Mary Midgley, one of Britian's most cherished moral philosophers, wrote "Beast and Man" at age 50. At a time where behaviorism and existentialism told the world that there was no such thing as instinct or human nature, Midgley took pen to paper after raising three kids and in observing them, realized how wrong that notion was. Kids have instincts, natures. What's more, these natures are not so far off from what we know of animals natures.

Now before I give the impression that Midgley's book is another sociobiology book in disguise, it is the farthest thing from it. The first thing Midgley does is to make it clear that phrases like "Man is JUST (substitute "merely", "only" or "simply") an animmal are not only unfair to animals, they are unfair to humans. Sociobiology even sadomasochistically revels in depressions like this. (after all, aren't we 'only' the 'third chimpanzee'?) Usually, the mistake made is to thihk that animals are 'humans that just haven't gotten there yet' or that humans are 'dressed up brutes that play at ratiionality'. Midgley spends many pages on tackling both of these assumptions, as tacit as they sometimes are.

From there, she tackles things like what it means to say 'instinct', why 'reductionism' doesn't explain much of anything, and intertwining them all with examples of why the 'lower animals' and humans have so much in common yet are so incredibly different.

In short, this book is not to be missed. It is informative, provocative, challenging and all the while written in a crisp and sensitive prose. Never has it felt so good to be called an animal.

After reading this book, you may decide that the similarities between man and beast are more important than the differences. Mary Midgley discusses many types of animals and how they compare to humans. Are you sure you are attracted to a certain behaviour because of something only inside yourself, or is it because you are moving as part of a flock similar to how birds do? When you learn something, is it because of your own experience or are you mimicking a leader like a rat does? How much better is the human race, in terms of love and compassion, compared to animals such as elephants? The exploration of these and many other questions might stun you.

When I taught a course on Animals and Ethics, I chose this volume over all others as my primary text. While Peter Singer's ANIMAL LIBERATION first awoke my consciousness to the tragedy of the manner in which humans have regarded and treated animals, I found the philosophical underpinnings of his work (a form of utilitarianism) troublesome (for reasons I won't go into here). On the other hand, I found Tom Regan's THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS, to be far too Kantian. Midgley discusses a wide-ranging group of philosophers, but doesn't overly attach herself to any particular moral philosophy. As a result, she is less doctrinaire than any of the other major writers on the topic. The book reeks of common sense, in the way that the English so often seem to have mastered. Just a wonderful, unjustly neglected book.

Chief purpose of science is to explain things, make the world less of a black box. But should science be the only way to do this explanation? Should it also be the way we explain such non-physical entities as culture? Is art just an escapism from "cosmic hostility" and from Dawkins' selfish robots, are Shelly's unacknowledged legislators "entertaining self-deception" (John Cornwell: The Limitless Power of Science in _Nature's Imagination_)? What qualifies for science? Is Robert Graves' _Greek Myths_ not scientific, shall it be replaced by Memetics?

How relevant in modern era it is to apply the extreme views (Lucretian atomism, Cartesian dualiaty) that were required to free us from the shackles of religion aeons ago? And are these views applicable to our daily life, life which is not made of atoms, quarks but of love, hate, home, office, pollution...?

These questions are not ones that demand more "research" but ones that are indicative of what Mary calls conceptual emergencies. So when out of these emergencies scientists start claiming omnicompetence and give disturbing picture of human life and of this world, it is time to look at the thinking that governs scientists' (and philospohers') this view, and time to check if it is on the correct path.

This, in short, what Mary's attempt is.

In teaching an Introduction to Philosophy course, I would certainly rather my students read this book than most or perhaps even all of the standard textbooks. This book is not an historical introduction or even a balanced look at the range of questions which interest philosophers, but it's great strength is that it conveys beautifully the importance of philosophy.

Midgley has a style of doing philosophy which is wonderfully engaged with ordinary life. Her fascination is with muddles in public thinking and she ably demonstrates the need for philosophical work to resolve these muddles. Importantly, she also shows just how important clearing up conceptual difficulties can be for society. Every page shows forth the conviction that the answers of philosophy matter, that this is not just idle musing but vital work. Turning her incisive mind on science, feminism, personhood and other topics, she shows the benefits of philosophy done well.

The book is readable, witty and thought-provoking. I would recommend it to everyone with an interest in philosophy, even the seasoned professional.

Mary Midgley, a philosopher, applies her extremely sharp mind to the idea that evolution, as it is expounded in the popular science press by eager biologists, can in some ways be interpreted as a religion. By religion we mean of course the standard ones such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc.

Rather than actually laying out in a strictly defined way the characteristics which make up the religious view, something which is very difficult given the vast differences in the previously mentioned cases, she approaches the subject by analysing some of the typical `literature' in the popular science press on evolution which express their views in a highly dogmatic fashion: for example Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Jacques Monod and so on. Gradually she lays bare the inherent faults in each of these texts by noting how not only that in most cases they state views which are not supported by strict science but in fact express metaphysical views which have the ring of science with all of its evidential weight. At times she shows that these opinions portray the same faults as those they wish to get rid of eg: the religious, vitalistic, animistic or metaphysical view.

Midgley has the ability to analyse very carefully what is stated and see things the general public could easily skip past in their enthusiasm. This book demolishes all of these pseudoscientific fantasies although its writing style is sometimes heavy going and is not really suited to the lay public. This book is, I believe written more for the interested scientist who has already read some of the foregoing literature and wishes to get a deep analysis of these things to fathom their relevance. This she does does ably although one feels that throughout she does not express a clear and direct point of this analysis but rather a series of essays on several subjects which have some sort of coherent structure. This is the only problem with this book and one feels that no real definite conclusion has been reached.

Nevertheless, Midgley is worth reading for her truly impressive ability to seek out faults which often lie hidden in the material she analyses and are quite subtle and not at all obvious until she points them out. It's good someone has done this to provide a clear head in all the plethora of the popular science literature, which in general, is not up to any sort of serious study of the state of science as it is today. In this case there is no chance one can easily dismiss her analyses as the wafflings of creationists or vitalists.