A review by rotorguy64
Walden Two by B.F. Skinner
1.0
[b:Brave New World|5129|Brave New World|Aldous Huxley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1575509280l/5129._SY75_.jpg|3204877], except low-key and it's presented as a good thing. That would be the short version.
The long version: There's no literary merit to this work. I would guess that a full eighty percent of the book are various dialogues about the superiority of the eponymous community. In the typical scene, some feature of Walden Two is introduced, some character raises objections to it, and then another character corrects him. The writing reminded me very much of [b:Time Will Run Back|4444373|Time Will Run Back A Novel About the Rediscovery of Capitalism|Henry Hazlitt|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1379802348l/4444373._SY75_.jpg|4492584], which was more clumsily executed, but which at least had the occasional semblance of action, including one or two genuinely tense scenes. Both novels submit the narrative completely to their respective philosophies.
There is nothing wrong with platonic dialogues per se, I've read my share of such works and I've generally enjoyed them. There are two problems with how Skinner executes the idea, however. The minor problem, although it is only minor in comparison, is that he still seems committed to writing a classical novel. For the duration of any dialogue, the narrative is effectively frozen, and as the novel is extremely dialogue-heavy, that means it is frozen almost constantly. The plot moves forward at a snail's pace.
The major problem is his argumentation. Skinner neither knows his opponents nor was he intelligent enough to come up with their objections himself. One character, who is introduced early on as a scholastic philosopher and who is the main spokesperson for every opinion Skinner regards as wrong, fails to bring up objections that anyone faintly acquainted with scholasticism would find painfully obvious. He never questions the central metaphysical, ethical and epistemic assumptions behind Walden Two. He never, for example, challenges Skinners radical empiricism by pointing out that causality implies finality, which in turn implies essentialism, or at least a kind of Providence. Nor does he challenge the ultimately utilitarian purpose of Walden Two by making a convincing or at least an authentic case that the good is not that which feels nice, but that which is fulfilling.
Instead of such big questions, we are treated to inquiries on whether or not it is child abuse to put a child in front of a hot bowl of soup and tell it to wait five minutes, as a test of willpower. That's what the scholastic philosopher argued, that it's child abuse to tell a kid that no, it can't eat the soup now. (That sounds more like the romantic than the scholastic tradition, as do our "scholastic philosophers" panegyrics to democracy; truly, a many-faceted character.) Or, we are told that fashion trends in Walden Two are synchronized with the durability of clothing, which sounds like a nice idea. Or that tea is served in large glasses, so the waiters have to run around less. Also, nice, although I couldn't care less. Furthermore, did you know large rooms are only good for those shallow, noisy partygoers? (Tell that to anyone who ever visited mass in a baroque church.)
There are, I think, two grand ideas among this swamp of petty trivialities. The first concerns free will, although it's so boring I forgot most of it, except that Skinner again ignores compatibilitism and the link between human nature and human freedom, as almost all modern philosophers do. The second concerns the fundamentals of how a perfect society should be organized, namely along rationalistic, collectivistic and scientific lines. The fundamentals, as I said, are never fundamentally questioned, although they do get a lot of platitudes thrown at them, which are skillfully defended with so many so-what's. In Walden Two, children are raised in common, no one has any favorites, everyone works out of an unspecific love for "society", and of course capital is not allocated with the market process, but with the power of love and ignorance of the [b:calculation-problem|1714576|Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth|Ludwig von Mises|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1434465150l/1714576._SX50_.jpg|1711858], by benevolent planners who are conditioned from birth to be good people. Everyone is equal, no one is superior or inferior to another, and all that. I think [a:Rawls|74263|John Rawls|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1257280760p2/74263.jpg] would love the place. Furthermore, and more importantly, every social problem is solved not by recourse to tradition, but to scientific inquiry, and with scientific methods, specifically with the conditioning methods that Skinner researched throughout his life. True to form, Skinner looks down on the "wisdom of the elders" and he thinks history is a fun hobby at best.
I was on the fence on whether to give this book two stars, because at least Skinner insisted his system would be perfectly voluntary, which should have delighted my libertarian heart. At the end, I decided against it. The freedom of Walden Two is freedom without substance, the freedom to live a happy, mediocre, inoffensive, socially-liberal-but-not-scandalous existence, without God, without meaningful human attachments, with no excess in anything, and nothing to be proud of, as everything you are and everything you do belongs to the loving community. What on earth do these people need freedom for? To pick their favorite sort of ice cream? I know that's what some people think freedom is all about, and I also know explaining to them why they're wrong is like explaining to a child why chocolate is not the greatest thing in the world. As for me, I'd rather live with a pack of wild dogs than in Walden Two. At least dogs howl for their dead, Walden Two probably collectively sighs about the loss of 0,1% of the community and then enjoys the Soylent Green.
The long version: There's no literary merit to this work. I would guess that a full eighty percent of the book are various dialogues about the superiority of the eponymous community. In the typical scene, some feature of Walden Two is introduced, some character raises objections to it, and then another character corrects him. The writing reminded me very much of [b:Time Will Run Back|4444373|Time Will Run Back A Novel About the Rediscovery of Capitalism|Henry Hazlitt|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1379802348l/4444373._SY75_.jpg|4492584], which was more clumsily executed, but which at least had the occasional semblance of action, including one or two genuinely tense scenes. Both novels submit the narrative completely to their respective philosophies.
There is nothing wrong with platonic dialogues per se, I've read my share of such works and I've generally enjoyed them. There are two problems with how Skinner executes the idea, however. The minor problem, although it is only minor in comparison, is that he still seems committed to writing a classical novel. For the duration of any dialogue, the narrative is effectively frozen, and as the novel is extremely dialogue-heavy, that means it is frozen almost constantly. The plot moves forward at a snail's pace.
The major problem is his argumentation. Skinner neither knows his opponents nor was he intelligent enough to come up with their objections himself. One character, who is introduced early on as a scholastic philosopher and who is the main spokesperson for every opinion Skinner regards as wrong, fails to bring up objections that anyone faintly acquainted with scholasticism would find painfully obvious. He never questions the central metaphysical, ethical and epistemic assumptions behind Walden Two. He never, for example, challenges Skinners radical empiricism by pointing out that causality implies finality, which in turn implies essentialism, or at least a kind of Providence. Nor does he challenge the ultimately utilitarian purpose of Walden Two by making a convincing or at least an authentic case that the good is not that which feels nice, but that which is fulfilling.
Instead of such big questions, we are treated to inquiries on whether or not it is child abuse to put a child in front of a hot bowl of soup and tell it to wait five minutes, as a test of willpower. That's what the scholastic philosopher argued, that it's child abuse to tell a kid that no, it can't eat the soup now. (That sounds more like the romantic than the scholastic tradition, as do our "scholastic philosophers" panegyrics to democracy; truly, a many-faceted character.) Or, we are told that fashion trends in Walden Two are synchronized with the durability of clothing, which sounds like a nice idea. Or that tea is served in large glasses, so the waiters have to run around less. Also, nice, although I couldn't care less. Furthermore, did you know large rooms are only good for those shallow, noisy partygoers? (Tell that to anyone who ever visited mass in a baroque church.)
There are, I think, two grand ideas among this swamp of petty trivialities. The first concerns free will, although it's so boring I forgot most of it, except that Skinner again ignores compatibilitism and the link between human nature and human freedom, as almost all modern philosophers do. The second concerns the fundamentals of how a perfect society should be organized, namely along rationalistic, collectivistic and scientific lines. The fundamentals, as I said, are never fundamentally questioned, although they do get a lot of platitudes thrown at them, which are skillfully defended with so many so-what's. In Walden Two, children are raised in common, no one has any favorites, everyone works out of an unspecific love for "society", and of course capital is not allocated with the market process, but with the power of love and ignorance of the [b:calculation-problem|1714576|Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth|Ludwig von Mises|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1434465150l/1714576._SX50_.jpg|1711858], by benevolent planners who are conditioned from birth to be good people. Everyone is equal, no one is superior or inferior to another, and all that. I think [a:Rawls|74263|John Rawls|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1257280760p2/74263.jpg] would love the place. Furthermore, and more importantly, every social problem is solved not by recourse to tradition, but to scientific inquiry, and with scientific methods, specifically with the conditioning methods that Skinner researched throughout his life. True to form, Skinner looks down on the "wisdom of the elders" and he thinks history is a fun hobby at best.
I was on the fence on whether to give this book two stars, because at least Skinner insisted his system would be perfectly voluntary, which should have delighted my libertarian heart. At the end, I decided against it. The freedom of Walden Two is freedom without substance, the freedom to live a happy, mediocre, inoffensive, socially-liberal-but-not-scandalous existence, without God, without meaningful human attachments, with no excess in anything, and nothing to be proud of, as everything you are and everything you do belongs to the loving community. What on earth do these people need freedom for? To pick their favorite sort of ice cream? I know that's what some people think freedom is all about, and I also know explaining to them why they're wrong is like explaining to a child why chocolate is not the greatest thing in the world. As for me, I'd rather live with a pack of wild dogs than in Walden Two. At least dogs howl for their dead, Walden Two probably collectively sighs about the loss of 0,1% of the community and then enjoys the Soylent Green.