Philosophy Books

This is a great read for anyone who is interested in the field of Psychology or Philosophy or anyone that is interested in Freud, whether an avid reader or new to his works. This book takes an amazing look and analysis of the world of religion and its effects on civilization and the individual, which can still be applied to our present civilization. Anyone who can appreciate the work of great thinkers will definitely enjoy this work. My only complaint is that it is so short.

I decided to buy this book after having seen it referenced by many contemporary thinkers (e.g. Daniel Dennett) in their books. Sigmund Freud, the famous Austrian psychiatrist, writes about mankind's struggle with religion and considers what civilization or society would be like if weaned of it. His arguments - bear in mind this book was first published in 1927 - are of the kind a modern-day informed atheist might secretly wonder. I found myself nodding in agreement with a number of Freud's matter-of-fact observations about religion.

For example, he says that mankind will likely focus their energies and learn to adapt to the (harsh) realities of this life if they withdrew their expectations from the vacuous promises of the hereafter. The style of writing is clear but a little weird at times, especially when he pretends to be another party and questions himself on the ideas being argued. In summary, Freud appears to have believed that mankind, in the not-too-distant future will have found a way to go about his daily life without believing in gods or the supernatural and that science will have a significant role in it. I particularly like the last paragraph of the book which states: "No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

At 67 pages the size of Reader's Digest magazine (not including the biographical introduction), this little blue book is moderate-level reading for anyone interested in the psychology of religious beliefs. It is also a nice addition to any library. I personally, bought this edition because it is rather difficult to find where I live.

This is a very slim text that addresses some very big issues. I would recommend it as part of any Freud collection and also for any collection on religion. Certainly a requirement that one have at least a primer on Freudian concepts so the nature of Illusion can be placed into some kind of meaningful context.

This book describes religion as a universal mental illness, which says it all. As such, Freud predicts a time when we can rise above it.

"Religion would thus be the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity; like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of the relation to the father." If this is true, then Freud supposes that "a turning away from religion is bound to occur with the fatal inevitability of a process of growth, and ...we find ourselves at this very juncture in the middle of that phase of developement."

It is worth reading quickly, as it makes the same few points over and over.

In his 27 Feb 2006 review of Freud's The Future of an Illusion, Roger Schmeeckle misrepresents Freud's explanation (on pages 38-42 of this Norton publication) between Illusion and Delusion.

Roger correctly identified Freud's concept of Delusion as "something that is believed that is not true" -- but then oversimplifies by stating that Freud said an Illusion is "something that may be true or false, but is believed because we want to believe it."

This oversimplification ignores what Freud goes on to say, "Illusions need not be necessarily false - that is to say unrealizable or in contradiction to reality. For instance, a middle-class girl may have the illusion that a prince will come and marry her. This is possible; and a few such cases have occurred. That the Messiah will come is much less likely. Whether one classifies this belief as illusion or something analogous to delusion will depend on one's personal attitude."

The point being, that while the "absolute" truth or falsity of an illusion is debatable - common sense and reason enable us to infer or deduce where the truth actually lies. For instance, it IS possible that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow (as I am unable to prove something false which has yet to occur), but I would be a fool and utterly devoid of reason and intellect to presume that it will occur.

Roger then asserts that Freud was "not so much atheistic as irreligious." That Freud was irreligious is certain (what atheist wouldn't be) -- but I do not understand how anyone can read The Future of an Illusion and not easily conclude that the author was a confirmed atheist. The entire work is a testament to atheism. Accordingly, it is absurd to suggest that because Freud does not simply state "I do not believe in God" there is reason to infer that he may have believed in one.

Roger continues by arguing that Freud had a "bias" or "prejudice" against religion, whereby Freud's "wish" for there to be no God led him into his own Illusions of atheism. This is quite a stretch and a distortion of Freud's dissertation -- which has at its core the fundamental assertion of reason and the power of the intellect to overcome humankind's infantile and primitive need for "wish fulfillment" in the form of a protective and benevolent God.

And in a final shot, Roger accusing Freud of being a prisoner of his times -- a subject of "materialistic determinism" -- and for not having investigated or being familiar with "the evidence and reasoning of those who defend their own religious belief."

Yet, that Freud was all too familiar with and understanding of the nature and roots of religious beliefs is the hallmark of The Future of an Illusion. That he might have been a "materialistic determinist" is unknown to me -- but that he was a genius as well as great "Humanist" with a profound regard for and understanding of the Human Race seems clear.

Full of research and personal stories. It shows how our belief systems create our reality.

Other than a very rudimentary understanding, or rather acknowledgment of the existence of holograms/holographic science via watching too many Star Trek reruns, I hadn't the first clue the impact of holography. What this book does very well is offer some salient facts about the science as it relates to the deeper mysteries of life. Is this a science textbook? No! It is a well thought out, well written treatise on the possible implications of a holographic universe. Clearly, scientific materialists are not going to like this book as it speaks of things that can't be seen or measured, but what the hell is wrong with some discussion, some insight, inspiration, a "leap of faith" just to get the creative juices flowing?! I found this to be an exhilarating read.

Everybody has a bias, including me, though we usually don't admit it. Talbot, like many folks, early experienced the validity of what some like to think of as "paranormal crap." If you've had precognitive dreams, OBE, NDEs, etc., you get tired of people who think you're nuts, since you know what you've experienced, and you know what we call science and philosophy can be incredibly narrow-minded. (See Stephen Braude's works for a philosophical discussion of this point.) That said, Talbot, now deceased, did, in the second part of his book, employ very little skepticism in his discussion of so many areas of paranormal reality. However, the first part, where he discusses Bohm and Pribram, is about as lucid a discussion of holograms as I've seen in non-technical writings. So: buy the book for a good discussion of Bohm and Pribram, and take the rest with a grain of salt (though only if you have a scientistic bias will you find ALL of the rest to be "crap.")

I have finished half the book and ,with every chapter, become more convinced about the power of this book. Makes you wonder if some negatives in our world are already using some of these things against the good of society. All those that want an explaination of why things are as they are and how can we change it,,,,read this book.

Also, the connections to the paranormal is astounding and will help open you to understanding the paranormal world.

I don't recall how I became aware of this book, but after I read it (and as many of the author's references as I could find), I became convinced that the thesis that it promotes is one of the most significant ideas of our day. Unless I miss my guess, and I rarely do, these ideas will form the bases for reforming our notions of medicine, theology, philosophy, and virtually every other human endeavor.

It is often said that Descartes is the father of modern philosophy; but much of modern philosophy would be unthinkable without the writings of Rousseau. While Descartes put epistemology at the center of philosophy, and used reflections on subjectivity as a means to knowing, Rousseau put the historical human being at the center of his thinking, and thus paved the way not only for Kant but for Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard.

These texts are the ones to look to for the core of his thinking. Read the first and second discourses first -- of which the second is the most critical, but the first gives an easy orientation to his general strategy. The Social Contract is extremely relevant today, when words like "democracy" are bandied about unthinkingly. Rousseau identifies there what a genuine democracy requires: that individuals become prepared through education to cast their vote for what they think is the general good. The conditions for this cannot be established overnight, and cannot be imposed by war or by political pressure.

This is another fine edition by Hackett, who cannot be commended enough for their excellent series of inexpensive philosophical texts. After reading this, take a look at Rousseau's two other brilliant pieces (among many more): Emile, and his Autobiography.

Jean Jacques Rousseau born (1712-1778), in Geneva mother dies in childbirth, he was an engravers apprentice. Stayed out too late one night and locked out of the city, knew he would get in trouble for it so he takes off for France, and meets Madame De Warrens becomes his lover and she converts him to Roman Catholicism. He had a lifelong mistress had 5 kids which he left with an orphanage, which is amazing considering he wrote the book "Emile," which was a guide to raising and educating young children. He neglected the opportunity to put theory into practice. To begin at the beginning, famous lines of book "The Social Contract," "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

The question he asks, how do we find a way to get people to live together in groups? To live together in society and yet still make it true that each person only obeys himself that leaves us as free as when we were in the state of nature. He thinks he has the answer, he thinks he can legitimate, a kind of society, where people have this much freedom. There are certain things that he thinks are necessary for this, first, it has to be a society with general laws. It can't be that whoever is in charge of the government gets to do whatever they feel like doing. There has to of been laws made that authorize this. Second, there has to be universal consent to the laws, everybody has to accept the laws. Now this may be a little unclear, because there is a point that Rousseau talks about majority rule. It does make sense though there is a sense that he believes that the people have to consent to all of the laws, it has to be unanimous, it is just going to take a little while to get to that point. We will see how he reconciles these ideas. Third, there has to be unlimited Sovereignty, people have no rights against the laws you can't say the laws are illegitimate because they violate your rights the way that Locke would say for example people completely give up their rights to the collective. Therefore, there is no worry that a law might trespass on somebody's rights. For Rousseau, be sure to understand that this idea of sovereignty means the power to make laws. Therefore, it is a little bit different say than what you got out of Hobbes were he talks about the sovereign's power. For Hobbes, sovereign power is the power to say what goes. There is no real distinction between what we would call legislative power and executive power. You know the power to make the law and the power to enforce the laws. For Rousseau, sovereignty means the power to make the laws. Therefore, that's the power that is unlimited. Everything the state does has to be done in accordance to the laws. However, there is no limit on what the laws can be. At least no limits coming from the idea of violating individual rights. The only limit on the power of the state is the laws. There is this kind of notion that periodically there would be an assembly of people to come together to decide on the laws and make new ones. The power like a monarchy or oligarchy has power to enforce the laws and they do what ever the assembly tells them to do. The general laws are there and then the executive power is in charge of applying those general laws to specific cases. However, all they can do is apply those general laws. They cannot freelance and do stuff on there own.

Rousseau really praised Sparta as a model democracy. So, here's the kind of society that Rousseau thinks that makes it possible for us to enjoy freedom and social life. We give up all power to the state; we claim no individual rights to ourselves against the government. We give up complete power to the state we do not think we have any individual rights that can limit what the state can do but we insist that the state only act in accordance with general laws and these be laws everybody consents and agrees to. Now you ask, how in the world can we have unanimous consent to the law? With any size or group, how do you get unanimous consent? Rousseau's answer is that in a proper society, one where everyone has been brought up properly and so on, they think of them selves as a community there will be two different choices that people can make about the laws that they want. Two different standpoints, for which they will choose what the laws should be. 1. Their individual wills, which will be a choice about what is best for each persons point of view, 2. However, each citizen will also possess a "General Will." There will as a citizen. The general will of every citizen will be the same. Their general will, will from each of them will be in favor of the laws that will be best for the community. Even if it is not best for them as an individual, sometimes it will be. Just like Kant thinks that everybody's Numinal self is in favor of the same law, Rousseau thinks that in a proper political community every bodies general will is in favor of the same laws each citizens general will, will be the same. Even if from your own perspective, you do not like some of the laws that are passed, if in fact they are laws that are best for the community, you will consent to them from the standpoint of your general will. Therefore, everybody does consent to whatever laws there are that are best for the community. Now ideally, people will think of themselves as citizens first and individuals second that they will have no hesitation in obeying the laws that the general will is in favor of, but people being what they are sometimes people will not obey the laws even when their general will has consented to the laws. Rousseau says people will be acting in accordance with their general will as a citizen rather than their private or individual will. That if one should be tempted or inclined to act on the basis of their individual will in a way that is contrary to their and everybody else's general will, then they ought to be forced to obey the general will and the laws it endorses. Not just be forced to obey, but in being forced to obey you are actually being made more free than you would be if you did in a sense what you think you want to do. You can call this Rousseau's "paradigm of positive freedom."

Rousseau does not think that any group of people can form this kind of society. Before a society can form a government under this kind of basis, it will already be a society that exists under illegitimate rule. Therefore, even though Rousseau talks about the state of nature the way Hobbes and Locke does, he does not really have the expectation that groups of people are going to go from the state of nature straight into a legitimate society. They are going to start out with some kind of illegitimate rule, and that is going to give them enough cohesion, this kind of shared experience they have had, that then they are going to be able to form a legitimate government. They are going to be similar enough in outlook and have enough of a bond to the society, that they have the general will. This can only happen in a relatively small community. They must have shared values and experience. He thought that the only place in his time in Europe that could do this was the island state of Corsica. Once the laws are already in place you are agreeing to them, it is tacit consent. He believes that when the society is first formed legitimately, people have to give expressed consent.

There is not some kind of disconnect that you would get in say some kind of fascist political philosophy like what is good for the community and what is good for the people. There is almost no connection between those things. Somehow for Rousseau there seems to be some kind of connection that what's good for the community is some kind of function of what is good for the individual people in the community. But, the nature of that function to me is just opaque, he doesn't get whatever he is trying to say across there.

In practice obviously this is hard to do. Because Rousseau is hostile to the idea that you could have just a select group of people to make the laws, this means he has to be against representative democracy. The only societies that are this democratic that have worked are societies that have had slaves (Greek and Roman). Because how much time does citizenship take without representatives, we have to be in assembly all the time so you need slaves to cook and raise crops. So, you should have this picture in mind that every so often the citizens get together to develop laws, what they should be doing of course is trying to vote in a way that the general will tells them to vote, whatever is best for the community. Rousseau is not so naïve to think that they are all going to unanimously and spontaneously put their hands up at the same time. People are going to disagree, abut what the law is. Majority rule he says in that case. However, it is not the majority rule in the spirit that we think of it, where the side with the most votes wins and the losers are disappointed because their way didn't prevail. No, what Rousseau says is the minority should look at this as they were wrong about what the general will was in that case, and so they should be happy that what they wanted didn't get adopted because that would have been a mistake. The majority essentially knows best. It is as if they are all trying to get to the same place, some will get there some will be misled and they should be grateful to be straightened out. One can see how totalitarian's can embrace some of Rousseau's writings.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Basic Political Writings," have a two part effect. Rousseau uses the first portion of the book, the discourses on science and the arts, the origin of inequality, and political economy, to describe the basic policies of then modern society. Rousseau describes the creation of society as a threat against the laws of nature. Rousseau also explains that the origin of society coincides with the concept of personal property. From there society develops by who controls whom into a political system. Rousseau comments on several points in "The Social Contract." In the first book of "The Social Contract" Rousseau explains the limiting of the human spirit by the bonds of society. This is the origin of the infamous line, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Books two and three describe the attitudes of a nation and its responsibilities to both other nations and its own people. The final book of "The Social Contract" affirms the point that a nation cannot destroy the general will of the people. "The Basic Political Writings" are considered an excellent resource on society simply for its commentary on the general will. Rousseau's writings are amazing when coupled with the later thoughts of Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto." Obvious correlation's can be made between Rousseau's commentary and Marx's ideals of the creation of a communist society. Although these writings may not be for the average reader, the points they make extremely thought provoking.

A more immediate influence of Rousseau's political thought was on the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, sometimes called "the philosopher of the French Revolution." Kant took over Rousseau's emphasis on the faculty of will and incorporated it into his political philosophy, especially in Part II of "The Metaphysics of Morals," "The Metaphysical Elements of Justice." There Kant, unlike Rousseau, favored a constitutional government rather than a direct democracy. But he utilized Rousseau's notion of the social contract in the form of a hypothetical agreement among autonomous individuals. Kant's conception of a hypothetical contract was in turn applied by John Rawls in his "A Theory of Justice," so it may be argued that Kant is in some respects a precursor of liberal representive democracy. Rousseau's idea of democracy has more application to contemporary theorists of participatory democracy than it does to Marx, whose "dictatorship of the proletariat" was largely undeveloped. And Mill's "On Liberty" is in many ways a critique of Rousseau's General Will, in that Mill asserted, among other things, that "if all of mankind except one were of one opinion, and that one were of another, all of mankind would be no more justified in silencing that man that would he in silencing all of mankind." So Rousseau's conception of positive freedom (i.e., "freedom to. . ."), encapsulated in his notorious remark that it may be necessary to "force men to be free," has no place in Mill's "On Liberty," which advances the more Anglo-American notion of negative freedom (i.e., "freedom from. . ."). Furthermore, Mill favored a form of representative government (as put forth in his treatise of the same name), so he differs from Rousseau on that point as well.

This book contains 4 of Rousseau's works: Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, Discource on the Origin of Inequlality, Discource on Political Economy, and On the Social Contract. In his writings, Rousseau theorizes about the state of nature of man before civilization, a time before any societal influences governed his actions. He then explains how man left this initial state of nature to form society's. According to Rousseau, reason and cooperation, which led to the sciences and arts, are what forced us to leave our happy state of nature. Based on the state of nature, Rousseau then goes on to relate how man is in a society and what an ideal society should be. Enjoy your reading...

Great book, really helps you get perspective on what kind of people you want your kids to be. I liked it because it reinforced my own beliefs and helped articulate some thoughts I had about parenting. 10 Conversations You Need to Have with Your Children

This is a great book! I read it all and now I want to go back and read each individual chapter. This is more than a parenting book--it will really help you reflect our your own life. The writing is non-judgemental and easy to read. The author comes off as very friendly. I don't agree with the reviewer that says the religious chapter at the end ruins the book. It has a base in Judiasm but comes across as more spirtually based that can be applied to any religion you are. I am a psych nurse and have used these techniques in dealing with my adult inpatients so the information is very transferable to all aspects of your own life, not just your life as a parent.
This is a great book!

I must admit that I am a bit biased towards Rabbi Shmuley - I am a huge fan of his TV and XM radio show. I found this book to be yet another example of Shmuley giving practical pointers that truly help parents navigate in this crazy world where many people seem to be traveling w/out rudders or sails! The book is not going to tell you something you don't know....but it is written in a way that helps you articulate important, sound, common sense advice to your kids. I am already incorporating several of his suggestions into our home, and it is definitely reaching my children. These are important conversations that all parents should be having with their families!!

I've seen Shmuley on TLC's "Shalom in the Home" and I really like the advice and counsel he gives on the show. When I saw that he also wrote books, I decided to check this one out. I ended up reading this book in one day. I could not put it down.

Shmuley uses situations from his own life raising eight children as well as stories from the people he meets to illustrate the importance of a parent's role in their child's life. He has inspired me to be a better role model for my children, and also inspired me not to be afraid to discuss some of these critical topics with my children. This book has had a HUGE impact on how I look at my role as a parent: not simply as making my kids do what I want, but inspiring them to be the best individuals they can be. To discuss these deeply important topics, like what kind of person they want to be, the importance of dignity and forgiveness, being happy, how to ignite their passion for knowledge... these are critical things we simply are NOT teaching our children, which I believe is the reason why so many children have such a hard time dealing with the challenges of life today.

This book has also helped me see that I can integrate these concepts into my own life to be an inspiration for my children. Many people tend to focus on Shmuley's Jewish beliefs, which he clearly articulates in this book. Come on! He's a Rabbi! Would you expect him NOT to write about them?? I am not Jewish nor Christian. I choose not to label or identify myself with any organized religion. Shmuley writes in the last chapter about the importance of teaching children about God. He gives very compelling reasons why this is important. He also gives examples of how America was founded "Under God," which is true. Shmuley simply states why he believes children need the concept of God, and of course he's going to talk about it from a Jewish perspective. Like I said, he's a Rabbi!! If people take his discussion on God as a condemnation of their own beliefs or some kind of Jewish recruiting ploy, I think they missed the point completely.

This is a wonderful book that will inspire you to be a better person and parent.

This is such an important topic to address in our busy 24/7 world. Raising healthy and happy children requires that we have that special relationship with them where the communication gates are open wide. A must conversation that every parent must have should address the issue of bullying...which is so prevalent. Bully-Proofing Children: A Practical, Hands-On Guide to Stop Bullying is a fabulous must-read book for every parent on raising empowered children who will never become bullies or victims.

The appearance and physical quality of the book is wonderful. I first read this book many years ago. The 100 year re-print is a great reminder of the history of this classic.

While the pace and depth of this book may bore some readers used to Stephen King and other pop writers (I am a huge SK fan by the way...) it allows one to consider the author's philosophy and make your own judgement. Personally, I've read this book 3 or 4 times, and each time I experience it a bit difference depending on my current life situation and my willingess, need, desire, to examine my own beliefs.

Give this one a try, you may just find you see the world a bit differently.

A sprawling novel of nearly 1200 pages, this book was first published in 1957 by the Russian immigrant, Ayn Rand, writing in English, a second language she had to learn. It has continued to be read, explained, interpreted, memorialized, and frequently reprinted over the last 50 years for its unapologetic defense of capitalism and its often overembellished, overdramatized lectures about Ms. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. While very stilted and repetitive in the frequent monologues of its main characters, its profuse examples and unflinching conviction embolden it to worship the accumulation of wealth through the pursuit of capitalist ideals.

The book is divided into three sections, each with a concise, inarguable statement of logic as its title. Part I, "Non-Contradiction", shows a world in turmoil in which the opposing forces of selfishness and selflessness are colliding. In Part II, "Either-Or", she explains why the profiteers - the "movers" of the world, as she calls them - are withdrawing their knowledge and refusing to participate in the system that the rule-makers - the "looters" of the world, as she calls them - have created. In Part III, "A Is A", Ms. Rand unveils her Utopian ideals, buffered with an uninterrupted speech of 43 pages by John Galt, to show why Atlas has shrugged only to once again take a strong grip on the world which he then holds in balance.

The beauty of this book is in the clarity of its ideals and the certainty of its characters as they commit themselves to the necessity of living by Ms. Rand's objectivist philosophy. However, when reading it, you must also be prepared to skim parts because the same messages are continuously pounded into your head like a throbbing headache - greed is good, need is bad; self-reliance is good, self-dependence is bad; individualism will triumph, collectivism will fail.

Ms. Rand is certainly guilty of an excessive amount of simplification as she draws distinctions between ideas as large and somewhat nebulous as those of capitalism and socialism and, at her most insistent, seems oblivious to the essential role of government in providing roads, bridges, highways, courts, prisons, schools, libraries, parks, water and sewage systems, street lights, airports, harbors, tunnels, as well as the military, police, fire, postal, and hospital workers. Surely without that core of essential products and services provided by a collectivist, profitless government there could be no economic system of any kind, let alone the one she blesses so reverently. It also seems overly presumptive, I believe, to ignore the government created and enforced role of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and property ownership that play such an important role in a system of profiteering. Surely the abolition of these would topple a system of capitalism as quickly as it would take mobsters and racketeers to take over the role of adjudicating justice.

Nonetheless, this is an important book for anyone trying to grasp the big issues which confront our world economically. But, like an excellent wine, if you drink it too fast, you will lose some of its finer points, and if you drink too much, you will be numbed by its inebriating qualities. While Atlas Shrugged is certainly a book to be savored, it is also one not to be overimbibed.

Ayn Rand is probably one of the finest authors I have ever read. She has amazing character development and explores issues that are incredibly hard to describe.

I love one of the many themes of this book -- how people who do their jobs well can get penalized by others who don't understand them.

This edition is particularly useful in that the forward includes notes from the author's journal as to her thoughts as she planned to write this novel. It is mammoth is scope, and reads very well. Anyone who is serious about giving Ayn Rand's ideas a fair reading should consider buying this edition, as it is a well made hardcover with clear text, and will endure a great deal of physical handling.
Anyone who remembers the childhood tale of the little red hen can relate to Ayn Rand's ideas. The little red hen was the only animal in the barnyard who worked and provided for others, until she decided to go on strike to protest the laziness of the other animals. This novel is somewhat more sophisticated in the development of a similar theme.

Long book, but well worth the time to read. Very prophetic of where our country is heading now.

Here Ingrid Rowland continues to demonstrate her profound mastery of the society and space of sixteenth-century Rome. Unlike most other accounts, Rowland emphasizes Bruno's role as a writer and shows that his fiery death at the stake in the Campo de' Fiori provoked change in the policy of the Roman Inquisition's treatment of intellectuals. I admire most of all Rowland's ability to bring forth vivid details from Bruno's beginnings in Naples, from his travels through France, England and even to the Frankfurt book fair, and from his obstinate conclusions both religious and scientific. She does much to humanize both Bruno and his chief prosecutor, Cardinal Bellarmine, and in the end suggests how science and religion soon found that they belong together rather than in conflict. This bright and polished biography does much to put the imagination of Bruno and his moving historical context in this reader's mind.

Nice quality book overall... Pages are super-thin, Bible-style, and the binding is medium-high quality... but it's the Complete Works for under 50 bucks!

This CD contains most of Plato's work (translated in English) as a bunch of PDF files that you can just read off the CD or simply copy on your hard disk. I don't even remember an installation program.

You ought to be aware of the following issues.

1. This CD (ISBN: 9568351787) is NOT an electronic version of the book to which Amazon links has been linking it so far: the paper book edited by Cooper and Hutchinson. This snaffu may not be the CD publisher's fault, however. It may be sloppiness at Amazon in linking 2 media forms just because the titles sound close enough. But this sloppiness has been quite lasting. It's still on the site today!

2. There is the question of the translation differences raised by other commenters, but this again has to see with the first point. The CD is just not the CD version of that book. Two separate things.

3. The Cooper/Hutchinson book also includes work whose autorship by Plato is discussed by scholars, as the 2 editors point out with footnotes in the table of content. These disputed works are not included on this CD and I DON'T fault this "publisher" for the omission.

4. But where I find fault with this CD is in its omission of a major work by Plato "THEAETETUS". According to Cooper and Hutchinson, this work is Plato's only SUSTAINED inquiry into the question "What is knowledge?" They think that it's the "founding document" of the branch of philosophy called epistemology. Beside this major omission, the other titles are there.

I don't feel happy I bought this CD. I will attach these comments to a complaint to Amazon.

As to the publisher, www.bnpublishing.com, it should at leas tmake the missing work available on the site as a downloadable PDF file. The proper correction should be an exchange of the incomplete CD with a complete one. The email to contact the publisher is on the site.

I have not yet finished this book, but so far it appears to be a great collection for those interested in philosophy. The topics it covers are varying and very different from other books I have read. An example of this is that one of the "books" is a discussion of names and their relation to the things that they name. That is something that I have not been introduced to yet in my studies and it is good to get a broader knowledge of such things. However, I think that this book will most be enjoyed by someone who takes philisophy seriously, as a person who is just begginning or is just meerly interested, it might be somewhat confusing.

Highly recommended for any reader or thinker. The complete work of Plato, with helpful footnotes on translations and culture. Easy to navigate through, considering the size, and the margins leave enough space for highlighed scribbles and your own notes. Great price for even greater product, one that you will surely refrence multiple times.

This is the edition of Plato that you would have as required reading on an English medium Greek philosophy course. All the texts are translated and annotated by the relevant experts. In an ideal world you would have some kind of interlinear translation provided from the original Greek on the page facing the Greek translation, rather like the Interlinear New Testament as well as the translation into English prose. But then it would be incredibly expensive and very big I suppose.

Anyway if you like Plato, this is the one! Though it is very large. If you were interested in a particular text, e.g. The Republic, and were planning to read it on the train, you might be better off with buying the Penguin or Wordsworth el cheapo editions that you can carry around with you. This one is quite big.

A fun and informative read. Robert Burton informs,presenting factual and ironic detail of the brain an our behavoral responses to external and internal memory. Recomended for students of psychycolgy, marketing and those interest in broadening their understanding of human behavior.

I think my title above gets to the substance of Dr. Burton's narrative. How do we know what we know? Dr. Burton posits that the feeling of knowing is a necessary biological function required to allow humans to contemplate thought and take action. In other words, there has to be some reward for a person to think about and know what they are concluding and this reward comes in the feelings of knowing, certainty and correctness. The problem is that the feeling is not always corroborated by the facts. How many times have you been dead certain of something, only to be later proven wrong? And of those times, how many are followed by hindsight reframing of the situation to maintain your correctness?

Burton delves into the physioligical details, philosophical ramifications and cultural and social implications of the reality that we may never be able to grasp 100% certainty on any subject. The subject poses conundrums about issues like free will, religious beliefs and other areas, and Burton explores these in his text.

My concerns are that Burton starts out by stating that some of what he discusses is his own speculation, but never clearly tells us where that occurs. In addition, he is guilty of his own bent towards certainty when he states that the case for evolution is air-tight (it's not). Finally, someone once said that the seeds of destruction of a false belief are contained in that fasle belief's own logic. So, if the conclusion is that we can never be 100% right, then that very conclusion can never be 100% right, so maybe it's wrong and we can be 100% right. Kapeesh?

That being said, there is a lot of interesting material about how the brain works, and a lot of food for thought about how it is that we know what we know.

A readily readable and thoughtful look at how our minds work in relation to things our minds produce like thoughts and ideas. It goes on to raise important questions about the implications of "the feeling of knowing" for philosophy, psychology and indirectly politics. It is a worthwhile read. It might have been improved by a more extensive look at the neurology of this erstwhile affect.

I am always slightly annoyed when a book is not about what is is supposed to be about. A few chapters of this book - those towards the end - are on why the feeling of certainty is just that: a feeling. This leads the author to some interesting discussions about how the 'feeling of certianty (a feeling though it is) is something that tends not to be subject to reason, but owes more to emotion. The author also goes into some really interesting thoughts about evolutionary reasons why the feeling of certainty as a tool to help us survive in an uncertain world (where we have to act, so we might as well act with conviction).

Unfortunately, this only happens well into the second half of the book (maybe 2/3rds of the way through). The first many chapters are stage setters. There are chapters about distinguishing what is meant by "mental states," "feeling" and "sensation," chapters describing how we know that emotions like fear, deja vu, and religious experience are chemical in nature, and how the "mind" is an emergent property tying together several components of the brain into a unity.

The author also spends quite a bit of time talking about what neuroscientists term the "hidden layer." That is, when we make decisions, the brain "surveys" a whole host of things - past experiences, attitudes one has acquired, things one has learned, etc. - to come to a conclusion, but this is all "hidden" form our consciousness. Thus, the author concludes that while we may feel like our deliberations are conscious, often the bulk of our deliberation is unconscious.

All of this, the author tells us, supports the thesis (that he eventually gets to) suggesting that certainty is a feeling,, and not always one subject to rationality as we generally assume. Since we have seen that attitudes like fear, deja vu, and sense of purpose are feelings like any other, and we have seen that feelings like these are often not subject to rationality (try convincing a clinically depressed person that the feeling of purposelessness is only a chemical "illusion"), and we know that much of our thought is unconcious, we can also infer that the feeling of certianty is subject to all of these. (Try convincing a young-earth creationist that the earth is more than 6,000 years old and that their certainty is not due to the strength of the idea.)

Really, I don't have any huge qualms with this. We've all seen people be so certain of something that is (to us) obviously wrong, and know all to well that people's attachment to ideas often has not a thing to do with rationality. (And we all, if we are honest, realize that we have been the 'dummy' in this scenario as well.)

My biggest problem, from a literary standpoit, is that the author takes a very long time to get to his point, beginning many chapters with something like: "I want to talk about the feeling of certainty. But first, let's..." Once that happens too many times, I begin to lose patience, particularly when some chapters (like that reviewing the difference between "feelings" and "sensations") simply go on longer than they should.

My philosophical beefs with the book is: the author, who suggests may times that we cannot step beyond our feelings of certainty if they are strong enough, would be well served to have included a chapter on examples where people DO change their minds about things they were once deeply certain about. The fact that this happens - albeit happens only with difficulty and pain - gives empirical lie to this thesis.

Really, this is a quite interesting book with an interesting case that simply takes the author too many pages to make. I resisted the urge to skip ahead numerous times (and did skip half a chapter that seemed to veer frequently off topic). I wish the author would have discussed the issue of 'certainty' more than the tertiarilly related matter of brain states like fear and deja vu.

In the end, I would reccomend this book to people as a follow-up read to books like "Mistakes Were Made," which give a much more direct discussion of our brain's tendency to fall into illusions of certainty. This book does that, but simply tries to do so much more that it may better have been written as a collection of loosely related essays.

I rank this second among my favorite three books this year on the topic of the oddities of normal human thinking - right after How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business and just above Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

How Burton treats the issue of certainty is an interesting compliment to how Hubbard treats uncertainty in How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business. Burton looks at situations where we can feel certain but be wrong. Likewise, Hubbard looks at how we can be "statistically overconfident" and will usually underestimate our uncertainty if we attempt to assign odds to uncertain events. Hubbard seems to offer more empirical data on this topic and, more importantly, how to adjust for this error.

There seem to be more and more books in the genre of quirks in human reasoning and perception - specifically, how we feel certain or uncertain. But these are among the very few I would recommend. Save your money on the rest.

This book is exciting because, in addition to the original "Metaphors We Live By" it contains a 30 page Afterword by the authors, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, written 25 years afterward. They track effects of their original revolutionary thinking on several different domains of discourse. They also mention one theoretical aspect of their theory of metaphors that, in retrospect, they would modify. This book is a must-have in a cognitive science library, along with Lakoff and Johnson's later books, written together and separately. "Philosophy in the Flesh" is especially notable for its further collaboration of Lakoff and Johnson, a linguist and a philosopher.

This was a great book. It's subject is how metaphors are not merely a poetic device, but a way of thinking that people use everyday and aren't even aware that they are doing it.

If you're interested in linguistics or philosophy or even psychology and sociology (or, like me, literature and math), then pick this one up as a great introduction to this creative topic.

After reading the other reviews, I feel obliged to opine about the book. I am a philosophy student. I generally introduce myself as a logician, but on the philosophy side. My areas of interest in philosophy are language, mind, epistemology, and metaphysics.

This book, as witnessed by the previous reviews, has a strong impact on readers. I agree with this sentiment. However, I disagree with the other sentiments that are expressed by the other reviewers. The other reviewers take the conclusions that the authors come to on face value. However, they fail to see some of the logical consequences of their view. For instance, the authors seem to be committed to what in philosophical circles is called anti-realism. This position can be boiled down to the claim that there is no external world; that may be a little harsh, but I feel that it expresses the overall point of anti-realism. the authors are committed to this position because they argue that truth, which is usually taken to be a correspondance between our statements and the facts, coherence between our statements, or some variation of pragmatism, is dependent upon metaphorical structuring of our experiences and the metaphorical concepts fittting together. This seems suspiciously circular; our metaphors and the sentences they ground are true when they fit together with the experiences that are structured by those very metaphors. we are never coming in contact with the world as is. there is always a metaphor between us and the world (except, of course, in our primitive concepts, one wonders why if primitive concepts, like up-down, front-back, can be conceptualized from experience alone, other concepts cannot be as well).

On another topic, when considering what a metaphor is, we understand that a metaphor puts two different and distinct things into a "X is B" relationship. For instance, "love is a journey." However, not all sentences of the form "X is B" are metaphors; for instance, "humans are mammals". Some, for example, are definitions. How can we tell the definitions from the metaphors? The only way is to know that the two objects in the metaphor are, in fact, different and distinct. This, however, involves conceptual understanding of the two objects apart from the metaphor. Thus, the concept has to be formed prior to the metaphor; the metaphor does not structure or ground the concept.

All in all, as a logician, I found the book to be distressing. The authors never really gave enough conclusive evidence to convince me that our conceptual system is metaphorical. In fact, the more I read the more I was convinced that their scheme presupposed a non-metaphorical conceptual scheme. However, I would recommend the book, but not in isolation. Don't indoctrinate yourself. If you read this, read something in support of the opposing position (I wish I could direct you to something here, but I have not done much research on the responses to Lakoff and Johnson). Hear all the arguments before you make a judgement as to whether our conceptual system is metaphorical.

The book's focus is on the fact that many of the sayings we use in daily life can be seen as metaphors for more literal explanations. For example it takes a chapter to explain how we feel that "up" is "good" and "down" is "bad." It is not really a book for reading. It is a philosophical look at language. If you like 200 pages of explaining how the saying "You're the top" is a metaphor for about the top being better than the bottom than this is the book for you.

I read this book back in the 90s while I was studying psycho-linguistics as an undergrad and then grad student. My linguistic interest aptly augmented my interest for roles in information technology - implementation and management (ie communication principles, hierarchical, object-oriented, top-down, bottom-up, etc analysis and implementation are all good examples of applied abstraction, which plays a fundamental role in linguistic theory). Later, while giving a lecture on technical writing to a small group of grad students, I realized that this book would be the perfect tool to bridge the gap between the writing process and the technical subjects the students were writing about. Since the book was not initially on the reading list, but I felt passionate about its potential, I purchased a copy for each student. The results were typical - some students 'got it' and others, evidently, could not make the connection. The point being that the book offers suggestions and great examples of how language works and how people think - people who have a sense of abstraction will be able to apply this book to almost any discipline. Currently, while involved in programming and numerical analysis for integration of IT projects, I still see myself thinking in terms of metaphor and realize how greatly they do impact and affect the way we live. This book goes a long way to frame the basics.

If you read through the book and follow the path of the ten scrolls your life will become so much better. While the scrolls outline a very basic foundation from which to build success, it is the basics that so many of us seem to neglect. I know, I've been neglecting them a long time.

Reading this book gives me a reassurance in my own personal beliefs on how one should be and act in this world. They may be the 10 scrolls to help you become the greatest salesman in the world but if you take them to heart and make them a part of you no matter what you do...you may become the greatest person in the world.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who is feeling a little confused about how their life is going and wondering if what they are doing is right or not. If you are finding you are getting angry too fast or frustrated too easily and basically just lashing out for no reason, read just the ten scrolls and take them to heart. Reflect on how if you followed what they are saying would this make your life that much better. I know it is working for me, perhaps it can for you too. FIVE STAR READ!

the book was received as promised and in the condition it was stated to be in.

This is a Awesome Book and I was looking for something exactly like it to read. The book is in excellent condition, and it gave me many of the answers that I was looking for in personal development.

This is one of my all time favorite books. It is required reading for my children (we home school; the book is appropriate for jr. high and up).
It is encouraging and urges one forward in life as well as career.

It arrived timely, in good condition as claimed, good value, the things that matter most