This week I’m writing an essay on the explanatory gap problem of consciousness. My essay will stick to examining Dennett’s views on consciousness. So I’m reading a lot of Dennett.

Two things strike me: firstly, how clever he seems to be in that I keep coming up with objections, and he always answers them on the very next page—over and over this has occurred. Either he’s leading me on spectacularly well or he’s writing for the kind of philosophy student I am. Secondly, I am sick of Dennett’s arrogant style of writing. All these little opinions of things as ‘silly’ or ‘boring’ or ‘not worth anything but laughter’. Stick to the prescribed style!

I am hoping that I can nail Dennett by showing that he doesn’t actually deal with the problem he sets out to deal with. I don’t know if I’ll be successful, because he’s very persuasive, and he’s writing is ideally suited to work on someone brought up like me, it seems. I can’t help but compare Dennett’s attitude towards his subject with other philosophers and feel like I want to put Dennett and co. in their place, but don’t quite know how to write down exactly what it is they are doing wrong.

This is all part of my ‘how important is Science, really?’ issue that I’ve been swinging all over the place on during the course of my degree.