Philosophy Books

I found this book very informative yet easy to read. And it is fun to color all those organs! I am a yoga teacher and anatomy seems to be an avoidable subject in a class. I have read quite a few anatomy books and thus far, I like this one the most - Highly recommended.

Ullasini Khwan
www.urbanyogis.com

I was introduced to this dvd in a teachers yoga class recently. I think it is an invaluable tool for anyone teaching and/or doing yoga. It explains the different "looks" of the asanas and why that is. It will prevent many practitioners from hurting themselves or others trying to acquire a position they are physically incapable of.

Overall it is an excellent, easy to read and detailed book that I highly recommend to anyone wanting to know a little bit more about the Anatomy of Hatha Yoga. Especially, students or teachers wanting to expand on their yoga experience.

Just a quick comment... This book is a genuine bible for yoga teachers, particularly those wanting to know about how detailed anatomy plays into each yoga pose. The descriptions are so thorough and helpful--an amazing way to create safety in a yoga class and learn how to prepare the body for more advanced poses, using foundations of anatomy and alignment. Brillant and a must-have to always pull down from the bookshelf for reference.

Not exactly light reading! But, I didn't expect it to be. I find the material beautifully presented, extremely clear and articulate. Just the reference source I need!

Dr. Gardner is a visionary. His recommendations will lead us into the 21st century through a perception that applies to all aspects of our lives.

This book by Gardner is one of the most important about education and personal development.The concepts are new and well described.A book worth reading and rereading.

The author gives his excellent perception of today's requirements for good functioning in the world.

Howard Gardner, Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is a psychologist and author known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Application of his theory, especially for education, has been controversial. But I think his latest book, Five Minds for the Future, is a must read for technology professionals.

His thesis is that, "...vast changes that include accelerating globalization, mounting quantities of information, the growing hegemony of science and technology, and the clash of civilizations," requires, "capabilities that, until now, have been mere options." He describes "Five Minds," or cognitive abilities that will command a premium in the years ahead:

1. The Disciplinary Mind -- the mastery of major schools of thought (including science, mathematics, and history) and of at least one professional craft.

2. The Synthesizing Mind -- the ability to integrate ideas from different disciplines or spheres into a coherent whole and to communicate that integration to others.

3. The Creating Mind -- the capacity to uncover and clarify new problems, questions and phenomena.

4. The Respectful Mind -- awareness of and appreciation for differences among human beings and human groups.

5. The Ethical Mind -- fulfillment of one's responsibilities as a worker and as a citizen.

While the book is not directed specifically at technology professionals, I found much of what he said echoed characteristics of the most effective people I know: deep domain expertise, intellectual curiosity, creativity, global perspective, knowledge of and respect for diverse cultures, and teamwork. It is and will continue to be possible for anyone with a few of these characteristics to succeed in technology, but I believe those who excel and assume positions of leadership will exhibit all of these abilities.

Howard Gardner is a man of many minds. The Harvard psychologist, MacArthur "genius grant" recipient and prolific author started a revolution when he claimed that human capability couldn't be reduced to a single metric. Rather than accepting IQ as the whole story of cognitive capacity, Gardner said people have "multiple intelligences," a notion he popularized in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. Twenty-five years later, Gardner is still producing influential work on human mental skills and capabilities. In this clear, eminently useful book, Gardner describes five cognitive capacities that he predicts will be in most demand in the future and which everyone should practice. While he describes them metaphorically as "minds," these forms of thought are neither wholly innate nor immutable. All people can, through diligent practice, cultivate their disciplined mind, their synthesizing mind, their creative mind, their respectful mind and their ethical mind - and they should. Given accelerating technological change and vast increases in the flow of information and the necessity of working closely with many different kinds of people worldwide, getAbstract is of a mind to recommend this book to managers who are trying to think ahead.

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.

I read this book out of curiousity mostly. Considering it was written several hundred years ago, it was a challenge to get over the dry writing. There isn't a story here as much as a listing of daily practices and customs in Utopia. Some silly, some almost ingenious.

The underlying theme is an example of a perfect society; but at aprice - personal freedoms. What I also found interesting was that a few of the ideals contridicted themselves throughout the novel. Everyone is equal, except for the non-king rulers. If this is a perfect society, why would there be crime in the first place? War is bad and nonsense, except when Utopian government finds merit in it. Everyone seeks out knowledge, but they need permission to gain it.

I found the writing very dry (most likely due to the period it was written) and almost like reading a text book. A good read however. Makes you think about personal freedoms versus a perfect society.

This is an odd little book. I read it years ago but only remembered the golden chamber pots. I reread it yesterday and today. The chamber pots are still there, as is a strange blueprint for an ideal society, or at least one version of ideal.

The account is in the form of a traveler named Raphael speaking to the author about his experiences in Utopia, an island in the New World. In Utopia there is no private property and no need for money as everyone's needs are met. Each person pursues their own happiness while simultaneously working diligently to care for the common good. Its citizens are happy, healthy and prosperous. Utopia, though, is less utopian than many current utopian visions since it still makes allowance for slavery, capital punishment and warfare.

At the end, after hearing Raphael's tale, the author dismisses the customs of Utopia as ridiculous, but almost in the next breath he wishes some of the practices were adopted in his homeland. This ambiguity mirrored my own reaction to the picture of Utopia -- silly, but in some ways strangely appealing.

I suspect this translation is a paraphrase of the original Latin. Nevertheless, it has the virtue of being lively and very readable. More is a Catholic saint, which makes much of what he says in Utopia very surprising indeed. The Tudor functionary who persecuted Protestant heretics advocates religious toleration, married priests, the abolition of private property and the pursuit of scientific knowledge as an end in itself. His criticism of society is breathtaking when one considers that there was no freedom of conscience or opinion in his time. The tone throughout is pleasantly witty, as More himself was. For those who can read old books, Utopia is well worth the effort.

More exhibits intellectual creativity in the classic Utopia, originally written in Latin. It is a narrative on a non-existent, ideal society. The book Utopia includes the Utopian alphabet, a poem in Utopian and then translated into English, lines on the island of Utopia by the poet laureate, More's letters to Peter Gilles, Gilles's letter to Busleiden, Book 1, and Book 2.

The alphabet and poems at the beginning immediately display the creative and structured thought of More, introduce the island of Utopia, and display the humorous wit of More that will continue to make you chuckle throughout the course of the book.

The letters serve as the background to the authoring of books 1 and 2. It adds a sense of reality to them by describing where the subject matter for the books comes from and creating a pretend internal debate about whether or not a book on Utopia should be written by More at all. More's considerations in that staged internal debate are highly enjoyable to any avid reader.

The real fun to this book is how More uses plays on words, he comments on or uses writings of other classic authors, and he parallels or completely contradicts happenings and/or beliefs his own real life holds. For instance, book 1 weaves together completely fictional characters and situations together with real people, situations, and history that have impacted him in reality (This is the same concept of adding truth to falsehood to make falsehood more believable as is displayed in The DaVinci Code). More's talent is further displayed as he is able to discuss social governance issues in the entertaining and more relatable format of dialogue.

Book 2 describes in depth the structure of the Utopian society. It handles everything from governance within Utopia and relations with societies outside of Utopia to the handling of religion and the growth of morals in society members. While More presents some thought provoking concepts and ideas in this book, he clearly states that they are all based on the assumption that there's no such thing as greed, fear of want, or vanity in Utopia (pg 61).

This particular edition of Utopia comes with a short bio of both author and translator. It also includes a time line of More's life, a helpful introduction, further reading suggestions, a note on the text and translation, an appendix, a glossary, and a multitude of footnotes. If you are not already well versed in Latin, the writings of Greek and Latin philosophers, and English history, than I highly recommend you soak in all this added information from the translator and book editor that is included in this edition both before and while you read Utopia.

My only complaint of this edition is that I don't like flipping back and forth between the text of the novel and the notes in the back. I wish they had put the notes at the bottom of the page. Other than that, I really enjoyed this edition of Utopia and applaud More's witty creativity.

I first read this book in my impressionable and idealistic youth (some time in the second half of the last century). I've read it a couple of times since then and still enjoy the way that the book can be read as either a satire (my current preferred reading) or as a description of an ideal society.

This is a very short book and well worth reading - even for those of us without Latin who can only read it in translation.

Recommended.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

This text is actually required reading for most if not all osteopathic medical students. It is a 'textbook', however, and hence completely (sometimes exhaustively!) comprehensive. But it is easy to read so that anyone with an interest in OMT will get a methodic how-to for myriad techniques, also a thorough history of osteopathic medicine to boot! One of my OMT professors at the University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine wrote or co-wrote a few of the chapters so of course, I think those are the best! If you are looking for an educational approach to learning manipulation and the reasons behind it, this is a valuable resouce.

This is the long awaited basic textbook for osteopathic medicine. It is surprisingly complete, covering philosophy, history, research, and manipulative techniques. The beginning osteopathic student may find it most useful for its practical discussion on the techniques--high velocity, myofascial release, etc. I believe it is also helpful in standardizing our terminology, which will make it easier when taking board exams or talking with colleagues from other osteopathic schools. It includes contributors well known within the osteopathic community, including Michael and William Kuchera, Melicien Tettambel, Eileen DiGiovanna, and many others. As a family practice resident I frequently turn to this textbook first when I want to know more about how to treat a patient or when preparing lectures for students and housestaff.

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...

The bare translation...with little to no commentary. It's cheap, though.

This is an excellent book with good reading and meditations to just sit back relax and enjoy.

Rene Descartes can go to a circle in hades for his mathmatics but his discourse on religion was flawed he had to first prove to himself he existed before he could prove God existed, there is the rub. He is justly regarded as the Father of Modern Philosophy because of the questions and problems he created. He helped to distinquish philosophy from science, which is a saving grace. This is a great addition to any library, since it serves to illustrate the evolution of philosophy in our civilization. I would also recommend Deism In American Thought by Woodbridge Riley and of course the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Descartes seems like the sort of guy who likes the sound of his own voice, not unlike a philosophy professor! He has only a handful of points, a few of them interesting but the majority pure academic fluff, and he spends over 100 pages just reiterating his ideas and logic behind them. It seemed like a modern editor would read the manuscript, and whittle it down to a maximum of 25 pages. I am not surprised that various classes on philosophy only use excerpts of Descartes' work.

I would HIGHLY recommend instead buying an analysis of Descartes' works so that you can alternate back and forth between his original writings and commentary on these writings, as well as responses by other philosophers like Pascal.

This is a review of the Donald A. Cress translation of Discouse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes.

Philosophers disagree about everything: except about the fact that modern philosophy begins with Descartes. No contemporary philosophers agree with Descartes' positive views. However, Descartes left Western philosophy with a series of puzzles that it continues to wrestle with: how is it possible to know anything? (Descartes' "dream argument" and "evil genius" argument are powerful sources of philosophical skepticism.) What is the relationship between mind and body? (Descartes argues that there is a fundamental metaphysical difference between the two, so they cannot be identical.) Is there some certain, indubitable foundation for knowledge? (Descartes thought that we need one to escape doubt, and that he could provide it.)

Some historical context helps to explain certain features of his writing. In 1521, Martin Luther was excommunicated, beginning the Protestant Reformation and dividing Christianity. Luther encouraged Christians to read the Bible translated into their own languages (e.g., the King James Bible) and use their own individual judgment to interpret it. In 1543, on his deathbed, Copernicus published his book arguing that the sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth (as had been taught by Aristotle). In 1633, Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to renounce his defense of the Copernican hypothesis.

Given the sharp intellectual controversies of his era, it is not surprising that Descartes says he has "realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them" (59). Descartes concludes that the only way to escape his doubts is to reconstruct his beliefs using his own reason, rather than relying on traditional views. In this respect, he is somewhat like Luther. However, mindful of what happened to Galileo, Descartes begins the Meditations with a letter to the Faculty of Sacred Theology in Paris, defending the orthodoxy of his views and pleading for their support. In addition, Descartes wrote the Discourse in French (his own vernacular), but wrote the Meditations in Latin (the language of the Church), "lest weaker minds be in a position to think that they too ought to set out on this path" that he has followed (51).

If you are going to read only one work by Descartes, I recommend the Meditations. (However, you might want to quickly read Part 4 of the Discourse first, since it gives an overview of the whole Meditations.) In the Meditations, Descartes decides that, paradoxically, the only way to overcome his doubts is to doubt everything that can be doubted, until he finds something absolutely certain, upon which he can build up knowledge. (Descartes is therefore an epistemological foundationalist.) Descartes notes that his senses sometimes deceive him. Furthermore, for all he knows, he is merely dreaming right now that he has a body and is sitting in a room writing. It is hard to maintain such doubts, so Descartes resolves to pretend that an "evil genius, supremely powerful and clever," is attempting to deceive him at every step of the way. Descartes ends his First Meditation in this pit of uncertainty.

In the Second Meditation, Descartes realizes that, even if he is mistaken about everything, he still has to think to be deceived, and if he thinks, then he exists. (In Part Four of the Discourse, he phrases this concisely as "I think, therefore I am.") Descartes then realizes that, while he can conceive of himself as a thinking thing without a body, he cannot conceive of himself as a body that never thinks. So while he may, in fact, have a body, his body and his mind are metaphysically distinct. (Basically, since he can conceive of body and mind as separate, therefore they are, in principle, separate.) Thus, Descartes is a metaphysical dualist.

In the Third Meditation, Descartes argues that God exists. He gives a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God (defended before Descartes by St. Anselm, criticized after Descartes by Kant, and still later resurrected by Alvin Plantinga). Contemporary readers, even ones who believe in God, are unlikely to find Descartes' argument here compelling, but it is an important part of his philosophy. Descartes argues that, since we know that God exists, and since we know that God is all good, we can be sure that our senses and our reason are not fundamentally deceptive. (Why would an all-good God make us prone to systematic mistakes?)

But the Third Meditation suggests a puzzle: since God created us, and God is all-good, why do we humans EVER make mistakes? Descartes' answer in the Fourth Meditation is that belief requires both the intellect, which simply perceives ideas, and the will, which chooses whether to believe those ideas. So long as we only choose to believe ideas that we "clearly and distinctly" (87) perceive, we will only believe what is true. Error occurs when we precipitately choose to believe unclear or confused ideas. (Part Two of the Discourse describes the methodology Descartes recommends in a bit more detail.) This may seem like a trivial claim, but Descartes is actually arguing for something controversial (and probably false): we can and should withhold belief from anything of which we are not absolutely certain, and so long as we use our minds correctly, we can be guaranteed to never believe anything false.

The Fifth Meditation gives an alternative formulation of the ontological argument for the existence of God, and suggests that some ideas (such as those of mathematical objects) are innate, so that, "when I first discover them, it seems I am not so much learning something new as recalling something I knew beforehand" (88).

Finally, in the Sixth Meditation, Descartes turns to material objects and sensory knowledge. His general conclusion is that "I must not rashly admit everything that I seem to derive from the senses; but neither, for that matter, should I call everything into doubt" (97). In general, Descartes is concerned in this meditation with how we can have a God-given faculty for discovering the truth, yet so often be in error over sensory matters (e.g., the Sun appearing to be the size of a fist).

I do not read French or Latin myself, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the translation. However, I will say that it is very readable. Furthermore, the selected bibliography is helpful. I do miss three things that were left out of this translation, though. First, Descartes meant for the Meditations to be read along with a series of "Objections" written by his correspondents and "Replies" he wrote in response. Second, perhaps the most insightful critic of Descartes was Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, who raised in correspondence what is still generally considered one of the strongest objections to Descartes' dualism: how can soul and body interact if they are as radically distinct as Descartes suggests? Finally, Descartes' Fourth Meditation emphasizes the distinction between having a property "formally" and "eminently." In Cress's original translation of the Meditations, he has a footnote explaining this distinction. That footnote was left out of this enlarged edition. If these three things were included in this translation, I think I would give it five stars instead of four.

Ammunition for Nonbelievers is a great discription for this collection of short quotes and quips. If you've ever been tired of or have gotten a bit "out of sorts" with bible thumpers, door knockers, phone ringers, and pseuedo soul savers, who have that "in your face" attitude, here's your book of "comebacks". Be forewarned that you are sure to be labeled as a hell-bound sacrilege by any religious institution with whom you elect to "unload" any quantity of the quality contained within these pages. If you've ever simply wanted to "stir the pot" then this makes an excellent ladle to accomplish your endeavors:-)
Thank You, Don Ward

about 50% quotes, 50% biography/perspective, 5% tongue in cheek comments. In an age where so many intuit god, angels, devils, grace, sin it's nice to remember how many people have been declaring bunk for a long time. Only reason I put it down is to save some for later. Cheers.

This is a great little book. One can pick it up from time to time, flip to any page and find a funny or enlightening quote.

It also reminds readers that many prominent people throughout history have been nonbelievers.

Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God


I also recommend:

The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

This is a fun book, providing ammunition to inflict on your more religious cohorts, should the need arise. It would make a great gift if you know your victim well enough.

All quotes collections are fun, and this one is no exception. The selection of quotes is pretty good, ranging mostly to things you haven't already heard a million times.

The one downside is that author Huberman insists on inserting his own snide and useless comments right inside the quotes. Although his text is fairly easy to distinguish, this practice is both confusing and annoying. Especially as the insertions gradually (and perhaps inevitably) paint a rather unflattering picture of their author. This would be a better book if Huberman had stuck to scholarly background annotations... or maybe saved the space and simply added more actual quotes.

Nonetheless, the quotes themselves do hold up well. A worthwhile book to read or browse.

This popped up on my screen to be reviewed, so what the hell. I read this book many years ago, and I liked it. It is if I remember a collection of philosophical/ethical essays. I preferred his collection of descriptions. I know the story of Sisyphus, and I remember that Camus compared that to the human condition. That's certainly how it feels when it gets near payday. I preferred Sartre. I thought he was more interesting and humane and complex. I never understood Nausea (though I loved the chapter in the portrait gallery), never understood his point though of course the story as a story made sense. It's one of my favorite books. My favorite book for many years, however, was The Stranger. I think it's a gem. (Nausea, Sartre; Stranger, Camus.) For me the overall problem with Camus is his obsession with violence. I don't like it and now that I'm older I won't read it. His first book (A Happy Death, the main character of which has the same name as the central character in The Stranger, Mersault, why?) is a nightmare. Camus said that the most important thing in life is justice. In my pre-Bush years, that always struck me as a strange, almost superfluous credo. I don't recommend this book to anyone but philosophy majors (I'm not one), but (if you can stand things like Caligula), Camus is an interesting writer (not as much as Sartre I don't think), and I recommend over Sisyphus his collection of descriptions.

I don't think Camus could have written a bad book if he had tried. In this case, I think it's accurate to say that this is the sort of book that makes you think and enjoy thinking.

i have read this book in hebrew
it is absolutely great
i recommend it to everyone who wants to "think outside of the box" and had wondered about the meaning of life...

I do not have any special quarrel with Camus' thesis, which is neither very complex nor very controversial. I am going to summarize it in plain English. Doing so, showing that it can be done, will bear out my criticism of Camus' writing.

Man thirsts for a holistic meaning from life that life cannot give him. It is this simple fact that constitutes the absurd, in the face of which Camus asks (with all the subtlety of a battering ram): Shall we all therefore commit suicide? His answer is, in short, no. The act of suicide symbolizes the triumph of both life and death over the individual, cutting the Gordian knot of the absurd without unravelling it. What then is man to do? According to Camus, he must do two things. Firstly, he must remain aware of the fact that life is absurd; that is, he must not be tempted to escape into oblivion. That much is clear. Camus' second imperative is both more obscure and more interesting, but what it amounts to is this: man must try to find a defiant enjoyment in, or in spite of, his absurd existence. If he can do this--if Sisyphus can admit that he is not unhappy, and smirk to himself as he descends for the millionth or billionth time after his ridiculous bolder, that ineradicable smirk is sufficient to undermine the gods that are punishing him and the universe in which that punishment is his fate. This is our only hope of defeating or at least of negotiating the absurd.

The problem with this book is not in the matter but in the mode, for Camus presents this not-particularly-complex thesis in the most obfuscatory philosophical cant that has ever been inflicted on the reading public.

I will focus by way of illustration on a single aspect of his writing style (or lack thereof), though I warn you that it is abundantly bad in almost every aspect.

Camus likes to introduce everyday words and phrases which, as his usage makes clear, are being given idiosyncratic meanings known only to Camus. He does not pause to clarify for the innocent reader what he means. Nor does he pause to substantiate the vaguest of presuppositions he uses these terms to postulate. Instead, he goes on, breathlessly, to combine them in new sentences from which additional, even more idiosyncratic ideas and presuppositions are extrapolated, and in which still more words are introduced from his maddening idiolect--and so on, in a kind of second- and third- and fourth-order multiplication of ambiguities. A single example will suffice (which, by the way, heads up a new section and is in no way foregrounded by his preceding paragraphs):

"Deep feelings always mean more than they are conscious of saying. The regularity of an impulse or a repulsion in a soul is encountered again in habits of doing or thinking, is reproduced in consequences of which the soul itself knows nothing. Great feelings take with them their own universe, splendid or abject. They light up with their passion an exclusive world in which they recognize their climate."

And again, with a question mark in square brackets to indicate where, I believe, Camus sorely owes his readers an explanation:

"Deep feelings [?] always mean [?] more than they are conscious [?] of saying [?]. The regularity of an impulse or a repulsion in a soul [?] is encountered again in habits of doing or thinking, is reproduced in consequences [?] of which the soul [?] itself knows nothing [?]. Great feelings [?] take with them [?] their own universe [?], splendid [?] or abject [?]. They light up [?] with their passion [?] an exclusive [?] world [?] in which they recognize [?] their climate [?!]. ... "

This pointless and pretentious fudging of sentences is done, it must be assumed, in order to make Camus' thesis appear more complex, more esoteric than it really is. The motive for his crime against the word is literary vanity. Or perhaps the game with which Camus finds defiant enjoyment in the absurdity of existence consists of avenging himself on his readers with his atrocious writing. Whatever the answer, the result is shabby, muddy, and bordering on complete gobbledegook. (I have read difficult books of philosophy before, from Baudrillard to Derrida, "in the unoriginal" and doubt very much that the blame can be laid squarely on James Wood, Camus' translator).

To conclude: His thesis, as I say, has some merit. But for that, why not consult Wikipedia. Hell, edit the page yourself. You'd be hard pressed to do a worse job at clarifying Camus than Camus has done in this complete abortion of a text.

Not everyone is inclined to navel lintgazing. Nor is everyone up for the level of effort necessary to gain any type of understanding of Camus' writings either. That doesn't mean the effort should not be made though! I avoided Camus for years, until a reference at work (hostage negotiation) made me realize that Camus' work was an essential element for my toolbox - namely being able to agree with folks about the absurdity of life, have a story to tell (Sysyphus) and a general explanation how one of the "great philosophers" worked through it. At times like that, you would be amazed at what kind of attention folks pay!

I read the work at least five times through, and I can say that each time I read it, I bring a bit more away. His writing is very rich and dense. No sentence can be passed over - and that sucks if your a lazy reader!!! But... at the end of the effort, the results are worth it. You have another take on the whole "Is life, is the effort worth it?" I'll leave that for you to decide, but I do heartily recommend this book!

Interesting side thought - compare the worldly Camus with the rugged individualists across the pond (Emerson, Thoreau, and all the Transcendentalists) with their eternal optimism. Comments welcome! :)

All the best,

Jay

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"