I recently finished reading Daniel Dennett’s book “Consciousness Explained”. It was a significant read, full of detailed arguments and illustrations. Although there were some provocative ideas in it, most of them seemed a bit dated, probably because the book is now nearly 30 years old. In addition, the tone of the writing was a little off-putting, with Dennet apparently very confident in his model, even to the point of often deprecating other possibilities in a cringy manner.

The thing is, it seems this sort of writing often shows up when the author is making a point that seems strained, not totally convincing, and it’s as if the writer knows that and feels the need to resort to emotional manipulation. Of course, it may just be the writer’s personality, but it does seem that if a writer feels the need to resort to emotional manipulation, one can’t help but imagine that this is done because even they don’t feel that the rational arguments are sufficient.