Neither Christopher Columbus nor his contemporaries thought the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today; firmly established with the help of the media; textbooks; teachers―even noted historians. Inventing the Flat Earth is Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages; examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe; and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s and then snowballed to outrageous proportions by the late 19th century. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered.Inventing the Flat Earth is Jeffrey Burton Russell's attempt to set the record straight. He begins with a discussion of geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages; examining what Columbus and his contemporaries actually did believe; and then moves to a look at how the error was first propagated in the 1820s and 1830s―including how noted writers Washington Irving and Antoinne-Jean Letronne were among those responsible. He shows how later day historians followed these original mistakes; and how this snowball effect grew to outrageous proportions in the late nineteenth century; when Christians opposed to Darwinism were labelled as similar to Medieval Christians who (allegedly) thought the earth was flat. But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered; and includes a discussion about the implications of this for historical knowledge and scholarly honesty.
#249055 in Books 1998-01-15Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.50 x .90 x 5.50l; .93 #File Name: 026801759X304 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Excellent; Profound WorkBy AndreExcellent! Reread the chapters on Greek ethics twice on the first read and a third time afterwards. Worth it just for that section. Great concise explanations for such a large body of work (Homer to Socrates-Plato-Aristotle). Cannot recommend enough. Much food for thought. Whatever the works shortcomings in covering so much; it's clarity and incisive observations and exposition more than merit the work 5 stars.5 of 8 people found the following review helpful. Too much analysis; too little exposition; but it is a good readBy JacobEdit: I first read this book seven years ago. I now change some of my original observations. His section on Greek ethics is simply too good to warrant anything lower than a five star rating. I do think the writing is clunky at times and the last half of the book is very uneven; but it is still a fine survey.The title of the book is misleading. It gives one the impression that AM will gives us a survey of the history of ethical positions. While he does do this to a degree; that is not the point of the book. AM's argument is that key terms in ethics change meaning with the change in language and/or social custom (269). Secondly; key moves in philosophy and social theory change ethical foundations.AM begins with Greek ethics and gives a thorough review of it. Interestingly; AM wrote this book before he endorsed Aristotelian ethics as the way out of the modern morass. He is more critical of Aristotle here than he is in After Virtue.The next key move is Christianity. This section is weak for a number of reasons. AM had not yet converted to Christianity and as a result he depended on much out-of-date and long-refuted German scholarship on Christianity. Secondly; ten pages on Christianity? He tried to summarize Augustine and Aquinas in two paragraphs! That being said; his summary; while too brief; was accurate. Augustine and Aquinas reinterpreted key sections of Plato and Aristotle; respectively; into explicitly Christian categories.But something changed in the history of Christianity. Luther arose. Luther introduced a character that had been absent in ethical discussions: the individual. Luther also introduced new rules for social ethics. Luther bifurcated morality by positing absolute and unconditional ethical commands on the one hand (God says so) with the self-justifying rules of market and state on the other (124). This paved the way for autonomy and secularism.The rest of Western ethics can be seen as a footnote or an outworking to this. With the idea of contract introduced; social ethics now revolved around the tenuous idea of "natural rights." Western thinkers could not (still can't!) reconcile an authoritarian state with limits to the state's power. Locke tried and came very close to doing this.Evaluation:The Good: the reader has a good understanding after reading AM. This book's argument is much tighter than that of After Virtue. Also; AM does a superb job in showing (hinting; rather) the inevitability of interpreting ethical norms from within a community. He perfects this move in After Virtue.The Bad: The writing style could be improved. It is like watching an elephant run. I forgot how man times the author used the word "just" (and not in the sense of justice). Secondly; as he notes in his preface; his section on Christianity is weak. Thirdly; he spends too much time on analysis and too little on exposition. This is okay if the reader already understands the thinker in question. It is annoying if he doesn't.My title might have given the impression of a negative review of the book. Far from it. Alasdair MacIntyre is the most important ethicist I have read; and I heartily commend all of his works.1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. MagisterialBy mhshawEthics is a complex field; covering both logical and pragmatic issues; and at the same time addressing issues in which we all have an interest. MacIntyre is a sane and serious guide.
