"Ask Questions, and Question Answers!" Think of Socrates as a comedian, with little children as his props. That's what Scott Hershovitz's book Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids is about: deep issues, explored entertainingly as dialogues with his two sons, plus extensive asides and commentary. Major themes, as per chapter titles:

• Rights
• Revenge
• Punishment
• Authority
• Language
• Sex, Gender, and Sports
• Race and Responsibility
• Knowledge
• Truth
• Mind
• Infinity
• God

Among the best bits, from the Introduction ("The Art of Thinking"), on how to read the book:

... That's one of the things I love about philosophy: you can do it anytime, anywhere, in conversation with others or all by yourself. You just have to think things through.

To that end, I want you to read this book a bit differently than you would many others. Most nonfiction writers want you to believe the things they say in their books. They're hoping that you'll accept their authority and adopt their way of thinking about the world.

That's not my aim at all. Sure, I'd like to persuade you to see things my way. But the truth is: I'm happy for you to think differently—as long as you've thought it through. In fact, I suggest that you approach the arguments I offer skeptically. Don't assume that I'm right. In fact, assume that I've gone wrong somewhere, and see if you can spot the spot.

But do me a favor. Don't just disagree. If you think I'm wrong, work out the reasons why. And once you've done that, think through what I might say in response. And how you'd reply, and what I'd retort. And so on, until you feel like you aren't learning anything anymore. But don't give up too quick; the further you go, the more you understand.

That's how philosophers work (at least the grown-up ones). I tell my students: when you have an objection to another philosopher's work, you should assume that she already thought of it—and that she thought it so misguided it wasn't even worth mentioning. Then you should try to work out why. If you give it a good try and you can't figure out where you've gone wrong, it's time to tell other people about it. The goal is to get in the habit of treating your own ideas as critically as you treat other people's. ...

... and in the chapter "Mind", on the importance of not coming to conclusions prematurely:

... Jules Coleman has been a friend and mentor for decades. He was my teacher in law school. And he taught me one of the most important lessons I ever learned.

I saw him in the hall when I was a student, and we started to talk philosophy. I can't remember what the question was. But I do remember attempting to share my view.

"In my view . . ." I started.

He cut me off.

"You're too young to have views," he said. "You can have questions, curiosities, ideas . . . even inclinations. But not views. You're not ready for views."

He was making two points. First, it's dangerous to have views, because often you dig in to defend them. And that makes it hard to hear what other people have to say. One of Coleman's signal virtues as a philosopher is his willingness to change his views. That's because he's more committed to questions than answers. He wants to understand,and he's willing to go wherever his understanding takes him, even if it requires him to backtrack from where he's been before.

Second, you have to earn your views. You shouldn't have a view unless you can defend it, make an argument for it, and explain where the arguments against it go wrong. When Coleman said I was too young for views, he wasn't really making a point about age. (I was twenty-six.) He was saying I was too new to philosophy. Decades on, I have lots of views. I can say why I hold them and where I think others go wrong. But I don't have views on every question, because I haven't done the work to earn them. ...

Bottom line: Nasty, Brutish, and Short is full of fine stuff, though at times perhaps it gets a bit too personal-narrow, with too much foul language and too much bias toward what-would-be-nice-if-it-were-true currently-conventional political beliefs. But that's ok – the reader has already been warned not to accept "answers" unquestioningly! Worth reading, and pondering.

_{(cf Living Philosophy (1999-06-12), Deliberate Opinion (2001-10-14), Robert Nozick (2002-02-02), Most Important (2002-05-16), Think Again (2002-08-29), No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed (2003-10-13), Discussion and Dialogue (2006-01-07), Question Answers (2016-10-09), Philosophy Now (2019-08-18), ...) - ^z - 2023-10-02}