Has anyone read any of Arthur Koestler's philosophical works?

[Red-Headed]

Has anyone read any of Arthur Koestler's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler) works? Particularly The Sleepwalkers, The Ghost in the Machine, The Act of Creation &/or Janus: A Summing Up?

In 'Janus' he proposed the idea that the human brain has developed a terrible flaw, originally designed to help us maximise our chances of survival in a hostile environment, it is now apparently working against us, according to Koestler.

How true could this be?

[billl]

I read The Ghost in the Machine and The Act of Creation, less than 10 years ago.

[Red-Headed]

I read The Ghost in the Machine and The Act of Creation, less than 10 years ago.

Yeah, his arguments seem to be pretty convincing as you read them. I was quite impressed by his concept of Bisociation; the technique of superimposing selective thought grids to produce original ideas out of more familiar ones (often inadvertently).

[billl]

Yes, I mean screw whatever science people want to pull on it, but I think it is well worth reading his ideas about how things fit together--even if they aren't the 'essential' connections or whatever that bring reality about. And his stuff about holons or whatever fascinated me, it's great stuff, and his writing is really great, a great voice. Highly recommended--IF someone is looking for "brain candy," anyhow. He's a clever guy with a rich perspective on things, in my opinion.

But I think it would be wrong to read him and REALLY conclude that he was right about all that for sure, 100%, etc. I stuck with his arguments and bought into it as I read them, but also knew, afterwards, that there were scads more things out there, that had apparently triumphed over the ideas that this multi-faceted and fascinating international man of genius happened to come up with.

And, I must say, that (at least metaphorically) he still has much to contribute to our understanding of things., and how they might be.

[Red-Headed]

Yes, I mean screw whatever science people want to pull on it, but I think it is well worth reading his ideas about how things fit together--even if they aren't the 'essential' connections or whatever that bring reality about.

I think he's suffered a bit from revisionists & the like. I just admired the sheer depth of his thinking.


And his stuff about holons or whatever fascinated me, it's great stuff, and his writing is really great, a great voice. Highly recommended--IF someone is looking for "brain candy," anyhow. He's a clever guy with a rich perspective on things, in my opinion.

Yes, I agree. The 'brain candy' is quite chewy as well sometimes & you can be in danger of losing fillings, to extend the metaphor somewhat lol!


But I think it would be wrong to read him and REALLY conclude that he was right about all that for sure, 100%, etc. I stuck with his arguments and bought into it as I read them, but also knew, afterwards, that there were scads more things out there, that had apparently triumphed over the ideas that this multi-faceted and fascinating international man of genius happened to come up with.

Well, the books were written half a century ago in the main, time has moved on, new ideas have emerged.


And, I must say, that (at least metaphorically) he still has much to contribute to our understanding of things., and how they might be.

I think that you're right. It's that powerful intellect of his, whether I agreed with his ideas or not, that fascinated & enthralled me the most.

[billl]

I's that powerful intellect of his, whether I agreed with his ideas or not, that fascinated & enthralled me the most.

Definitely a good thing to look for in used book stores, if one enjoys wild cutting edge thought housed in a mid-century hardback. He would've been an AWESOME guy to sit and listen to at a party or over drinks, etc.

And the bonus factoid is that he also wrote Darkness At Noon.

[Red-Headed]

He would've been an AWESOME guy to sit and listen to at a party or over drinks, etc.

I'll say.


And the bonus factoid is that he also wrote Darkness At Noon.

I have actually never read it. I only know of its seminal effect on Orwell's 1984.

Maybe Father Christmas will bring me a copy for Xmas. :lol: ;)

[billl]

In 'Janus' he proposed the idea that the human brain has developed a terrible flaw, originally designed to help us maximise our chances of survival in a hostile environment, it is now apparently working against us, according to Koestler.

How true could this be?

Also, sorry, but I didn't mean to ignore this, but I didn't read that book and posted my responses immediately out of enthusiasm for the others.

Wikipedia shows some relatively contemporary enthusiasm for this book (and the holon stuff!), but doesn't allude to the "flaw" that you you've pointed out as an important focus of the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus:_A_Summing_Up
I'm sure it is pretty thought-provoking stuff.

[billl]

I have actually never read it. I only know of its seminal effect on Orwell's 1984.

Maybe Father Christmas will bring me a copy for Xmas. :lol: ;)

I can confidently say this--you won't have any trouble finishing THAT book. Although it isn't the sort of thing to put one in the Christmas spirit, and might be an odd choice for "the list." Good for when you have a few nights free for some banal sadism, gloom, and jaw-dropping misery. And none of it gratuitous, quite sobering...

Well, thanks for posting and reminding me of reading Koestler on the subway :)
Not something one expects to come across, even at a place like this!

[Red-Headed]

It is a sort of summing up of all of his theories, from the 'Holarchy' through bisociative creativity to what he calls glancing through the keyhole (looking at future ideas of consciousness).

He points out that Alfred Wallace (co-discoverer of evolution with Darwin) wrote to Darwin because he couldn't figure out why human brains were so large for a predator that evolved when it did. Wallace was puzzled as to why the extinct Homo Neanderthalensis had bigger brains than Early Moderns (even taking differing body masses into account). He thought that this was an oddity & essentially a 'surplus adaptivity' that couldn't be explained. Darwin reputedly accused him of killing the baby before it was born as their theory had not been fully published then. Koestler wonders why our brains are in fact the size they are. He came to a conclusion that they must have been essential to our survival but may be working against us now. He used the analogy of having the right hardware but running the wrong software & the aggressive territorial instincts needed for survival are now possibly going to destroy us as a species or civilisation.

[Red-Headed]

Well, thanks for posting and reminding me of reading Koestler on the subway :)
Not something one expects to come across, even at a place like this!

OK. It's been interesting. :thumbs_up