Personally I think that by far the most interesting philosophical field at the moment is that of philosophy of mind.
How is it that inanimate, unthinking matter can create consciousness?
Of course the boundary between philosophy and science are very blurred in this case (as they should be, as I stated above), but it is still definitely philosophy. There is not an accepted groundwork even of what are right
questions to ask are, let alone an agreement on their answers!
Some interesting authors on this subject:
Daniel C. Dennett - puts forward very strongly the physicalist/functionalist view point of consciousness, and insists that this is all there is.
I really enjoy the work of Dennett. He writes clearly, and unambiguously, which is always a good thing. His argument are always well though out, logical, and usually pretty damn water-tight!
He also gets first prize for most arrogantly titled book of all time:
Consciousness Explained. Well worth reading, despite the fact that it does nothing of the sort!
Also has written on the implications of Darwinism (
Darwin's Dangerous Idea)
David J. Chalmers - claims functionalism is correct, but that it needs a proper metaphysical groundwork. Puts forward the dual aspect theory. (Dualism...but not as you know it!)
Very interesting guy. Breathing a fresh outlook into the mind-body problem. His book is
The Conscious Mind: In search of a fundamental theory.
John R. Searle - Insists that consciousness is a biological property, like digestion or respiration. Most famous for his thoroughly refuted "Chinese Room" argument.
Can't say I particularly warm to Searle. He is arrogant, and abusive in his writings. His arguments are shallow and weak. They appear to be the voice of "common sense" at a first glance, but digging deeper they fall apart. (Always remember: Common sense is a
method not a conclusion)
He always insists that consciousness is a result of the mysterious "causal powers of the brain", but never seems to explicitly state what these are.
Regardless, since his views are so well known, it would be a good idea to read some of his work.
Minds Brains and Science is probably his most well known book.
Thomas Nagel - believes that the mind-body problem is
in principle unsolvable by humans. I have yet to read a book by him, only some of his papers, including the polemic "What is it like to be a bat" available online
here. Interesting and well written paper, though I don't necessarily accept his conclusions. I believe that it is far too premature to make decisions of this matter, when you consider how young the field is. (Young that is, from the sense that a certain level of empirical knowledge is required to even consider properly thinking about such questions)
Douglas Hofstadter – author of the Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece
Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. He is always a delight to read, and is very playful with words and structure. This book has been referred to as the “Bible of Artificial Intelligence”. I’m not sure how true that is, but it is certainly a wonderful experience reading it! He also published a book with Daniel C. Dennett:
The Mind’s I, which was a collection of papers and short stories by various authors all in some way related to the mind/body problem. The book alternates between these various papers, and “reflections” on them written by Hofstadter and Dennett.
Roger Penrose – claims that intelligent computers are impossible, and that in order to understand the mind we need to delve into quantum mechanics. But this is no speculative nonsense, Penrose most certainly does not fall under the derogatory term “Quantum Mystic”. In his book
The Emperor’s New Mind he attempts to rigorously prove that there are things which the human mind can do that are decidedly non-algorithmic. His main arguments lies with Godel’s Theorem, and believes that in order to understand the brain, we need to first arrive at a theory of Quantum Gravity (the elusive “theory of everything”). The book is written so that it is accessible to the layperson without a grounding in physics or mathematics. So about half of this book is nothing to do with the mind at all! He brings you up to speed on so many relevant issues: Theoretical Computer Science (Turing Machines, Complexity Theory, the Church-Turing thesis, the Halting Problem etc.), Mathematics (Fractals, imaginary numbers, Godel, Cantor, non-Euclidian Geometry, etc), classical physics (Newton, Maxwell, Einstein’s special and general relativity) Quantum Mechanics (Two-Slit Experiment, EPR paradox, Bohr, Schrodinger etc) Cosmology (Black Holes, Big Bang, Singularities, etc.) and the Arrow of Time(Thermodynamics, etc)
Wow! After all of this, the book gets back on track, to speak explicitly on minds and brains in the last two chapters!
I believe that his entire argument, however is based on a logical fallacy, but regardless, the book is well worth reading as it is highly stimulating, and you will undoubtedly learn a lot about the various scientific and mathematical topics raised.
I would nearly recommend this book as the finest introduction to quantum mechanics for the layperson! I have read a number of popularisations on quantum mechanics, and I find that all too often they stress the “woah” factor far too much, and don’t actually explain any thing at all! The highly dubious “Copenhagen Interpretation” seems always to be pushed, leaving the “realist” theories behind in the dust! Not so with Penrose.
Ok! I think I’ve written enough for the moment!
Perhaps it would be wrong of me to claim that these are “The great philosophers of today”. Regardless, the whole field is absolutely fascinating.