everybody acts as his own lawyer. Those who can afford to usually hire a logographer to write their speeches.xa0No lawyers, I interrupted Cheryl. He’s got to be putting you on. Whoever heard of Greece having no lawyers?xa0No, that’s what I meant about Greece being so unbelievably different, Rhonda. It’s kind of mind-boggling.xa0Are you sure this Plato isn’t one of your fiction writers? I asked her.xa0Well, if he is, he’s more convincing than any of them. I’ll never hear the word “gravitas” again without thinking of him. This guy is like hewn from gravitas. The procedure in our city, he said, is that if you are found guilty you get to propose the penalty that you think would be fair. Then the accusers pose another penalty, harsher of course, and then the jury votes on the penalty, often aiming for the mean. This procedure worked to Socrates’ detriment. My friend was famous for his irony, and he was not inclined to abandon it, not even with his life hanging in the balance. I should say especially when his life hung in the balance, since to cower before death, showing a readiness to do anything, throw overboard any principle, in order to stave off death just a few moments longer—for it is only a few moments from the standpoint of eternity—is unmanly.xa0That’s an interesting perspective you’ve got there on death, I told him, but just one helpful hint. I’d avoid the use of adjectives like “unmanly.” They can come off sounding sexist, as if you think maybe men are superior to women.xa0How’d he take that? I asked Cheryl.xa0Surprisingly well, Cheryl said, especially for someone so old-school. He thanked me for my advice, promising that he’d try to remember to avoid sexist words in the future. I have not failed to notice, he said, how differently women are regarded in your society compared to mine. It had always struck me as an unreasonable waste of human resources to keep talented women secluded in their homes, which is what our practice is.* Yours is a much more rational way of utilizing human potential. So let me amend my last statement and say rather that Socrates held it to be ignoble for a person to undertake an action with the only aim of postponing death, especially since the proposition that death is an evil turns out to be non-trivial to justify.† During his sentencing, Socrates made a point of mentioning Achilles, who is considered throughout Greece to have been the greatest legendary hero. Achilles had been given the choice of either a brief but glorious life or a prolonged but less exceptional life. Of course, Achilles made the heroic choice, and so did Socrates, though I should mention that my friend had already reached his seventieth year, so the option of a short life was foreclosed.* Nevertheless, he would not succumb to the indignity of acting only to eschew imminent death, especially when doing so required violation of the principles on which he had lived out his life. So when asked to propose a penalty that would accurately reflect his culpability Socrates responded that since he had performed an invaluable service to his city, trying to wake its citizenry from its sleep of complacency, and had never asked for any recompense for his services, the city, if it truly wished to show justice toward him, should vote him free meals for life at the Prytaneum. That was the penalty he proposed after he’d already been voted guilty of a capital offense ( Apology 36c– d).xa0That’s some chutzpah your friend had there, I said to him.xa0Chutzpah? he asked me. This word I do not know. Read more

Features & Highlights

  • Is philosophy obsolete? Are the ancient questions still relevant in the age of cosmology and neuroscience, not to mention crowd-sourcing and cable news? The acclaimed philosopher and novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein provides a dazzlingly original plunge into the drama of philosophy, revealing its hidden role in today’s debates on religion, morality, politics, and science. At the origin of Western philosophy stands Plato, who got about as much wrong as one would expect from a thinker who lived 2,400 years ago. But Plato’s role in shaping philosophy was pivotal. On her way to considering the place of philosophy in our ongoing intellectual life, Goldstein tells a new story of its origin, re-envisioning the extraordinary culture that produced the man who produced philosophy. But it is primarily the fate of philosophy that concerns her. Is the discipline no more than a way of biding our time until the scientists arrive on the scene? Have they already arrived? Does philosophy itself ever make progress? And if it does, why is so ancient a figure as Plato of any continuing relevance?
  • Plato at the Googleplex
  • is Goldstein’s startling investigation of these conundra. She interweaves her narrative with Plato’s own choice for bringing ideas to life—the dialogue. Imagine that Plato came to life in the twenty-first century and embarked on a multicity speaking tour. How would he handle the host of a cable news program who denies there can be morality without religion?  How would he mediate a debate between a Freudian psychoanalyst and a tiger mom on how to raise the perfect child? How would he answer a neuroscientist who, about to scan Plato’s brain, argues that science has definitively answered the questions of free will and moral agency? What would Plato make of Google, and of the idea that knowledge can be crowd-sourced rather than reasoned out by experts? With a philosopher’s depth and a novelist’s imagination and wit, Goldstein probes the deepest issues confronting us by allowing us to eavesdrop on Plato as he takes on the modern world.(With black-and-white photographs throughout.)

Customer Reviews

Rating Breakdown

★★★★★
30%
(120)
★★★★
25%
(100)
★★★
15%
(60)
★★
7%
(28)
23%
(92)

Most Helpful Reviews

✓ Verified Purchase

Winning combination of serious analysis of Plato with imaginary dialogues of Plato with moderns

This is a tremendous book. The excerpts that have been published various places really don't do it justice. This is NOT "Plato for Dummies", but rather a very serious book explaining Plato's philosophy.

The book includes several "cute" sections where Plato visits Google, helps an advice columnist advise people on problems with their love life, debates a cable news character, shares the stage with a Tiger mother character and a psychoanalyst to discuss child upbringing, and debates free will with a neuroscientist.

These sections are good, and amusing, and extensively use quotes from various dialogues -- most of Plato's speeches are not made up by Goldstein, but are taken from his writings. For example, much of what Plato says to the cable news character is actually taken from the Platonic dialogue called the Gorgias, in which the character Socrates addresses a character who is very similar to some modern cable news personalities. So this chapter actually summarizes and redoes the Gorgias dialogue, which is both enlightening and amusing.

However, most of the content of the book is not these fantasy sections. Most of the chapters of the book are instead a straightforward exposition by Goldstein of what Plato's philosophy is, how it is based in the culture of ancient Greece yet deviated significantly from that culture and modified it for the better, how it is distinct from Judeo-Christian and other religious approaches to the "meaning of life", and how it influenced subsequent philosophy in the Western world, and in particular the liberal philosophies that came out of the Enlightenment.

I believe that this book is perhaps one of the best introductions to Plato for modern readers that I have seen. As far as I can tell, based on my reading both of Plato and of secondary sources on Plato, Goldstein's book is a highly accurate account of Platonic philosophy. It is also a sympathetic account of Plato.

At the same time, Goldstein makes clear that in some respects the philosophies that have developed since Plato HAVE made progress beyond Plato -- which, as she points out, would please Plato very much.

A reader of this book will get a biographical account of Plato's life, as well as summaries of some of the key points of many Platonic dialogues, and extensive quotations from many of these dialogues. It's a good introduction that should inspire many readers to read the original Plato.

I think this book also makes clear why Platonic philosophy can also be considered a RELIGIOUS philosophy, in the sense that it is not just a theoretical exercise, but a call to live a certain way of life.
39 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Pretentious

I had high hopes that, given the title, it would relate philosophy to modern times, and especially one of technology, but this was a huge disappointment. First, this book is actually a novel and shouldn't be considered non-fiction. The writer tries to be artsy about portraying Plato in fictitious settings (which I found ridiculous in itself), but she also goes into way too much detail, constantly repeats herself, and writes in a very pretentious prose. I cannot understand why there were such high marks for this book...I literally threw it away after trying to give the first 40 pages a fair shake.
25 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Not What I Thought it Was Going to Be

It's a good book but there just wasn't much of what I thought it advertised. I was hoping for some dialogues involving Plato as if he were in the 21st century, and there was some of this, but it perhaps made up only 1/3 of the book. The remainder was Ms. Goldstein Pontificating on Plato's history(as well as Socrates), works, and their significance, which isn't a bad thing - I learned a few things I didn't know beforehand, but this is not what I was led to believe the book was about. The portions where Goldstein discusses Plato is, to some degrees, fairly standard - what you would find in many introductory works on Plato and his philosophy.
10 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Plato's back!

Reading Plato was by far my favorite part of studying philosophy in college, and it was sheer delight to encounter him again in this book. Author Rebecca Goldstein, both a philosophy professor and a novelist, poses an interesting question: Now that the sciences have advanced so far in explaining the inner and outer worlds of our universe--from the subatomic level, to the farthest galaxies, from the genetic codes for life, to the structures of the brain that support thought, emotion, and morality--is there any role left for philosophy? Some scientists think there is not, but it won't be giving away much to say that Goldstein disagrees. Then there is also the question: Has philosophy since the time of Plato made the same kinds of advances as other fields of knowledge? And: What would Plato make of our modern world--would he have anything to tell us, or, since we're talking about Plato, it might be more accurate to phrase that question what would Plato ask us to think deeply about?

Goldstein approaches these questions with two methods, used in alternate chapters. First there are the expository chapters, well written discourses examining the questions that have been posed, including any new questions that come up along the way, and also providing some fascinating background history. These take a satisfying amount of mind exercise and it felt good to rejoin the philosophical discussion around a theoretical seminar table, but it's the chapters following the expository ones that are the real reward for all that thought work. Because in them Plato is back, here in our modern world, and like Socrates he is engaging everyone he meets in dialogue, allowing them all to take another look at their unexamined assumptions.

Plato doesn't do one-sided lectures, of course, and in these back and forths he is learning too--how to avoid using sexist language for instance. People Plato delves into discussion with include a Google software engineer who thinks crowd-sourcing is the most reliable way to attain information which he equates with wisdom, a book tour escort who is sure she knows how best to live her own life, a Fox news host who's proud of his rigid beliefs about religion and morality, a neuroscientist who doesn't believe in conscious free will, and a tiger mom and psychoanalyst who debate with each other and Plato about how best to raise a child. These sections are as substantive as the expository chapters, but they are also sometimes laugh out loud funny. Goldstein has put the fun back into philosophy while making a strong, well reasoned case that it still has relevance in today's world.
9 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Best New Book On Philosophy!

Two Absolute Winners…

Some years ago, I was writing a book entitled Images of God. Then Karen Armstrong came out with A History of God, and I knew I had been beaten at my own game. Whether you are deeply religious, religiously indifferent, an agnostic or an atheist, if you haven’t read A History of God you are missing out on what I will call the best summary every written on a matter of no small importance. As Armstrong says in her introduction,
“All talk about God staggers under impossible difficulties. Yet monotheists have all been very positive about language at the same time as they have denied its capacity to express the transcendent reality. The God of Jews, Christians and Muslims is a God who—in some sense—speaks. His Word is crucial in all three faiths. The Word of God has shaped the history of our culture. We have to decide whether the word ‘God’ has any meaning for us today.”

Now there is a new book that boggles my mind. Sixty years ago when I took “An Introduction to Greek Philosophy,” it changed my life. I have been reading Plato, Aristotle, and various neo-Platonists and neo-Aristotelians ever since. So when Rebecca Goldstein published Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away, I was extremely well prepared for it, but the book simply blows me out of the water. It is ingenious: she entwines the skills of a novelist with her mastery of the scholarship of what Plato achieved, and writes a book that is as enchanting as it is comprehensible. To see how she proves that philosophy won’t go away, you need only read a few of her litany of responses on page 56:

“When we disagree over whether the 1 percent really contribute more to society than the 99 percent and whether, if they do, their contributions should be recognized in the form of increased privileges or increased obligations, Plato is there.”
“When we argue over what the role of the state is, whether it is there to protect us or to perfect us, then there is Plato.”
“When we argue over whether ethical truths are inextricably tied to religious truths, then there is Plato.”
“When we wonder whether there is a real difference between right and wrong, or whether we are only making it up as we go along, then there is Plato.”
----Ah, you get the message! The unexamined life is not worth living, and if you feel you need a little more examining in your life, then pick up either one of these books, and you will reap the rewards of encountering really great minds…minds who have thought about the problems you and I think about all the time, and will enable us to think much more profoundly about things that are really well worth our time and attention, and which can enrich our lives immeasurably in the process…
7 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Neither one thing nor the other

I can only describe Plato at the Googleplex as a hybrid. It is partly serious discussion about philosophy. It is partly history of philosophy with emphasis on Plato. It is partly fiction. As such I felt that the book managed to miss having a really clear focus. Does Ms. Goldstein want to increase our understanding of philosophy in general? Does she want to present an imaginary picture of what Plato might have been like in the flesh? Does she want us to better understand Plato's place in shaping much of Western Civilization? I find myself wishing she had written three separate and shorter books.

This book is not an easy read. It does challenge one's thinking and unconscious cultural assumptions. The vocabulary level is well above the usual college-level reader's vocabulary. The author's sense of humor is delightful, but extremely erudite. Just the settings of the imaginary visits Plato makes offer humor. She presents Plato as a person who does not get "sucked into" or "baited" by other people's issues. There is a certain dry humor in that, but it presents a personality for Plato that most readers would have trouble identifying with. Additionally, the way she presents these imaginary dialogues always places a filter between us and the image of Plato: in the first dialogue we only hear the (rather air-headed) response of the media escort to the tour of the Googleplex; in the second and fourth dialogues the overbearing personalities of the interview hosts get in the way; in the third we see Plato only through the imaginary letters he writes to Margo; and in the fifth somehow the doctors' perception of Plato get in the way of the reader's perception. Thus, the fiction lacks a sense of immediacy.

The nonfiction portions of the book offer much to think about. They are tedious to read -- but there are worthwhile insights that can influence our awareness of how our own minds work. I do not have qualification as a philosopher to authoritatively judge the accuracy of her presentation of the field -- but as a reader of many sorts of things, I have a sense that it is well presented.

I suspect that people with a lot of college-level courses in philosophy will enjoy this book more than others. If you like a smorgasbord approach to reading and definitely cerebral topics, there is certainly an array in this book.
6 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Don't waste your time

It would take a very special person to enjoy this read
5 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Don't waste your time

It would take a very special person to enjoy this read
5 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Breathes new life into classical philosophy

Goldstein has given us a quirky, brilliant, ambitious, timely--and occasionally goofy--defense of philosophy. It's a fun read, and sheds more light on classical thought (and some aspects of contemporary thought) than anything else I can remember. She embodies many of the best elements of Socratic argument, like stating the opposing view as strongly as possible before tearing it to shreds. I've never seen a detractor of philosophy, including one with roots in contemporary neuroscience, state the anti-philosophy arguments as well as Goldstein does. Which, of course, reinforces her credibility during the ensuing demolition.

She brings to bear the force of her academic background without writing like an academic. With an apology to the philosophers of the ivory tower, she abandons their requirement that ideas speak for themselves, without help (often dubious) from personal and historical back-stories. She goes as far as possible in the other direction, painting a vivid picture of Plato the man, Socrates the man, their contemporary Athenian culture, and the Homeric Greek culture that preceded it. She invites you into the world of those ideas, and in doing so makes them vital and real. The human element doesn't substitute for the underlying arguments; it just works to make them inviting.

The writing is accessible to non-academics, but she doesn't shy away from complexities and ambiguities. She returns often to controversies surrounding interpretation of Plato's ideas (is he utopian or anti-utopian? Does he believe rationalism has limits or not?) and in a central, sly rhetorical move, demonstrates that the bugs in his ideas are really features: if Plato had gotten everything right, then indeed, we'd have no more use for philosophy. As Goldstein frames it, Plato got a lot wrong, and left a lot unfinished. So there's work to be done.

Plato discovered the important questions. He laid foundations that made the ensuing 2400 years of philosophy (and gasp--of science) possible. Goldstein says, and I paraphrase, "relax, wise men and women of physics and Neuroscience. We're all on the same team here."

The most interesting of Goldstein's strategies is also the most problematic. She's created her own dramatic dialogs, all involving 2400 year-old plato traipsing through the 21st Century. I like the conceit of the toga-clad old man discovering the internet, bringing himself up to speed on pop psychology and molecular neurobiology, lecturing at the Googleplex, debating child-rearing on stage in NYC, subjected to a republican talk show host, and matching wits with a scientist before getting his brain scanned.

The trouble is that Goldstein the dramatist is not in the same league as Goldstein the essayist. The dialogs feel contrived, way beyond the necessary contrivance of Plato being alive in the first place. Unlike in the essays, where the anti-philosophy arguments are stated intelligently, in the dialogs she puts them in the mouths of flat and unlikeable characters. Other characters are written with such a self-conscious reach for hipness that they're hard to stomach. Imagine an after-school special in the language of Sex and the City. With Plato.

The dialogs aren't all bad. They have their moments, with some arguments laid out imaginatively, and with some moments of real humor. They just don't hold up in the context of the essay sections, which I can't say enough good things about. All of this screams: Fiction Editor--get one! I like the idea of these dialogs. If only their manifestations could approach the ideal forms ...

But please don't be dissuaded. I recommend this book to anyone new to classical philosophy, or to anyone revisiting it, or to anyone sincerely curious about the point of the whole philosophical endeavor. I suspect it would be useful to teachers looking for a way to make the big ideas both relevant and accessible.
5 people found this helpful
✓ Verified Purchase

Love Letter to Plato, Fascinating Look a Modern Intellectual Puzzles (& an annoying tic)

The author is probably the only person currently on the planet who could write this book. She is both a trained philosopher (Ph.D. Princeton) and a talented novelist. If it were a book about Aristotle instead of Plato you would say this book is what she has been directed towards.

There are three things that the author weaves together in creating this tale. First is her obvious knowledge of and passion for the Greeks and Plato. This is what gives the book is beating core as she breathes life into Plato as a person walking the modern world. Plato interacts with people in different places which bring in the second thread of modern intellectual puzzles. None of these puzzles are truly modern as Plato has contemplated all of them. What is allowed is the occasional updating of Plato by what we have discovered, as well as Plato's illumination of facts of these problems that Plato knew and recognized but have been dismissed or forgotten in the heat of our arguments. Each chapter or section of the book allows Plato a new subject and each is really a mini-book in itself. This is good for the reader because it is a compulsive read that sticks with you. It is designed to be put down and think for yourself for a while. Now these two strings could be the set-up for a pedantic bore of a book or a hectoring of a passion you might not share, but the author is also a great writer. The third string is the amazing quality of the writing and the updating of the ancient Socratic dialog. The author tells a gripping tale with living characters. And even more amazing is that she, with one exception, never gives in to just making the characters puppets or dupes. Even the dupes are put forward in the best light allowing the pondering of the truth. Plato would be proud and amazed of the range of his format in the hands of a skilled writer.

As for that one tic which prevents a fifth star. This could be and probably is the reviewer's problem, but it is a problem. The author assumes a worldview just a nudge away from Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens at their worst. In the prolog the author describes the axial age with the intent of elevating the Greeks as unique. And they are. The author's depiction of the ethos of the extraordinary is almost enough to convert you to philosophy alone, but then she breaks the spell by insisting on casting aspersion on Jewish and Christian answers. Unlike the rest of the work which is a wondrously written dialog, when a dig at religion can be had it will be. These digs, far from being fair which even the stupid characters (i.e. the "tiger mom") get their share of the truth uncovered and highlighted, these digs are usually extraneous to the general argument and unfair. After hearing a dialog about portraying the best to get to the truth, the religious character would be Ken Ham instead of Thomas Aquinas or Augustine. But even more troubling is that the author often breaks the dialog and editorially inserts the comments in summation. They break the spell and intention of the book which is to get you thinking philosophically. If the author wants to write an anti-religious screed do so. Evidently they sell. But don't wreck good work by not following your own principles for a couple of cheap winks at the rubes.
5 people found this helpful