European Philosophy Books

This particular version of Nicccolo Machievelli's "The Prince" was incredibly easy to read. There was no rubbing my noggin wondering what he was saying. Nope it was as clear as day and the way that he described retaining power is still the same today as it was in his day. Albeit a little less bloody.

Without a doubt, Nicolo Machiavelli has to be the most dissembling, evil man I've ever read. Though he covers it well in his constantly changing subjects and demeanor I would have not wanted to be around him in the 16th century. I would have never trusted him not to ensnare me in one of his plots!

Heard THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, one of those books
that I've always meant to read . . . but just never got around to do so.

Now I finally had the opportunity (as a result of being able to listen to it
while driving) and am glad I did--particularly because of its relevance
to what's currently happening in politics . . . also, as a result, I now
have a better understanding of the term Machievellianism . . . or
that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used
in achieving political power.

Though originally written in the 16th century, THE PRINCE is still
remarkably up to date . . . the examples used by Machiavelli
feel like they come from today's headlines . . . also, they pertain
to many situations wherein power is utilized--both in business
and in the political arena.

There were many quotes that got me thinking; among them:
* Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know
how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

* We have not seen great things done in our time except by those
who have been considered mean; the rest have failed.

And this final one:
* If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because
they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound
to observe it with them. Nor will thee ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance.

I found it interesting to learn that Machievelli wrote this book
after he was fired as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the
Signoria . . . methinks that had he been around now, Tim Russert
and/or other political commentators could well be out of job.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a guide of morality-void techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power and ultimately, political fortune. Written nearly 500 years ago, this blueprint for tyranny is just as relevant today. As his compass, Machiavelli uses history, both ancient and contemporary. In 500 years, no one has proven him wrong. Here's a flavor for you innocents out there: "For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destoyed by it". War is Machiavelli's wet dream: "A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules". Espousing the virtues of the noble lie, Machiavelli follows up with, "men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes". And with this quote, I now challenge anyone to dispute the Machiavellian nature of the American Corporate State as written about in Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). All the parallels are brought to light, always through the eyes of George Orwell. Get informed. Your city (country) is being destroyed...

A young colleague of mine recently said `management is easy'. I smiled enigmatically and considered buying him a copy of `The Prince' but I fear it would be wasted. I am now on my third copy of this book which, alas, I can only read in English. The George Bull translation (as reprinted in 1995) is the version I currently refer to.

I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli's advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I've always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.

So why is `The Prince' still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?

Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

This wonderful little book will challenge every grain of moral weight you think you have, and without a doubt you will be better for reading it.
Every person should read it.

Recieved item on time, right when we were told it would arrive. Book in very good condition.

I've used Wiesenthal's The Sunflower as a text in college courses several times. On each occasion my original high estimation of Wiesenthal's narrative grows, while my dissatisfaction with the chorus of responses that takes up nearly two-thirds of the latest edition deepens.

Wiesenthal asks exactly the right questions that all of us need to confront about forgiveness. Is forgiveness always ours to bestow? Is it permissible or even possible to forgive on behalf of others? Should forgiveness be tied to repentance on the part of the transgressor? Should the transgressor try to atone for his/her wrongdoing? What if, as in the case of the dying SS-man Wiesenthal meets, the performance of overt acts of atonement are impossible? Are there certain actions that are unforgiveable, or is the philosopher Jacques Derrida correct when he insists (On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness) that the only kind of forgiving that makes any sense is the kind that forgives the unforgiveable? And in a godless world--a world where, as several characters in The Sunflower say, wickedness is so rampant that God seems to have gone on leave--is forgiveness necessarily a different kind of phenomenon than it would be in a Godded world?

Weisenthal doesn't pretend to answer any of these questions, but he and the other characters in his memoir discuss them, presenting different perspectives and coming to different conclusions. The very real value of The Sunflower is that it encourages readers to think about the questions.

Which brings me to the responses. Most are impressionistic, unanalytical, platitudinous, and hence totally out of step with the brutal authenticity of Weisenthal's text. A few stand out from the others: Robert Coles', Rebecca Goldstein's, Abraham Joshua Heschel's, Primo Levi's. But most can be given a pass. My suggestion would be to focus first and foremost on Weisenthal's text and forget about the responses. A nice cinematic complement to the book is the documentary "Forgiving Dr. Mengele."

Simon Wiesenthal is best known as the man who had been indefatigable and single-minded in trying to bring Nazi criminals to justice as long as there was a single one of them left. For him this was an absolute moral imperative and something that he felt he owed to the memory of the murdered millions of Jews, of whom Wiesenthal could so easily have been one: he was the survivor of a succession of concentration camps: the Janowska camp outside Lvov, Plaszow (the camp of Schindler's List), Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen, and finally Mauthausen. It may come as a surprise to some readers that Wiesenthal was sensitive to the moral problems raised by the issue of forgiveness - yet this book is a moving meditation on that theme. According to his biographer, Hella Pick, Wiesenthal had `always considered it his most important book'.

Cruelty and casual murder were everyday occurrences in the Janowska camp, and are described in gut-wrenching detail in the first half of this episode from Wiesenthal's life. While doing slave labour at a military hospital near the camp, he was secretly brought to the death-bed of Karl, a gravely wounded 21-year old SS officer whose conscience was wracked - not just at death's door, but apparently immediately after the event - by his participation in a horrific massacre of Jews in Dnepropetrovsk. The officer got a nurse to find `a Jew', who happened to be Wiesenthal, to whom he could make his confession and from whom he could seek forgiveness. Wiesenthal wanted to get away; but something - apart from the dying man's grip - made him stay to hear him out. A Catholic priest later told him that that alone should have helped the man to die in peace, since confession and genuine repentance are more important than any absolution. But at the end Wiesenthal left the room without saying anything. Quite apart from the sufferings he was himself undergoing at the hands of the SS just then and from his expectation of death at their hands at any moment, it was not for him to offer forgiveness on behalf of the victims of Dnepropetrovsk. But the issue haunted him - had he done the right thing? After the war he sought out the SS man's mother. The young man had come from a devout and Social Democrat family who were distressed when their son had joined the Hitler Youth and even more when he had volunteered to join the SS. But the mother was convinced that her son had been a good man. Wiesenthal said nothing to her about what her son had done... The short but haunting book charges the reader to put himself in Wiesenthal's shoes and to ask himself `What would I have done?'

Before publishing his book in 1969, Wiesenthal sent his manuscript to a number of distinguished thinkers for their response, and the comments of ten of them were included in the first edition. Further contributions were made by others to the 1997 and 1998 editions: there are now 53 altogether, and they make up nearly two-thirds of the book. They include - to name only the most famous - those of the Dalai Lama, Cardinal König, Primo Levi, Deborah Lipstadt, Herbert Marcuse, and Desmond Tutu.

Some of the respondents seem to me to veer away from the question Wiesenthal had posed, and draw a distinction between forgetting and forgiving; others discuss the question of collective guilt (some reject it; others blame all the bystanders) - interesting, but irrelevant in the context of this story. Almost all agree that whilst individuals can forgive offences committed against themselves, no human can forgive in the name of other victims. In such cases, if the victims cannot be asked because they are dead, perhaps only God can be asked for forgiveness - though one respondent says that God was hardly fit to forgive something which He had after all allowed to happen. And the Jewish tradition has it that even God will not forgive the unpardonable sin of murder. It is unpardonable, because it is the one sin for which reparation is impossible. The Christian tradition, basing itself on Jesus asking God to forgive them, `for they know not what they do', and on the idea that you must hate the sin, but not the sinner, shaped the answer of some Christian respondents. Some say that forgiveness is not only a boon to the penitent, but also for the victim, freeing him from the burden and poison of hate. Two Asian contributors, one a survivor from the Khmer Rouge and the other a victim of the Cultural Revolution in China, blame only the top leadership, and have some understanding for those who were brainwashed.

One respondent hopes that Karl will rot in hell; others also refuse to accept the genuineness of his repentance, indeed stress the offensiveness of him putting a Jew - chosen not as an individual but picked at random - under the moral burden of hearing the confession and being asked to forgive. Wiesenthal at least saw Karl as an individual and is capable of some compassion towards the dying man and later towards his mother (but one respondent thinks that Wiesenthal did wrong to shield her from the knowledge of what her son had done).

These are just some of the responses to Wiesenthal's question. It is a question addressed to all of us, and it is not surprising that this book has been used as a text in many courses on the Holocaust.

Summoned to the bedside of a dying Nazi who had willingly participated in the systematic annihilation of Europe's Jews, concentration camp inmate Simon Wiesenthal found himself the captive, solitary witness to this 21-year-old SS man's confession of responsibility for committing acts of unspeakable cruelty.

Kurt had asked a nurse to bring him a Jew (any Jew would do); quite by chance the nurse selected Wiesenthal from the work detail assigned to the hospital that day. Against his will, he listened to this man recount his experience of packing a house full of Jewish men, women, and children and then setting the house on fire while lobbing grenades into the inferno and shooting at anyone who had attempted to escape this hell. Kurt watched a father, mother, and small boy leap from a window to their certain death. Before the leap, the father had shielded the child's eyes.

The image haunted Kurt, who was unable to fight again. Instead, he froze on the battlefield and suffered and injury that first cost him his sight and then took his life. Before he died, though, he wanted to confess his sins to a Jew that he might be forgiven and die in peace.

Wiesenthal, who was about the same age as this soldier, heard him out but refused to forgive. Instead, he offered silence in response to the story and returned to the concentration camp.

The experience haunted Wiesenthal; soon after it happened, he discussed it with his friends back at the camp, with a Polish Catholic seminarian. Much later, he presented the story to theologians, political leaders, Holocaust survivors, and victims of other attempted genocides and asked each of these persons what he or she would have done in the same situation.

The story itself is first book of The Sunflower; the responses to the question, "The Symposium," are the text of the second book in this volume. Broadly grouped, the respondents are Jews and Christians, primarily. There are two Buddhist respondents and one Chinese respondent who makes no reference to religion though his response is in keeping with Buddhist thinking. Within these broad categories respondents reflect on different facets of the experience Wiesenthal describes and facets of their faith and life experiences and knowledge to make a response.

The Jewish respondents point to the fact that only the person against whom a sin has been committed has the right to forgive the sinner. Therefore, Kurt cannot be forgiven; his victims are dead. The Christian respondents point out, first, that they feel they have no right to address the question because they have never been on the receiving end of genocide. Then they point out that God alone can forgive and that it is incumbent on each of us sinners to find forgiveness in our hearts for others. The Buddhists respond, as Buddhists do, in the present tense and with an eye on enlightenment--a release from suffering. Each perspective reflects a different concept of individuality and therefore of the nature of accountability.

For this reader, The Sunflower accomplishes the important task of bringing the reader into the concentration camp alongside one of its victims, into the hospital room of the dying SS man, and into the heart of the questions the Holocaust raises about responsibility, accountability, forgiveness, restitution, and grace. These are questions that refuse pat answers and therefore remain alive and active in our minds. Wiesenthal's book challenges our ability to empathize with those who suffer and our ability to think about how and why we believe what we do about ourselves and each other. It is a humble and beautiful tribute to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. We too can honor their memory by participating in the conversation this book presents.

I have not yet finished reading this wonderful book, but I about doing it...It has been a wonderful reading experience...I really recommend it to all readers in search of a good book.

This book was written by the famous Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli in 1531. This book is a classic and I was pleasantly surprised that the content was not dated and the principles translate easily into the modern worlds of business and politics.
The author wrote this book as an instruction guide for governing princes in the 1500's when Italy was divided into city states and were being defeated by many foreign powers. I belive that the work is directed to Lorenzo de Medici by a letter included in the work and because at the end of the writing Machiavelli calls for a prince to unite and lead Italy against its oppressors.
The book is not unethical as I had imagined from my understanding of the ruthlessness of Machiavellian ethics. The author is only explaining tactics to use to maintain power in a kingdom or city state that are pragmatic for his time period.
Here are some examples of principles from the book:
1. When conquering a territory keep the current laws and institutions in place, but eliminate all the family of the defeated prince.
2. When trouble is sensed ahead of time it can be easily remedied, if you wait for it to show itself, it is to late.
3. Whoever is responsible for another becoming powerful, ruins himself.
4. There is no surer way of keeping possesion than by devastation.
5. Men do you are harm either because they hate you or they fear you.
6. Violence must be inflicted once and for all, it must be over quickly.
7. Build your power through the people.
8. Power is maintained through religious institutions.
9. Neglect the art of war and you lose your state.
10. If you act virtuously, you will be undone by those who are not, make use of this or not according to need.
The above is just a small sampling of the lessons in this book. My review can not do this book justice, it is full of wisdom and life lessons. It is a guide book for business leaders and politicians. I strongly suggest adding this book to your home library and referring to it often

The development of the characters during the months of plague is rich and well-explored. The contrasting viewpoints of each character drive home Camus' ideas. I can't recommend it more

if you like to feel depressed, then by all means read this book....it is dark and imaginary smells are those of death....yuk....totally discusting.

In light of the constant scare of chemical warfare we are faced with in this age where even the barbarians in the middle east have access to technology, this book still has much to offer.
There is one major theme in this novel and that is stay maintain a level head. Many of the casualties in the story are victimized by their own fear and irrational actions. From the rushed and fatal antidote to the brutallity inside the quarantined city.
This book also holds relevence to the fear that had gripped society in the 80's with the AIDS scare.

The Plague is another of Camus's magnificently constructed plots, a story created as a way to present his philosophy of life and existence.
The novel is about a plague that sweeps the Algerian city of Oran. Characters deal with the plague and the imprisonment they face because of the disease in different ways, but all characters mature greatly along the way. Interestingly, the ethical, noble, and charismatic characters like Dr. Rieux and Tarrou-just like Camus-are atheist. Both characters think all humans are bound up with a destiny of death, and that their existence has no higher spiritual dimension.

Another interesting transformation that Camus portrays is the religious point of view presented through Father Paneloux, who's explanation of the plague at the beginning was a punishment sent from God to the people of Oran for their sins, but when Father Paneloux sees innocent children are suffering, Paneloux's explanation of the plague changes to say it is a possible divine test from god of people's faith. Paneloux reaction when he got the disease was very predictable as a religious man. Even though, Camus always rejected religion, the way he dealt with Paneloux ending shows a tremendous respect to what humans choose to believe.

The process of maturity transforms each character based on their ethics and morals. Again, Camus has an outstanding way of analyzing humans and existence.

Not to ruin the pleasure of finding out; but the reader might enjoy the special reflections of Camus's own understanding of people on the development of Raymond Rambert, Joseph Grand, and Jean Tarrou. At the end of the novel Dr. Rieux, the narrator, presents a brilliant summary about human suffering and their ability to forget or ignore life's absurdity.

After reading The Stranger and thoroughly enjoying it, I decided to purchase The Plague, The Fall, Exile and the Kingdom, and Selected Essays (Everyman's Library), and have just got done reading The Plague. Frankly, this review begins with a summary of Camus' philosophical outlook; I find these particularly relevant to a decision whether or not to purchase one of his books, and I discuss this relevance below. After that, I talk about the plot and what the bulk of the book is actually about. Finally, I add a few thoughts and opinions of my own, and comment on what edition, if any, one should buy.

To an extent, all of Camus' novels are vehicles for his philosophy. Camus' philosophy begins with a simple idea, that life is absurd. Camus did not believe in God; did not believe human actions hold any ultimate higher meaning; and thought "death would undermine the value of anything that precedes it." From this, Camus drew that life was "absurd." In The Stranger, Camus illustrates this principle of the absurd. Only towards the end of The Stranger does Camus bring up another point in his worldview, and that is, that life is worth living. In The Plague, Camus introduces a concept he called "Revolt"; that is, revolting against the absurdity and meaningless of existence. It seems like an oxymoron, but here Camus wants to try to make sense of an absurd life.

There you have a brief overview of Camus' philosophical ideas. In the Plague, Camus particularly criticizes the Catholic Church. If you find Camus' non-faith to be offensive, then I suggest you not read his books. With an open mind, however, it is likely you will find much said by Camus that is true. Also, if you want a straight and simple story as opposed to Camus' philosophical ideal laced story, then you might look elsewhere. Still, read the rest of my review. You may find the plot, which I will discuss next, is something that interests you regardless of philosophy.

The city of Oran is quarantined due to the outbreak of a deadly plague. No one is allowed to leave or enter. The narrative focuses on a handful of people living in the quarantined city, as well as on the general conditions of life in Oran while the plague wreaks havoc. Actually, the native begins just before the plot, and ends shortly after the quarantine is lifted. The characters discuss life during plague conditions. Their activities range from writing a book, to trying to escape, to discussing football, above all, the main focus is given to combating the plague. About the Oran--bureaucracy, religion, burial procedures, and quarantine conditions are popular plot points, as is attempting to define the general outlook of the populous during the hard times of Plague infestation. One of his common themes is separation from a loved one.

I hope I have been of some help. Personally, I find Camus' ideas to be captivating. I loved the Stranger and the Plague, and look forward to reading more of his books soon. Although the Plague reaches farther than the Stranger, I cannot conclude that it is the better of the two novels. Personally, I felt Stranger to be more to my liking; Stranger felt more natural and therefore more complete as a novel; whereas the people, places, and events of The Plague felt constructed as if only for novelistic purposes.

I strongly suggest you at least look at this The Plague, The Fall, Exile and the Kingdom, and Selected Essays (Everyman's Library) before you buy the Plague, or any other work by Albert Camus. Thought it is Five Dollars more expensive, it includes 4 books and 2 essays (The Plague, The Fall, Exile, Myth of Sisyphus, and Reflections on the Guillotine) and a helpfull introduction from David Bellos. It draws from two translators (Gilbert and O'Brien) and has a durrable cloth bound frame that should outlast any paperback.

Legendary French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre invites his readers to truly get in touch with what it means to be alive in this world. With the famous phrase "Hell is other people," Sartre is able to encapsulate the vast extent of social anxieties that necessarily exist among all people. Readers beware, if you're not ready to learn about the true depths of human self-perception, then do not open this book.

Estelle, Inez and Garcin expected to face all manner of torture in hell, but never expected hell to be a regular room, where these three extremely different people are bound together for eternity. During the time in which the characters explore the possibility of coexisting together, shocking confessions about the reasons that lead these characters to their death and subsequently to hell are revealed.

Inez, who is a homosexual woman, is the only character that is strong enough to practice her choice even after death. Inez finds her self stuck in an after life with a man she despises, and a woman who doesn't reciprocate her desire.

Estelle, a delusional superficial woman who interestingly can't blink, requires the presence of a man to validate her femininity or existence. Estelle is stuck between a man that she can't have, while Inez is watching, and a woman that she doesn't like.

Garcin, an immoral villain who cheated on his wife and mistreated her, needs his being and mistakes validated. Garcin is stuck between the lying selfish Estell and the honest opinionated Inez who has no interest in him. Garcin is the only character who gets a chance to leave the room but can't make a free choice to do so. He arrives at the famous conclusion:" Hell is other people".

This great story was obviously intended for a live audience. In addition to each character watching the other characters, each being watched by God, every body is being watched by the audience. Sartre cleverly used the awkward feeling of being watched all the time to enhance his story. He probably wanted to create an analogy between this room and the fact of living in Paris under German occupation during Second World War.

Please don't stop at "no exit". "The Flies", and "Dirty Hands" are great material that simply didn't get the same fame as "No Exit".

This book is a wonderful collection of plays written by the brilliant intellect of Sartre. It is an essential reading for the philosopher at heart.

I have read this little collection countless times over the years. I have seen Huit Clos (No Exit) performed several times (generally poorly) but it has never quite lived up to the power that I find in the written version. I realize that this is unusual for a play, and may reflect a fault in Sartre's work rather than a strength.

It is important to remember, however, that Sartre's work is always more about the ideas behind it than it is about the form he is using. Sartre wrote novels, plays, essays, and criticism during his long career. Through it all, he was a philosopher-- struggling with the notion of freedom and indifference.

People (particularly students) tend to stop with No Exit, neglecting its less famous cousins. This is a shame, as both The Flies and Dirty Hands are fascinating pieces. Particularly if you have an interest in the Oresteia then The Flies is a wonderful interpretation.

A must read book.

Sartre is sometimes given a reputation that far precedes him, as with many Nobel recipients. These plays are a testament against the skeptic's mindset.

"No Exit" is a modern-day interpretation of the antiquated "fire and brimstone" hell we are so accustomed to hearing about. Sartre adroitly picks up on the small idiosyncracies of human behavior and capitalizes on them with his version of hell. Three incompatible personalities are locked in a hot, stuffy hotel room for eternity, unable to get along with one another or reconcile their personal differences. The lights are always a bit too bright, the furniture a bit too stiff, and the wonder at "what lies down the hall" eats at the occupants for eternity. This is a far cry from biblical interpretations of hell, where an individual can mentally will themselves against pain. Instead, Sartre focuses on the interpersonal nature of unhappiness, and gives his spirits "one of those days" for eternity.

"Dirty Hands" is perhaps my favorite piece of literature. It plants its focus on a young intellectual revolutionary intent on assassinating a corrupt party leader. As he grows closer to Hoederer, the man he is sent to kill, he comes to realize that pure intellectual theories will always become muddied in the waters of reality.

"The Respectful Prostitute" depicts a young woman, a prostitute, who spends the night with a man who turns out to be a politician. The man completes his sordid mission, but the next morning scorns the woman. An lesson in objectivity and the two-faced nature of those who tend to preach loudly.

"The Flies" is set in Ancient Greece, but possesses Sartre's aptitude for human behavior. Just as good as all the others, though not as indicative of how humans behave.

These are all plays, making them quite easy to read. The characters are not hard to keep straight. The ease of reading doesn't detract from their literary quality. These four plays are elegant simplicity at its finest.

In ethics you find two sorts of reasoning:
1) One that wants to 'delimit' ethics;
allow them to do what they want.
2) One that wants to add further limits to your moral
plane.
Ethics has been argued from a social point of view:
that anthropologically speaking some restrictions
like those on incest and child abuse are universal.
The mid-ground seems to be in marriage laws
and sexual conduct: with the south sea islands on
one side and Boston Ladies of society on the other?
Historically it appears that break down in the values
of family and moral conduct go hand in hand with
decline in the culture. The fall of the Soviet Union
and Communism seems to be tied not with the ideals
of that cultural set, but the adherence to a moral conduct
where the ends justify the means.
Innocents with political and religious ideals died in Siberian camps.
There is no "Ambiguity" in clear wrongs to innocents
to promote a political set of ideas or a leader
like Stalin. Philosophically one can't say
that feminism should be tied to an existentialist doctrine
or that the natural world's lack of ethics means that
we are left to chose our own logical solution
to the decision problems. Harming others in your own selfish self interest isn't in the area of "ambiguity".
Social responsibility is a force that alters history
and is self-organizing: giving up ethical constraints
for your own ends will be the fall.
These are my own sharp words to answer Simone de Beauvior's words.

Existence.. it's meaning is never fixed, it must constantly be won. This book examines Existence and it's meaning in a humans life. French Philosopher Simone De Beauvoir talks of Nihilism, Surrealism, Existentialism, Objectivity, and a persons ethics and values in life. Beauvoir also tries to resolve some problems Sartre had with trying to work out Existentialist Ethics. Also discusses recognizing your own freedom and taking charge of your life.

Despite being shorter than most Philosophy books this is by no means a cakewalk to read. Its a challenging book but it will force you to think. It is brilliant. This is Philosophy at its finest.

This is an excellent and original work of philosophy, closely related to the contemporary ideas of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, but quite unique and not reducible to their work. I find it to be one of the best books (indeed one of the few books) to use to teach existentialism in introductory classes. I recommend skipping the first chapter, because it is self-consciously "literary," (in an obscure way), and contributes nothing essential to the book. Chapter 2 is the core of the book, and it is an incredible and compelling piece of writing that brilliantly discusses the distinctive nature of childhood experience, and then develops a dialectic of "bad faith" that offers a sort of system for understanding personality types--ways, that is, of embracing (imperfectly) our freedom. The third chapter studies politics in a very thoughtful way, (though I find it is often lost on my intro students because they just don't have enough experience of political realities to appreciate the significance of what she is saying). This text is often wrongly belittled by commentators (and, indeed, de Beauvoir herself wrongly said disparaging things about it), but I think it is one of the classic texts of existential phenomenology and deserves to be widely read.

"There is no more obnoxious way to punish a man than to force him to perform acts which make no sense to him, as when one empties and fills the same ditch indefinitely, when one makes soldiers who are being punished march up and down, when one forces a schoolboy to copy lines."

What will the modern man do when slapped in the face with the absurdity of his own existence? Become an adventurer, passionate, serious, intellectual? Where will his values come from when there are no values -- how will he create them out of nothing? Is it easier to adopt a game full of illusions created by someone else? de Beauvoir forces the reader to come face to face with the absolute absurdity of the human condition, and then, proceeds to develop a dialectic of ambiguity that will enable the reader not to master the chaos, but to create with it. This book will probably alter many well-rooted philosophical perceptions -- so, reader beware! I could have done without the dramatic image of how the Nazi's conditioned themselves to become insensitive to human suffering (de Beauvoir used as an extreme example), but oh well... This book is a keeper, and very quotable! Highly recommended, especially for those diving into the Realm of Existentialism! --Katharena Eiermann, 2006

This is an excellent and original work of philosophy, closely related to the contemporary ideas of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, but quite unique and not reducible to their work. I find it to be one of the best books (indeed one of the few books) to use to teach existentialism in introductory classes. I recommend skipping the first chapter, because it is self-consciously "literary," (in an obscure way), and contributes nothing essential to the book. Chapter 2 is the core of the book, and it is an incredible and compelling piece of writing that brilliantly discusses the distinctive nature of childhood experience, and then develops a dialectic of "bad faith" that offers a sort of system for understanding personality types--ways, that is, of embracing (imperfectly) our freedom. The third chapter studies politics in a very thoughtful way, (though I find it is often lost on my intro students because they just don't have enough experience of political realities to appreciate the significance of what she is saying). This text is often wrongly belittled by commentators (and, indeed, de Beauvoir herself wrongly said disparaging things about it), but I think it is one of the classic texts of existential phenomenology and deserves to be widely read.

I can't compare this poem to the original Farsi as I don't read that language, but this translation is amazingly readable. The reader gets enough notes and extra information to understand a bit of the context, but it never interferes with immersing oneself in this allegory of the journey toward union with the divine beloved. The individual birds on this journey come to life for the reader and the 13th century narrative literally takes off!

Dick Davis's translation is more than extraordinary -- it is truly a miracle to see the beauty, eloquence and flow of this masterpiece richly rendered into the English language with rhyme and meter. A must in the collection of any sincere seeker of the Creator.

This book is a masterpiece on spirituality, self-search, self-identity and self-realization. It provides an unparallel and wonderful guide for reaching to oneself and God. The wonderful philosophy of Attar has the potential to change the world from greed, violence and chaos to self-discipline, love and peace. The book has the capacity to transform the mindsets of fidels and infidels alike to become the master of one's own persona. The book is a must read for anyone interested to know oneself and the world.

. . . . it is instructive and corrective to have a glimpse of
what was: a lyrical, medeivalist tradition that saw the denial
of the self as a path to union with the infinite.

Just as it's important to be aware of the gently lascivious
Omar Khayyam as an antidote to today's puritanism, it's also
worthwhile to remember Farid ud-Din Attar a cosmopolitan skeptic
whose tolerance of human frailty is in service of lofty
spiritual aims.
The Conference of the Birds is an allegory of the search for
the divine. The hoopoe who was the messenger of King Solomon
serves as the Cicero on the quest. The allegory is told in
short snippets, stories of doubt, fear and faith. One can imagine
each of them forming miniature tales and sermons.

Long, spiritual allegories can make pretty tough reading,
but the episodic nature of Conference makes it a book to
be enjoyed in snippets. Keep it at the bedside or wherever
you enjoy a literary nibble.

It's interesting to note that worldly, human Attar came to a
bad end. He was accused of heresy, his goods were plundered
and he was forced into exile. Can we hope for a better outcome
this time?

--Lynn Hoffman, author of THE NEW SHORT COURSE IN WINE and
the forthcoming novel bang BANG from Kunati Books.ISBN 9781601640005

The writings of the Sufis are, without a doubt, some of the most beautiful and challenging spiritual works in existence. Rumi's works are currently undergoing something of a renaissance in the Western world but the name of Farid Ud-Din Attar is not as well known. This is unfortunate, since The Conference of the Birds provides, in my opinion, a much better insight into Sufi philosophy than the bits and pieces of Rumi floating about the New Age universe.

Attar's beautiful descpriptions, exqisite metaphors and delightful parables describe the stages on the soul's journey to union with God. An extended metaphor for the soul, the birds gather and travel through various valleys to reach the Simorgh - a state of ectstatic oneness with deity. The Hoopoe acts as the guide and provides answers to the bird's questions and doubts about the journey - usually with short illustrative tales. These tales are each tiny drops of gold, the longest being only a few hundred lines. The overarching theme is the denial of the self to gain ultimate bliss. This is no intellectual exercise and much of the advice given is shocking and revolutionary. In the extended tale of Sheik Sam'an, the Sheik leaves his faith and becomes a Christian for the love of a woman who ultimately spurns him. His apostasy and depravity astound his followers who swiftly abandon him. A Sufi teacher chastises them for their lack of faith and eventually they return to his side. Sam'an then reconverts and his love is converted too. The message would seem to be that to find God it may be necessary to abandon conventional notions of behaviour and faith and plunge forward with wild abandon, losing the self. Some of the stories may shock our sensibilities, and no doubt had the same effect on Attar's medieval audiences. A kind of counter-culture attitude is displayed in the book, with tales of romantic love between men and other "un-Islamic" behaviours challenging accepted norms.

As to the book itself, the translation is done in "heroic couplets" which according to the introduction, best suits the style of the arabic original. It at first seems a little stilted but soon lends a beauty of its own to the work. A fairly substantial introduction helps put the book in context and describes what is known of Attar's life and times. A biographical index is included which provides details on the many characters - often historical - who people the pages of the poem. This book is a beautiful little gem, filled with a lot of wisdom. It is definitely worth the read for members of any faith, even those who aren't practicing Sufis.

This book was written by the famous Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli in 1531. This book is a classic and I was pleasantly surprised that the content was not dated and the principles translate easily into the modern worlds of business and politics.
The author wrote this book as an instruction guide for governing princes in the 1500's when Italy was divided into city states and were being defeated by many foreign powers. I belive that the work is directed to Lorenzo de Medici by a letter included in the work and because at the end of the writing Machiavelli calls for a prince to unite and lead Italy against its oppressors.
The book is not unethical as I had imagined from my understanding of the ruthlessness of Machiavellian ethics. The author is only explaining tactics to use to maintain power in a kingdom or city state that are pragmatic for his time period.
Here are some examples of principles from the book:
1. When conquering a territory keep the current laws and institutions in place, but eliminate all the family of the defeated prince.
2. When trouble is sensed ahead of time it can be easily remedied, if you wait for it to show itself, it is to late.
3. Whoever is responsible for another becoming powerful, ruins himself.
4. There is no surer way of keeping possesion than by devastation.
5. Men do you are harm either because they hate you or they fear you.
6. Violence must be inflicted once and for all, it must be over quickly.
7. Build your power through the people.
8. Power is maintained through religious institutions.
9. Neglect the art of war and you lose your state.
10. If you act virtuously, you will be undone by those who are not, make use of this or not according to need.
The above is just a small sampling of the lessons in this book. My review can not do this book justice, it is full of wisdom and life lessons. It is a guide book for business leaders and politicians. I strongly suggest adding this book to your home library and referring to it often

I won't expound the joys of reading Machiavelli since many other reviewers have done so. Peter Bondanella's translation is wonderfully readable, capturing both the cadence and elegant simplicity of Machiavelli. While his translation of 'The Prince' can be found in the previous Oxford edition (with Mark Musa) and in the Viking Portable Machiavelli, the introduction by Maurizio Viroli is a pleasant new feature. The introduction covers all of the basic points necessary for anyone new to Machiavelli. For a more detailed introduction to Machiavelli you may also want to try Viroli's book entitled 'Machiavelli' or Quentin Skinner's 'Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction', both of which cover more than just 'The Prince'. Finally, the low price makes this edition a great value.

In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.
Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.