Philosophy Books

It's great to see this edition, a small, affordable and easily carried book for a day outing. One thing that is disappointing is that the title of the essay 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' has been shortened. A vital point is that it is a citizens DUTY to disobey when government diverges from what is right. And to leave this off of the title, in some sort of 'fast food, fast literature' shorthand, is to diminish it in the minds of Americans.
Great to read with Emerson's Divinity School Address (for which he was banned from returning to Harvard) and Self-Reliance.

There is one interesting fact about Thoreau that most of the reviewers here and elsewhere seem to always overlook. Everyone knows that Thoreau went to jail (overnight) for refusing to pay a poll tax. But no one ever seems to mention why Mr. Thoreau refused to pay his poll tax.
Thoreau refused to pay his poll tax in protest of this country's war against Mexico. Thoreau was a "war protester". The poll tax had been passed to raise money to support that war. Thoreau believed that the war with Mexico was an unjust war of greed and expansion on the part of the American government.
Mark Twain was another "war protester". He was the head of the Anti-Imperialist League and vigorously protested America's "rescue" of the Philippines.

Possibly the best exemplar of what America truly stands for is Henry David Thoreau. The above title quite effectively summarizes the premise of Thoreau's CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Unfortunately, this sentiment is no less true today than it was in Thoreau's time. The government he so despised supported slavery, the slaughter of Native Americans, and a war of conquest against Mexico. The majority of Americans today agree that the first two, at least, are quite disgraceful (though only in retrospect). Wars of conquest are just fine providing that you win. As Hitler said, "Nobody will ever ask the winner if he told the truth." Few Americans would have minded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and nothing whatever to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center if Bush's war had been successful. They also do not mind that American corporations keep the majority of the world's population in unnecessary poverty and subjected to brutal "pro-American" dictatorships as long as the stolen wealth of these nations make them wealthier also. Now that these corporations are hoarding most of this stolen wealth for themselves, causing America's middle class to shrink and the number below the poverty to increase, it is likely that Americans will soon start minding corporate greed - at least at home.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE is one of the books that was mentioned with mild approval in high school literature classes in the late 60's; perhaps that is why so few people ever read it. Certainly, those very few who actually read it, and acted upon its advice, were despised. Now that I have finally read it, I am astonished to find how "radical" it is. "Radical" being the term used to describe attitudes that are supposed to be both Christian and American (though the most vocal of today's Christians - the CORPORATE-WHORE sect -- revile those people who actually understand Christ and America as Godless traitors). This was the book that inspired Gandhi, who understood both the teaching of Christ and what America is really supposed to represent. It is not surprising that the hypocritical Reagan administration - the administration during which the gap between the wealthy and the middle class first started to skyrocket, corporate criminality blossomed, and a war supporting a dictatorial regime was illegally financed - adopted Thoreau's motto, "That government is best which governs least." In fact, Thoreau asserts that legislators who put obstacles in the way of commerce "deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads." If one only read the first few paragraphs of Thoreau, one might almost suppose that he was the Jesus Christ of corporate capitalism. Of course, in today's America, the corporations ARE essentially the government. When they claim they want a government that governs least they are actually declaring that they do not want Americans to have any control over them. It is mind-boggling that so many Americans lap this up. But citizens are taught to respect law rather than justice, to such a degree that they cannot distinguish between the two. "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies." The primary human trait that has made our history so ugly is that we permit ourselves to be manipulated by the voracious. Thinking clearly enough to look out for ourselves and our brethren is condemned as traitorous, and it is against the law.

Cheney's response to being told that 71% of Americans opposed the war was, "So?" Even though it is clear now to the majority what has always been clear to radicals, (i.e. people who are not easily manipulated), that the war was for the sake of oil companies, Bush unabashedly boasts that "it was worth it." Indeed, for his ilk, the war has turned out to be far more profitable than they had imagined. But in reality it has made America one of the most hated countries in the world, has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, jacked up the price of oil (which is why it has been "worth it" for the oil magnates), and has made all thoughtful Americans profoundly ashamed of our country.

We are now engaged in the mesmerizing media extravaganza known as voting for a new leader. An intelligent human can only respond, "So?" Thoreau points out the obvious: "All voting is a sort of gaming . . . with a slight moral tinge to it." We can vote against evil rather than actually do anything to amend evil. America will stay in Iraq regardless of who is president. One cannot be accused of saying anything that is not already obvious by stating that the corporations decide for whom we are permitted to vote. The idea that we have a two party system is transparently false. What we really have are two factions of one party, namely the liberal and the conservative, of the corporate capitalist party. Though the difference between the two factions is not nearly as significant as it was thirty years ago since the corporations have nearly succeeded in destroying the labor unions, it does still make some difference which faction is in office. On the other hand, if our "masters" decide that they want a war with Iran, as it seems they do, then America will go to war with Iran regardless of for whom we elect as president. It is not as if our government's ethical code condemns concocting a disaster that they can blame on Iran to muster popular support for such a war.

Getting rid of the draft was a cunning strategy. If all young Americans had to face combat we would quickly see mass protests. Now the military is far easier to control and the corporations have their own private militias - Blackwater and other CORPORATE THUGS beyond the control of Congress, the Pentagon, the puppet government of the occupied Iraq, and the Geneva Convention - which are nonetheless still paid for by taxpayers. (Is it being too paranoid to fantasize that different corporate factions might start vying for power so that we will see these thugs engaging in street wars just as the illegal gangster do)?

It is noteworthy that while America - "the land of the free" - has just 6% of the world's population, it has 25% of the world's prison population. While I doubt that very many American are in prison for the crime of obeying their conscience rather than the law, is there any reason to think that Americans are so much more prone to criminality than other nationalities? Thoreau writes, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." Thoreau was imprisoned for refusing to pay his tax-bill that supported the Mexican War and slavery. Since my income tax is taken from my paycheck before I ever see it, this mode of standing up for what I know to be right is barely an option. Even if it were, I should probably not take it. "If I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end." Gandhi and Thoreau had the sufficient courage and confidence to believe that their acts of defiance would accomplish something worthwhile, but I do not. I think I would merely ruin my marriage and my child's chance to get a college education, and only a handful of largely unsympathetic people would ever be aware of it. Jesus advised us, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's;" In other words, that might be interpreted to mean that we should pay our taxes. But how can one really do that in good conscience if those taxes support that which is clearly evil? If there is anyway in which I feel that I am a traitor to America, and a failure in doing what Jesus would do, it is that I obey unjust laws without doing anything more noteworthy to obey my conscience than writing essays such as this one.

"Because they could not seize my thoughts, they decided, to punish my body...": this sentence was the first,which remaind in my memory, consolidated in my soul, reason enough, to explore more about this Henry David Thoreau (12.7.1817-2.5.1862). He moved in the same circles of society-critical network as Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), in the middle of the 19th century at the American east coast. Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" has left behind world-wide effects: Gandhi carried it during his frequent prison stays in his pocket (later India attained home rule and racial integration), Hermann Hesse (Siddharta) was influenced, the resistance against Hitler-Germany used it for backbone-stabilization, Martin Luther King Jr. or Joan Baez were inspired by him, Bertrand Russell, Nelson Mandela or the philosopher Herbert Marcuse (19.7.1898-29.7.1979) took possession of Thoreau's patterns of thinking. Thoreau was ever convinced that he was not on earth to please anybody, but rather to be authentically. Of course Thoreau's rugged individualism is not the very first in the history of philosophy. Forerunner structures can be found in the "Antigone" of Sophokles (translated in earlier years by Thoreau himself) or in the thoughts of Confucius (well known to Thoreau) or in the essay of Boetie, a friend of the french philosopher Montaigne: Boetie wrote about "discours sur la servitude volontaire". As a guidance to nowadays political actions Thoreau's spectrum of opinions probably is no longer suitable. One should reflect on the more and more complicated administrative systems, the clever governments and political leaders, their artfulness of subterfuge, their underhand stratagems, the many snares layed out by laws and remissions, injunctions and decrees; don't forget the sometimes dull executive. They made themselves fitter than ever to overcome all sorts of social resistance. Instead of paying a poll tax Thoreau once upon a time spent a night in jail. Inspired from this classic treatise on passive, nonviolent resistance you may decide to make a sit-down-strike against crusaders and reverse-crusaders or an action, refusing to pay money for the electricity, because you like to restrain the atomic age: be sure: you will not change the direction of the politicians passing by. They will think you are a little bit farcical. To retreat obstinately into the wood living in a block hut alike Thoreau: I don't advise this method to the broad of the population in the present days, at least take a look at the medical supply situation thus worsened. Linguistically however could start a new era of Thoreau's effectiveness, if there were increasingly sensitive readers. A futile hope? Think about the sentence "I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn." What sort of consequences and changing the rules of behaviour are TODAY necessary to realize such a direction of sef-reliance? Let's finish with another quotation of a sentence, which this extraordinary American philosopher wrote - and I never can forget these words like the one in the beginning of my review. He noted in his laconic style: "The lawyer's truth is consequence." Means: Without action following a decision, supporting something is useless. It inspired me to write a book concerning "The Persistance of the Philosophers" - and to take a daily walk down by the riverside ...

Henry David Thoreau did not just think, he acted. In order to see which luxuries of life he could live without, he lived in a secluded area for two years near Walden pond. Instead of paying a poll tax he thought unjust, he spent a night in jail. Thoreau backed his thoughts with action, and this gives validity to many of his writings.

Perhaps no work of Thoreau has been more influential than his essay "Civil Disobedience." Many world leaders, including Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., drew inspiration from this classic treatise on passive, nonviolent resistance. Simply put, Thoreau did not believe in allowing government to take more of his personal liberty than he, Thoreau, was willing to surrender. He also believed that, as citizens under a government, people have the moral obligation to break any law they think unjust (provided it does not injure another). This is the basic premise of "Civil Disobedience," that "I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn."

All of the essays in this collection are important, but none has the tremendous power of "Civil Disobedience," one of the classics in American thought.

The ten laws are:

1. REDUCE - The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction
2. ORGANIZE - Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.
3. TIME - Savings in time feel like simplicity.
4. LEARN - Knowledge makes everything simpler.
5. DIFFERENCES - Simplicity and complexity need each other.
6. CONTEXT - What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.
7. EMOTION - More emotions are better than less.
8. TRUST - In Simplicity we trust.
9. FAILURE - Some things can never be made simple.
10. THE ONE - Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.

There's a profound statement hidden on page 70: "While great art makes you wonder, great design makes things clear." So well put. The author is a graphic designer, but I think this thought applies to product design, and even process design.

The poet William Wordsworth once wrote, "The world is too much with us." If this was true in the bucolic 18th and 19th centuries when Wordsworth lived, it is even more true today, when every gadget comes with an incomprehensible 100-page instruction manual. Thus, simplifying people's lives with your products and services is a surefire path to business success; it will endear you to your customers forever. In this aphoristic little book, graphic designer John Maeda has distilled all he knows about simplicity into 10 laws and three key ideas. He sprinkles mnemonics, icons and graphics throughout, which you may enjoy if you're a visual learner or find baffling if you're not. If you really like the icons, you can download them from the Web site Maeda put together to complement the book. getAbstract recommends this work particularly to marketing people, product designers and technical writers. Maybe some day your mother won't have to call you every time she wants to record Jeopardy.

If you manage your expectations, this little book can be pleasant, even delightful. But if your interest is for more serious, robust exploration, then look elsewhere.

The title is a bit misleading. The term "Laws" suggest principles that can be universally applied and have been rigorously tested. This book is really more of a set of loosely connected essays about design approaches. The insights are often good, and perhaps helpful, but "laws" they are not. A title like "Reflections on Simplicity in Design" would have been more accurate, and I would have awarded a fourth star if it had been titled more appropriately.

This is really more of a short philosophy book about design, rather than a treatise offering Newtonian-scale laws. But that criticism now made, can this little book be inspiring? Sure.
Is the book overwrought and under-thought? A little.
Does it offer deep exploration? Not really.
Is "Simplicity" a good introduction to the notion of simplicity in design? Yes, up to a point.

One reviewer lamented that "Simplicity" has about the same depth as a dinner conversation. I agree, although that's no reason to think that level of depth is pointless. If it inspires and offers fresh perspectives on old problems, then that can have it's own value. And that's what "Simplicity" offers, but not much more.

Just don't pin your hopes on this offering fundamental design principles; instead use it as a loose collection of design approaches (supported only by brief anecdotes). I'd give it 3.5 starts if I could, the half star being awarded for brevity (but not laws or simplicity itself).

The best thing about this book is that it stayed SIMPLE.

It is a quick read, and a good reference source for anyone in the field of design.

Almost immediately after I began to read this book, I was reminded of two quotations, the first from Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I do not care a fig for simplicity this side of complexity but I would give my life for the other side of complexity." Also from Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Further along into John Maeda's discussion of each of the ten "laws" and his explanation of why he thinks that "simplicity = sanity," I was reminded of this passage from William Butler Yeats' "The Second Coming":

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Holmes was right, acknowledging how difficult it is to proceed through complexity to simplicity. In fact, I view complexity in that context as a crucible. More specifically, as container into which alchemists once placed raw materials and subjected them to intense heat, hoping to produce a pure and precious metal, perhaps gold. Like the falcon in Yeats's poem, the human mind circles high above more than it can possibly absorb and process, then make sense of. This is what William Wordsworth suggests in "The World Is Too Much with Us":

"The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!"

And this is why Maeda believes that "simplicity = sanity." In a world that seems to become more complex each day, his on-going journey of discovery he realized how complex a topic simplicity really is, "and I don't pretend to have solved the puzzle...[and] am inspired to grapple with this puzzle many more years...Like all man-made `laws' [mine] do not exist in the absolute sense - to break them is no sin. However you may find them useful in your own search for simplicity (and sanity) in design, technology, business, and life."

It would be a disservice to Maeda as well as to those who read this review to list the ten "Laws." They are best revealed in context, within the frame-of-reference he creates for each. The same is true of the three "Keys to achieving simplicity in the technology domain" with which Maeda concludes his narrative. "Rarely do I have answers, but instead I have a lot of questions just like you." I am amazed by how much material he provides within only 100 pages. Additional resources can be obtained (at no cost) by visiting lawsofsimplicity.com.

It is worth noting that when Maeda "set out with youthful zeal to attack the simplicity question, [he] felt that complexity was destroying our world and had to be stopped!" Presumably others have experienced the same frustrations I have encountered when struggling to understand the directions provided in an operations manual or terms and conditions of a service warranty or when struggling to obtain assistance from a customer service representative who speaks slowly enough and clearly enough to be understood. Why does it have to be so (bleeping) complicated? After speaking at a conference, Maeda was approached by a 73-year old artist who took him aside and said, "The world's [begin italics] always [end italics] been falling apart. So relax." Maeda suggests that his reader take the same advice "and try to LEAN BACK while you read this book, if you can."

John Maeda may not get you to the "other side of complexity" but he can help you to preserve your sanity meanwhile. If that isn't a value-added benefit, I don't know what one is.

The tao teaches the virtue and power of being empty with no desire. It's just an ancient crowd control formula.

"Clay is fashioned into vessels; but it is on their empty hollowness, that
their use depends." Use to who? To those who would use you, of course.

"Always without desire we must be found"

Think about it. How many truly great non-mythical people that you're aware of fit that profile? Feynman? Beethoven? D H Lawrence? Cezanne? Michelangelo? the Williams sisters?

Tao Te Ching..meaning Book of The Way, or book of the Word. One of the best books ever written. Certainly , the book that has had the most profound positive influence on my life.

If you are like me, you may be wondering should I get this particular version, and how does it compare with other versions like the Stephen Mitchell, Wayne Dyer and Jonathan Star versions, or even the Ursula Le Guin version.

No matter how great a writer you think Jane English is, she did not write the Tao, yet her rendition is consistent with the best versions I have read. The distinguishing trait of English's version is the photos and graphics, and this version is coffee table size.

My personal favorite version is the Stephen Mitchell version. The Tao is wise, paradoxical, counterinituitive, puzzling, fascinating, mysterious, inspiring, amazing and true. These concepts bypass ego based thinking, and the idea of doing things by not striving is allowing a higher more authentic way of thinking to inform your being and your action.

The Jane English version also has a regular size 25th Anniversary version which is the version I own.

One of the Jonathan Star versions has Chinese symbols at the back, with multiple meanings of each symbol. This is a great idea, which allows you to come up with your own version of the Tao, and would really open up your thinking on the Tao.

If you are like me, then as you read you discover the wisdom
like a raw jewel which you shape into a glittering diamond. That is the brilliance of the book.

The Tao is always present within you.
You can use it any way you want.


81 chapters, all less than one page. Like any great mystery, the Tao is there to be experienced and not necessarily understood. Here is a selection from verse 81 to illustrate the difference between different versions.

True words aren't eloquent;
Eloquent words aren't true;
Wise men don't need to prove their point;
Men who need to prove their point aren't wise.

A different version might substitute the word beautiful for eloquent.

You can feel comfortable buying the Jane English version, or any of these other versions.

The Ursula Le Guin version, I liked her take on verse 1, but I did not find it as useful on other verses, and felt if did not really capture the Tao as well as these other versions. You might feel differently. I would definitely recommend multiple verses of her version before you consider buying.

I also recommend The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran, which is another classic book of wisdom, and The Dhammapada featuring the succinct teachings of the Buddha. For more Taoist writing, I recommend the Way of Chuang Tzu, by Thomas Merton. You will discover many parallels with the Tao, and he is also an incredible story teller.

If you were to find this review helpful, please click yes.

it is a beautiful book, no doubt, and with the chinese charactes at the side, good point.
But nobody has yet intent to not only translate in beautiful words what Lao Tzu said, but to understand what is under that words. Tao is not poetry, Tao is like nature, misterious but strongly present at the same time.
I've been studied Tao for many years, and it is dificult to find a book that goes beyond the beauty of the photographs and the apparent poetry of the Lao Tzu words.

So, a beautiful book, empty of the real Tao.

I love this edition. Good size, clear print, well laid out, and very good translations. The black & white photography also adds great depth to the book.

Highly recommended.

This book is centuries old and the third most published publication.
It is a wonderful, spiritual guide for life to be read slowly and the meaning of each section contemplated teaching one how to write their own book of life.

This book is inceribly informative - if you've never met, been, heard of or seen a college student. I suppose if you've spent 20 years living in a remote village on another continent you might find some of this interesting.

"Nathan" violates professional standards and common decency to discover such shocking things as: students relish independence and like to have fun, foreign students find Americans individualistic and parochial, and college campuses have many different activities.

In other words, "Nathan" (hopefully) wrecked her career to produce a devastatingly useless book.

I came across this book by accident - I am glad I did. It fit with various themes that had been bouncing around in my head since I read a report on student intellectual life at the school where I work. "Prof. Nathan" does a good job in documenting the enormous gap between the experience of college for faculty, administrators and students. Put quite simply, we inhabit different worlds. I think many college professors and administrators already know this, but "Nathan" puts some meat on the speculative bones. (Note on a pet peeve of mine: for "Nathan," as for many of the professoriate, staff - the non-student, non-faculty denizens of AnyU - never register on her radar.)

"Nathan," in her student guise, learns some interesting lessons. For example, "building community" - in the sense of trying to create spaces and opportunities for large groups of students to interact - is much more important to "Student Affairs" types than it is for the students for whom they are trying to build that community. In fact the students are very content with the community they already have, usually consisting of small homogeneous groups of friends that they met early on in their college life. The frenetic work of RA's to create opportunities for broader civic engagement usually come to naught - few students register interest, even fewer actually participate.

I don't know enough to say that "Nathan's" experiences at a large southwestern public school are representative of the experiences of today's college students in general. I am guessing that there probably are significant differences from college to college (e.g. by size of institution), and from student to student (e.g. their economic circumstances, or the degree to which they have a major or a professional destination in mind). But I think the perplexing refusal of students to "buy in" to the experience that well-intentioned faculty and SA administrators have crafted for them will resonate with many campus "adults."

I think that most students, as "Nathan's" experience demonstrates, do not experience college as the linear experience of intellectual and moral development that most faculty and administrators would want it to be. The four years of undergraduate study are less a progressive dinner than a smorgasbord of varied offerings, in which some items are eaten - as "Nathan" relates - only because they are available in a convenient time-slot. Should we be surprised? If nothing else, isn't it arguably a preview of what most graduates can expect after college? Do most college faculty and staff experience their college work - or their lives in general - as a mapped-out journey towards a defined end?

Overall assessment: a stimulating read. Recommended.

Rebekah Nathan is a professor at North Arizona University and she is the author of "My Freshman Year". In her book, she talks about her experiences working on her undercover project while attending a college as an undergraduate. Not only did she enroll in classes and join organizations, but she also signed up to live in the dorms, because thorough her book you can clearly see that Mrs. Nathan is doing her best to find out what is happening with the young generations. The main objective of the experiment was to infiltrate the minds of freshman teenagers to find out what has changed over the last 20 years of college and to learn about their interests.

Nathan calls the university she enrolled in "AnyU" where she was a faculty member. One of Nathan`s main targets was to learn about how young people get along, and most importantly what motivates them to keep going. Even though it sounds exiting to go back to college after graduating, can you imagine moving from your house to a small dorm? Mrs. Nathan tells us in the book what she is feeling throughout her experience, so you can sense when she is depressed or having a difficult time.

Another important issue that she touched on is that there is an outstanding cultural separation. She describes the relations between white people and other ethnicities as marginal and vague because white kids mostly related to other white kids. As a consequence, foreign students that come from different parts of the world to learn about the culture and relate to the people are not given the chance to do so as they hoped. So finally they end up hanging out with people from their same or common roots.

Rebekah Nathan describes her experience at AnyU as unique and special. She remarks that it is an outstanding experience that few people, especially at her age, have the opportunity to share. The book intends to relay a message to the readers, and it is that college education is indeed highly important for personal success, but the college experience, as she describes, is most important since young students develop character and discipline. This is a great book, which is not only intended for college students but also for adults who are curious about what is going on nowadays at universities.

In the published ethnography My Freshman Year, author Rebekah Nathan describes her findings about the practices, priorities, and attitudes of the new generation college freshmen. Her detailed observations are fascinating, although they may be quite obvious to college students that have been freshman in the recent past. Her study offers insight for all those who are unaware about the behavior of college freshman: why they don't seem to take their classes as seriously as before, what freshman girls talk about in their intimate conversations, who eats with whom in the dining center, and the honest answers and opinions she receives from her one-on-one interviews. Nathan's primary research method was observation, but she also interviewed a wide range of students, and posted questions in the girls' bathroom for them to respond to anonymously. Living in the dormitories, Nathan found that the cultural norm of students was one of sociability, individualism, fun, craziness, freethinking spontaneity, and rebellion against authority. This observation contrasted starkly with the formal culture of the college, which stressed advice, academics, and warnings. In regards to student academic life, she noticed that students planned and organized their class schedules and extracurricular activities around what was most important to them. Nathan goes behind the scenes by taking classes and living in the dorms. She educates the reader in depth, and finds information that current freshman students find fascinating. Particularly interesting is what the international/foreign exchange students think of American students. It points out that current American college students should take another look at themselves and also their society. For anyone who wants to learn more about today's college freshmen, I recommend My Freshman Year.
-F.T., N.O., M.C.

My Freshman Year by Rebekah Nathan is a good idea for an ethnography project, in terms of what the author did, but it falls short of what could have been a better book. Rebekah Nathan, an anthropology professor at ANYU, disguising herself as freshman student after 15 years of teaching. She stayed at the dorms, attended classes, and lived the life of a freshman student in search of her questions. Throughout this book, she searches for answers to her questions of why her students act a certain way, such as, not preparing for class, eating in class, and making little effort to get to know exchange students. The book is organized into two main parts. The first half, Nathan describes the student life in the dorm and the second half, shows the student's classroom behavior. Although Nathan presented many truths about college students, there were many places where, do to it being her job, misinterprets those facts.

Life in the dorms surprised Nathan due to student's willingness to decorate their doors and how students want a sense of community in the dorm, but is not willing to give up their personal time for it. She was also shocked by the language, unfamiliar to those outside of the education system, that the students used, which, she even referred to as a foreign language. Going to class, she found that many students do not read the material for class unless it appears on an exam, almost everyone at some point has cheated or has seen someone cheat on an exam, abide by unwritten classroom rules, and does not do what is not necessary. While these revelations are amusing and accurate to an extent, most college students are already aware of the behaviors and it is not necessarily a new finding. Perhaps it is because we, college students, experience this daily so our own bias makes it feel as if it was generalized. However, when she points out that studying old tests is considered as cheating, she crosses over the line on what cheating is really defined as. Truths such as looking over at a neighbor's test is where Nathan is correct, but she goes well beyond the definition and that is the reason why she misinterprets the facts.

Nathan generalized her points by taking a small sample of students and accounted them for the whole university which can lead to inaccurate results. For example, she claimed that students write papers in the direction that goes along with what the professor wants to hear rather than what they believe. Students feel that writing against what the professor wants to hear will result in a poor grade. But not all students write papers on the stance that will please their professor. Nathan makes a poor statement and it sounds more like students do not have their own opinions in a class room. Another example is that Nathan made many claims regarding student's behaviors in the class through a student perspective, but she rarely provides information through a professor's perspective. So the readers do not have the point of a view of why a professor that has taught 15 years at the university can be puzzled by the culture of the students that she interacts with everyday.

Nathan also did not show the variety of students such as the example of a successful student with time management skills. Instead, she showed only the bad side of students since she only discusses student's bad habits such as skipping, cheating, and not completing all the assigned homework. Since the book is biased, it is not useful as there is flawed data and can also damage the view on college students. Generally parents, professors, and the general public will read this and may get the sense that all college students show their bad side. For the book to be accepted, there should have been more coverage of the successful sides of students rather than all the bad sides, that way the book will not seem as biased.

"The Symposium" is one of those books that everyone should read. In it, Plato explores, through a series of speeches, the nature and origins of love and passion. However, the Penguin edition fails to clearly distinguish when one speech begins and one ends. It will be confusing for students studying this work to reference a certain speech; however, the "paragraph markers" in the text are helpful. Also, the text incorporates "end notes," but for lay readers of Greek Literature, footnotes may be more useful.

If there are few things that almost all species seems to discuss, it's love. that desire, the longing to connect with another human being in this chaotic world. although there have been many plights about the desire for love, lack of love, or the quest to get love, it all seems to tie back to one of the most popular (and i will guess earliest?) works on love published, Plato's symposium.
The plot, like all Greek works, is pretty simple. A couple of men get together, get drunk, and talk about praising Eeros, the god of erotic love. Some of the speeches (I can't really remember them) are in praise of a god, and other speak of how to respect Eros properly, whom to love, and how poeple came to love others. Some were dry, some were entertaining, but all were informative and made me think of love in a new light.
There's not much action in this play, but I think that is a trait of all Greek plays. Plato is more concerned about the philosophy and dialouge than the action behind it. Symposium i think inspired many of the dramas and romantic comedie currently out there. I just wish films about love were as smart and as intelligent as this one.

I was assigned this book for a college class. I read it a couple times, and overall I think it was a good read.

This story details a night of speeches and eulogies on the ways of love. Some of the speeches are entertaining, and others are rather dry. Towards the end, I got the feeling that no one really knew anything about love. Gill's translation is up to par with the subject he writes of, and the language flows nicely.

I guess the reason I gave it four stars is because there is not much excitement here. If you are the intellectual type who gets excited about dry recollections of speeches, then you will enjoy this and contemplate what has been said. But if you prefer something more interesting, then try something a little more modern and enjoy that.

We all like to chat about romance around a dinner table but what is romance and love all about? Well, Symposium is one of the most serious discussions about this issue datable to the 5th century BCE. At that time, Greeks at dinner parties used to sprawl themselves on couches with food and wine and a little music, be ministered by slaves and while eating or after have a spirited conversation/discussion. Well this "soire" takes place with Socrates, and its details are related second hand by the author Plato.

As translations go, this particular issue is one of the best on the market and the author had discussed it's details with a Kabbalist teacher of mine Glynn Davies. A translation is dependent to a greater or lesser extent on the author's appreciation and interpretation of the sorts of contents involved - and this translation is pretty current. There is a good introduction about the characters, especially Alcibiades and Xenophon who were real people from the time.

I think this book is a wonderful evocation of deep thinking from the Greek world starting with sensual love and then going on to describe a sort of spiritual love that subverts our expectations of what we would understand by Love personified as a deity. Socrates is in the beginning seen to enter into a meditational reverie which probably indicates that some such sages did meditate as in Indian traditions in order to obtain wisdom. Later, Socrates recounts the wisdom transmitted by an Oracle called Diotima (almost as if to say, "this is not what I think (though it is actually) but it was conveyed to me as follows by this trustworthy source".

Some of your friends should appreciate the wisdom of this book. Above all, it is The Symposium, the important conversation among friends at dinner talking about something of the sublime in a way that echoes but also seriously deepens the level of our own more mundane discussions on romance and true love that crop up regularly if you're at that sort of age.

8 May 2008 - Well laid out book that makes a good case r the importance of thinking in Christianity. While it does a good job there are several aspects to life and how to live that are just as important but are downplayed in this book.

One of my favorite books! This book alone helped pave my budding interest in Truth and Apologetics. Moreland will challenge the great mass of church-goers to evaluate how engaged their minds are, in every area of their lives. Here you will see with clarity that as followers of Christ, made in his image - we have a mind that must subject all things to reason and logic. We are called to be actively engaged in worship and Spiritual growth, and this book will explain why and where we as a whole, fall short of "loving God with our minds". Being a Christian is not about feeling a certain way, but truly about thinking a certain way. Moreland with words of grace with eloquently knock against your mind to see if there might be anyone home to reason with him. Are you ready to leave the milk and sink your teeth into a little meat?

J.P. Moreland lays out the biblical basis for cultivating a mind, and shows the importance of knowlege and reason in everyday life. This book(or other books like it) is important for the Christian who is skeptical about the role of reason in Christianity. This is surely a needed book for the Christian culture in America today who downplay the value of intellect in the faith.

Dr. Moreland presents the reader a challenge to develop the reasoning faculties of the mind. Love Your God With All Your Mind is an inspirational message for intellectual and spiritual growth. It is an important work not only to be read but lived in one's daily life. The message of this book calls us to work our minds, to think, to analyze, to ponder, to wonder, to question, and to place ourselves in situations where we are stretched beyond our current mental capacities bring us. He quotes from philosophers, historians, scientists, and spiritual leaders for the sole purpose to awaken to the sluggishness of much to our current anti-intellectual trends and have us use our minds in our worship of God and in our service to others.

One of the most gripping statements Dr. Moreland's makes is when he addresses his own children, and advises them if their faith in Christianity is no longer credible for them that they should abandon it. I found this to be an intriguing statement from such a man who has given his life to cause of the Christ and the defense thereof. Yet, it also reveals the seriousness he takes this intellectual call, and shows the depth of his faith in Christ as well.

Dr. Moreland offers many methods and resources for developing one's mind. Two of the of the more compelling and practical methods of intellectual growth is challenging ourselves to read books that are little above our ability to comprehend, and to maintain relationships with those people who may often sharply and articulately disagree with our point of views. In doing so our own false and weak ideas will be done away with and refuted or the very arguments and positions we hold to will be strengthened.

His final chapter is an appeal to have the Church of Christ rise up and fulfill its calling to be the pillar and support of the truth (I Tim. 3:15). It directly speaks to the church and its responsibility to train its members to have a reasonable faith and be enabled to address the issues of society through intelligent service and with the compassion of Christ.

This book is a wonderful book. I will admit that a lot of the information contained within is available in other sources, lectures of his on the Veritas forum, other books meant to be a wake up call for Christians to use their mind (A mind for God by White). So a major decision on wether to purcase this is wether or not you already feel sufficiently awake yet.

This book is directed towards your average lay person, so it's handy to give to someone to express the case for a more intellectual pursuit of God. It also has a chapter where he discusses the nature of the Soul and the Spirit which to me was the reason for buying this book.

I would like to comment to some of the negative comments about this book in reviews. First of all this book is one in a series upon the Christian life, if you felt this book left you cold and didn't cover other areas of the Christian life that's because it has the support of the other books in the series to lean on and can just focus on the one issue.

Secondly, though those arguments wouldn't necessarily work on Phd who debates those issues, most Christians don't run in those circles and don't need that level of argumentation. It's not as though that's even in the ballpark of what J.P. has to offer, if you want higher level apologetics I can't recommend Scaling the Secular City enough (believe me I've tried).

Great read for anyone interested in evolutionary biology - from an academic or a curiosity standpoint.

The book is a survey of recent revelations about hominids. It's poorly written and has a cobbled-together quality to it. Do you recall Don McLean's AMERICAN PIE hit? This book reminds me of the follow-up 'analysis' record that was made to explain McLean's lyrics. Dawkins' chief contribution seems to be commentary about what others are doing...or did. If his writing was better I'd give it 4 stars.

Dawkins also seems troubled by how modern hominids act. That is, his writing is punctuated with PC eruptions. The eruptions remind me of the bugs and snakes that bother old drunks trying to be sober. I especially disagree with Dawkins' contention that 'primitive' societies are the qualitative equal of 'advanced' societies. Really? I'm compelled to wonder if Dawkins' would entrust his life to shamans and witch-doctors and "EGAD" priests.

Aye! That's the rub, Dawkins! How can a scientist and atheist esteem faith-based 'medicine' and astrology and forest spirits? I wonder how he'd react to cannibals!

Franz Boaz and his acolyte Margaret Mead peddled the cultural
equality snake-oil elixir at every county fair for many years. That is, they did before the Nazis came along and forced people to reconsider the equality thesis. The Amish and Nazis are not equals. Dawkins is getting old and likely forgotten World War 2.

In my humble opinion THE SELFISH GENE was his masterpiece, and he's been searching for another Holy Grail since that time.

Oh lord! What can one add to 170+ reviews?

The Ancestor's Tale does something rarely done, and that is taking on the natural history of all life. There are a few paleontology books which attempt the same (and are well worth looking into) but here we have the more theoretical approach, infusing our modern understanding of genetics to create something really compelling.

My primary reason for bothering with a review was to point out two things almost necessitated by this book: 1) A pictorial companion book (in full color) would do wonders. There are so many examples given that either handy access to google images or some pretty impressive prior knowledge of all forms of life is a must! How much more fun to have a coffee table companion work, or even a repressing of the book in said coffee table format with pictures of everything (or perhaps, a dvd?)

2) With such excellent series as the PBS 'Evolution' or BBC's 'Planet Earth', might Ancestor's Tale serve as the foundation for a new series on the same scale as Attenborough's 'Life on Earth' with all the modern evidence of evolution that it seems so much of the US public is ill-informed about? I don't know who would make it, or where the money would come from, but the US definitely needs it!

The Ancestor's Tale may well be Dawkins most accomplished achievement on evolutionary biology although maybe not his most readable general science book. What he has done is to start with modern humans and to follow a phylogeny (the evolutionary tree) through geological time to the RNA world (precursors to DNA) covering the most important ancestors (called concestors) along with intermixed fascinating factual anecdotes. For all intents and purposes this is the evolution walkthrough that many have demanded but unlike his other works this is far more powered by scientific technical details and less witty than his challenges to supernatural magical thinking although he does try to break the mechanical procedure of his enormous endeavour with interludes of intriguing biological buzz stories.

There are not many biologists who would have undertaken such a task but there is a demand for it and as Dawkins so aptly puts it, this one is a real pilgrimage. He covers Cro-Magnon, humankind, Archaic homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Ergasts, Habilines, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orang utans, gibbons, old world monkeys, new world monkeys, howler monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs, bushbabies, aye-aye, the cretaceous catastrophe, colugos, tree shrews, rodents, rabbits, mice, beavers, laurasiatheres, hippos, seals, xenarhrans, armadillo's, afrotheres, marsupials, moles, monotremes, duckbills, star-nosed moles, duckbilled platypus, mammal-like reptiles, sauropsids, Galapagos finch, peacocks, dodos, elephant birds, amphibians, salamanders, narrowmouths, axolotls, lungfish, coelacanth, ray-finned fish, leafy sea dragons, pike, mudskipper, cichlid, blind cave fish, flounders, sharks, lampreys, hagfish, lancelets, sea squirts, ambulacrarians, protostomes, ragworms, brine shrimp, leaf cutters, grasshoppers, fruit fies, rotifers, brancacles, velvet worms, acoelomorph flatworms, cnidarians, jellyfish, polypifers, ctenophores, placezoans, spongers, choanoflagellates, drips, fungi, amoebozoans, plants, cauliflowers, redwoods, mixotrich, archaea, eubacteria, rhizobiums, taqs and the RNA world. Now he covers the evolution of each of these, not that these modern organisms are what we evolved from (a silly creationist idea propagated because they can't deal with the actual case for evolution). We share a common ancestor with each of them and this book is all about those rendezvous points.

The bulk of evolutionary data is truly overwhelming although quite often the science can get merciless for the uninitiated. For this reason The Ancestor's Tale is for the advanced Dawkins reader (or those with some experience with evolution literature; if not try his `The Blind Watchmaker' or `The Selfish Gene' first) and is surprisingly light on anti-creationism/anti-religion but is double weighty on science and in the end it's a torrent of challenges to fundamentalism busting through and through with non-stop facts upon facts (650+ pages of them) supporting evolution. Again Dawkins has created one of the most conscious raising experiences you can get from any book about this topic.

To top it off the book has no less than four color sections with dozens of plates and this doesn't even include the illustrations that adorn every other couple of pages or so. There are few paperbacks on the shelves that are remotely as well put together as this volume. The Ancestor's Tale is a stupendous tome that sets a benchmark in evolution writings. Prepare to put the work in (you may have to make several attempts at it over a long period of time) but in the end it is worth it. This is history in the making in more ways than one.

This book is an extremely enjoyable and edifying read. Dawkins writes with wit, fluency, clarity and erudition; very readable, though people without much biology background might find it tough going at times. I can hear Dawkins' voice as I read; the writing has that flowing conversational style. I'm going to hate to see this one end. I wish there were a million more books like this one, and that I could live 10000 years, and spend every hour of every day reading them.

This is a very good introductory book on the philosophie of science. As an inexpert in the area I enjoyed reading this book which does not include nonsense writings and unnecessary lengthy details. It is cheap in price and I recommend it to every scientist.

Tarek musslimani

At just 134 small (4.5 x 6.5") pages this book is a bargain in both time and cost. The book starts with a short history of modern science (Aristotle, Copernicus, and onward). Using some of the work of Karl Popper and falsifiability, Okasha proceeds to define science, but also points out the failures of Popper's demarcation. There is a short summary to deduction and induction, but counters induction with Hume's problem. The major problems of explanation in science including covering law, symmetry, irrelevancy, and causation, are all discussed. The chapter on realism and anti-realism, perhaps becomes more esoteric, but is an important topic. Thomas Kuhn, and "The structure of scientific revolutions" is an important topic, but perhaps the pages on Kuhn's legacy is not thorough, (but the reader is left with references to pursue!). The paragraphs on biology and "science and religion" in light of "Intelligent design" debates, are of most interest, but coverage is cursory, and other sources are available (I recommend Edward Larson's Summer for the Gods on the Scopes Trail). Photographs and diagrams throughout the book, give some historical examples. Well worth the time!

What do philosophers think about science? This book provides a brief history of the philosophy of science, describes some logical assumptions in the practice of science and problems in science, and discusses Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolutions. The book concludes with a discussion on science and society.

Philosophy of science, as described in this book, seems to have become a rather esoteric subject removed the daily practice of scientists and the everyday use of science. Some questions that spring to mind but which are not covered in this book: Does the publication and independent verification of results lead to the self-correcting nature of science? Why is the simplest explanation the best? How can scientists who cannot easily perform experiments, such as astronomers and sociologists, make verifiable theories?

Chapter 6 presents three problems in science: Newton's view of absolute space, the classification (by feature or by genetics) of living creatures and the whether the mind is modular or not. It's not clear to me how the philosophy of science can help in resolving these problems. Newton's view was probably driven by his desire to prove the literal truth of the Bible. In this day and age of automated indexing systems, does it really matter which method is used to classify creatures? Finally, shouldn't scientists collect more data before deciding if the mind is modular or not?

This book covers a number of topics in the field but fortunately doesn't get bogged down in a deep technical discussion on any single topic. It is a reasonable overview of the topic for the interested reader and one of the better books in the "Very Short Introduction" series.

Kam-Hung Soh, 19 January 2006.
http://kamhungsoh.blogspot.com

In my opinion, this book is probably the best available introduction to the philosophy of science. It is also suitable for review purposes for those who already have some familiarity with the subject.

The book manages to cover much ground in a short space because it is written very concisely, yet it is also easy to read because the writing style is very clear and straightforward.

I warmly recommend this book without hesitation.

I am a layman learning about Evolutionary Biology. Naturally I've been drawn into the ID/Evolution debate (in some cases on this site) and as part of that debate you end up talking a lot about what science really is, and particularly, what is a Theory. Lots of opponents of evolution cry out that it is ONLY A THEORY. True, but it is a theory (as I learned from this book) in the same sense as all other "theories"; such as the theory of gravity, theory of electricity, etc.! And so on... so anyway, I felt I needed to understand more about the "science of science".

I picked this up to get that brief education and I was richly rewarded. It provides a thorough but concise introduction to the Philosophy of Science. It covers the main topics and gives summaries of the major points of view. It gives references to further reading and even provides some charts and graphics. I now feel equipped to at least discuss the basic problems of the philosophy of science and now know where to go get more information.

My only criticism is the chapter that describes a specific problem in the philosophy of science from 3 of the main branches of science (Physics, Biology, and Psychology). I thought the Biology and Psychology examples were pretty weak - they didn't seem like much of a controversy today or terribly relevant. The controversy in Biology between Cladistics and Phenetics has some historical interest, but doesn't seem to be a pressing current issue (but I'm not a professional biologist, either, in all fairness).

That small issue aside, it was a great read. I recommend it and I'm going to go buy and read some more of the books in this series.

What shocked me most about Smolin's account of string theory is his claim that many of its leading lights pay rather little attention to mathematical rigor or even to a clean definition of their mathematical concepts. If this is indeed true, it would be a major scientific scandal, particularly as string theory has now been an important academic enterprise for a quarter century. This is a pity, as many had high hopes for string theory as a framework for unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces and resolving some of the conceptual inconsistencies that arise from treating particles as points.

The problem in judging Smolin's claims is that theoretical physics has become so technically and conceptually complicated in the last one hundred years that even a mathematically well-trained individual from another discipline can find it very difficult or impossible to penetrate the arguments being presented in the original scientific publications.

Aside from his criticism of string theory, Smolin makes an inspiring argument for new approaches to unsolved problems in physics, among which he includes unifying general relativity and quantum theory, establishing sounder foundations for quantum mechanics, unifying all particles and forces as manifestations of a single fundamental entity, explaining the constants used in the theory, and resolving the puzzle of dark matter and energy in cosmology. The book helpfully names and discusses a number of theorists the author thinks are currently making the most interesting contributions to solving these problems.

The chapters on the sociology of academic physics will be unsurprising to anyone who has attended graduate school. However, if Smolin's revelations about groupthink and sloppy mathematics in the physics profession are even half true, they raise concerns about governance and risk management in major physics experiments.

Lee Smolin presents his case not for why string theory should be dropped, but why other theories should be pursued more vigorously. Rather than demonizing string theory, Smolin looks at the theory's successes and failures and then moves beyond that to discussing the sociology of science in general, and this is his main issue. Smolin says the system is set up to keep alternative theories out, while the fashionable theories get all the attention, and that this system is perhaps the reason why theoretical physics has been stuck for so long. Great book.

So many reviewers have said so many things, let me just add this: During the past thirty years, we have seen the rise of religious ideology and its disastrous effects on our political system, not to mention our national finances and national reputation.

How interesting that science has experienced the same things, the same disasters born of the same focus on ideology rather than factuality, in the same time period.

This book is the first BIG public demonstration that this period may be coming to an end.

The disaster of string theory, and the Irag war, both prove the same thing: ignoring the dictates of reason, and setting aside facts for fantasy, always leads us to the same place: nowhere we want to be!

Thank you Lee Smolin.

A must-have for anyone interested in their world. And an instant classic.

Peter Shor provides an excellent summarizing review of the first half to three-quarters of the book. But he largely skimped on what I think Smolin's main focus was, based on reading Smolin's website and the author's notes in the book, when he began the book. The last few chapters are concerning the role of academia in maintaining integrity throughout their ranks. If Smolin is correct, and this book provides excellent support to believe so, this has not been done with string theory, regardless of whether it is a correct theory or not. It is an extremely volatile subject that is likely to explode in the next few decades, and not only in physics but all academic fields.

I feel the situations is complicated, but can be roughly simplified as the selfishness and fear of a group of highly respected (and sometimes also highly paid, but not always) individuals who perceived that they were not making any progress and seek to protect their respected status through manipulation. They are essentially echoing an everyday experience - even the most ignorant person can seem quite capable if they merely exude enough self confidence. Well, according to the accounts by Smolin and many others, the string theorists are doing exactly that - holding onto excessive and unfounded confidence. Unfortunately, the first step in gaining knowledge is to admit that you already possess none.

Smolin takes a much less accusational stance than I do here, but he spends a significant amount of time in his book discussing this issue and it should not be left out of the reviews.

--G. Hill

Lee Smolin, a fair-to-middling popularizer of physics vents his anger at himself and others for pursuing the chimera of an 11 (or more) dimensional universe and a "theory" that produces 10^500 distinct theories. Unfortunately for the reader, Smolin manages not to define his terms, and gives no clue to how this number of 10^500 was arrived at, nor even what a distinct theory means.

The book is almost solely interesting for its treatment of the sociology of string theory and the way its practitioners monopolized high energy particle theory for much more than a decade.