History Books

This is a very good introductory book on the philosophie of science. As an inexpert in the area I enjoyed reading this book which does not include nonsense writings and unnecessary lengthy details. It is cheap in price and I recommend it to every scientist.

Tarek musslimani

At just 134 small (4.5 x 6.5") pages this book is a bargain in both time and cost. The book starts with a short history of modern science (Aristotle, Copernicus, and onward). Using some of the work of Karl Popper and falsifiability, Okasha proceeds to define science, but also points out the failures of Popper's demarcation. There is a short summary to deduction and induction, but counters induction with Hume's problem. The major problems of explanation in science including covering law, symmetry, irrelevancy, and causation, are all discussed. The chapter on realism and anti-realism, perhaps becomes more esoteric, but is an important topic. Thomas Kuhn, and "The structure of scientific revolutions" is an important topic, but perhaps the pages on Kuhn's legacy is not thorough, (but the reader is left with references to pursue!). The paragraphs on biology and "science and religion" in light of "Intelligent design" debates, are of most interest, but coverage is cursory, and other sources are available (I recommend Edward Larson's Summer for the Gods on the Scopes Trail). Photographs and diagrams throughout the book, give some historical examples. Well worth the time!

What do philosophers think about science? This book provides a brief history of the philosophy of science, describes some logical assumptions in the practice of science and problems in science, and discusses Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions. The book concludes with a discussion on science and society.

Philosophy of science, as described in this book, seems to have become a rather esoteric subject removed the daily practice of scientists and the everyday use of science. Some questions that spring to mind but which are not covered in this book: Does the publication and independent verification of results lead to the self-correcting nature of science? Why is the simplest explanation the best? How can scientists who cannot easily perform experiments, such as astronomers and sociologists, make verifiable theories?

Chapter 6 presents three problems in science: Newton's view of absolute space, the classification (by feature or by genetics) of living creatures and the whether the mind is modular or not. It's not clear to me how the philosophy of science can help in resolving these problems. Newton's view was probably driven by his desire to prove the literal truth of the Bible. In this day and age of automated indexing systems, does it really matter which method is used to classify creatures? Finally, shouldn't scientists collect more data before deciding if the mind is modular or not?

This book covers a number of topics in the field but fortunately doesn't get bogged down in a deep technical discussion on any single topic. It is a reasonable overview of the topic for the interested reader and one of the better books in the "Very Short Introduction" series.

Kam-Hung Soh, 19 January 2006.
http://kamhungsoh.blogspot.com

In my opinion, this book is probably the best available introduction to the philosophy of science. It is also suitable for review purposes for those who already have some familiarity with the subject.

The book manages to cover much ground in a short space because it is written very concisely, yet it is also easy to read because the writing style is very clear and straightforward.

I warmly recommend this book without hesitation.

I am a layman learning about Evolutionary Biology. Naturally I've been drawn into the ID/Evolution debate (in some cases on this site) and as part of that debate you end up talking a lot about what science really is, and particularly, what is a Theory. Lots of opponents of evolution cry out that it is ONLY A THEORY. True, but it is a theory (as I learned from this book) in the same sense as all other "theories"; such as the theory of gravity, theory of electricity, etc.! And so on... so anyway, I felt I needed to understand more about the "science of science".

I picked this up to get that brief education and I was richly rewarded. It provides a thorough but concise introduction to the Philosophy of Science. It covers the main topics and gives summaries of the major points of view. It gives references to further reading and even provides some charts and graphics. I now feel equipped to at least discuss the basic problems of the philosophy of science and now know where to go get more information.

My only criticism is the chapter that describes a specific problem in the philosophy of science from 3 of the main branches of science (Physics, Biology, and Psychology). I thought the Biology and Psychology examples were pretty weak - they didn't seem like much of a controversy today or terribly relevant. The controversy in Biology between Cladistics and Phenetics has some historical interest, but doesn't seem to be a pressing current issue (but I'm not a professional biologist, either, in all fairness).

That small issue aside, it was a great read. I recommend it and I'm going to go buy and read some more of the books in this series.

Lee Smolin presents his case not for why string theory should be dropped, but why other theories should be pursued more vigorously. Rather than demonizing string theory, Smolin looks at the theory's successes and failures and then moves beyond that to discussing the sociology of science in general, and this is his main issue. Smolin says the system is set up to keep alternative theories out, while the fashionable theories get all the attention, and that this system is perhaps the reason why theoretical physics has been stuck for so long. Great book.

So many reviewers have said so many things, let me just add this: During the past thirty years, we have seen the rise of religious ideology and its disastrous effects on our political system, not to mention our national finances and national reputation.

How interesting that science has experienced the same things, the same disasters born of the same focus on ideology rather than factuality, in the same time period.

This book is the first BIG public demonstration that this period may be coming to an end.

The disaster of string theory, and the Irag war, both prove the same thing: ignoring the dictates of reason, and setting aside facts for fantasy, always leads us to the same place: nowhere we want to be!

Thank you Lee Smolin.

A must-have for anyone interested in their world. And an instant classic.

Peter Shor provides an excellent summarizing review of the first half to three-quarters of the book. But he largely skimped on what I think Smolin's main focus was, based on reading Smolin's website and the author's notes in the book, when he began the book. The last few chapters are concerning the role of academia in maintaining integrity throughout their ranks. If Smolin is correct, and this book provides excellent support to believe so, this has not been done with string theory, regardless of whether it is a correct theory or not. It is an extremely volatile subject that is likely to explode in the next few decades, and not only in physics but all academic fields.

I feel the situations is complicated, but can be roughly simplified as the selfishness and fear of a group of highly respected (and sometimes also highly paid, but not always) individuals who perceived that they were not making any progress and seek to protect their respected status through manipulation. They are essentially echoing an everyday experience - even the most ignorant person can seem quite capable if they merely exude enough self confidence. Well, according to the accounts by Smolin and many others, the string theorists are doing exactly that - holding onto excessive and unfounded confidence. Unfortunately, the first step in gaining knowledge is to admit that you already possess none.

Smolin takes a much less accusational stance than I do here, but he spends a significant amount of time in his book discussing this issue and it should not be left out of the reviews.

--G. Hill

Lee Smolin, a fair-to-middling popularizer of physics vents his anger at himself and others for pursuing the chimera of an 11 (or more) dimensional universe and a "theory" that produces 10^500 distinct theories. Unfortunately for the reader, Smolin manages not to define his terms, and gives no clue to how this number of 10^500 was arrived at, nor even what a distinct theory means.

The book is almost solely interesting for its treatment of the sociology of string theory and the way its practitioners monopolized high energy particle theory for much more than a decade.

I jumped at this title when I saw it among my Amazon recommendations (Sometimes they do get these things right.) thinking to myself, "Ah, finally somebody out there (besides Feynman) has had the courage to state the obvious and actually write a book about it." And this Smolin does here in language I think most people with a basic science education can understand. Good show Lee!

But I do have a couple of somewhat minor problems with it. The first problem is, as far as I'm concerned, Smolin IS stating what has always seemed obvious to me. Indeed, ever since viewing the PBS special on String Theory and reading Brian Greene's book regarding it, I've been saying to myself: "What a lot of twaddle! This isn't science. It's more like some terribly bad mixture of mathematics and philosophy, making for bad theories in both fields." Actually, Smolin states as much here:

"Nevertheless, it seems to me that any fair-minded person not irrationally committed to a belief in string theory would see this situation clearly. A theory has failed to make any predictions by which it can be tested, and some of its proponents, rather than admitting that, are seeking to change the rules so that their theory will not need to pass the usual tests we impose on scientific ideas." P.170

Exactly! It truly baffled me that PBS would spend all this money on what was obviously a scientific farce. One might as well watch a rerun of Jeeves and Wooster. It's much more entertaining and Wodehouse, unlike Greene et al., knows himself to be a farceur. Anyway, the minor problem is that for me the above quote is all that need be really said about it (One might throw Feynman's in for good measure.). A whole book would seem to be unnecessary. But, obviously, there are scads of others who don't see that what Charlie Rose in his interview with Greene rhapsodized about as "The Theory of Everything" is not even a Theory of Nothing. It's not even a theory.

But Smolin did write this book, which brings me to my second problem here. Smolin is what I suppose I'll call an Einsteinian, but with a twist (no String Theory pun intended). As another reviewer has pointed out, this book has two parts. The first debunks String Theory. The second rails against "group think" and the state of current academia, in the States, anyway - All good and well, so far - But the last chapters are a bit odd for a book about physics, methinks. Here, Smolin reveals himself to be, for lack of a better word, a Romantic. He loves citing examples of people whom he calls "seers" rather than "craftsmen", of which Einstein is the best exemplar. People who hole themselves up alone and work things out based on some mystical insight. In particular, he cites one particular physicist who, during a hike in the mountains, had a vision that "time is unreal" and has spent the rest of his life working things out to prove that this is so. Exactly what it would mean for time to be unreal he does not elucidate.

This brings to mind Bertrand Russell's famous essay, "Mysticism and Logic" where he notes that the unreality of time is key to almost all mystical systems and philosophies. It is not confined to physicists; indeed, it is more associated with poets. Avers Yeats:

"For one moment
While on that grey stone I sat
I knew the One is animate
Mankind inanimate phantasy."

Russell, in his essay, concurs with Smolin, as I understand Smolin anyway; pointing out that almost all great ideas start out with some sort of mystical insight of this sort. But the way the book concludes, citing all these lone anchorite physicists, toiling away in their cottages and flats, is just a tad odd for a book debunking a notion because it's unfalsifiable and lacks empirical verification. Smolin seems to concur with Thoreau here, "No one ever followed his genius until it misled him."

To sum up, Smolin, in these latter chapters, seems to be a sort of Thomas Carlyle of 21st Century physics. He's an admirer of the Great Man/Great Idea interpretation of the history of science. This view certainly has its attractions. And, certainly, we associate all scientific revolutions with particular names: Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman etc. I suppose they all qualify as "seers" in Smolin's view. Still, it doesn't quite square with the empirical approach, and this view of history in general has peculiar consequences. I can't get out of my mind the image of Goring reading a German translation of Carlyle's account of Frederick the Great to the Fuhrer as the Soviets close in on Berlin.

True story.

Not a book about battles & generals. This is a book about the Revolution of Ideas that sparked the war. Every student of history should have this on his/her bookshelf.

the book was in great shape. however, i hated reading it =) it's extremely long and drawn out. the guy uses way too many pages to convey ONE thought. it's quite excessive.

Wodd, as evidenced here never fails to explain subtle ideas and actions in a way that is coherent and understandable. This is a book of great insight but one gets the feeling that Wood is writing it for you, not to impress his peers. No small thing! I always get the feeling when I read any of his work that if I could have only one book on the subject this would be the one. This work is no exception!

It seems the trend among historians is to diminsh the importance of the American Revolution by describing it as a tax revolt unleased, or worse yet, as not a true revolution at all. Gordon S. Wood's book describes in eloquent depth the true radicalism of the American Revolution. He describes the complete political, social, and philosophical restructuring of a society, in a clear, readable, and straighforward style. I am a history teacher and this enlightened book has become part of my curriculum. I believe that this book is invaluable in understanding why we are where we are, as a nation today.

"Hamilton's Dream of making the United States a great fiscal-military state dissipated in the face of America's emerging democratic society. It failed not simply because it was overwhelmed by the Jeffersonian Republicans and their waves of new entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, but, more important, because it was ultimately undone by the Federalists themselves" ...pg 264
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr. Wood could explain to the unenlightened reader how venture capitalists could succeed in America without the "Lax Mercatoria" or Law Merchant? Now, I am no historian, nor an economist, and so I do not expect a perspective buyer to take my word for it, but, when the "common law" on transactions was the rule of the States outside of a few seaboard ports, then how, or why, would venture capitalists be willing to invest? Perhaps Mr. Wood might want to explain the difference between the motives used for the creation of the Bank of England and Hamilton's fiscal visionary approach to set the rules leading to a strong, industrial, self-reliant country?
I would ask the serious student to read Forrest Macdonald's, "Novus Ordo Seclorum", and then compare it to Wood's, "Radicalism of the American Revolution". A curious researcher might come up with some serious doubts upon Mr Wood;s conclusions with the Federalist. I also find it strange how any author who can criticize both intellectually and subjectively on Alexander Hamilton fails to mention both Vattel and Neckers and their role on Hamilton's thought and actions. If I am going to believe Mr. Woods theories and speculations I certainly would hope he would do his expertise fully to the table.
In my opinion this book is worth spending the money only if the reader wishes to see an historian with an agenda.

This book has serious points to make, although the reader may wander through a few pages before becoming confident that it is not attempting a self-parody. Stay with it and glean at least two key concepts.

First, BS is not lying. A liar knows the truth and carefully crafts an alternative to it to further some agenda. The BSer operates without regard for--perhaps even knowledge of--the truth. The BS is created to achieve an effect, to please the ego or ear, or perhaps just to fill some conversational space the speaker feels unable to neglect with silence. To the BSer, the offered BS even has some non-zero chance of being true--if it were only worth the bother to check.

The second insight is that certain organizational roles create pressure to engage in BS more than others. The author points to leaders who have frequent opportunities or demands to speak about their organizations' accomplishments without being very involved in the planning, production or evaluation of said accomplishments. Much of what these leaders say will be BS, to the sorrow and pain of those who must live with the consequences.

I'll close with a recommendation and a plea. I recommend that you buy a copy of this book for your own intellectual and moral development. It is brief, readable and encourages us to think seriously about both the truth and consequences of what we claim to know. Satisfied readers will also value an encounter with the author's related book, On Truth.

I then plead with you to purchase a second copy and mail it anonymously to the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia where Senior Executives for the Federal government are trained. Only good can come from some of them reading it. Members of the Senior Executive Service are selected based on general leadership ability and assigned jobs under the theory that specific technical program knowledge is far less important than this general ability. These conditions make them particularly likely to become chronic BSers. Let's try to help them--and ourselves.

This essay is educational but not engaging. I hesitate to level this criticism at such a "renowned moral philosopher," but I feel slighted for paying ten dollars for what I (incorrectly) assumed would at least be somewhat witty. Frankfurt does parse meanings with great care, but his academic style of writing is nothing if not cumbersome. He ultimately leads the reader to a better understanding of b***s***, distinguishing it from lying and a genuine concern for the truth. For that insight, though, I should have just borrowed the book from the library.

I shall be eternally grateful that the incomprehensible cosmic forces that influence us all happened to guide me to read this essay by Professor Harry G. Frankfurt. They could have made me sit through one of his lectures, or even worse, had him corner me at some cocktail party!.

It is a quick and interesting read. The book isn't only insightful, but I also like the writing style. Yes, we are surrounded with BS, and I agree with the author that BS is probably bigger enemy of the truth than outright lies. At the same time, BS is so prevalent in our society nowadays that it is almost impossible to escape it, no matter where you go.
I think that the price is a little high to pay for 80 pages. But, on the other hand, it is comparable to the cost of coffee and a snack in an average cafeteria, so it is worth the fun.

I also recommend Why Do Men Have Nipples? Hundreds of Questions You'd Only Ask a Doctor After Your Third Martini

I've never written a book review in my life, but I couldn't resist with this one. It was given to me by a friend who was intrigued by the title. It's a quick read, but by the middle it became like slogging through mud. If it had been longer, I would have stopped reading and written it off. I also fully expected the last paragraph to say something along the lines of, "Congratulations! You have now spent money on, read, and thought seriously about a professional work of BS".

This little essay had some good points and thoughts that made me laugh in reference to the political scene, and a story about a father telling his son that it was never necessary to lie if you could BS your way through something. Still,in the end I was left wondering whether the author had written a serious essay or whether the entire point was to expect his audience to just "get" the fact that they'd just been BS'd by a pro! Read it in this light and see what you think.

Funny Amazon should offer us to buy this book together with Enchiridion by Epictetus (Long Translation) when these two are in fact one and the same book, different translators and different supplemental background info/comments. Of course I only realized that when both books arrived and I compared them :(. One star to Amazon for that :((( As for the book, the reason I put it on my wish list last year was the fact that in the course of last 3 years I had to release and let go of many things (and people), and I had struggled with the conflict between fighting for what I want and never giving up (cause nothing is completely lost until we give up on it) and knowing when to let go. I reverted to stoic thought for strength to live without regret and feeling of loss. And while it helped me resolve some of my inner conflicts, I must warn you that this book is not writing of a self-help guru, its an actual philosohical work. Which is OK for me, but might not serve the same purpose for everyone that it did for me. As for translation, I prefer this one to Long's because it is more in the spirit of English language, at the same time remaining non-colloquial. I also find additional information included by translator to be very enlightening and good guide into phylosophy of the age and further reading.

I have read about philophers and history and our founding fathers wonderfully created documents and the great historical and philosophic works behind their conclusions all my life. In all that time I have found almost all of them to be profound and inspiring. Yet unlike others who have reviewed this work I have found it wanting in it's basic interprative conclusions.

By that I mean in one paragraph there will be great insight and in the next the interpretation seems to loose coherency all together or has absolutely no rational application what-so-ever for living well.

Oh there are many profound ideals represented in this booklet and I agree that for his time and place in history Epictetus must have been one great piece of work to come to many of the conclusions put forth in these pages. Such as those on page 22 and 23 where:

1. He criticises the use of fortune tellers and warnes that one should see them for what they really are (just fault ridden human beings)and indicates that one does not need a fortune teller or soothsayer to know it is right to share the burden of a friend and to defend ones nation or,

2. that one should not allow the influence of others, when mingling, to cause one to slide into their bad habits, practices/lifestyles or unethical behavior and;

3. Sexual abstinence if you can achieve it is a good thing. Boy I bet the ACLU and the liberals elites in America must hate Eptictetus.

But I constantly got the feeling that the author was stuggling to give us these insights or tried just too hard to be clinical in his analysis and that he was being too Stoic (ha...ha...isn't that an interesting thought) in telling us what Epictetus really thought or was trying to impart.

I almost got the impression in considering what Epictetus had said (if one can trust, not the writings of the man himself, but what someone else thought he said or meant) and not what White's conept or interpretation of his meaning was or is...that although this Stoics philosopher was tyring to be like some Vulcan Mystic from Star Trek that he was really more like Spoc, who had underlying conflicting more human feelings.

I believe all good philosohers do struggle with this issue and ask themselves "Is what I believe, true" from time to time.

The great ones do not just dismiss this question as political party die hards and hacks do today...but actually grapple with this question and adjust when their phiolsophies trun out to be wanting, wrong, unethical, immoral and just down right false.

Yes one can glean the beginnings of great thought here when considering the time and place of his teachings, but I would not at all consider Epictetus the greatest of all philsophers whether Stoic or other wise.

He is just one of many hundreds that should be considered for that title during ones lifelong study of our rise from barbaric nomads to civilized mankind. Of course one can, if one studies modern man's fall from grace in the 20th and 21 centuries, from a neutral point of view, actually consider that we are less civlized now than we were in Epictetus' time.

Of course that is a discussion for another time. A good booklet, if read critically, as all should be, to add to any self-made philosophers collection and also for the aspiring student.

The "Handbook" is an essential read for the student of philosophy and is quintessential for those who desire a quick glance at stoic philosophy. White's masterful introduction provides the reader with the necessary context she needs in order to digest and enjoy this treat from antiquity. His translation is pleasing to the contemporary ear and true to the text.

Possibly the most famous Stoic Philosopher is Marcus Aurelius, whose "Meditations" was written, not to be read as a philosophic treatise, but rather as a personal journal, complete with seemingly random entries and no apparent structure. Moreover, it is clear from his "Meditations" that Marcus Aurelius was greatly influenced by the teachings of Epictetus. In fact, according to Aulus Gellius, Herodes Atticus (who was Marcus Aurelius' teacher at the time) told Marcus Aurelius that Epictetus was the greatest of all the Stoic philosophers, which is quite convenient for us since most of the writings of earilier Stoics (such as Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes and Chrysippus) have been lost, probably in the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Epictetus, like Socrates, apparently never wrote anything himself; however, his students took very good notes. One student by the name of Flavius Arrian may be responsible for the composition of eight volumes, titled "The Discourses of Epictetus," of which four volumes still survive. Arrian served under Emperor Hadrian who initially choose Atticus to be Marcus Aurelius' teacher. Arrian also wrote another text, titled "The Encheiridion of Epictetus" (or "Handbook" or "Manual"), which also survives and appears to be an abstract of his "Discourses". Throughout the second century, Epictetus was regarded as the greatest of the Stoic philosophers, and became even more popular than Plato. Stoicism nevertheless lost favor in the middle ages and was not revived until 1584 when Justus Lipsius published his "De Constantia".

I would highly recommend the writings of Epictetus to anyone interested in Stoic Philosophy, or anyone at all for that matter. Epictetus should make for an excellent introduction to Stoic Philosophy, and the "Encheiridion" is an excellent introduction to Epictetus. I prefer this particular translation of "The Encheiridion of Epictetus", by Nicholas P. White, over the other translations that I have read. Oldfather's translation (Loeb Classical Library) is also very good.

Esposito does a good job writting an introduction to Islam. This is a worthwhile educational piece for non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

A good introduction to Islam and it's history. The author explains the orgins and core beliefs of the relgion. The development of Islam is presented within its social and cultural context (which is how I think most religions should be studied but is especially important in Islam since it is incoporated into every aspect of a Muslim's life), and shows how it both influened the cultures it appeared it and was influenced by them. I didn't notice any bias one way or the other.
The names of significant figures, leaders and groups are listed and its a little hard to keep straight. The author had a tendancy to repeat certain phrases and sentences from earlier sections almost word for word, which I found annoying but probably wouldn't bother most readers :)

This book is for everyone that wants to learn about Islam and its diversity. There is no bias tainting this work, just sound scholalry research.

This man is on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and by Palestinian Business men who hate Jews and the West. He is the Middle East's puppet. Beware of this mans writing. He is nothing but a shill for the Jihadis. You will find no truth here, only the fifth column. Georgetown University should be ashamed to have this man on staff.

Esposito does a fine job of relating Islam to the lay person. His text is easy to read, the definitions are solid and he dispells much of the myth surrounding Islam. The newest text references 9/11 and the radical sects which have surfaced since then.

I would highly recommend this text to teachers and students alike; as well as those who are simply looking for a way to properly understand the history, beliefs and laws of Islam.

This book is beautifully written. The characters are complex and drawn with such skill and intimacy that by the end of the book you feel as though you have truly known each one of them and seen into a piece of their world. Moving and poignant, but not dark, the story and the characters will stay with you long after you finish the book.

This story was simplistic and wonderful. I read it in two days and was mesmerized by the rich culture. The best book I've read in a long time

Pleasurable read. She has a nice flow to her writing, the story was interesting.

The plot of this book makes a terrific outline: A young Chinese man recuperating in Japan from tuberculosis while Japanese troops are slaughtering his Chinese contemporaries in the pre-World War Two invasion; a quiet but strong and wise caretaker who lives to rescue victims of leprosy, including a woman spurned by his best friend; a marriage crisis for the Chinese man's parents; a Romeo/Juliet type love story between the Chinese man and a young Japanese woman. Should be socko.

Instead, it's sedating. Whether it's the passive nature of Stephen, the young Chinese man, or the very pedestrian writing style of the author, I found this book consistently tepid. She shows off her new knowledge about Japanese culture, giving detailed descriptions of every meal and every kimono.

She tells the story through Stephen when the caretaker, Matsu, is the central character. Because Matsu is strong and silent, we don't get inside his character development.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting look at Japan before WWII: religion, relationship and customs.

A delightful story of a chinese teen, sent to japan on the eve of WW2 to recuperate after getting tuberculosis. He meets his father's servant who he gets to know and the locals, finding them friendly and welcoming even with the war. He finds the simple way of life, instead of being boring, fills his days and he is bereft when the war forces him to leave.

A wonderful piece of prose, this haunting story of the simple people and their tragic lives is a page turner.

The Gnostic Gospels is a scholastic look at some of the forces that threatened to split the early Christian Church. The battle, as portrayed by Pagels, was between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism. Her argument is based on ancient texts discovered in 1945 in Egypt. She talks about the battle between the Orthodox "winners" and the Gnostic "loser" on issues such as the nature of God, the meaning of the resurrection, and the role of the episcopacy. Since the Orthodox won the battle, our understanding of Christianity is descended from Orthodox beliefs.

Although Pagels puts forth her case strongly, I am left feeling unconvinced by her argument. Although Gnosticism did not win the battle, much of their beliefs have remained vital. Their understanding of approaching God through knowledge has many similarities to mysticism. Process Theologians share Gnosticism's view of God as part of Creation, as opposed to the ultimate source of Creation. In addition, Pagels paints Gnostics as a unified group. In fact, there were many sects that make up those who Pagel calls Gnostics.

For those who are new to Christianity in the early years following the death of Jesus, this book holds much valuable information. However, I feel that Pagel overstates her case and, as a result, comes off as a bit shallow and uncertain.

The product arrived quickly and the quality was excellent. I had the subject on hard back, but listening to the subject on CD impacted the delivery and allowed others to join in and listen. Looking for other products like it...on CD

This is a classic book about Gnosticism. First published in 1979 it was amongst the first major books on the subject without the "traditional" anti-Gnostic heresiological bias. Today, though, there are better books available on the subject. This book almost fails to make any notion of Gnosticism's relation to psychology.

If you're wondering what gnosticism is all about Pagels' book is a very clear and easy read. I would highly recommend it.

There is a temptation among "Christians" today to totally write off the "gnostics" becasue they were heretics....which, in reality, means they"they thought differently from the way do...we are right..so they must be wrong..."

This is not an easy book to read, but it does offer keen insight into the early days of the church, the politics--and there were politics--in putting the Bible together, what was in, what was out.

Chapters on The Apostle's Creed are exceptional. You will never look at the Apostle's Creed again the same way...it is a much a political statement as it is a statement of faith...

Not an easy book, but a good book...well worth the read....

Homage to Catalonia is Orwell at the zenith of his journalistic style--brutally candid in its description of the battlefield and the politics of the Spanish Civil War in which he participated as a volunteer foot soldier against the military insurgency. The Civil War was, of course, a prelude to WWII and while this is clearly adumbrated in Orwell's vivd descriptions of the antagonists, he could not have anticipated the future conflagration. It is a "must read" not only for those interested in the politics of the conflict but also for anyone desiring a candid insight into the plight of the combatants.

he's realy got an amazing way of turning a phrase. if you are at all interested in the Spanish Civil War this book is a great introduction.

Homage to Catalonia This book is a great read for anyone out there who likes to read. I normally don't read nonfiction books but this one kept my interest throughout the entire book. Orwell describes things in a way that kept my attention the entire time. He even added some selected humour throughout which seemed to lighten the mood. Overall this is a great book that's worth every penny. I'd say go and read it right now if you're looking for a great read.

"Homage to Catalonia" has long passed from the shelf for current events to the shelf of primary historical sources. No one can study the Spanish Civil War without encountering it. On that basis, it's a five-star book; all primary sources should get five stars. As a reading experience, it's not without weaknesses, which the earlier review by H. Schneider examines cogently. I refer you to that review.

Today's newspapers (7-11-08) carried extended obituaries for David Smith, who died in Berkeley, CA, at age 95. Mr. Smith was one of the only 30-some veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the volunteer contingent of Americans who joined the republican cause in Spain to stop fascism before World War II. The defeat of the republican forces, due at least partly to their own turmoils as described by Orwell, allowed the dictator Franco to suppress the 20th Century in Spain until his welcome death in 1975. David Smith was wounded in Spain in 1938. He returned to America, settled in New York, and married Sophie Kaplan, a marriage that lasted 59 years. Smith worked as a machinist, a union organizer, and for 18 years as a public school biology teacher in New Rochelle, where he campaigned for school integration.
David Smith and his wife were active Communist Party members in the 1940s and 1950s, but left the party in disillusionment in the early 1960s. He was one of the victims of blacklisting in the McCarthy era. He retired to Vermont in 1977, and then to California two decades later. During his long retirement, Smith was a dedicated campaigner for peace, a familiar personage at anti-war demonstrations, and an active raiser of relief funds for Central American countries hit by civil strife.

I knew David Smith reasonably well. He was a man of sincerity and integrity; I doubt that he ever did anything in his life that failed to meet his standards of conscientious humanity. He meant to do well, and he did what he believed was right. His support for the welfare of working people and for oppressed people everywhere was unwavering. He had no lust for power or fame. Like several other grass-root American Communists I've known, he was above all a decent guy. That he was naive about Stalinist Russia is clear; that he wasn't always right about his positions seems clear also, but who is? But to portray such a person as a menace to free society, an unscrupulous plotter, a pawn in the game of Kremlin masterminds is libel and foolishness, and a self-deception honorable people in America cannot afford.

After re-reading Catalonia, some 20 years after my first encounter, I am disappointed. I do not think that this is Orwell's best work. It has many of his strengths, mainly the elegant, efficient and straightforward prose that he developed so impressively, but there are some flaws. Main flaw in my view is the fact that the main political theme has become dead and irrelevant. Stalin died some decades ago, the Soviet Empire collapsed, we don't need to dig in the little details of their abominable strategies any longer. Of course we can't blame Orwell for the fact that his concerns are not ours any more. But it shows that the book was not timeless in the sense of surviving its immediate subject, as his other non-fiction did.
Second main weakness of the book: the narration of the Barcelona street fighting and the attempts at understanding them are rather boring.
On the strong side: the tales from the Aragon front are much more interesting. Orwell saw less fighting than he was keen to experience, but he describes the trench routine with the same livelyness that he brought to Wigan coalmines and Paris restaurants previously.
He did see enough fighting to get dangerously injured. People said to him that few men survive a shot through the neck, so he was lucky. He thinks he would have been luckier if he had not been shot at all.
Orwell published the book a few months after his adventure, and before the Spanish Civil War was over. Surprisingly the book was a commercial failure then, and equally surprisingly it has later been named as one of the best non-fiction books of the century.
Why was it ignored in the early time? Possibly because he told the world things that the world didn't want to know. He busted the myth that there was a confrontation of the good and the bad in Spain, that democracy fought fashism. Orwell shows us that there were at least 3 camps, not 2. The most vicious fighting that he experienced was among the 'good guys'. The government side was influenced strongly by the communist party who had secured the support from Russia. Since no other country provided weapons to the government side, that secured a lot of mileage.
Orwell was a hopeless romantic, who loved the feeling of working class rule that he got when he first arrived in Barcelona. That must be the reason for the otherwise incomprehensible book title. That basically socialist attitude must also have put quite a few potential readers off at the time of publication.
Orwell later saw the few months in Spain as his political training period. It put him off communism and Stalin for good, but confirmed his socialist attitude, which however never found a political home in a party, though he did support Labor in his remaining years, from the outside.