Philosophy Books

This book rocks: it explodes several myths about life, some of which we tend to hold on dearly. To put it mildly, this book will have a positive impact on the reader. Since life on earth is all about action, if the actions recommended - i.e., 'Inner Engineering' yoga practice - are taken, it will have even better impact. In fact that is likely to be an effect of this book: to spur you into positive action. Doing it is not difficult. You only have to give yourself a chance. And it is most likely that you will not be disappointed. For its health benefits alone it is worth doing. I speak from my experience practicing a similar kind of yoga. As a big bonus, the book reads like a racy novel (peppered with humor), that is also thought provoking. Any which way you see it, this is a 'must read'!

What a great look into an American success story and how even creating such external life comforts still cannot create the joy we are all meant to experience. Cheryl has a real talent for sharing her experience and Sadhguru's wisdom just blew me away. I plan to buy this book for friends and family and take some of Isha Foundation's courses. Thanks for writing and sharing this work.

I give the book only 3 stars because much of it is about the author. Frankly, I'm not interested in her life's history. I want to know what the "mystic" has to say.
Also, how do we know everything in the book isn't made up? The questions and answers from their conversations are recorded in great detail, however, there isn't any mention of anyone carrying around a pen and paper. Could this book be just a fictional public relations piece? Jaggi may be a mystic, but I guess I'm a skeptic.

So refreshing a book! Compelling, intriguing, straight forward. No beating around the bush. Love it! It is written with humor, sincerity and great depth without being another of those heavy to read books that you start reading but never end.

It is a fascinating personal story of Cheryl, her yearning to know more about this life we all live day in day out and her conversations with her spiritual teacher (what a guy!). I found myself in her story many times, I am sure you will too: successful in worldly terms, treasures friendships, thrilling hobbies, great work - yet - in some way not enough. I always knew I need to find answers to those questions most of us ask ourselves when we are teenagers but then give up, disappointed by the vague, sluggish talk of the adults surrounding us.

Definitely this book I'd give to many of my friends interested in the yogic world and of course to all those who have not even started looking for more, work colleagues, fellow executives.

It is rare to find a book that reads easy while conveying deep stuff.

I had hoped the chapters to have more Q & A sessions with Sadhguru but the first few chapters were about Cheryl and her life...

She often writes her chapters like a novel(why do I have to know which way the breeze is blowing?)...she needs to skip all the niceties and just focus on her questions with Sadhguru and share his insight with us..

BEST BOOK I HAVE EVER READ. I SENT THIS BOOK TO A PERSON IN PRISON AND
HE SAID HE READ IT WITHIN AN HOUR. HE FOUND IT TO BE SOMEWHAT RELIGIOUS SINCE THERE A REFRERENCES TO THINGS IN THE BIBLE. HE LOVED IT AND IT HAS BEEN A GREAT ENCOURAGEMENT TO HIM.

Simple, eloquent, fantastic. Thank goodness for James Allen's definitive work on the power of our thoughts to shape our world.

This particular version has sloppy editing and many typos, but the power of Allen's work comes through loud and clear. The rest of us humans are fortunate he took the time to put thoughts to paper.

I am very pleased with my order. The book was in excellent condition and was swiftly delivered.

Thanks!

Inspired by God and written by Solomon, this proverb is simple and to the point. What a great read!

James Allen set the stage for recent successes like The Secret. As A Man Thinketh is a profound view of the cause and effect relationship between thoughts and experiences. It is short, but dense with ideas. These are revolutionary ideas about controlling what happens in our life based on the way we think about things. They are ideas that are gaining momentum and acceptance. I highly recommend this book.

Louis Pojman does an excellent job of discussing ethical decision making by presenting a variety of arguments and analyzing each one in a variety of different situations. He uses a wide scope of information from ethicists, philosophers and Christian teachings to promote self examination of your own personal code of ethics, all the while reminding you of what is at the core of ethical decisions: people. This thought provoking and unique look at ethics will challenge the reader and help them in their personal interactions and ethical decision making.

Pojman does a superb job of illustrating many different approaches to ethics, providing examples of practical application of each. This helps the reader develop a critical mind, capable of reasoning his or her way through ethical dilemmas that we all face on a daily basis. Pojman is not afraid to go for the jugular on approaches in which he finds serious flaws, such as cultural and ethical relativism. The reader will find that Pojman does not adhere to one ethical theory in particular, but rather calls for reason and judgment, based on strong moral principles, in every situation. Some situtations call for a utilitarian approach, some for a virtue-ethical approach. Whatever approach he takes, however, will be based in thorough and sound reasoning. This book makes its readers want to be better people.

I find it amazing that this book is so popular -- currently in its fifth edition. It is, to put it bluntly, filled with mistakes that no professional philosopher (not to mention one who specializes in ethics!) should ever make. Crucial distinctions are omitted, problems are mischaracterized, basic views are caricatured, contemporary developments are ignored... and so on, throughout the text. The attractiveness of this book lies in its clear, accessible prose... but unfortunately, it ends there, as well; precision and accuracy are sacrificed throughout. When it comes to Pojman, stick with the anthologies.

First of all this book is way overpriced here (or maybe in general in English). I own a translated copy which was like 10-15$.

As for the content, at one hand it is the best general overview with many fun examples from literature. It is much better than Rachels's book for example.

On the other hand Pojmans discussions about objectivism (ch. 3) and his chapters on relativism (2), value (4) and meta-ethics (11-12)are deeply confused. The biggest confusion seems to stem from the fact that he does not adequately distinguish between the meta-level and the normative level.

His arguments for normative objectivism seem to get their strength from some realist or meta-ethical objectivist assumptions that aren't given any arguments for. His arguments against Mackie and Harman on meta-level depend on his own assumptions on normative level - he just mixes the meta-level stuff with normative level stuff. His discussion of value is again strange - he says in one footnote that he didn't really need to make a difference between intrinsic value in the sense of end-value (something that is valued as an end in itself) and realist intrinsic value (value that is part of the fabric of the universe, sometimes called inherent value). But that is a very very important distinction since there might be values that are of the first kind while I would deny that there are any of the second kind. He simply dismisses it and then goes on to talk about both interrelatedly and not making clear which he has in mind at the time.

All in all read it if you have to, but if you want to get a good overview on contemporary ethics (especially meta-ethics, which is the foundation to all) start somewhere else. Having some prior understanding of the issues at hand would be good if you intend to read it - this would enable you to see where Pojman commits mistakes.

Pojman does an excellent job of covering a lot of ground in this relatively short book. The writing is clear and easy to understand. However, I would not say that this book invites readers to discover their own ethical theories, as the back cover claims, because Pojman clearly discounts certain ethical theories and embraces others. Rather than discovering right and wrong on one's own, the reader instead is led down a path that discounts relativism and embraces objectivism and virtue ethics. Those aren't bad conclusions to reach, but the author should let the reader reach those conclusions instead of reaching them for him. It can be frustrating to read as Pojman declares a moral theory incorrect when, as the reader, one still sees merit in it.

This is a very interesting book to read for a class or not. It makes you think in various directions regarding issues that you may not think about otherwise. A good discussion starter as well.

In the first part of the book, Riggiero provides scenarios to dismiss ethics based on the majority view, relativism, feelings, conscience, and culture. This is counter to those who propose following your "gut", or "do what feels good". In the second part of the book, he offers a procedural ethics based on obligation, moral ideas, and consequences.

The real meat of the book are "inquiries"; examples of ethical problems for the reader to work. They also promote a vague uneasiness of how difficult some of these short scenarios are. The uneasiness is useful and caused me to think deeper about the dilemmas. Students who are used to memorization, or looking for a "correct answer" may be frustrated. This book is not about the history of ethics (and that chapter is perhaps too sparse), or ethical theory, but about the process of thinking. My own desire for more worked samples, may indicate my uneasiness and search for a crutch of a supplied answer. I would urge also each professional reader, to look at his own professional organization's code of ethics, in light of possible scenarios that may be encountered.

I thought this book was a very well written book on Ethics. I used it for my Ethics class in junior college, and it was so well written, and very concise. It discusses ethical issues, as well as teaches the reader how to make good ethical choices. It discusses in each chapter in depth how each process in the decision process should be made, and gives many dilemmas, and examples at the end of each chapter. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Ethics

Very well written for the established learner - could prove frustrating for novice students. Many case studies with real world events to allow interactive exchange btw students - but requires professorial oversight to get beyond group think, interpersonal dynamics, and subjective bias.

A quick run-down for the lazy:
- The overview of philosophical thinkers is absurdly short.
- The history of ethics is also woefully abrubt.
+ it's fairly easy to read.
- lacks depth of analysis, contains strawman argument, circular logic, and other logical flaws.
- author insists on existance absolutes
- author frequently mixes up the meanings of ethics and morality.

Ruggiero focuses on pro-western attitudes, Christians, and christian apologists in the formation of his theories. He quotes studies out of context and uses rediculous extremes to underline 'grey areas' of argument. Often times the 'challenges' or questions in his text are flatly one sided or all too easy to answer.

I view this as a high school level text, wholly inadequate for college use, and decidedly biased.

Nevertheless, it's a good starting point for someone young and curious about ethics. I don't think it ever hurts to consider viewpoints, even faulty ones. Though I agree with much of the thrust of ethical position/slant of the text, I bridle at the abuse of logic and the strained conclusions.

Always be on the lookout for strawman argument, argument by anecdote, and appeal to emotions. These are huge logical flaws which destroy any argument no matter how well intended.

John Maynard Keynes is the collectivist's savior. Finally, the welfare statist thinks, someone who actually makes my ideas sound good to economists. Unfortunately, Keynes's theory is nothing new. It should be incredibly obvious to any non-professional that if a large entity (government) decides to spend a lot of money over a short period of time, then in the short term there will be very pleasurable effects. In the long term, however, a large sum of money spent by the government will have very harmful effects, distorting the price system and creating inflation, whereas a large sum of money spent by a private entity will have a sustained benefit on the economy.

One sometimes hears that money is the root of all evil. Keynes would agree, but not because of any animosity towards the profit motive (Keynes was definitely not a socialist and he even agreed with and endorsed Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"), but because in an economy using money imbalances between the value in any currency of demand and the value of supply are possible.

Virtually all economists accept the price mechanism which speedily reconciles any imbalance between supply and demand. The macroeconomy is the sum of all markets and should therefore be more or less in equilibrium. The great French economist Jean-Baptiste Say formulated this in one of the rare laws in economics : every aggregate supply creates a corresponding aggregate demand. The law definitely holds in a barter economy, because even if products or services are not consumed they are lent out to others who will use them. Hoarding purchasing power by keeping money to put under the matress is impossible... without money.

Money makes it possible to have leakages of purchasing power because money received by selling goods or services is not spent. If money earned is not consumed it is by definition saved. Usually this would mean that these sums are made available to individuals or companies in need of capital so that savings are equal to investment. Any imbalance would be readjusted by a change in the interest rate.

Keynes pointed out that saving is not necessarily synonimous with investment viz. that savings can be hoarded as money and that there are good reasons for doing so.

A classic, definitely not an easy read. Keynes brings his economic phillosphies into the light. Not the kindest author but his chapter The Marginal Efficiency of Capital is epic and relivent today. Published in 1936, this book stands the test of time and allows you to develop a mental model of numerous business cycles. Who's reading Keynes? Warren Buffet, he quotes Keynes like everyone else quotes Shakespeare.

You must all please remember that Keynes was first-and-foremost a socialist. His overall goal in creating his theories was to "prove" that socialist economic theories could function in the world of the early 20th century. Read Keynes thru this screen, and you'll understand what he's attempting (unsuccessfully) to do.

I gave this book a 5 star rating for the following reason: if you can overcome it's dryness and reliance on theories of little substance, you will see that socialism at large is truely bunk. (having been educated formally in Keynsian theory, disproving it, and all it's socialist correlaries, is a passion of mine) Please remember as you read this; if socialism and Keynesian economics was a viable theory for governments to function, the governments of the entire old eastern communist block would still be alive and functioning in their pre-1992 forms, and quasi-socialist countries the world over would be growing ever larger than the US economy once they've moved out of their manufacturing based economies and joined us in competing with other service based economies. (They have not been able to effectively compete beyond certain stages of growth)

Keynes' theory doesn't work. His own writings are more theory and fantasy than reality.

Keynes presented a generalization of neoclassical theory.Keynes starts the GT in chapter 2 where he analyzes the neoclassical theory of the labor market.He notes that the most advanced technical treatmant was presented by Pigou in his 1933 book,The Theory of Unemployment.Keynes demonstrates in the appendix to chapter 19 that Pigou's model of his theory is a special case of Keynes's general model developed in chapters 20 and 21.The primary result of neoclassical theory is that an optimum result (full employment)is obtained in the aggregate labor market if the aggregated real wage(w/p) equals the marginal product of labor(mpl) derived from an aggregated production function(O= phi(N)).This is expressed as w/p=mpl,where w is the money wage,p is the price level,and mpl is the aggregated marginal product of labor.In chapters 20 and 21 Keynes presented his mathematical analysis.This leads to his generalization of the quantity theory's equation of exchange,MV=PO,to incorporate uncertainty and the speculative demand for money besides risk and the transactions demand for money.There are two such generalizations.Chapter 20 analyzes the labor market and the commodity market.Mathematically,there are two ways of expressing Keynes's first generalization in chapter 20-w/p=mpl/ep or the more convenient w/p=mpl/(mpc+mpi).Unless the elasticity ep=1(ep can range from 0 to 1) or the mpc + mpi=<1,the RHS of both equations will rise .This requires that the money wage also rise.Neoclassical theory requires that the money wage fall.The condition that the elasticity ep equal 1 means the economy is operating on the boundary of the aggregate production possibilities function curve because the labor market clearing condition,w/p=mpl, is an economically efficient outcome.It is thus allocatively efficient and productively efficient.





In chapter 21,Keynes presents his generalization of the neoclassical equation of exchange with the money market added to the labor and commodity markets.The mathematical generalization now becomes w/p=mpl/e,where e is the elasticity that"... measures the response of money prices to the quantity of money in an aggregated economy"(GT,p.305-306).Unless e=1,where e can range between 0 and 1 ,as implicitly assumed by neoclassical economists,the RHS of the above equation will rise and it will be impossible for labor,in the aggregate, to cut its money wage as claimed by neoclassical theory in order to reduce unemployment.Again,the money wage will have to rise.



The final point that needs to be cleared up is that Keynes's aggregate supply function is correctly specified and analyzed mathematically in chapter 20 on p.283 and in a footnote on pp.55-56 of the GT.The reader must be able to apply simple integration to Keynes's derivatives.I give the steps below:



Go to footnote 1 on p.283 of the GT.Keynes defined P to be expected economic profit.The second line from the bottom of this footnote reads as " = delta P ", which is the same as" = dP".That should actually be " = delta P w subscript" due to either (a) a typographical error made by the printer in the GT or (b) because Keynes felt that it was obvious,since he divided D=Z through by w,to get Dw subscript = Zw subscript,which means that you must divide P by w.P is AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF WAGE UNITS.Pw subscript is equal to Dw subscript-N.Thus dP(or dPw subscript)=d(Dw subscript - N) =dDw subscript -dN.Simple integration gives the following result- Pw subscript=Dw subscript-N .Divide through by w and you obtain P=D-wN.Add wN to both sides.You get P+wN=D=pO or Z =D.Z=P+wN.w is the money wage.N is aggregate employment.p is the expected price level.O is real output,which is a function of N.D,the expected aggregate demand function,is thus equal to expected total revenue.Z,the expected aggregate supply function,is equal to total variable cost plus expected economic profit.

The same analysis and result is contained in footnote 2 on pp.55-56 of the GT.Keynes defines the derivative dZw subscript/dN=dphi(N)/dN =phi'(N)=1,where you use "d" instead of " delta " notation used by Keynes.Integrate to obtain Z=wN + C,where C is a constant of integration,after you divide through by w.We know that D=Z by definition and that D=pO from chapter 20.We get wN +C=pO or C=pO-wN once we subtract wN from both sides.By definition,C must be equal to actual profit if p is an actual price and expected profit if p is an expected price.Of course,if P=0,then you get Z=wN = total variable cost.(This is the case of constant returns to labor.Note that Keynes covered this case explicitly at the top of p.284, as well as on p.306 of the GT ,in chapter 21.)This,of course is the mistake that Don Patinkin made continuously from 1976-1989 in 3 books and 5 articles-failing to consider that Z is linear in both the diminishing returns and constant returns to labor cases.Of course,in the case of constant returns to labor,you would get a linear 45 degree cross representing the aggregate supply curve.The same mistake is made by all Post Keynesian economists like Sydney Weintraub, Paul Davidson,Douglas Vickers,Jan Kregel, Victoria Chick,Nevile,Skott and Dutt,etc.They fail to consider that Keynes worked with both cases, diminishing returns to labor as well as constant returns to labor,in his microeconomic analysis contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT.It is not surprising that the Post Keynesians can not deal with the technical analysis contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT and expressed by Keynes in the form of elasticities.Instead,they build their analysis on the claims of a mathematically illiterate economist named Dennis Robertson.It was Robertson who claimed that Keynes's theory of effective demand(D-Z analysis)was contained in chapter 3 of the GT.All Post Keynesians base their work on the assumption that Robertson was correct.Post Keynesians also confuse the D=Z locus,the aggregate supply curve,with Z,the aggregate supply function.All of these errors can be traced back to the original errors made by Dennis Robertson in correspondence with Keynes in Feb.-Mar.,1935 about the first 17 chapters of the GT.Keynes told Robertson very clearly that the anaysis of his D-Z model was in a chapter called the Employment Function.Chapter 20 of the GT is titled," The Employment Function ".After seventy years it is time for economists to read this chapter upon which KEYNES SAID EVERYTHING DEPENDS.
The reason why ed <1 ep <1,e <1, and mpc+mpi<=1 is that the decision to invest in long lived durable capital goods ,within an economic environment of technological and financial change,advance,and innovation,thus creating the problem of technological obsolescence,is made under conditions of Keynesian uncertainty or Ellsbergian ambiguity.Neoclassical theory postulates that there is no uncertainty or ambiguity,only risk ,which is universally represented as the standard deviation of a normal probability distribution.This means that aggregate investment expenditure will not be erratic,unstable,and insufficient over time.Involuntary unemployment can't result
Keynes argues,as does Daniel Ellsberg implicitly,that the assumption of normality is a special case.Hence ,Keynes's generalization that covers ambiguity and/or uncertainty.This means that aggregate investment will be erratic,unstable,unpredictable,and insufficient over time.Involuntary unemployment will result.

David Swensen has written a commendable book. Perhaps most commendable is his focus on ethical money management with a focus on fiduciary responsibility to the investor--a Birkshirean theme worth reiterating over and over.

The principal value of this book derives from its discussion on the use of alternative investments--such as private equity, market neutral strategies, and venture capital. Indeed, in the first paragraph of the books cover it is noted that "Largely focusing on nonconventional strategies, including a heavy allocation to private equity, Swensen has achieved an annualized return of 17.4%." Ironically, however, within the book Swensen writes in detail how and why private equity investing provides inferior risk adjusted returns vs. investment in plain vanilla marketable securities (e.g. S and P 500 index). This information is especially interesting given the recent investment by the Chinese government (purported disciples of David Swensen) in the Blackstone group IPO!!!!

Swenson's discussion about inferior risk adjusted returns provided by venture capital funds, his discussion about market neutral strategy returns, and his discussion about the importance of long term treasuries vs. other bond alternatives are equally interesting.

Overall, this book is good and differentiated, but somewhat inferior to other classics (e.g. One up on wall street by Peter Lynch, A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Malkiel, etc.). I would suggest waiting for the new edition of Pioneering Portfolio Management to come out instead of buying this older edition (2000)

I have recommended this book to numerous colleagues at work. We use it as a great summary of our investment philosophy and as a touchstone for investment values and sanity checks. We have purchased mutiple copies which we give to stakeholders to spread the word and bring them up to speed with these investment truths.

I've been a professional f.m. for 25 years and I wish I'd read this book closer to year 1 than year 25.

BTW we got far less incremental value out of Swensen's second book

This is an excellent book about the workings of an institutional portfolio and the various influences pulling at investment decisions.

Lots of good anecdotal stories of mis-steps by *other* institutions. I would love to hear about some mistakes that DS has made during his tenure.

He deals implicitly w/ agency issues that exist in most money management situations. For a more detailed explication of agency conflicts, read, "Unconventional Success".

He attributes a lot of manager success to luck. However, how much of DS's and Yale's success is due to luck? He does not subject his own performance (that of managing the managers) to any sort of benchmark.

Finally, he gives very short shrift to the back-office and operational issues (1 page at the end of the book). This is the achilles heel of 80% of management firms. They cannot scale, control, and maintain quality as they grow. This is the same, "Its all in the front office" mentality that presages so many other stumbles into mediocrity (not blow ups - just a benign drift downwards in rankings). I hope this same fate does not befall DS and Yale.

The marketing/techno-speak of the investment management industry sometimes gets to be overwhelming, this book can be an antidote. Swensen focuses on policy objectives, manager incentives, relative market (in)efficiencies and fundamental asset class characteristics to write a valuable resource for anyone considering the plethora of modern-day investment vehicles. Practically every concept is explained in language that is intelligible to someone with a basic understanding of the current investment markets. Absolutely worth the purchase.

Swensen is certainly one of the brightest minds in institutional money management. In a world where there are ten million books on how to pick stocks, trade options, or some other get rich quick scheme, finally a great investor shows the methodology of how significant wealth should be managed. This book is a must read for anyone who manages or invests significant money, even if it isn't institutional assets.

It provides wide range of practical applications, with plain English, colorful pages, step by step from basic to advanced approach. It has got answers at the back. I recommend it`s Instructor`s solutions manual as well...

The strength of this book is its organization. The reader is first introduced to the relation of arc length, radius, and angle. Then degrees and radians are learned. Then the unit circle is introduced. This is one of the best ways to learn trig.

The textbook presents the theory in a clear way that is easy to follow. If you were to read the chapter, you know enough to answer any of the problems. And if you were decided between texts, the layout of the problems of this text would be the reason to choose it. That is because of the science and real world applications of the problems. This is not "plug and chug." It is applying what was learned.

For me this book and the class in which it was used formed the foundation of all my latter math courses. This book has some pre-calculus problems, but that isn't its focus. Calculus has its advantages, but I always found trig to be more visual than most things in calculus. It is easier to picture what is actually going on in the math problem. But if you can relate your newly learned problem solving skills when approaching calculus problems, you will have no trouble.

One of my favorite problems in this book, which was included in the sixth edition on page 281, problem 71, is about an arched doorway. I don't know if the current versions have this problem. However it is worth researching. On my website (see my profile), I discuss this problem. And the excellent problems is what make this the best trig book I've seen.

one of the best trig books in the world. the same goes for algebra and trig (right triangle)by beecher and bittinger:1993 edition.

This book is all wisdom, from a mentor to a student/friend. It is written in such an eloquent style that it is almost poetic. It is a classic book inwhich I come back to over and over again. Get lost in the wisdom.

This is an enjoyable read. Ancient self-help for every man, not a dense philosophical treatise. Also, many opportunities to take a glimpse into the daily life of an ancient Roman; not so different from us, eh?

Stoicism has been much misunderstood, and the adjective "stoic," which loosely can be taken to mean bearing up under duress, is partly correct but does not do justice to one of the world's great philosophies. This Penguin volume presents a great selection from the letters of Seneca, which hits all the high points of the philosophy and captures Seneca's remarkable personality, which has made him a hit with the cognoscenti for 2,000 years. Few perhaps realize that the Stoics postulated a great commonwealth governed by law, or that they idealized democracy. Seneca mentions Solon the lawgiver as the creator of democracy and refers numerous times to the Roman Stoic saint, Cato, who strove mightily (and unsuccessfully) to preserve the Roman Republic.

Seneca, like other Stoics, has a doctrine of nature that is remarkably close to that of Emerson or modern American environmentalists. The wise man (sapiens) will never be bored when contemplating the simple things of nature. The natural beauty of the countryside and the healthful action of the waves can have a calming effect (although there's a memorable passage in which a storm causes terrible sea sickness). He also believed in the simple and strenuous life and the avoidance of luxury and decadence, and there are numerous passages in these letters to his disciple, Lucilius, which decry the ostentatious, self indulgent practices of his contemporaries. These are sentiments and ideas adopted by many in the modern world, including President Theodore Roosevelt. Seneca has no patience for philosophy as a word game or a practice of engaging in hair-splitting arguments for their own sake. He rather sees it as a practice or way of life that all those who seek the good should investigate and adopt. While the Stoics believed in democracy and republicanism, their doctrine of freedom is different from the modern idea of Liberty. Freedom was the ability to endure and pursue the good even under tyranny. While that may be admirable, modern commentators on liberty (such as Isaiah Berlin) have pointed out that defining down the range of one's actions is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of the absence of liberty in society or the world.

No stranger to power himself, Seneca virtually ruled Rome as tutor of the boy Nero--and yet he adopts a quite believable stance of simplicity and humility. It's a good bet these letters will still be found absorbing by readers for another 2,000 years.

Seneca was probably not the most original thinker of the Stoic school. His writing style was also not the most agreeable to many. However, Seneca has had a profound influence on many, many later writers. Pliny the Younger, St. Augustine, and Ralph Waldo Emerson all quote, and borrow from Seneca. With Marcus Aurelius, Seneca is one of the most accessible of the Stoics. He is also an invaluable source of information about Stoicism's rivals, Epicurus and his followers. This particular volume is also filled with very helpful notes, and it is a good place to start a journey with the stoics.

The letters in this book are full of nuggets of wisdom and quotable passages. Seneca isn't my favorite Stoic philosopher but this book is one of the easiest to read translations of an ancient text I have ever come across. It was worth adding to me library.

Miller and Page have written an excellent, very accessible introduction to complex systems as applied to social phenomena. They are especially careful in discussing inferences based on computer simulations. Since any computer simulation is an extreme reduction of real social interactions, it's necessary to be careful that a comparison between two simulations captures a principled difference. For example, Miller & Page describe two versions of the forest fire model. In the first version all trees are likely to grow in an available spot with the same probability, while in the second version the trees can have individual inhieritable probabilities of growth. The difference in principle is a differene in the basic abilities of the individual agents (trees). In this example the average number of trees is significantly higher in the second case.

A nice introduction material. You will learn how complex phenomena are currently studied . I will use this book as an intro material to complex systems in my economics course.
My only complain is that the book scarcelly discuss aplications in social sciences!!! I have to use specific articles with applications for that. the author should supress the subtitle. but it is still an excellent book.

I found this book to be a bit more technical than I expected. Very good reference book.

The authors do an excellent job of introducing the field to an educated audience. Any one who has a general college level education can read and understand the basics after reading the book. Tables and charts succinctly illustrate points Miller and Page make and illucidate the text.

If you are looking for a book that discusses progamming, how to do, or other deeper aspects of the field, you will be disappointed. However, if you are just curious and want a good general introduction to the field, perhaps with the goal of further exploration, it is a good anchor from which to base your learning.

Sometime I encounter books that are extremely important, that give me an appreciation for a knowledge domain I do not know enough about, and that I simply cannot read and review.

This book, and Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling (Princeton Studies in Complexity) are two such books. I got half-way through this one, did the introduction to the other, from which I was immediately grabbed by the concept of:

"instead of explaining it, can you grow it?"

Howard Bloom, in Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century teaches us that the only way to create a sustainable peace in the Palestine region is to provide absolute security for an entire generation, and raise two whole generations, one on each side, from kindergarten on us, generations that do not consider "the other" to be "pigs and monkeys" by the age of five.

Similarly, the literature on wealth of networks and the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid is growing, and I am convinced that public intelligence (decision support, full disclosure, end of information asymmetries) is going to accomplish two things in the next twenty years:

1) Eradicate corruption and enforce the triple-bottom line

2) Elevate five billion poor by teaching them one cell call at a time so that they can create infinite stabilizing wealth.

See for example:
Infinite Wealth: A New World of Collaboration and Abundance in the Knowledge Era
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
Revolutionary Wealth: How it will be created and how it will change our lives
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)

So the very best thing I can say about this book is that I am glad I bought it, I am very glad to have a sense, however weak, of this important exploratory area, and now I know that I need a team of generative social scientists that can do complex modeling for peace and prosperity solutions.

See also, just published at Amazon and free online at Earth Intelligence Network, Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace

I urge one and all to become familiar with World Index of Social and Environmental Responsibility (WISER), as best I can tell that is the center of gravity for empowering individuals with deep knowledge of the true costs and many human rights abuses and other crimes that we support today for lack of knowledge. I also recommend the pioneering EarthGame work of Medard Gabel, at BigPictureSmallWorld.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge. Politics regulates when virtue does not. Laws are created for people who are not virtuous. Polis= "city or state." Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good. Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude. He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household. Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch. Villages are a collection of households with a king. Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis. An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well. Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc. All these are actualized in a Polis. Politics is natural to human life. We are meant to be social. According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals. Rational language expands capacity in human life. Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household. This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree. Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle. Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy. Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle. Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth. "Born to be ruled." Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves. Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him. He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best. In a Polis citizens have things in common. Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling. Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis. The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering. Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common. This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors. Aristotle criticizes this idea. Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better. Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people. This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta. Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it. Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of. Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property. Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element. Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity. A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen. Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen. There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law. Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together. "Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule. The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule. The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy. The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority. He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted. Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept. What does justice mean? Not necessarily equality for all. Not all people are equal. He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally. Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally. Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good. Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle. "But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy." First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous. This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods. Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person? Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit. His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit. Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content). This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods. This is context dependent. Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis. The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure. Expertise in relation to politics. Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc. Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government. Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government. In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good. Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise. Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges. The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder. In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king. Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority. "Law is reason unaffected by desire." A government of laws not men. A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics. Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education. Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Perhaps I've been reading too many ancient Greeks and Romans, and certainly too many treatises on ancient politics, but I had a great deal of difficulty getting through this book. Aristotle is a very well-known philosopher and a student of Plato. This book outlined his views on politics, and he quite blatantly goes against a lot of what Plato and Socrates said, but his ideas make sense, especially for the time and place when they were written. It was interesting to compare his ideas to those of Plato since I just finished reading Plato's Republic. I think at heart, I'm more in agreement with Aristotle than with Plato.

Yep, I feel way over my head giving Aristotle three stars, but I'm throwing in my two cents anyhow.

This book is an incredible window into another time. Aristotle's views on a number of topics (women and slavery come quickly to mind) stand out so opposed to our beliefs today that it's almost worth reading this book just to get some perspective on how new some of the social ideas we take for granted really are. Getting that sense of perspective is truly the best part of this book.

That said, there is little here beyond that for anyone but a student of philosophy or someone engaging in a very serious study of the history of government. Very little of what Aristotle says rings true today and at times it's as if he went to the future and decided to predict the exact opposite of what's come to pass.

If you are a layperson looking for a classic on government, I recommend Plato's Republic. While it is even older than Aristotle's work, it is filled with insights that feel as if they must have been written in modern times. That is a truly inspiring feat of thought and foresight.

Perhaps it is not accidental that the work of the Aristotle, the student who explored so clearly and deeply all the externals and interactions of nature and Man, is recorded as tedious, repetitious, complex lecture notes while Plato the teacher who tried to find all the answers within the confines of his own head is recorded as lucid, lively dialogue. Aristotle the rube was evidently too busy observing, cataloging, teaching - living, to write it all down in an organized coherent whole while Plato the aristocrat was at first desperate to capture all he could remember then to expand upon the works of his revered master, Socrates, trying desperately to walk in his sandals. I think maybe with Aristotle there was just too much material, to much to know, and the thing he did best was know. So here is the country boy with that horrible Macedonian accent but regal connections come to study at the Academy, to learn from the very best, and in the end, the thought he produces far surpasses all that the best laid before him.

How is the community of Man best organized? That is the concern of Aristotle's "Politics". Plato had more or less just conjured up an ideal "Republic" based on his interpretation of Socrates. But that was not enough for Aristotle. He traveled, he learned, he catalogued everything and human organization and systems of government were at the top of his list. And he did this traveling analysis at a unique time when all possible permutations of human social organization were up for a try, from the dynamic democracy of the tiny city-state to the decrepit tyranny of the Persian Empire. With this catalog, he could not just conjecture as to what government might work best but make solid statements of fact about the consequences of various human organizations and recommendations about what works best under what circumstance. And we live with the result of his systematic pursuit. As one reads (or re-reads) this the very foundation of Western political thought, images of Madison flipping pages of a well warn and well loved edition to find a particular passage as he pens drafts of the Constitution of the United States of America flash by time and again. The result of his obvious reference to Aristotle was a thriving republic that has grown and flourished providing freedom and the possibility of a good life for millions. What grew from Plato was the horror of the Soviet Union. But I have betrayed my prejudice. One must read both and in order, Plato first to discover the thoughts that inspired Aristotle's questions then Aristotle to find the answers.

That said, I must reiterate, this book is exceptionally tedious, repetitious and complex (though not intellectually difficult). Thousands of people have made careers analyzing it and commenting on it. It is not for everybody but Mortimer Adler's "Aristotle for Everybody" is. That book is a brief, well written compendium, a distillate, of all we have of Aristotle. To go through a life and not read at least that is to miss some of the best thinking ever done by a human.