Philosophy Books

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.

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!

Section of Realism is extraordinary, but the chapters Socialism and Liberalism are somewhat weak.

I recommend this book to any student of International Relations or Political Philosophy. Doyle does an excellent job of describing the foundations of the main theories in the discipline of International Relations. By starting with the philosophers behind each school of thought, he reveals the often misunderstood assumptions made by scholars in each school. Thus, he shows us why scholars in International Relations frequently talk past each other when discussing a topic.

Before reading Doyle, I had never really come across a good survey of political philosophy which logically relates the classical political theories to their practical corollaries in international relations. I must say I am very much impresssed with Doyle's effort and am delighted to find how well he is able to put all theories (he deals with realism, liberalism and socialism) in an illuminating perspective, and how he is able to ingeniously distinguish the different strands within the respective political theories. What I like in particular is how he associates certain strands of thinking with certain philosophers, and how he then combines and compares these different views within a larger theoretical perpective, thus providing a clear overview on the theories at large. I must admit only having read parts of it, most of the section about realism, all of it on liberalism and some of it on socialism, but still think I have a good enough idea to be able to comment on this book. I initiallty felt inclined to give this book only four stars, since it only deals with a small number of thinkers and theories, but realising the vastness of the subject, I felt I could not withhold Doyle's book the 5th star. So for those seeking the broader view of international relations, going beyond the confines of conventional IR theory, Doyle's book is an absolute eye-opener.

This extraordinary book by Dr. Doyle is a must read for those Christians that wish to understand the international system of the relations among nations. This book helps to clarify the fundamental perpspectives that policymakers hold about the nature of the relations among nations and the policies that follow as a result of such perspectives. For Christians to be effective peacemakers such information is critical for understanding the international system and planning for effective pastoral strategies that can help to move the world toward greater justice and peace. Clearly this book is not a substitute for Christian moral reflection and action, but it can help one to understand some of the forces and ideological frameworks within the international arena that motivates people and nations to take actions that lead to war or peace.

Books are easy reads for a number of reason, the primary ones are you are engrossed in the material or the writing is straightforward and to the point. This book is a combination of the two, I enjoyed the personal reflections of Mr. Burfoot (i.e. I enjoy biographies) and so the stories were quite enjoyable. I also liked the fact that it was written to be read by the everyman, straight with no chaser. Good read and a book I will pass on to others.

I probably won't read the book, as I don't run. The birthday gift will be given June 14, so I won't hear about it until after then. I am giving 5 stars for the good delivery servicde.

Amby Burfoot may be more known as the long-time editor for Runner's World magazine than for his 1968 victory in the searing heat at the Boston Marathon.

Burfoot merges his skill of a journalist with his many years in the sport to deliver wonderful essays on the peaks, valleys and rugged terrain of life. Though the starting line is his running, the course that is mapped out is accessible to those who never laced up a pair of shoes for a marathon or a jaunt around the block.

This is a gold medal performance by Burfoot, that comes straight from the heart.

Running has always been one of my favorite things to do. It relaxes me, clears my head, and gets me ready for the day. This is a classic about the world of running. If you run occasionally, or obsessively this is a must-have.

Burfoot's "The Runner's Guide to the Meaning of Life" is so simple yet so thorough. It's such a quick read, but the depth and variety of each short, powerful chapter is incredible. I literally could not put it down.

I particularly connected with the chapter on traditions (the need for anchors in this fast-paced world). Amby talks about the draw of Manchester and it's annual Thanksgiving day Road Race, which he has done 37 consecutive times. This fall will be my 17th straight. Like Amby, I make the pilgrimage back to Connecticut (despite now living in Chicago) because of the opportunity to re-connect with family and friends for this one "magic" day.

As a father of three daughters, I also appreciated his perspectives on his children and how he came to the realization that they must choose their own paths. While I would love for my daughters to share my passion for running, I have learned through Amby that it is OK if they don't. Finally, the chapter titled "Materialism - what you really need you already have" is right on and should be "must read" for our entire society.

This is a book much like "Tuesday's With Morrie" that I will refer back to from time to time to put life - and running - in perspective.

Thanks Amby and see you in Manchester!

Todd Gothberg
Gurnee Il.<

This is coming from someone who studied witchcraft for years. I suppose this book is easier to follow because it's dumbed down. There are basic ideas for making your own spells at the back of the book. They seem fun and nifty, and would be cool, except for the major fact that spells don't do anything. Once a person realizes this, spells lose all of their appeal.

There is lots of information on which herbs, stones and colors are "helpful" for whatever thing you want. Of course there is no scientific proof that any of these things will help you (with the exception of a few herbs that have medicinal value) other than being aesthetically pleasing, but collecting all these nifty things is the materialistic part of wicca. Wiccans then contradict themselves by saying that you really don't need any of these things; just your mind. Then why do people waste money and resources acquiring all this junk?

He talks about the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water. This is what the Greeks thought of as the elements that made up everything in the world. In the many centuries since, real elements have been discovered, but people still talk about the "four" elements--another example of using symbolism for its own sake. He also talks about "positively charging" things by holding them and focusing on them. I'm sure he doesn't even realize that to actually positively charge something, you need to add particles to them on a molecular level.

I'm sure that you will enjoy this book if you are gullible enough to believe in wicca. It is nothing but wishful thinking. None of it is real, and contrary to trendy opinion, wicca is just as fake as every other religion.

Scott Cunningham is quite the writer! I loved this book, and have since allowed 3 friends to borrow it. And they love it too. I am just beginning wicca, and wanting to learn all I can right now. This book really put things in perspective for me. Taught me alot about the religion that I was not aware of. And also broadend what I did know. Most books that I have read on this subject, seem to go in circles with the author pushing his idea upon the reader. Scott Cunningham leaves it up to the reader to decide about the techniques he uses. A very pleasant approach for all beginners. I will be purchasing more books by Scott Cunningham.

This book was easy to understand and read. Gave good information of what Natural Magic is and was very imformative.

I adore Scott Cunningham's work, and EAF&W is no exception. Although I love EARTH POWER as well, I like that EAF&W has more techniques and really helps the reader to understand how natural things are affected, and in turn, affect the elements. I love Cunningham's ability to show the reader that magic doesn't really need 50 candles and some expensive oil to be magic - all we have to do is remember our Earth and work with her - directly...that's what real magic is about.

while I consider myself a christian and not pagan, some would argue that I practice some so-called pagan arts. For centuries my ancestors have practiced a sort of combination, if you will, of Catholic and native traditions. anyway, long story short ~ I like this book and while it doesn't really have any traditions my family would have practiced and mostly focuses on Old World (European) rites/traditions, I still find it interesting. it's not nearly as good as "Earth power" but a good read anyway. take it from me, Scott Cunningham is the perfect author for non-wiccans/pagans looking for good books on invoking the earth: nothing that offends unlike many others on the genre.