2022 Book List

We’re now in mid-March and I still haven’t written down my thoughts on the two books I read in January. A lot has been going on recently but, the longer I take to write these down, the worse my recollections become.

2021 Book List
2020 Book List
2019 Book List
2018 Book List
2017 Book List

The Philosopher and the Wolf (2008) by Mark Rowlands

In this book, Rowlands shares several of his experiences moving between countries and building a career in philosophy, all while raising a wolf. The anecdotes about Brenin, the wolf, invariably serve as the starting point for some sort of philosophical digression. While several of these digressions are indeed interesting, I was seldom convinced by his arguments (see my blog post on what makes a person evil for an example).

I would’ve preferred much more of a focus on the stories involving Brenin, but those that are there do provide some fascinating insights on animal behaviour and training. While not all of the methods will probably be approved of by everyone, Rowlands does make the point that wolves and dogs are quite different and, from the stories he gives, he managed to have a wolf which was much better behaved than many dogs. It’s also clear that he cared deeply for Brenin, and his other dogs, and, especially towards the end, many of the stories were quite emotional.

If you were planning to read The Philosopher and the Wolf to hear about what is like to have a wolf as a pet, you will probably be disappointed. I’d estimate that that about two thirds of the book are given over to his philosophical musings which, if nothing else, at least serve as food for thought. I can’t say that I agreed with most of them but I did still enjoy the book and think it is worth reading.

A Christmas Carol (1843) by Charles Dickens

There’s really little to say about this one. It’s an old story and, if you have any contact with Western culture, you have likely seen an adaption, homage or parody of this. I am, of course, familiar with the story but not the original work. In fact, I think this is my first time reading Dickens’ own words. I have no complaints but, given how well-known the story is, there were no real surprises.

What was special was that I was reading a copy which, I believe, had been my maternal grandmother’s. I can’t recall the exact printing date of the book but it was around 80-90 years old. While not as old as the story itself, it’s still quite a bit of history and all of the people who originally bought and read it are now dead. Yet the book is still there, can still be read and provides a tangible link to the past. Plus, a physical book has no battery issues or file type compatibility problems.

What makes a person evil?

The first book I’m reading this year is Mark Rowland‘s memoir, The Philosopher and the Wolf. For now, I will just say that it’s stories of having a wolf mixed with some philosophical musings. One of those musings concerned evil. He maintained that evil does exist, though not in a supernatural sense, and that it consists of “very bad things” and that people do those “very bad things” due to a failure on their part, both a failure of moral duty (to do the right thing) and epistemic duty (to properly subject one’s beliefs to scrutiny). He contrasted that with the modern view of evil which, he claimed, is seen as people doing “very bad things” because of an underlying medical or social issue. I think that both of those views are fundamentally flawed and want to describe a different way of viewing evil.

Let’s briefly consider the idea that evil actions are those actions which are very bad, i.e. at the extreme end of a scale of bad actions. Shoplifting a chocolate bar is bad but not very bad. It’s worse to steal a car but still not evil. Premeditated murder, especially if paired with some other crime, is now getting to the sort of thing we would nearly all agree is evil. But there’s a flaw; except for religious beliefs, there is no “objective” morality, so there is no objective and universal measurement which you can use to say something is bad. As there is insufficient evidence to support the claims of religion, we must discard it. We are left with secular morality.

Continue reading