Philosophy Books

I had to buy this book for a general education requirement this year. However, the class turned out to be my favorite (the teacher certainly helped) and I'm keeping the book after the semester is over. Reason and Responsibility contains essays from the greatest philosophers (and some not so great) in order to give the beginner a comprehensive overview of philosophy.

At times, the essays were edited so that parts of the original selection were omitted. I had difficulty writing papers which criticized certain arguments become some claims can only be made from the entire text. However, if you are just reading this for fun as an introduction to philosophy, I highly recommend it.

this is an old edition. but practically there is no difference.
i saved a lot on this item. shipping is fast too

I have never taken a course in philosophy. But, I think this is not just a text book for Philosophy 101. It is a great collection of essays, on a variety of topics, written by some of the greatet thinkers the world has produced. The editorial introduction for each topic beautifully lays down the ground work. This is followed by writings from eminent scholars representing various positions that have been taken on the issue. It is hard to find so much material in one volume. A must-have book for anyone with even a precursory interest in some of the most fundamental questions posed by life.

I highly recommend Feinberg's 'Reason and Responsibility' to beginning philosophers. Feinberg presents various philosophical topics in an organized manner and selects text that is easy to understand for readers new to philosophy. Readers are weaned into the language of philosophy by first being presented with the jargon in the beginning of each section. It's a great book that covers a variety of topics, from arguments about God's existence to ethics to abortion.

A straight anthology without sufficient background material to help students make sense of the essays. I would not advise it for an Introduction to Philosophy course. Essays in the books focus on issues of reason, the limits of knowledge, and ethics based upon human reason. The selection of essays show a bias toward American positivism and contrary philosophical views (of which there are many) are not represented. The amount of philosophy this book ignores on the book's chosen topics is enormous. This is also a reason not to use this text for an Introductory class. If this was the only text used in an introductory course, students would come away with a very stilted and erroneous view of philosophy. It would be good for an upper division course focused on American positivism where students already have sufficient background in philosophy to understand these specialized essays and understand the selective nature of the text's selections.

If this book was a staple of high schools, the world would be a better place. If you like logic and critical thinking (and economics) this books is a treatise on capitalism and the disaster that ensues when its gutted. A preachy ending spoiled the punch, but otherwise highly recommended!

Well, after reading this book, I don't have much to say. I like it, but not that much. I consider The Fountainhead a much better work. Here is my review. I agree with must of the theory behind the story. Government must not intervene with the economy. We don't need a degree to see that every time the leaders try to fix the economy, it just get worse. I agree that none have the right to impose their believe into others. I agree that incompetence must not be rewarded, that a job belongs to the better person, that is almost a crime to give a position to someone for any reason besides his qualifications, and I agree laws need to be more objective to avoid stuff we decry later on, and I can keep writing a few of the things that I agree. Like the quote "the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's right which means: to protect him from physical violence" Or "there's no such things as a lousy job, only lousy men who don't care to do it", and one of my favorites "the foulest man on earth, more contemptible than a criminal, is the employer who rejects men for being too good".
But, the book turns a little bit boring. The main characters are a little bit unbelievable at times. Yes, we need to be ourselves, but every time one of the main characters is thinking or talking, you can't stop to think of someone anti-social. Let me explain. Yes, you have to be strong in defending your principles. And yes, we need to raise our voices when people are talking plain crap. Yes, we need to be more active and try to stop evil. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. The problem is that the message that come across must of the time is "you don't need anybody, you can be successful by yourself, the world is just there to supply you with the materials you need, etc" The problem is, that is not so. If you go with that attitude that you are superior to the rest of the world, you will never do anything, since everybody needs something from somebody. Want to build a house? Unless you have tons of money, you need a bank. Unless you have a lot of tress, you need to buy wood. Unless you own mines to find the metals, you need a store to buy the pipes, and everything else. Unless you own a piece of land, you'll need to buy one, and even if you own everything I wrote, you need permits to build. So, to tell people that they are individuals in the sense that come across in the book is a lie. Act like you don't need the bank and you won't get the loan. But, if what Mrs. Rand meant was to be yourself, and never letting anyone to alter your goal, then yes, I agree.
The book is not for dummies. Now, you don't need a degree either. You need to be a free thinker to understand it. But the John Galt speech...really? In real life, after 5 minutes half the people would turn off the radio. By the first hour of it, no one would be listening.
All in all, is a good read, but not a great one. Like I said, The Fountainhead is a far better book.

My advise is to stay away from this paperback edition. I purchased the book new through Amazon. The pages are improperly clipped and ragged on the edges and some of the pages are diagonal. The paper also appears to be the acid type or at least low quality.

This is a poor excuse for a bound paperback Centennial edition of such a great author.

This is a book with the power to change the way you view the world. You may love it or hate it, but you will not be the same. A must read.

I first read Atlas Shrugged almost 30 years ago on the advice of a friend, who described it as the best book he had ever read. I also found it to be in that class. It had a profound effect on me. I was moved by it toward a (even more) conservative view of politics and econimics, to the extent of becoming a little too "mean-spirited" and maybe a little paranoid.

I realize now that Ms. Rand is considered by some, accurately in my estimation, to have been an extremist . . . in the extreme. She was also an atheist, which viewpoint leaves one without hope outside of this world. Notwithstanding, her message regarding the liberal, anti-business, free lunch crowd rings through with refreshing clarity and plainly spoken truth. There is much wisdom in her "objectivist" philosophy and as a bonus, this story wraps it in an epic, hard-to-put-down novel.

This is one of the great books of the 20th century. Recommended.

This book enlightened my spirit and made me wish I could teach again! it is an extremly passionate rhetoric for teachers and educators who look up to a positive change in the world and their students. I highly recommend this book for any new teachers, student teachres depressed teachers, or even lost teachers who need to know the way back to the right path of teaching!
The introductions is although half of the book but insightful of the circumanstaces of Frier's lectures and the outcomes of them especuially after his death.

This small work is packed with wonderfully articulate insights, philosophical, political and practical, about education and how we should go about teaching young students. Paulo Friere is an enemy of oppression, coercion and neo-liberalism, a proponent of the human spirit and the possibility of a better world. If you are really interested in the ideas of existentialism, socialism, democracy and social justice, you will find yourself entralled with Friere's practical ideas in this book.

I am one of 24 co-founders of Earth Intelligence Network, building the EarthGame with inputs from the Transpartisan Policy Institute and the Public Budget Office, and our biggest insight in the past year has been to realize that the 5 billion poor do not have 18 years to go to school; but that they can be taught orally, one cell call at a time, by 100 million volunteers with Internet access and Skype. We simply have to distribute free cell phones in order to help the five billion create stabilizing wealth.

It was therefore for me personally, at the age of 55, a true joy to run across both this book and Pedagogy of the Oppressed as well as Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom both of which I will review shortly.

The only two books coming close in my own reading history, apart from Chomsky, Ellul, and Marcuse, have been Radical Man: The Process of Psycho-Social Development. and Improper behavior. See also Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids and Animal Farm (Signet Classics).

The translator tells us that Friere opposed the movement of gaduate studies in education toward atomization, fragmentation, and a false science, "scientism." The translator is *damning* of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and I believe all that he says.

The translator emphasizes that across Friere's works, he condemns false claims of neutrality and objectivity, and says clearly that education is an ethical calling that has a strong need to take a stand on what is good and right.

All three of my children have rejected rote learning, even as taught in the best public school district in America, and I am deeply sympathetic with this author's views that teaching should not be about the transfer of old knowledge but rather about the interactive sharing in learning to create new knowledge. Team leaning, learning to learn, open books testing--that is the way to go, in my view. See also Edutopia: Success Stories for Learning in the Digital Age.

We learn that Friere's first book, to set this one in context, taught that education is "that specifically human act of intervention in the world."

I completely agree when it is stated that the transformation of education must be the foundation for the transformation of all else.

I copy a note "Education *makes* history" (as opposed to losing it).

Note from the book: Democracy from below. Human liberation. Educators inspire rather than shape. See The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All.

The book emphasizes that the study of the oppressed has been squelched by those in authority, inclusive of higher graduate education studies, as an ideological act that declines to recognize that the oppressed are in fact, OPPRESSED, not just poor, lazy, stupid, or otherwise self-condemned.

Note: Curiosity + education + humanity = infinite power." See A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.

Friere repeatedly returns to a key point, that thinking is an act of communication, and can only take place interactively. Teaching and research should comprise an endless cycle and not be a one-way street (didactic is a fancy word for "I talk, you listen.")

Progressive teaching respects students and favors student autonomhy. As best I can tell, Evergreen College in Washington State is the gold standard for this kind of teaching.

Friere tells us that teachers who impose no standards, no discipline, are just as bad as teachers who are authoritarian and leave no room for student autonomy or curiosity.

Friere tells us that teachers must apprehend and comprend reality, and not seek to condition students into accepting their poor conditions (or corrupt governances--see Earth Intelligence Network for a range for free offerings on reality).

Friere states firmly that "RealPolitic" is inhumane and wrong. See The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State.

The book closes with an elegant discussion of how education leads to decision-making that is aware and conscientious. I have long advocated the need for public intelligence, and for a relationship between how we learn and how we decide. "Intelligence" is about decision-support, not about spying.

My final two notes from this superb book:

1) To accept and respect differences (i.e. diversity) is essential to listening and learning.

2) Globalization (when combined with 44 dictators and the global class war) is oppressive in its ignorance (or concealment) of the human cost, the cost to humanity.

This book was translated from old French. It was in English but I could barely make sense of it and i'm into these kinds of books. I don't know whether it was his style that I didn't like or it was just plain hard to read. Could be because it was written so long ago.

This book has words from the 1500's that no one uses anymore. The book discusses the soul and the body. Physics, Astronomy , Medicine and Science. This is 100 pages of heavy stuff. If you are very patient, interested in Philosophy and very smart you may like this book..

I had to write a school term paper. I chose Mediation. After researching it a bit, I changed the paper's subject. I only looked through this book I have not read it.

Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is arguably the starting point for much of modern western philosophy. This short work comprises approximately 60 pages. Potential buyers should note that it does not include the "Objections and Replies" portion that is available in some other editions.

Although there are many important and helpful philosophical works, Meditations is probably one of the few must read for students of philosophy. Cress' translation does a commendable job of allowing readers to interact with this significant historic text. In Meditations Descartes touches on many key philosophical questions, the role of scepticism, the existence of God and mind-body dualism. This short 17th Century text is by no means an exhaustive examination of these issues - its value is largely the historical context it provides. Its arguements have, however, held up remarkably well over time.

Overall a true classic - I highly recommend it. This short book is a handy reference and good value. Some readers, however, may wish to consider purchasing Meditations as part of a broader collection.

Descartes' meditations really is the place to start for thinking through the philosophical obsessions of the modern era -- the value of skepticism, the nature and extent of knowledge, the relation between mind and body, the role of theology in a rational account of the universe, subjectivity vs. objectivity, the primacy of the subject, freedom, etc.

This is a book that can be read for these themes even by those who are encountering it for the first time without guidance. At the same time this is a book that rewards reading and rereading, not only in the sense that you should read it more than once but that you should come back to it again and again after you have read the other classical works of philosophy that both preceeded it and that it paved the way for. After a serious study of Kant, for example, you may find that you can come back to Descartes and see that much of the work of Kant's critical project was already prepared for in this little treatise. That is not to say that Kant is not original, but that part of Kant's genius is in thinking through and making explicit the scope of the philosophical landscape that was first mapped out in the Meditations.

Rene Descartes, a great mathematician, surely a creative genius in the field, used his prodigious intellect to answer some of the great questions like how do we know, what can we know, what is the difference between thinking and sensing, and many other questions following from these basic ones. However, in doing so, he painted himself and generations of philosophers into a philosophical corner from which he and others have been trying to extricate themselves for hundreds of years. This philosophical cul-de-sac, this "corner," is known as Dualism.

Using the "method of doubt," Descartes concluded that there were two worlds, the world of mind and the world of the senses. The world of senses could be deceived, nay, easily deceived, whereas the world of mind could not be deceived because it was based on indubitable truths and understandings. These truths and understandings are indubitable because they are "clear and distinct" such as the fact that "I think." The thought "I think" is clear and distinct because it cannot be doubted as such. Whether I am deceived or not about what I perceive or think, there is always an "I" thinking. So even when in error there is an I...thinking.

For Descartes, other ideas are clear and distinct in our minds because God puts them there. For example, the idea of a perfect, immutable, eternally existent God is clear and distinct because God Himself places the idea of him into our minds. Our own finite minds could not even conceive of this God, let alone conceive of Him in a clear and distinct way just because our minds are finite; thus we must have a clear and distinct understanding of Him because He places that thought in our minds.

In sum, there are two worlds: an outside world which cannot be known clearly and distinctly, which is relegated to the realm of imperfection and confusion by the method of doubt, and an inside world (non-material) which can be known clearly and distinctly in two ways:
(1)the thinking I is known by eliminating everything except the I through the method of doubt; and (2) God is known because He put the idea of Himself into my mind. Thus, "Dualism"arises.

To write a full exposition of the problem of Dualism would, I think, require a lengthy treatise or monograph so I shall briefly list some of the problems with this theory at this point.
A. The mind is often telling us to move towards or away from various experiences and places; likewise various bodily sensations will effect our thinking. Dualism thus does not account for the influence or interaction of mind on the body or vice-versa.
B. Dualism does not really satisfactorily rule out that a body cannot think or that bodily motions are not thought. May it not be that body is implicated in some way in our thinking even though when I think or say "I think" I am not aware of that bodily involvement? Does the "I think" necessarily exclude the idea of extension? It's never demonstrated.
C. Has the idea of God really come from God? Has He put it in our minds? Does not our conception of Him also depend upon our books, our friends, our institutions, etc.?
Though an angel is more perfect than we, we might have an idea of an angel without the angel having caused it in us.
D. If the idea of God comes into our minds from God, why is it that many peoples in the world do not have the idea of the Christian Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their minds when they "think" of God?
E. Why does an atheist agree about the existence of a triangle (which is understood for Descartes in an a priori sense just like the way we experience God), but not about the existence of God?
F. Why cannot that which we perceive clearly and distinctly also be doubted? What can we ever embrace if clarity and distinctness are our criteria for knowing?
G. Since the mind according to Descartes can only comprehend God in a manner that is "utterly inadequate," how can one "investigate with sufficient clarity and distinctness" what or who God is as Descartes proposes to do?"
H. Why is it better to know of God's existence by a purely inferential criterion (He put the idea in my mind) rather than by the scholastic method of going back to a Cause of all existent things, the basic Prime Mover? Does not the scholastic method have the advantage of not being self-referent nor depending on a mere inference to justify God's existence?
I. How does it follow from the fact that one is unaware that anything else belongs to one's essence that nothing else really belongs to one's essence?
J. The mind is affirmed in Descartes by a process of negation of bodily knowledge. However, there is no real exposition of the mind's operations.
K. Why is there no discussion of morals in the dualistic scheme proposed by Descartes? Is this not a serious omission?
L. Why does the idea of an immutable, eternal God need a cause? The idea of a triangle is immutable and eternal, but does not need a cause.
M. Descartes has described an insecure universe. Rationalism is king. In his version of the universe, mathe-matics is king, but empirical understandings are built on shifting sand, and are always untrustworthy. Descartes' God has created an almost unintelligible material world. Yet, this goes against both our observations and against the dependability of scientific conclusions.
We observe a regularity of seasons and of day and night following each other, and many other regularities besides. Science observes and defines law-like operations in the material world that cannot be observed by the unaided eye; yet that knowledge produces remarkable and consistent results. Does not this suggest more certainty in empirical knowledge than Descartes would be prone to accept?

N. Descartes' rationalism verges on solipsism because of the unreliability of shared, "outer" experience.

With so many areas for possible objections, I think it would be fair to say that Descartes' Dualism is more problematic than helpful.

This is still Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior 4th Edition by Passer, it's just an International Edition. An official McGraw Hill representative said they don't encourage the sale of this book outside of international borders, but it has the same content as the North American version and it's cheaper! It'll just be harder to sell it back to your college bookstore :)

Book came extremely fast. Book was brand new. Great seller. Would definitely buy again. Using already.

To those who attack this for not being philosophy, fair enough, it may not be philosophy. I quote now from Shelley's Defence of Poetry:

"In the infancy of society every author is necessarily a poet, because language itself is poetry; and to be a poet is to apprehend the true and the beautiful, in a word, the good which exists in the relation, subsisting, first between existence and perception, and secondly between perception and expression. Every original language near to its source is in itself the chaos of a cyclic poem: the copiousness of lexicography and the distinctions of grammar are the works of a later age, and are merely the catalogue and the form of the creations of poetry.
But poets, or those who imagine and express this indestructible order, are not only the authors of language and of music, of the dance, and architecture, and statuary, and painting: they are the institutors of laws, and the founders of civil society, and the inventors of the arts of life, and the teachers, who draw into a certain propinquity with the beautiful and the true that partial apprehension of the agencies of the invisible world which is called religion. Hence all original religions are allegorical, or susceptible of allegory, and, like Janus, have a double face of false and true. Poets, according to the circumstances of the age and nation in which they appeared, were called, in the earlier epochs of the world, legislators, or prophets: a poet essentially comprises and unites both these characters. For he not only beholds intensely the present as it is, and discovers those laws according to which present things ought to be ordered, but he beholds the future in the present, and his thoughts are the germs of the flower and the fruit of latest time. Not that I assert poets to be prophets in the gross sense of the word, or that they can foretell the form as surely as they foreknow the spirit of events: such is the pretence of superstition, which would make poetry an attribute of prophecy, rather than prophecy an attribute of poetry. A poet participates in the eternal, the infinite, and the one; as far as relates to his conceptions, time and place and number are not."

Yes, this book may be delusional in its conclusions at times, it may make unfounded claims, it may lack philosophical rigor as it were but that does not mean it is not instructive or inspiring or a most productive use of one's time. Say we stop calling it philosophy; would you read it if we called it a poem, and called Deleuze and Guattari poets?

There's so much to appreciate in this book, touching as it does on every subject you can think of. You won't be able to understand everything but for me at least, I don't feel a lot of pressure to try and understand everything, but I'm fine with just reading on and every page or so, something will click and open a new way of looking at things. I'm not an expert in Deleuze and Guattari, and this is my first book by any philospher in what people lump into the category of 'Postmodern'. So I can't compare it with others, but my sense is I've chosen the right book to read, or at least, place to start.

Why? Because your critical theory seminar was probably oversimplifying, and you're missing out on a radical piece of performance in book form. Thousand Plateaus is not 400 pages about rhizomes or nomads. That's just the vocabulary. And, I disagree with some of the other reviews here. It's not a torture to read; it's just not talking down to you. It's put together like a large circular sentence. You start somewhere in middle, or maybe at the beginning or end, not sure. You have to play catchup at first, but you will get the hang of it.
If it sounds like the structure of certain recent films (say, by David Lynch, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson) or works of fiction (like by Samuel Delaney, Haruki Murakami, or Thomas Pynchon) or minimal techno, or most museum biennials these days, then good, it should. Thousand Plateaus help to establish a framework for all of those things.
The book tries to establish a system of political, psychological and semiotic descriptions, always as a mode of resistance to all kinds of fascism, and D & G take the conflation of those levels as a given. Not just in the world of theory but also in how you think, and that's why it's written in such a particularly dense way. It tries very hard to be nonoppressive, and generous too, but for lots of people it can be a frustrating adjustment, accustomed as we are to writing that tries to be as flat and simple as possible. This book reads the way it thinks, and these two definitely prefer finesse to simplicity. Once you get into it, you may find that it's the best thing you've read for as long as you can remember. Or, at least that it makes you think in ways you don't while reading other books.
Being brainy continentals, these guys make reference to a store of intellectual history you won't be able to relate to. They namedrop like MCs, and use a highly layered prose that refers to about a dozen things at once. It probably helps if you've heard of Hjelmslev, Bergson, Liebniz and the rest of the counter-canon of Western thought, but don't let it stop you if you haven't.
If you tackle this thick, thorny thing, here's some advice: Don't read this as an assignment, but approach it like a weird painting. Go slowly and enjoy the twists and turns. Read each section twice before proceeding to the next. Enjoy the poetry that D & G employ. Take notes. When you get to the end, go back and reread the first (and maybe second) section.

however, is philosophy not an art? perhaps this question is the most illuminating one with regard to this book. I described it to a friend as "shamanism meets psychoanalysis in a 19th century drawing room." Of course this description is inadequate but it made me laugh. The "rigor" of this book takes place in a different form, in a different plane, from analytic thought. Where one might oversimplify analytic philosophy and call it linear with its pretensions of precision; this sort of philosophy has depth and shading, it has contours; it seems as though the mind of God has gone fractal in this book. Of course it is not perfect, but all philosophy necessarily must fall short of the mark if we are so ambitious as to set the "mark" as "truth." Deleuze and Guattari understand the shortcomings of language as a conveyance of truth, of its inherent incomprehensibility; in reaction to this insight they have decided to have fun, to play within the field of reference and see what comes out. One of the more interesting treatises you will ever read, even if you don't finish. I suppose you could say it is the lunar to the solar pretensions of reason and logic.

For all its cleverness, the kind of dodgy, edgy, self-important prose that lures wannabe philosophers into its trap, this book is one incorrect premise after another, one humanocentric argument posing as "ecological" thought on top of another.

Deleuze and Guattari refer to "wolves" that are not wolves, "rhizomes" that have nothing to do with rhizomes. They favor the symbolic half of a metaphor over its physically realizable counterpart to the point at which a rhizome could be anything vaguely multiplicitous and knotty and branchy--at which point it ceases to be a rhizome and becomes what the quasi-philosopher loves: a product to be sold.

Ecology is a science, and not as soft a science as its made out to be by those who haven't lately picked up an ecology textbook or read the history of its development. There's far more fashion to "science studies" than rigor, and D & G fall right into the mode of conflating ecology with other disciplines and methods. Interdisciplinary is fine; undisiciplined isn't. Like Andrew Ross, D & G are dilettanti. They dabble and play and get clever and, in this case, use fundamental natural facts as exploitively as any lab tester, hunter, or junk scientist that science studies likes to indict.

In the chapter on Freud's Wolf-Man, D & G save us from one projected and hyperbolic interpretation of a dream to their own worse one. In correcting Freud for his misuse of both dreams and wolves, they essentialize the species, make assumptions about wolf behavior, and provide a vague replacement for Freud's symbolism of lesser value. Lesser because they fail both to recognize the fairy tale images behind Freud's analysis (the goat/wolf conflation, the tree symbol) and to cite source work backing their declarations about wolves, the real animals they invoke several times in the chapter. This is an abstraction of convenience, and while dabblers in environmentalism from the sidewalk-bound perspective of Theory and Cultural Studies might find it enticing, they should also find it about as corroborated as a high school research paper with a bibliography gleaned from a couple of hours on the internet.

Likewise the "rhizome" chapter, foundational to the book. D & G make ridiculous statements about rivers being "without beginning or ending" about the rhizome being "always intermezzo," and other hyperbolic claims that serve their purpose of using the nonhuman world to fulfill entirely humanocentric claims and spins. A river has a source and a mouth, and the concept of interconnectedness so cherished by those who would use ecology to justify any cobbled amalgam of thoughts they have can, as it does here a thousand times, turn to mere rationalization and exploitation.

An analytical philosopher would indeed find this book to be nonsense, but not because Deleuze and Guattari are pressing the philosophical envelope with new ideas. They cite themselves (!) several times--and not just in references to prior pages that follow a thread of the text. They employ transparently circular logic, arguments spun off of premises that are only premises because D & G repeat them. Fundamental logic and argumentation work--not because they're patriarchally dominating forms of rhetoric that keep us from seeing the world as it is, but because they come from the world as it is. The very structure of argumentation demands corroboration ultimately from the basic laws of nature.

My one star rating of this act of charlatanism isn't because the book is poorly written. It's because the book gives us all the tools we need for an irresponsible, rationalized, finally damaging environmental thought--one posing as some new map of the world, some new ecology. There is no new ecology. There is only the gathering, the accrual of fact, that ensues from our increased understanding of the raw material out of which we hammer our civilizations.

Deleuze and Guattari only know our civilizations, and those not as well as their tremendous egos would assert. They paint nature in their own image, start the cult of Deleuzians, and profer a tempting "philosophy" that ends in the bait and switch typical of current cultural studies. In the end, what has any wolf, any rhizome, any river, gotten out of the grand Deleuzians?

The only reason to read this book is to find out what's happened to the brains of an unfortunately sizeable number of academics. It saddens me to know where the interdisciplinary work of philosophy and ecology could go if it weren't dragging around this dead weight.

Great intro to the concept of home education with a heavy emphasis on the Charlotte Mason method. I re-read this little treasure regularly to keep myself on track. Loving books as much as I do tempts me to compile quite a list of Books We Must Have for School. The CM way of thinking ensures I stick only with the best, the essentials. I highly recommend it!

I first read this book because it was written by Susan, one of Francis and Edith Schaeffer's daughters. Little did I know that it would become the foundational book to becoming a homeschool parent when I decided to take my youngest child out of the public schools.

One doesn't need to be homeschooling their children to appreciate this book. Susan writes in the same warm and friendly way as her mother. However, if one is homeschooling and using the Charlotte Mason "method", this book is an essential volume to have in your library.

If you're a Charlotte Mason fan, you can't pass this one up. It is my favorite book on Charlotte Mason & is full of wonderful parenting advice. Really, all parents are teachers, not just homeschooling parents. This book offers great insight for all who spend time caring for children.

As one preparing to homeschool, this book was this kind of thing that has been spurring me on to ponder, philosophize and dream about both the general approach I will take, and the beginnings of many specific ideas.

For those who are disenchanted with the high pressure standardized-testing mentality prevalent in classrooms today, this book explains the educational philosphy of Charlotte Mason. It is God-focused (Susan is the daughter of Christian apologtic Francis Shaeffer), natural, and relaxed. It is a must-read for any classroom teacher, homeschool parent, or school administrator.

Beautiful writing. Simply one of the best books by a living author that I've read. If you have interest in great writing, baseball, or Christianity, you'll enjoy the book. If you're a fan of all three, it'll be one of your favorites.

This book is the bomb-diggity! I'd gladly trade Dickens, Tolstoy, and maybe Milton for Duncan!

This is a rich, wonderful novel. Towards the end, I intended to read over lunch. One hour stretched to two, then even longer. I laughed out loud several times, and then cried. The waitress finally came over and asked, "Okay, what are you reading?! I've got to get a copy!" Everyone who loves great writing, wonderful characters and beautiful storytelling needs to get a copy. This kind of book doesn't come along every day - maybe not even every ten years. It's breathtaking.

I have purchased so many copies of this book to give to my friends and family! Some people are intimidated by its size; it is worth every page!
Baseball, family, humor, religion, 60's.....all combined with a skill that had me reading passages aloud. I gave my copy away....i will buy another.

The interplay between family members is often magical.

What originally attracted me to this novel was a former high school classmate of mine stating that it was one of his favorite books. Being the curious individual I was, I went on Amazon and read many of the 5 star review the books receives. I ordered a copy and began to peruse. Unfortunately, the book was not just below my expectations, but I wondered why so many people appreciated a novel that was filled with two dimensional characters and overflowing with cliches that are static in almost every piece of pop culture that is set in 60's-70's nostaglia (family is divided on present political issues, one son becomes a hippy, one becomes a soldier, etc.). Clearly David Duncan had a message, but it is one that has been heard repeatedly.

Excellent resource for teachers with practical information they can use day to day in the classroom.

This is probably the best book I have read on classroom management--EVER! Not only is it well-written, it is timeless, useable, accessible and friendly. The author readily includes her own classroom successes and failures, which helps me to identify with her journey. She also give practical, ready to implement steps and routines. Is classroom managment difficult? YES! Is is do-able--YES YES YES if you follow the guidelines given here by Ms. Charney. Combine this with a Responsive Classroom workshop, or at least books from the RC library, and you are on your way to loving your job again!

I am very happy with the price as well as the fast shipping. My University campus book store wanted twice the amount of money for this book; worst of all, it was used. Amazon had it for half the money; best of all, it was brand new. :) I am a happy camper...

A terrific book that should be in every teachers' and parents' library. Clear directions, plenty of space for notes. Good bibliography.

This book is fantastic. It offers plenty of wonderful tips and situations for constructing a healthy behavior management plan within your classroom. A definite must have.

Again, I'll make this review very quick. A great book, although sometimes comfusing with apparently paradoxical language (which is fairly commen in zen buddhism). That aside, this book can be very helpful for beginner as well as long-practicing buddhists. It is especially helpful for any home-practicing buddhist out there who do not have the added benefit of a zendo nearby. An even better bonus is that it can be found online for free if you look hard enough. cheers.

When I began on the Zen path in the 1980's I read several books all of which helped some . Like a lot of people I preferred the more dramatic ones like Zen in the Art of Archery, The Method of Zen etc.. and they did sustain my interest but two books which I came to and began to read over and over were the Tao Te Ching and Zen Mind. And I believe the reason is that they resonated with my zazen practice. They seemed most like the actual event of sitting itself. In the chapter entitled Nothing Special Suzuki begins by saying " I do not feel like speaking after zazen. I feel the practice of zazen is enough...strictly speaking, for a human being there is no other practice than this practice. There is no other way of life than this way of life. Zen practice is the direct expression of our true nature."
If Zen verbal teachings are at their best just fingers pointing at the moon then the best teachings are those which most directly resemble the non-verbal ones and these words come close to doing just that. They are imbued with the highly elusive wisdom the Zen path conveys and are steeped in that wisdom. And they are simple ,direct and accessible to all.
The Tao has this same quality and like Zen Mind speaks directly to what is always already awake in all of us.

I've read this book a couple of times....the first time I had no idea what Roshi was talking about, but somehow I did. The second time around I had six months of Zen practice and the book took on a totally new meaning...although I still didn't quite get everything at great depth. I feel that each read will only deepen my understanding and lessen my ignorance. Great book.

This book is a great into to Zen. It describes how to meditate Zen style in great detail and clearly. The ideas are though provoking and different. It's a great book for those who have read a lot of self help and are looking for something 'deeper' and more challenging. Something to flex your mind muscles! The language is clear and the book is not as esoteric as other Zen writings. The ideas are sometimes complex and therefore difficult to absorb, but this is why you want to read it, because once you get it, the wisdom is priceless. It definitely is a good, serious read on the subject of Zen.

This book is a must have for anyone looking to better understand the Zen philosophy or gain introspective on themselves. The title is a bit misleading as is explained within the preface. This is a book that would be well read with someone with no knowledge of Zen or expansive knowledge. It is a book that definitely can (and will be by me) read many times!!