Wednesday, September 13, 2006

A Revised and Expanded Edition of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea

Would people like to see this?

Victor

11 comments:

Don Jr. said...

Yes!

Laffy Taffy said...

What do you mean would people like to see this i don't get it tell me what you mean at
www.a-dumb-blog.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

I can think of 10 people that would buy the book immediately, assuming that the added content warranted purchase. Are you thinking of answering popular objections?

Blue Devil Knight said...

I think only you can answer this question, Victor. Will it significantly improve the book? If so, then it should be done. It then becomes a question for your publisher to answer (i.e., it becomes an economics question).

Victor Reppert said...

I'd be giving the main arguments some further development, and responding to criticisms. John Beversluis is coming out with a revised edition of his book in the spring of next year, which will probably have some criticisms of my book, so I thought it would probably be a good idea.

One downsider to the way I wrote my book initially is that when I subdivided the argument I left the discussion underdeveloped with respect to the specific arguments.

I won't major on responding to Carrier, though I think the issue of neglecting empirical resource is an important one.

Jason said...

I think a sequel would work better. Despite my pickiness {editing g!}, the vast majority of the original book work fine as it is. I know I would be interested in reading a true follow-up more than a re-presentation of the original material with tweaks here and there. The AfR field needs further exploration, not just replying.

Jason said...

Um, re _plowing_ I meant to write. {g} (Allergy medicine today, so typing is scoofed.)

JD Walters said...

Yes, by all means an expanded edition would be very welcome. It does need to engage with scientific work on cognition, the brain and reasoning, as well as the most advanced naturalistic philosophical arguments. Basically all those books that Richard Carrier threw in your face in his review! Personally I doubt whether he critically read all of them and probably wanted to make his response look meaty with his emphatic 'must-reads', etc. But his point should be well-taken.

And it should also have a historical dimension as well, it seems. After all, naturalism is certainly not a neutral, perfectly logical and straightforward extrapolation from the natural sciences, but should be situated within a particular historical and social context. Just to do that much has the potential to take a little wind out of the sails of the naturalistic project, just like historical criticism tries to do for Christianity.

Travis White said...

Absolutely! I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Damien Spillane said...

Victor

I think it would be a great idea but I would like to see you expand on and dumb down some of the points you made in the book. I grasped the general gist of where everything was going but some points went over my head and warrant further explanation. I would definately buy an expanded edition.

Damien Spillane

Johnny-Dee said...

YES! I would especially like to see more on how the AFR can be applied to functionalists. Perhaps, you could say something about non-reductive physicalism too. Most people seem to think that the AFR is a good argument against extreme forms of materialism (e.g., eliminativism). I believe it is more than that, and I think it would be beneficial to have another book that shows how the metaphysics of rationality presents problems for all forms of materialism.

I also think there are strands of the AFR throughout the history of philosophy. For example, I think Richard Swinburne, Robert Adams, and Rene Descartes all have some strands of AFR in their writings. Maybe more can be said about the AFR's philosophical pedigree as well.