I agree slightly with Hanson’s points, but his tone is really off and I think he is slightly uncharitable to the book. It is firmly a pop-philosophy book, but Hanson treats it like it should have been a technical bit of social economics. Sigh. The philosopher’s last name is “de Botton,” but Hanson refers to him everywhere as “Botton” (excepting one unfortunate typo in the third paragraph). At the end of the review, Hanson decides to make some snide remarks at de Botton’s expense, which could have been dispensed without any loss.
Neglecting these points empties the review of most of its content.
I agree slightly with Hanson’s points, but his tone is really off and I think he is slightly uncharitable to the book. It is firmly a pop-philosophy book, but Hanson treats it like it should have been a technical bit of social economics. Sigh. The philosopher’s last name is “de Botton,” but Hanson refers to him everywhere as “Botton” (excepting one unfortunate typo in the third paragraph). At the end of the review, Hanson decides to make some snide remarks at de Botton’s expense, which could have been dispensed without any loss.
Neglecting these points empties the review of most of its content.