Fodor is a lively writer and easy to read, but I don't find him much fun. The bias and rhetoric get tiresome. The difference with good fiction is that you shouldn't feel like it's trying to persuade or cajole you into adopting the author's preferred opinions. Using the qualification "when I'm feeling dyspeptic" doesn't do much to tone down the ridiculous lack of charity towards psychology. He may not think much of Freud's attempt to expand the concept of mind beyond conscious thought, but to ignore the various reasons Freud gives for his position and instead just call it a 'bundle of muddle' is lazy. Having said all that, perhaps I don't like reading him because he is dismissive of the things I take seriously. I love reading Raymond Geuss, who is probably guilty of the same flaws as Fodor (as well as displaying some of the same virtues, perhaps), but I'm on board with the things he says---so maybe this is the reason I can enjoy his polemical or dyspeptic remarks.
Fodor is a lively writer and easy to read, but I don't find him much fun. The bias and rhetoric get tiresome. The difference with good fiction is that you shouldn't feel like it's trying to persuade or cajole you into adopting the author's preferred opinions. Using the qualification "when I'm feeling dyspeptic" doesn't do much to tone down the ridiculous lack of charity towards psychology. He may not think much of Freud's attempt to expand the concept of mind beyond conscious thought, but to ignore the various reasons Freud gives for his position and instead just call it a 'bundle of muddle' is lazy. Having said all that, perhaps I don't like reading him because he is dismissive of the things I take seriously. I love reading Raymond Geuss, who is probably guilty of the same flaws as Fodor (as well as displaying some of the same virtues, perhaps), but I'm on board with the things he says---so maybe this is the reason I can enjoy his polemical or dyspeptic remarks.