Philosophy Books

That's not entirely fair, but...this is a book of essays, not a natural history or gardening book. It is about Pollan's perceptions of nature and landscape, through the gateway of his garden. He does only enough research to flesh out his musings with historical fact and literary reference - and he is very selective. He leans heavily on Thoreau, and neglects wider scholarship. His essays bog down in pedantic and turgid language (he abuses at least one 5-syllable word per essay). The writing is much like Bill Bryson's, about whom, I'm also kinda lukewarm. I didn't love it, although there are good bits - the story of his first rose plantings was interesting, and inspired me to drop a few snobby old roses in the sod.

Michael Pollan's writing is full of metaphors. This book about nature as a human construct was enjoyable to read. I found some parts frustrating because I like the romantic idea of nature even if it is just a human construct. But overall I would recommend this book for a quick read.

I loved this book. It is written in the spirit of earth that author obviously is in love with. The book is divided into four seasons: spring summer,fall and winter. Each of the seasons has it's own unique characteristic that follows ancient tradition of preparing soil, sowing,cultivating, weeding, harvesting and winter nothingness.
However if reader looks for practical advises, he or she will not find it here. It is a wonderfull read for all the nature lovers.

I picked up this book when I didn't have my own dirt to get my hands into, and I was hoping to garden vicariously through Pollan's essays.

There are a lot of lessons to be found. For instance, the chapter on roses explains how human intervention and selective breeding brought about a huge difference between the technicolor tear-dropped buds we see for sale at the grocery store and the rounder and simpler flowers that Shakespeare and his contemporaries wrote about.

Throughout the book Pollan makes the case for uniting culture and nature in the garden rather than pitting them against each other as Thoreau (the naturist) did in his writings or suburban landscaping (very culture-centered) implies today. It is an interesting argument worth considering, but by the fourth part when I found it repeated for the umpteenth time without anything new to add I quit reading the book.

Pollans description of what is a green thumb and the sysiphean art of mowing reminded me how therapeutic gardening can be and why it cures depression. Thank you Michael for making me look at my roses in a totally different way. You will love this book if you tend to think in pictures and love the art and hard work of gardening.

Was buying the four agreements and thought I might as well get this one to go along. Came super fast!! Can't wait to read it!

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." And that teacher for me was don Miguel Ruiz. I've had The Four Agreements book for several years and went back to it after some recent trauma. It was wonderfully healing to remember what the agreements mean beneath the words and to reconnect with this peacefully way of being. The companion book is now helping me understand more deeply and to release some of the negative thoughts, or "agreements," that have held me back and led me to the trauma I experienced. I keep these books close to me, as well as The Mastery of Love. They are easy to understand and to practice. I hope to someday have them committed to memory so peace is my default state of mind. :)

Living by the principles of Don Miguel Ruiz's wisdom is a gift to world and very helpful in all communities.

This book really challenges me. I will use it for years. It is direct and specific. It disects the problem I am dealing with and asks no-nonsense questions. It goes far beyond attitude adjustment and helps me to direct my behavior toward my life-goals.

This DEElightful book clarifies everything in the "Four Agreements" book, simplifing and making it much easier to remember what was learned...
I can't say enough to entice the reader into having this companion book, it's a must have...Rob Ward

Was exactly what I hoped it to be, Full of questions for practice, Albeit a bit short compared to the other SAT books(only 200 pages) I think that is still a fair bit of amount. for its price it was a great buy.

I think the study guide will be very beneficial to me. I believe I chose the right book...

Not very useful if you want to study for maths level 1/2.only useful for part time end moment practice but not worth its money.

Unfortunately, this book only has two practice tests. It is really tough to adequately prepare for this exam with so few problems. I recommend Barron's book instead.

It wasn't good for review, but really good because it has two OFFCIAL math IIC tests. I used Barron's for review and used both of these practice tests (answers and explanations in the back) to score a 790 on the real exam.

The man knows whereof he speaks. I'm always interested in questioning assumptions; this book is guaranteed to shake up the way you think about war. Take a chance. If you don't want to read it you can listen to Mr Hedges reading it to you, Tantor has it in mp3 format. In a way, listening to him read his own work offers something extra.

In this book Chris Hedges does an excellent job of describing what he accurately terms the "myth of war" and why that myth has been, and is, so prevalent in human culture. As one could extrapolate from the title of the book, it is a force that gives us meaning. It provides a feeling of serving a higher, worthy, purpose, it provides in its life and death struggles a kinship felt nowhere else, and can become a powerful, addictive "narcotic." At the same time, in order to justify the inhumanity of war we exaggerate those positives to the point that they do effectively become a myth while ignoring the ugly (what Hedges terms "sensory") reality of war. Hedges argues that this myth is perpetuated willingly by the state because popular belief of this myth is required in order to provide willing volunteers for the meat grinder of combat, and my personal experience gives me cause to agree with his thesis.

What I found most interesting are his words regarding what happens when the myth breaks down, both among those who have done the fighting and the society on whose behalf they fought. The collective amnesia, rewriting of history, all a willing coverup to protect the myth. Those who have seen the "sensory reality" of war are ignored and vilified by the very people whom they volunteered to serve.

This book means a lot to me because much of what he articulates has happened to me over the last several years. I believed in the myth, tried to live up to it, saw the myth come crashing down, and experience great trouble as a result. Unfortunately I believe that people like me are the only ones who will find value in this book, as the endurance of this myth throughout the entire history of human civilization gives me no cause to believe this myth will evaporate anytime soon.

If I had any advice for someone who still believes in the myth, it would be this:
Do not risk your life, based upon your limited, flawed, Hollywood understanding of battle and desire to fill the shoes of the "greatest generation" that lived before your own, in order to produce through force of arms the political aims of the powerful elite who control our government. You will not serve patriotism, nor any similar higher ideal. You will serve only the murderous desire of your superiors at your own expense.

Chris Hedges isn't an armchair commentator. He gives the perspective of an observer thrust into the center of the maelstrom of war time and time again. Out of it he brought some new and powerful insights about why the human race -- even the supposedly most "civilized" elements -- hasn't been able to extract itself from the endless cycle of war. It provides a mirror to the bleakest parts of the soul of humanity. If enough of us would listen and understand, this book could begin a process to break the cycle. It's one of the most powerful anti-war books I've read.

I finished reading War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges. It is a very interesting book. Chris Hedges is a foreign correspondent that specializes in war correspondence. In the book he makes some very true statements:

"We are tempted to reduce life to a simple search for happiness. Happiness, however, withers if there is no meaning. The other temptation is to disavow the search for happiness in order to be faithful to that which provides meaning. But to live only for meaning - indifferent to all happiness - makes us fanatic, self-righteous, and cold. It leaves us cut off from our own humanity and the humanity of others. We must hope for grace, for our lives to be sustained by moments of meaning and happiness, both equally worthy of human communion."

I recommend the book for those who wish to understand the meaning of war and how any people react to war.

This book is one of the most disturbing and unsettling books I have read since I examined "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Griffin. It was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent who has covered wars for more than 20 years. It isn't the rantings of an ivory tower academic. He has covered wars in El Salvador, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere. He has been imprisoned, beaten by military police and attacked by death squads. His perspective deserves to be taken seriously and soberly. This book is neither a diatribe against war nor an argument for pacifism. His claim is that he "wrote this book not to dissuade us from war but to understand it. It is especially important that we who wield such massive force across the globe see within ourselves the seeds of our own obliteration. We must guard against the myth of war and the drug of war that can, together, render us blind and callous as some of those we battle."

He points out how, rashly and quickly, only three days after 9/11, the Congress granted the President the right "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks." This resolution was passed unanimously by the Senate and with only one dissenting vote, from Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California, by the House of Representatives. She warned that military action could not guarantee the safety of the country and, "as we act, let us not become the evil we deplore."

He sets down the basic premise of the book with these words. "The enduring attraction of war is that it can give us what we long for in life, even with its destruction and carnage. It can give us purpose, meaning and a reason for being. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. War is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised north African immigrants in France and even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal...."

Before I could recover from his assault on my ill-informed conscience, I remembered how evangelical religion has given sanction and certitude to the war in Iraq. This haunting word, reported in "Utne," of Sam Ross, a paratrooper wounded in Iraq is a vivid testimony to the truth of his thesis. "I lost my left leg, just below the knee. Lost my eyesight....I have shrapnel in pretty much every part of my body. Got my finger blown off...I had a hole blown through my right leg....It hurts a lot, that's about it. You know, not really anything major. Just little things....It was the best experience of my life."

This book is a clear call to us to understand just what continues to take place in Iraq as President Bush refuses to end it. My guess is that he finds meaning in that conflict. Hedges says that it gives us meaning! But there is another force, maybe even a new and unsuspected force. It is love regardless of the violence inflicted upon us. There is meaning in a life lived differently. I suggest that you read this book carefully.

From Jerome Stephens, retired reference librarian, Warren, Ohio

It is interesting to note the trends of thought in the reviews. So they concentrate on the Bush administration. That administration is the one that has been in the news for the last 8 years. If the book had been published in 2000, the Clinton administration would have supplied an equal amount of equally good material for the book.

Fallacies are fallacies, and can be hard to understand and trace. The authors have done quite well with an inherently slippery subject.

I watched the authors on C-SPAN during their book tour and was intrigued.

I just bought the book, and I am... disappointed.

Oh, the jokes are amusing enough, and the explanation of logical fallacies is dead simple to understand, and the examples given are spot on- let's make no dispute on that. A quick reading of this book will educate the thoughtful mind on exactly how and where our leaders are trying to fool us.

The problem is that, well, it's a quick read. It's too quick. It is, to be frank, shallow- a quick dip on each topic, then rushing on to the next, without fully developing or explaining any one item, much less all of them. This is a book to which the word "profound" need not apply; there are no openings available.

The book also suffers from leaning too heavily on the Bush administration for examples. True, George W. Bush and his cronies have raised lying to the voters to new heights, but there needs to be political balance in an educational work such as this; otherwise a large portion of the readership will tune it out as being partisan. I say again, Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rice, and the rest of the Bush White House employ logical fallacies and outright deception like Olympic champions- but that's no excuse for failing to give more than token gestures to demonstrating Democrats' equally offensive use of the tactics.

One final quibble: if you can use the eight letter word for bovine excreta without censorship, you can use its four letter root word without censorship. If you can't say the word without blanking out letters in the w--d, you shouldn't use the word at all. Please don't treat your readers like little kids, especially since little kids know quite well what "the F word" is- even if they might not know what it means.

I suppose I'm just piling on, but I also was quite disappointed with Aristotle and an Aardvark after enjoying Cathcart and Klein's previous book. I expected some bashing of conservatives and Republicans, but I (perhaps naively) expected balance. After all, politicians are politicians no matter which side of the spectrum they pretend to be from. While there were a few examples of silliness from the other side of the aisle, Cathcart and Klein spent the majority of the book bashing President Bush and other conservatives.
However, they did provide frequent examples of ad hominem attacks, such as the many derisive pseudo-titles given the President and the "hilarious" little reference to Tom Delay's background in the extermination business. What? Does providing a needed service and running a successful business prepare a person less well for public office than getting rich through the legal extortion that is our current tort system (e.g. a certain former senator from North Carolina, presidential candidate, and moral leading light)?
I have seen far better explanations of logical fallacies in textbooks for Freshman Composition and Introductory Public Speaking. I'm sure Cathcart and Klein will cry over my critique all the way to bank; nevertheless, I won't be buying any of their work again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. If the authors had any integrity, they would market this book with a marketing line like "If you loved Fahrenheit 911, you'll love Aristotle and an Aardvark."
Too bad I can't get my money back.

The problem with this book is that unlike Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes it picks the low lying fruit, skips a tight organization, and with some light sprinkles of other material, is basically a sustained rant on George W. Bush.

Not that GWB & crew don't make for great examples, but the other book was timeless, this book is locked into an era. Not only that, the lead line about Aristotle isn't a clear joke, just the title and forced into the book later.

This could have been much better with some work.

Good and entertaining, but if you learn anything from the book you'll be able to identify some of the authors' own fallacious arguments. Just goes to show that personal politics blinds even the experts.

For those who are familiar with Anthony Flew and his work, this should be a very interesting book. Flew is a renowned philosopher who, for most of his life, argued clearly and (for many) persuasively against the existence of God. This book is the story of how he changed his mind and came to believe that God must exist. Flew's influence among atheists has been so strong that many of them have been scandalized by his change of mind. Some have gone so far at to allege that Flew did not write this book, is suffering from some sort of dementia (because of his age), and is being taken advantage of by others. I think that there is very little reason to believe these accusations unless you have a strong vested interest in atheism. An internet search on Flew's name and words like "dementia" or reading the other reviews on Amazon.com and the comments on them will give you details of the controversy.

The book is well written for the general reader and more of a story of Flew's intellectual journey than an apologetic work. In the first appendix, Roy Varghese responds directly to Flew's atheist critics. There is also a second appendix written by N. T. Wright giving a very interesting summary of his Christian approach to the question of how God reveals himself in the form of a human being who is resurrected after death. Flew does not seem committed to Christianity but says that Wright's approach is absolutely fresh and impressive. I agree. I highly recommend this book.

There have been some hysterical and ill-informed postings on various atheist blogs and websites about Antony Flew's rejection of atheism, and particularly his recent book There is a God (co-authored and edited by Roy Abraham Varghese - Harper One, 2007). Suggestions have been made that Flew is now senile and being exploited by Christians. 'Don't read this book!' shouts one atheistical blogger. Well, I have read the book, and I find it lucid and compelling. Much of it has been compiled by Varghese from Flew's published and unpublished writings and interviews, but every page has been checked and signed off by Flew himself, as he has made perfectly clear in print. I personally found some of Varghese's short editorial links a bit off for their jarring Americanisms, but they seem not to have bothered Flew. There are two appendices: one by Varghese himself and the other by Bishop Tom Wright, to whom I incidentally owe my own reconsideration of Christian claims. Both are excellent. Some critics have made a fuss about the cringe-making subtitle of the book, but that does not seriously detract from its value. I'm sure it was not Flew's choice, and I doubt that Varghese was responsible. Blame the publisher!

Two things can be added: firstly, Flew's dissatisfaction with Dawkins is long-standing. In Darwinian Evolution, published in 1984 when he was still a Vice President of the Rationalist Press Association (RPA), Flew described The Selfish Gene as a "major exercise in popular mystification", adding "Dawkins labours to discount or depreciate the main upshot of fifty or more years work in genetics" and he gives examples of this trend. In a further passage, Flew agrees with some trenchant criticisms of the book previously made by philosopher Mary Midgley (Gene Juggling, in Philosophy, October 1979 - see also her Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism in Philosophy for 1983). These paragraphs have been largely included in There is a God, showing that Flew's rejection of Dawkins's Selfish Gene hypothesis, echoed by many scientists and philosophers since it was first published, is not a new departure, but a long-standing, widely-shared and well-founded objection. They expose the fundamental flaws in Dawkins's theory, which undermine almost everything he has written since. His central dogma that "we are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" removes any possibility of personal responsibility - for anything. We are simply the puppets of our genes. What a perfect excuse for all malefactors, including child rapists and murderers like Ian Brady, Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting: "It was them genes what dunnit, Guv!" An excuse, perhaps: but hardly a comfort. Dawkins was properly rebuked on Irish television when he said: "I'm not interested in freewill." How could there be any such thing in his worldview?

A second point: Barry Duke, editor of Britain's atheist monthly 'The Freethinker', has informed me by email that he has met Antony Flew (presumably some time back - he doesn't say) and he insists - without giving any reasons - "The man's an idiot". It would be interesting to know whether this opinion is based on Flew's views and writings while he was still a Vice President of the RPA, and the most prominent atheist philosopher in Britain, or whether it is a knee-jerk reaction, based on Flew's more recent rejection of the atheism which he had espoused for almost half a century. Well, I can tell you, dear readers, that I have also met Antony Flew (only once, in 1996 at an Oxford conference where we each presented a paper, and then socialised afterwards), and I have also read - over a 40 year period - practically all his published work. I can assure you that the man was not an idiot then, and neither is he an idiot now; though his memory, at 84, is admittedly not what it was. I was, incidentally, a Director of the RPA from 1989 to 1998, as well as (briefly) President of the National Secular Society (1996-97).

This book is mostly a narrative account of the process that Antony Flew followed first to become an atheist, and then to become a believer in God. It even has an appendix chapter by a Christian apologist discussing philosophical reasons for belief in Jesus. Flew admits he does not go that far, but he is open as he has shown, to changing his mind.

The book is unusual on many levels. Not many people make drastic, even 180 degree changes in core philosophy past their twenties, much less into their eighties. Most people are pretty well set in their ways by that eightieth birthday or so. It is also remarkable because of the notoriety of Flew as a philosopher; he's not just some guy flipping pizzas who suddenly heard a voice- he's a guy who's thought about this a lot and for a long time. Finally it's remarkable just from the sheer span of years the history covers. Much of Flew's academic life overlapped with Lewis and other well known philosophers of bygone eras, but has continued right up to the present. The book explains some philosophy, not on any overly intricate level, but more as a complement to personal history where most of the philosophy is detailed only to the level necessary to explain his extraordinary change of view.

One thing probably bothering many reviewers is the ghost writer, but after all Flew is 84, and certainly isn't the first person, young or old, to have a writer. The other thing is probably the fact that a lot of the new developments in microbiology along with some of the work from Intelligent Design had a big (although not necessarily primary) role in Flew's metamorphosis.

I enjoyed much of the charm that carried over from his era. For instance he describes the courtship of his wife, noting that he never attempted to seduce her before marriage. I smiled at how arcane that sounded, although it was a sad, bittersweet smile.

In summary, the philosophical arguments in this book are meant to be illustrative more than comprehensive, but they are well written and worthwhile. The more important point is the life itself, and I hope that it is still a work in progress. In any case, it's a remarkable story and a remarkable life.

I have heard Antony Flew's name many times over the years, because every time that I would read about a Christian apologist, it seemed that Antony Flew's name would come up as his atheist antagonist. So you can imagine my surprise when I opened my newspaper in December 2004 and read the news that Antony Flew had changed his mind and decided that he DID believe in God. What a Christmas gift to the Christian world! But what it really true? I later read that while Flew now believes in God, he has not accepted Christianity. I wondered, what caused this change, and where was he now in his thinking?
Thus I read Flew's new book There Is A God, with great interest to know what caused such an outspoken atheist scholar to change his mind. I was not disappointed.
While the book is only 160 pages (plus two appendices by other authors), it is thorough and deep in its content. Flew tells his own story of how he, the son of a Methodist minister in Britain, became an atheist out of disillusionment with how God could allow evil, particularly as he saw the atrocities in Nazi Germany in World War II. Flew went on to become a professor of philosophy and a writer of many influential books espousing atheism, teaching in universities in Great Britain, Canada, and finally in the United States, where he now resides. He followed the thinking of skeptics like David Hume, arguing that we must presume atheism is true and believers must prove there is a God.
So how did this atheist scholar convert to theism? Flew explains that one belief he has always held led to the change-- his belief in the words of Socrates: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads." (p. 22). As he debated and argued the issues with Christians, he gradually changed his mind as he "followed the argument" for three basic reasons, which form three of the chapters of the book:
1) The laws of nature indicate they were designed by the Mind of God. Flew quotes Paul Davies: "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a lawlike order in nature" (p. 107).
2) The finely-tuned universe that delicately balances life indicates it was designed by a Creator for us. He points out, for example, that if the speed of light or the mass of an electron had been the slightest degree different, then no planet would be capable of human life (p. 115).
3) The origin of life itself, with the amazingly complex communication systems of DNA cannot be explained by materialistic evolution, and only make sense if designed by God.
In addition to these three major reasons, Flew also cites the big-bang theory as scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning (p. 136). As for the problem of evil, Flew leaves the question open, but prefers the popular Christian explanation that "evil is always a possibility if human beings are truly free" (p. 156).
So has Antony Flew become a Christian? The best answer is not yet, but he is leaning that way. He says, "I am entirely open to learning more about the divine" (p. 156) and then he expresses his admiration for the person of Jesus Christ and the intellect of the apostle Paul, saying that if you want an omnipotent God "to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (p. 157).
The book has an appendix by Roy Abraham Varghese, giving a critique of the "new atheism" of bold writers such as Richard Dawkins. Appendix A is good, but even better is Appendix B by N. T. Wright, which explains why we should believe in Jesus Christ. Wright convincingly argues for belief in the authenticity of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in a way that impresses Flew himself as "absolutely fresh." (p. 213).
I would agree. As much as I enjoyed Flew's book, I must say that Appendix B by N.T. Wright was worth the price of the book. My prayer is that Antony Flew will finally follow the argument of Wright as it leads him to embrace the claims of Jesus Christ on his life.

Never having encountered a book by the "world's most assertive astrophysicist" nor one by the "world's zaniest zoologist", Flew's subtitle came as something novel. Compounded by the fact that i'd never heard of him - my not being a scholar in "atheism" - it would have been easy to pass this by as a crank's production. However, at the insistence of some respected colleagues, i was impelled to give it a look. It's difficult to impart what a stunning waste of time this little tome proved to be.

It's bad form to chide a man's account of his own life. After all, he's the one who lived it. However, even his account of his early life exhibits some glaring omissions. Raised by a Methodist family - his father was a Cambridge tutor in the sect - Antony went off to a boys' school for his secondary education. There, as a "unenthusiastic Christian", his faith eroded away - mostly due to the "wearying ritual" he encountered at Chapel. That's it. No other fundamental reason is given for his atheism, which he successfully concealed from his parents for many years. After some erratic efforts to become a philosophical scholar, Flew produced a paper, "Theology and Falsification", upon which he built his career. The "Falsification" bit was supposed to indicate his interest in science, and his desire to follow where the evidence might lead. If the remainder of the book is any indication, somebody changed the pointers along the track and Flew arrived at some never-never land.

As a "philosopher", of course, Flew need not be held to a fixed position once taken. He recounts his readings in philosophy and the encounters he had with notable people in the field. None of it, however, is used to expound on his self-professed lack of faith. Issues of gods, the universe, life or the world, never arise in this account. At least not until he attempts to explain his "conversion" - which is a bumbling failure.

To open his segment on "My Discovery of the Divine", Flew provides an update of Paley's "watch on the heath" concept, in this case with a satellite 'phone! From this, he works up a succession of ancient, weary arguments about Nature exhibiting "design" - Paley's contention, which Darwin ably dismissed over a century ago. Flew, apparently, has not caught up with the times. Worse, Flew also adopts Paley's notion of Nature's organisms having evolved for a "purpose". If ever an argument has been dispelled by science, teleology stands high in ranking. It's astounding to see anybody propose that fallacy in these times.

Along with these gaffes, Flew actually dredges up the old comparison about the odds of life emerging from material processes with the "monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare" fallacy. No greater misunderstanding of evolutionary biology could be displayed. There are those who claim that Flew was entering dementia when this book was written. While that remains unproveable, his lack of knowledge in fields relating to his arguments is glaring. Yet, he has no problem with out-of-context or irrelevant quotes being sprinkled throughout the text. His mental state is of no consequence, but it would have been kinder to himself and unsuspecting readers to have kept this empty dissertation under wraps. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

I read this book thoroughly, as I have all of Don Miguel Ruiz's books. The contents and voice in this book is truly powerful. I have begun to experience a Self-Love and Peace I could not of imagined. I practice the Four Agreements daily, and have agreed to follow the powerful, spiritual, ancient suggestions Don Ruiz clearly depicts. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants freedom that comes from being and loving your authentic self.

I got this book as a gift and I enjoyed reading it.
The message is clear, that we must not let our negative thoughts control us as they may be very well false. Those negative thoughts coincide with the idea of the negative introject studied in psychology.

The one thing that I did not like about this book was that it kind of got new-agey, where the author shuns the idea of external evil. Yes, a lot of evil comes from lies within, but I wouldn't agree with him that the reason why the world is in strife is because of that. Read Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski to learn that some people have no empathy, and tend to rise to the top of positions of power.

But, I agree that we should not be discouraged by these people, and fight for truth. So I give the book 4 stars.

I didn't know what to expect when I received this book, which was a recommedation, but since I've listened to it, I have become a big fan of Dr. Ruiz. I listened to the book twice now, and will probably listen one more time just to pick up all the fine points. It will open you up to a lot of new ideas, and possibly some important solutions.

After reading this book, I have an urge to buy a copy for all of my closest family and friends. The author offers amazing insight into human nature. He talks about how we mentally defeat ourselves and hold ourselves back from satisfaction in our life and from true unselfish love (encompassing all the definitions of love). He then offers real solutions on how we can work to remove those poisonous mental habits. He writes in a concise, easy to read way that lets you read a chapter in 15 minutes but ponder the message for days. Every person who is interested in exploring who they are and why should read this book.

I have read and enjoyed previous work of Don Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements, The Four Agreements Companion Book, and The Mastery of Love. This last book I've probably liked better than the other ones. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because it's a lesser known book or that it was a bit less mystical than the other ones.

In any event, I found The Voice of Knowledge to be a very insightful piece of work. It was easy to read and had a section titled, "Points to Ponder" which helped summarize the major points in each chapter. I also bought the The Voice of Knowledge Card Deck which has all of the major points contained in 48 beautifully illustrated cards. Some examples included: The truth is perceived with our feelings, All of the drama humans suffer is the result of believing in lies, mainly about ourselves, and Heaven is here, but we need to have the eyes to perceive it.

Ruiz's work is vital to my deeper understanding of human behavior. It is important to me as a relationship/personal development author to give really good advice in terms of awareness, skills, and strategies. And this the, The Voice of Knowledge, helps to keep me on track so that I can be of better service to those who trust in me for sound advice in their dating, love, relationship, and communication areas of their lives.

This is a highly recommended book for those with a higher awareness and seeking deeper understanding of the invisible forces in our lives.

Very interesting and captivating. This was so on the mark, and I like that it's not just the typical numerology based sytem. Much more accurate. I actually choked up reading my specific life path description, there were things in there I'm barely aware of but I know are true. Now all my friends are borrowing it!!

This book is awesome!! Not only do my numbers apply to my personality, but the numbers of my friends and family apply to theirs as well. Once again...thanks Dan!!

This book is amazingly enlightening to why things have turned out the way they did in my own life and also in the life of my husband. We're both 4s. As 4s, we understand better than Millman (I think) as to why we skip steps towards a goal and subsequently fail . . . not just once but repeatedly! So many times, I was willing to give up ever attempting a new goal again!

But then, ah, destiny prevailed and brought this book to my attention through finding Millman's first book A Peaceful Warrior in one of our local thrift shops.

Process, process, process. Life is a process. It's amazing how many things I have failed to do are demanding processes ... finish a quilt. Write a book. Save money. Lose weight. Everything, it seems, is a process. This is normally overwhelming to "impatient" people like my husband and me. We usually dive headfirst into the new endeavor and never look back until we've spent $20,000 on a failed business attempt, or whatever!

This is the most prominent enlightenment thus far. His advice is to break down the processes into tiny steps that each one by themselves can be reached! Thanks for the lessons. There are many more for us both in this book! I DO HIGHLY RECOMMEND this book to anyone with an open mind.

This book was recommended to me. I had never read into or about numerology before. I am amazed that not only is the book 100% accurate about me, but also 100% accurate about everyone who I have calculated. Interesting...makes you think about the universe and the powers at be.

Though I do consider myself spiritual, I do not subscribe to numerology, astrology or any of the other "ologies" for that matter. I have to admit though, there is something to this book. I picked this up in my local bookstore and thumbed through it just for fun. I had to buy it when I read my own life path description (which you discover by adding up all the digits in your birth date)! I don't know how it works but this book nailed me! I am quite aware of what my strengths and weaknesses are (ie, issues) and this book described them in great detail and provided wonderful insight in to how best to overcome and/or enhance those gifts/challenges. As the author mentions many times, our greatest potential is often our greatest challenge as well. My friends and relatives have also found themselves in their life path descriptions, though albeit reluctantly. We are always reluctant to embrace those things that we fear the most and for me I know that what I fear is also my greatest talent. Hey, nobody said life was supposed to be easy! This book can at the very least serve as a lovely reminder of what we know we need to focus on to become our best selves.

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

I was a little disappointed to see just two disc in the case when there were 8 for the book. The second disc is all music. This book pulls out one of the most important points from his book "A New Earth " which is "Staying in the Now". I listen to the music CD on the train or just before I got to bed to help me relax. This book is a nice compliment to his other books.

I have listened to most of
E. Tolle's book on cd and especially loved this one for the 2nd cd. I find his message powerful and important in todays world. This set contains the best meditative music I have ever heard. I'm sure I lent it out and never got it back, so for the very powerful music in this set I am reordering....very well worth it!

Gateways to Now is a wonderful extension of Tolle's two books: The Power of Now and A New Earth. The audio book is a way to hear Tolle's ideas from his own voice. Tolle gives several ideas of ways to become "More Present". It is well done and great for expanding consciousness.

This CD has some techniques discussed by Tolle to perceive inner space. They require some repeated practice for those not familiar with meditation, but seem to work fine. The music is a minor distraction.

Even though I love to read, because of a life long engagement with ADD and insomnia,it is not often easy to obsorb or retain the contents of any book let alone one such as this. One that requires serious contemplation and quiet reflection. However I found this book to provide,a meaningful metamorphosis to this mecurial mind, a soothing serenity to my secluded spirit, and a sedative to my oft troubled soul, things that I seldom enjoy. I completely agree with many of his points, such as the eternal nature of our Spirits. Also the concept that all living things have presence and Spirits. In fact I have I personally found that while riding my bicycle in the nearby mountains(for me by keeping my body active seems to quiet this overactive mind)I can actually hear and feel the presence of life forms around me especially durring early spring mornings. On several occcassions I hold my hands close to the long grasses, trees, or whatever life form is near and feel it's energy and each ones' very discerable Spirit/presence, which is exciting to be part of. Additionally on such mornings it seems that the annimals, insects,etc. do not fear me and will often come out and seemingly greet me. They know I come in peace and love, with an appreciation for each of them and their Creator. It is also interesting to note that most of the indiginous peoples of the earth were very much in tune with all this. I believe this book can help all of us get in touch with the spiritual side of all that exists on this planet. It sure makes it a much more interesting and beautiful place to live!!A New Earth