Philosophy Books

Guy Debord's THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is one of the most widely quoted and important works of the past fifty years. Society as spectacle has become one of the most frequently used descriptors for modern consumer society and the media that reinforces its basic principles. For instance, in only the past couple of weeks I have encountered frequent mentions of Debord in Telotte's REPLICATIONS: A ROBOTIC HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE FICTION FILM as well as an essay on a number of recent important SF films by Bukatman (contained in Kuhn's first anthology of essays on SF film, ALIEN ZONE) entitled "Who Programs You? The Science Fiction of the Spectacle." One encounters Debord's central image in literary critics like Fredric Jameson and a host of writers on popular culture such as Greil Marcus (especially in his LIPSTICK TRACES: A SECRET HISTORY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY).

Marcus's discussion of the Spectacle is at best vague, but I believe that is part of the source of its power. One sees -- to stay on the level of the SF film -- in movies like ROBOCOP the spectacle in full bloom, as the mass media through advertising pushes onto the public utterly irrational products like the 6000 SUX, a large luxury automobile that explicitly celebrates its horrible gas mileage and somehow makes this a reason for desiring it (in the course of the film a gunman holding hostages makes one of his demands a huge car that gets "really sh*tty gas mileage, like the 6000 SUX"). One can associate a wide range of phenomena with the Spectacle, from the endless hawking of products that are supposed to result in "a better you" to political regimes like the Bush administration that used the explicit, bald-faced lie as its primary tool for governing to our endless preoccupation with pseudo-celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the contestants on AMERICAN IDLE (yeah I know that is spelled wrong). It is a flexible and versatile image that gets at our brute suspicion that our world is increasingly obsessed with what is not important but with what is trivial and unimportant. Debord's insight that the system of the spectacle elevates untruths to the level of uncontested beliefs is constantly on view, such as the absurd contention that the American news media -- one of the most conservative and compliant to the needs of the corporations that own it -- is "liberal." And when entities as the very conservative American news media or politicians like the fiscally conservative Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are defined as "liberal" it shifts the "center" so far to the right as to make the far, far right seem mainstream. And the few voices that point this out -- such as Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who points out that he is, while the most liberal current member of the U. S. Supreme Court, in fact a moderate conservative -- are ignored. The celebrities, the pageant, the epic verbiage, the spectacle obscures history and prevents any other understanding either of history or of what kind of society would actually serve our real needs.

Both the major virtue and a major vice of both THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE and Debord's COMMENTS are the almost complete lack of structure. The former is written as a series of over 200 "Theses" that ramble over a host of matters. These are loosely arranged in chapters but I emphasize the word "loosely." Many comments are immediately clear and easily understood. Some passages are opaque to anyone who is not intimate with the most obscure debates concerning Marxist and Communist history. Some theses are brilliantly written and cut to the heart of our contemporary society; some theses are so dull and irrelevant that they may be guilty of killing brain cells. To say that THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is uneven is an understatement. The upside is that if you don't understand one page, nothing has been said to prevent you from understanding the next; if one page is flat, the next can be thrilling.

COMMENTS ON THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is, compared to the earlier work, very easy to read and understand. There is still some vagueness, but there is little that is impenetrable. It does a somewhat better job of connecting up the various bits and parts. He is more explicit here about precisely what his targets are. There might be a small parallel to a passage in Kierkegaard that he quotes at length in THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE. PHILOSOPHICAL FRAGMENTS (actually "Crumbs" -- it is a Biblical reference to the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; here Kierkegaard imagines himself as the poor subjective thinker who has to content himself with the crumbs from the table of the great objective philosopher Hegel -- so far no translator has been willing to give the book the less impressive but more accurate title) deals with the problem of Christianity "algebraically" (in the Swenson translation), while the much larger sequel CONCLUDING UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT "clothes it in its historical dress." So THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE is more abstract; the COMMENTS more concrete. He makes several explicit (and scathing) references to Reagan; his allusions in the first book are far more illusive.

Despite Debord's hesitancy to be as clear as he might about his overall argument, his intent is clear: to indict the alliance and collusion between mass media, celebrity culture, market capitalism (and its expression in consumerism -- nicely captures in the title of Lizabeth Cohen's A CONSUMERS' REPUBLIC: THE POLITICS OF MASS CONSUMPTION IN POSTWAR AMERICA), and politics. And by remaining less than utterly specific, he made his work all that much more usable by other thinkers and writers. THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE remains one of the most important books for anyone interested in modern culture and society with which to be familiar, while the COMMENTS is an important tool in aiding that familiarity.

Read it and find out why...

Debord was a key member of the Situationists, that notable group of Parisien flaneurs (well, drunks, to be frank) who thought that by traversing the patchwork of the city on foot they could bring down the imposter structures of capitalist society from within. Sadly (or happily, depending on your socio-political point of view), they failed. But Debord's legacy remains in this fascinating book, broken down into Tractatus style fragments, a deeply philosophical book that examines the unreal nature of modern capitalism, the value of the commodity, something false, phoney, unreal. What happens, of course, is disillusionment with the commodity itself - Christmas presents received two days ago, at the time of writing, across the world are already discarded in cupboards, their value next to worthless as attentions move on.

Debord draws greatly on dialectics, that Hegelian structure of world history, inverted in a materialist fashion by Marx. Reality has given way to the spectacular - pseudo cities and countryside, not involving anything of reality or substance. People are alienated, wrapped up in a seizure of commodifying themselves to the hilt. And are miserable, of course. How to resolve this? Well, you could start by walking through the streets of your neighbourhood, intent on reclaiming the genuine and unravelling the structures of capitalism from...

I'm not sure if the translation is confusing, or the ideas being presented are confusing, or both. But this philosophical book is a lot of words written without saying much. I'm writing this because I purchased the book after reading the 17 reviewers who rated this book five stars. I was looking forward to an excellent treatise.
But instead I found the ideas confusing and random. It was difficult to
determine exactly was being presented.
I did like the Euclidean/Tractatus numbering system for the propositions.
But the ideas in those propositions weren't clearly written or easily understood by me.
To give you some background on me, I'm no fan of Hegel.
Ernest Becker's works give me a lot of insight, as do Nietzsche's.
I think this book assumes the reader is well-versed in Hegelian thought.
Maybe the reader needs to complete the Phenomenology of Mind before this work is accessible.

I haven't read any of the other translations of this text, however, this one reads quite fluidly.

The scope of the book sets the tone for one's consideration of contemporary events and societal relations. As research for a project on collaboration amongst individuals, the book was helpful in demonstrating that many forces are at work and are behind everything that exists in the world. This relates to collaboration in that each of us in a collaboration brings different histories to the table. The book also helps to illuminate the notion of the impossibility of non-collaboration. Even if the individual is from birth completely independant of others (which of course is quite improbable) their very existance comes into being through the cooperation of at least two separate forces (eg. the parents).

Debord shows us that the (two or more) forces which have led us to this point in history have done so, whether willingly or otherwise, together.

Arendt begins her opus magnum with a proposal: she states that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 (similar to Vaclav Havel's proposal of the moon landing) has hearkened in a new age of humanity. Following this proposal is one of the most mysterious but rewarding books of the 20th century, in my humble opinion.
I first encountered "The Human Condition" in an undergraduate class regarding the post-modern community. To this day, I still have not completely digested this work. Her objective, in her own words, is to determine "... what it is that we are doing", and her choice of a goal is challenging considering what is to follow. Situating herself between a Greek model of society and a Marxist interpretation of labor, Arendt calls into question our ideas of progress, technology, and even forgiveness, and aims a withering critique at the subjective personality of the post-modern world.
I won't go into a broad summary of her points to convince you to read it, but instead implore the reader of this review to see for themselves what Arendt is doing. Some will give up on this book after a few pages, calling it semantical nonsense. Yet for those who forge a path through Arendt's intelligent interpretation of history will come out on the other side with a new appreciation for the way in which they live their lives, participate in this thing we call "work", and interact with the human community. I can't stress enough how much this book means to me.

I should forewarn those who are about to the buy this book that you ought to first be well read in ancient Greek Culture: philosophy, political city-state as well as Greek mythology. Arendt uses a lot of Greek terminology which can make it incredibly difficult for the average Liberal Arts student or international student, for that matter, who are unfamiliar with these these terms.

No doubt the concepts she spoke of in the mid-50s are more than applicable to todays society. She was clearly a woman ahead of her time, but much too brainy for her own good. Chapter 2 on the "Public and Private Realm" is a 50+ page drag, emphasis on the word DRAG. I'm barely scraping through this chapter.

Had Arendt chosen to write in a taut, less opulent but fluid fashion, she could have easily connected to average readers and would have been an instant bestseller. If she did in fact become one...then more power to her.

Two cents worth from a frustrated liberal arts student.

To judge this book by it's cover, I would say that it's red violet. I hope the content covers the spectrum of the human condition. Enjoy your lunch.

Arendt's book is really more a disquisition on political theory than an explanation of the human condition in all its endlessly tragic vicissitudes.

It was interesting, and I learned more about ancient Greek and Roman political theory than I really wanted to know; with the most interesting facet being the defining of the terms "labor", "work", and "action" as they pertain to the the means by which the human animal has his being in the world. But by and large, it really didn't touch on the human condition in a way that enlarged my understanding of the essence of its gestalt.

The most interesting chapter is the one on action as the public realm in which some men choose to live and act, and how that affects both the present and the future. While action is essentially ephemeral in nature, its impact on the human condition is one that can and often does have unintended consequences reaching far into the future like ripples on a pond spreading outward from a central occurence. It is that very unpredictability that is its foremost feature.

Labor too is ephemeral in nature, in its attendance on the basic needs of mankind, food and shelter. Only work, in Arendt's estimation is durable and in this category she places all forms of art.

It is not an easy book to read but, given a little effort, accessible to even a novice at political theory.

I'd had this book for quite some time so I thought I might take a look at it. After reading it from cover to cover, all I have to say is, "What a waste of my time".

Arendt jumps back and forth from ancient Greece and Rome to the modern and post-modern eras, sometimes in the space of a few words in a paragraph, in a single-minded quest to put her stamp on what it is that gives value to existence. Turns out that it isn't happiness (too vulgar and egotistic and Bentham was a dirty crude little egoist) or even God (although He shows up in both the Heavenly and Nazarene versions). Nope, it's politics. The why is unclear to me; something to do with the mind (too vulgar and egotistic) and its inability to really know God's creation (Never mind that Genesis says mankind was created in God's image. Arendt puts a governor on the intellect and proclaims it incapable of understanding.) and how action for the sake of action is the greatest achievement of man (the working animal).

Throw in some rationalizing of immortality based on her understanding of then up-to-date physics and you've got it in a nutshell.

St. Augustine's dialogue on free will is not worded for the layman. The rhetoric becomes so involved that one has to wonder if St. Augustine knew what he was writing at times. That being said, I will present as brief of a synopsis as possible.

God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, can not create anything bad. Everything he creates is good. God allows humans to have free will, which was a just and appropriate decision. We grow to a more perfect being by performing good deeds. It is through life's turbulence that we advance toward knowledge and peace, through which a blessed life is achieved. Without free will, no righteous act could be performed. Thus, without free will, the whole reason for our existence is null and void. Of course, with free will comes consequeces. People can develop lust and greed in their hearts, causing them to sin. Sin is the side effect of free will, which God realizes and accepts.

I personally enjoyed reading confessions much more than "On Free Choice of the Will".

If you were looking for a significant and representative but introductory level medieval Christian philosophy text, you would be hard pressed to find one better than this. When I teach intro to philosophy, I often choose representative texts from the ancient, medieval, early Modern, and roughly contemporary periods. I start with Plato, either the Apology or the Meno or both. Then we read this book. Then Descartes' Meditations. Finally, we read something from Nietzsche, de Beauvoir, or from an early American philosopher (e.g. Thoreau).

This book is an excellent part of the sequence because it introduces free will, and introduces it in a way that is very relevant to Descartes' discussion of will in connection with error. Plato (and the ancients generally) didn't really have a notion of the will: our choices are dictated by our level of understanding. Augustine understood that the Christian notion of sin entails something more radical than mere ignorance -- I must, he thought, be in some real way capable of unmotivated choice if I am to be blamed for my actions.

There are other great bits in this dialogue -- one that it IS a dialogue and so forms a nice segway from Plato's dialogues. Another is its articulation of a proof of existence that prefigures Descartes' cogito and a proof of God that is remarkably similar (though very different in intent) to Descartes' first proof in the meditations.

Any serious student of Western philosophy,theology or history of ideas must eventually confront this icon of Western thought and Church Father ultra non plus,St.Augustine of Hippo.The man is the West's first--premier--EXISTENTIAL psychologist.His response to "angst"(found in Intro to THE CONFESSIONS)is yet unsurpassed and probably unsurpassable:LORD WE WERE MADE FOR THEE...AND OUR HEARTS ARE FOREVER RESTLESS UNTIL THEY REST IN THEE.

His CITY of GOD vs.The PAGANS is prodigious philosophy of history surpassing both Hegel and Mercea Eliade(History as "slaughter bench";and history as "Terror")because Augustine..."heretic extraordinary" before conversion...understood SALVATION History is chart of Man's True Destiny(with Crucifixion and RESURRECTION of CHRIST as axis and entlechy).Ana Benjamin and L.H.Hackstaff's translation of On Free Choice of the Will(De Libro arbitrio Voluntatis)remains classic "interpretation" of this essential study on the NATURE of Fallen Man;Original Sin and degree of FREE WILL subtending the Human condition.

PLATONIC dialogue format of the treatise is readable but daunting. Augustine...never a modest man...does his best with pseudo-paradox of All Knowing/Loving God and radical EVIL. Augustine's concept of Original Sin bending/denting pristine Free Will is interesting if not totally convincing.(St.Thomas Aquinas will do better with foundational LOGOS interpreted through Aristotle rather than gnostic Plato). Still it is game and important effort that meets "Modern" questions of NURTURE vs. NATURE in the drama of Good vs.Evil better than slews of psychologists from Freud to May;Nietzschean nihilists;or Hideggerian PM anti-Christians.Augustine's sometimes tortured logic(which often devolves simply into God is THE GOOD and Man chose to screw-up in defiance may not satisfy the pseudo's who want man to be "free" but blame God for Evil).In the end, however,it's not Evil that is ultimate "outcome" of Free Will. It's(proven)CAPACITY FOR SACRIFICE and LOVE that's the Answer to homies who want to reduce Mankind to chemical reactions and tropisms.Again:FREE CHOICE is tough read. "The hip" will find St. Augustine's not infrequent forays into Manichaeian heresy-"occult" theology amusing(10 years as initate in this pre-New Age prototype would screw-up even genius like St.A) Nevertheless,St.Augustine of Hippo(read PETER BROWN'S peerless biography)remains one of The MEN in history of defining Western thought(his ideas comprised Logos of entire Medieval epoch).ON FREE CHOICE OF THE WILL is sine qua non Augustinian reading.(4 & 1/2 stars).

Excellent work on the "problem of evil" in religion. For serious intellectual contemplaters only. Whether you ultimately agree or disagree with Augustine's premise, you will certainly appreciate the depth in which he addresses an issue that the world's most prolific religions readily ignore. If God is all good and God is the creator, why is there bad?

This is one of Augustine's early writings, from soon after his conversion. It records a conversation between himself and Evodius regarding free will. ... Augustine had very little access to Plato, and at this point in his life, probably nothing not quoted by another source. The dialogue is in fact based upon a real conversation, and not just a literary creation (a result of the philosophical community that Augustine lived in for some time after his conversion). However, Augustine edited it and added material (most of Bk. III) before publishing it.

The main things I thought a reader ought to note when reading this short work are (1) This is still the beginning of work on the will - it was not a major issue in philosophy until Augustine, although bits and pieces may be found, e.g. in Cicero; (2) Augustine's style is quite different from what most people are used to, especially since this is a record of an actual conversation; (3) the problem of evil for Augustine is of a different nature then that promulgated in modern times; (4) the only two people who had a paradigmatically free will were Adam and Eve - everyone else has a less than free will and requires God's grace to will effectively, even when they wish to do good.

It is an interesting work but still represents the early thought of Augustine. Those without a Neoplatonic background will find some of its arguments strange. There is no good introduction to Augustine - in my experience, you have to read a great deal of him in order to understand the typical way he thinks and the concepts he relies upon implicitly. Some Plotinus is probably useful.

Hoffer focuses on the active phase of mass movements, the one dominated by the true believer. Frustration seems to be inherent in this personality type. He cautions that although mass movements share many traits this does not imply that they're equally toxic or beneficent. The work tries to understand and explain, not pass judgment.

Their appeal derives from the promise in their materialistic, religious, nationalist or mixed natures. Intense, infectious emotion is required as fuel. Hoffer analyses the causes of the desire for change: discontent alone is not enough. Other factors are needed to activate it, like a sense of power and the ability to spread a vision of hope.

Faith in a cause is to a large degree a replacement for the individual's lost self-confidence. The movement offers a substitute for individual hope. Furthermore, movements are interchangeable to a surprising extent. As he puts it; "A Saul turning into a Paul is neither a rarity nor a miracle." The reason is that they attract the same mentality.

Antidotes include arrangements that discourage atomistic individualism or offers opportunities for action or new beginnings, like emigration. Creative expression is a potent protector: even the poor that are creatively involved are immune, as are the abjectly poor and members of close-knit family, tribal or religious groups.

Potential converts are the disaffected. Hoffer identifies them as misfits, outcasts, minorities, adolescents, the ambitious, the obsessed, the impotent in mind or body, certain categories of the poor, the extremely selfish, the bored and the sinners.

He explains the burden of freedom, how it aggravates frustration in certain individuals. The followers exchange their individual responsibility for the sense of redemption that the movement offers. Those who feel like failures value equality and fraternity much more than freedom. This illuminates Russia's regression into totalitarianism.

Another striking insight is that that visions, dreams and utopian hopes are powerful weapons; people will die for delusions. Craving/desire is what causes the reckless self-sacrifice.

Movements always target the family; Hoffer provides proof by quoting from inter alia the New Testament. Disruption of the family makes the person more dependent on the movement. Movements attract and retain followers due to the refuge they offer from the boredom, barrenness, anxiety and lack of meaning in the individual's life.

There are various species of misfit - the permanent misfit finds peace only in a total separation from the self. The extraordinarily selfish are likely to be the most fanatical champions of selflessness. Oddly, spinsters & middle aged women have played a crucial role in the birth of mass movements. Emotions like remorse and grievance appear to lead people in the same direction. Fervent enthusiasm helps to suppress a guilty conscience.

United action and self-sacrifice are the elements that determine the vigor of a movement. Both sublimate the blemished self. Ways of persuading people to fight and die for the cause include:

(a) separating them from the real self by means of assimilation into the collective
(b) creating a make-believe self or a collective show
(c) making them hate the present and worship the future; the present is not only portrayed as miserable but is deliberately made so
(d) separating them from reality with the wall of dogma. Observation & experience are rejected in favor of doctrine which provides certitude. It is believed in, not understood.
(e) Keeping them in a state of fanaticism by inflaming passions & breaking down the will, thus transforming them into automatons. Constant fanning of the flames prevents the attainment of inner balance. Reason is ineffective in trying to free a fanatic from these mental chains.

Hoffer's view of how different political persuasions view past, present and future is an interesting aside: The conservative is like the skeptic, echoing the thoughts of Ecclesiastes about nothing new under the sun whilst the liberal (Hoffer means the Classical Liberal, not today's leftist types) considers the present the legitimate offspring of the past, a springboard towards a better future.

On the other hand, both the reactionary and the radical hate the present. They differ only in their opinion on human nature's potential for change. The radical is convinced that human nature is perfectible whilst the reactionary believes the opposite.

Fanatics occupy the same space on the political spectrum which is circular, not linear. The real difference is between the fanatics and the moderates of all ideologies. It is the temperament, not the ideological content that is crucial: fanatics often move from one form of extremism to another: communism, fascism, xenophobic nationalism, religious intolerance. Sinisterism by Bruce Walker offers more insight into this phenomenon.

The unifying agents are hatred, imitation, brainwashing (although Hoffer believes that the power of propaganda is overrated and that it merely justifies & articulates opinions already present in the minds of recipients), leadership, action and suspicion.

His observations on the impulse to convert are most arresting. The missionary zeal emanates from a profound uncertainty, an aching inner void. Proselytizing is a search for something instead of a gift, a quest to confirm that the fanatic's faith is indeed the absolute truth.

Three personality types are influential in mass movements: (a) men of words (b) fanatics (c) men of action. The first prepares the ground, the second initiates/dominates the active phase and the 3rd consolidates. Hoffer remarks that the first, whether they be journalists, academics or priests, thirst for recognition & a status above the rest of mankind. They are often the first victims of what they have unleashed. The fanatic thrives on chaos & destruction. The man of action rescues the movement from the recklessness of the fanatic; when he assumes control the active phase comes to an end.

In conclusion, Hoffer discusses good & bad movements, the sterility of the active phase and some factors that determine its length, plus useful mass movements. The book concludes with notes arranged by chapter, a portrait and brief biography of the author.

This book was recommended by Mark Levin on his radio program. I was interested and so ordered it through Amazon and finished reading it a few weeks back.

First, my hats off to Mr. Hoffer. A self-educated man who witnessed the evils of the 20's, 30's, and 40's and came to the conclussion that those decades were not aberations.

There have always been mass movements and they all tend to share the same characteristics. Also, they share the same type of leaders - those who preach while safely in the rear - and the followers who perform the dirty work.

This years - 2008 - political election gives a prime example of a mass movement with the slogans of hope and change.

On a side note, I just finished the novel Gai-Jin by James Clavell. It is interesting how the use of a mass movement is used in this novel.

I recommend this book to anyone trying to understand lemming-like behavior. Beware - it is for the serious reader.

A very short book that demands introspection and thought from the reader.

Although written 50+ years ago I walked away with a much better understanding of current events, especially the radical Islamic movement and environmentalist.

This book may validate your preconceived notions about those movements you disagree with, but it will also directly challenge those you may support. Hoffer does not take sides and you quickly learn that radicals, regardless of their political/religious beliefs, have more in common with each other than they do with the public in general.

Should be essential reading for kids entering college. If nothing else, it would provide them with a neutral starting point.

Read this years ago and it was a mind blower. A clear, concise, well written book that is as valid today as it was 30 yrs. ago. A Philosopher that all can read and understand. His view on the world at that time. Not an author who is trying to impress academia but a brilliant man reaching the masses, at least those who read. Recommended for all thinking people.

This book is a real gem. To begin with, it is the first publication of an American legend: Eric Hoffer. A self-educated central valley farm worker and San Francisco longshoreman, Hoffer's abilities of self-expression are enviable and the penetrating insights of his writings are astonishing.

He wrote this book in the early days of the Cold War and the specter of communism pervades the book from beginning to end. However, his central thesis is that mass movements - whether they are nationalist, religious, political or otherwise - are all essentially driven by the same types of people and all follow more-or-less the same organizational trajectory. Indeed, he frequently notes that the most likely recruits for one mass movement are members of another, even if they are diametrically apart in philosophy. For instance, Hoffer claims that Hitler, who hated communists with a passion that rivaled that he held for the Jews, viewed rank-and-file German Bolsheviks as valued targets to join the Nazi party.

What makes "The True Believer" an important read today is how directly it applies to the current focus of American foreign policy: Islamic fundamentalism in general and specifically al-Qaeda. A Navy SEAL recently back from Afghanistan encouraged me to read "The True Believer" in the context of the War on Terror and I'm glad he did. It is amazing to read Hoffer and then a book like Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize winning "The Looming Tower" about the genesis and development of al-Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. The parallels between al-Qaeda's history as told by Wright and Hoffer's hypothesis on the nature of mass movements is uncanny.

Hoffer writes that mass movements start with a "man of letters" who has likely been rejected by his society in ways real or imagined and who has little appetite or ability to lead. In the case of al-Qaeda, the man of letters would be Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian scholar who penned one of the most influential Islamist tracts ever - "Milestones" - and who was executed by the secular regime of Gamel Abu Naser in 1966.

Next, Hoffer argues that the philosophy laid down by the man of letters is embraced by the "fanatic," who has the charisma and will power to put the thoughts into action. For al-Qaeda, the fanatic role was played, of course, by Osama Bin Laden and to a lesser extent by Egyptian Ayman Zawahiri and Palestinian Sheikh Abdullah Azzam.

The rank-and-file drawn to these movements, Hoffer writes, are rarely the most poor or desperate in society, but rather those just below a comfortable existence or those who have long felt an outsider or humiliated and long for an identity and redemption through a cause, almost any cause. It is known that most of the radicals drawn to al-Qaeda's banner are from prosperous families, well-educated and often have had interactions with the West.

"The True Believer" is less than two hundred pages and can easily be read and digested in a few sittings. It should be noted that Hoffer's arguments are based almost solely on first-hand observations and his own voracious reading from public libraries up-and-down California. There is no scientific method to his research or academic rigor applied to his findings. I would imagine that mainstream sociologists in the academy sneer at Hoffer and his theses, but that is just an educated guess. Nevertheless, this is a classic that is absolutely worthwhile.

Steinbock et al present an excellent series of essays & articles that provide a quality overview of some of the key issues in bioethics. Almost all of the major figures in the field are represented and, likewise, most of the major views are as well. The majority of the essays are accessible and do not require much prior knowledge.

My only complaint stems from the fact that the editors deleted the footnotes from numerous articles, severely limiting follow-up research. Oh, and PowerWeb is next to useless.

All-in-all this is an excellent textbook for a general bioethics course or to gain a solid understanding of the field.

Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine is a fantastic way to familiarize yourself with the central and most controversial issues in the contemporary biomedical ethics. Euthanasia, abortion, genetic engineering and cloning, surrogate motherhood, procreative autonomy - all these and several other topics are featured in this book. I especially liked the fact that in the discussion of each issue both sides of the debate are equally presented, which allows one to learn the major arguments of all sides and therefore obtain a fairly objective perspective on the subject.

The only problem that I had with this book was the amazingly uneven quality of the articles. Along with truly outstanding articles by brilliant philosophers, the composers of this anthology unfortunately chose to include some essays by self-proclaimed ethical experts, who are nothing but charlatans lacking the fundamental philosophical concepts and concealing this in the shroud of demagoguery. "Cloning human DNA is morally wrong because... mmm.. well, because it's unnatural" - isn't not an argument, and too many of the articles in the book resolve on this sort of "philosophy."

That being said, overall this book still is a great opportunity to gain insight into the most interesting problems in today's biomedical ethics. And of course, some of the articles are simply superb - for example, Judith Thomson's article on abortion is the paradigm of everything written on the subject. Therefore, I suggest in case you want to be able to distinguish between good articles on biomed ethics and some aweful crap read Judith Thomson's Realm Of Rights. This will give you a good understanding of what constitutes a moral right, and what rights we are entitled to.

This is not directly a review, though I did find the information contained within Waltz's book to be very interesting. I took issue with his state-centric viewpoint however. For those of you more interested in the concept of 'individual analysis' that Waltz brushes aside, see the article "Let us now praise great men: bringing the statesmen back in" by Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack. The literature review section in particular deals with refuting Waltz theoretical conceptions from this book.

IR scholars has long debated on which level of analysis is the most appropriate and helpful level in approaching international relations. In his seminal book Man, the State, and War, Kenneth N. Waltz becomes the first to analyze the political philosophy behind each level of analysis and their interaction with one another. Unlike his later writings in which he develops a purely structural theory of international relations, in Man, the State, and War Waltz offers a more balanced view on the importance of each "images" for the study of world politics: "the `third image' describes the framework of world politics, but without the first of and second images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy," (238).
To briefly summarize Waltz's images, the "first image" is about human nature. Human-nature accounts explain war by analyzing the common characteristics (or defects) of human beings. These theories tend to attribute war to an "ultimate cause" that derives from human nature: "the root of all evil is man, and thus he is himself the root of the specific evil, war," (3). Waltz's problem with searching for an "ultimate cause," however, is that ultimate causes frequently turn out to be the cause of everything. Therefore, Waltz criticized theories that explain war through human nature by arguing that human nature is the cause of as many good (and benign) things as evil ones (39).
The "second image" is about the characteristics of states: "the idea that defects in states cause wars among them," (83). Waltz analyzes several state-level accounts of war and peace some of which are very fashionable today, such as the peaceful nature of democracies and peaceful impact of free trade. The notion here is similar to the first image, if "bad" states (such as non-democratic or interventionist) can be erased then there will be no war (119). However, Waltz notes that there is no guarantee that good states will not revert to war. Waltz rejects state-level theories that would rely "on the generalization of one pattern of state and society to bring peace to the world," (122).
The "third image" is the international system. The absence of a world government renders the international system an anarchical one; and "in anarchy there is automatic harmony," (160). Thus, wars occur "because there is nothing to prevent them," (232). Waltz tends to view third image as the most important account of war among nations. Yet unlike in his later theorizing, he underlines the importance of the other two images: "we still have to look to motivation and circumstance in order to explain individual acts," (231). Hence, multiple levels of analysis.
My personal view on the levels of analysis question is that among the three different levels from which IR scholars approached to the study of conflict among states, state-level approach has been the most productive and helpful in terms of accounting for the conflict among states and providing us clues as to how to reduce or manage them. Thus, I do not share Waltz's inclination to the third image in Man, the State, and War. Yet in the final analysis, any single level is incomplete by itself. Waltz's Man, the State, and War is important for being the first to analyze the philosophical foundations of each levels of analysis and to argue the complementary relationship among them. "The real problem of IR scholars," Lipson observed, is "to integrate choice and structure," (1884, p. 20). And a successful integration of choice and structure inevitably requires making use of systemic as well as state-level theories. Indeed, this is the current trend in both theoretical approaches (Moravcsik 1997; Gilpin 2001) to and empirical analyses (Huth 1996) of international relations.

This work by Waltz is one of the cornerstone texts in international relations theory and is a must read for any serious student of the subject.

Essentially, Waltz uses three `images' to attempt to explain why states go to war. These images are, briefly, i) human nature, ii) the nature of states and iii) the state system, and he concludes that while all three levels are important, that it is the state system (ie that it is anarchical) that causes states to go to war.

Like all theories in IR, this one assists in building a picture of how and why states behave, but it is not a stand alone theory of state behaviour. No matter whether your beliefs are realist, liberal or strongly Marxist in describing states, this book adds an important element into the mix.

This asks some of the most important questions in political science. This was the book that launched Waltz's career, and it remains the most important book he has written. His question of war and his depressing conclusions are actually secondary to his method. He philosophically examines the question from three different angles in an inciteful and useful way. While some of it may seem obvious now, it wasn't in the 50s, and while it can be daunting to anyone without a background in philosophy and political science, it is a seminal work. Every scholar should take a look from different angles as Waltz has done.

This book has legs! I read it first in graduate school in 1969. I was impressed with the argument then, and still appreciate its power now. He identifies a key problem as (page 12) "identifying and achieving the conditions of peace. . ." He notes that, over time, three separate views have dominated discourse on the causes of war (and how to achieve peace): (a) human nature is the root cause; (b) the structure of states is the key factor; (c) the international system itself is the major variable.

The book proceeds in a linear fashion. First, he examines the variety of arguments locating the cause of war in human nature. However, he also notes that to link human nature to war is not easily done (there is, of course, much debate over exactly what human nature is--or even if there is such a given nature), and that political matters must be taken into account. As he considers the contributions of the behavioral sciences, he notes that (page 79) "The more fully behavioral scientists take account of politics, the more sensible and the more modest their efforts to contribute to peace become."

The second level of analysis is the structure of states themselves. He notes that some have argued that if the state had a proper structure, then peace would result. He considers, for instance, liberal theorists of the 19th century who made that point. One problem: While trying to create more liberal states, what about those illiberal ones who may engage in conflict? What then? The structure of the state won't prevent self-defense. Indeed, some liberals, like Thomas Paine, wanted to use force to democratize the world.

The final level of analysis is the structure of the international system itself. The main point here is that that system can be termed "anarchy." There is no central force to prevent outbreaks of violence. So, violence will occur. Interestingly, he begins the chapter on international anarchy with a quotation from Cicero (page 159) "For what can be done against force without force." States need to protect themselves when there is no mechanism to maintain peace; they will act in their national interest when threatened. The end result is the possibility of war whenever a country might be threatened. In Waltz' words (page 227): "According to the third image, there is a constant possibility of war in a world in which there are two or more states each seeking to promote a set of interests and having no agency upon which they can rely for protection."

In short, all three levels (images) must be understood. None is irrelevant. But the key to understanding war is the state of international anarchy. The book holds up well over time. It still presents a useful message, albeit from the hard-nosed realist position. Neocons won't like the argument that changing the structure of states won't make a lot of difference as long as there is international anarchy. Anyhow, for those interested in a fairly hard-headed analysis, this book still serves a useful purpose.

I think this is a good book. I thought I would be able to use it for my 11 year old even though it is recommended for 13 and up. I read a few pages myself and though it was a very interesting book.

The brothers Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn have written an easy to understand book in the common fallacies of reasoning that break logical arguments. As an elderly reader who has forgotten much of the material, it is a refreshing and humorous reminder of these basic fallacies. Written for a 7th grade reading ability, it nonetheless is enjoyable for all ages. Critical thinking is a lost discipline in modern life since the government schools deliberately dumb down education to keep the masses stupid. Coming from a Christian world view these home school taught boys revive this lost discipline in a fun manner.

This book sparked many wonderful discussions at the dinner table. Our teens easily used the collection of tools offered in The Fallacy Detective to logically analyze the news of the day--what a confidence builder for them! This book certainly encourages conversation and involvement in one's world.

Hoping to ignite good mealtime conversation and teach my children some reasoning skills, I began reading this book to my family at the dinner table. Once I reached chapter two, our conversation turned to how the authors used so many fallacies themselves. In the first two paragraphs of chapter two, where the lessons begin, they used three fallacies, one in the first sentence.

The writing is also lacking. For example, these homeschooled authors improperly used "which" multiple times. As a homeschooling dad, I found it troubling that they displayed such a lack of basic skills.

I gave the book two stars instead of one, because their ideas are solid. Their presentation, however, is sorely lacking.

Can somebody please tell me why a "Christian perspective" has to mean "creationist perspective"? This is not a group with which I want to identify.

Every creationist who has read this first sentence will probably dart down to click the "not helpful" button before reading on, and this is precisely the kind of non-thinking that I wish to avoid imparting to my children. For this reason, I will be throwing out my copy of this book.

I found this book terrible because it mixes legitimate learning with propaganda, a most insidious and distasteful form of lying. It does give good coverage of fallacies, but it sneaks in little bits of dogma, particularly creationist dogma, which is 100% unbackable, and which has zero right to show up in a book about critical thinking - particularly as it is presented in the manner outlined in the chapter on repetition propaganda. Students really ought to be encouraged to start with the evidence and work toward an unbiased conclusion, rather than starting with the conclusion and digging around for evidence. The authors outline common fallacies and then commit the fallacies to promote a political agenda, which I find highly unsavory.

The book also contradicts itself many times - for example, it calls a quotation from an expert a valid appeal to authority, but then goes on to attempt to discount the peer-reviewed findings of every legitimate scientist since 1900. It warns about the danger of equivocation - changing the definition of a word partway through an argument - and then goes on to warn against scientific "theories" as if they were unsupported guesses, calling them "repetition propaganda" just because every scientist you ask will agree about them. In science, in order to be classified as a theory, an idea must be supported by 100% of the available evidence. It is not the same as the common definition of the word, which the authors attempt to apply, sneakily, to the theories of scientists.

With a few pages torn out, it might just make a relatively good textbook, but why take the trouble? Critical thinking does not deserve to be mixed with dogma. Find a real logic book.

This is the textbook I used for my Ethics class at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. It is a fantastic collection of ethical thought spanning 2,400 years. I was very surprised to realize how much of our own ethical thought, as well as legal system, is based on the beliefs and essays of previous philosophers. The best parts of this book are the introductions. Because this book is composed of exerpts from larger works, the introductions do a splendid job of giving the authors' historical background and explaining their writings. The introductions are so clear and concise that one could probably just read them and understand the ideas and arguments perfectly.

An observation and common criticism of the book, both in this little Amazon fishbowl and elsewhere, is that Nozick takes givens, starts the arguments, and proceeds without initial justification of his givens.

The charge is accurate. So throughout the logic of the case he builds one finds comments like, "This does not take seriously the person as an individual" with no support or clarification. What are these statements? Are they broad appeals to what everyone has already recognized through some moral sensory apparatus, a moral fact? Are they simply what Nozick has taken as true beyond dispute, or at least, beyond fruitful argument?

Some times they are. Some times, as with property rights, Nozick has simply accepted the work of previous thinkers, there John Locke. Are there flaws with Locke's property rights base? Yes, indeed there are flaws with any theory, and one must accept the least flawed if he ever wants to advance to a higher subject. This is especially true of ethics. But Locke is certainly no insignificant thinker, but rather a reliable starting point of an analysis. And what the author perceives as commonly accepted (but not necessarily unanimously accepted) principles are fair game when one is presenting an argument--without such data, we have nothing but skepticism unbounded.

And yet many seem intent on criticizing Nozick for not reinventing the wheel--for simply filling in gaps in other theories, weaving certain ones together in new ways without going through the substrata of the entire philosophy of Western civilization, doublechecking each vein.

I find that criticism unfair. Each writer, each theoretician, must accept certain truths to begin with, accept some axioms and from thence go forward. It simply won't do to demand an entire universe in every book. Some times the premisses a writer starts with will be bizarre to the reader, and so he will not accept the conclusions. Those skeptical of "rights" in general will find trouble accepting where we are led--and if the premisses started with are so absurd perhaps we can rebuke the author for his warped view on reality. But nothing presumed here can be dismissed so easily. You may charge, accurately, that Nozick has yet to prove the existence of external reality, and ergo, this political argument is unsupported. But you're a silly person to do so.

And some of you take the idea that a progressive tax could be immoral to be simply insane, and thus you find the book's conclusion contrary to reality as such. But I tell you the quality of the book is not merely its truth (though I do believe Nozick has presented here a powerful moral truth), but also the case Nozick builds from the (often widely-held) premisses he selects, and the mastery and beauty of that case. I don't think anyone can fairly deny the grandness of what he has done here. (I am not arguing that truth is insignificant--I am arguing it is one of many components of quality).

To be honest, I loved this book. I loved the honesty, I loved the politics he justified, I loved the vibrancy of Nozick's arguments, the freshness of his methods, the power of the Rawlsian critique, the dangling tantalizing questions. I loved the parts I agreed with and those I didn't agree with.

I loved the setup--the journey through economic theory to bring us a just minimal state from the anarchist's state of nature. I loved the detours along the way--the discussion of animal rights, utilitarianism, punishment and deterrence. I loved the minimal state, and the crisp arguments that ruled any increase in it immoral. I loved the discussion of utopia, born like dessert after a full meal, a whole new set of fun arguments, providing us with more rich analytic devices, and exploding possibilities.

I loved Nozick's style--never, not for a second, patronizing. Smart, quick, concise and dense, poignant with its thoughts, and yet neighborly, polite, forthright and friendly. Were I not already a libertarian I'd be one now. Were I not already interested in philosophy, I would be now. Were I not already an ardent Nozick groupie, I would be now.

There is a passage where Nozick gives a short paean to Rawls, the beauty of his theory, the mastery of his technique. Surely Rawls deserves it, but there can be no doubt that after this work, Nozick deserves no less glowing praise. It is hard to stress sufficiently the warmth and artistry of what the author accomplishes: the birth of a political philosophy, and a journey there with every step amazing. No cliches, no tricks, just light.

With this book, the libertarians have carved a slice of truth from the world. We can be defeated--but now we must at least be faced.

Nozick's argument for individual rights as a response to Rawls's "Theory of Justice" is very strong in many ways. although his acceptance of the Lockean proviso is a sticking point for many (and, Hampton would argue, for Nozick himself), His careful look at property rights shows some of the best political thinking in the 20th century.
Unlike the proverbial anarchist, he does see the state as necessary to securing the property rights he so vigorously defends.
I highly recommend this work to anyone wishing to better understand the philosophical argument for libertarianism. The writing and reasoning are clear and easy to follow.

To understand this work in the context of the other major theories of distributive justice, I also recommend reading Rawls's "Justice As Fairness: A Restatement", Hampton's "Political Philosophy", and Simmons's "Moral Priniciples and Political Obligations".

Nozick's trenchant arguments for freedom emanate from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spirited quality omniscient in his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout. He clearly derived much joy from the pursuit of philosophy.

To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means through which other individuals may attain ends. From this conviction issues the right to life, liberty and property. The first part is devoted to finding justification for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.

He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by isolating through analysis the detailed procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force is applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to defending society from outside coercion, deterring & punishing force & fraud and ensuring the honoring of contracts.

Nozick then proceeds to criticize any type of state of which the power exceeds the minimal, a harmful entity that inevitably wrongs the sovereign individual.

Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in acquisition (& in rectification should it be violated), holding and transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just; it is a non-patterned principle. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen." Justice is not a passive state but a process.

Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, their style & reasoning differ markedly. Nozick's analytical method is far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.

Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres which in any case overlap in many instances. "Capitalist acts between consenting adults" is an example of the way he clarifies with wit.

And in confronting the lunatic fringe represented by Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and impossible in reality.

Back to the statist side, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, illustrating the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism by means of innovative and memorable arguments.

His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on the fact that they require a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfarism smothers citizens in perpetual adolescence so that they conflate rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth leading to selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.

What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements. This process also transforms those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant adolescents, a situation that brings to mind another Nozickian saying: "Marxist exploitation is the exploitation of people's lack of understanding of economics."

Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly restores individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses is enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, drugs, sex and rock `n roll (sigh ... no, but a word or two would have been rapturous).

Oddly enough, this book first came to my attention when I bought The Patti Smith Group's Radio Ethiopia way back in the late 70s. The artwork inside showed a disheveled Patti sitting against a brick wall with the slogan VIVE L'ANARCHIE. Thus the punk band's Anarchy & Ethiopia became associated with Nozick's Utopia in the mind of a confused teenager.

Finally, the utopian concept is explored.

A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.

The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the influence that Anarchy, State & Utopia has exercised on various other disciplines.

I appreciate Nozick's remarkable insight, his analytical excellence and his admirable elucidatory skills. But it is the exuberance, the optimism implying meaning and purpose, and above all the love of life radiating from his writing that resonate with this reader.

Nozick's A, S, and U is a great work of philosophy; not merely for its clear and forceful arguments, but because of its ability to act like a textbook. With ASU, you get a broad coverage of political theories, ethical theories, theories about argument, economics, government and more. Highly recommended for anyone who is doing philosophy at an undergraduate level.

When I neared the end of this book, I was learning so much, I couldn't believe how I drudged through it in the beginning. Except that I did so for a reason.

This book is divided into 10 chapters. The first 6 answer claims of anarchists--they establish the existence of the state as legitimate. These 6 chapters are tedious, tedious reading. To be honest, I got very little out of them. Yet, you have to read these to be able to understand the rest of the book (sadly).

The reason? Chapters 7-10 are flat out GREAT. He crushes the welfare state beautifully, humiliates Marxism, and so on. Excellent stuff. I got tons out of these chapters.

So, half of this book is tedious drudgery (though still very brilliant stuff, to be sure), while the other half is very beneficial and enjoyable.

Recommended, with conditions.