The biggest problem with this book is the fact most important section: “On science, reason, and humanism” was placed at the back of the book, easily-missed by the many skimmers and skippers who are only reading this book in order to be able to write something in their book review.
There are some disagreeable points, for example with the part on responsibility towards others drawing parallels to religious morality and otherwise out of place, given that scientific knowledge and reasoning doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that one has a responsibility towards another just because that arbitrary other cares for them.
Actually, this section comprises of three chapters, as one might guess from the title of the section the chapters are “Science”, “Reason”, and “Humanism”.
The first two chapters were written very eloquently, only falling apart with the latter half of the chapter on “Humanism” making relatively sloppy and hurried conclusions (as if Pinker was in a rush?) and, of course, “that whole section about Nietzsche” that’s ubiquitously cautioned about in reviews of this book.
More friendly fire
While it’s true that Nietzsche had misogynistic beliefs, they do not substantially affect his core philosophy—or, arguably, could be completely ignored with no consequence.
Looking at the references, I found no direct sources to Nietzsche’s works, only references to summaries and discussions by other scholars, possibly indicating that Pinker has not actually read any of Nietzsche’s books. To be fair, as someone who still stubbornly refuses to read the Bible with an objective and unbiased mind, I can understand why he would be reluctant to go against his cognitive dissonance and read one of Nietzsche’s works himself, at least if he intends to be fair and not skim through his writings like many of his very own critics. Unfortunately, I don’t have the solution for this reluctance, only the perennial excuse of lack of time and energy.
To relate how people have used Nietzsche’s ideas and how people inspired by Nietzsche have done many morally-criminal acts (Nazism was a big point) was reminiscent of the critics who blame scientific progress (and science itself) for biochemical weapons and nuclear warheads. While it may be true that Nietzsche’s ideas can be (and have been) taken by some to cause havoc and destruction (arguably, by misinterpretation), it would be a step too far to assume that every Nietzsche-influenced scholar is somehow an enemy of humanism or supporter of Fascism and its offshoots.
The case for reason and science
If Nietzsche were still alive today and reading this book, I would imagine he would be quite puzzled—perhaps betrayed—to see himself suddenly portrayed as an enemy of humanism at the end of the book in a sudden plot twist (if Nietzsche were an advocate of science and reason, he should have—if we follow Pinker’s reasonings so far—eventually converged onto humanism as well).
Perhaps I see Nietzsche with a very different perspective, for the first of his writings I’ve read was The Gay Science, a strong case for reason, and an appeal against “science” as it was back then, which I believe Pinker misunderstands as Nietzsche being “anti-scientific”. “Science” in 1882 was not exactly the same “science” we all know and love now, his arguments instead demonstrating that he was, very much, on the side of our more contemporary scientists. In addition, Nietzsche’s arguments against certain scientists remain relevant to this day: scientists who still have a faith in “truth” (replacing “God” with “truth”) and remaining apostles of faith. Though rarer in contemporary times, as we become more familiar and more educated in formal hypotheses, theories, testability, and the problems of induction among others, there are still many scientists who continue to be religious in this sense, creating a cause for lament among educated scholars as they argue bizarre, anachronistic positions and state too much with far too little—where reason-aligned scientists discuss “reasonable doubt” and “probabilities”, these people see absolute truth in theories and hypotheses, their goal to find the truth instead of “merely” forming a coherent framework that aligns as closely with reality as possible, open to challenge and modification at any time while discarding unhelpful notions of “truth”—and by extension, absolute certainty.
I believe even Pinker himself would be fascinated by the idea of Nietzsche’s intellectual conscience, given the context of his time, and how Nietzsche developed a protoscientific descriptions documenting our lack of complete self-awareness or autonomy and biases in his many discussions on honesty without being able to draw from modern scientific knowledge.
Though many of his factually-based beliefs have been proven untrue, it is still impressive, seeing how much he’s managed to discover before the many scientific discoveries that followed after his death, and it would be unfair to regard him as anything but an ally of reason and science.
In another timeline where Nietzsche was born more recently, updated with modern scientific knowledge and vast access to libraries (and the Internet), perhaps the case in Enlightenment Now would have been presented by him instead, maybe even with something potentially more impressive and ambitious in the closing than Pinker’s hurried case for humanism (which Pinker himself admits could have been done more eloquently).
Closing
I’m extremely curious about Pinker’s reaction if he ever chooses to personally read Nietzsche’s works, I’m wondering if he’ll see the parallels with his preceding chapters on reason and science, or if he’ll really find nothing from Nietzsche that supports his arguments in any way.
Nietzsche, albeit sometimes misguided by his times (again, with the misogyny and early conclusions of the implications of evolution), was still—and very much so—an ally of reason and science. I believe the arguments in these final chapters would have been stronger (especially Pinker’s laments about the intelligentsia’s standards for reasoning) if he had instead highlighted Nietzsche’s insights and his advocacy of reason and intellectual honesty, enriching the arguments put forth in the chapters on science and reason instead of emphasising his flaws in the chapter on Humanism and presenting him as an enemy instead of friend.