Philosophy Books

This book was a compelling read for me since: it is very new at this time; it investigates the origin of consciousness; and it seemed to have less scientific or religious fervor behind it. Plus the author has won a Pulitzer and seems to be a well respected professor teaching this topic. Having read it, I find Hofstadter to be a master at using analogy to elicit deep insight into every topic he presents. And he writes from his heart. You will learn much about the man behind the words. Which shows he is fully accountable for any bias or personal perspectives he may have. Although he clearly expresses his hope that you will share in his perceptions. I surely do.

Is the mind a separate entity from the body? If not, then where does it come from? These questions are not immediately apparent but ultimately they are the questions he has written this book to address. The entire first half is spent introducing the reader to some background information that is presented in seemingly random fashion. But expressed in an entertaining, beautifully descriptive and informative way.

There are many examples he uses to show the occurance of loops in everyday life. He starts with simple ones, like the toilet flush valve loop. Then more identifiable ones like looking into parallel mirrors which create what seems to be a corridor of forever repeating images. Or a microphone's feedback squeal when placed too close to the speaker. My favorite was his experiments with a camcorder pointed at the monitor. The crux of this background knowledge is his presentation of the work of Gödel - the only part of the book I found difficult to fathom. But this example shows how even mathematics creates loops, and has the incredible consequence of rendering logic inconclusive.

This background information provides a perspective of thought that serves to show that the mind actually creates itself! He proposes that the mind does not exist until it becomes self aware. Before that, we are just unconscious beings on the level of base animals. His ideas about the levels of mindfullness of animals and even insects is also quite interesting to me, since it is something that most of us have considered but rarely speak about. His compassion has prompted him to become a vegetarian, yet interestingly, he has absolutely no respect for mosquitos!

But then he goes on to explain how our consciousness evolves as it experiences itself, and the selfs of others. Adding another wrinkle to his theory to shows that there is cross-talk between 'souls' and that seeing others is key to seeing ourselves. He brings up quite a few other interesting topics and perspectives that explain his reasoning, all of which he presents with great skill.

As you read this, without the tremendous insight of Hofstader, I don't expect you to take my word for it. And of course, I wouldn't have either, before reading this book. But perhaps, if you read it, you will learn something about yourself that right now, seems absolutely impossible.

This book does a good job of explaining some very complex theories in a way the an average person can understand and get something out of. It's not quite on the level of Godel Escher Bach complexity wise, nor is it intended to be. In fact Hofstader says one of the reasons he wrote this book is that a lot of people who enjoyed GEB did not get the fundamental message of it.

Godel Escher Bach is a hard slog for the average person. I picked GEB up and put it down several times before reading this book. Reading and understanding I Am a Strange Loop has given me the motivation I need to complete GEB. Now I'm nearly finished with GEB, and I have a much better understanding of what is being illustrated.

The book can be a little tedious in spots, but it is necessary to get the message across. Of course, the message is complex enought that I cannot explain it in a short review. It does require reading the entire book, and it can change how you think.

The reason I rate this book 5 stars is because it makes the very important underpinnings of GEB much more accessible to a wider range of people. This is a very hard thing to do, but the author did a wonderful job of it.

...but I must say I'm moving through this book much faster than the last I read (The Shipping News), which suggests that it's more compelling somehow. In truth, however, I think I may be favorably inclined because I so-much enjoyed reading Hofstader's classics as a teen. This book is not bad, but somehow a bit melancholy. It could probably also be a bit tighter -- a little shorter. I'll try to remember to update this review once I finished the book. Happy reading.

I am 2/3 through the book and enjoying it immensely. It is consistently Douglas Hofstadter. It is the same style as GEB, and as I find out, the same style he has had since age 16. (There is an introduction consisting of a mind/thought paper Douglas wrote as a teenager.)

Do you know what consciousness is? It is a mirage. Just a giant symbol in your brain, like one big complicated word that points to itself. Douglas Hofstadter first had this insight when he was 16 years old and has been trying ever since to get into words that hang together. As other reviewers have pointed out, he probably hasn't succeeded. There are several problems I see with this ideas in the book, which is otherwise a sensitive autobiographical work. The first is how the central topic of Godel's theorem connects to consciousness. The theorem, which shows how self-reference can reveal an interesting fact about arithmetic from the "top down," doesn't by any number of analogies explain how consciousness has arisen from matter. Hofstadter very briefly says that DNA uses the same "Godel Trick" in its self-replication process, but then he stops short and returns to the nether world of metaphors and life experiences. I do feel that I gained a better conceptual understanding of the notion of "I," but here Godel's theorem was of no help.

The second problem I had with this book is the writing. He simply leaves out too much scientific information for the reader to feel confident in the many analogies he offers. By knowing a bit of evolution, formal logic, and Daniel Dennett's related positions, I could make much more sense of the book than what Hofstadter was giving me. Hofstadter may not be a "greedy reductionist" in fact, but he sure is in his writing.

The final problem I had with this books is the scope. At the end of the book, the author rushes to tidy up several problems of interest to the field of philosophy, from the old problem of free will to the recent fad of zombies. This seems stretched and out of place. He then extends himself to political topics such as capital punishment, war, and his grand finale, compassion, which I found completely gratuitous. He seems to think that once one adopts his view of consciousness, ethical values and political stances should fall out almost trivially. They don't. Unfortunately, these are probably the issues closest to Hofstadter's heart, and it pains me to see him gamble on such high chances of disagreement before the book is set down. I much rather see these in different books, say a popular science book and an autobiography. A popular science book needs to relate and convince, while an autobiography need only relate. By reaching so far as to claim, for example, that musical taste (e.g. Bach or Tupac) may be a measure of how conscious someone is, Hofstadter truly boxes himself into his own world.

James W. Douglass has done a remarkable job of making it clear why and by whom John Kennedy was murdered. Mr. Douglass uses 96 pages of reference to document his account of events. Recent documents released by the U.S. Archives as well as documents released from the archives of the former Soviet Union are disclosed to us in a well written and easy to follow narrative which is gripping. It is important for every American to know how our secret government operates that not even a popular president was able to overcome.

Once begun, I could not put this book down.

I recommend this book be read by every American and be on the reading lists in all of this nation's high schools.

This is an outstanding work by James Douglass, and as one who has a library filled with books on this subject this is perhaps the best. It is well researched, extremely well written and a page turner. I will not delve too much into the contents for other reviewers have done so in very thorough manner.

I will close by saying the following....when I finnished this book I had a chill. We all know what was and is, what we don't know and never will is what might have been. I long for the day when the truth is fully divulged, those responsible for the "Unspeakable" are unmasked (it will suprise some)and Lee Harvey Oswald is fully exonerated for a crime he did not commit.

James does a fabulous job with loads of newly released information to make it very clear that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't just a patsy, but could have been a hero a few weeks earlier. If anyone doubts the CIA's hand on this, they haven't been paying attention.

JFK and the Unspeakable is a gem of a book. Due to the obfuscation of the events of that sad day in November 1963 by our own government, we may never be able to put absolute names and faces to the forces that caused the death of our 35th President. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. James Douglass does a mighty fine job of painting the landscape and filling in the details of this dark period in a masterly fashion. When our own government stonewalls investigation into the killing of a president, keeping records sealed for half a century and then releasing them drip by redacted drip, is there any wonder that 75% of the population finds its intentions highly suspect? Douglass very clearly defines the motives that have shrouded this assassination discussion for so many years. And with the motive, method and opportunity of the clandestine forces to eliminate a sitting president so blatantly in place, it is a marvel of duplicity that they have painted "conspiracy theorists" into such a curious cul-de-sac. But finely written books such as Mr. Douglass's slowly prod this most obvious of viewpoints back into the mainstream of American conscience.

The disquieting question that arises after reading this book is - Where was America while this was happening? Why are we so somnolent when forces in our own government make a mockery of democracy and American ideals by killing popular peace-leaning leaders [JKF, RFK and MLK] and bringing us into war after phony war against the better judgement of reasonable people?

Where is America when the chips are down?

This reviewer raptly read Mark Lane's Rush To Judgement, Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins: My Investigation and Prosecution of the Murder of President Kennedy, and Jim Mars' Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy when they were first published. This reviewer became jaded at the fictions published by the Warren Commission and the House Select Commission on Assassinations, and like America sings in Sister GoldenHair "I got so damn depressed" that I quit reading this stuff.

Since then, even more proof has piled up against the lies our "leaders" told us. JFK was 'turning towards Peace" and the "unspeakable" evil forces aligned against him and peace didn't like it. James W. Douglas has done an excellent, Must-Read compilation of that truth, especially important now that a similair scenario could be, like Carly crooned, "Comin Around Again" with a new president ("Yes we Can!" "Change we can believe in!") bucking an evermore entrenched Military-Industrial Complex - HalliBurton et. al. - that would prefer that we stay in Iraq for the next 100 years or so.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana 1863-1952

Buy this book for you and all your intelligent friends and relatives and read it, so that we all can be on the same proverbial "Group W' bench with Arlo Alice's Restaurant: The Massacree Revisited (30th Anniversary Edition).

/TundraVision, "Hope springs eternal," Amazon Reviewer

You Darwinists must feel kind of scary with are new candidate for Vice President being a "Creationist!!!!! Yes the Governor of Alaska is a pro-Life, Creationist. Could this be an "ID"!!!! plot to take over the White House. Heaven forbid, whoops wrong word, Darwin forbid. No that doesn't make sense. I got it. The God DelusionDawkins forbid. No, he's just a delusion, not even an American. I really got it this time. Why don't you guys write her a letter of enlightenment. Before you know it, it's going to get worse. Where do all these people come from that dare have the "audacity" to think for themselves
" Comments by a Guilty Bystander"

The title's "Battle for America's Soul", and the concluding (p.221) "in finding the strength to embrace what evolution tells us about the nature of reality, we will find reward beyond measure. For it is such faith that will ultimately redeem our scientific souls", is very peculiar. The author obviously borrows the concepts of faith, redemption, and soul from religion, although alleged religious claims are the target of "the Battle".

Religious claims encompass the soul, and he strangely appropriates it in his title and conclusion for the object of salvation by evolution, the very theory that proclaims organisms, including humans, as products of physical forces alone and void of any immaterial substance like soul. Likewise, asking for "faith" in evolution is inconsistent with evolution's "actually being true" (same p.221) which controverts the title's "ONLY A THEORY".

The author of course uses religious expressions figuratively, not as commonly understood, attempting to persuade the reader that "The story evolutionary science can tell is grander and more sweeping than any just-so narrative concocted by the pretenders of intelligent design" (p.220). Notice the denigrating language for opponents, and the author indeed casts them in as degrading a light as anyone I know of. He offers various analogies, in one case (p.4) between actions by the Kansas Board of Education in 2000 and fights in Kansas in the 1850s among proslavery and antislavery forces, suggesting that "antievolutionists" (a term he uses persistently for the more accurate "anti-Darwinists") are somehow comparable to slaveholders. Much more; he says (p.168), "proponents of ID ["intelligent design", defending design in organisms, contrasted with Darwinian purposelessness]...seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science". To my knowledge, the opposition is specifically to Darwin's claim of undirected rather than directed forming of organisms, "intelligent design" mostly comprising scientists, who don't want to destroy science but to improve it. Which story is then "concocted" by its "pretenders", as quoted at the top of this paragraph?

Darwin himself, quoted in Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion, p.31, cites "The old argument of design" and contends: "We can no longer argue that [organisms] must have been made by an intelligent being". The thought that organisms are formed with purpose seems indeed matter of course, and it is natural selection, simulating artificial selection by its "pretenders", that appears "concocted". I tried in these reviews, as well as in On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries, to point out that organisms in fact are universally known to act purposely, toward survival, which actual purpose is forgotten in debating the possibility of purpose in organisms' structure. How Darwinians can confuse this evidence with the mechanistic contrivance of natural selection is illustrated by a passage in the book reviewed.

In discussing a parasite causing malaria, the author states: "Evolution has also produced new forms of resistance to [the parasite] within the human population, just as any biologist would predict" (p.66). Predict from what? Such resistance in humans is not developed through purposeless natural selection, requiring countless generations, but through the purposive immune system in individuals. This sort of flawed reasoning occurs throughout the book, not to mention Darwinism.

The author also relies on opinions hardly scientific, like those of judges and journalists, and in general tries to convince the reader and perhaps himself how ridiculous or laughable is the idea of design in organisms, he reflecting the recent barrage of opinions that the design is not quite intelligent. He mocks the designer as maybe creating a new species "in a sudden puff of smoke" and as "not very skillful, since just about everything he creates goes extinct relatively soon..." (pp.50-51). How an all-powerful designer creates a species seems up to him, however. Maybe he does so at the organism's germinal stage, to better suit the inquirer's demands. We still don't know if the egg or the chicken came first. And that every species goes extinct is not so shocking in view of the inevitable death of every individual, which is of more concern to the individual than the eventual extinction of its species. But this too, or any perceived imperfection, is up to the designer, not to the no less imperfect human observer.

Whether the book's author, alongside others, likes it or not, the purpose of preservation is a principal attribute of all living things, whatever the power behind it is wished to be called, and it seems the schemes of this power, incorporating all of nature, are "grander and more sweeping"--to repeat the book's above phrase--than Darwinism's piecemeal accumulation of accidents.

Jerry Coyne the eminent Professor of biology at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution and steadfast critic of ID wrote a review of a book by David P. Mindell called the Evolving World: Evolution in Every Day Life that was published in Nature 8/31/2006, Vol. 442, p983-984. Here is a quote from that article, "...if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvements in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like.' Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all."

I found it also interesting to note that Coyne goes on to state that of the two commercial uses for evolution that he's aware of, one includes the use of directed evolution to produce commercial products such as enzymes to protect crops and plants from herbicides. And we all know that another way of describing directed evolution is with the term Intelligent Design. Yes indeed when it comes to the advances (especially with molecular evolution) that have been attained over the past century it is the application of intelligent design in concert with the development of new methodologies and instrumentation that have guided researchers to their goals.

One would never know that from reading Miller's book. Coyne takes a pragmatic approach with respect to the distinction between micro and macroevolution, noting the irrelevancy of the latter in the pursuance of scientific experimentation. Coyne is cognizant of the fact that whenever examples are cited detailing research instrumental to evolution, they all involve microevolution. Miller on the other hand makes no such distinction. When Miller cites in his book that evolution is the "glue that binds the biological sciences together" he is adamant in his assertion that macroevolution is just as scientifically germane as microevolution, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is the empirical case for macroevolution remains on a shaky foundation, and as Coyne alludes to in his article macroevolution makes no noteworthy contributions when it comes to experimental biology. I doubt that any scientist, even Professor Miller, would conduct any experiments differently if they were under the impression that macroevolution were unequivocally baseless.

Theodisius Dobzhansky's maxim that "nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution," only makes sense when applied to microevolution. As we have seen time and again this is where Darwinism works reasonably well and not only that, most advocates of ID accept microevolution.

Miller acknowledges that NDE has a long uphill battle and is on the defensive. Even though he admits on page 35 that scientists do not know how the flagellum evolved; he reiterates the same worn out stale arguments he used at the Dover Trial to try to refute ID. Hasn't he figured it out that his arguments have been rebutted successfully; they haven't worked in 3 years since that trial, they are not going to work now in this book. He knows he has been losing ground yet he still pursues a failed policy. It doesn't make sense.

That leads me to believe that the purpose of Miller's book is solely for its use as a rallying cry to inflame the passions of the Neo Darwinists in continuing their assault against the Intelligent Design movement. As far as those who are new to the controversy, anyone who objectively reads this book will come away with more questions than answers. Therefore, someone has to fire up votaries of the NDE and for a number of reasons he is the logical choice. He does not let them down. Miller's incendiary rhetoric is best illustrated on page 201, "The partisans of ID are lobbing intellectual napalm into the scientific community, and so great is their enthusiasm for their tactical objectives that they remain oblivious to the fact that nothing will remain but ashes and dust if their attack is successful." What a bunch of metaphoric bombast!

His paranoia is really manifested in Chapter 7 when in citing a change in the definition of science by the Kansas School Board and using skewed rhetoric, Miller was afraid that astrology, paganism, and wiccan healing will fall into the realm of science. What Miller fails to tell you is that by describing science as an open-ended search for more adequate or reliable explanations of the natural world using empirical methods, it implies nothing about the supernatural. Also, Miller advocates teaching all aspects of evolution while discouraging a critical analysis of it. That is not only wrong, it defies common sense and it is antithetical to the goals of education. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with advancing a religious bias as he so paranoiacally suspects.

In short this book can be summed up in one sentence: a desperate attempt at saving and perpetuating macroevolution from the juggernaut of Intelligent Design. It's not going to work. It hasn't worked since the atrocious decision at the Dover Trial and it's not going to work now.

The author, Ken Miller, was one of the expert witnesses for the evolution side in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, and Michael Behe was the main expert for the ID-iots. After reading this book, it's clear why the evolutionists won and why the presiding judge described what the ID-iots had done as "breathtaking inanity."

Scientific theories must be testable, and as Miller points out, ID is not testable in any meaningful way, so ID is not science at all.

ID-iots do propose some testable hypotheses, of course, however those hypotheses are not specifically about ID itself, rather they are about the so-called "limits of evolution." No one seriously disputes that evolution is a scientific theory, so it's not surprising that hypotheses about evolution -- and its alleged limits -- are in fact testable. Unfortunately, as Miller points out, testing the ID-iots' anti-evolution hypotheses shows that those hypotheses are wrong. For example:

1. Behe claims that the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex (IC), and therefore needs all of its parts to work. In reality, however, some vertebrates are missing some parts of the cascade, and yet their blood still clots just fine. Even worse for the ID-iots, there is also evidence indicating that key parts of the blood-clotting cascade may actually have evolved from protein domains that: 1) had nothing to do with blood-clotting, and 2) didn't even originate in vertebrates. (pp. 62-66) Ouch!

2. Behe claims that IC systems can't evolve step-by-step, because intermediate stages have no function at all, and therefore cannot be preserved by natural selection. In reality, however, most, if not all of the IC systems that Behe himself proposed, including the bacterial flagellum, have subsets of parts (i.e., intermediate stages) that do have functions. The function of intermediate stages may be, and frequently is, different from the function of the full system; but a function is a function, and if it's beneficial to the organism, then natural selection can preserve it, making it a target for further adaptive modifications. The bacterial flagellum doesn't look at all like a machine designed from scratch and constructed with all new parts, rather it looks just like evolutionists would expect: a conglomeration of spare parts scavenged from here and there, held together with duct tape and baling wire. (pp. 53-62)

3. Behe's famous 10^20 claim in "Edge of Evolution," about the enormous odds against any evolutionary pathway requiring the evolution of two or more protein binding sites is based on a glaring (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the evidence. (pp. 66-69)

4. Dembski claims that intuition tells us that if law can't produce complex specified information (CSI), and if chance can't produce CSI, then a combination of law and chance can't produce CSI either. (p. 39) As Miller points out, however, intuition is not a very reliable standard. After all, intuition is what told humans for millennia that Earth was flat and stationary. (p. 84) Furthermore, computer programs that mimic evolution's mutation-selection process -- which essentially is a combination of law and chance -- routinely produce CSI. (pp. 74-78)

5. Even worse for the ID-iots, Dembski's claim that new genes cannot be produced by natural processes is shattered by evidence that Mother Nature has indeed produced new genes, quite a few times, and fairly recently. And Mother Nature's accomplishment has been replicated under laboratory conditions, thus enabling scientists to actually observe evolution while it was taking place. (pp. 79-82)

Chapter Four deals with fascinating evidence from the field of genomics, using DNA evidence to establish the genealogical links between widely separated species, just as modern courts use DNA evidence to establish genealogical links between parents and their children. DNA evidence is considered conclusive in the courts. There's no reason why it shouldn't be considered conclusive in evolutionary biology.

Chapter Five includes a discussion of embryological evidence that also provides strong support for evolution.

Most of the last half of the book focused on the publicity and political campaigns that ID-iots rely on to promote ID. (If ID-iots spent any time actually doing science, maybe they wouldn't need to rely so heavily on publicity campaigns. Just a thought.)

This is an excellent book, very accessible, even for laymen.

This is a surprisingly engaging effort by Mr. Miller. Reading Only a Theory is akin to watching a captivating movie filled with intriguing special effects, robust characters , and a suspenseful plot ... with twists, turns, and Olympic hurdles!

For years I have been grappling with the question: Which came first, the chicken or the proverbial egg? You can not imagine my delight when I discovered Only a Theory ... a book about Intelligent Design (ID) Theory versus Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and the ultimate question for scientific and religious scholars: How did my Persian cat and the rest of mankind get here?

My original game plan in writing reviews was to adhere to this philosophy: Stay far, far away from politics, sports, and religion (they are too controversial and someone always loses). In spite of my past convictions, I find myself writing a review on a book that manages to make sport of politics, and religion. A trifecta! However, everyone from students to scholars ... will enjoy this marvelous treat from Kenneth Miller.

If you like imaginative courtroom drama, Perry Mason can't hold a candle to the final closing arguments (the book is based upon this trial). It takes place in the quaint town of Dover, Pennsylvania. Biology Professor, Kenneth Miller, (Brown University) was one of the expert witnesses at the trial. He had the jury, judge, and me ... intrigued by his take-no-prisoners testimony.

My favorite section is when testimonies from both sides explore the bio chemical systems (of which the body produces thousands). These machine-like marvels of nature control thousands of functions in perfect symmetry, harmony, and precision. They are called "bacterial flagellum". (I remember the name because they remind me of my ex wife, but I digress). If you liked Movies featuring The Terminator (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and The Transformers (starring Shia LaBeouf), you will be enthralled by these beauties.

In the end both sides won some points (in my opinion). There are still gaps in both theories in which proponents say: Trust me. Only a Theory should be a valuable addition to any library. You will love it. Trust me!
Reviewed by Reggie Johnson, President, Success-Tapes.Com

This is a great book for the most part. Although I agree with many of his points, I disagree in the part where he proposes a reform that requires mandatory community service. In the book he mostly says that people do well when they aren't made to do something, and yes community service is great but it shouldn't be forced on people, and people should have the option to decide if that is what they want to do. That's what freedom is all about.

He's right about school. My experience in school felt like a prison, where my teachers didn't take me seriously, they sometimes liked humiliating me and my classmates, and honestly to this day, I have zero respect for teachers. I can't look back on a teacher that I actually liked. Many of them just made me follow dumb rules that had nothing to do with learning but about respecting authority.

Even as a college student, I feel that college is just another scam, its not about learning but about getting that degree so you can get a good job. Getting As and Bs isn't a sign of intelligence, but a sign that you did the work the way that your teacher wanted you to. I think true learning occurs when you are accountable to yourself for your own education.

i got my product in a timely manner and it was in great condition. Thanks!!

I wish I'd read this while I was in school; I'd have seen then that there was something wrong with the system, not me. This book is thought-provoking and a must-read for parents of kids of all ages.

John Taylor Gatto taught in New York City public schools for 30 years. He is now a writer and a lecturer. He was named New York City Teacher of the Year and New York State Teacher of the Year.

"The Seven Lesson School Teacher" is the first chapter of his book. It is the speech he gave after he was named New York State teacher of the year in 1991.

I've summarized the first chapter (which I taught to my high school sophomores and juniors).

Mr. Gatto said that he teaches 7 things. They are as follows:

1)confusion - lessons are out of context & out of sequence; random instruction; standardized tests; too many subjects; assemblies; fire drills; staff development days; age segregation; no depth in subjects; most teachers are not experts

2)class position - kids assigned numbers; stay in classes; stay in classrooms; envy and fear of the better classes; contempt for the lower classes

3)indifference - forced enthusiasm; bell rings, students must stop doing stuff (in class or change classes)

4)emotional dependency - individuality is discouraged; students lack rights; teachers & administrators manipulate and control the students

5)intellectual dependency - lesson chosen by teachers, administration or school board; students told to wait before working; wait for the expert to tell you what to do; helpless people are good for the economy (food service, law, medicine, teaching, tv, entertainment)

6)provisional self-esteem - confident people are problems; you are to be evaluated & judged; most grades have very little work in them; self-evaluation is rarely done; people must rely on experts to see their value

7)one can't hide - control and surveillance; no private spaces or private time; little time between classes; people trained to tell on each other; homework keeps them busy and away from other learning

"Schools are an essential support system for social engineering that condemns most to be subordinate stones in a pyramid that narrows as it ascends to a terminal of control" pg. 13 (this reminds me of Huxley's Brave New World)

Mr. Gatto makes a few other points in his speech as well. I've listed them in bullet format for you.

- Schools were created partly as a result of two "Red Scares" in 1848 and 1919. People in power were afraid of the industrial poor and wanted to reign in the culture of the new immigrants (Celtics, Slavs and Latins).
- Look at the seven lessons: they are "all prime training for permanent underclasses, people deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius." (16)
- These lessons and the problems in our schools have now seized the middle class as well
- Critical thinking is not taught
- Solutions: family schools, farm schools, small entrepreneurial schools, religious schools, craft schools
- Lessons not taught: self-reliance, self-motivation, perseverance, courage, dignity, love
- TV, sports/clubs, and jobs take up all the free time outside of school - learning and the feeling of community are stifled

Gatto makes a compelling and strong argument for precisely what the problem is with our educational system - in essence, that it is designed to make good consumers who follow the rules and don't challenge authority, and who can be trusted with doing repetitive tasks and quietly occupying their designated socio-economic niche without much complaint. Given that he has over 30 years of experience in the public school system, he almost assuredly knows what he's talking about.

Unfortunately, the last few chapters in the book dip severely in quality, as Gatto presents his "solution" to the problem: complete privatization of the school system. His assumption that it would be better is never fully explored; it's simply stated, with some great comments about how wonderful homeschooling is. But in a completely free market system education, like everything else, becomes a product, and unfortunately it's one that parents can't fully explore before they've already "purchased" it. That is, after all, the entire premise underlying this book - that there is a "hidden curriculum" in public schools (Gatto never mentions that it's also in many private schools, though that's obviously the case) which parents usually aren't aware of until the damage has been done. How, then, are parents going to make an intelligent choice between the options available to them in a fully privatized school setting? Gatto never makes that clear.

Furthermore, if indeed it is corporate and governmental interests which push this hidden curriculum, then how could complete privatization help? They are, after all, the groups with the money, and in the free market those interests would almost assuredly be able to offer a near-complete monopoly on the market. Parents, after all, will only ever have limited choices on how to educate their child - homeschooling, various local private schools (unless they're willing to board their eight year old somewhere), or public schools; all privatization will ensure is that public schooling is no longer even an option and instead parents will be entirely dependent on what the local private schools have to offer or the possibility of homeschooling.

The obvious solution to this educational dilemma would be for the government and private organizations to encourage more parents to pursue homeschooling, or to promote "alternate" educational systems such as Waldorf and Montessori schools which don't have the same problems Gatto notes. Unfortunately, Gatto doesn't bring up those possibilities. For him, "privatization" is presented as a panacea which will miraculously solve the problem.

By all means, read the book. It's a scathing report on the way "traditional" education destroys children's interest in learning and ability to think independently, and well worth the read. Skip the last chapters, though - in them, Gatto depends on his readership having had their own critical thinking ability destroyed.

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.

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?

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.

Funny Amazon should offer us to buy this book together with Enchiridion by Epictetus (Long Translation) when these two are in fact one and the same book, different translators and different supplemental background info/comments. Of course I only realized that when both books arrived and I compared them :(. One star to Amazon for that :((( As for the book, the reason I put it on my wish list last year was the fact that in the course of last 3 years I had to release and let go of many things (and people), and I had struggled with the conflict between fighting for what I want and never giving up (cause nothing is completely lost until we give up on it) and knowing when to let go. I reverted to stoic thought for strength to live without regret and feeling of loss. And while it helped me resolve some of my inner conflicts, I must warn you that this book is not writing of a self-help guru, its an actual philosohical work. Which is OK for me, but might not serve the same purpose for everyone that it did for me. As for translation, I prefer this one to Long's because it is more in the spirit of English language, at the same time remaining non-colloquial. I also find additional information included by translator to be very enlightening and good guide into phylosophy of the age and further reading.

I have read about philophers and history and our founding fathers wonderfully created documents and the great historical and philosophic works behind their conclusions all my life. In all that time I have found almost all of them to be profound and inspiring. Yet unlike others who have reviewed this work I have found it wanting in it's basic interprative conclusions.

By that I mean in one paragraph there will be great insight and in the next the interpretation seems to loose coherency all together or has absolutely no rational application what-so-ever for living well.

Oh there are many profound ideals represented in this booklet and I agree that for his time and place in history Epictetus must have been one great piece of work to come to many of the conclusions put forth in these pages. Such as those on page 22 and 23 where:

1. He criticises the use of fortune tellers and warnes that one should see them for what they really are (just fault ridden human beings)and indicates that one does not need a fortune teller or soothsayer to know it is right to share the burden of a friend and to defend ones nation or,

2. that one should not allow the influence of others, when mingling, to cause one to slide into their bad habits, practices/lifestyles or unethical behavior and;

3. Sexual abstinence if you can achieve it is a good thing. Boy I bet the ACLU and the liberals elites in America must hate Eptictetus.

But I constantly got the feeling that the author was stuggling to give us these insights or tried just too hard to be clinical in his analysis and that he was being too Stoic (ha...ha...isn't that an interesting thought) in telling us what Epictetus really thought or was trying to impart.

I almost got the impression in considering what Epictetus had said (if one can trust, not the writings of the man himself, but what someone else thought he said or meant) and not what White's conept or interpretation of his meaning was or is...that although this Stoics philosopher was tyring to be like some Vulcan Mystic from Star Trek that he was really more like Spoc, who had underlying conflicting more human feelings.

I believe all good philosohers do struggle with this issue and ask themselves "Is what I believe, true" from time to time.

The great ones do not just dismiss this question as political party die hards and hacks do today...but actually grapple with this question and adjust when their phiolsophies trun out to be wanting, wrong, unethical, immoral and just down right false.

Yes one can glean the beginnings of great thought here when considering the time and place of his teachings, but I would not at all consider Epictetus the greatest of all philsophers whether Stoic or other wise.

He is just one of many hundreds that should be considered for that title during ones lifelong study of our rise from barbaric nomads to civilized mankind. Of course one can, if one studies modern man's fall from grace in the 20th and 21 centuries, from a neutral point of view, actually consider that we are less civlized now than we were in Epictetus' time.

Of course that is a discussion for another time. A good booklet, if read critically, as all should be, to add to any self-made philosophers collection and also for the aspiring student.

The "Handbook" is an essential read for the student of philosophy and is quintessential for those who desire a quick glance at stoic philosophy. White's masterful introduction provides the reader with the necessary context she needs in order to digest and enjoy this treat from antiquity. His translation is pleasing to the contemporary ear and true to the text.

Possibly the most famous Stoic Philosopher is Marcus Aurelius, whose "Meditations" was written, not to be read as a philosophic treatise, but rather as a personal journal, complete with seemingly random entries and no apparent structure. Moreover, it is clear from his "Meditations" that Marcus Aurelius was greatly influenced by the teachings of Epictetus. In fact, according to Aulus Gellius, Herodes Atticus (who was Marcus Aurelius' teacher at the time) told Marcus Aurelius that Epictetus was the greatest of all the Stoic philosophers, which is quite convenient for us since most of the writings of earilier Stoics (such as Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes and Chrysippus) have been lost, probably in the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

Epictetus, like Socrates, apparently never wrote anything himself; however, his students took very good notes. One student by the name of Flavius Arrian may be responsible for the composition of eight volumes, titled "The Discourses of Epictetus," of which four volumes still survive. Arrian served under Emperor Hadrian who initially choose Atticus to be Marcus Aurelius' teacher. Arrian also wrote another text, titled "The Encheiridion of Epictetus" (or "Handbook" or "Manual"), which also survives and appears to be an abstract of his "Discourses". Throughout the second century, Epictetus was regarded as the greatest of the Stoic philosophers, and became even more popular than Plato. Stoicism nevertheless lost favor in the middle ages and was not revived until 1584 when Justus Lipsius published his "De Constantia".

I would highly recommend the writings of Epictetus to anyone interested in Stoic Philosophy, or anyone at all for that matter. Epictetus should make for an excellent introduction to Stoic Philosophy, and the "Encheiridion" is an excellent introduction to Epictetus. I prefer this particular translation of "The Encheiridion of Epictetus", by Nicholas P. White, over the other translations that I have read. Oldfather's translation (Loeb Classical Library) is also very good.

It is no easy task to cover the full spectrum of modern critical theory and do so in a comprehensive and lucid fashion. In LITERARY THEORY: AN ANTHOLOGY, Rivkin and Ryan have succeeded admirably in fashioning a text that when combined with the similar NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF THEORY AND CRITICISM ought to review key areas that one might merely gloss over while the other is more detailed. There is much to like with Rivkin and Ryan's anthology. Both understand that critical theory is dense under the best of circumstances, but when even this denseness is presented in a logical manner, much of its abstruseness evaporates. First, I like how they organize the book into clear divisions based on literary school of thought, each of which begins with a perceptive introduction that is geared toward the typical undergraduate who though bright is unaware of the many tricky byways that afflict so much of theory. These introductions lead gracefully into the various essays by writers of that school. The Norton has its introductions too but its editors place them at the beginning of their text, thus making it cumbersome to flick back and forth to see how one theorist connects to his paradigmatic theory.

In judging any anthology, one looks at what was excluded, what was included, and what was covered in that inclusion. It is only too easy for me to second guess why Rivkin and Ryan left out theorists that I consider key (like Tzevetan Todorov and Northrup Frye) and inserted those whom I see as of a lesser rank (like Margaret Mahler, Sidney Blatt, and John Fiske) but theory is broad enough for me to welcome anyone who has anything germane to add to a literary stage that is not so overcrowded that there is no more room. I must admit though that I was sorely puzzled by the total omission of reader-response critics. As I examined the theorists included, I was pleased to note that most of my personal favorites were present (except for the two mentioned above). I have two suggestions for a future edition. I would appreciate a full bibliography that could steer readers toward other texts that might build on what Rivkin and Ryan so artfully create. Further, to make this future text truly user-friendly, they might consider doing what high school literary text editors do but college editors so rarely attempt: to furnish each selection with prompts and questions that would permit the reader to make the intuitive leap from the abstract world of theory to the concrete level of actualization. What one takes away from LITERARY THEORY: AN ANTHOLOGY is the security of knowing that one has been exposed to the best of modern critical thought in such a way that one is willing to continue to turn the pages even after the class has long ended. Truly, this book belongs on anyone's shelf who dreams of learning why writers write and think the way they do.

I found Rivkin's anthology to be comprehensive in terms of the variety of schools of thought covered. I bought it for a class, and my single complaint about the book and the class is the same: I feel that I'm not getting a full and comprehensive understanding of each individual theorist's work. But I suppose if I were a more dedicated scholar, I'd just read each theorist's complete works on my own instead of buying an introduction to critical theory. So, if you would like a deep understanding of a few individual theorists, this is not the book for you. But if you are looking to get an overview with many important details of the recent history (i.e. the last 100 years) of critical theory, I would highly recommend this book.

If you are like me and want a short, easy-to-read introduction to the whole discipline of philosophy, you can't do much better than "What Does It All Mean?" by Thomas Nagel. No esoteric language here, or a long complicated historical discussion. Instead, Nagel introduces philosophy by a simple but thought-provoking discussion of some of the main problems of philosophy: How do we know there's anything outside of our minds; how do we know that other people exist; what is the basis of the mind; is there an afterlife; what's the basis for morality; and more. Nagel's primary aim is to encourage curious readers to think about these questions and to read other thinkers who have grappled with them. In this, he has succeeded admirably.

During that first week of the first semester of the freshman year, before the social fraternities might have planned and executed their first parties, before the sports tryouts, play auditions, talent shows, and football games can begin in earnest, for those very few days, the meaning of college and a scholarly endeavor can still be shaped by a teacher. In those two or three class meetings, while others are still defining the field, deriving the Greek origin of the course title, explaining his/her own teaching approach, reading the syllabus, updating roll books, and breaking the ice, in those few days I try to capture students' attention. I will need it for the rest of the semester and I see it as an important part of my job to win it. But I have only a few days to hook them. Those who I can not ensnare are usually lost to the hard stuff, hookah, and hormones. So it's vital that I catch them, and fast. Luckily, I teach Philosophy and History.

Understanding this challenge, the first assignment should both engage and prepare the student for the next readings. Getting through the initial chapters should be an encouraging experience. If an advanced high school student could complete the readings for the second class meeting, spending about three hours to do so, and then successfully use the material in the next class discussion, then that reading is a perfect first selection.

And a broad description of philosophical thinking, in language that provides a freshman with better than even chances to succeed, can still be found in Thomas Nagel's _What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy_. Nine chapters of about ten pages each make this readable little book ideal for the first week of an introductory course in Philosophy. Here, the ideas and major questions are presented in clear language, and in a rational, topical order. Supplemented by a week of rambunctious yet demanding classroom discussions, this small introduction will help open eyes and prepare your students for a more conventional reader, chronologically arranged by Philosopher. This next reader will be attacked, beginning in the second week, by students with some recent experience with the various topics, and in a mood to be critical. Handled correctly, the first week of Philosophy 100 will alert students that reading will count, that doing the reading before class will make you (the student) seem smarter to your classmates, that the text can be understood, and that the subject can be interesting, because it can be applied to life.

I can highly recommend Nagel's small book for that first week, while you still have their attention.

I wish I had time to write more at this time...this is an excellent small intro. It does what it claims to do. It is not comprehensive, but it neither claims to be nor attemtps to be so. Even so, I have read lots and lots of philosophy books and Nagel says more and does so more effectively than many many (too many) philosophy books that are four, five, six times the size of this little intro of his. I have probably bought a half a dozen or more copies of it when I see it at used bookstores and have handed them out to friends and even acquaintances who could benefit from knowing something about philosophy but aren't going to dedicate their lives to it. If you only have time for a hundred pages of philosophy but want to get a taste for the discipline, this is the one you want. I've said more than my time allows...but would write much more praise if I could.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? was forwarded to me by my daughter while she was attending college. She read it as part of her philosophy course syllabus. At first I thought it too slim of a volume to have substantial philosophical merit. How can the meaning of existence be even broached in one hundred pages? But Thomas Nagel has done just that. Be it read as introductory or review, one can satisfactorily cover the basics of philosophy in about an hour. That in itself is quite an accomplishment.

This book examines and acquaints the reader with the major questions of philosophy. As many other reviewers have pointed out, Nagel is remiss where it comes to giving answers, but I don't believe that was ever his intention with this short work. This is not a tract on "how to live," rather a primer for "what to think about?"

As a supplementary text for an introductory survey course in philosophy, this is potentially a very nice volume. Students could read it the first week of class, before moving on to primary sources. In the introduction to the text, however, Nagel states that he hopes the book would also be useful as an invitation to philosophy for inquisitive readers outside a classroom context. Unfortunately, the absence of "suggestions for further reading" at the end of chapters, or even of the names of philosophers who have examined the questions being addressed in the text, is fatal for this hope. After reading this book an inquisitive reader might have some superficial familiarity with some important questions with which philosophers have grappled, but no idea who those philosophers were, and no idea where to turn to pursue the issues in greater depth. For this information, he or she would need to turn to a longer survey of the literature (like Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy"). But in that case, why not save some money and go straight to the longer survey, bypassing Nagel's book altogether? That's what I would do.

I'm not a very avid reader, but this one is pretty fun to read, and it's pretty basic(definitely not difficult reading!).

I would recommend it! It's pretty nice to get a foundation on some fairly important history. It's relative to other important facts in history or in life.

I have the 1988 edition so I can't vouch for this edition.
But I have to say if it is anything like this one then by all means grab it. A very readable style with plenty of humours illustrations that make this an unputdownable book. Don't let the cartoons fool you though, you will learn alot.

'Looking At Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter' by Donald Palmer lives up to the promise in its title; It is a very brief overview on the history of philosophy, covering most major philosophers through history, starting with the Greek philosophers, and ending with the modern philosophies.

It is an extremely light read. I found myself reading far ahead of the assigned chapters, simply because I was enjoying myself. The illustrations are humorous, though sometimes silly, especially for a text book.

The light reading can also be problematic. I found myself referring to other resources for a full understanding, because the author did not cover (I felt) enough ground on most subjects, leaving me without only a surface understanding of the concepts.

This book would be better suited to a high school class, rather than a serious, college course.

Overall, the text was refreshingly enjoyable, though oftentimes fell short.

This book got me to look at philosophy more... It's a great book if you just need a reference, without a lot of analysis by critics, or the actual philosophers themselves, which can get mind-numbing at times. It's great to get, if just for the cartoons (you end up having to read the text to make sense out of most of the cartoons). But no, I don't know if I can explain the naked-male-prostitute-riding-on-a-bicyle cartoon, which is actually in here (and not a figment of my imagination). But don't let that keep you from buying...

I bought this book for my Philosophy 101 class. I tried to sell it back but the bookstore wouldn't let me. Although I hated the idea that I wouldn't be getting my 30 bucks back, little did I know that this book would serve as an important tool for my Literary/Criticism class (which I am currently taking). It definitely clarifies complicated theories with a touch of humor added to the descriptions. There are also sketches in the book that are also humorous, yet provide the reader with a mental image on the topic at hand.

"The Key" by Joe Vitale is a book that I've recently discovered and have to tell you about!

The "best of the best' & a most highly recommended book!

If you want to go from dreams to reality with some of your most cherished potentials & inner gifts then read "The Key."

Learn how to manifest your inner potentials & live a more enjoyable, creative & fulfilling life.

Absolutely awesome book!

Better read together with:

"NEXUS" by Deborah Morrison and Arvind Singh, a deep & inspiring novel that is sure to change your life!
Nexus: A Neo Novel

I enjoy Joe and his great copywriting skills, but is he holding back on the real secret?

The true secret that is missing is breath! You heard that right...breath.
Check out THE THREE SPIRITS: Applications of Huna to Health, Prosperity, and Personal Growth or any book related to "Huna" or the "Ha Rite".

Interesting how some of these principles from the above mentioned book reflect Joe and his guest speakers views. Huna has been using breath as the way toward manifesting and healing for ages. Breath truly is the hidden and secret key. Search the keyword "Ha Rite" using your favorite search engine, there you will find the missing key you have been looking for all this time!

Very concise book which follows along with the concepts of The Secret. Very good book. Easy to follow.

This book does go beyond The Secret adding and answering many questions that arise after reading Rhonda Byrnes book. Another one of my favorites that answers many unanswered questions and gives you exercises to follow to achieve your desires is Living The Secret Everyday: My Secret Workbook...A must read.

I started to research "DR. Fire". I was unable to find out what type of degree Joe Vitale holds. Oh well I did not want to waste more of my time looking at Joe posing with his cars so I just stopped.
Anyways here is where I found a crucial error in the book....
I was listening to the audio-book by Joe Vitale, "The Key." Joe Vitale is one of the teachers of the now famous book & DVD, The Secret based on the Law of Attraction. Around 44 minutes into the book, Joe Vitale, aka, Mr. Fire starts telling the audience about his friend Joseph Sugarman, author of the numerous books such as Triggers. Joe at this point in his life had swollen lymph nodes and was looking for his friends for moral support. Joe was surprised to hear that his friend Mr. Sugarman was working with Scientists overseas to create a supplement that cures cancer and dissolves tumors. It was not on the market yet, but Joe could get the supplements if he was interested. Joe received a report of the product claming the following:

"Glutathione, is a naturally producing antioxidant. Our cells die because age causes us to produce less glutathione. Protectus120 is the worlds first protected Glutathione."
It claims, that Protectus120 is, "protected as it goes through the stomach, reaches the cells, as a fat soluble substance, since cells are fat soluble, they absorb Protectus120 right through the CELL WALL and provides immune boosting and repair function that we only enjoyed in our youthful years. Joe got the Protectus120 right away and started taking it. What I can't believe is that the report's scientific explanation is incorrect! It claims that Protectus120 reaches the cells and is absorbed through the cell walls. How can this work on humans? If anyone has taken a Cell Biology course they would know this is an obvious hoax. Human's cells do not have cell walls! This medication could have only worked on plant cells as, that is the major difference between an animal cell and plant cell is that:

Animal cells=NO cell wall
Plant cells=Cell wall

I wonder if Joe is a PLANT! Since I have been a scientific researcher all my life, I stopped the book immediately. Don't waste your time and $ on this guy.