simulo reviewed Experience and Nature by John Dewey
None
4 stars
Dewey is interested in processes and relations rather than essences and things-itself. In this he seems to be similar to Whitehead (“Process and Experience”). However, Dewey is much closer to everyday human experience, it can be well read along works like Schütz’s “The structures of the life-world”.
The book criticizes that most philosophy focusses on what seems stable and universal, given and ignores change, process, choice. I was reminded of David Graeber (“What is the point when we can't have fun”) when Dewey discusses philosophy’s disregard for joy.
Dewey loves modern experimental science and invention, but he focusses a lot on its processual elements and on experiments. His view is rather idealized obviously. But matching his other views, Dewey does not focus on science as truth-production and criticizes that the scientific perspective neglects direct qualities in favor of discovered abstract models as real.
The style of writing is OK, the …
Dewey is interested in processes and relations rather than essences and things-itself. In this he seems to be similar to Whitehead (“Process and Experience”). However, Dewey is much closer to everyday human experience, it can be well read along works like Schütz’s “The structures of the life-world”.
The book criticizes that most philosophy focusses on what seems stable and universal, given and ignores change, process, choice. I was reminded of David Graeber (“What is the point when we can't have fun”) when Dewey discusses philosophy’s disregard for joy.
Dewey loves modern experimental science and invention, but he focusses a lot on its processual elements and on experiments. His view is rather idealized obviously. But matching his other views, Dewey does not focus on science as truth-production and criticizes that the scientific perspective neglects direct qualities in favor of discovered abstract models as real.
The style of writing is OK, the vocabulary is rich and uses some philosophy-specific terminonology, but nothing extraordinary. The sentences are rarely deeply nested, except for some sections in the last chapter. Some paragraphs are page-long. The book is not super systematically build up, so there are repetitions and it sometimes does meander a bit. Still far easier to read than very systematic works (e.g. Whitehead’s Process and Reality) which, however, demand keeping the whole previous content in mind.
Can I recommend this book? Yes, if you are interested in metaphysics, views that focus both on processes and human experience. Also, if you are not too fond of the later “turns” in philosophy and social theory (linguistic, materialistic)
