Philosophy Books

Brilliant is the best word to describe this work. Kurzweil has brought the future into something of a focus with this amazing look into the future. What really makes this work is that you can't 'see' exactly what the future will be even though he brings you further along than you have been. We can't see past the singularity - it will be something amazing - but we cannot truly conceive of what will be.
This will change the way you view our world and the future of our race.

In my opinion, this is an exceptional book. I was astonished to read some of the criticisms it has received on amazon.com. I truly could not put this book down. The depth of the subjects covered is great. For anyone who is interested in futurism, this should be on your bookshelf.

First of all, the author is an extremely accomplished man. Chances are you use one of his inventions everyday. Kurzweil was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, received thirteen--yes, thirteen--honorary doctorates, the National Medal of Technology, the Lemelson MIT Prize (the world's largest award for innovation), and awards from three US Presidents. This makes me more than comfortable when reading this book.

I very much enjoy books of this nature, but have never encountered a book such as this; with every claim and prediction, Kurzweil provides more than ample evidence to support himself. Reading this book was an intellectual revolution.

Some of the criticisms I read about this book on amazon.com stated that the book lacked emotion and was quite dry. I couldn't disagree more. I find it impossible to be without emotion when discussing the things Kurzweil touches on and noticed no apathy in his writing. At times, his writing was quite humorous; the dialogue of a fictional character named Molly with various other characters at the end of every chapter was very entertaining.

I would recommend this book to anyone. It will truly change your outlook on the human civilization and its future. I plan to read it again and again.

Excellent description of how the universe seems to be progressing from the simpler to the more complex.

Perhaps, also a metaphor of how what age we live in changes our perspective of how we view the evolution of the universe and the intelligence that is spawned.

In the old industrial era, it was thought that civilization would increase it's usage of energy, building Dyson spheres.

In the new information age, it seems that the vision is about a "Singularity Wave" speeding out to convert as much of the matter in the universe into the most efficient materials to process exponentially increasing information and intelligence.

I believe the basics are, as best as I can tell, very good and I enthusiastically embrace his humanistic (and post or trans humanistic) philosophy.

Only a couple of things which I might differ on, and that would be..

1. Not much mention of quantum computing. That would represent the absolute manifestation of Richard Feynman's "Plenty of Room at the Bottom", and in the case of quantum computing, the bottom of a potentially unlimited, 5Th dimensional matrix of alternate world-lines to employ. Much better than dealing with the delays of linking together multi-billion light year networks.

2. Because of the above, and also the "s" curve of population growth in post agricultural/industrial/hyper-industrial-info civilization, there may well be a trillion or so "Singularity" worlds out there, many within a few hundred light years from Earth.

These worlds may send small probes, perhaps with super intelligent entities to explore, but wouldn't need any more resources than exist in their native solar system.

Futurism is an imperfect art, and many of Kurzweil's prognostications will probably unfold in different ways from what is expected, but I fully embrace a vision of this new world unfolding to the benefit of conscious life on Earth.

The book presents an interesting premise that humans will evolve from purely biological to biological/technological and ultimately to technological beings. Whether or not Kurzweil has gotten the time frame right is the question. If he is right, humans are only 20 to 30 years from this singularity. A most thought provoking read.

Futurists are seductive and so are their fantastical predictions, even when one has absolutely no idea exactly how to evaluate the soundness of their claims. Kurzweil tries with all his might to answer this criticism of the genre but fails nonetheless, offering mound upon mound of at best incomplete graphs that bury his theses behind the madness of immeasurable technological erudition, so (alas) the reader is probably left to do one of two things: ignorantly object or ignorantly serve. It's good fun, much like a fireside game of "what if" at summer camp, and Bill Gates's official endorsement makes it feel populist enough to recommend to your inquisitive friends.

I received the book in ample amount of time!! Thanks!!

Well now, I know where some of the true Marxist are hiding. In this book, Nieto is trying to create equity policies in schools using taxpayer dollars. If she had her way, she would get rid of capitalism, social classes, and distribution of wealth. Of course, we have already seen how that works in the former Soviet Union (it doesn't work at all). Yes, in a democratic-republic (Nieto always forgets the republic part) there is a dominant culture. Kind of why we call this a nation state, we have national culture. Unfortunately, Nieto is too busy saying the dominant culture is based on White European ideals. In fact, the ideals are based on Judaism, which is not European at all.
There are some aspects of diverse cultures that keep people down trodden in our society, and it is NOT restricted to the dominant cultures. But Nieto makes it sound as though it only happens to dominant cultures.

Nieto did a fantastic job handling this subject and I love how challenged I am by it! It really causes you to think very deeply about multicultural education and the sociopolitical factors that come into play.

The case studies are the best part of this text, though. I love the fact that there are follow-ups in the back of the book for several of the kids!

Even if you think you know all there is to know about multicultural education, you will be surprised by how much you learn from this very well-written book.

I found this book to primarily address the issues of eastern seaboard minority students rather than the issues faced in the southwestern US. Here in AZ there is a very strong prejudice against Immigrant students of Spanish speaking origin. Did you realize that in most workplaces in AZ we are not allowed to speak in a language other than English to a co-worker? Some paranoid person, usually a transplanted Anglo from out of state thinks we are talking about them. Ms Nieto needs to make her text more of a national treasure by not just focusing on those in the Midwest and Eastern seaboard nothern states. This book is due for an update!

I found this book of little use. The major problems created by using race as the main focus of the book include:
* Race as a subject is so overworked that nearly everyone over eight years of age has come to conclusions about race, the most important and most common of which is "I am not racist." However, given how the human brain works (selective attention, generalization, and others) and how humans interact (tribal affiliation, application of generalizations based on visual input, and so on), prejudice and therefore racism are inevitable: We are all racist whether we think so or not.
* Again, because the issue of race is overworked, the reaction of many people when race is introduced as a subject is, "Not again!" This could be overcome by a unique or fresh approach. Outside of Chapter 7, "Toward an Understanding of School Achievement", nothing new or fresh is provided.

On the positive side, the case studies are well written and well selected. In a different literary context, these case studies could be of immense value. Also, Chapter 7 has value to offer.

Yes, I realize that racial discrimination issues are critical, especially given the level of racial discriminiation that exists in the human family. However, focusing on such discrimination as the root issue has stalled civil rights. It has accomplished pretty much all it is going to accomplish. It is time to recognize that predudice is part of the human condition.

I invite Ms. Nieto or others to write a text based on the biological and sociological roots of prejudice aimed at helping the reader and, in the context of college classes, the student realize their own propensity for prejudice, recognize how it might show up, and correct the issues of their own prejudice as they emerge.

Thank you for making this purchase so easy! It was exactly the book needed and you offered some savings when compared to the local bookstore. It made sense to buy the books needed for this semester from you.

This book was used for my freshman Foundations of Education course. I found the book a joy to read, and it provided a balanced look at the teaching profession. This one book that will definantly not be sold back. The supplemental materials on the CD-ROM seemed to be high quality, but I disliked having to read them on my computer and ended up ignoring the CD.

Early this summer at a computer programming conference I found myself with a group of programmers of different ages and nationalities. The one thing we all had in common is that we'd read this book while in high school or college and found it fascinating. For some of us the book was life changing. Most of us rediscovered a love of math that our high school education had nearly destroyed. Many of us became programmers because of it. The book may seem to be dated in some respects after 20 plus years, but on the whole it is as relevant and exciting today as it was when it was first published.

This is a work of incredible depth and scope. From number theory to cognition to genetics, Hofstadter offers some incredible insights about the way we and the world work. One word of advice: don't worry if you can't understand all of his ideas. This book is so chock-full of content that most readers could spend a decade plowing through it, only to find that they've missed something important. Just read it. You'll get some of it, and that's enough.

This is one of my favourite book of all time. I first read it twenty years ago as an undergraduate on my computer science degree. The nice thing about getting older, but still remaining young, is that you can go back and revistit master works - and lets make no bones about it, this is a master work. As such, it requires time, effort and mastery of the ideas.
This is not a book that you can just pick up and read in a couple of days. Of course you can delve into it and loose yourself for a few hours, but to obtain mastery will take serious time and effort. Using Howard Gardener's terminology, Hofstadter synthesises across the domains of music, maths and art. This is no mean feat.
Buy it, only if you have the time for it. Treasure it, enjot it and love it as much as I do.

I realized after recommending this to a friend that I've never reviewed it. Strange, since it's one of the dozen most important books I've ever read in my nearly half-century on this planet. I first read it over 20 years ago, and continue to refer to its literate and well-crafted pages frequently.

This book is Doug Hofstadter's religion. Since it's so good and so right about so many things, people run off into strange places with Hofstadter's words, sort of like the Bible. GEB (the shorthand name for the book) is, for me, a meta-level examination of what it is to be human. Some people see the shadows of the gods in there. I'm not trying to be melodramatic, nor do I believe I'm overstating the value of this book.

Hofstadter takes the reader along on a Carrollian trip using metaphor and fable. Then he employs pedagogical, practical exercises, and good old-fashion lecture. Rinse and repeat, again and again. When he tells you to get pen and paper, please do it. Take your time with this book. I tried and failed on my first attempt. When I finally settled into it, it took me three months to joyously work my way through it. Take a year if you need it.

Reception, analysis, recursion, reapplication. Hofstadter examines the basic evidences of intelligence, forms sensible, fundamental meta-rules, and builds from there. This book - as others have said - is hard work, like climbing a mountain. But at the end of the endeavor, the view is dazzling.

The author complains in the new preface that a vast majority of the reviewers, including those who have rated this book very highly, seem to have no idea of what he has been trying to say. In my opinion, this is a self-indictment that does not leave much for others to say. If the author cannot get his ideas across in 700 pages, perhaps people should not waste their time on him. I have learnt it the hard way: after buying this book, five years ago, on high recommendations of friends, only to find it so boring and confused that I could never go beyond a few pages even though I gave it innumerable attempts.

The shipping was remarkably fast!! It is a text for a class so it isn't something I am thrilled about reading, but it is a good book if you are looking for something for medical ethics.

arirved as described good shape and on time

This book is a great guide. There is a lot of material to cover and the book does a great job in explaining and giving examples. There is a lot of reading so be prepared.

the information is overwhelming.....this is my first Philosophy book and I am amazed at all the information that is in this book.....wonderful scenarios to discuss in class......makes you look at things from the other side of the fence.....only drawback....takes forever to read.....this book is not for the speed-reader.....

I am a professor who teaches Bioethics, primarily to college nursing students. I have used many textbooks over the years and have reviewed dozens. I have used Munson's text for the last 3 years. This particular edition is his strongest yet. Potential readers should be aware that Munson takes an encylopedic approach to the field. Each chapter includes a focus case, additional cases, ethical analysis, survey of the context, and a selection of articles written by bioethicists that cover a variety of opionions on the issue. This approach has both its strengths and its drawbacks. On the positive side, Munson's text is an excellent resource for faculty who wish to reduce the course to a single text. There is very little need to supplement the text in any way.

But the encylopedic approach has its drawbacks. First, each chapter is very long and slow to read. I have found resistance from students to read entire chapters. The next time I use the text I will direct the students to particular sections within the chapters. Second, and more problematic, the text is rather undeveloped in its moral theory. Munson confines his explict moral reasoning to a specific section in each chapter, often devoting no more than a short paragraph to each school of thought. In addition, Munson only rarely takes a position on these issues himself. Without a central guiding moral vision or approach, students are often left bewildered and perplexed about what to think of these issues themselves.

In the end, I believe that the strengths of Munson's text outweigh its shortcomings, though professors who are considering this volume should be aware that they will need to do a lot of focusing of class discussions.

I was very pleased with the service and quality of my purchase. He was professional and efficient.

This book is an excellent source for the wroks of philosophers beginning with Plato and going on to all the other greats of Western Philosophy. Although I am only on the writings of Aristotle, I am enjoying the book and find that the footnotes provide some much-needed explanantions in parts. Further, the price I got this book for was much lower than what my college bookstore was asking for.

Cahn's text was a requirement for a historical-introduction to philosophy class that I had. Cahn has included much relevant material from key philosophers from Plato and on. I highly recommened this book over Pojman.

This anthology is by far the best anthology of its kind. If you love ancient and medieval philosophy the way I do, it is possible to teach an entire semester "intro. to phil." course out of Plato, Aristotle, Sextus, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimon, Ockham, Gerson, and the Stoa.
This book could also support a whole early moderns course, as it features full texts of MEDITATIONS ON FIRST PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, MONADOLOGY, AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, and DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION. This great text also contains a well-selected excerpt from Kant's KrV.
If you are a philosophy instructor who loves great texts, and if you teach an historical approach to intro., this text is your choice. This servicable anthology is priced reasonably enough that it can also serve as a primary-source reference for thematic courses. Thanks to Hackett for this gem. This text is also ideal as the core text for a one-trimester course. I have even used this book once for a one-semester ethics course!

I must confess my review is about the third edition, but it got me through understanding many a dry philosophical lecture. The book encompasses many of the great philosophical minds of in western history - the usual Greek medley plus other greats such as Locke, Descartes, Spinoza.
Each set of highlighted works is prefaced by a small biography.
If current western philosophical college curricula is anything to go by this book brings the relevant philosophers together in one place and thus forms a vital part of any student's bookshelf.

In the hands of teens, the computer is clearly not the learning tool phenomena that had adults so enthralled. Just because information is at their fingertips doesn't mean they are using it. For teens the computer is a cross between television and a telephone used mainly to select teen appeal content and chatter endlessly with friends. Surprise surprise, the computer age just made it that much easier for them to insulate themselves from the adult world. But are these skills transferable or worthwhile?

Mark Bauerlein goes to great pains to list and explain the validity of his research and data to prove that despite so many writers raving about the digital generation being smarter in more innovative, search savvy ways than before, comments from college professors, employee recruiters and national stats indicate that young people are sorely lacking in basic intellectual skills.

Bauerlein seeks out hard evidence provided by a website marketing firm tracking eye movement, of subjects wired to computers, and recording their comments as they interacted with websites. Their findings? People don't read at the screen, they skim and look for what turns them on. They want websites to look the same so they can interact with a familiar interface and they resist long blocks of text. Computers are actually helping people to dumb down and not excercise intellectual skills at all. We suspected as much which is possibly why this book has an audience.

The rest of the book is not about the digital age, but about youth culture since it became the phenomena extraordinaire of the 60's and turned this nation into the youth worshipping culture that it is. Those who should be mentoring students by raising the bar, he contends, have bought into the youth phenomena and now promote adolescent insularity, unhampered by the burden of tradition especially in liberal arts. This was actually quite a helpful perspective because it helped me realize that American Youth Culture is an aberration of history further fueled by consumerism which benefits from an impulsive materialistic adolescent mindset. Bauerlein, however, does not provide such insight.

Rather he covers all the usual arguments about why a democracy needs knowledgeable civic minded citizens and that just isn't happening anymore. None of these arguments are convincing largely because he blames the participants and doesn't mention the mind-binding sameness of a materialistic world egged on by corporate controlled capitalism. His description of young people today describes my own anti-civic, anti-intellectual, self-involved youth 25 years ago thus reviewers have panned him for so broadly criticizing any generation still in these formative years and this is perhaps the biggest flaw of his book.

This English professor author is simply arguing for the old culture of intellectual rigor as it was prescribed in his day when books were king and intellectuals had longer arguments. And I agree a book has a lot more scope to grasp the big picture. Ironically he has failed to grasp one that doesn't sound worn and tired out which is too bad because the digital age clearly needs perspective just as the Internet needs more depth.

He does mention, as a good sign, that young people are a lot better behaved than their sexually wild, drug using predecessors were. This only makes me wonder if the digital age is creating a more conservative, easily controlled populace, but Bauerlein offers no correlations here.

Except for one mention of teens missing out on a soldering iron, he does not mention the core of this whole argument which is that teens are not getting outdoors or experiencing hands-on skills that would allow them greater self-sufficiency. They don't negotiate or manage for themselves their own free time because now it's all so much protective play dating thus they lack initiative in the workplace and managing skills for facilitating team work. Outdoor activity and skills of self-sufficiency were eroding in their parents' time in favor of grooming worker bees for the digi-mines which might well be the logical progression of the book reading intellectual activity he espouses.

Amanda Kovattana is author of Diamonds In My Pocket: Tales of a Childhood In Asia

As a 26 year old IT guy, I suppose I'm in the "target demographic" of untrustworthy people. I work full time, am successful and have the capacity to talk intellectually. Yes, I do play video games, use the internet, and guess what else? I can find Iraq on the map, have discussions about important books, films, and philosophy.

This is ageism - it does exist, and it is harmful to our society. Try writing a book on not trusting "old people" and see how far it goes.

I'm offended that such a book exists. Generalizations about any group of people can be dangerous.

And if the children can't make it, the elder generation has to be responsible. This sort of smug bashing is not helping anyone.

I have been reading this book, and am so far impressed by two apparent facts.

First, the title is a lie. All the author proves is that the kids are as dumb as us. How exciting.

And then, second, will this book do any good? I doubt it. As Ortega y Gasset noted, almost a century ago: "The commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."

But of course -- everybody is equal!!! (And if they aren't, they can always find somebody else to blame......)

First off, I have not read the book. I will not read the book. I will discourage everyone to not read the book. All it is a collection of fearmongering "good ole' days" propaganda from a Luddite who can't keep up with the shifting culture of information consumption and new ways to learn both new and old lessons. Like the majority of people who find change scary, he demonizes that which he willingly makes no effort to understand, and uses platitudinous anecdotes with no real bearing on reality and manipulated statistics to make far-reaching claims about how dumb my generation (yes, my) generation is, and makes the logical face plant jump about trustworthiness.

I find even the title and the implication that my digital "lifestyle" as it were has done anything other than enhance me as an informed, educated, individual. There are plenty of better written, more balanced arguments exploring both the pros and the cons of the current state of information culture. Do yourself a favor and do your own research, and find your own conclusions that aren't based on fear and anxiety.

This is usually the third book you read in a Political Philosophy course after "The Republic" and the "Nichomachean Ethics".

Locke comes to an understanding of "society", "government", and "property", among a number of notions central to our way of life. Doing that, he's also justifying them, as they exist. He states better and more clearly than anyone else what it is we think these things are and why we should view them as good. I don't know if anyone is thought to have done these particular things any better. (I guess I'm saying that Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., did other things.)

Lots of good stuff written here on this. Just think it's worth pointing out that Locke's argument for man's leaving the state of nature and his argument for the establishment of property are notoriously inconsistent.

The "state of nature" is more rhetorical device or thought-experiment than historical description. Nonetheless, it is essential to the argument.

Oh well. Plato's dialogues often end in despair.

I wish more people knew political philosophy. It would raise the general level of discussion. People would spend less time monkeying demagogues, charlatans, and hucksters.

Good edition too.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is the Natural Rights philosophy's greatest essay. Locke, an English freethinker, wrote both his Frist and Second Treatise on Government to refute the patriarchial and absolutist writings of Sir Robert Filmer. Locke clearly believes man is imbued with the natural right to life, liberty, and property. He believes men have a right to live free from tyrannical government.

Locke shows how when a government degenerates into tyranny the "people" have a right to revolt and throw off such government. Sound familar? Jefferson wrote these words into the Declaration of Independence. Locke believes that liberty is a man's right by his very nature of being human. He points out how that men come together to form a government, based upon a social contract, and that the rulers or government must abide by that contract or man returns to his natural state. In the natural state men are not bound to the current ruler but may institute new government for their security and protection.

Although he believed that government should not be changed lightly or on a whim, and believed that the ruler must violate the contract and usurp power, he nevertheless pointed out that government is of men, not God or gods. He repudiated the doctrine propagated by Filmer, that rulers are appointed to rule by God, ie: the Divine Right of Kings.

This "wee little book" as Jefferson put it, has had a tremendous influence on the Western world. Locke, a child of the English Enlightenment has caused conservatives and other tyrants, socialists and communists to shudder at the right to throw off tyrannical government. A truly great read.

In his book, Second Treatise of Government, John Locke (1632 - 1704) writes that all humans are born equal with the same ability to reason for themselves, and because of this, government should have limitations to ensure that people are free from the arbitrary will of another person, according to the laws of nature. Government, in Locke's view, is a social contract between the people in control, and the people who submit to it.

The editor of this edition, C. B. Macpherson, gives a little background and overview in his introduction to this book. He writes that the book "was directed against the principles of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books, asserting the divine authority of kings and denying any right of resistance, were thought by Locke and his fellow Whigs to be too influential among the gentry to be left unchallenged by those who held that resistance to an arbitrary monarch might be justified." (p. viii)
Locke's book served as a philosophical justification for revolting against tyrannical monarchies in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. His book was practically quoted in the Declaration of Independence.

Locke lays out his basis for government on the foundation that people are able to reason. Because of this, people have inherent freedoms or natural rights. Though he believed in reason, Locke was an empiricist, meaning he believed that all knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. The mind starts as a "tabula rasa", latin for an empty slate. As soon as we are born, we immediately begin learning ideas. Thus, all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Nevertheless, Locke had an unshakable faith in human reason. He believed that people do learn what is right and wrong, regardless of what they choose to do. Locke believed that faith in God, certain moral norms and understanding consequences were inherent in human reason. So, even though people acquire everything they know about the world through the senses, they are able to think for themselves and reason at a higher level about what they learn.

Locke presumed that there are universally recognized principles and that the consequences are practically scientific. He was greatly influenced by Isaac Newton (1647-1727) who wrote The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Locke took the ideas that there were "natural laws" in science and tried to extend that to society.

Natural laws, or rights, in Locke's view, are obvious and learned through human reasoning, and apply to everyone. They are also called "self-evident," which appears in The Declaration of Independence. All humans are created equal, and Locke bases this idea on the golden rule, that people are to do to others as they would have others do to them. Natural equality is the basis of the first and most important "natural law" which is to care for one another. (p. 9) Locke believes that with or without government, there were universal natural rights.

Without government, people are unprotected from harm by other people. Where there is no government, people are free to do as they please, even to harm others. In this state, natural laws still apply, such as the right of people to protect themselves and seek reparation for injuries done to them. However, people are naturally inconsistent in executing punishments, because they have a propensity to act out of hate or revenge. Therefore, laws are necessary in a civil society to fairly arbitrate justice. The purpose of creating a civil society is to avoid major conflicts and keep peace.
Thus, civil government is a "contract" between people to regulate their affairs fairly. According to Locke's theories, people enter into a social contract by forming governments that will preserve order.

Locke describes a civil government as being democratic with some checks to ensure that it does not overstep its boundaries, and having both legislative and executive powers. A civil government is democratic or representative, meaning laws are created by the consent of the people through the voice of a majority vote. The legislature should represent the people equally based on population. (Salus populi suprema lex) All people are subject to the law, including the rulers-no one is above the law. Even the legislature needs "standing rules" to keep it from over-stepping its boundaries. Locke advocated the principle of division of powers. Because the legislature only meets at appointed times to create or revise laws, there needs to be an executive power that is constantly enforcing the laws. So Locke describes a division of the legislative and executive powers.

In contrast to what was being claimed by the rulers of the time, Locke taught that the purpose of government is to serve and benefit the people and that it should be controlled by the people for which the government was made. His claim that people have the right to rebel against government was controversial. Second Treatise of Government served as a foundation for future political philosophies.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

Natalia's response makes one wonder whether she herself was perhaps among the unfortunate babies born without a brain. Yes, if there were no other human beings in the world other than this one brainless baby, maybe I would keep the brainless baby around to help comfort me by reminding me of the lost human species. However, in fact there are lots of other human beings, most of whom have brains, so in reality there's no need to keep brainless babies around as pets.

Natalia also seems to be unaware of what a brain is. Brainless babies do not experience pain or anguish. (Nor do they experience pleasure.) Without a brain, 'you' have no experiences of any kind, no beliefs, no desires, and you don't care about anything to any degree. It's just a body lying in a hospital bed. There's no such thing as being insensitive to such a thing, any more than you can be insensitive to a rock.

If it's true that every object, including pebbles on the beach, has something to teach, then I'd rather learn from the rocks, which you don't have to expend thousands of dollars in medical bills to support.

I don't know about the previous editions of this book, but the present edition is really not biased, unless in the sense of being biased towards rationality and quality. In the case of issues where there is significant debate in moral philosophy, there are articles explaining both sides (e.g., abortion). In some cases, there's only one article (e.g., on homosexuality), but these are the issues where there is almost no disagreement in the field, and you'd have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, admitting really low-quality pieces, if you insisted on having an opposing article.

My sister bought this book as a text book for a introduction into philosophy class. I found it on the family book shelf later on and started flipping through it. The book is well written and interesting; although for the price there must be something better. I came on Amazon today looking for books to read on long trip and this came to mind. It has been a few years since I first read it and I'd like to read it again. I highly suggest you read this book; regardless of the other reviewer (who's two critizisms come from the first chapter).

DISCLAIMER: The 4 rating is a not-so-random guess, as I haven't read the whole book yet, but had to put a number down in order to give this critique of Natalia's post. As soon as I bought this book, I read the section on Infanticide, which Natalia so poorly criticized. Natalia's criticism is so poor that you don't even need to read the article to critique her criticism, but I thought I would read it first in case anyone thought differently. She basically argues that even in cases where the baby is a 'vegetable', that it's still good to keep him or her alive because of the benefits they will serve to others. Is there a less compassionate and more selfish position possible than this? I've read a few articles from this book, mainly essays by professional philosophers who give at least strong, if not compelling, arguments for their positions. Rachels himself is good philosopher, specifically a good ethicist, so I recommend him for the strength of his arguments and the lucidity of his writing.

I ordered this book for a college class. A classmate of mine discovered that her book was missing pages. I checked my book and found the same problem. Apparently the publisher did not perform a quality check on their books. Pages 90-127 are missing from this book.

I used Rachel's text for my students in an undergraduate course in Ethics, and was extremely disappointed and frustrated. Rachels freely promotes his political views and concerns by mean of his narrow selection of primary texts, and thereby curtails effective classroom discussion.

For those without a Kindle this review will have little to offer except to say that this edition comes with a preface by Thomas Merton which for me was a welcome surprise. I usually don't bother with introductions.

Kindle users, I looked at every Kindle edition of this work and this is without question the best formatted version. The only drawback is the lack of titles for each "book" in the table of contents. Instead they are just numbered; I, II, III, IV, and so on. There are also hyperlinked "footnotes," which I did not notice in other editions.

I apologize to Kindle non-owners, but Amazon has not yet presented away to comment specifically on electronic editions, and many public domain books--classics--are not yet properly formatted for the Kindle (which despite a few hitches is a five star device).

This is not the most attractive edition of St. Augustine's monumental City of God but it is worth getting anyway for the introduction by Etienne Gilson. The translation is quite good and, though it is somewhat abridged, this doesn't pose too great a problem as Bourke has inserted into the text a brief description of the material that he cut out so you can go to an unabridged edition if you choose.

This is an apologetic text in defence of the Chritian faith. In this book, Augustine persuasively informed his audience (readers) regarding the history of creation from the fall of humanity to their redemption provided they recognized him as God of their lives. This is possible only as they abandon all forms of idolatries lest they experience a catatrosphe similar to what led to the fall of Rome. Augustine's concept of the two cities are in contrast to each other, viz, the city of God versus the city of Satan. The former is governed by God, and the later by the Devil that also governs the minds of many un-regenerated. Thus, Augustine appealed, in his 22 volumes that are now in a single volume, to join him "in rendering thanks to God" through this great work! Pastor Moses Oladele Taiwo, Ph.D. Professor of New Testament and Head of the Department of Urban Christian Ministry, New Life Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC 28203. Tel: (704) 334 6884 Ext.106.

It took me about five months of off-and-on reading to slog through City of God--it was time well-spent. Here is one of the rare 1000-page books that not only deserved its length, but could have been longer.

What astounded me about reading St. Augustine was how relevant he is, even after 1600 years. The vast majority of what he discusses throughout this monumental book still matters--only the particulars have changed. In his day, pagans blamed Christians for wars and the collapse of civilization. Rationalists and materialists denied the supernatural, insisting that all religions were the same, and mocked those that believed in it. And Christians themselves, under pressure and guilt from what seemed to be the entire known world, expressed doubts about their faith. Sound familiar? Only the particulars of all these situations have changed--in the broadstrokes, Christianity is still fighting many of the same battles in which Augustine saw combat.

This edition from Penguin Classics (I fully realize that Amazon will post this review on the Modern Library edition and other places that it doesn't belong) is very good. Henry Bettenson's translation is smooth, fast-moving, and heavily footnoted. While I found the footnotes very helpful--especially in the hundreds of places in which Augustine quotes from scripture and other authors, like Virgil and Plotinus--some of them struck me as unnecessary, particularly those criticizing Augustine's etymologies and those pointing out which gods or goddesses are or are not found outside Augustine's work. The most helpful notes were those describing puns or other untranslatable portions of the book.

Like I said, City of God is very heavy reading and a great deal of work to get through, but the reward should outweigh the time it takes to read the book.

Highly recommended.

I read this for a book group I was in, and was rather peeved at being forced to blow so much time on what is essentially useful only to the Classical historian or Scholasticism buff. Realistically, Augustine is just a particularly eloquent proponent of a religious argument we all get in Sunday School at age 10: The things of this world are transitory and passing, but the things of the next world are eternal and more valuable. You can almost hear the monotonous cadence. If what you want is to add to your already-considerable knowledge of the particulars of late Roman civilization, then this is the book for you. If you're in seminary and reading Aquinas, and you're thinking, "I'd certainly like to know more about his major intellectual influences," then this is the book for you. But if what you want is an increased familiarity with the major ideas of Western civilization, then do yourself a favor and go pick up a pair of textbooks: one on ancient history, the other on classical philosophy. Augustine of Hippo will get a few pages in each one, and that's honestly all he's worth. Plowing through the entirety of The City of God for simple philosophical or theological curiosity would be like reading the complete works of Louis Agassiz just to see what scientific racism was like. Both efforts would be fruitful, in one sense, but in another sense you'd have spent an awful lot of time learning about antiquated theories.