A few months ago, I published a rather harsh review of David S. Oderberg’s Real Essentialism. On my reading, the book seemed tendentious, rude, and full of motivated reasoning. The same friend who suggested the book to me recently described my review as “ill-tempered and misguided”, which prompted me to revisit it.

I cannot say the book made a different impression on me than it did; but I can say two things:

1. I am not well-studied enough in the field to review a book like this in a meaningful way. I spent a bit of time this morning looking at other reviews of the book, and other folks who do know the field well (Ed Feser, for example, no slouch in academic philosophy) recommend the book highly.

2. Better to say that I dislike Oderberg’s style of writing and argumentation — which I do, very much — than that it is not an argument. This is, I think, a blind spot for me, because I have had the same kind of allergic reaction to other books in the past. To be a good reader of books is to read them on their own terms, even if I don’t much like those terms!

Between the two of these, I don’t think I should have published that review — but as a matter of principle, I am leaving it up for posterity, but adding a retraction note that points to this post.

Going forward, I will aim to be more precise and careful in judging what it is I dislike about a writer’s argumentation, and simply to acknowledge more honestly (including with myself!) the limits of my knowledge and what I can and cannot reasonably review.