Product Description

The Myths We Live By is a powerful, clearly written book that shows us what goes wrong when we try to apply the metaphors of science to the problems of our lives. Essential reading for anyone concerned about how to understand the world today.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #113412 in Books
• Published on: 2004-06-10
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 208 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
The Myths We Live By, by moral philosopher Mary Midgley, is a collection of articles dealing with the importance of symbolism in all our thought and the subsequent need to take our imaginative life seriously. Myths are not lies, she claims, they are not diverting stories, nor do they contrast with something apparently more solid such as "objective scientific truth". Myths and symbols are more like the things we think with. They suggest particular ways of interpreting the world.

Those familiar with Midgely's excellent Science and Poetry will recognise a continuing interest in how some of our most powerful myths (the myth of the social contract, of social atomism, of progress) are understood via the metaphorical light of recent technologies-—the telescope, the microscope, the computer—-in ways that are no longer useful to our present needs. The familiar contrastive ways of thinking (hard/soft, higher/lower, mind/body, inside/outside, heaven/earth, appearance/reality, objective/subjective, science/poetry) useful as they have been, can also be the prison-houses of thought, keeping us bound to one of the most powerful and misleading myths of all--the myth of science as omnicompetent method.

When thinking about Mary Midgley it pays to compare her with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins approaches his subject with something like cosmic awe. He is the poet-priest of science who writes with an irresistibly powerful appreciation of the wonder and poetic beauty of nature. But Midgeley takes issue with just the sort of scientist-as-priest he might be: the sort of person who thinks that "science is the only way to know the real world", that evidence-based beliefs are the only ones worth having, that religious beliefs are cowardly and irrational and that science is the "hard" king of the disciplines.

Midgley, by contrast, maps culture in an entirely different way. She shows us that there are different ways of looking at the world, different sources of knowledge that all have their place depending on what it is we want to know. Midgley shows us a way to end the contest of the faculties without giving the victory to one discipline or another and this makes her one of the most important thinker-about-thinking philosophers in the country. In Midgley's map of the intellectual landscape there are no priests and the world looks a more interesting place because of it. Try comparing Dawkins' discussion of science and romantic poetry (Unweaving the Rainbow) with any of Midgley's recent offerings. --Larry Brown

New Statesman
'An elegant and sane little book...Midgley has a superb ear for the use and misuse of language.'

Review

'For those who haven't yet read Midgley, these essays are an excellent place to start.' - Jon Turney, The Guardian

'An elegant and sane little book. Unusually for a philosopher, Midgley has a superb ear for the use and misuse of language.' - Edward Skidelsky, New Statesman

'She has, perhaps, the sharpest perception of any living thinker of the dangerous extremism that lurks behind so much contemporary scientistic discourse ... Merely as anthologies of contemporary folly, Midgley's books are essential reading ... we have Mary Midgley among us. We should pay attention and be grateful.' - Brian Appleyard, The Sunday Times

'[Mary Midgley's] latest book is full of good sense and illumination on many topics ... Midgley's pathbreaking efforts should be warmly welcomed.' - The Philosopher's Magazine

'Mary's voice, sane, clear and brooking no nonsense, speaks crisply from every page, debunking scientific and non-scientific pretensions alike. A chapter each evening will help me keep sane.' - The Sunday Times

'Christian readers will be sympathetic abd find much material for helpful reflection on the topics chosen.' - The Gospel and Our Culture Network

Customer Reviews

Thought provoking stuff
This book is about myths about, among others, science, about what is scientific and what is not. It describes how many of our thought-patterns are still in the mode set by Enlightment and Descartes. It explains how the industrial age modified these thought-patterns and where they go all wrong. It is not that our thought-patterns would all be based on myhts, it's just that we have to realise when they can be applied and when not.
Like some other books of Midgley that I've read, this is a clearly, carefully and elegantly written opus. It is an enjoyable read, like reading prose, even though it is sometimes rather difficult and requires a lot more time. Her use of language is colorful and elegant, simply brilliant. There are not many writers of non-ficition that can excel her use of the english language.
However, she has a tendency to critizes other scientists and fields of science rather strongly, which sometimes goes a bit over the top. When argumented properly it is well-warranted, but at times the arguments seem to defy my logic and at times the logic is incomplete. If they are opinions, then she should state them as such. But on the other hand, I have found that the more her arguments annoy me, the more I start to think about these things. I am, therefore, almost led to believe that her style is a carefully laid scheme, deviced to lead the readers to think about this stuff by themselves. At least I have. And if a book is thought-provoking, it doesn't much matter if you agree with its opinions or not. It is good anyway.

Utter nonsense
I will keep this brief.

Midgely's writing style is excellent. It is a pleasure to read. Her arguments, however, belong in the 1800s. She has clearly been educated about how to be 'logical' and to think like a philosopher. Her work is like philosphy by numbers. She is incapable of any useful original thought and seems to under-appreciate the wonders that science has produced for our civilisation.

It is highly likely that without the science that she abhors, she would be dead. If that were so, this incoherent and naive 'academic' would not be producing nonesensical, irrational, arrogant, narrow-minded and biased works such as this. Read Steven Weinberg, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins or Richard Feynman instead.