Philosophy Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The book presents the subject in a very friendly way; great for a first glance to the subject. However, I have to agree that it turns out to be a little too basic as one approaches the chapters on new growth and other alternative theories.

This is a excellent book about the economic growth theory. I've read excellent books as "Economic Growth" by R. Barro, "Advanced Macroeconomics" by David Romer and "Endogenous Growth Theory" by Philippe Aghion, the principal problem is the level, if you don't have notions about economic growth theory, you'll have problems to understand. Charles I. Jones wrote a excellent introduction about all the modern economic growth theory. I recommend this book amply.

This book delivers on its promise of being a textbook on economic growth theory for undergraduates. It is not easy (as economic growth is not), but it is definitely within the grasp of economics undergraduate with knowledge of basic economic principles. It also provides sufficient advance material in the second half of the book to stimulate further study into economic growth. However, beware that this is not a book about policy prescriptions for economic growth, it is about the theoretical framework to understand it (necessary, but not sufficient for policy prescriptions).

Une traduction francaise de l'ouvrage vient de paraître chez DE BOECK. Ce livre est une belle tentative de construction d'une synthèse des théories de la croissance et d'essai d'une théorie générale. A la lecture certaines manies de l'auteur apparaissent, certaines bonnes, d'autres curieuses. Les bonnes sont sans aucun doute la pédagogie, le lien permanent avec les faits, la volonté "to takes Robert Solow seriously" et la réalisation d'une synthèse entre Solow et les théories endogènes. Mais 1) le chapitre 5 donne une présentation bien compliquée du modèle de Romer, on pouvait faire plus clair.2) Alors que les commentaires insistent sur l'importance de la dynamique transitoire, aucune présentation théorique de la beta convergence n'est proposée. 3) Jones prétend que la croissance endogène est caractérisée par l'action de la politique economique sur le taux de croissance. Il a beau jeu de montrer qu'il n'en est rien et que selon lui, la croissance endogène se définit par le choix des agents qui investissent en recherche (page 159). En fait tout le monde est d'accord avec lui sur ce point.

Since most intermediate-level macroeconomics textbooks - probably because of lack of space - usually decide to devote no more than a chapter or two to what is often considered to be the most important topic in economics, Jones' book serves as a very neat introduction to the field. Obviously, noone should expect to see the rigour one can find in advanced treatments, but - without doubt - it is easier to jump to advanced treatments if you see the intuitive explanation first. I could say this is one of the best textbooks I had a chance to read.

I'm a student of contemporary art, and I consider myself educated and well read, but I find even this brief "introduction" to be chock full of the jargon and philosophical pretensions of a lot of high-level art criticism. Even though the author playfully tries to put these pretensions in their place, the book is still very dense and filled with the philosophical verbiage of the postmodern art criticism world.

That being said, this book is a surprisingly comprehensive review of the philosophical underpinnings of the postmodern movement. But it's frustrating and dense, and if you're not already fascinated by this world, it will bore you to death.

This book is a great read, even for a total novice, if it is read quickly without fussing over names or knowedge of artists. You can still get the big picture about the concepts underlying Postmodernist thinking and work. It is filled with references to work done in the style which will require some research for the average reader to get a more precise understanding of the artistic developments made under the influence of these ideas.

Despite some of the reviews that indicated Christopher Butler's tone was negative toward Postmodernism in this VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION, I found the book very helpful with my growing understanding of meta-narrative terminology and classifications. Also, as pointed out by other reviewers, is the fact that defining a meta-discourse that supposes universal definitions are not possible, poses special problems that I feel Butler handled very nicely.

Butler, simply and rightly, maintained his neutrality on the subject, which it seems, should be the first of Post-modern goals. In other words, Postmodernism is neither good nor bad.

This book serves as a fairly straightforward introduction to postmodern thinking. Unfortunately, it is overly critical of postmodernism, which may discourage the curious beginner from pursuing the subject further. It might have been more appropriately titled, "Postmodernism: A Very Short Critique". While there is nothing inherently wrong with casting a critical eye on postmodernism, an introduction should be more balanced than this book is. I would recommend "Teach Yourself Postmodernism by Glenn Ward as a better introduction.

Butler touches on all aspects of PM thought/aesthetics in; literature, architecture, art theory etc. and nails it right on the head.

It is fair to say, as some reviewers pointed out below, that he is certainly not a cheerleader for PM theory. He shows no mercy and points out all of the glaring contradictions of PM dogma as he sees them. (And so much the better, considering that much writing on the subject frustratingly skims over the absurd aspects of PM in favor of joining in on the lovefest).

Nevertheless, this is a very clearly written and fair-minded little document.

This book gives you the essential teachings of Martin Luther, the founder of both the Lutheran demonination and the Protestant Reformation. He's one of the all time most important people in Christianity. Liberty from sin and death and serving your neighbor is what he's getting at here. It will straighten God's grace on the reader and give them a stronger faith in Jesus Christ. Amen!

Before being set free by the reading of Romans 1:17, Martin Luther was enslaved to the bondage of works righteousness. He was acutely aware of his need for salvation but sought it through the means of works instead of finding it through faith in Christ. Upon discovering the "righteousness of God" Luther was set free from his bondage and was able to become a slave to Christ. It is this freedom of the gospel, which Luther sets forth as being the freedom for the Christian. Through faith alone a believer is justified in Christ and set free to live a life of obedience compelled by the love of Christ. Thus freedom to service through the gospel of Christ is at the heart of Luther's treatise The Freedom of a Christian.

He begins the work by summarizing the Christian life in paradoxical fashion. He writes, "A Christian is a perfectly free Lord of all, subject to none." And he continues by stating, "A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to none." Luther correctly believed that these two assertions, although seemingly contradictory, are nonetheless biblical and he seeks to show how they work together in the rest of this treatise.

It is only through faith alone in the gospel of Jesus Christ whereby one is saved and is given the free gift of Christ's righteousness and the perfect freedom found in being united with Christ. Thus the only thing necessary for Christian life, righteousness, and freedom is the Word of God, which is the gospel. Without the Word of God there is no help for the soul. Yet a soul that has the Word of God is found lacking nothing.

Luther's work asserts the underlining truth of the Christian life: that we are freed through the death of Christ to service. We are freed from the bondage and slavery of the law, sin and Satan and we are now chained in freedom to obedience toward Christ. Freedom for the Christian is escape from the bondage of sin and submission to the bondage of Christ. It is only in submission and service to Christ where one is found truly free.

One of the most evident features of Luther's work is that justification is through faith alone. He makes it clear that there is no work, which can accompany faith to bring about justification. Works cannot, and never will justify. Only faith in Christ as a gift of God will justify a sinner. The importance of sola fidei for Luther is that if works can justify then there is no need for the gospel. Therefore Luther's insistence upon faith alone is foundational to upholding the biblical gospel. If works are added then the gospel is bunk.

The law-gospel distinction, which comes out in this treatise, is most significant for the Christian life. The law truly kills, but thankfully it is not an end in itself but points to the gospel, which is life. The chains of the law steer to the unbound grace in the gospel of Christ. While Luther seems to place a dichotomy between the two testaments as one being of commandments (OT) and the other being of promises (NT) it would be safer to say that there is both law and gospel, commandments and promises, in both testaments.

Luther's teaching on union with Christ most helpfully highlights the very foundational nature of this doctrine to the whole of salvation. It is by virtue of this union with Christ whereby a sinner is found righteous. By faith alone one is united with Christ and made a partaker of the perfect life and the perfect death of Christ. That sinner is then buried, and raised up with Christ. Indeed Christ's righteousness swallows up our sinfulness. It is by this glorious uniting symbolized in a wedding where Christ marries his bride the church. And for Luther it is the "wedding ring of faith" which unites believers to Christ.

Luther also hits an important note in writing, "So let him who wishes to do good works begin not with the doing of works, but with believing, which makes the person good, for nothing makes a man good except faith, or evil except unbelief." The only true works, which are good, are those works that are born out of faith. A good tree will produce good fruit and likewise a dead tree dead fruit. Faith alone produces a desire for righteous living, which produces good works compelled by the love of Christ.

Luther's The Freedom of a Christian is an important work in that it sets in bold relief the necessity of faith alone for justification. Works cannot justify and it is only through faith in Christ whereby one is saved. It is within the inner man having been justified where good works find their foundation and it is through the outer man where good works find their expression. Truly good works can only flow from a renewed heart. Such a renewed heart is freed from the bondage to sin and is now compelled to love Christ and others. A true Christian is freed from sin unto service toward Christ. This free servitude is at the heart of Christian freedom.

This powerful little book is a solid, one-two punch from Luther about the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. It is an excellent synopsis of grace and the freedom of Christians. Where we were once enslaved by sin and could do nothing good, when saved by Grace, God is able to work good through us. That is, when saved, we are then truly free.

The second punch, if you will, is the letter Luther sent to Pope Leo X wherein he tells the pope that Luther is a friend of the church but speaks out against the sacreligious and sinful Indulgences being sold to masses by those around the Pope. Luther debunks the notion that we can buy our own salvation.

I'd recommend that you read the introduction, then the letter, then the actual essay, and THEN reread the letter to the Pope because it will speak so much louder.

Martin Luther's treatise "Christian Liberty" (or "The Freedom of a Christian") is perhaps the most powerful and concise presentation of the Christian life ever written. I cannot recommend this work highly enough. I rank this among the very best of Luther's works (and that is really saying something). If an inexpensive copy were still in publication I would buy every copy to give as gifts to friends and family. The power, discernment, brevity and readability of this work make a true gem among Reformation writings (and Christian writings in general). Here you will find the essence of the spirit of the Reformation distilled into a guide for practical, biblical living.

With the clarity and bold authority of a true prophet, Luther sets forth the whole of the Christian life in two theses: "A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all." We are free from sin and the law (subject to none) but slaves to Christ in love (subject to all). As Paul writes in Romans 6:22, "But now...you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God."

Luther writes as a shepherd of the common people and the tone and content differ greatly from his better-known debate-oriented works (ie. Bondage of the Will, 95 Theses). The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the heart and soul of Luther's message, founded upon a firm conviction in the authority of scripture alone.

He writes, "One thing, and only one thing, is necessary for Christian life, righteousness, and freedom. That one thing is the most holy Word of God, the gospel of Christ."

And again, "It ought to be the first concern of every Christian to lay aside all confidence in works and increasingly to strengthen faith alone and through faith to grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who suffered and rose for him.... No other work makes a Christian.... 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent' (John 6:29)."

And regarding our service to God, "...In this way the stronger member may serve the weaker, and we may be sons of God, each caring for and working for the other, bearing one another's burdens and so fulfilling the law of Christ. This is a truly Christian life. Here faith is truly active through love. That is, it finds expression in works of the freest service, cheerfully and lovingly done, with which a man willingly serves another without hope of reward; and for himself he is satisfied with the fullness and wealth of his faith."

I cannot vouch for the quality of this particular volume (the actual work is only 30 standard pages long), but the treatise has been published in a number of other individual volumes and in at least one very worthy compilation entitled "Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings" (ed. Timothy F. Lull, 1989) which also contains a number of other infinitely worthy works such as Luther's "Small Catechism," the stirring "Meditation of Christ's Passion," and the thesis chapters of the foundational "Bondage of the Will." Any version of this monumental treatise is bound to bless you. It is the fire and the hammer of the Word of God to consume the adversaries and break apart the stone hearts of impenitant men.

This book is definitely worth reading for its incredibly convincing arguments regarding moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, bestiality and infanticide.

However, in the last few chapters where Singer attempts to apply simple utilitarian principles to complex world issues, his conclusions become very flawed. For example, he concludes that the most ethical thing for people living in rich countries to do would be to donate 100% of their income beyond what they need for basic survival to help reduce world poverty. However, he completely ignores the fact that this would very quickly cause massive unemployment and general economic collapse (for example, every single entertainment-oriented industry would go bankrupt), which would lead to more overall poverty and suffering. This means that such extreme charity would in theory be less ethical than apathy and non-involvement. In fact, his arguments on euthanasia earlier in the book are (rather disturbingly) more convincing when applied to the poverty issue than his attempted arguments for charity. Of course, he doesn't address any of this.

In conclusion, read the first part of this book for its very enlightening arguments about ethics on a local scale. His positions on these issues are unparalleled in their clarity and defensibility. The chapters on world issues, however, ignore so many possible objections that reading them is only frustrating.

Philosophers of all stripes agree that the essence of ethics is that they are universal. For example, the Golden Rule grants other people the same ethical status that you give yourself. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is similar. In 'Practical Ethics' Peter Singer claims that his version of utilitarianism does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics than these other approaches. His reasoning begins with the observation that ethics demands considering more than one's own self-interest. Therefore a truly universal system of ethics demands that we give equal consideration to everyone's interests. This principle of equal consideration of interests is the heart of Singer's utilitarian ethics.

1. Two Methods of Refuting a System of Ethics

There are two methods for refuting a system of ethics. The first is to find a logical inconsistency. The second is to appeal to the lack of intrinsic beauty and goodness of an ethical system. As Bertrand Russell observed, Nietzsche had a logically consistent ethics, but they were reprehensible.

Singer's Utilitarianism fails the test for beauty and goodness because it could potentially justify genocide on an ethnic or religious minority. Realize that nothing is intrinsically good or bad according to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. Instead, an action is deemed good or bad based on how many people hold a given interest. If most people have an interest in favor of genocide, then utilitarianism says that genocide is the good. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, utilitarianism is two wolves and a lamb voting about what to have for dinner. Of course, there are utilitarian protections that make genocide more difficult than simply holding a vote. Strongly held interests count for more than weakly held interests (page 21), and the principle of declining marginal utility (page 24) further elevates the interests of the threatened minority group. But declining marginal utility is not a substitute for an unalienable right to life; it still places a finite value on a life, which can then be "outvoted" by the majority. A utilitarian justification of genocide is difficult, but by no means impossible. Even if the interests of a member of the minority group count ten times as much as that of the oppressors, it just means that the minority group must make up less than 10% of the population for genocide to be justified. If the minority group starts to internalize the hatred directed towards them, their interests to keep living will weaken, making genocide even more likely. For those with a background in modal logic, there is a possible world in which Singer's utilitarianism justifies genocide. Singer tacitly recognizes this; on page 94 he explains that the type of utilitarianism that results from maximizing interests is called preference utilitarianism, and on page 99 he says "if we are preference utilitarians we must allow that a desire to go on living can be outweighed by other desires."

Utilitarianism also fails the test for logical consistency because utilitarians cannot accept all of the logical consequences of their beliefs. The demands of rationality are as important in ethics as they are in science or mathematics. If A logically implies B, then belief in A must also imply belief in B (this can be proven in belief logic). Now substitute `utilitarianism' for `A' and `the possibility of your own death by genocide' for `B.' Most utilitarians would accept A but reject B. Few people would willingly consent to their death by genocide.

2. The Nature of Ethics

Failing either one of these two tests should be enough to sink utilitarianism, but there is also a a third objection, which is that Singer misunderstands the nature of ethics. Singer is correct that ethics demands considering more than your own self-interest, but he draws the wrong conclusion when he says that ethics should then be about the consideration of everyone's interests. This forces you to give the same consideration to bad interests, such as wanting to kill members of an ethnic minority, as does to good interests. Instead, ethics are really about right and wrong. Wanting to kill members of an ethnic minority is just as wrong whether one person feels that way, or all of society.

This leaves open the problem of distinguishing between right and wrong. One method of doing this is by appealing to an objective ethical standard such as unalienable rights. This is not likely to appeal to Singer, but the second method is more neutral. Singer accepts that ethics are (1) not about self-interest, (2) universal, and (3) rationality should guide our ethical thought. With this foundation in place, logic can reveal why some actions are wrong and others are right. Consider this analogy; a scientist may believe in a certain theory at one point in time, and then change his mind as new evidence is found. However, logic dictates that he would be irrational if he both supported and rejected the theory at the same time. That same principle applies to ethics. You cannot be rational and believe than an action is both ethical and unethical at the same time.

This is precisely the point being made in the second objection to utilitarianism: the example of genocide shows that supporters of utilitarianism cannot consistently hold their beliefs. In other words, logical consistency does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics. In Formal Ethics the logician Harry Gensler formalizes this intuitive view that universal ethics must be logically consistent and then uses it to derive a proof of the Golden Rule (he has a more accessible proof in another book, his Introduction to Logic). There is one caveat, which is that a literal version of the Golden Rule leads to absurdities (such as masochists being granted permission to harm others), but the sophisticated version Gensler proves avoids these problems. The moral of the story (pun intended) is that the Golden Rule captures the essence of the universal nature of ethics better than Singer's principle of equal consideration of interests.

3. Why Be Ethical?

A final objection to 'Pratical Ethics' is that Singer cannot present a reasonable defense of why you should be ethical. Why not just follow your own self-interest? This is a difficult challenge to all atheists. Singer takes a common approach, which is to defend morality on the grounds that being moral is really the best method of advancing your own self-interest. Singer begins with the observation that practical reasoning starts with wanting something (page 322). Societies reflect the majority of their members, so societies "want" what the majority wants. If society "wants" to be ethical, then it can reward people for being ethical with social approval (page 323). Thus being ethical advances your self-interest (page 326).

There are several problems with using self-interest as a justification for ethics. The first is that, as Singer concedes on page 335, "ethically indefensible behavior is not always irrational." In other words, ethics does not always coincide with self-interests. The second problem is that Singer's concept of ethics no longer makes any sense. In the opening chapter Singer claims that the essence of ethics is that it demands considering more than your own self-interest, but in the closing chapter he says that the only reason to be ethical is to advance your self-interest. This realization means that ethics is not *really* about "equal consideration of interests" but rather an elaborate hoop to jump through in order to get a pat on the back from society. A third problem with Singer's justification is how it would influence the process of switching from one system of ethics to another. If Singer is correct, then everyone's goal would be to make things that they like ethical, and to make things that they do not like unethical. That way they can easily get society's pat on the back without sacrifice. This reduces ethics to a system of relativism and/or emotivism (an ethical system in which "X is good" means "I like X"). Singer capably defeats both of those ethical systems early in the book, and his own ethics in the process.

Other books that utilitarian critics might enjoy are Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler. It is hard work but doable. As an added bonus, it applies logical principles to ethics and concludes with a formal proof of the Golden Rule. Be sure to download the logicola software that goes with the book. Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach by David Oderberg is a a defense of natural rights ethics against utilitarianism. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP Moreland is hands down the best, and most rigorous, introduction to philosophy that I've seen.

I am amazed at the number of people who criticize Peter Singer's work, Practical Ethics, by somehow pointing to his contradictions. I need to remind some of you that if there is one thing professional philosophers know something or two about is contradictions, and if any of you have spent a little time in a philosophy class, you might understand the importance of Singer's work.

When I read some of these self-assured reviewers, who, for the most part, lack any training in logic and rigorous philosophical analysis but love to throw the term "contradiction" around, as a form of self-adulation, I chuckle. Regrettably, what I do find are people who build straw-man arguments, abandon the principle of charity, and engage in ad hominem attacks. Singer is a respected scholar, which doesn't mean you have to agree with him. But it would behoove many of you to follow this instructive maxim: before you go on writing a scathing review, make sure you understand the ideas FIRST. You would sound foolish, as some people on these posting do, criticizing something you don't fully understand.

Those who come to Singer's book expecting to be applauded for their preconceived notions of right and wrong may be disappointed. Singer's book is actually one long argument for his particular brand of consequentialist ethics, and it leaves aside any mollifying lip-service to contract ethics, deontological ethics, or relativist thinking. It refuses to traffic in over-simplified religious notions of morality, or in ethical systems based upon sheer self-interest. Singer is interested in a reasoned approach to ethics, and this is exactly what he delivers.

In this book, you will be introduced early to the basic principles of Singer's utilitarian ethics, and these principles will be reviewed again and again as the argument builds from issues of basic equality, through animal rights and medical ethics, to the ethics of international relations and environmentalism. The argument is cumulative, building upon itself in clear steps as it goes along. While I've read some folks who clearly don't get what Singer has to say, I think that can only happen when we let our own prejudices get in the way of understanding the book. I've never read a clearer account of an ethical system anywhere.

You may not agree with what Singer has to say. Many don't. But if you approach this book as an honest reader, rather than as a person hunting for reasons to be angry or offended, then you will find an elegance to Singer's approach which is to be found nowhere else. If this kind of honest reading is outside your range of interests, you may wish to ask yourself why you are reading philosophy in the first place.

The most compelling part of the book, for me, was Singer's thorough and patient discussion of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. This principle, combined with a universal view of ethics and a healthy respect for realistic circumstances, can take the place of much more convoluted conceptions of rights and duties. I found the idea liberating when I first encountered it, and it has proved very "teachable" in my classroom.

Towards the end of the book, Singer makes some claims that I found myself questioning, but these claims did not detract seriously from my enjoyment of the book. Nor did they undermine the overall power of Singer's argument.

I highly recommend this book to people who are looking for a clear, consistent approach to humanist ethics. I also recommend it to those who enjoy reading carefully crafted arguments. The book may make you squirm. It may make you question your own practices. But it will not bore you.

On 4/9/02, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by Princeton's Peter Singer in Lawrenceville, NJ. I posed a question, citing two quotations from his "Practical Ethics, 2nd ed.":
1.) "That there is a huge gulf between humans and animals was unquestioned for most of the course of Western civilization....The use of language was another boundary line - but now chimpanzees, gorillas, and an orangutan have learnt Ameslan, the sign language of the deaf" (p.72);
2.) "Are animals self-conscious? There is now solid evidence that some are. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence comes from apes who can communicate with us using a human language" (p.111).

I began: "Professor, I read Practical Ethics two years ago, and I have not eaten a Big Mac since. I also think that you make a sympathetic case for the mistreatment of farm animals. However, I remain an unapologetic speceist. I have worked with deaf people for twenty years and have studied American Sign Language for twenty years. Though I do not believe that language is all that sets humans apart from non-humans, you seem to largely hang your hat on this. I know of no one who knows American Sign Language who maintains that non-humans can sign. Are there studies of which I am unaware?"

Singer began his reply: "Obviously, you are more of an expert in sign language than I." He then went on to acknowledge that the famed ape sign language studies had been criticized for "overinterpreting" what constituted sign language. I then asked, "So, you would no longer maintain that non-humans use Ameslan?" Singer did some fumbling around and replied, "Oh, I didn't say that." He then cited monkeys hitting picture buttons on computers as a possible indication that the critiques of the monkey sign language studies were off base. Huh?

I wanted to next reply: "Well Professor, I can see that it's not logic that you are teaching at Princeton." I deferred for fear of alienating the audience. Nevertheless, I was not allowed to ask additional questions. My on-deck question was: "Professor, it's been reported that you believe that human parents should be allowed to kill their newborns - up to several months. Is that true?" Of course, I already knew that to be true.

I read a good chunk of this text for my German Existentialism class and will absolutely be reading the rest of it on my own. Marino does an excellent job compiling a wide range of existentialist thought and adding short, concise introductions to each philosopher. Even more difficult philosophers like Heidegger and Kierkegaard are made approachable by careful selection from their major works. For people approaching existentialism for the first time I would suggest this book in addition to William Barrett's The Irrational Man, the latter giving a better groundwork for the entire philosophy and Marino's text providing some of the best and most vivid examples of existentialist philosophy.

Existentialism is not for the meek. The texts are difficult and many of the questions they raise may result in life altering answers. For those willing to take the plunge this should not be a deterent, but merely a bump in the road. Marino has selected pieces that can at first seem utterly baffling, but with careful readings (Yes, readings. Things get easier the second time!) all of them are accessible and the benefits and real world applications (Existentialism pops up everywhere--movies, tv, music, art, politics, religion, etc. It is, after all, about existence!) of existentialism are impossible to measure.

Perhaps more than any other philosophical movement I studied in college, existentialism forever changed the way I view life. Not surprisingly, Editor Gordon Marino begins this superb anthology with a caveat emptor. "The existentialists are not for people looking to read themselves to sleep" (p. xvi). Simply stated, existentialism is a philosophy emphasizing that because life has no inherent meaning, we must determine life's meaning for ourselves. Existentialist thinkers regard human existence as unexplainable, and stress freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Like my college course on the subject, Basic Writings of Existentialism includes essential selections from Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo, and Ralph Ellison. It not only offers an excellent introduction to existentialist philosophy and literature, it also demonstrates that existentialism remains as compelling and relevant as a Bob Dylan song ("I was born here and I'll die here against my will"), an Ingmar Bergman film, or Hollywood movies like The Matrix or Fight Club. This book is more than an anthology. It is a profound adventure.

G. Merritt

If you have ever wondered about the universal need for us to find meaning in being, this book is a fine start to launching a personal journey. It is a remarkable piece of scholarship wherein Professor Marino superbly accomplishes the three tasks of a master teacher: relevance, erudition, and invitation.

Since nothing can be more relevant that the meaning of life, and existentialism posits that such meanings are feats of human alchemy (creating something from nothing), the ideas under review are nothing short of an amazing intellectual asdventure into the worlds of erudition (key passages from esistential writers), biography (tumbnail descriptions of the writers' lives) and an invitation to explore a stream of philosophical thought which includes Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, de Unamundo y Juego, Heidegger, Satre, de Beauvoir, Camus and Ellison. Students and members of the educated public may recognize some of these names, but many may have never engaged these thinkwers in a sustained manner. Here is your chance to discover what is happening in philiosophy departments. If your field is one of the social sciences, the work serves as a vital reference book--a source of insight and an effectivwe way to reflect on one's previous learning experiences.

Professor Morino's Introduction, alone, is worth the price of the book because he, like most of us, initially turned to philosophy to seek "answers", but discovered that ideas are powerful and are themselves a way of life. It is a sheer joy to follow his journey in this domain becaue he implicitly shows his enthusiasm for this material through his careful selections. For sociologists, there is a beautiful gem in the unexpected field of research methodology: the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, which is based on the study of experience itself, permits ethnography (the direct observation of, and participation in, different life-worlds) to be seen as an existential project. That never occurred to me, but it certainly explains why those of us who conduct such research often leave our studied scenes with a fantastic store of experiences and insights that can persist for decades--long after one's fieldnotes have turned yellow.

The reason is that when you participate in a life-world that is initially alien to you, one learns to see even the commonplace in ways that are neither expected, nor anticipated: a form of discovery that forever changes and enriches one's life. As such, meanings are imparted that would be otherwise absent, or unknowable. Many cannot, due to lack of training or opportunity, or due to the inherent riasks and time involved, actually conduct ethnographic research. But any reader with the inclination and the curiosity can Explore Professor Marino's journey into a world that they would likely otherwise never know. That is both time well spent, and a risk worth taking, in my view. It may even prove to be meaningful, something that would doubtless delight many of the thinkers whose works are presented in this fine volume.

P.D. Ospensky as a teenager decided to forgo an academic education and instead to search for or hidden knowledge. His search lead him to study Theosophy, to travels in the East, to India, and such. Yet, he remained dissatisfied with what he found. Little did he know that he would find what he was looking for (The Miraculous) in a teacher who showed up from the East in his very own Moscow!

This book is about Ouspensky's experiences learning from this teacher, a mystic and very strange one at that, G.I. Gurjieff.

Gurjieff teaches Ospenskys things he never knew, gives him experiences he never thought possible. This book is Ouspesnky's gift to us from of what he learned and experienced.

Certainly, this book works mostly on the intellectual mind, and yet, Ouspensky frequently tells us that we must find an 'emotional state' and that, my friends, is 'The Work'.

This is easily the most important book I have ever read, and afterwards, I could lo longer see the world the same, or live my life in the same way.

If I was forced to have only one book, this would be it. Not for the Herd or Lazy. No fluff around the edges, tells it like it really is.

Written during the outbreak of the First World War in Russia, this book presents an interesting view of humanity in the context of the European war. One should take into account the propositions of Ouspensky's school of thought and see how relative they are in the context of our global 'war on terror'. Thus, the book stands the test of time and will continue to be discovered and re-discovered.

This work is powerful not just for the growth of one's own being, but also for how we see that the programs that control the population in turn create an unhealthy, unbalanced society. Overall, a treasure containing a wealth of knowledge.

P.D. Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" is one of the most profound and one of most memorable books that I have ever read, and it is most certainly the must-read. Not only that, it also forces one to question one's reality, self-identity, actions, and surroundings. With each time that I read this book, I began to notice the number of little false "i's" that popped up in my being. Every little lies that I ever believed were being exposed. And, my understanding of the world that we are living in has changed in such an enormous way and with such a powerful impact. This book certainly changed my perspectives of life and the understanding of who I am.

I would highly recommend "In Search of the Miraculous" as it is most insightful book of Gurdjieff's unique teachings ever written. It is clear written yet certainly tough to take in. It is also comprehensive on the profound theories as well methods of the mentioned teachings.

Reading this book is most certainly the first step towards being awake and becoming aware of oneself and one's surroundings. Before reading Gurdjieff's three books and any Fourth Way literature, "In Search of the Miraculous" is a great introduction to the unique concepts and the esoteric Work.

Kierkegaard is more personality, more energy of being, more outward agony, than nearly anyone who has ever lived, and to read Kierkegaard for treatise more than his infectious spirit is to miss the cornerstone of his treatise: Life's enduring ecstasy is synonymous with personal involvement, even when that involvement is partially or inaccurately informed. In other words, Abraham may have been willing to kill his son (so, stop, apologetic churches, reading this story as Abraham's faith that Isaac would mysteriously be salvaged!) and definitely didn't give a damn about your religious/philosophical platitudes in such a case. In a post-9/11 universe, this story, or its darker interpretations, is particularly unpopular, but policy without a pinch of Kierkegaardian humility devolves the lot of us into people of spiteful assumption rather than devotion.

I am not able to comment on the accuracy or flow of the translation--the only Danish I know is the one that the kid from the mailroom used to bring by every morning--and so I am only able to engage the main ideas: faith. sacrifice. ethics. Each one negating the other, or at least any pair negating the third. Kierkegaard emphasizes that for faith we must sacrifice ethics because--as Job learned the hard way--God transcends morals. But it is also true that faith in ethics leads us to abandon sacrifice, as does an ethical interpretation of faith, and--perhaps most importantly--ethics can require that we sacrifice our faith.

I interpret this as meaning that on the one hand, we may find ourselves breaking our own laws to follow what we believe. For if you are pursuing something worth pursuing, and it happens to run beyond the law, are you going to abandon the chase?

But it is easy to break laws, and hard to break hearts (at least, that is, you must be hard to do so). And so doing the right thing in regards to your ethical understanding of action can lead you to sacrifice the mutual faith that you have with other people. In some ways, this is what Isaac confronts. The man on the way home sure of a steak dinner isn't a knight of faith--he is at best a pawn. Abraham too is not impressive here. What Isaac gave up was, so I have come to think after years of thought on the matter, much more weighty. He went up the mountain with faith in his father and in God; he was forced to sacrifice one to maintain the other. We will never know which. And that is the nature of love in a world in which doing the right thing is sure to involve breaking SOMEONE's law. [17]

be my father!" those hongs really know how to edit a book, wow. still i think most of the credit has to be given to johannes de silentio for writing it. i haven't read repetition yet. it'll probably a really brain teaser.

This edition of 'Fear and Trembling' is an excellently produced and translated edition, with the interesting and helpful prefaces and selections of journal quotes typical of the Writings series.

'Fear and Trembling' presents a very penetrating, and ultimately disturbing, investigation into the personal and 'existential' implications of the religious concept of faith, as illustrated by the story of Isaac's sacrifice in Genesis 22.

Reviewers like to analyse the text either in respect to the biography of Kierkegaard, or of his literary output (or in relation to the other book in this collect, 'Repetition'), which are fair enough, but nevertheless, this book stands on its own with the question of whether religious faith can be a 'teleological suspension of the ethical.' This sounds like it could be a tendious philosophical excercise, but his erudition and literary skill constantly defies ones attempt to reduce or domesticate the paradoxes which he throws forward to his reader. The text still today offers each reader a choice of his own.

In addition to the parallels between this story and SK's relation with his father mentioned by previous reviewers, another important parallel is his failed engagement with Regine Olsen. She is his Isaac, who he must sacrifice. Perhaps he thinks his own calling, means that he too can "teleologically suspend" the ethical (duties to Regine). Its remarkable, that we now should be so concerned about the private live of a pseudonymous author. Is Johannes de Silentio a poetic side of Kierkegaard? Poetic yes, but paradoxically he also says he is purely dialectic.

The different takes of the Abraham story, remind me of Rabbinical midrash. The four different accounts did not happen, but they might have. It is a way of stretching the story, and a way to introduce his "faith by virtue of the absurd". The tragic hero remains in the ethical, but Abraham is different that this, and is related to the Absolute. Very thought provoking!

Well written and completely accessible to the average reader this book brings what can be a very heady topic down to earth where we can all wrestle with it. If you only like to read novels then this is not for you, after all it is a book about ethics. If, on the other hand, you are interested in a book that will lead you to a deeper understanding of yourself, our culture, and the dynamics that play out in groups from families to nations then this book will offer you some valuable insights.

I am currently in an ethics class and this book was required for the course. This is by far the most repetitive and useless book you will ever use in your entire life. NO JOKE. It offers no insight into things that you dont already know. It simply takes what you already know, puts it into fancier words, and spits it right back at you. If this book is not a requirement for a class then dont waste your money. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go throw this peice of crap in a volcano and forget I was ever plagued by its stupidity and uselessness.

This insightful book touches upon the issues concerning virtues, morals, and conscience among other things. There are many virtues central to Christian living because being virtuous is part of the Christian duty. They discuss how it is important to begin with experience when reflecting on morality because that is the only way one can understand how actions can affect others. All moral norms attempt to protect or promote some basic good or value. Much of this book highlights how our character and choices affect the community we live in and how we can decide if an action directs us and our community towards virtue and the right thing to do. It is our free response to do as we wish and this book helps us to use moral reasoning in all we do to "energize us for the sustained striving toward goodness, rightness and justice" (193). The text was not difficult to read and the writers excelled in their smooth transitions from chapter to chapter. Because of this book, I've thought about the effect of my actions on others more thoroughly and because of that, my actions seem more responsible, so I guess that means I've been making the right choices.