‘How shall I live in order to live a good life?’: It is good to stop once-in-a-while (– to be able to stop once-in-a-while! –) to ask oneself this question. So as not one day, when it is time to die, be confronted by the realisation that whatever one has dreamt of doing with one’s life - after all it is the only stab at life one is given - has passed one by.

Grayling leads us on a historical survey of answers given by western philosophy and religions over 2500 years, from antiquity to the present. He writes for a general readership, selecting from and summarising a vast amount of material. I get the impression that he admiringly succeeds in this task. A.C.G. is however not a detached commentator in this debate between secular and religious proponents. He firmly believes and enthusiastically advocates that the good life should be sought here on Earth and not in a promised Heavenly life-after-death by submitting to a transcendental authority. Grayling answers with Socrates that the best life is the considered life: “free, creative, informed and chosen, a life of achievement and fulfilment, of pleasure and understanding, of love and friendship.” Yes! And it is to be wished that circumstances be such as to give everybody a chance.
Looking into the future I am not, however, quite as optimistic as A.C.G. that the rational scientific attitude, as desirable as it is, will be able to overcome what he calls the “three ugly sisters: Ignorance, Superstition and Greed” (to which I will add: fear and aggression, all profoundly human qualities) for the reason, not discussed by G., that the (rational) secular and the (emotional) religious voices that oppose each other in the debate are not symmetrical antagonists: a rational approach can only then be taken if his/her emotional makeup is such that rationality is given the freedom to operate. In practice it means that a person’s emotions, at least momentarily during the debate, need balancing each other, no single emotion must dominate; and it is certainly required that the negative ones are kept under firm control. The rich emotional makeup of the individual is the soil in which the plant of rationality may grow or wither. Even the most vigorous rational growth may at times be hindered by emotions of which the bearer himself may not even be aware. Human ability for self-deception is practically unlimited. Even scientific debate may not be free from emotions, submission to authority and even fashion (!).
Humans are given the potential for rationality and a rational debate may be achievable concerning purely scientific and technical matters; but in a political landscape governed by strong emotions, foremost fear, intolerance and greed, I give rationality little chance.

The text is supplemented by a large bibliography and an index. (VII-11/VIII-11) ( )