Philosophy Books

I got the book just in time and it was in the promised condition. I would buy from this vendor again.

I have one major point of contention with this author. What I will be referencing is found in her field notes on ODD and chapter seven. I believe that Ferguson is arguing that psychologists are not fairly diagnosing African American students, and labeling them with disorders like ODD without taking into account the external circumstances. She points out that African-American males are disproportionately in special education. First, she says that D'Andre is a part of a growing number of adolescents diagnosed with a personality disorder. She says "the APA goes to pains to underscore the origins of the disorder as within the individual and not the result of external circumstances." She also says that "diagnosticians are instructed to discount the social environment and reject any claims on the part of the individual that external forces have contributed to the problem." She then goes to to say that we need to look at the unreasonable circumstances that led to D'Andre's actions, unreasonable circumstances she feels the psychologists ignore. The reason I bring up this as a major point of contention is because she has all her information incorrect in this section. Often when I am confronted with psychology information in my education classes I asked one of my friends for clarification of the matter. I believe she is a highly qualified person to comment on anything psychology related. I talked to her about the author's claims about ODD and she was amazed at the backwardness of the information.

First, the author claimed that D'Andre was a part of growing number of adolescents diagnosed with a personality disorder. My friend said that is is impossible to label anyone under 18 years old with a personality disorder and that any psychologist who would do so would lose their license. Perhaps the author misspoke and meant to say that D'Andre is a part of a growing number of adolescents with behavioral disorders. Second, these are quotes from the DSM, "judgments about personality functioning must take into account the individual, cultural, ethnic and social backgrounds in providing any diagnosis." The last quote that I feel goes against what Ferguson suggests is, "Anti-Social P.D. appears to be associated with low socio-economic status and urban settings. Concerns have been raised that diagnosis may at times be misapplied to individuals in settings which seemingly anti-social behaviors may be a part of protective survival strategies. In assessing anti-social traits, it is helpful for the clinician to consider social and economic context in which behaviors occur." I bring this point up because the author characterizes psychologists as part of the problem, but the actual writing suggests something else. She indites the APA in a conspiracy to help place labels of personality disorders and ODD on African-American students. She also very blatantly twists quotes from the DSM and APA writings. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that perhaps the school psychologist at Rosa Parks school was doing what she claimed, but she applied that to all of the psychological field.

Her inclusion of the ODD section and her comments suggest that she is spinning information to fit her preconceived hypothesis and also makes me suspect of other conclusions she draws. By how big of a deal my friend is making it suggests to me even further the inappropriateness of Ferguson's comments. I do admit though that this is a small portion of the book but I felt the attention to this detail needed to be made.

There were good points in the book, but I highly suspect some of her conclusions.

When do the black kids take responsibility for their behavior? How can the school help them to do this? To be sure, it is shameful for schools to overly punish black youngsters. At the same time, what does one say to black youngsters who devalue school or use it as an avenue to act out certain stereotypes or cultural dilemmas--when the acting out is self-destructive.

We are caught in a cycle of acting out what Richard Wright called the "Bad N*****" archetype--that is, Bad Thomas, who did not care if he was beaten or lynched, and who remained unbowed before "white" (that is, illegatimate) authority. His heroism was in remaining unbowed.

The author would have done better by searching for the bilateral influences (cultural, stereotypical, archetypical, and developmental): that is, how being "tough" (read: a "hero" on one side, "bad," "unbowed" on the other) affects school personnel. Having done that, she could then make recommendations about how to extract ourselves (both children and adults) from this two-way morass of two-way screwy, self-destructive behaviors and reciprocal archetypes, Bad Thomas on one side and Simon Legre on the other.

Bad Boys, a social science book, is about how African American males are perceived in the school system by school faculty. In this book told by Ann Arnett Ferguson, she follows some eleven and twelve year old boys who are labeled as "unsalvageable", "troublemakers", or "schoolboys." Boys that were labeled "unsalvageable" meant that there is no hope for them and that they would probably make it into the court system at a young age and be lucky to make it to high school. The "troublemakers" were identified as those who got into trouble. The "schoolboys" were those who were labeled as doing well. This book shows how African American boys were looked upon in the school systems.
This book has many good and many bad points in it. The fact that it is written kind of like her own journal was something that I saw as helpful. It made it an easy read. Interviewing the parents and children also made it something easy to read. The interviews were what I though made it the most interesting. It was fun to see what the parents were saying to their kids and also what the kids thought.
The interviewing that she did was good in some ways and in other ways I think she could have improved the book by doing a little more interviewing. What I mean is that when she did interview the children she seemed to do well. However in my opinion I think that if she would have done a little more interviewing with the teachers and the parents then it would have helped her research. I know that this book is about the African American students, however if she would have let us know more of the opinions of the parents and or teachers then I think this book would have improved. When she talks about the teachers in this book she is always talking about how they sent the kids to the office or how they let this kid get away with something but not another one. Most of the time the kids that were labeled the "troublemakers" did not get much leeway on messing around like some of the other kids did. I did like how they interviewed some of the parents. I also believe that if she would have interviewed some of the white kids to see what they thought and how they viewed the African Americans then it would have been a little more interesting.
The interviews in the part "The Real World" made the story come to life. I think that the interview that she did with the parents made us as the readers understand what their home life was like and how their parents were raising them. The interview with Terrence's parents gives us an idea of how home life is in this neighborhood. Terrence's parents want him to succeed in life. They want him to know that everything he does reflects who and how he acts as a person. Terrence's parents want him to know that even the way he dresses reflects on how people are going to look at him and view him. This interview lets us know that the parents really do want their kids to succeed and don't want to see them failing or in trouble.
One thing that I though should have been different were her little field notes. Many of the times they could have been incorporated into the chapters. I had no clue why she had to make them as extra side notes. In some cases in the book it would have made more sense to put them in when she was talking about that subject. Also on the side notes sometimes they seemed to drag on a little too long. For example, in the mothering field note I think that she could have cut out a bunch of that. I know that she made it feel like a conversation but I felt like much of the conversation was repetitive. I think to make things easier in this situation she could have made it shorter by summarizing what the mother was saying.
One other thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that this book was the fact that it looked like Ann was looking for the kids to be troublemakers. She did not go into this book with an open mind. I think she went in with a closed mind and a preconceived notion that African American males are troublemakers. You can see in the way that she writes this book that she already believes that African American children get treated different then other races.
All in all this was a decent book. There are a couple of thinks that could have been done to improve it. If the interviews were a little more diverse and she would have went at going to do her fieldwork with an open mind then she could have produced a better book. Don't get me wrong though the way it was written like a journal and the interviews with the parents did make it a good book. There however is always room for improvement.

I was excited to begin reading this book and to learn how the school system unproportionately suspended and disciplined African American males. I was not expecting to learn how the author related the concept of masculinity and discipline into cause and effect paradigm. Even though this class and other sociological classes have taught me to think for myself, ask questions, and expand on concepts presented to me, I am in agreement with the theories and evidence that the author, Ann Arnett Ferguson, presents in her book.
The book begins with an introduction of the community that Rosa Parks Elementary School belongs to. Ferguson is conducting her research here for her doctorate. She has many forms of observing and gathering data needed for her thesis. Sometimes she is a "fly on the wall", a quiet observer. Other times Ferguson is more involved in participant groups, tutoring, and one-on-one interviews. She gathers the most information and insights through her interviews with the children that attend the school and their families. She credits the interview sessions as a valuable way to let the children ask her questions, gain her trust, and for her to develop a deeper understanding of her own strengths and weaknesses and those of her interviewees.
After observing the pupils of the school in the hallways, after school tutoring sessions, and inside the classroom, Ferguson makes an important discovery that becomes the foundation of her research. Her breakthrough came when she stumbled upon two small rooms in the school. These rooms provided discipline, punishment, and seclusion for students who were not following the classroom or school rules. The first room, used for minor infractions, was known throughout the population of the students as "The Punishing Room". The other room was reserved as a place for students who receiving in-school or after-school suspension, anywhere from one to three days. This space was called "The Jailhouse". Files with children's names on it were stored in these rooms to document that more frequent visitor's deviant behavior. While observing the caliber of students in these two rooms, it does not take long for Ferguson to see two important details: the students who are often in trouble are usually African American and male. Teachers that were interviewed notice this discrepancy as well but cannot offer any well substantiated reasons why this occurs. Over the course of her three years of research at Rosa Parks Elementary School, Ferguson comes up with evidence to explain this phenomenon.
Ferguson argues that rather than simply internalizing the negative labels bestowed on them by teachers and school personnel, the African American boys look critically at schooling as they dispute and evaluate the meaning and motivation behind the labels that have been attached to them. In a school were students are judged by their class, race, and gender, many negative labels and stereotypes are presented to students. It is up to the individual if they want to internalize these beliefs or prove the stereotypes wrong. A major conflict that lies within the male gender is that they feel compelled to exert and portray their masculinity. Their "reputations" center around whether they are "hard" or "soft", and this is very important to their self esteem and self worth. "[...] kids recoup a sense of self as competent and worthy under extremely discouraging work conditions. Sadly, they do this by getting in trouble" (Ferguson, 22). The author continues by arguing that sex as well as race are powerful markers of difference, and can be used as explanations as to why children act they way they do. Each race and gender category has different and unique expectations on how children should act and be disciplined. The expectations from family, friends, and school personnel commonly conflict and cause confusion and deviant behavior on the part of the children.
Ferguson's arguments are coherent and well-researched opinions on why school discipline minority male children in a stricter form than most of the student body. I especially agree with the author's ascertain that teachers can be held directly responsible for perpetuating negative predictions about a student's future. On page 227 Ferguson strengthens this point by saying, "[...] school personnel made predictive decisions about a child's future based on whole ensemble of negative assumptions about African American males and their life-chances". The beginning of the book cites examples of white and black teachers referring negatively to a student's chance of staying out of jail. Ferguson states that most boys she interviewed did not see themselves this way. Rather, they portrayed themselves in a positive light. This is one point that I disagree with. Ferguson states that she does not give much merit to the labeling theory. I hold the belief that when teachers voice the grim options of students, they perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy that harms that student's self esteem and contributes to their "need" to act out in school.
At the end of the book in the chapter labeled "Dreams", Ann Ferguson states that the inclusion of Black English would benefit the students who come from families where this language is spoken. She argues that this would lessen the hostile environment and feelings of disattachment that many African Americans face. Ferguson believes that this would increase the valuable social linguistic environment of the school and provide validation for black students, especially males. I am not sure I agree with this plan. I can see the value of the learning Ebonics and promoting it in the school system, but I also believe that learning proper English is more valuable for students, because it helps them to get jobs and succeed more in the future.
In conclusion, Ferguson's book is a valuable tool in discerning the unequal disciplinary action that plagues most schools. Understanding the mindset and background of male African American students will benefit teachers, school personnel, and more importantly the students' chances for success.

The book is a great discussion started but hardly resolves any of the problems it presents.

A previous reviewer criticizes the book because throught-provoking discussions are begun but not wrapped up or resolved. If they were, the book would not fulfill its function. It's a TEXTBOOK for college classroom settings like the one in which I've used it, and all previous editions, over the past 15 or so years. It's purpose is to provoke discussion so that readers will thrash out the available options and do their own moral reasoning.

Using the Potter Model for moral reasoning as a foundation, the case study approach provides ample and diverse application material from classic situations to current events. The value of the Potter Model approach is well worth securing any edition of the text - it's the case studies which change from edition to edition.

The only drawback is the exorbitant price - all part of this wretched "gotcha!" situation students find themselves in, where publishers seem to be getting away with charging prices that begin at more than double what the market would tolerate for an equivalent non-textbook. Longman employees should be ashamed of themselves for gouging college students $74 for a paperback book which is widely used and therefore not a specialty oddball.

It's still a great book if you want to learn how to DO moral reasoning, with broad application to one's personal life.

J.L's theories of government and rights gave inspiration to the notion that people are "equal" which is a meaningless concept, but inspires in the same way that a flag may inspire. If the notion is taken too far, it becomes dagerous. Spinoza's concept of rights in his brief work on politics and theology is much more valid logically, though not inspiring in the same way.

The Illusion of Supreme Legislative Power
Classical Political Thoughts

The legislative power in a society that allows for money can not be reconciled with individual natural rights because the legislature is bound to compromise the property of minority for the interest of the majority. Thus, despite Locke's assertion that his legislature is supreme, it can not be, since according to Locke's own definition, the foundation of the legislature's supreme power only lies in the complete protection of the people's property by the legislature.

Locke asserts that the Legislative power is supreme in the commonwealth (Chapter 18). This legislative power, however, is only supreme because it protects the life and property of the people. He says,

"And thus the Community perpetually retains a Supream Power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any Body, even of their Legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the Liberties and Properties of the Subject. For no Man, or Society of Men, having a power to deliver up their Preservation, or Society of Men, having a Power to deliver up their Preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the Absolute Will and arbitrary Dominion of another." (p367)

The key here is that "no Man" can give up the right to protect his property and liberty; this means the legislative power does not gain its supreme power by protecting some people's person and property, but everyone's person and property. Sadly, despite Locke's genuine efforts to establish a government that was not "so foolish, or so wicked", his supreme legislature will not protect everyone's person and property. This is not caused by the corruption of the members of the legislature or their promotion of secret laws; instead, Locke's system is intrinsically flawed because the legislature acts according to majority vote.

Locke believes that the interest of the majority vote is the interest of the whole, and the majority vote in a commonwealth must decide the actions of the commonwealth. Locke writes of the necessity for majority rule as follows,
"It is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body, one Community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should." (p332)

Locke makes no mistakes here-a government will never be able to function if every action it takes must obtain the consent of every citizen. Nevertheless, although for most of the time, the differences between majority vote and minority vote merely show differences in opinions about how best to achieve a common goal, it is unavoidable that sometimes the differences of opinion will represent fundamental split of interest. With this unavoidable fissure, the laws selected by the majority vote are bound to hurt the person and property of the minority.

America before the American Civil War is an example where a fundamental fissure in society appeared. In the United States of the late 19th century, there was a clear difference of interest between the slave owning plantation economy of the south and the free labor industrial economy of the north. The Yankees, through the legislature, was enforcing economic laws such as high tariff and low silver excavation that protected northern manufacturing industries but hurt the production and exports of southern farming produces. Since the legislature of the United States was controlled by the more populous northern states, the south felt that its interest was always trumped by the majority. This fissure made the legislature no longer a source of supreme power in the eyes of southerners, and it was the cause of the Civil War.

The American civil war is an extreme example, but lesser examples of differences in interest abound. In one case of the 1980s, the conservative British PM Margaret Thatcher recognized that it was not in the interest of the majority of the British people to keep on subsidizing coal workers with billions of tax money, and decided to let the market determine how the coalmines should be ran. Margaret Thatcher was justly representing the interest of the people who gave her and her party power to sit in the House of Commons. The coalminers, a minority interest group, however, were extremely upset because they would lose jobs if Thatcher succeeded since their high-cost mines could not compete in a market economy. The government and the mineworkers battled on the streets for a year before the issue was resolve.

Whether the PM or the mineworkers had more justice on their side is topic for another essay, but it is clear that fundamental differences of interests between different interest groups exist.

Reading Locke, nevertheless, one might come to the conclusion that the above kinds of conflicts of economic interest only arise from people's greed for obtaining what they do not need-the northern capitalists and the southern plantation owners were only fighting for ever more slaves and mills, and perhaps there should have never been any coalmines if only there was not so much economic development which only produce excess and corruption. One might say that in a true Lockeian society, there will never be such battles for money, and as evidence, one find Locke saying,

"God has given us all things richly, I Tim. Vi. 17. is the Voice of Reason confirmed by Inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils; so much he may be his labour fix a Property in." (p290)

The above idea on the outset seems to put a tremendous limit on the property one can obtain, and this limit promotes a form of simple agricultural society where everyone has moderate property and happiness.

If Locke really does believe that all industrial and expansionary economics are bad and does limit his Commonwealth to the moderate agricultural form, then the legislature could be supreme because when everyone has similar land and make similar produces, there can not be fundamental differences in interest. Nevertheless, Locke is not against industrial and economic expansions since he is not against money, which is the bloodline of economic developments.

Despite the gross inequality that comes with money, Money is acceptable to Locke because it accumulates imperishable goods. Locke believes that although a person should not try to hoard a hundred bananas a day for his own consumption, he should be able to obtain and keep what will be of lasting preservative value. In fact, he sets no limits on such imperishable goods; and the accumulation of imperishable goods is exactly what money accomplishes. Locke writes,

"They having by a tacit and voluntary consent found out a way, how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for overplus, Gold and Silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one, these metals not spoileing or decaying in the hands of the possessor." (p302)

As this passage shows, Gold and Silver do not perish, and therefore, they do not represent wastes. Although they cause inequality, they are "fair" in that they are the "overplus" of
one's labour that do not take away the interest of others.

One with Gold and Silver might purchase a nice English country estate, some nice carriages, or even a Cotton machine. Locke, by accepting these imperishable goods procured with money strips away the supreme power that the legislature could have had in an equal agricultural state. This accumulation of imperishable goods is bound to create differing classes in societies with the capitalists having one interest in the law and the poor having another and also create further interest sub-groups. Since the legislature is bound to pass laws that have majority vote (even when the group represents the minority population), the property and liberty of the minority group will always be compromised.

One might argue at this point that although it is clear that the interest of the minority might be deprived, but when people united together to form civil society, they made the contract with each other that each will be governed by the choice of the majority (P331). They are right, however, this contract is conditional. To understand the conditionality, the rationality for coming into civil society must be clear. Locke writes,

"To avoid this State of War (wherein there is no appeal but to Heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no Authority to decide between the Contenders) is one great reason of Mens putting themselves into Society, and quitting the State of nature." (p282)

The above quote and Locke's ideas about majority rule together show that Locke is offering two choices for living: either one joins the society or he stays in the "State of War". If he chooses the latter, he keeps intact the whole of his property and rights, but must embrace the danger that there can be no "Authority" to protect his property and rights. If he joins the commonwealth, he will have to pay a "fee", which is the cost of the damage to his property majority action might do, however, this loss will be recuperated overtime from the long term security offered by the Commonwealth. Citizens, therefore, only gave up their irrevocable right to property in order to keep their property.

The balance of benefits changes, however, when one is only getting properties taken away by the society, but receives nothing in return. As the groups support different laws in the legislature through their representatives, the minority will not be paying a "fee" for long term security but will be simply be constantly suppressed by the majority. This dictatorship of the majority is no better for the minority than the state of nature when they still kept the right to punish others in their hands.

In any Commonwealth that uses money as the medium of exchange, there must arise differences of interests that make the legislature a place where majority interest will trump minority interest. Thus, individual liberty for some will be preserved, but for others, it will not be. The legislature will never be able to protect the interest of everyone, and therefore can not have supreme power if the source of the supreme power is truly, as Locke claims, the people.

John Locke (1632-1704) wrote "Second Treatise of Government" in 1690, it was the main political philosophical source that our "Founding Fathers" went to in writing the "Declaration of Independence" and in forming our government. I think you should know something of Locke to understand what influenced his thinking. His father was a small landowner, attorney, Puritan and his political sympathies were with the Cromwell Parliament. Like Hobbes, Locke attended Oxford Univ. and did not think much about the curriculum or his professors. Most of his education came from reading books in the Univ. library. Renee Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton's writings greatly influenced Locke. Like Hobbes, he took a tutoring job teaching the son of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and traveled Europe. His friendship with the Earl was beneficial in obtaining government appointments. During the political unrest in England, (1679-83) he fled to Holland because his liberal notions put him at odds with the government.

Locke writes the "Second Treatise of Government" to justify the Revolt of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange to the English throne. The book argues against two lines of absolutist ideas. The first is Sir Robert Filmer's "patriarchal theory of divine right of kings; secondly, Hobbes argument for the sovereign's absolute power in his book "Leviathan." Locke argues that government emanates from the people. Locke's treatise rests like other political writings on its interpretation of human nature. He sees our nature opposite the way Hobbes did, decent and not as selfish or competitive. Man is more inclined to join society through reason and not fear. Man prefers stability to change.

His very important contribution to "law of nature" theory was his bias toward individualism. In state of nature, before government, men were free independent, equal enjoying inalienable rights "chief among them being life, liberty, and property." Where have you read that before? Property rights receive much attention in this treatise. Locke argues that government based on consent of man can still preserve freedom independence and equality.

His political writing had immediate influence in the world and influenced our founding fathers in their struggle against tyranny. He is an excellent writer and his theories are easy to understand by the laymen. As a graduate student of political philosophy, I recommend if you have an interest in politics, philosophy, or government then you must read Locke's "Second Treatise of Government"

This guy is a hallucinator. He's had bouts of rage and depression. He head butts people. He thinks the island talks to him. He blows up submarines. Beware of this guy and his crazy woo woo beliefs!

John Locke's major work of political philosophy is often referred to as a major source for the Declaration of Independence, The Second Treatise of Civil Government. This work, authored in 1690, is a major statement of liberalism. Like Thomas Hobbes, Locke begins with humans living in a state of nature, a situation before the development of the state and government. The Lockeian state of nature was not an unpleasant place. Human reason led people to tend to leave one another alone in their respective pursuits.

Natural law guides people's actions in the state of nature and their reason allows them to apprehend the essence of these laws. Thus, Locke expressed great confidence in human reason. However, inconveniences did result in the state of nature. If disagreements rose between people, it was not always easy to resolve these. If one person stole something from another, it was up to the victim to redress the injustice. And these shortcomings in the state of nature made individuals ultimately, rationally, decide that they should give up some of their freedom in order to secure order and protection of the fruits of their labor. Locke said: "[T]he enjoyment of the property he has in his state is very unsafe, very unsecure. . . . The great and chief end, therefore, of man's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property."

As a result, people contract with one another to form civil society and government in order to preserve their rights under natural law, with the dominant right being termed property. And what happens if government does not protect rights under natural law? Revolution is thereby allowable. For instance, Locke notes one justification for suspending an existing government: "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. . . .[I]t devolves to the people to have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative, such as they shall think fit, provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."

Locke's work well illustrates basic tenets of liberalism, among which are:

1. Individualism (and its concomitants of limited government and certain rights, such as the right to property and to certain freedoms, and equality);
2. Materialism (material incentives are important; acquisition and enjoyment of material goods is altogether proper);
3. Faith in human reason;
4. Faith in the market as a way of distributing wealth and goods.

Is Locke the philosopher of the American Revolution? Probably not. But he well articulated many of the major themes accepted by the Founders of the revolutionary movement in the 1770s.

This book was pretext for Karl MARX idea of communism. Rousseau blamed inequality among people due to ownership of property.

I find Rousseau especially creative in the way he describes how inequality progressed from the time the first humans made contact. He makes a good case for the solitary life. I think Rousseau believes it is destructive whenever humans come together in groups. Governments were formed to protect the weaker from the stronger or as Rousseau thinks to actually protect the rich from the poor. This is an outstanding book. It will haunt you.

This is a wonderful example of the 18th century enlightenment. In this work, Rousseau states that inequalities of rank, wealth, and power are the inevitable result of the civilizing process, something most of us have found to be very true if unfair. This new translation also includes all of Rousseau's own notes.

I enjoyed this tremendously, and am always amazed that the thought pattern and process is oneof the few things that hasn't changed over the centuries.

Excellent discourse. This book discusses some of the rudiments of the history of inequality and how its self supporting and ever existing in human nature. I recommend this book for those readers who either want to increase their knowledge on Jean-Jacques Rousseau or historical development of inequality

(...)

This essay was Rousseaus's submission to the Academy of Dijon contest, entitled, "Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed more to the corruption or purification of morals?".

This text is his story about Nature, and Society, and the scandal that happens when people come together, build, divide, dance, sing, and compare themselves with one another. In many ways, it is his answer to the problem of evil.

Natural man is, in many ways, good, because his needs are immediately felt and immediately fulfilled. Social man begins to compete, to hoard, and to use cunning to enslave his fellows, to gain their esteem, take their property, and sometimes their lives.

His picture of the natural man is half what we think of an "animal" and half the "human" that we recognize in ourselves. He shifts his description as the flow of arguement dictates. The habitual provocateur, Rousseau - watch him!

In a way, he is rewriting the Christian "Creation Myth". In his version, evil does not originate at that moment when man eats the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" --to "be like God"; it happens when Adam wants a better apple than Eve's got for herself. Before society develops as we know it, Adam would have been fine with just a pear.

Dewey, in response to Lippmann (phantom public), gives a diagnosis of what is wrong with today's fading public participation and incentive to act in politics. I do not rate this book five stars only because he gives a vague description of exactly how these conditions to upturn public voice can be met. Overall it is an excellent book for those interested in modern public issues.

It was a good treatise yet after reading this, I wonder what it was that i just read. The book will be remembered for its isolated ingenius points rather than a book as a whole. I read this for a class.

It was a good treatise yet after reading this, I wonder what it was that i just read. The book will be remembered for its isolated ingenius points rather than a book as a whole. I read this for a class.

Derived from a series of lectures Dewey gave in 1927, The Public and Its Problems touches on virtually all the major political philosophy questions of our day. One marvels at its continued relevance into the 21st Century. Dewey, arguably the United States' greatest thinker, does an amazing job in sifting through the problems contemporary society faces when forming a polity.

The point Public and Its Problems brings up on more than one occasion is the need for political and social policy to incorporate the scientific method of testing and retesting to generate better results. Dewey refers to this as an experimental social method and surely felt corporate capitalism had used up its testing time and that a new socio-economic system should be tried. Public and Its Problems talks about how policies and theories need to be constantly in flux and not rigidly adhered. The social sciences would then work to investigate and interpret the results of the testing process.

One portion of the book gives a fascinating look at a puzzling quandary Dewey proffers: that being the contradiction of the French and American revolutions having a philosophy of individualism while being massive collective efforts. This section makes for some complicated reading but it's enthralling nonetheless because it touches on a fundamental political and philosophical question. It's in this chapter of the book where he goes on to pose one of the more audacious and profound points of political thought: the essential fallacy of the democratic creed being that it assumes free human beings can rule themselves. (He obviously does say democracy is a good thing given that it threw off a restrictive cloak.) Dewey goes on to elaborate on the point indicating that what's critically necessary is an improvement to the methods and conditions of debate and discussion. Public and Its Problems goes on to ostensibly say it's the corporate capitalist press that controls policy conduct by controlling public opinion. A most astute observation. Of course this opinion is of a public that hasn't found itself, Dewey asserts. He writes "the modern economic regime control present politics much as dynastic interests controlled those of two centuries ago. They effect thinking and desire." Here he touches on false consciousness and monopolistic control over our culture and institutions and the insidious way they thwart the public from finding itself and rallying for its concerns.

Most importantly, Public and Its Problems contends that the majority populace can indeed make wise decisions regarding our present day technocratic culture; the key is that they must have access to unbiased sources without a vested interest (commercial profit) in the issue. Only with a relatively independent conduit of information can the masses make informed decisions on complex subjects. Clearly Dewey would be quite dismayed to see the state of the mass media today, being wholly owned and controlled by big corporate conglomerates. He would no doubt find it nearly impossible for a public to make intelligent decisions when pseudo-fascists like Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Laura Ingram, Rusty Humphries, Michael Reagan, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter (the proud daughter of a union buster), Mike Gallagher, Bob Grant and William Kristol; along with myriad centrist status quo apologists, set the agenda. In one paragraph of the book Dewey showed incredible foresight by remarking that society "seems to be approaching a state of government by hired promoters of opinion called publicity agents." With current political discourse being dictated by PR firms it's obvious he was right on the mark eighty years ago when he made the prediction.

Dewey comes back to an important question routinely throughout, that being what are the conditions that make the transformation possible for the "Great Society" to change into the "Great Community"? The Public and Its Problems does much to stimulate thought on this vital issue that still plagues contemporary society, especially in the United States when the state was able to wage a war on Iraq when virtually ninety percent of the world was against it!

Dewey's book serves as a tremendous introduction to history's greatest pragmatic philosopher.

This book is a decent collection of Sociological material. However, it is lacking in materials (although it has some) from Radical Feminists, Post Modernists, and theorists that do not share the Euro-Centric bias. I understand that most of the individuals that influenced what Sociology is today, are mostly white, Euro-centric, and male. That is what is precisely wrong with most of what I disagree with, in the discipline of Sociology (my perspective). Being a Professor, I would like to see a broad worldview from a theory textbook. Yes, I teach Marx, Weber, and even Spencer. However, I would like a book that included Freire, Collins, Benjamin, and Baudrillard as well as other individuals from other places in the world. I understand there are books that have these authors, but I think this book is one of the better books in this category, and is fairly easy for students to follow. I think the pieces Farganis picks are great. I would just like to see a thicker book with a few more authors and a few more perspectives. I guess that is what a course pack is for. Still this is a good book for those wanting to read the original material of a particular theorist.

In this comprehensive textbook/reader, Farganis is able to cover a remarkable amount of ground with little fat to trim. While primarily aimed toward a scholarly audience, this is a book that can be illuminating for more casual readers as well. Farganis has a clear mastery of his subject matter, and demonstrates this in two ways. First he captures the socio-historical setting and posits the role of a given thinker; next, he digs a bit deeper by allowing the authors/thinkers to speak for themselves. This fusion of approaches yields a relative gem in its field. Look for Farganis' next work to offer a bit more contemporary theory, this time as propsed by the author himself

Farganis begin not only by covering the standard intellectual history aspects of major social thinkers (e.g. biography, afflications, influences) but also by looking at the hard questions that come from the philosophic assumptions and lineage of each thinker. His coverage, selections, and treatment of each author is certainlty worthy of a high-powered philosophy seminar, but his work also digs into the practical, historic, and political implications of thinker. It is rumored that Farganis will offer more of his own thoughts on society and social theory in the comming volume, and I personally and curious and excited to find where he places himself.

This book is a real eye-opener, and delves into practical matters regarding how to "reason." It leaves out, technicalities and reduces the ideas to the level an everyday person can comprehend.
(Nwankama Nwankama, Intelligence Analyst)

Giving this book one star is, I admit, a little unfair since I have not read it, but one thing must be kept in mind. What does one base one's critical thinking upon? One must have an anchor or base in order to think critically. Part, no I will say much, of what is wrong with our society today is the fact that no one seems to accept that there is absolute truth. This is what we should strive for when we think, when we discuss, when we argue and we do any activity that involves thinking. One doesn't simply think critically. I do not know if the author mentions this or not, so you can read me the riot act if he does, for I am admittedly ignorant. What I am saying, though, is that we must approach any activity with an eye to finding the truth. Without it, we are lost.

Raise your intelligence with this book; the first few chapters will enable the reader to approach information absorbtion likely in a way they perhaps never considered. For others it will confirm their approach to open and thoughtful listening, and go forward with the assurance that they were doing things right. The book is an easy and engaging read, and, my hunch is that it is a classic in this area.

To be more magnetic, engaging and introspective, requires an inquisitive mind. Alec Fisher's, Critical Thinking, teaches you how to think about thinking. It's not a passive exercise and neither is the read. Fisher actually takes you through exercises within the book to get you accustomed to thinking better. A must read for anyone interested in out-thinking competitors, fine tuning your thoughts or merely learning how to become more persuasive in your presentations.

Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute

The author takes the reader -- very methodically -- through all the problems and trip-ups of thinking which cause ordinarily smart people to come to pretty stupid conclusions. He also provides "Thinking Maps" so that, once aware of how we can go afoul, we can choose to think in a more disciplined and scientific way. For these reasons, every person, starting at an early age, should have this decidedly academic book as part of their curriculum. In that setting, the exercises to spot sloppy thinking and instead use critical thinking would be wonderful. As an adult, however, reading this book on a treadmill, all the exercises interwoven through the text, slowed me down. It is for this reason that I gave it 4 rather than 5 stars.

I bought this book a few weeks ago and really enjoyed reading it. I think it was thought-provoking. I really liked the way the authors looked at what the families purchased and then discussed the items and their origins. I think that helps the average person to relate to the information. I highly recommend the book to all people that care and are curious about where their food comes from and if there are ethical implications that they should consider before making the purchase (e.g., environmental considerations, animal concerns, etc.). Two thumbs up for this book!

Throughly researched, this book provides an insightful and provocative look into the ethical/environmental concerns revolving around our meat eating culture. What Singer and Mason are able to avoid is taking on a holier-than-thou tone, while they come to the sensible conclusion that a vegan lifestyle is preferable to an omnivorous one. However, they also investigate the truth behind food labels, and the issues of organic and local food. Very thoughtful, and hopefully this book will instigate further change in people who wish to make a positive change for the sake of the world.

This book offers a very thought-provoking view into the world of food. Forget restaurant hygiene and other crazes, this book portrays the alarming state of the food industry as it operates in the USA today (with a slight glimpse into Europe as well). The authors do a very good job at presenting facts and issues surrounding the ethics (obviously) of the food industry, with a focus on farming. Unlike many other similar discussions, I felt the authors' approach was very easy to read (or digest, heh), with a seemingly open-minded view on the world.

Since finishing the read, I have altered my personal food buying decisions. I'm not perfect by any means, but I feel learning about the "what goes on behind closed doors" has helped me find a new appreciation for awareness and conscientiousness about food. I've given up some foods entirely, and am doing much more research in my buying decisions. I appreciate the education the book provided me, and already feel like a better person for the decisions it's helped me made.

Note: I'm an omnivore, and I *love* steaks. I'm just a bit more thoughtful than I was before about them.

I really thought this was a great book. It is well written (believe it or not it is a "page turner") and it covers a broad range of topics in an open minded and sober manner. It deals with ethical, envirnomental and economic political side of what we eat, as well as other topics and uses a narrative thread following 3 different families with different lifestyles. I got a lot out of it.

This is a superb book. Everyone should read this to know what they are truly consuming and how it effects our planet and its inhabitants. It's time that we are aware of the consequences of our food choices so that we may hopefully make better choices and decrease our impact on the planet.

A decent text introducing at least the basic framework for philosophical
positions to those without a lot of philosophy background. Nice to use
as a secondary text supplementing primary texts. One things to make sure of, however; get the second edition and not the first. I ordered a used edition thinking that it would be the second edition as Amazon has grouped it. It wasn't however. The first edition's last chapter is on feminism whereas the second's is on school reform. I am now going to have to order another one because of Amazon's screw up!

My copy of the 2nd Edition contains a large section of pages that have been duplicated and the pages that should be there are missing. The book seems good other than that, but check your copy for this fault immediately upon delivery. I would have given it a good rating if not for this fault.

This book came quickly and was in excellent condition. I will be using it for a course I am taking and am thankful for the savings,quick delivery, and good condition of this book. Much thanks to the seller and Amazon.com

Nel Noddings provides a good introductory text to the history of educational philosophy accessible even to those with little or no formal philosophical background.

Theoretical Nursing is not only well written and researched - it's also very readable. Its significance goes well beyond epistemological issues related to nursing. The author does a great job of balancing breadth and depth of the very appropriately chosen topics. Concepts are readily applicable to other disciplines and leave enough room for critical evaluation. The bibliography is excellent.