Social Sciences Books

I was genuinely interested in reading this, but he was so caught up with his fervor, talking points, and preconceived notions of reality that I couldn't get to the wonderfully researched history.

His thesis relies on his own (rather uninteresting, though mildly creative) manipulation of semantics. At best his arguments are eye-rolling. More disgracefully, he completely discounts general historic attitudes that were pervasive across party lines.

All in all, rather than being an informative piece, he just comes across as a condescending jerk who only loves the sound of his voice. The kind of guy that clears the room at a party.

I touch on the connection between historical European liberal facism and our own political left in the United States in my newest book, Reason For Life; Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist. I encourage you to read it, not for the meager revenue it generates, but because it could appeal to many of you on either side of the aisle.

Reason For Life. Further Social and Political Reflections of an American Conservative Atheist

Frank Cress

How DARE you Amazon place this on my screen where I have to look at it as a RECOMMENDED book! How dare you place the image of this hateful, narrowminded, uneducated, propagandizing, hating, fearing, polarizing DETRITUS in my face! Keep this political clap trap to yourselves!

First of all, allow me to say that I have purchased and read this book -- something I believe few, if any, of the negative reviewers have done.

This is an important work, tracing the intellectual development of the idea that the all-powerful people's State should always trump the individual and be in firm control of all aspects of the population's culture, education, defense or military expansion, information, health and economy, from its modern beginnings under Wilson to the currently epoused nanny state. One could go further back to the French Revolution or further to Thomas More, of course, but given the deplorable state of history knowledge in the US, this might well be counter-productive. Monarchies need not be considered as they are not states that derive their legitimacy from the people -- but rather from God and inheritance.

The most negative aspect of this book is its title, "Liberal Fascism." A careful reader will learn what is meant by the author, but the vast majority will simply see the juxtaposition of the two words, "Liberal" and "Fascism" and read into this anything their pre-conceived ideas suggest. Actually, the author meant to describe something like "Benevolent Fascism", "Soft Fascism", "Smiley-Face Fascism", or my favorite, "Fuzzy Fascism" (e.g. Fascism that will not hurt you.) The word "Liberal" is used to put a more moderate or liberal face on Fascism, something more appropriate to nanny-state fascism. If the reader misinterprets the title, then little rational discussion can ensue.

The strengths of the book are in its rediscovery of the truly disturbing policies of the Wilson administration in 1917 and 1918 whereby opponents of his administration and policies were brutally suppressed. One should review the repressive Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Acts that Wilson promulgated. Nor did he shrink from meddling in other countries' affairs and supporting leaders he favored. The reader is advised to study his backing of Carranza and his Vera Cruz expedition in Mexico. At any rate, the Progressive movement in the US really did bring many ideas into the mainstream of American political thought that were later used as cornerstones of fascist ideology.

The author traces the support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth.

He also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. So does communism as a matter of fact. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. Bill O'Reilly has coined the name "Secular-Progressive" to describe thie political philosophy, although I wonder if he realized the historical accuracy of his term. The missing part is the militarism and genocide associated today with Fascism, which were outgrowths of the core ideas of Fascism and may well yet develop in the nanny state. After all, what would there be to stop such a development? It should be remembered that one of Hitler's early steps was to introduce full gun control in Germany to reduce any possibility of internal resistance to his regime.

The argument that "it can't happen here" should be revisited in light of Wilson's actions, Roosevelt's creation of concentration camps for Japanese during World War II, and the more recent Patriot Act. Unfortunately, many turn to the ACLU for solace, but it must be remembered that this organization was founded to foster the spread of communist ideology, and consistently supports the all-powerful leftist and secular state against the individual and religion.

The book bogs down somewhat in the argument that fascism is a product of the left and not of the right (politically.) The author is correct here, but he is swimming upstream against a powerful current from the mainstream American media which is firmly leftist and committed to the creation of a nanny state. In addition, he is trumped by the educational industry, both in public schools and in universities which has consistently taught socialist ideology since World War Two under the rubric of liberal teaching. As of this date, we have had a steady diet of socialist propaganda in our schools and universities for so long than no national or local figure has escaped its pernicious effects. What was thought to be "far-left" in 1960 is now centrist -- so far have we gone down the road towards a fascist state.

Nevertheless, the use of terms that everyone interprets in their own fashion by the author colors this discussion so markedly that constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives over this work is highly improbable. That is a great loss to our democracy.

So what is the solution? There probably isn't one. Politicians eloquently espousing "change" and "hope" have already very effectively learned how to evade issues in favor of vacuous but thrilling demogogy to rise to power. It must be remembered that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky thoroughly, making him possibly the most important individual in the background of the 2008 election. Senator Clinton even did double duty traveling to California to study under an unrepentant Stalinist. Perhaps they do not understand the road on which they are traveling -- after all, they've never been taught anything different. (That's why home schooling and even charter schools are such threats.) I suspect that the US will survive anything they do in the short term, but they are harbingers of things to come. The trend is there from the days of Wilson, and the ultimate denouement is in sight with Europe cheering us on out of envy every day. Even the mass demonstrations so loved by fascism to demonstrate the power and popularity of the State and its leaders are now being copied.

Before I receive thousands of hate comments from Obama supporters, allow me to state that the epithet "Fascist" does not fit Barack Obama in any way, shape or form. But the parallels I noted should not be overlooked in a study of the historical sweep of events and the acceptance of ideas. There is no question that the US has taken many steps on the road to the author's fascist nanny state, and opposition to this trend is fast being suppressed.

Liberal fascism?

It's understandable why liberals get angry when they see this book displayed. When I saw its cover and title, my first reaction to Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM was to disregard it. It looked like another partisan hatchet job on liberal/progressive politics, and a tacky one at that. That impression soon disappeared, however, once I started browsing its pages. Don't let Hitler Smiley Face on the cover or its ostensibly oxymoronic title (which was actually coined by H.G. Wells back in the 1930s) fool you: LIBERAL FASCISM undoubtedly is a polemic, and not without flaws, but it's also a good book, with a startling and provocative perspective.

To give a short version to the long story behind this controversial book, Los Angeles Times columnist and National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg argues that much of modern liberalism is actually the offspring of 20th century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with both Marxism and European fascism. Throughout much of Europe the communitarian impulse expressed itself in socio-political movements that were militarist, nationalist, and often racist. In the United States this same impulse took the form of progressivism which was better suited to American culture, but no less militant in its crusading spirit, and at times just as nationalist and as racist in expression, as its fascist counterpart. The ultimate goal of American progressivism was holistic society, similar to what the writer and social critic H.G. Wells approvingly dubbed "liberal fascism." (People interested to further explore Wells' fascist/totalitarian tendencies, should read his THE SHAPE Of THINGS To COME, which speculates on a future course of world history from the 20th to the 22nd century.)

Like I mentioned, the book does have its flaws, most of them due to Goldberg's static and often deliberately simplistic ideas for what constitutes "liberal" and "conservative," and his refusal to consider these terms ever as relative signifiers, or to use them outside a 21st century American context.

Such a point brings me to Goldberg's habit of grouping all communitarianism/collectivism exclusively in the left corner. It's just not true. Goldberg ignores, for example, the fact that collectivism was at the heart of traditional Russian society, long predating Marxist and other forms of modern socialism. He makes no mention of the communistic aspirations at the heart of Christian millennialist sects like the Levellers and Diggers of mid-seventeenth century England, both groups being offshoots of Oliver Cromwell's Puritan New Model Army. Such historical phenomena don't fall neatly within the clearly drawn lines of contemporary America's liberal vs. conservative dichotomy. Neither does neopaganism, the occult or ethically-based vegetarianism, anti-vivisectionism or a host of other things which fascinated nineteenth and early twentieth century European society as a whole. Occult and neopagan beliefs, in fact, were prominent within certain elements of Europe's Right, not its Left.

Closer to home, Goldberg does better work with the incipient fascism in 1930s American populism; correctly exposing, for instance, the left-wing roots of Louisiana governor Huey Long and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin. On the other hand, the omission of William Dudley Pelley, George Lincoln Rockwell, or movements like the Silver Shirts and the Black Legion from a book focusing on fascist tendencies in American politics makes one suspicious. The aforementioned names and groups all were openly and proudly fascist--and all also shared origins in traditional American conservatism. By not mentioning any of these individuals or organizations it makes Goldberg look like he was cherry picking facts; ultimately this is more detrimental to the book's worth than either the title or the Smiley Hitler graphics of the cover.

Nevertheless, Goldberg still would've been better off, in the long run, choosing Orwell's "Oligarchical Collectivism" for the title.

I was required to buy this book for Art 131 and while it gives good term descriptions it gives little information to interest the reader and want them to go into an art degree.

This is a book that should be read by every Christian; especially those whose main contacts are within their churches. Written by the head of the Barna Group and based on the group's surveys about the church, this book reveals what those outside of the church think of Christians. It's not a flattering picture. The book goes on to explore the various areas and reflects on what Christians might be doing wrong or other ways to communicate the truths of the Bible that might be more easily understood by those they are trying to reach. It is a book which will cause you to think and pray and has the potential to change your life.

This book shares a scienitific based review of how the unchurched view mainstream Christianity. Though frank and sobering, the results will not be surprising to most Christians. Rather than reflect God's love, Christians all too often reflect judgementalism. I took the book to heart and will try to be mindful of the way that I image God and the church to the world. It is a "must read" for every Christian who deals with everyday people, especially for Christians who live in larger metropolitan cities or college towns.

Great book about how those who are not Christians think about those who say they are,

I agree that the church has to change but can someone please tell me why we (the church) should go to the "world" and ask the "world" what the church of Jesus Christ should look like?

This is a great book, but it's not complete.

The book does a wonderful job of showing why Christians look unattractive in the eyes of those who are not part of the faith. To complete the picture, I would recommend George Barna's excellent books "Revolution" and "Pagan Christianity"?

These two books explain why most churches are unattractive to both Christians and non Christians alike, and ("Pagan Christianity" especially) gives a great deal of historical evidence for why this is the case.

As the drum, drum, drumming in the air grew louder the usual pregame roar in Ball One Ballpark in Phoenix softened and attention swung to a pre-game show by the Bashas' Bears High School drumline.

They are good. The driving pulse of a drumline, like the beat of a powwow drum circle, is captivating, dynamic, addictive and hypnotic. Music and its rhythms enchant and entrap our souls, and this book offers a fascinating look at "Why" it has such impact. There are many books about music, but this is a fresh look by a skilled writer about why instead of merely the how, what, when and where of musical notes.

Unlike usual textbooks which are heavy on being textbooks and light on understanding, Levitin has experience enough to explain his subject. Humans are said to be the only species that laughs at itself, or needs to; likewise, we are the only species that creates original music, or has the ability to do so, or perhaps the need, and certainly the desire.

Levitin, a professional musician and successful record producer, now runs a laboratory for music perception, cognition and expertise at McGill University. He is a rare academic, solidly grounded in the everyday world of his specialty instead of mere bookish theory. He is a professional who relates to his fellow artists and thus knows how to express basic ideas and themes in words everyone can understand.

Six songs? I'd add a few, such as the Bears' drumline. Even though a drumline is not melodic, it has a powerful rhythmic appeal. It's an example of how music is more than notes on a scale, and how basic the appeal of rhythm and music is to our senses.

Levitin offers some very basic ideas to understand our need and appeal for music, using wit, charm and personal anecdotes. He's been there and walked the walk ... in his case played the notes professionally ... it gives his thoughts and ideas a perfect pitch.

Exquisitely written, it is really about ourselves because we are such a musical species. It makes me wonder: What if humans had never learned to talk, but merely communicate through music? It seems far more reasonable than merely talking without understanding -- at which we're all too expert.

What then the Bears' drumline? Their rhythms are among the most powerful ideas ever expressed. Like Irish step dancing, a powerful expression of unity without using a word, music can be a dynamic expression of human emotions, ideas and spirit.

Fortunately, Levitin is admirably skilled in his use of words; every bit as good as the Bears' drumline or Beethoven's Sixth.

This fascinating book explores the powerful force music has played in shaping our common humanity. It's evolution, with a backbeat. Author Levitin makes the case that six basic types of songs have existed throughout the course of human history, all over the world. Mankind, apparently, shares a soundtrack.

The six broad categories of music are songs about friendship, joy, comfort, knowledge, religion and love. Each has a different function, but all serve to bind us together. They make us stronger as a species.

Levitin, a musician and scientist, cites anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, neurosurgeons, psychologists, and many famous musicians in this book. He includes lyrics from a great range of songs, including "At Seventeen," "The Hokey Pokey," "I Walk the Line," "Twist and Shout," and "Log Blues" from Ren & Stimpy.

Music can be so evocative. A snippet of song can take you back to the exact moment you heard it in childhood or high school or whenever. It's like there is a direct link that exists in the human brain between music and memory.

This books tells us that Americans spend more money on music than they do on prescription drugs or sex, and the average American hears more than five hours of music per day. It's obviously important to us. After reading The World in Six Songs, you'll have a much better idea why.

Here's the chapter list:

1. Taking It from the Top or "The Hills Are Alive..."
2. Friendship or "War (What Is It Good For)?"
3. Joy or "Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut"
4. Comfort or "Before There Was Prozac, There Was You"
5. Knowledge or "I Need to Know"
6. Religion or "People Get Ready"
7. Love or "Bring `Em All In"

I enjoy the reading. I have used Kuhn as a reference throughout grad school to justify my thoughts on leadership paradigm shifts. Kuhn's contribution had four positive elements: a) Mechanism of crisis: precipitation and resolution, b) Analogy of the historicity of science with evolution c) that science rewrites its own history, and d) psychology of paradigm shifts; that the paradigm is not completely defined by explicit prescription but also by a system of practices that are not fully articulated. In summary, Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change. However, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn (1996) states, "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature.

Essential reading in understanding why the Enlightenment ideal of rationality is dead or at least doesn't count in ways that matter. In particular, Kuhn calls into question the idea of science as a rational enterprise, and since science is epistemologically privileged and thought to be the essence of rationality, to call into question the rationality of science is to call into question rationality itself. This is different, I submit, than the anti-rationality of the deconstructionists (e.g., Derrida), which seems to lack immediate real world consequences (aside form contributing to a sense of alienation in some). I find Hegel to be a precursor of Kuhn. Hegel attempted to describe how we come to believe what we believe, and Kuhn attempts to do this in the field of science, and, it should be added, with much more accessibly.

There are some who will find Kuhn lacking all coherence (sophisticated BS, as one person put it), and that is another way of saying "irrational". For those who associate irrationality with things like religious fundamentalism, irrationalism is a fearful thing. Yet, it is rationality itself that has been called into question by the events of the 20th century, beginning with the carnage of WWI. The answer is not more rationalism. Rationalism, the primacy of reason and the center of modernism, is itself a belief, and the crisis of modernity is the recognition that reason has no more claim to a privileged position than religion. The answer may be, as Rorty has pointed out, deciding what we want to believe without being forced to justify the basis of those beliefs: we believe because our beliefs support what we hold to be good things(neo-pragmatism) That may be a fearful thing for those who don't find complete correspondence between their beliefs and Rorty's privileged beliefs. What, though, it does show, is that irrationality is not sufficient grounds for being dismissive. In doing so one may be taking a stance on the wrong side of the arrow of history.

The arrow, though, is not that of the Whig theory of history, where things constantly improve driven by reason. Historians of this view (as well as much of popular culture) denigrate older views by degrading them to myth or religious belief status. This gives a privileged position to our own, contemporary beliefs and gives us a sense of comfort. Kuhn disturbs this comfortable view by showing, for example, that Ptolemaic astronomy gave plausible answers to questions of the day. So too, one could argue that the contemporary dismissive view of Scholastic philosophy is more the result of Enlightenment propaganda than of merit. At the least, Kuhn is a good (partial) antidote for contemporary smugness --- a challenge to bourgeois sentiment. Kuhn, though, is much more than a cultural caution; he is an important voice in the contemporary philosophical debate.

Who would like "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? Those who like ideas with profound consequences easily presented. Kuhn is a Nietzsche, and like Nietzsche is at the very least a fun read. He is much more if taken seriously.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is an important book, because it helped people view scientific progress in a new light, and introduced us to the important concept of paradigm shift. Unfortunately, however, the book is poorly written, with a dense and overly academic style, and quite frankly, is very, very, boring. Good concept, poor execution.

I read SSR as part of preparation to begin work on a paper and received a very different dose of smart than I expected.

Kuhn has shown how meaningful, and I daresay fun, the prospect of a career as a researcher in any field could be. In this classic work he also guts a lot of intuitive thoughts on science, discovery, and broader knowledge itself - after a thorough reading you'll really see these processes almost totally redefined.

As a non-science major I found all the scientific antecedents to which he frequently and swiftly referred (i.e., Leyden jar, relativity, photoelectric effect) coupled with the dense, elevated writing quite difficult to get through. Still, with slow and focused reading, and a little bit of note taking, which I would suggest to anyone without a PhD, I feel like the main ideas are quite digestible.

Although this is one of the most important books I've read, it is also one of the least fulfilling. Let me start out by saying that I am a casual reader of the history and philosophy of science. This book, described as being one of the most important in its area, is not for the casual reader. It is a scholarly work and it presumes a great deal of scientific knowledge. When discussing a specific revolution, Thomas Kuhn does not go into the details of the science behind the revolution; he just assumes that the reader knows it. And befitting its stature, the book was written in a very scholarly tone. Unfortunately this meant that I had to do a lot of digging to reach the kernel of the point that Kuhn was trying to make. However, Kuhn's revelations about how scientific revolutions come about and the role of normal science answered a lot of my questions. His discussions of paradigms were also very enlightening and he certainly explained why old ideas are so difficult to overthrow. Indeed, now that I've read this book, I recognize when other authors refer to his thinking. Overall though, I do not recommend this book to other casual readers.

This is a great book to learn from, the workbook is also very helpful. This is one of the few college text books that I refused to sell back.

I needed this book for my spanish class and it provided me with the step by step instruction I needed.

this is not a bad spanish book. i don't know if i would say it is great. lots of group activities that are helpful, but they are pretty simple and repetitive. they need to be a little more thoughtful and put in lots of DIFFERENT activities. one last, quite frustrating thing, there is only a spanish-english dictionary in the back. extremely irritating because this is a spanish 1-2 book, and anytime you want to look up a word, you'll need to consult another dictionary.

I've been using Dos Mundos in my Spanish III class this fall and it's been a quite positive experience. I'm a former English teacher, and a long time psychologist, so I have some feel for the teaching/learning dynamic of a text. I'm finding DM to be intelligently written and organized, with many different kinds of activities that build on and integrate what you're learning. I like the way history, art, pop culture, geography, politics, music, literature, etc. are interspersed throughout DM. There's cartoons, color, and a reasonably unstilted, good-hearted consciousness in the book. For those of us used to American textbooks which have been reduced to squirmy blandness by pressure groups leaning on state textbook purchasing agencies, it's a bit refreshing to encounter occasional perspectives on economic and political injustice, environmental exploitation, etc. Not that this is a particularly political book, it's just that these things are usually soooooo sanitized. Some people have complained about the lack of an English to Spanish dictionary in this book. Face it---you need to buy a little dictionary to have when you're reading DM and learning Spanish. No added-on dictionary section is going to be complete enough to meet your needs. You'll only be wasting time using it, since half the time the word you're looking for won't be there anyway. You might as well go to the dictionary in the first place. To sum it up: I like this book and I'm in the process of reading the seven chapters which were previously covered in Spanish I and II, which I didn't take in this sequence.

I teach college Spanish and I love this text. It is thoughtfully constructed and provides numerous activities for communication in the target language. Dos mundos also provides very useful ideas for instructors. The pages are colorful and the content engaging. My students love all the activities I use from this text. I wish more Spanish instructors would embrace the methodology presented in Dos mundos. My level one Spanish students actually speak Spanish (albeit low-level Spanish). I don't know if I would recommend this text for independent study, however. I believe it would be most effective if used in conjunction with a dynamic instructor. I do agree that the authors should include a separate English-Spanish dictionary section. I also find the video segments to be very poor (and why are they exactly the same as the ones for Puntos de partida when they both have such different approaches to language acquisition?)

Only two types of people have been and will be attracted to reading this book: those who hope it's about one thing and those who know it's about the other. The former belong to the timid, powerless, low-self esteem majority who are simply looking for the ultimate guide to gaining respect and admiration from their peers. The latter belong to the unscrupulous, dare I say sociopathic ever-growing minority whose end goal is to win at everything against everyone by any means. Once the book has been read and fully digested, one of two conclusions will be reached. The first is a sudden awareness of what a perfectly outstanding tool they hold in their hands and the limitless rewards it can afford them. The second is an absolute disgust and horror at what a dangerous volume this is and the malicious behavior it outright encourages. Interestingly, the timid are no always the ones repulsed and the ruthless are not always the ones aroused. The wave can break either way.

Shortly after this book was published, I happened upon it in a bookstore and knew I had to have it. A blaze of energy electrified my body and pounded through the deepest recesses of my mind. I was on fire, I couldn't put it down and yet I knew I could never share it with anyone, the way a child might hide away their favorite toy. In truth I became obsessed. I had to learn and then master every element of every law and take supreme authority over every aspect of my life. Indeed, this book, The 48 Laws of Power, became my bible, the most passionate conquest I had ever sought to undertake.

Within its pages I met with the reflection of every gruesome bully and every merry manipulator I had ever known. Their power was uncanny and yet so mysterious, mostly because I could never fathom how such apparently absent minds could lay so cool yet strike with such venom. It was awe-inspiring, and I had to come to terms with their secrets. The secrets that earned them respect from their enemies and fear from their admirers. The secrets that won them the most buxom women, who always appeared so entranced by even their rudest and most audacious displays. "How could they get away with everything so smoothly?!" I had wondered. "How could they be so desirable?!" I had thought. "HOW?!"

Well...here is how. It is simple.

Some people are given to a heredity and/or an upbringing that nourishes what is commonly considered 'bad' behavior. Certain genes as well as certain parenting styles perpetuate an attitude of unruliness which leads in its purest variety to utter contempt for anyone else's thoughts, feelings, or needs. Their minds develop without a balanced set of experiences, leading them to logically conclude that the information that they did receive must indeed be correct. This is also applicable to those who suffer violence in their youth, even if that violence is not carried out physically. The fact remains that whatever world with which one is presented is accepted as unmitigated truth. 'Bad' behavior is usually viewed by such a person as normal. Thus selfishness, cruelty, and manipulation are seen as strengths, while compassion, kindness and humility are seen as weaknesses.

Surely there are a bevy of other factors that cannot go without mention. High intelligence, a pleasing appearance, a particular talent, et cetra can all act as lauchpads for immorality if similar virtues in others go unrecognized as being equal. This sense of equality is what it all comes down to, in fact. The very idea of power assumes that another cannot or should not be in a position to where the perspectives of both can be viewed as equally valid. On the one end is the person who is possessed by their own image, on the other is the person who believes that they have no intrinsic worth at all. The two feed off of each other in a sadistic/masochistic symbiotic relationship. The point then comes to bear that a person who believes himself powerful only remains so long as the other believes the same thing. Put two people who both see power as the ultimate attainment and you have the setting for the average business affair. From here, only two things can happen. One will cave, allowing the other to dominate, or neither party will cave, effectively precipitating resentment and rage within both. The former leads to a continuation of the cycle, the latter leads to war.

This book is extremely well-researched and exquisitely written, which is why I still give it three stars. But you must beware of your intentions. Buy this book if you don't care about anyone but yourself, and it pleases you to see another man crumble. Do not buy this book if you have even the slightest interest in saving yourself from years of unnecessary struggle. Remember that the wave does break both ways, and you do not know who you may become if you toss your ethics in the wastebasket. Needless to say, I was the timid one who was sick of being overlooked, but in the end, it was this book that I tossed into the wastebasket. Your call.

I'm pretty into morality but I quite like this book. But If you're not weary of someone who recommends deception (as the author does) you deserve to get suckered. Some of the rhetorical techniques he employs include writing in the style of that wise blind guy who knew everything in Kung fu, it doesn't work at all once you've seen an interview with him. Also putting a number (48) in the title makes it sound very scientific, I'd bet he has no idea if there really are exactly 48 laws of power.

Still I would not say all the laws are immoral or even amoral as the blurb claims. Some, such as not hanging around with people who drag you down and "assuming formlessness" are about self defence not predation. You can pick and choose according to your code of ethics or lack thereof.

It probably should have come with a warning. The philosopher Alfred Whitehead said Machiavellian techniques work well for about 15 years. One of the practical problems with deception is reality does actually exist and cannot be kept at bay forever. When it is revealed it could ruin you or an entire economy (as when vast numbers of people lie to get loans).

Still an interesting book not only for the unscrupulous.

Why do you need this power in the first place? Here is a quote from 7 Habits, "Standing near the graves of famous people, we understand all the silly wars in which they fought."

I will not be surprised if this book is used as a required reading in terrorist camps to show the "real Americans". Clearly, it is against democracy, Christianity, and all other values.

Read 7 Habits by Covey instead.

this book is absolutely ridiculous, it was written for the idiot's notion of what they believe power is, and just affirms what the dim witted already suspect; "Use a person until they are no longer valuable to you......" AH HA! says the ignoramus who has just been convinced of the vercity of this childrens book.

Very smart book. Has some very unique and useful tools. I don't agree with everything but I like the book and I will use some parts. I try to treat people as I would have them treat me....The Golden Rule. But with trouble makers or bad people this book can be very helpful.

This is a great book. it is very easy to read. Great for beginners or others who find reading original writings of major philosophers difficult.

As professor Rachels' states in his Preface:

"Socrates, one of the first and best moral philosophers, said that the subject deals with "no small matter, but how we ought to live"

He goes on to say that, he has approached the subject in a "broad" sense, an introduction to this important branch of philosophy known as Ethics.

In issues like Euthanasia and Abortion, in terms of the nature of morality, he states that moral judements MUST (emphasis my own) be backed by good reasons; and that, also, an idividual's choice on such matters, should, if possible, be "impartial".

To be fair, in terms of Ethics, "impartiality" is highly improbable, as notions of Right and Wrong do in fact change over time. There is no such thing as "facts" in the realm of the Humanities because life moves forward, opinions change, though sound argument is the key to this subject.

(This is not to say that I'm promoting Relativism, however, culture and time do play a major part in any cultures notions of morality.)

The subjects covered:

What is Morality?

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.

Subjectivism in Ethics.

Are There Absolute Moral Rules?
(Kant's "Categorical Imperative)

The Ethics of Virtue.
(Aristotle)

In terms of classroom discussion, Ethics, (unless the students are all suffering from the night before) can get quite heated and exciting.

As far as a "Brush Stroke" on a major branch of philosophy, Rachels', in my opinion has pulled it off - particularly for first year university students.

Recommended.

It was a very disappointing experience having to read this book for my MBA program. Since I did not read the original edition of James Rachels it is unclear whether his son Stuart committed this atrocity on his own or not. If you are a teacher, do not choose this book for your class as it is a complete waste of time and contains no concrete thoughts or any type of useful philosophy principles for discussion, much less use in our lives. If you are looking for a philosophical read on your own, keep looking. This book mostly ridicules instead of examines and is very difficult to understand Rachels real perspective, if there is one.

Just one gripe with an otherwise sound introduction;
I think that the section on moral relativism is especially weak. Rachels offers two arguments against the Cultural Differences Argument:

p1 Different cultures have different moral codes
p2 This would only happen were there a single, universal morality
conclusion: no such universal morality exists


Rachels first argues that the argument is invalid, using the analogy of 'theories of the shape of the earth.' Just as different cultural beliefs about the shape of the earth do not show that the Earth has no definite shape, Rachels argues, different moral beliefs across cultures and times do not show that there is no universal morality. I suspect that this is question- begging. Rachels presupposes that truths about the shape of the Earth are relevantly similar to 'truths' about moral universals, but this requires that there are such moral universals. (Different cultures have different theories about tastiness, or feminine beauty; it seems to me straightforwardly true that this shows that such beliefs or theories are really culturally bound).
Rachels then goes on to argue that premise one is not true, or is exagerrated. His view that no culture could survive without a ban on homicide, infanticide or theft is simply naive, (consider in- group vs. out- group relations, or the history of slavery, for obvious examples) as is his view that all apparent differences in morality are due to economic, environmental or worldview-based factors. A competent stage I student would be able to take him apart.
Actually I prefer this chapter as it is: it gives the instructor a good opportunity to set students loose on an argument for criticism, and to unlearn automatic respect for textual authority.

G. Roche Lakeland College Wisconsin

"The Elements of Moral Philosophy" is a fabulous, non-technical introduction to ethics. The writing is clear and historically informed, the main schools of thought are covered, and Rachels doesn't pretend that he's found all the answers to very difficult questions. I can't think of a better book for a college student who is new to philosophical ethics and wants to get a feel for how philosophers approach these issues.

I was struck by the handful of super-negative Amazon reviews. I suspect they were written by students who were forced to read the book for a class and either expected something else or were put off by Rachels' respectful but negative treatment of religious-based ethics. Ignore them.

I emphasize from the get-go that I HAD to read this book. No one reads books like these for the fun of it.

But with that said, I did learn alot from Creswell. The book has a discussion about the differences between quantitative reseach where you are testing a hypothesis, and qualitative research, which often involves more case studies and social science research.

Creswell also highlights mixed methods research, which is what I will be doing in my program.

There are discussions about the different approaches to quantitative and qualitative research. The post-positivist apporahc where it is contended that nothing can be known with certainty. There is also a pragmatic approach and a couple of other approaches.

The book was really dull. But I forced myself to read it, and learned some of the basic approaches to field work.

Text was recommended by graduate school professor. It is fairly succinct and a good resource. Not terribly difficult to get through it.

This book was made for what I needed. It has a great review of the research process, it is practical, clear, very didactic. Excelent, excelent!

I am in the process of writing my dissertation and I have found this book to be very practical, easy to apply and understandable. I wish this would have been available during some of my masters work and required instead of some of the texts that I had to wade through.

Book is an excellent introduction to research design for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs. It explains all the components of a research design and walks you through each one, inclding the literature review, research question and hypotheses. Also, the first chapter goes through the different theoretical perspectives from which reseach proceeds, so you can understand the different paradigms. It also has lots of models, examples and exercises to work through. I used this book for a research proposal, and it guided me through the whole thing. The proposal was well accepted. So, I definately recommend this for any student to learn about research or anyone interested in putting together a good proposal, or an instructor who wants a good core text.

This book is a quick, easy read and should be a requirement for all! You will gain an appreciation for all economic/social classes and learn more about yourself. As a teacher, this book brought clarity to situations in the past and will guide my behavior in the future. I believe that every lawmaker and politician should read this book before making decisions about helping the poor. An amazing book and a must read!

Very enlightning book, gives a deeper understanding of povery and why it is hard to break the cycle.

Book was exactly what I thought it would be. I ordered it for a class that I was taking this summer and it arrived promptly. I was impressed with how quickly it arrived and it was in excellent shape. I have no complaints at all!

This seller never shipped the book and never returned my emails as to why. I ordered it for a course I had to teach on poverty and did not receive my book on time for the class. This seller should not be allowed to sell on the site.

As an individual who works with children in a variety of settings (club settings, classrooms, Youth Groups, etc), I picked up this book thinking it would provide me with some useful insights.

Two pages into it I was annoyed by a "hidden rule" she listed as applying to families who live in generational poverty. Half-way through I put it down in search of better resources.

I'm sure Dr. Payne's intentions are good and I suspect many of her offerings are useful. But close examination of the specific "hidden rules" as they apply to the supposed societal group who live in poverty (as though there was only one kind) reveals an author who needs to spend more time with people and less time writing books about them. It's so riddled with stereotypes it's difficult to take it seriously.

One for instance: Payne's first reference to one of the "hidden rules" of poverty is that households of this group are noisy--with televisions always on and everyone talking at once. I read it twice as I was sure I'd missed something. Surely someone with a Ph.D who'd done the proper research, would know better than to make a generalization of such ridiculous proportions, I thought.

'Guess not.

Personally, I come from a large middle-class loud German-Irish family with a television always on, music always playing (often live), and people talking all at once. The ability to tell a good joke or story was extremely important in our family, as was a sharp wit and the ability to defend one's point of view. This family produced three educators of which I am one. We're readers, thinkers, amatuer actors, singers, writers, and communicators. So for the life of me I can't quite grasp how on earth a noisy household is equated with class.

The idea that there are educators out there who are using this book as a basis to understand children who come from poor families concerns me. Apart from sparking discussion, I don't see this book as offering much of real value to educators and I would recommend those considering it to look past the hype and the slick marketing techniques and give this one a miss.