"Philosophical anthropology on the grandest scale. . . .Gellner has produced a sharp challenge to his colleagues and a thrilling book for the non-specialist. Deductive history on this scale cannot be proved right or wrong, but this is Gellner writing, incisive, iconoclastic, witty and expert. His scenario compels our attention."--Adam Kuper, New Statesman "A thoughtful and lively meditation upon probably the greatest transformation in human history, upon the difficult problems it poses and the scant resources it has left ...
Read More
"Philosophical anthropology on the grandest scale. . . .Gellner has produced a sharp challenge to his colleagues and a thrilling book for the non-specialist. Deductive history on this scale cannot be proved right or wrong, but this is Gellner writing, incisive, iconoclastic, witty and expert. His scenario compels our attention."--Adam Kuper, New Statesman "A thoughtful and lively meditation upon probably the greatest transformation in human history, upon the difficult problems it poses and the scant resources it has left us to solve them."--Charles Larmore, New Republic
Read Less
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
Fair in Very Good+ jacket. Black cloth boards in dust jacket, octavo, 288pp., not illustrated. Book has handsome boards and tight binding, previous owner's signature to front flyleaf, text has significant ink marginalia and underlining throughout. DJ has gentle rubbing and shelfwear. READING/STUDY COPY ONLY.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
Very Good. Size: 1x6x9; Bound in publisher's cloth. Hardcover. No dust jacket. Good binding and cover. Shelf wear. Foxing to edges. 288 pages; 23 cm. Ernest Gellner was an outstanding theorist of modernity and a rare breed among late twentieth century scholars. He made major contributions in very diverse fields, notably philosophy and social anthropology. His excoriating attacks on the orthodoxies of his times made it difficult for him to be fully accepted into either of these academic communities. That suited him well enough: he seemed to enjoy leading a one-man crusade for critical rationalism, defending enlightenment universalism against the rising tides of idealism and relativism.