Philosophy Books

This book is simply terrible: it is subjective in the extreme; it is highly biased and in many cases it is in conflict with fact. The author preaches personal social policy preferences as academic discipline and submits wildly speculative opinion as science.

If you're interested in real Sociology, check out something by Joseph Berger. If you want a great general review of the sociological / anthropological / demographical / geographical / historical forces that have shaped the way our world is today then take a look at "Diversity amid Globalization" by Martin Lewis, et al.

I really enjoy the writers personality. The book was very good. I would read other material he has written. I believe he knows what he's talking about and explains it in fun detail. He comes across with humor that brings the subject closer to home. This is a living book. You can see what is happening....love it.

This is a wonderful book for introducing undergraduate students to the philosophy of Sociology. Schwalbe's concept of "mindfulness" really grabs you. The concept is deceptively simple but extremely rich in its power to inspire the sociological imagination in students - and professors. Mindfulness ---- what a great idea!

Schwalbe's concept of "Sociological Mindfulness" - or basically, how to be a good and socially responsible person - is heavily filtered through his liberal ideaological views. He tells us in the book's very first chapter that calling him a liberal is meaningless, because labels in themselves are meaningless. Sure, throwing around labels like "Liberal" or "Conservative" is not only weak, but cliche. However, when you're writing a book that is essentially a guide to living in and improving society, you definitely lose some credibility for being clearly biased politically.
I don't identify myself at all as a conservative, as I'm pretty liberal myself (possibly even more liberal than Schwalbe that condemns anyone producing or supporting pornography as being responsible ultimately for only misery, and lumps that specific industry in with big tobacco and gun manufacturers), but that doesn't mean I support someone shoveling a political agenda and calling it social science.

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.

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.

First of all, I read an older edition of Buckley's book, but I assume the two are very close. In "God and Man at Yale", Buckley concentrates on how Christianity, individualism, and capitalism are looked at by different professors and textbooks. He feels that these beliefs and values are largely either underrepresented or outright attacked. I found Buckley's comments on individual teachers to often be quite interesting though these men are almost certainly retired or dead now. The discussion on economics textbooks was generally drier than the rest of the book, but someone who enjoys the topic may find it very interesting. Buckley's solutions to the problem make me a little uncomfortable though I feel some of those opposed to Buckley's ideals go pretty far themselves. In truth, conservatives will probably enjoy the book while liberals probably wont. I would recommend it to those interested in 1950s education, how students are influenced by what they learn, and probably to William Buckley fans (this is the first book I read by him so I admittedly wouldn't be the best person to judge in that department). Overall, it was an interesting read.

It was an honor to read God and Man at Yale, by William Buckley, Jr. In his book, Mr. Buckley writes (in his incredible prose that is unmatched by any other political pundit around) that the 1950s Yale has reached a turning point: it can continue to move towards secularism and socialism, and ultimately work against the public good, or it can choose to proselytize the virtues of individualism and spiritualism (the Christian sort, according to Buckley).

Buckley argues that Yale should stand for something. Skepticism is not a worthy virtue if it does not arrive at a conclusion. Skepticism should be in furtherance of conviction, Buckley argues, rather than skepticism for skepticism sakes. This is a departure from the Socratic method, where the entire purpose is proving how little we know, never arriving at a point or conclusion.

Buckley is perhaps the modern architect of a conversation revolution that has been growing over the last forty years. Some of the theoretical prescriptions that Buckley has outlined have not been proven to be successful over time. Buckley urges Yale alumni to withhold providing support to the university so long as it continues to advance secularism and collectivism. This may well have modified the behavior of the administration at the edges, but it certainly has not changed the foundation of the modern university, let alone Yale. Yale is now at the epicenter of liberalism, spewing as much liberalism as a modern Berkeley classroom. It is arguable that most Yale alumni do not care about the values that Buckley had preached, and if this is so, Buckley is still vindicated since he argued that Yale alumni should simply investigate to determine if the university is furthering values that run counter to their own.

It does make sense, though, that a university should not be a hot bed of crazy ideas simply to allow students the chance to make the right decisions as to what is the public good. Some causes are, simply put, not part of the public good - such as Nazis and socialism. Under Buckley's system, which I would support, the alumni of Yale (and most other universities) should withhold contributing to the university unless they fire communist and socialistic professors, especially those teaching classes such as Marxism, which gives students an unrealistically positive impression of Marx, as well as economics, where modern economic principles are likely to be slammed in favor of socialistic economic principles. This is one of the best books that I have read criticizing the malaise in academia.

Implicit in a democracy is the free conversation of ideas. Ideas compete with each other for acceptance by individuals, society as a whole and institutions. One of these institutions is the University. Should the University form the argument or do the professors independently make arguments quite independent what the alumni or University president wants made. Does a University organize around a certain concept or school of thought. Does the University President and trustees form the bases of the argument or do they blindly hire people of a certain criteria and let the pieces fall where they will.

William F. Buckley forms the argument that Yale University of the late 1940's and early 1950's has a school of thought about economics, religion, and society that are not consistent with the values and goals of the alumni of the period the book was written. To be sure the University President claims the values taught at Yale were quite by accident protecting the higher value of academic freedom.

William F. Buckley goes into some detail about how religion and Christianity is expressed by various faculty who teach to the none theological student. One Professor agressively makes theoutdatedness of Christianity with apologetic type arguments, but mostly through characterization. While a Chrisian professor makes some apologetical arguments and careful not to be offensive to the none Christians. The author also goes into some great detail about the social studies department.

William F. Buckley evaluates the economic training at Yale. The role of private enterprize and government in producing and distributing wealth. The author further explains that emphasis on the govermental role and wealth redistribution effect the political thought and occupational goals of the student and recent graduate of the University. He further believes a large portion of the alumni and parents of the student would not be comfortable with what is taught at the University.

What can one say of "God And Man At Yale" that has not already been said? (There must be something, otherwise, why should I start this review?) It is a classic in Conservative thinking, a primer for civilized debate, and a template for structured reasoning. This book came at the forefront of a wave of the new American Conservatism, which seemed like the last dying gasps of the old American conservatism when it initially arrived on the scene in 1951.

Shortly following Buckley's cajoling of Yale, Goldwater ran for President, Phylliss Schlafly battled feminist tyrants and Reagan was swept into office as a result of it all. A whole world of conservative thinkers and pundits found a waiting fan-base, one that Buckley gently "broke in" for all of us.

OK, so that is the history... but what of the book?

Certainly, the names of the then teachers, professors and administrators that Buckley took to task are irrelevant and so is the course load descriptions this far removed from the days of "God and Man Af Yale". But the central argument has, if anything, gotten more acutely realized. That religion, economics and American exceptionalism is anathema to the properly arranged University professor is nearly accepted as axiomatic by everyone on both sides of the issue these days, 50 years after the book was first published. Few argue the point as they attempted to do in the name of "fairness" in Buckley's days at Yale.

But, I will show here a quote from the book that shows Buckley's prescience: "I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level. I believe that if and when the menace of Communism is gone, other vital battles, at present subordinated, will emerge to the foreground."

And that is just where we stand today. Certainly the struggle against Islamofascism is an important one, but we are seeing the University embattled by conservative students and parents more each day in the post Communist world, now that we have the luxury to do so. Communism is on the down turn and we now have the energy to address the sorry state of affairs in American education- as well as the tools with the internet. The building disgust about leftists in the Universities is palpable and growing. We are edging ever more toward "doing something" about it all at long last. Buckley should be excited about the immediate future for the turn around of American education.

Also, this book is a great example on how to structure an argument. Using this book as a template would do any debater well.

Thanks, Mr. Buckley. You have inspired many of us.

With all due respect to Mr. Buckley's respect for his religion, Catholicism, the revelation to me is that scholarly steeples at Yale apparently affect persons differently. Some see them as hallowed, others as mere obstacles to hurdle in pursuit of what are often portrayed as lofty ideals within the context of Godly acceptance. For most people those ideals do not easily include pedophilia, but when I once read a "scholarly" paper from the 1960's that defended the practice (though typically moreso in an effort to reconicile the dilemma), it became clear to me that God is not a universal perception at Yale, nor is humankind. Trying to appreciate the scholarship and insightful method of choosing so brave a topic during that period, I still found it hard to accept that anyone - well educated - could justify or minimize the harm done to an innocent. Today, in 2005 my opinions are unchanged, and in fact, perhaps are far more biased for learning of the extent to which Catholicism allowed such acts to become what could only be called a universal norm. The Biblical passage that comes to mind is one well known by most Christian, and the shorted in the Bible, it is said. "Jesus wept." This is the logic most expect from the quality of Yale regardless of how well written or scholarly it is done if Christianity is the objective.

Like others in this series, this pocket tome exposes the reader not only to an overview of the discipline of History, but also to the tone and writing style of Historians. A fine, quick read that seems to give the flavor of both History and Historians.

Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy. The British spellings and usages may annoy some American readers. But overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

What is contained in the pages of this text far surpasses its size, and its worth cannot be adequately represented by its low cost. I found that, using this book as part of my preparations for school, as a required reading, that it surprised me. Although I had read other books in the series before, and both enjoyed and profited from the time spent engaged in such, I must admit that I felt a certain amount of disdain for the idea of reading a book with the title -A Very Short Introduction-. After all, had I not just recently graduated with a degree in history? Did I need to be told what history was? Apparently I did, because the "history of history" contained in its few pages enlightened me as to where what I do came from. It breaks down the most fascinating evolution of theory from Thucydides to today, from each fracture and faction formed along the way, to the theories that resulted in the eventual outcome. Today, history is broken into many smaller disciplines, and if you are thinking about pursuing history in college, or just like to study it from the armchair, this book will open your eyes and entertain your mind...for two to three hours...but leave you with information that will give you an idea of just how deep the rabbit hole truly goes into the depths of time. The examples the author uses to illustrate his points are interesting (although they tended to focus on his own research area of Medieval history), and, altogether the prose was neat and the style fluid and conversational - a combination I very much enjoy!

John Arnold shares his passions and cautions about the joys,relevance and sometime misuses of history.The reader is treated to a visit with a true intellectual.

John Arnold has written an excellent book about history and what history is really all about. History is an argument and Arnold points out some of the issues throughout history (was history created by a great person or did a great event make a person seem great?). It's an easy and very informative read for history majors and non-history majors. It will make you think about history in a new way and provides great information about how and why history is so very important to all of us.

I have read Pascal's Pensees 2 times now - and cannot but marvel at his depth and Truth. I have been blessed with languages and been able to read this monumental work in its original language of French. The translated book though is good and detracts not from the clear thoughts propounded. Truly an Apologist before any other, Pascal will with clarity, wit, logic and sarcasm, point out the faults of man, his need of God and why there is only one true God. Like a modern Solomon, Pascal states with simplicity many a timeless truth about the human condition. So much of this book could be used as quotes to guide nearly all facets of our lives. This is a must-read for those with an interest either in apologetics or truth.

I first picked up Pascal's Pensees because I was intrigued by his reputation as a genius of physics and mathematics. I was not very far into it before I realized that I was reading a Christian spiritual classic, in its own right.

Perhaps because Pascal was such a brilliant physicist and mathematician, his Pensees resonate with my very modern soul, steeped as it is in the scientific mode of thought.

He understands the restlessness of the modern soul in his comments on "diversion" - "If our condition were truly happy we should not need to divert ourselves from thinking about it." And again - "The sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room." These things are at least as pertinent in the 21st century as they were in the 17th.

His comments on reason (and its limitations) are very sharp - "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it." Pascal was a world-class scientist of his day, and yet he was very much aware of what reason was and was not capable of.

I especially liked his comments on "The Hidden God" - "[We see] too much to deny and not enough to affirm." Or again, "What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. ... to know that one has lost something one must see and not see; such precisely is the state of nature."

He is also very perceptive in his comments on the simultaneous greatness and smallness, glory and corruption, of human nature.

And I haven't even mentioned the two most famous passages, "The Wager" and "Reasons of the Heart"; this book is dense with nuggets of pure gold.

The Pensees can seem very disjointed, because, in his lifetime, Pascal merely wrote down his thoughts as they occurred to him. What we have are essentially his notes; he died before he could organize them into a coherent work, or develop some of his more obscure themes. A lot falls on the editor/translator to make sense of the material he has to work with, and I think A.J. Krailsheimer has done an admirable job.

This is a wonderful book, and justly counted a classic.

Before actually reading "Pensees," I knew Blaise Pascal and his "Pensees" only from snippets of quotes such as, "The heart has its reason of which reason knows nothing" and from "Pascal's Wager": better to risk believing in God and living with Him for all eternity and being wrong, then risk not believing in God and living apart from Him in all eternity and because you were wrong.

Having read him, I know now that the quote and wager just mentoned, though only snippets, do summarize his brilliance and his beauty. Like few others, Pascal fuses head and heart in his defense of Christianity. His ability is likely due to his brilliant mind that on November 23, 1654, from 10:30 PM to 12:30 AM encountered God in a mysterious, mystical experience that he could only describe with the one-word epitaph: "Fire."

For the rest of his brief life (he died at age 39), the fire in his soul and the genius of his mind merged in the "writing" of "Pensees." I place "writing" in quotation marks because Pascal's early death never allowed him to finish "Pensees." What we have is akin to his outline (though 325 pages in length!). Imagine if he had actually finished it. Pascal, ever the absent-minded professor, would have a thought run through his mind, write it down, cut it in a strip, and splice it in with other similar subject headings.

It's helpful to understand this before reading "Pensee" for what you find is brilliant disorder--an incomplete sentence here, half a thought there, then long and insightful paragraphs here. In other words, you do need to wade through the unusual design of the book, but in the wading you will find oceans of depth that flood both your heart and your head with passion and reason to love and know God.

Pascal's "real world" arguments for God are the most rationally and personally compelling ones that I have ever read. Pascal honestly faces the reality that we see God only in part and that by evidence alone, whether of reason or nature or both, we might just as well conclude that there is no God (the atheists), or that He is not loving, or not powerful, or that He is disinterested (Deism), or dispassionate (the Greek philosophers). He then explains that God reveals enough in nature to cause us to perceive His existence and to perceive that we are finite and fallen. Nature, according to Pascal, points more to the Mediator--Christ--the One who reveals the hidden God as a God of holiness and love, and the One who reveals us as God's prodigal children who need to come home.

Reviewer: Dr. Robert W. Kellemen is the author of "Soul Physicians: A Theology of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction," "Spiritual Friends: A Methodology of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction," and the forthcoming "Sacred Companions: A History of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction."

My profile- No qualifications as a philosophy critic whatsover

I write this review based on my own experiences while reading it in my early 20's... I was blessed with the time and the setting for it was done in a remote beach town here in Venezuela...indeed if there ever was a good time to read the Pensees it was during this period, where I had the time to read the philosophy, where the spirit was eagerly looking for its tools to discover truth..

The Pensees are even more applyable today (at my 40s) than back then.. its true I no longer follow the precepts of the Roman Catholic Church as I did back then.. to outgrow your religion, your nationality and your family is to me a necessary part of existence.. its ok if you go back to any of them later, but the trip has to be made... and to make this trip this is the book!! sure, it has compelling arguments to turn you into a christian.. but then again, the arguments are compelling for any religion that uses them.. I do not want to give you an impression that this is about religion only.. they are some many themes.. chose your existencialism poetry (young readers take note).. use practical psycology as to classify manking perception modes... laugh at the imagination is a an imperfect tool that exerts its mastery here and wide..

For thousands of years humanity has been searching for the presence of an invisible God. Blaise Pascal's "Pensees" is an excellent book describing why God's presence in our lives is so important. Even though I disagree with Pascal's reasoning concerning the defense and support of the Christian faith, he comes across as someone interested in the well-being and happiness of others, which makes it possible for "Pensees" to be beneficial to people of all faiths.
Pascal reminds us that people have been trying to find happiness, through worship, for many years. People have worshipped idols like wood, clay, stone and religious figures. Pascal's intention is to extend the idea that the need to worship someone or something is a natural fixation installed in us. Man's need to worship someone or something must then be due to the fact that God exists.
Pascal's "Pensees" suggests that we need God's help to be happy and to settle many of our own internal wars. Pascal points out that people fight with their own selfishness as well as that of others. He reminds us that the injustices, tyranny and irrational wars of the world have caused much distress. Pascal points out three troublesome questions humanity has struggled with: what is my purpose in life, where is my life going and how much time do I have left?
Pascal sheds light on the three types of people in the world and how God's presence in their lives is needed for their happiness. He tells us that people who have found God are reasonable and happy. Those who have not found God but continue to seek God are unhappy and reasonable, and those who leave God out of their lives are unreasonable and unhappy. Pascal is trying to relate to us that true happiness comes from knowing and understanding our creator.
Pascal, with his wager, intends to show how people have nothing to lose or possibly everything to gain when they put their faith in the Christian God. Although, he argues total destruction may find those who choose not to devote themselves to the Christian faith. As I stated, I disagree with the one-sidedness of Pascal's wager. If we look at Pascal's wager from a religiously neutral standpoint, we can eliminate the fallacy of the wager. Therefore, to put your faith in the "Creator of All Things" can only bring about a relationship with the true God.
Pascal's Pensees is a challenging book that if looked at with the right perspective depicts that happines can be found when a relationship is established with the true God. Pascal's "pensees", consists of ideas that can be useful if applied to our lives in a positive and non-prejudicial way.

For many, the answer to the above question is "no" but for me as a Christian, I've never found them to be so separate in focus so as to need a reconcilitation. True religion and proven science harmonize very well, and Schroeder has written an interesting, thought-provoking book about the seeming parallels between what the Bible states and the findings of biochemists, astrophysicists, and even paleontologists. His explanation of the six creative days of Genesis was fascinating.

Schroeder's theories are invaluable for anyone with strong ties to both the physical sciences and the veracity of the Bible. Without his books I would have been content to think about Bible for Bible and science for science. With his books, each one enriches and enhances the other. Science of God is his most important book, but the nitty-gritty of his time dilation theory is better-explained in Genesis and the Big Bang. Must-read.

a fantastic book giving new insights into old historical problems, very readable even for the le-man, I highly recommended it.

Very interesting! It is a study of the first chapter of Genesis in light of recent findings in physics, microbiology, and astrophysics. Something I found intriguing was about our (the Jewish) calendar.

". . . Logically, the calendar should start with the creation of the world. That would be the generations since Adam plus the six preceding days. But such is not the case. Two thousand years ago, long before there was any controversy over hundred-million-year-old dinosaur bones and cosmic ages reaching into the billions of years, the starting date of the biblical calendar was set at the creation of the souls of humankind (Gen. 1: 27), and not at the creation of the universe, the "In the beginning" of Genesis 1: 1." (Page 45)

That is something I intend to ask my rabbi!

The author then goes on to explain how, using cosmic background radiation, it can be shown that all the 16 billion years leading to Adam took place in six days. Since the first chapter of Genesis and science are in agreement as to the order in which events happened, this makes wonderfully good sense. Whether or not I am convinced will depend on what the rabbi says when I ask him about when the calendar begins - or other research to follow!

Another fascinating subject was the mention of the age differences prior to the Flood:

"Prior to the flood at the time of Noah, the life spans of the persons being discussed ranged from 365 years to 969 years, with the average being 840 years. Sexual maturity (the age at which a woman first gives birth) was reached at 65 to 187 years (average 115 years). Both averages are approximately ten times the current values for developed countries, obviously far from today's reality. Whatever one may think of the pre-Noah longevity, by the time of Abraham, just ten generations after Noah, life span had so decreased that the Bible required an explicit miracle for Abraham, age 99, and Sarah, age 89, to conceive a child (to be named Isaac, from the Hebrew word for laugh, as Abraham did when the angel said he and Sarah would be parents the following year; Gen. 17: 17).

"The cause of this dramatic decrease in life expectancy is not stated. However, the actual age data as listed in the Bible are instructive. . . . Prior to Noah there is no strong trend either increasing or decreasing longevity. Following Noah, a trend is clear. Life span becomes shorter through the generations. The biblical concept is that change takes place over time and through generations, just as did the development of the world in the first chapter of Genesis." (Page 15)

I do wish he had gone into more detail as to what he thinks may have caused the decline in age. Was there something that the Flood brought about that changed the environment? Regardless, I did find the book illuminating.

This was an interesting book. Not that any of his ideas have been picked up after reading this, but I appreciate the different points of view and they were refreshing to read. His attempts to reconcile the so-called rift between the Old Testament and modern science is nothing if it isn't tidy.

This book is essential reading for every undergrad. Empiricism should be taken to heart by anyone engaged in social or natural sciences. Shamefully, it tends to be forgotten in both, in favor of a pseudo-science of studying "concepts" or "models" instead of facts.

Social sciences are behavioral. They study human behavior, and therefore are purely empirical. Natural sciences are observational and experimental, and therefore also empirical. Yet, even some geologists (in my experience) tend to forget to examine the world as it is and instead fall back lazily on a fake intellectualism of model-driven thinking.

Completed some time after he had immigrated to New Zealand upon fleeing Nazi Germany, this, one of Popper's most important and well-known works, is where he first introduces his solution to the problem of induction. According to Popper, scientific theories can never be proven; they can only be tested and confirmed or "falsified." In short, theories are mere hunches: more or less guided speculation, that must undergo continuous and rigorous testing and are subject to being overthrown at any time, including even after they have been rigorously tested. Popper's main point is that theories, are never completely proven, whether tested or not, they must remain available to falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery was thus aimed primarily at pseudo-science and the pseudo-scientist (or at least at what Popper saw as the dangers of pseudo-science). Eventually the attack developed here became a full-scale broadside against the technique and process of inductive reasoning and of all scientific progress and theorizing that had been advanced on the basis of such reasoning.

Popper contends here (as does Hume and his other fellow Logical Positivists) that induction -- and presumably this includes mathematical induction, which many believe to be on a somewhat sounder footing than ordinary inductive reasoning -- was not logical. Among those that Popper considered a practicing pseudo-scientist, was none other than the great Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytic theories of consciousness, which Popper considered to be dangerous pseudo-science.

Before this book was written, the best defense against the logical hole in induction was that put forth by the other Logical Positivists. They had rested their hat on a technique they coined as the "Principle of Verification," which was designed consciously as a temporary stopgap to close the logical hole that they all knew existed in inductive reasoning. Here Popper analyzes this principle and concludes that even though it is indeed a sounder form of induction, it remains induction no less: that is, it too is not logical. The "Principle of Verification" which required that theories be capable of passing rigorously designed scientific tests in Popper's eyes was just a halfway house between "pure induction" and Popper's more stringent criterion introduced for the first time in this book called the "Principle of "Falsification." Falsification turned the "Principle of Verification" on its head, by requiring that every proposition be falsifiable, and thus logical through the backdoor of being forever open to testing.

For the better part of four decades, Popper's principle of falsification reigned supreme in science, but now cracks have begun to develop, and many scientists, including some of his fellow logical positivists are beginning to give inductive reasoning and the Principle of Verification a second look. Despite these emerging reconsiderations of Popper's work, this book (which is dense and heavy going, and difficult to read in most of the middle parts), and his principle of falsification, Popper has nevertheless assured himself a well-deserved place in the annals of the history of the philosophy of science.

Five Stars

Not exactly light reading, but a great reference work, and a clear expostion of Popper's Falsificationism. This methodology is widely regarded as the leading tool for demarcating between science and non-science or pseudo-science.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery is in my view Karl Popper's finest work. When I studied science I was amazed at the insight Popper had into the scientific method of inquiry, and I admired his refusal to accept intellectual garbage.

While Popper has come under strong attack from both scientists and philosophers for several shortcomings in his work, in my view Popper has framed one of the most important studies of scientific knowledge and how it is gained, and the difference between science and non-science.

I agree with Popper's argument that the key feature of scientific theories is that they are 'falsifiable.' By this Popper simply meant that a scientific theory, even if beautiful, can be shown wrong by empirical observation. While this account is no doubt oversimplified and leaves out the key social and historical dimensions to science (which thinkers such as Kuhn addressed later on), this principle remains central to science; as Feynman said, 'If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.' The fallibility of science in Popper's view was the key to its strength, in contrast to pseudo-sciences such as Marxism and Freudian psychology, which while containing elements of truth, set themselves up as infallible truths and glossed over things which contradicted the belief system.

Popper also wrote many other philosophical works, including an important study of the difference between democratic political societies and ones ruled by totalitarian ideaology. However, he rightly deserves fame as one of the most important 20th century philosophers of science.

I have to ask myself, "What is the basis for my scientific knowledge?" On a daily basis, as I am a chemist. I have often been struck by arguments for "induction" as lacking credibility, because how can one argue of probabilities with an unknown sample size? Popper argues that a proposing scientific hypothesis is an inductive act, but it is a creative act not a logical one, but that scientific knowledge is dedective.

I agree with him. The nature of science is such that one must put for statements about how the world works and test them. A scientist should always try to find a way of proving himself or herself wrong. If the predictions of the test are shown to be false, then the hypothesis must be false. That is the basis of scientific knowledge. The rest, the best theories we have are just "working models" and we can never justify why they work. They're simply our best working models now.


I don't find Popper's argument disheartening. Popper points out that we don't have to justify our search for explanations of the world, because they may do us benefit (if we happened to live in a world with stable physical laws, for instance).

I think many scientists would fundamentally agree that the laws of nature can never really be proven. They can't, but they speak volumes about what is relevant to us as a species (which is why Popper's argument that "induction" is creative is so interesting). All Popper asks of a scientific hypothesis is that it can, in principle, be demonstrated false by experience.

This is by far one of the most interesting and (I feel) important books I've ever read.

This text marks the beginnings of modern linguistics, and is a must for any linguistic bookshelf. This text is, surprisingly, somewhat difficult to find in bookstores, so I was happy to find this affordable copy at Amazon. I recommend this book, along with Bloomfield's Language, to anyone interested in the structuralist foundations of contemporary linguistics.

If you need to know the foundation of structuralism then you need to read this book. This is where it all begins and the translation of this edition flows well and is perfect for the beginner and novice alike.

One problem with this translation that potential readers should be aware of: If you are reading this to get a better understanding of the terms used by structuralists (signifier and signified) then you need to get the other version. This edition uses the words signification and signal.

Although the rest of text is fine, the exclusion of signifier and signified is, I believe, the only major drawback to the book since these were the terms adopted by structuralist and post-structuralist.

The thirties of the last century cradled the birth and growth of structuralist Linguistcs in many horizons like phonology ,grammar , etc ... and if we were about to ask who embraced that stream , we would - undebatably - find the name of Ferdinand De Saussure.

This fine book of his explained his structural approach to language and established a series of theoretical distinctions that have become basic to the study of linguistics.

Saussure made a differentiation between the (actual speech) or what we call a spoken language ,and the knowledge underlying speech that speakers share about (what is) grammatical.
For Saussure speech represents instances of grammar and the mission of the linguist is to find the underlying rules of a particular language from examples found in speech.
this is different than the descriptivist's p.o.v ,since the structuralist sees grammar as a set of relationships that account for speech ,rather than a set of instances of speech.

Once you grasp the main concepts of this oeuvre you can go further by reading Bloomfield's works on Structuralism.

This book comprised from lecture notes of Saussure to his students in Geneva (compiled posthumously by his students) is a work which changed the course of lingustics since its publication. In this book he makes distinctions which have later become central to discussions of linguistics like:

1. Sign as the unity of signifier (letters, sounds, image) and signified (meaning implied by the signifier)
2. Language (langage) as the unity of langue (code - language as a system) and parole (usage)
3. Syncrhonic (language as static system) and diachronic lingustics (langauge as an ever changing, evolving system)
4. Retrospective (language evolution so far) and prospective linguistics (future evolution of a language).

Many linguists have added a cloud of debate over these concepts, but non explains as lucidly as the master who propounded these. For those confused bout semiotics, semiology etc., this work is a reference point for the original meaning of the term 'semiology' as intended by Saussure. Many of Saussure's binary distinctions became the central to an approach to social sciences called structuralism which still holds sway in social sciences.

Ferdinand De Saussure was well known as the father of modern literary structuralism, but he was also an avid lover of the modern sausage! De Saussure, "the sausage" (as his good friends called him) was a fun loving linguist.

Octavio Paz was a spirit who united an originality of vision with an intellectual rigor; a poet and political essayist deeply read in Western/Eastern thought as he was in the philosophical traditions (indispensable for knowledge). His razor-sharp mind immediately captured my attention with his witticisms, his irreverent reflections, his arbitrary opinions, his culture, and his valiant, insolent sincerity. This is the first of various books of caustic and penetrating essays of his country and fellow countrymen. Perhaps is too prolix for a foreigner who is not interested in all the details of Mexican politics, nonetheless it contains remarkable passages that illuminate the history of modern Mexico with another light, crueler but more real. Some of his passages are like the corridors of a lavish, sinister, and endless dream. This is somehow his philosophical and moral testament that is both moving and makes us reflect.

The writing in this book is a bit thick and meandering, but it does give some interesting insight into a culture many Americans have a hard time understanding at a time when we need to understand the most. If you can handle the frequent revisiting of the same topics throughout the essays, you will learn quite a bit.

Looking at this book through a young American male, undergraduate student, double-majoring in Integrated Social Studies (Education) and History's eyes, this book was challenging to read. However, as I once read recently in an education text, "if anything is odd, inappropriate, confusing, or boring, it's probably important" (Developing Readers and Writers in the Content Areas: K-12/Moore, Moore, Cunningham, and Cunningham, 2003, p. 28).

I am currently in a Latin American history class, and decided to read this book for an assignment. Not having a background in this area made reading some sections difficult and dare I say, boring (important)! However, I enjoyed reading the original book "The Labyrinth of Solitude" and his "Mexico and the United States" essay.

Some aspects that sparked my interest in particular in "The Labyrinth of Solitude" include his discussion of the following: the characteristics of Mexican men and women in comparison to their American counterparts, democracy, socialism, the Mexican economy in the late 1960s, love, and wealth in relation to birth.

The other section that captured my interest was his prose comparing the U.S. and Mexico. In this work, Paz writes about several of the major general differences between the U.S. and Mexico, including the subjects of religion, history, economics, their different ties with European countries, language, and the men/women of the two countries.

Hence, looking at The Labyrinth of Solitude and Other Writings from an American viewpoint, there appears to be much of interest for the reader to learn about not only American culture and possibly some things wrong with it, but why Mexicans act the way they do and is their society as big of a mess as it seems from the outside looking in?

This is a beautifully wrought attempt to unearth and examine some of the deep differences between Mexican and Anglo-American cultures. When I first read it-and before I went to Mexico or knew many Mexicans-it seemed like this was the undiscovered key to understanding Mexico.
In some ways, it still is a valuable tool for interpreting Mexican public culture. What Paz calls 'the Mexican's willingness to contemplate horror' is still very much on display. Paz' description of Mexican language in The Sons of La Malinche' and his meditation on retributive justice in 'The Day of the Dead' are classics of anthropology, poetry and maybe even social science fiction.
More seriously, the moment in time-the post-revolutionary, pre-electronic decades from which Paz is speaking-is gone. Mexico has a substantial middle class that is connected to the world and whose view of things has undergone a profound transformation. The bourgeoisie that Paz so actively despised has won the day.
In fact, this sort of cultural summing up, attractive as it may be, has always stumbled on the disorderly facts of the multiplicity of individual lives.
So: read this and prize it for the insights it may give into this grand thing called Mexican Civilization, but don't be disappointed when the Mexico you meet rarely corresponds.

Lynn Hoffman, author of bang BANG

Prior reviewer Scott Henson is correct, this book does not adequately reflect modern Mexico of the 1990's to present. Some elements of Mexican character as described by Paz remain true, but generally this book does not describe modern middle class Mexicans very well at all, who, while still small as a class, are nevertheless very Western in their general lives.

Reading this now without an actual awareness of life in today's Mexico, you would think that the country is still populated by stoic indigenous peoples at the mercy of fates they don't understand.

While that is true for some sectors of the population, the country has become as modern as many European countries. In fact, Modern Mexico reminds me of post WWII Italy in so many ways. One foot in the future and one foot in the past, and struggling to keep their balance.

Try reading this book and then watching Y tu mama tambien or solo con tu pareja to see the differences, as well as the continuities, with Paz' essay...

Worth a read, but no longer so relevant as it was once. And don't be fooled into thinking that this is the Mexico you will find upon visiting.