There’s a lot in The Revenge of Reason, for people with different interests. So to any potential reader, I would say pick something that interests you. But, if I were to direct someone, I’d suggest starting with the dialogues. There are three interviews in the book of me speaking to other people about different issues. Because philosophy—going back to Plato—is best done in dialogue. It’s more comprehensible and draws out the issues at a better pace and at a better level. I would recommend that people pick up one of the interviews and work their way outward. 

One interview is about embodiment. What you might call the ‘embodiment paradigm’ in philosophy, critical theory, and cognitive science. These discipline overlap in a strange way on this topic. I'm essentially trying to show that they confer a mystery on the body that almost becomes sacralized. I think we can strip away this mystery and see the body as something more abstract and computational.

Another interview discusses normativity and the influence of Robert B. Brandom on my thinking. For me, norms are not metaphysically mysterious. Normativity is important. We can't get away from it in philosophical thinking. We always have to make evaluative decisions. But we can do this in a way that both resists metaphysical idealization, and the crass rejection of all normativity in nihilism.

The third interview is a more wide-ranging. It engages more deeply with computational theory of mind. I’m a computationalist at heart—I think the mind is computational—but not in the rigid, hardware-software metaphor way. The idea that the brain is hardware and the mind is software is a bad metaphor drawn from computers and physical devices that we're familiar with, rather than the mathematical theory of computation.