Philosophy Books

Many have interpreted the historical analysis of this great among philosophers as that of a cynical and cold politician, and there is certainly an element of cynical and cold politics in the reality depicted. A more careful and less pre-conditioned reading, however, will reveal a profound and painstakingly truthful work, that manifests the author's mastery of not only history but individual and group psychology, all of which crafted with utmost humility and an elegance that borders on mathematical logic. Machiavelli's work, in totality, is a rendering of our human plight that elevates the smallness of the condition to divine heights, and the violence of history to platonic grace. The writing style is so simple, and the translation so well done, that rarely will a sentence need to be read twice. A work of poetry, and at the same time a how-to book. T.S. Eliot for MBA programs.

One of my friends got this for me to read over my family vacation in Spain. I can honestly say I think it was meant to be... the book, the timing, the lessons! It's not only fun to read, but has some really great points and makes you think. Reading The Red Book was life changing for me and put everything in life in perspective! I have now decided to sell my life consuming business in the states and move to Spain within the next 5 years! I guess I am the typical target audience, 28 y.o. female and Sera absolutely captured my heart and ignited my divine spark. I have recommended it to all of my friends and will get it for each one of them!

I attended one of Sera Beak's workshops prior to reading the book. I strongly recommend her workshop! I am still reading the book, but it is just as amazing as the workshop! I think you have to be ready for The Red Book and open to Sera's fresh perspective. Sera is wise beyond her years. She ties so many spritual and religious concepts together in a way that really make sense...to me anyways. I love that Sera acknowledges that spirituality and religion can co-exist and shows us the way to make that happen for ourselves. If you read this book...get ready for that Divine Spark and where it will take you!

The Red Book was a great read, funny and inspiring.I bought copies for two girlfriends who also love it!

I thought most had lost it! Thanks Sara for doing this, wherever you are! This is a journey gathering major patterns and rituals that are used by all spiritual systems around the world and given to us that feel less than whole, or seem to be searching in the wrong places again and again. About time, next time, I think making also more focused on the general "we" would allow men in too, but I have no clue what men would think-so thank you!

I was a little cautious about getting this book. The title kept throwing me off - but the description kept calling me in. Unorthodox it is. It might be offensive to some - but then they are probably not the ones too interested in having a spirituality that beams light of any kind (sorry if that offended the traditional or conservative spiritualist). Sara is brutally honest, blunt, close to her Creator, in touch with her divine and her feminine soul, soaks up wisdom and spews it out lovingly for all to hear, live, love. I would go a step further and recommend it for men - we all long for our feminine soul to sing and dance. Sara, I'm waiting for your next one...your sequel...The Redder Book.

Gives good food for thought on raising twins. I think it's more for identical twin pairs and how to make them feel like individuals.

In my book, "It's Twins! Parent-to-Parent Advice from Infancy Through Adolescence," I stress the importance of promoting individuality in twin children. People often view twins as a set and fail to identify and distinguish the unique characteristics of each child. Even twins themselves may see themselves as an extension of each other, rather than as their own person. While it's a wonderful thing to have this loving and supportive bond between twins, it can also be detrimental to twins if they fail to achieve their own individual potential, form relationships with others, or develop a healthy self-esteem.

Joan A. Friedman, Ph.D., an identical twin and the mother of twin boys, has written an excellent book on raising two distinct individuals who just happen to be twins. In "Emotionally Healthy Twins: A New Philosophy for Parenting Two Unique Children," Dr. Friedman, a psychotherapist, breaks down her "parenting-of-twins philosophy" into 7 key concepts:

1. Think of your twins as two unique individuals.
2. Expect to have different feelings for each child.
3. Give each child consistent "alone time" with you. They need it in order to adequately bond with you.
4. Don't attempt to provide a "fair and equal" childhood for your twins.
5. Don't compare twins to each other; each is on his or her unique life path.
6. Encourage twins to pursue their own friendships and interests.
7. Don't rely on your twins to be each other's constant companion or surrogate parent.

If you're pregnant with twins, she explains how to mentally prepare for two separate babies. If you're raising twin babies, preschoolers, elementary school kids, preteens and teens, or young adults, separate chapters are devoted to meeting their emotional needs. There's even a chapter for fathers of twins, which will improve both their parenting and partnering skills. "Emotionally Healthy Twins" is an excellent book that addresses the unique challenges faced by parents of twins -- issues that aren't addressed in standard parenting books.

Dr. Joan Friedman's book on relating to Emotionally Healthy Twins is a winner. She lays out her book in an easy to read style and an easy to reference style. The actual case studies that she shares clearly illustrate the points she is making. In addition, her stories of her twinship and her twin sons make her book even more personal and meaningful. I am now a better friend to all my twin friends. Thank you so much, Dr. Friedman.

Joan Friedman's book is very intelligent and insightful. She writes from a perspective that has not yet been explored. I found her book to be of very high quality and the writing is inquisitive and precise.

This book is not only a necessary read for parents of twins, but useful for all parents. The unique philosophy discussed can be used in raising children of all ages.

A must read for all serious parents!

"Raising Emotionally Healthy Twins" fills the space earlier reserved exclusively for Dr. Spock, except that
it defines the understanding necessary to cope with the thrills, worries and trials attached to a 'two fer.'
Dr. Friedman has written what I deem to be the ultimate guide to the healthy development of twins - one that speaks from the heart as well as the mind. This is a book which needs to be read by every twin parent.

Miriam Harris, Ph.D.

This text is worth the effort and cost, if only for the fantastic introduction by Spivak -- perhaps the nicest introduction to Deconstruction available. The Introduction itself, was, in fact required reading for comp-lit classes studying Deconstruction at Yale in the mid-80s -- the time of DeMann, Hartmann and J. Hillis Miller.

When I first tried to tackle this book I was a first year undergrad philosophy and logic student - I declared Derrida my arche-enemy.
Three years later I am devoted to Derrida.
I eventually managed to push down the frustration (and at times, the blind rage) I felt at reading his stuff and took my time to follow him where he wants to take us.
Derrida is important for thinking, whether or not you agree with what he is saying.
Derrida's greatest lesson is forcing us to look closer, he wants us to pay attention to what is really going on (or at least, to pay attention to other possibilities that may be at work)

The importance of Derrida and his movement is monumental - not for the term "deconstructionism" (heard frequently without a clue to its true meaning) but for how he has influenced (Western) society. Derrida, like Marcuse, Chomsky, Foucault and others, has moved from his original study to a broader agenda and, like many intellectuals, considers his mastery of one subject transferrable to another. He managed to survive the embarrassing Paul de Man fiasco and has since wisely avoided mention of the "Hitler in all of us". He has remarked on the authoritarian anti-democratic nature of deconstructionism, treating the subject ironically.

This is, allegedly, a textbook of post-Modern thought on language but reads like a didactic, out-of-focus Proust. The writing is nebulous, self-referential, unreadable. He speaks in Orwellian terms equating opposite qualities and words. It is so ephemeral as to lack certitude and for this very reason many commentators fear definitive statements on the subject. Deconstructionism is, despite all the twaddle, inherently subjective. He muses on expression, anxiety, emotions, signs and existentialism, finding meaning and interpretation where there is none. His popularity rests entirely on academia and like-minded camp followers in the media. I mean, how many Iowans care about the "ultimate" meaning of allusions? The problem with the ouevre is that when taken seriously, it literally make mountains of molehills.

Such as, well, equating fairy tales to S&M sagas, symphonies to invitations to rape, skyscrapers to phallic power trips, signs of "white" recycled paper as racism and stuttering as aggression. Allusions are, in Derrida-speak, fraught with deep meaning. To accomplish this one must divorce words from their sources and stated intent. The critic has been necessarily elevated above the author since only he can provide a "true" meaning. It is so outrageous that few outside of the Ivory Towers give it credence. That would be a mistake. Language is perhaps the most human of all abilities and its interpretation affects our personal and collective consciousness. His method has been called the "language of cultural Marxism" and is a necessary component of modern leftist ideology. At any time I expect Jacques Derrida to announce, like Alan Sokal, that it has all been a collosal joke on both the true believer and the reader.

While it's certainly true that there will always be a gulf between reality and words, communication between reader and writer is nonetheless very real and potentially profound, thanks in no small part to empathy and the imagination. Deconstructionism, by denying presence and instead proposing unlimited differences between signs, dismisses any connection between readers and writers and turns language into a hermetic system separated from the outside world which is, of course, inhabited by people who read and people who write. This is exactly what makes deconstructionism so empty and hypocritical: It rejects traditional metaphysics while adopting a pseudo-mystical position which regards language as some unstable and solipsistic alien creature independent of everything and everyone.

Derrida's thought is the primary reason why I inevitably feel an urge to put quotation marks around so many of the conceptual labels in my own writing; he initiates a needful misgiving: Do we really know what we are speaking about when we attempt to speak philosophically? Or is our language so subverted, displaced, and otherwise (blindly) ideological that a lot of the theoretical malarkey that academics put forth just seems to beg the age-old questions of knowledge, truth, meaning, etc.? But wait. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Derrida's writing shies away, almost essentially, from authoritative positioning in such matters because his own writing is subject to the same blind alleys and provisionalism that all writing is. In this respect, his writing is always, in a way, winking and playful, but admittedly in an rigorous and sometimes difficult way.

Is this book difficult? Yes, you bet it is! But I assure you that it's is as close to entry-level Derrida as any other book written by him. I first encountered the thinking of Derrida in a very watered-down gloss on his theory in postmodernist primer; this intrigued me to pursue him further, to read such things as Beginner's Guides and Short Introductions (which I definitely recommend to those who have either no prior experience with him or no great familiarity with the other thinkers he addresses in Of Grammatology--Saussure, Rousseau, etc.). Of course, you'll discover that these tidy little intros can be oversimplifying in places, but they at least get you to the general neighborhood before your set out on your own.

Derrida's writing, because of its inherent need for argumentative clarity and rigor, can at times be difficult to decipher; therefore, do not obsess over every sentence; the overall meaning of the argument is much more important and often becomes clearer if you just plow through difficult passages.

Every writing, especially philosophical writing, and even of course Derrida's, is by nature ideological; it works outward from a set of assumptions. There is no other alternative. We cannot start from scratch, from some dreamed-of ground zero where there is no preceding meaning and out of which we may deduce all the truths of the universe. Derrida's ideological vantage is then what appealed to me about him; perhaps never in black and white, but always and everywhere his thinking seems to question authoritative accounts, seeks to expand upon the marginalized element in any discourse, and foregrounds the difficulty in making large and almost mathematical pronouncements in philosophical and other supradisciplinary affairs. These are certain dispositions which align with my own particular perspective, and if they have some resonance with you, and if you come to Derrida having completed a little homework and bringing along a good dose of patience and effort, then you'll likely find this book rewarding as well.

A final note on the opposing opinion: Although there is no one camp of thinkers or philosophers which opposes Derrida's thought for one and only one reason, some of the most vocal of his detractors (and I will temporarily assume their voice here) regard him as a proponent of relativism or an attempted (but miserably failed) assassin of the western philosophical tradition. They are less skeptical of a fundamental faith in the general structures of meaning and in the rudimentary capabilities of the rational mind to attain to some variety of truth, however limited. Also, opponents often regard Derrida as a kind of interloper in the field of philosophy, that he should putter around with his obscurantist games in the narrow field of literary theory where he belongs. Therefore, if Plato, Descartes, and Locke seem like more feasible philosophical pursuits, Derrida probably (1) won't convert you and (2) won't be to your liking. He doesn't put forth a philosophical system, and neither does he assert an epistemological framework, so you won't find the kind of concrete, axiomatical philsophical claims common to pre-modern and early modern philosophy.

Exactly a year later and after a second reading, I'm happy to revise my two star signal that this book might not stand alone. I'm now happy to give it the full praise it deserves. Rawls is a rigorous, systematic thinker who demands a focused and patient reader with a copious memory. Nevertheless, this restatement of pathbreaking earlier work sets a model for generous consideration and cogent response to the best objections raised over three decades by the most competent critics any author could desire. If you only have time to read one book by the foremost political philosopher of our time, read this one several times.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Rawls' theory of justice, almost all contemporary moral and political philosophy takes place in its shadow. If not for A Theory of Justice, generations of grad students would still indulge in tired debates over the meaning of Kant's categorical imperative and whether analytic philosophy merely defines the words we use to talk about philosophy. Luckily, this was not the case and we now have this book that expresses the most refined exposition of Rawls' views on justice to date. Attempting to address the criticisms leveled by Sandel, Walzer, Habermas, and others at his initial theory, Justice as Fairness integrates the concepts of "reasonable pluralism" and "stability for the right reasons" (the core concerns of Political Liberalism, although not in those words) articulated in articles scattered throughout journals over a span of three decades with the comprehensive philosophical doctrine in A Theory of Justice. Whether he succeeds in fully rebutting their objections is certainly up for debate, but Justice as Fairness should be essential reading for anybody interested in the philosophical underpinnings of a liberal, property-owning democracy.

That said, I would agree with the previous reviewer that a reader should at least be conversant in Rawls' ethical theory as described in A Theory of Justice to get the most out of this book. However, to those uninterested in the evolution of his thought and how its shortcomings have been repaired, Justice as Fairness is still a momentous work and will probably be used in introduction to ethics or political philosophy classes everywhere.

An obligatory note, since another reviewer is certain to mention Nozick: Nozick eventually became convinced that the Lockean proviso of justice in acquisitional holdings did not possess the requisite stability that would ensure that liberties owed to free and equal persons would be preserved and recanted some of the conclusions in Anarchy, Utopia, and State. As for Hayek's brilliant works, nobody seriously disagrees with his thesis that central economic planning leads inevitably to abuses as state oversteps individual liberties and that the mechanism of prices in a free market is the best aggregator and distributor of preferences. I just don't see what this has to do with libertarianism. Hayek is too fine a thinker to be shoehorned into such a confining box.

Rawls has done a marvelous job condensing the theory first presented in his massive A Theory of Justice into 200 lucid, succint, beautifully-argued pages.

Since the work is essentially a restatement, any review must take into account the effectiveness of that which was restated. For this, I would like to mention one area that Rawls ammended; subsequently, I would like to comment on how this change provided a complete new hermeneutical framework for the book.

At its core, the theory proposed by Rawls is based on a Kantian understanding of human persons and human freedom. Any familiar with Kant's political philosophy will remember the concept of the 'transcendental self', the self that is so completely free of human encumberances and entanglements that he is actually and literally free. This person literally has an autonomous free will and consequently has the capacity to be completely self-legislating. This is, of course, necessary if a person is to abide by the categorical imperative. Kant believes that a person cannot be free unless his will--his capacity to choose--is grounded in something pre-empirical. Rawls seems to believe this too. However, he understands that the idea of the 'trascendental self' is so shrouded in the obscurity of German Idealism as to be unhelpful for the average person. So, he sets out to bring the self to the earth and give it an imaginable, even a empirical, basis. And this is the function of the original position: to bring Kant's 'transcendental self' to the earth and provide a basis for it. This should be kept in mind throughout the reading.

While I enoyed the book thoroughly, I have a number of issues. First, Rawls himself says that the work can be read independent of any prior knowledge, and I take this to be true. Nonetheless, reading Justice as Fairness without preliminary familiarity with A Theory of Justice is bound to make the reading considerably more difficult. The reasons for this are many, the most notable being that Justice as Fairness is a restatement of a theory presented in an earlier work. Its job, essentially, is to fill gaps, answer arguments, and provide clarification that lacked in the original version (not to be confused with the 'original position'). While Rawls alludes to the problems he intends to fix, it's almost impossible to fully grasp without a cursory understanding of A Theory of Justice.

In sum, the work is an excellent piece of analytical philosophy, one that is sure to be around for a while. Nonetheless, I would encourage anyone ready to dig into it to to read--or at least become familiar with--A Theory of Justice.

Adam Glover

Rawls set himself the difficult task of accomplishing for political philosophy what Kant attempted for moral philosophy; developing a systematic logical rationale for an intuitively attactive body of thought that raises this body of thought to new levels. Kant attempted to find a rational basis for the Pietist Christian ethics that he grew up with; Rawls attempts to find a rational basis for modern democratic polities. Both Kant and Rawls struggle not merely to rationalize existing arrangements and beliefs but to extract the best features of these intuitively attractive systems, to place these features on coherent and rational foundations, and to logically derive important new features of these systems from the described foundations. Rawls made this project his life's work. His output includes his magisterial 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, which set out most of the basis of his theory, the subsequent Political Liberalism, which introduced important qualifications into his scheme, and a large number of essays. Justice as Fairness is an attempt to summarize his views at the end of his remarkably productive career. This book is the best way available to enter Rawls's work in its final state. Having said that, I have to acknowledge some substantial drawbacks of Justice as Fairness. Rawls is not a gifted writer and this book derives to a large extent from lecture notes from one of his courses. Rawls has apparently been ill in recent years and this book was not completed by him. This is doubly unfortunate because Rawls's extended thoughts on some the issues discussed would be worth reading. The last couple of sections of the book are relatively sketchy, reflecting his inability to flesh them out. Since this book is an effort to abstract thousands of pages of prior writing, it is still rather dense. Still, because of the importance of Rawls's ideas, this book is very welcome and the reading public owes a debt of gratitude to Erin Kelly, the editor of this book.

Rawls espouses an ingenious social contract theory, an intellectual device in which we are asked to imagine the basis for government behind a "veil of ignorance". This "original position' prevents us from knowing what our position would be in the new regime or even from knowing what our native endowments (intelligence, heatlth, etc.) would be. In this situation, Rawls proposes that we would rationally proceed to developing a society where certain civil and property rights are guaranteed and have priority, where basic institutions are constructed to permit equal opportunity and certain minimum guarantees for education, health care, and economic support. Rawls construes his system as requiring the development of a "property owning democracy" in which basic institutions are constructed to prevent the development of large concentrations of wealth and political power. Rawls' system does not ban inequality but he insists on the existence of the difference principle, a rule that structural inequalities are permitted only if they rebound in some way to the advantage of the less advantages. An important modification of A Theory of Justice that Rawls introduced in Political Liberalism is the emphasis on pluralism and a reduction in some ways of the scope of his system. Rawls points out that modern democracies are pluralistic and contain many who legitimately disagree about the ends of society. Since Rawls original conception of political society can be construed as sponsoring a complete moral system (one of its attractions fo many of his followers, Rawls modified his ideas to insist that his scheme is restricted to political issues. This is a stronger scheme in many ways because it allows Rawls to argue that by restricting the scope of his system, it actually enfranchises citizens to pursue their own diverse ideas of ultimate good.

Rawls' ideas have been and will be debated vigorously. Many will object that despite his effort to narrow the scope of his system to political ideas, it still has important aspects of a complete moral doctrine. For example, in this book, Rawls himself points out that his system has signficant impact on the organization of family life. The difference principle has always been controversial and will continue to be so. Rawls himself points out one problem. He argues that it would not greatly impair economic efficiency but this may not be true. Indeed, I suspect that a property owning democracy, even if tenable, would be less efficient than a modern capitalist welfare state and consequently such a state can arise only after the development of capitalist welfare states. I suspect that one of the reason's Rawls wanted to produce this book is that he hoped a more accessible version of his ideas would spur the development what he regards as a more just world.

Joe wrote two really good books. YOur health and return to life. He espouses the greeks and athenians. A sane mind in a sound body, not too much and not too little and know thy self were all high points in his books. I highly recccomend this book.

Sinverely,

E.sill

Joseph Pilates was a genius. it is great that he is starting to get the recognition he deserves. It is great to know that there is a book in print with his photos of his original mat exercises.

This book is overpriced and of poor quality. The paper and printing are well below current standards even though it was published in 2000. I really wasted my money on this. I did find his ranting about society in general somewhat interesting. Seems people complained about the same things in 1934 that they do now: Society is in a mess and the media is mainly at fault for this. What is the cure for all these ills? The Pilates Method.

If you are looking to get started with Pilates excercises don't buy this book. You can buy two or three of the others for the same price.

This is the original Pilates (or Contrology) "manual". In succint (if not always fluid) text, Joseph Pilates outlines the intentions of the legendary exercise system he designed as well as how each exercise should be performed.

This is a simple, short manual. It's surprising that a system that has ended up being shrouded in so many mysteries and rules, particularly by those who are in his direct "lineage", started out relatively humbly. Many, many Pilates instructors will tell you that if you can't take a class in Pilates (and usually in an expensive studio), you're probably doing it wrong (and then maybe it's not worth doing). Also, many instructors have argued that most people aren't ready to do the matwork and that they should almost always begin with sessions on the equipment (again, under the watchful and expensive eye of an instructor). Pilates, however, writes that his system should help you "Return to Life" at a minimum of cost and time. The tone of his writing is inclusive- his system should be readily available to everyone. While he does insist that the instructions he sets out should be followed and that one shouldn't move on until all previous exercises are mastered, I'm not sure that the man who wrote this book in 1945 would approve of the elitist tone that some of his modern-day disciples have adopted.

It's interesting to note some of the exercises that are not included in the book. For example, the five-part Stomach Series is one of the most famous sequences in the modern Pilates matwork. Here, however, Pilates only includes the first two exercises (the One Leg Stretch and the Double Leg Stretch). Also, the matwork system is also well-known for the Side Kick Series. Here, Pilates only includes the Side Kick- none of the other now-common five, six, seven, etc. variations. Were these not included because they hadn't been invented yet or because they were deemed too difficult? Not sure, but he does include the more difficult variations for exercises like the Corkscrew.

The instructions for each exercise are simple and (for the most part) easy to understand. That said, it is easy to understand why many Pilates instructors could get overly wordy on some of the movements. Many of the exercises he demonstrates put a lot of pressure on the neck. I wouldn't necessarily advise that this be the only Pilates reference or manual someone uses to learn the movements.

In addition to the instructions for the Contrology matwork, Pilates also shares his thoughts on the importance of proper diet, sleep and relaxation. After reading this twice, I would say that his primary concern was a lack of good circulation. He explains that his system was designed to promote just that (and that's part of the reason almost none of the movements are done standing), and he even has suggestions for the proper way to clean the body such that the skin can breathe (answer: dry-brushing).

While some of Pilates writing style may be off-putting to modern readers, he comes across as a man who would like to make the world a better place, one body at a time. If perhaps a little too strident at times, his motivation seems both benevolent and sincere.

Pilates work differs little from Delsarte theory and its decomposition exercises. The writings of Joseph Pilates is stunningly similar to the late 19th and early 20th century works of such physical culture luminaries as Bess Mensendieck, Alice Bloch, Genevieve Stebbins, Professor Attila (the trainer of Sandow and Klein) the coursework of Henry Titus, and many more examples could be found in works by Charles MacMahon, Bernarr MacFadden, Charles Atlas and Tilney.

While it is good that this information is out there, readers should be aware that Pilates is not revolutionary in any way. Time and motion photographic studies of the human body date to the 1880's and Taylor's principles of optimal body movement were evident in early 20th century physical culture exercise training found all over the Western world.

Anyone in interested in how evolution impacts their day-to-day lives should read this book. It's not only informative, but also an enjoyable read.

Why we get sick is great for explaining evolutionary medicine for first timers. It's great for students, classrooms and anyone interested in Evolutionary medicine.

PROS: It helps you understand why some illnesses are good for you. Well written and easy to read.

CONS: It's a dated. Medical advances and knowledge have come a long way in the last 15 years.

CONCLUSION: I would suggest reading "The Survival of the Sickest" instead. It's more up to date and has better writing than this book.

"If you are starving in a rain forest, eat the camouflaged frog that is hidden in the vegetation, not the bright one sitting resplendent on a nearby branch."

At first glance, this quote from WHY WE GET SICK wouldn't seem to be relevant to the topic. But since the hypothesis of the book is that evolution and natural selection govern the senescence of aging and the physiological responses to diseases and mortally competitive environments, the fact that the gaudier frog has evolved with potent internal poisons that (should) signal "danger" to any potential predator makes the connection vis-a-vis both the amphibian's toxin and the starving hiker whose internal defense mechanisms may at least cause vomiting and diarrhea if frog's legs make it onto the dinner menu.

As authors Randolph Nesse and George Williams summarize:

"First, there are genes that make us vulnerable to disease ... Most deleterious genetic effects ... are actively maintained by selection because they have unappreciated benefits that outweigh their costs ... Second, disease results from exposure to novel factors that were not present in the environment in which we evolved ... Third, disease results from design compromises, such as upright posture with its associated back problems ... Fourth, ... natural selection ... works just as hard for pathogens trying to eat us and the organisms we want to eat. In conflicts with these organisms, as in baseball, you can't win 'em all. Finally, disease results from unfortunate historical legacies ... the human body must function well, with no chance to go back and start afresh ... Susceptibility to disease ... cannot be eliminated by any duration of natural selection, for it is the very power of natural selection that created them."

Under the umbrella of natural selection, the authors include everything from the obvious and non-arguable, such as fever as a mechanism to kill invading pathogens with heat, to the less obvious and perhaps debatable, such as the instinctive desire of small children to remained unweaned from mother's breast, which serves to prolong lactation and ensures that Mom won't become pregnant with a potential rival. Other examples fall into the category, Gee, Why Didn't I Think of That, including the morning sickness of pregnancy, which serves to prevent Mom from ingesting toxins during that vulnerable period when the unborn child is experiencing peak organ formation, and the causative agent of gout, uric acid, the build-up of which also protects the body from the aging effects of oxidative damage. Then there's cancer, which wouldn't be a problem had we not tissue cells that grow and regenerate. And did you know that premature ejaculation in the male is ostensibly selective, in an evolutionary sense, for those men that can get the gene transfer job done, so to speak, and then flee before the female's alpha male partner shows up to brain the interloper with a knotty pine cudgel?

Nesse and Williams lucidly present an unconventional paradigm of medicine, a different perspective from which to view disease and aging, that's only accasionally preachy. They rue the fact that it's not part of the mainstream, and argue for its inclusion in the curriculum of the country's medical schools. They fail to mention what I think is the more practical route to widespread acceptance, i.e. when it can make the medical industry lots of money.

Hey honey! How about some frog legs for dinner? I see a bright green one with yellow and red speckles perched in the carrotwood out back!

Insightful, progressive, meaningful, and comprehensive coverage of the field. I learned a lot from the book. Few minor points that can be improved. One, the figures in the book (there are only a few anyway) are vague and don't add much to the content. Two, there are many sentences in the book that are either out of context or they don't convey what the authors have in mind. Third, the book could have benefited from a bibliography. Alphabetical bibliography is easier to use to look the sources up than to struggle to find them in the Notes section at the end of the book. But, overall, a great book.

This book happily holds the title of my favorite book of all time. I first read it 15 years ago, and it's still held strong as the best. It's inspirational, adventurous, and deep. It's an easy read, yet you'll never forget it. If you're anything like me, your copy will end up highlighted, bent, wrinkled, broken, and beautiful.

Richard Bach has created an Illusion for all of us to investigate. Is it real or is the Reluctant Messiah our hope? Might we find the meaning of our life and discover that it is all an illusion? The questions are engrossing and the book thought provoking.

For all those beginning this quest, this book is a great place to start. It summarizes well all the salient points in a succinct little package. If you're still feeling adventurous after this book, I recommend The Education Of Oversoul Seven by Jane Roberts.

This is seriously the best book ever written. Even after you've read it and put it on your shelf for a few years and bring it back out, it is like re-discovering an old friend. Awesome...

I have reads parts of the book and know the story. This isn't a review of the book itself, so much as a very abbreviated cautionary tale. At age 19, my old roommate read this book while he was suffering from a newly-developed and undiagnosed bipolar disorder. Read during a prolonged manic stage, he took the book too literally. Suffice it to say that it did not end well. We are not all possible messiahs, and we cannot perform "miracles" to alter the reality around us. If you want to attempt to prove otherwise, do so in a safe place, and with respect for those who care about you.

What was great about this book is that I had to stop and reread some chapters. I really liked Wright's approach to evil. It is not just the philosophers mystery, but it is something that we all face each and every day in all sorts of ways and shapes. I had always thought that the best approach to dealing with the problem of evil was that of a classical apologist. How can a person define what is evil without defining what is good? A classic moral argument leading to God's existence and tolerance of evil for the greater good. Throw that in there with John Piper's comment that God ordains evil and you are left with God looking like He is playing both sides. There is both a strong and a weak point to this.

Wright begins with the Scriptures. He makes the point that though a Theist has grounds to defend a theistic deity, that deity is not necessarily God revealed in Jesus Christ. I think that he is right, in the sense that the Christian story is one where God combats evil through the affirmation that Creation is good and He is recreating it and preparing us to live in the world as He sees it.

He says that evil is a mystery, we do not know it's origin. We do not know whether God ordained it or not, but we do know God is using it and allows it and will ultimately have victory over it. The question of the origin of evil the Scriptures are not concerned about, only that God is dealing with evil on His terms.

The ultimate solution to evil is the Cross and the Victory of God. There is a lot of controversy over Wright's view of the atonement. I thought that He did a good job here when he said that the cross is about Christus Victor, and the atonement theories all represent aspects of that victory. In some mysterious way, Jesus' death and Resurrection won a victory against evil. A victory we appropriate through forgiveness.

Forgiveness is not forgetting, tolerating, or ignoring evil. It is naming it, saying that it is wrong and then living as God's people in the new world order. Forgiveness and reconciliation is a chapter I need to reread as I struggle in forgiving others and forgiving myself. I thought this was an interesting and artistic way of dealing with the problem of evil, one where evil was not at the center, but the victory of God.

NT's book approaches the subject in a different way than anything I have read. His insights are myriad and profound. I appreciate his commitment to a thoroughly biblical understanding, tempered by a deep understanding of history and culture.

There are very few scholars whose work I wait to be released. Among them thus far in my young scholarly career are Marcus Borg, Garry Wills, Mark Noll and NT Wright, authors whose scholarship is prolific, deeply personal and exhaustively researched.

This books represents a transition on Wright's work from Christological scholarship toward a theology of the cross. Although admittedly more on the level of popular reading, it is a must-read for anyone interested in the debate over the current wave of Christian leaders set on reclaiming faith from the Religious Right in favor a service-based Kingdom theology that focuses less on going to heaven and more on the hope and activity of making heaven a present and temporal reality.

For those unfamiliar with the autor, Tom Wright has some interesting (not exactly orthodox / Biblically sound) theology that makes his more academic books generally a good read.

However, as one of his "pop" books, this one seems to be laden with Western European anti-war commentary that comes across as politically motivated, not Biblically-based.

Well I have mixed emotions regarding this book. In many accounts it has been a disappointment. The author is an anglican bishop in Britian, so his somewhat leftist bent is understandable.

I particularly was disappointed by his assertion that wars even with smart bombs are evil. He argues instead that we should respond to evil (what he acknowledges to be a powerful force, one in which was responsible for the holocaust) with negotiation and never war which kills civilians even when things like smartbombs are introduced and even if the cause is just. (Page 125).

I was also offended by the assertion that western governments should forgive debt in Africa (sorry the economists are right, living in the black is important and isn't taught by bailing people out when they live in the red...). On a related note the idea that western governments should try to specially protect people that live in disaster prone areas, also disturbed me (people who live in disaster prone areas are responsible for that choice).

On the theological side, I took issue with the idea that all the suffering endured in this world will be resolved/nullified when God creates a new heavens and new earth. I believe that people can forgive others of the suffering they unfairly endured, however the opportunites that were unfairly taken away as a result (the opportunity of a child/young adult to become mature adults, find their calling/career, have children) will still be fact. This is why I made "the shadow of a fallen world" my title.

I thought the call to mature forgivenesss was very good aspect of the book. In particular, the call of the church to confront believers that are in sin, first individually, then as a group, as a church and then remove them from fellowship if they persist... is an something that the western church needs desperately to teach more about and to embrace.

Although, let me also state that forgiveness and confrontation about sin while good inside Christian fellowship and our relationships with other people doesn't help in a situation like the Israel/Palestine conflict in which both sides believe that the land of Canaan is their by divine right. Sorry, forgiveness is next to irrelevant when you believe that you own something by divine right.

Summing things up, the author spent most of the book critical of stereotypical right-wing and left-wing approaches to address evil, but didn't offer very much in regards to practically confronting and correcting evil in anything but a church setting.